LIBRARY OF THE i863' DATE DUE ^Jl: , ]m UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS/AMHERST LIBRARY S 73 M3 no. 31 -60 MASSAGIiUSSTTS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE Circulars 31-60, 1915-1916. i\ 3\ -Uo Circulars, 31. The farmer's interest in game -protection. E.H.Forbush, 32. Beef -oroduction in New England. H.H.Wing. 33. Profitable far:n -ooultry with special reference to eggs and meat . .W.R.Graham. 34. Household accounting Miss L.Comstock. 35. alfalfa for New England A.D.Crorawell. 36. Factors affecting economical milk production C.H.Sckles. 37. The value of experimental work for truck farmers T.G. Johnson. 38. The encouragement of clean milk production. L.B. Cook. 39. A practical system of farm bookkeeping. Miss C. Goddard. 40. Co-operation in fruit growing as practiced in Nova Scotia W. H. Woodworth. 41. Cranberry Growing H.J.Franklin. 42. The home vegetable garden Allen French. 43. The sanitary side of farm water supplies. X. H.Goodnough. 44. Sewage disnosal in rural districts. E.H.Williams. 45. The starling E.H.Forbush, 46. The tent caterpillar H.T.Fernald. 47. Bird houses and nesting boxes.E.H.Forbush. 4S. The English sparrow and the means of controlling it E.H.Forbush. 49. Food plants to attract birds and protect fruit E.H.Forbush, 50. Ap-ple grading and nacking W.Wheeler. 51. Tobacco growing in the Connecticut River Valley L.K. Smith. 52. Onion growing in the Connecticut River Valley. L.R. Smity. 53. Poultry and egg -Droduction. .. .H.R.Lewis. 54. Standardization of farm products. C. McCarthy. 55. Canning in glass in the home. ,. .S.S. Belt, 56. Farm management J, S. Gates. 57. Milk inspection from the producer's point of view H..W. Wiley. 56. Utilization of surplus farm products. H.F.Hall. 59. Rural credits K.T.Herrick. 60. Alfalfa conditions in New England. H.W. Jeffers. STATE BOARD OF AGEICULTURE. CIRCULAR No. 31. February, 1915. Supplanting Separate No. 4, 1910. The FARMER'S Interest in Game Protection. By Edward Howe Forbush. From the Fipxr-SEVENTH Annual Report ok the MASSACHcasTTS State Board of Agriculture. BOSTON: WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 32 DERNE street. 1915. Approved by The State Board of Publication. THE FARMER'S INTEREST IN GAME PROTECTION. EDWARD HOWE FORRUSH, STATK ORKITHOLOGIST OF MASSACHUSETTS. IXTIIODITCTION. It is unfortunate that so many farmers evince little or no in- terest in game protection. Some regard game laws as of no advantage to the farmer, but rather as class legislation for the benefit of the sportsman. Xevertheless, the protection of game aifects the agriculturists more vitally than any other element of our population. The farmers own the greater part of the land, and the game is more accessible to them than to any other class, for they live upon the land where the game is. Game conservation is advocated under our present system not solely to furnish sport for a limited number of individuals, but to pro- tect the useful species of birds and mammals for the l^enefit of the whole people. Rational game protection should so work out as to restrict injurious species to some extent, to protect the land owner against law-breaking, trespassing hunters, and to create a community of interest between the farmer and the sportsman. The principle that game is the property of the State is now well established, and has been sustained by the higher courts ; but by means of laws against ti'es])ass, Avhich have been enacted simultaneously with the game laws, the farmer who posts his land against hunters or trespassers has been given practical control of the game so long as it remains on his land, and the exclusive privilege of hunting it there during the open season.^ Tn Massachusetts he is even allowed by law at any time to kill deer that are injuring his crops, and also to collect damages from the State for such injury. Game laws tend to limit the ninnber of hunters and to shorten the season during which hunting is legal. They also protect most insect-eating birds at all times, and abolish the trapping and ^ The possession of a hunting license gives no privilege to hunt on the posted lane' of another. netting of game. Were it not for these laws, the farmer would be continually annoyed by the tramping of hunters through his fields at all seasons, the tearing down of his pasture walls and fences and the shooting of birds in the nesting season. Some game birds are very valuable to the farmer as de- stroyers of insects and other pests ; some game mammals, on the contrary, are sometimes destructive to his crops or trees ; but the farmer wdio takes advantage of the laws enacted for the prevention of trespass, the protection of crops and the conserva- tion of game and birds, may thereby add to his prosperity as well as to his pleasure in life, and by fostering the increase of fish, game and birds he may make life more attractive to his boys, and thus help to keep them on the farm. This paper will be devoted mainly to the material advantages that the farmer may derive from the protection of wild game, and particularly game birds. EcoxoMic Value of Game Bikds. High among the valuable destroyers of insects and weeds we must rank the bob-white, commonly known in New England as the quail. This bird has not only an esthetic value, by reason of its bright, lively presence and its cheery call ; but it is also one of the chief feathered helpers in field and garden. Dr. Judd of the Bureau of Biological Survey gives some in- teresting records obtained by a study of its food.-^ The contents of the stomachs of 801 bob- whites were ex- amined by the experts of the survey; over 50 per cent of the food consisted of seeds, the bulk of this being weed seeds. One bird had in its stomach 1,000 seeds of rag weed ; another had eaten no less than 5,000 seeds of the troublesome pigeon grass. As each bird eats two or more meals a day of this character dur- ing the season when weed seeds may be found, a few flocks of such birds might do much to limit the production of weeds on any farm. Dr. Judd estimates that the bob-whites of Virginia consume 5Y3 tons of weed seeds between September 1 and April 30. Examining the insect food of this bird, he finds that many of the most important insect pests of the United States are ' Judd, Sylvester D. The Economic Value of the Bob-white. Year Book, United States Department of Agriculture, 1903, pp. 193-204. eaten in quantities. Cucumber beetles, bean leaf beetles, May- beetles, click beetles and their progeny the wireworms, weevils, potato beetles, spinach flea beetles, grape vine beetles, corn bill bugs, chinch bugs, cut-worms, cotton worms, boll worms, south- ern tobacco worms, army worms, garden caterpillars, grasshop- pers, locusts and ants are found in its bill of fare. It is one of the few birds that are very destructive to the Colorado potato beetle and the chinch bug. Without question the bob-white is one of the birds that the farmer should strive to protect. The ruffed grouse, the heath hen, the wild turkey, the introduced pheasants, the woodcock and the snipe, — all have a greater or less value as insect destroyers, and most of these birds feed upon the seeds of weeds. Wild ducks may be of great service during any outbreak of insect pests in the fields. They are destructive to mosquitoes, grasshoppers, locusts and ai'my worms. Most of the non-game birds of the farm are particularly beneficial. In a report of the Secretary of Agriculture on the work of the Biological Survey, transmitted to Congress with a special message by President Eoosevelt on Dec. 21, 1907, it is estimated that the sparrows of the United States saved the farmers of the country in 1906 $35,000,000 by the destruction of weeds ; and that a single species of hawk saves the farmers of the western States $175,500 a year by the destruction of grasshoppers and field mice. It will pay the farmer, therefore, to promote the protec- tion of nearly all the birds of the farm, and to lend his in- fluence to the enforcement of the game laws and bird laws, for the birds that are distinctl}^ injurious are not protected. The Economic Value of Game Maimmals. The native game mammals of Massachusetts consist of squir- rels, hares, commonly called rabbits, and deer. The woodchuck, raccoon, fox and other predatory or destructive mammals, although hunted, are usually classed as vermin by the game- keeper, but some of them yield valuable fur. Squirrels are of some service as tree planters, for they distribute the seeds of nut-bearing and cone-bearing trees far and wide ; also they de- stroy insects, for a time, in the summer. Fndcr protection, however, thej are likely to so increase in numbers as to become destructive to birds, nuts, fruit and grain. Rabbits, when numerous, destroy young trees ; and deer, under the same con- ditions, attack young fruit trees and vegetables. Therefore the farmer has not the same economic incentive for conserving mammals that he has for protecting birds. Nevertheless, all these animals add to the attractiveness of country life. And if the laws are so framed as to give to the owner of the land an opportunity to protect his property from their inroads, and to take a reasonable number for food, the game mammals may be considered as of considerable value to the farmer. Financial Benefits dekived fkom Game. Under the present laws the game on the farm may be so conserved and handled as to bring in an annual cash revenue to the farmer. Owing to the laws which prohibit the sale of wild game birds, these birds cannot be marketed. Ordinarily, how- ever, the farmer will find it more profitable to lease his land for shooting purposes than to sell the game in the market. As- sociations of farmers and sportsmen have been formed, in which the farmers grant shooting rights on their property to a limited number of sportsmen, and the sportsmen agree to pro- tect the farm j^roperty from poachers. In other cases the pro- tection of the farm property is left to the farmer. In Roekford township, Illinois, a farmers' association was organized in 1901, each member of which had the right to grant to any one 'the privilege of hunting on his farm in his company. All under- took to promote the strict enforcement of the game laws. Seventy-five members were enrolled, representing 12,000 to 15,000 acres of land. The system under which this association worked was so complete that poaching and trespassing were nearly eliminated. Is^otwithstanding the shooting done, prairie chickens and quail increased in numbers, while insect-eating birds became abundant.^ A somewhat similar system is in operation in North Carolina. Exclusive shooting privileges over farm lands are secured by ^ Palmer, Theodore S. Some Benefits the Farmer may derive from Game Protection. Year Book, United States Department of Agriculture, 1904, p. 518. the sportsman either by paying- the owner a certain sum per acre, or by paying all taxes on his real and personal property. The sportsman or the sportsmen's clnb may thus lease several farms. The lease does not interfere in any way with the rights of the owner to cultivate the land, or with his residence thereon. Planting is encouraged. Many of the lessees furnish the farmers with cow peas or grain for planting, that the quail may have better food and cover, and this planting is often carried out on a large scale. Some of these lessees employ gamekeepers to destroy the natural enemies of the game and to keep watch for law breakers. Thus the farmer is relieved from some of the trouble and annoyance of guarding his property and prose- cuting poachers. This system has become very popular among the southern farmers, and the game is regarded as one of the assets of the farm. In Guilford County more than 150,000 acres have been leased out in this manner, and there are in the State some large preserves, varying in size from 9,000 to more than 18,000 acres. This system, as applied in the south, has a tendency to better the condition of the agricultural population, and to give the children of the farmers better educational facili- ties. Under the laws of I^orth Carolina special taxes are im- posed for the support of the school system, and the farmers, realizing that their taxes are paid by the sportsmen, are more likely to vote additional funds for school purposes. Thus the game helps to educate the children.^ This system has brought additional prosperity to the region, and has increased the num- bers of game and birds. It gives the farmer opportunities to furnish boats and teams to the hunters, and he and his boys receive some employment as guides and helpers. This system has not made much headway in Massachusetts, but farmers who have given it a trial are well satisfied with the result. A number of farmers in southeastern Massachusetts, who have learned the value of the bob-white, find that they can maintain a good stock of these birds by combining, and leasing the shooting rights. Their lands are not much wooded, and are more easily guarded against poachers and trespassers than the ' Some of the South Carolina lands are poor and rather barren, and where the rights for such lands are taken by the acie, the annual rental aveiages only about G cents per acre, — a sum which would look small to Massachusetts farmers. 8 wooded lands in some other parts of the State. This may ac- count, in a measure, for their success. The principal difficulty in finding lessees for shooting rights lies in the scarcity of the game, but this drawback can be reme- died. Wherever the game is protected against excessive shoot- ing, and where such natural enemies of the game as lynxes, cats, foxes, raccoons, minks, weasels, rats, crows and bird hawks are held in check by the gamekeeper, the game soon becomes abundant. In some cases it increases so fast that considerable shooting becomes necessary to prevent excessive increase and the consequent spread of infectious diseases, which are very fatal on an overcrowded game preserve. In this latitude the bob-white is sometimes nearly exterminated by severe winters ; but much of this excessive mortality might be avoided by giving the birds a little care, protection and food in winter. The wood- cock needs only suitable cover and protection. The ruffed grouse or partridge is hardy, and may be made numerous on any preserve which contains good cover and an abundant supply of food. The wooded hillsides of Massachusetts, interspersed with swampy hollows, are the natural paradise for this king of game birds; and there is much rocky and swampy land that is of little value for anything but the production of timber and game. The pinnated grouse or heath hen ought to thrive under protection on much of the sparsely wooded land in southeastern Massachusetts. The increase in the numbers of these birds on Martha's Vineyard since they have been made the wards of the Massachusetts Commissioners on Fisheries and Game gives hope that they may recover their lost ground. Snipe and cer- tain shore birds will gather on any suitable marshes where they are not continually molested, while ducks may be attracted to ponds, streams or fens by a few call or decoy ducks, or by wild rice or a supply of grain for food. The principal objection urged by the opponents of the system of leasing shooting rights and the establishment of game pre- serves is that the policy is un-American, and that it gives over the shooting privileges into the hands of the wealthy few, thus depriving the many of the right to take game that belong-s to the whole people. It may be admitted that the system is un- Americau, for the American policy of destruction which has been so successful in the past allows unlimited freedom to all to take or destroy every living wild thing upon the face of the earth. Such license was necessarily permitted during the time of settlement; but unless the people are restrained in their ra- pacious tendencies, as population increases the extinction of all wild game will result. Already the day of open and free shoot- ing in the east has passed. The occupation of the market hunter has become precarious, and necessary laws have been enacted, — too late, indeed, to save some species of our game, but in time to prevent the destruction of others. As population increases, the number of shooters will increase ; and the present system of game protection must and undoubtedly will be changed to fol- low somewhat that of other countries, which, although more thickly settled than our own, have nevertheless an abundance of game in fields and coverts as well as in their markets. If we are to have game in the future, we must regulate hunt- ing strictly, and adopt some system of game preserving, coupled with artificial propagation of game. The policy of licensing hunters, which has gone into effect in ISTew England, will re- strict the number of hunters, particularly the alien hunters ; and this is a long step in the right direction. Ignorant foreign- ers, who come here without knowledge of our laws and with the idea implanted in their minds that liberty in the new country means license to do as they please, should not be allowed to shoot at all or to range the country at large, unless some means can be provided by which they may be controlled and identified. Many of these people shoot all kinds of mammals and birds for food, and the license fee of $15 exacted of them (for hunting) stops most of the hunting by this class ; while those who con- tinue to hunt must carry an identifying license, and have it ready for the inspection of the citizen or game warden. Aliens should be prohibited from hunting under all circumstances ; but even with the alien eliminated from the field there will still remain an army of hunters so vast that, with free shooting allowed, the game will have little chance except in remote re- gions. In 1914: about 65,000 hunters were licensed in Massa- chusetts, and the number is constantly increasing. 10 Under our present system, the only sahation of the game is to prohibit its sale and thus remove the incentive for market shooting. Sale has been forbidden now by law except in the case of rabbits or hares. But with the advent of artificial propa- gation and scientific game preserving the sale of such species as can be reared in captivity or produced in large numbers on game preserves is permitted under restrictions imposed by the Commissioners on Fisheries and Game. Unless our farmers undertake the rearing of game, we shall soon have little game in our markets except such as is imported from foreign coun- tries. The demand for game will continue, and it remains for our people to decide whether they will produce it here or send thousands of dollars abroad for it. Our country is so large that it is not probable that the greater part of it ever will be occu- pied by game preserves, as is the case in some European re- gions ; therefore, the overflow from preserves will still aft'ord shooting for the people in the country surrounding them. It is undoubtedly true that the rich have advantages over the poor under this system, as in many other respects, and they always will have certain advantages under any system ; but it is also true that the farmer is in a position to derive some benefits from the expenditure of the rich man's money in support of a system of game preserving which, while it interferes to a certain extent with free shooting, provides an abundance of game in regions where without it and under the old system there would be no game at all. The above is not written for the purpose of advocating any change in our system of game laws or to approve the European system of game preserving, but merely to point out the logical tendency of a movement which already has gained a strong foot- hold in this country, and to show the farmers the benefits that they may derive from the inevitable extension of this movement. The Artificial Propagation of Game. The rearing of native upland game birds in confinement is still a subject of experiment, and never has been made a finan- cial success ; but enough has been accomplished to prove that it is possible to rear the ruffed grouse, the pinnated grouse and the 11 bob-white in domestication. Mallard ducks, black ducks, wood ducks, teal, Canada geese and a few other species have been reared successfully. When such birds as wood ducks and Canada geese find a ready market alive at from $5 to $15 a pair, or more, those who understand the business of rearing them ought to make a profit. Pheasants may be sold at similar prices, and at present they will bring about $3 per pair, food value, in some of our markets. Those who understand the busi- ness claim that the cost of rearing them is less than $1 each. Any successful pheasant raiser in Massachusetts ought now to be able to dispose of all the birds that he can rear. If the people take advantage of their opportunity, enough of these birds should be raised by farmers and sportsmen to make them plenti- ful in our markets. The ring-necked pheasant, which is the species most commonly reared, is not a conspicuous success as a wild game bird in Massachusetts; but it has succeeded better, under the adverse conditions surrounding game birds here, than has any other introduced species. It thrives best, however, if given some care and protection, and it needs to be fed in winter. As a half-domesticated game bird, artificially propagated, pro- tected and fed by man, it is unexcelled. Its general distribution throughout the State under protection is not particularly de- sirable, for it is liable to diseases that are fatal to native game birds, and where it becomes numerous it is destructive to cer- tain crops, and consumes the food of quail in winter. But if reared in inclosures while young, and allowed to run half wild on the grounds of the o^^mer, it makes a very desirable addition to the supply of game for the table, and therefore will probably take the place in our markets of some of the native game birds now illegally sold. A general open shooting season for pheasants will prevent them from becoming too numerous, and thus constituting a menace to our native game birds. In the meantime, those who Avish to propagate or protect pheasants have now their oppor- tunity. Deer may be reared in pastures and sold alive at a profit. The rearing of game in inclosures or on preserves must be de- pended on to help in solving the problem of the game supply of the future. fi:l)c vCommouwcaltl) oi iUa5riacl)usctt0, STATE BOARD OF AGRK^l'LTrRE. CIRCULAR No. 32. May, 1915. Second Edition, Hevised. BEEF PRODUCTION IN NEW ENGLAND. By Herbert H. Win(;. From the Sixty-second Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agricultuee. BOSTON: WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 32 DERNE STREET. 1915. Approved by The State Board of Publication. BEEF PRODlKrnON IN NEW ENGLAND. HERBERT H. WING, PROFESSOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, NEW YORK. I am asked to speak to you on the subject of beef produc- tion. I have taken the Hberty to broaden the subject, and if you please, will attempt to discuss the whole CLuestion of meat supply in its relation to the New England farmer. Much attention has been given to the number of meat- producing domestic animals in the United States, particularly since the Federal Census of 1910 called attention to the fact that there had been a sharp decrease in the number of such animals during the preceding decade. This was the more noticeable to the public, since the first sharp increase in price occurred at about the same time. Students and statisticians who had given attention to the question of meat production in the United States had long been aware of the fact that meat-producing animals were relatively decreasing, but as these matters were largely confined to trade journals and occasional references in the agricultural press, the general pub- lic remained to a large extent indifferent to them. It might be well for us to briefly review the condition of the country and more especially of New England with respect to the num- bers of meat-producing domestic animals, and since dairy cattle are intimately associated with meat-producing animals and the meat-producing industry, these have been included as well. In order not to burden you with extensive quotations of sta- tistics, I have arranged the most important figures on a chart, so that you may the more readily see at a glance the more important facts. Chart No. 1. — Live Stock in the United States. 1900. 1910. Number. Per 1,000 of Total Popula- tion. Per 1,000 of Rural Popula- tion. Number. Per 1,000 i Per 1,000 of Total of Rural Popula- Popula- tion, tion. Cattle, dairy, 18,108,666 238 401 21,795,770 237 442 Cattle, other, 51,227,166 674 1,133 41,886,878 455 849 Swine, .... 64,686,155 851 1,431 59,473,636 647 1,205 Sheep, .... 61,735,014 812 1,366 52,838,748 575 1,071 In New England. Cattle, dairy. 893,478 160 796 841,698 128 767 Cattle, other. 713,137 128 636 494,852 76 451 Swine, .... 362,199 65 323 396,642 61 361 Sheep, .... 922,558 165 822 430,672 66 392 Giving our attention first to tlie country at large, it will be seen that, with the exception of dairy cattle, all other classes have not only relatively but actually decreased in the decade from 1900 to 1910, and that while dairy cattle have increased in the same period something more than three and a half million, this has been barely sufficient to keep pace with the increase in population. The next matter to which I wish to call your attention is the relatively small numbers of all classes of domestic animals in New England as compared with the country as a whole, particularly meat-producing cattle, sheep and swine; and to the further fact that all classes, dairy cattle included, have shown a marked decrease in New England during the decade. In this connection it is of course necessary to con- sider the two classes of population: the consumers, most of whom dwell in the cities; the producers, or those who live in the rural districts. The United States Census divides the population of the country into urban and rural population, including in the urban population all those who dwell in cities or incorporated villages of 2,500 inhabitants or more. As you know. New England differs from the rest of the United States in some important features of municipal organization, and has no unit comparable with the incorporated village in other parts of the country, so that the census officers, in making this distribution of the population, have classed as urban all those New England towns which contain 2,500 or more in- habitants. Many of these towns have, of course, considerable areas that are truly rural in their character, so that the rural population may perhaps be slightly decreased in New England from this cause. In the United States, as a whole, in 1910, 53.7 per cent, of the total population were classed as rural, M'hereas in New England only 16.7 per cent, were so classed. This shows a much larger proportion of urban population in New England than in the country as a whole, which no doubt largely accounts for the small numbers of domestic animals in New England in proportion to the total population. I have further compared the numbers of animals in the whole country and in New England on the basis of the rural population rather than the total population, as the census reports show that the rural population per square mile in New England is practically the same as the average of the whole country, the figures being 16.6 persons per square mile in the United States as a whole, and 17 in New England. Arranging, then, the census sta- tistics of the animal population on the basis of the rural popu- lation we find that, as compared with the country as a whole, New England had in 1900 nearly twice as many dairy cattle as the average of the whole country, and that while dairy cattle had undoubtedly increased as compared with the rural population in the whole country, they had decreased from 796 per thousand to 767 per thousand in New England, showing that even in this most important branch of animal husbandry there had been a marked decrease in the last decade. The numbers of cattle, other than dairy cattle, swine and sheep, it M'ill be seen are markedly less, ranging from less than one- third to about one-half as many in New England as in the country as a whole, and the numbers of swine alone show a slight increase in the decade; but it will be seen that the total numbers of swine are still insignificant in New England as compared with the country as a whole. The statistics further show clearly what is apparent to most people, — the relatively great importance of the dairy cow among the animals of the farm, particularly in New Eng- land and in the northeastern States generally. The present high price of not only beef but of all meat products, with no indication of a lessening price in the future, has brought home the question of meat consumption with great force to a large proportion of the consuming public, and the problem that confronts a great many people at the present time is the source of the meat supply in the home. Without attempting to take up the question as to whether the people in the United States eat more meat than is necessary, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of a vegetarian diet or any similar matters, I think it is safe to assume that the per capita consumption is likely to decrease, but I think that most of us, inheriting the ideas of our beef-eating English ancestors, will go a long way before we entirely forego meat as an important part of our dietary. It behooves us, then, as farmers to bestir ourselves to discover if we may not pro- duce more meat as a profitable part of our farm industry. It is not necessary to call your attention to the fact that the conditions in the United States with regard to the production of beef have been anomalous for the last fifty years. In this time vast areas of fertile soil have been opened up for settlement and development. The crops easiest to produce on these vast areas have been grass and the cereal grains, notably corn, and the latter has been produced in abundance far beyond the capacity of the people to use as grain. A large part of this raw material has naturally gone into beef as the easiest method of marketing this crop, without regard as to whether such a practice was on the whole an economical one. We therefore became, and have remained up to the present time, a beef- exporting country, and beef has been relatively cheap. The ease of its production in the central west has put the eastern farmer entirely out of competition in the production of beef. Two factors have been prominent in causing a decline in meat-producing animals: first, the taking up of vast areas of practically free pasturage upon which beef-producing stock could be raised; and secondly, the increased use and market for cereals, including corn, and the marked increase in the ex- port demand for such cereals, which has relatively raised the price of the material upon which range-grown animals were fattened. During the past ten years the middle west farmer has found it less and less profitable to market his corn in the shape of beef or pork, and so the relative numbers have de- clined. If the consuming public continues to demand beef so that the price rises sufficiently we shall undoubtedly con- tinue to produce it, and largely in the corn-growing regions of the middle west; but the western farmer will not in the future be as strong a competitor of the eastern farmer as he has in the past. What outlook, then, does the production of meat afford to the New England farmer under present condi- tions? New England will undoubtedly continue to import a large proportion of her meat supply. As the prices rise the per capita consumption will undoubtedly decrease. In either case, however, the New England farmer, constituting only about one sixth of the population, would seem to be assured of a perma- nent market at his own doors. The proportion of such market that he can supply will depend very largely upon his own intelligence, industry and business ability. Along what lines, then, is it probable that profitable meat- producing farm industries may be increased? Inquiries and correspondence coming to me during the last two years have shown that there is considerable interest in the question of increased meat production in northeastern United States. This correspondence has come in considerable degree, not so much from farmers as from city people looking toward agri- culture as a means of investment or employment. Nearly all such inquiries assume that if meat production is to be increased in the east it must be as a special, highly developed industry, and questions as to the proper places for s])ecialize(l sheep farms, swine farms and beef farms, as distinct branches of agriculture, have been numerous. If the meat products in New England are to be increased I see little indication that it is likely to come in this specialized form, but that it is much more likely to develop in connection with dairying, fruit growing or with other branches of agri- culture; and other countries give evidence that this is likely 8 to be so. England and Holland are two countries, both using considerable amounts of meat, both meat-importing, and both producing beef in sufficient amounts to make it an important part of the income of the rural population. The English farmer produces a few steers or a few wethers as a part of his general farm plan, and not, in most cases, as a special industry to which he devotes his whole attention; and it seems to me that if this same idea could be carried out among our New England farmers it would result in a notable increase in the meat output. The means of doing this I have not the time to discuss in very great detail, but I would like to call your at- tention to a few features of the matter. In the first place, I do not believe that beef production in New England is going to take the form of keeping a cow to grow a steer that shall be kept until he is two and a half years old, and then fed for ninety to one hundred and twenty days on clear corn the whole time; neither do I believe that the New England farmer is going to produce beef by crowding a calf with all the milk it can consume for six months, and then with a rich diet of heavy, concentrated food for nine months, in order to make the so-called "baby beef." Profitable beef production in the United States, and particularly in New England, must get away from the idea that imlimited consumption of highly concentrated food is necessary; and then we shall produce beef in the future, perhaps not of the superlati\e quality we have demanded in the past, but still of good, succulent quality, able to nourish any man, very largely from coarse forage in the form of silage and grass. Several of our western experi- ment stations, notably the one at Purdue University, Iiave been working on the question of beef production through the con- sumption of silage. Silage has revolutionized the dairy in- dustry in the northeastern States, and I ^'entu^e to predict that it will have a similar effect on meat production. As a matter of fact, meat production for the New England farmer seems to hinge very largely on his capacity to produce more grass or more corn silage or both. Another feature that we cannot lose sight of — and it is perhaps somewhat heretical to mention this — is the question of combining dairy and beef production. In the countries I 9 have mentioned with simihxr conditions, as in New England, dairy production and meat pro(hiction go hand in hand. Short- horn cows produce a very large part of the dairy prochicts in England. The Dutch farmer depends upon his veal calves, his surplus young cows, his bulls and an occasional steer as an important supplement to the cheese and butter that he makes from his cows. Cow beef, I am well aware, is tabooed, and perhaps, with the great attention we have given the ex- treme development of the dairy cow, justly so; but the matter keeps coming up with increased force as to the possibility of producing a cow that shall yield enough dairy product to give a profit to her owner, and at the same time produce a calf and carcass that will make a good amount of meat of at least fair quality. The increased interest in the so-called "Dairy Shorthorn" is only one indication of this possibility. The fact that the highest type of development of dairy and beef animals up to the present time has been in separate individuals does not, to my mind, preclude the possibility of a profitable combination of these qualities in a single animal. It is undoubtedly more difficult of accomplishment, but the fact that it is difficult should be an incentive rather than a deterrent to the enterprising New England farmer. The question of meat supply should not be closed without some reference to the smaller animals. Chart No. 2 shows how the value of all the farm live stock increased between 1900 and 1910. Chart No. 2. — Value per- Head of Live Stock in United States. 1900. 1910. Dairy cattle, $29 68 $84 56 Other cattle, 21 78 24 50 Swine, 3 69 6 88 Sheep, 2 77 4 44 The history of other countries has l)een that as the popula- tion increases in density a larger proportion of the meat supply comes from the smaller animals. So it is likely to be in the United States. I want to call your attention to Chart No. 3, which shows that beef is the most expensive animal ])rod- uct to produce, and milk the cheapest — the other products ranging between these two extremes. 10 Chart Xo. 3. — Dry Matter in Food required to produce One Pound of Edible Dry Matter in the Product. „ , ■^ Founds. Dairy cattle, milk, 5 Swine, pork, 8 Fowl: — Eggs, 14 Meat, 15 Sheep, mutton, 17 Beef cattle, beef, ". 23 We may come to a time when we cease to eat beef, but afterward we will still have sheep, swine and poultry to fall back upon. In the development of both sheep and swine in New England it seems to me that there is an opening for increased effort, not as a specialized industry but as a side development along with other lines of effort. New England was once pre-eminent for its sheep. While this pre-eminence may never come back, it seems to me that there are a good many localities and conditions where an increase in sheep husbandry might be attempted with profitable results. The question of the dog in regard to sheep husbandry has often been a prominent one, and is often urged as an objection, but with the modern forms of fencing, the danger from this source is greatly lessened if not entirely done away with. Swine may be increased so as to practically supply the local markets. One important feature in the present conditions of animal husbandry in New England has undoubtedly been the absorption of the markets by the large wholesale concerns, and this will imdoubtedly have to be reckoned with. Success in increased meat production in New England will undoubtedly depend upon developing small local retail markets. This may be difficult in some cases, but some personal experience has given me good illustrations of the comparative ease with which such local markets can be de^■eloped. This would seem to be a good field for co-operative effort in many cases. In very many communities the establishment of a local country market provides a very acceptable outlet for botli })roducer and con- sumer. 11 ]\rr. WiiEELKR. I would like to ask Professor Wing if he thinks it ■would he advisahle in this part of the country to hring in partly grown steers from the south or west and attempt to fatten them here. Professor Wing. I don't believe that it can be done at a l^rofit if you have to depend upon purchased grain. ]Mr. Wheeler. Suppose }'ou can grow your own feed? Professor Wing. Then, so far as feed is concerned, you can get more out of it in the production of either milk or pork. If the labor is as important a factor in the cost of production as the feed is, then the decreased amount of labor in producing meat may offset the increased cost of feed, and that, as I said, is a question that will largely be determined by local con- ditions. I am inclined to think, however, that where you want to increase the amount of meat or beef production you will be much more likely to do it by producing your own feeding stock. It seems to me that the question of meat supply is very closely connected with the question of the production of more grass and of more corn. The corn need not necessarily be raised for grain, because the results of experiments at the Purdue Experiment Station have shown the great value of silage in the production of beef. Now, silage revolutionized dairy practice in New York and New England. Our dairy stock probably would have gone the way of our other animals to a greater extent than they have if it had not been for the silo. Now, it is entirely possible that the use of the silo may help us to partially revolutionize the beef production, or may be a great aid in the increased production of beef in the north- eastern United States. If you can raise more corn and more grass on your farms you can grow more cattle, and, as they used to say in New York about pigs, you will have more manure to make your crops grow, until you have filled u]) these New England valleys completely with corn and cattle and grass. Mr. Wheeler. Don't you think that our i)robleni here in restoring the utility of our lands is in raising more animals, and don't you think that our land is more adapted, in a sense, to raising beef animals than dair\' animalsy 12 Professor Wing. No, I would not gi\'e up the dairy cow in any part of northeastern United States. You can't make digestible human food any more economically from any do- mestic animal than you can from the dairy cow. Now, if the labor bill does not get so high as to preclude dairying, she is going to be the predominant animal in all of this thickly settled country. If we do produce more beef, all the indications that I can discover point to the fact that increase in meat production will only be a supplement to dairy production. I don't believe you are going to keep less cows, but you are going to keep, perhaps, more beef animals. I don't believe that dairying is going to be a less important part of your industries is, perhaps, a better way to put it. Mr. Russell. Do I understand that you are advocating the dual-purpose cow? Professor Wixc;. Yes, I am advocating the dual-purpose cow. That is heresy. I may be drawn and quartered for doing it, but the time has passed when we can keep a cow in the Avest solely for her calf, and the time has passed in the east when we can keep a cow and totally ignore the value of her carcass, or her son's carcass. j\Ir. Russell. That is, you believe that milk at 4 cents a quart is better sold than fed to a calf for beef? Professor Wing. Probably, yes. Mr. Wheeler. I don't think Professor Wing quite under- stood my idea; that is, not to do away with dairy cows at all, but to utilize an enormous amount of land in the hill towns of Massachusetts where the transportation problem practically makes dairying impossible. Don't you think it is more profit- able to keep beef animals in those sections than it is to attempt to do dairying in those sections? Professor Wing. Very likely. But that will mean, in the first place, that those areas will have to be better farmed than they are now; that is to say, we have got to stimulate the growth of grass. At first in these hill towns on this rough pasturage you should try sheep, and very likely you would find after the sheep had cleaned these areas up the grasses would come in, the land would get a little more fertility, and then it would support beef. But it seems to me there is 13 abundant opportunity for tlevelopnient along that line. It is, however, going to be done slowly. You are going to do it first on farms where you have some tillable areas; where you can produce silage and hay and use your upland pastures. Grass grows native in New England; if you will give it a chance it will come in. It only requires a little additional fertility. I believe, too, that one reason for the present condition is that same factor of competition that we had in the west. When this strong competition in beef production came from the west we let those things go. Now the question is, whether the time has not come when we can diversify our industries and gradually work into a better development and better utilization of these areas. Mr. Wheeler. What do you think of our lowland? Here in Massachusetts we have some 500,000 acres of lowlands, at the present time practically untillable, too wet to cultivate, yet growing big crops of grass and cheap hay, which of course now is used largely for bedding purposes. I don't mean salt marshes but fresh marshes. Are those practical to use, a part of the year at least, for beef animals? Professor Wing. Oh, yes. Just as soon as it will pay you to drain them. All of this waste land is to be drained and utilized eventually; the question is, how soon and in what way. The answer to that question will depend upon the cost of drainage. There you are going to produce just exactly the material to make a cheap meat. Mr. Wheeler. I mean, before they are drained, — in their present condition? Professor Wing. I am afraid not. Those sedges and other coarse foods of that sort you can't utilize very much more for beef than for any other purpose. Question. I believe there is one phase that has not been brought out. I don't know how it is in New York State, but around here, for a good-sized calf that weighs from SO to 100 pounds, they will give about I") when born. Within two years I have known of a calf being sold in Spencer for $22.50 when it was only eight weeks old. Now, the temptation is for the farmer to take his .|5 for the young calf, or $15 to $25 for the ordinary calf for \eal, rather than to keej) it until it is a year 1-t old and sell it for the same money. As far as the steers are concerned, you can turn off a heifer when she is two years old, fattened on grass, but the steer must be kept uiitil he is past three years. I overheard a neighbor here say that he had a yoke of oxen that would weigh 3,400 pounds, and he could get $300 for them to-day. I wish you would say a little more about this calf raising and what it costs. Professor Wing. The point that the gentleman has l)r()Ught out is a very good one, and I can match his story with regard to veal, I think, in New York State. One of our neighbors took two calves to market, less than eight weeks old, early last spring — I think in February or INIarch — and brought home a little over $60 for the two. Now, that is the way for bull calves to go, and it is the way for the heifer calf to go, as many as you can spare, but you must bear in mind that you have got to keep up the population some way, and you prob- ably will have to raise some heifer calves. We liaA'e made a fairly careful study of raising heifers for several years. It costs us about $15 to raise a heifer calf to five or six months of age. Then we have to pasture her up to two years of age before she comes into production. Now, in regard to the producing cow. The cow will pay for herself, if she is worth raising at all, after she is two years old. You get a profit from her — should begin to get a profit from her ■ — as soon as she is four years old by the milk she produces. If you keep her imtil she is eight years old she begins then to take on flesh rapidly. Then is the time to get rid of her. Then what you get for that cow will bring up the heifer calf until she is two years old. So if the heifer calf was worth $30 when it was eight weeks old for beef, why we have got to carry her along, — a certain percentage of them, — enough to keep us going, because we have got to make that investment. But we should have a cow so good, like one of the dairy Shorthorns, that she will be Avorth for beef, at eight years old, enough to pay for replacing her with a two-year-old heifer in your herd, and that two- year-old heifer should again be better than her dam was. ]\Ir. Barnard. Can't the pastures back on our hills be brought up and improved faster under this method of keeping the dual-purpose animal and raising a few calves every year, 15 — can't we improve those pastures jmich faster than Ave would by simply keeping coavs, and buying our cows on the market and letting them go, just keeping them in the pasture during the day and in the barn at night? Professor Wing. It seems to mc that that is a question that can't ])e answered categorically yes or no. It is for each man to discover. That is your business, — to study your own conditions as to whether you can do as you indicate. Now, I think that there are Aery many localities in which that very thing can be done. Raise more animals than you are raising; utilize your rougher land, bearing in mind all the while that you have got to put something into that land and so build it up; and keep a large drove of animals other than strictly dairy cows. But it may or may not be so, according to individual circumstances. That is what the Englishman is doing; that is what the Hollander is doing to some extent,— not so much, perhaps, as the Englishman. I would like to say one word further in regard to the question you raise in regard to the dual-purpose animal, and put myself, perhaps, in a little better light. I don't believe that a dual-purpose animal will compete in quality or economical production of beef with a special-purpose beef-producing breed. I don't believe that a dual-purpose animal will compete with a well-bred dairy cow for the sole production of milk or milk products; but I do think there is abundant room for an animal to be produced that will produce profitably both milk and beef. I don't believe, take it as it runs. New England soil is any less productive, or has any less capacity, than it had when the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, and I think that the time is coming back when New England farmers are more and nu)re going to be as their ancestors were, — self-contained, self- reliant, and are going to produce more of their food products. They are going to diversify their industries. It is a diversified country. It lends itself to diversified production, — some mutton, some beef, some pork, some chickens, lots of fruits and plenty of vegetables. ®l)c (Hommoiitucaltl) of iMa06acl)U0ctt0» STATE BOAKD OF AGRICULTURE. CIRCULAR No. 33. April, 1915. Second Edition, Revised. Peofitable Faem Poultey with Special Refeeence to Eggs and Meat. By W. R. graham. From the Sixty-second Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture. BOSTON : WEIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 32 DERNE STREET. 1915. Approved by The State Boabd of Publication. PROFITABLE FARM POULTRY WITH SPECIAL REFER- ENCE TO EGGS AND MEAT. W. R. GRAHAM, PROFESSOR OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY, ONTARIO AGRICUL- TURAL COLLEGE, GUELPH, ONTARIO, CANADA. Farmers in practically all countries of the world find the keeping of poultry profitable. It is true that some make much more money than others, which is also true of almost any branch of agriculture. Speaking generally, farmers grow better poultry than do those who try to grow a large number of chick- ens on a small area. My observations have been that most people succeed best, taking one year with another, who grow a variety of crops, rather than those who grow but one crop. Let us now try and analyse the keeping of poultry on the farm. Permit me to present a diagram so that we may clearly understand our position. ,^/ \ / \ BREEDING We have here presented a triangle, all sides of which are equal, and my experience and observation leads me to believe that in order to succeed well it is necessary that equal attention be paid to each side, and, furthermore, neglect of any of these factors may be the primary cause of partial or complete failure. The base or foundation represents breeding. Good blood is of prime importance. We all realize the importance of good breeding and constant selection in cattle, seeds, fruit trees, etc. Few, if any, expect heavy milk production or beef production from scrub cattle. Poor seed means a poor crop, and the plant- ing of fruit trees of unknown varieties or seedling stock is not good business. The same is true of poultry just as much as in any other branch of farming. Good stock is the foundation. No matter how well fed and housed, nor how faithful and care- ful the attendant may be, the best success is not obtained without foundation stock of good breeding. Study the kind of product your market demands, and then breed to please the buyer. I take it that you have here a good market for both meat and eggs. This means a discussion of the breeding of the dual-purpose hen, or what may be termed the American breeds in general. No doubt some of you may breed especially for egg production, and others breed largely for flesh production. The same general ideas, I think, will apply in all cases. A study of European markets, and to some extent home markets, indicates that in the production of a high-class article uniformity is of prime importance. The uniformity of the goods shipped by Denmark makes a market for Danish produce. A farmer who has a reputation of producing a uniform good class of produce, whose produce is dependable, has less difficulty in selling, and ordinarily gets a premium price. He produces a uniform, dependable article. Uniformity in dressed poultry is not secured from scrub stock, and at times not from pure-bred stock; the same, in a measure, applies to size and color of eggs. In order to produce a uniform product it is necessary to study some of the underlying principles of breeding. With your per- mission I wish to show illustrations of some of the things that happen in breeding, also to discuss for a few moments some common practices in breeding. I am not a biologist, but I am interested in practical breeding, and therefore study as a common layman, and endeavor to try out in a practical way what science tells us. The art of poultry breeding is science applied. The first thing to do is to select pure-bred birds of the type or shape desired. If these cannot be found it may, in special instances, be desirable to cross breeds. In selecting breeding birds constitution or vigor is of first importance; it is the mainspring of the works, so to speak. Then we may select as to shape, size, egg production, color of skin and plumage, and if possible hatching power of eggs. Some of these characters are visible, others are masked or hidden, and the birds must be tried out. Select those that breed the best birds, regardless of relationship. Some say inbreed, others say do not inbreed. What is one to do? After trap-nesting and pedigreeing poultry for over ten years, and coupling with this some years of ob- servation in breeding with small and large matings, I now am at the point where I would answer the above question by saying it depends upon circumstances. Let us examine some of these ideas. Take, for example, the characteristic of size. If we cross a small breed with a large breed the resulting offspring in the first generation will be inter- mediate in size between the two, and are usually fairly, if not exceptionally, uniform in size. These crossbreeds may please us to such an extent that we decide to breed them together and perpetuate the kind; but here we encounter a difficulty, for in the second generation, or perhaps the third, if we rear, say, five hundred specimens, we find we have no uniformity either in weight, size, shape or anything else. We have about every con- ceivable thing that is known in chickendom, and, moreover, the mortality in birds bred as above is usually very high. We have lost that valuable desideratum — uniformity, though we may still have a few individuals of exceptional merit. This is the method to follow where you wish to secure something that you cannot already find in the existing breeds. As a common practice it is bad policy. Such results are probably the cause of the idea "do not inbreed." A similar result has come under my observation where two absolutely distinct lines of the same breed have been crossed and the progeny of such a mating bred together. Now let us look at another side of this same method of breed- ing. If we take the few specimens that meet our ideal, and have plenty of constitution, and breed them together we find we begin to produce a uniform flock of a new kind. True, many may have to be discarded, but by close breeding we tend to fix the characteristics. This does not yet answer the question as to what would be a good practice for the farmer. The common practice of buying a new pure-bred male from 6 a different breeder each season, where some care is taken as to general vigor and type, will generally give fairly good results as far as visible characteristics are concerned, because one is practically producing in a more or less degree the first cross. This plan must, in most instances, be continued. Where one desires to make a product quite distinctive it will usually best be done by inbreeding the crossbred strains, watching for the divisions, selecting the individuals which meet the ideal and then inbreeding these. The perfect specimen probably does not exist, hence, ordi- narily speaking, one is forced occasionally to introduce new blood. This is best done by means of a new female, and then trying the offspring sparingly until such times as you get what you want. Our pedigrees indicate that the male has much more to do with the pullets laying than does the female. It is, therefore, obvious that we should buy and select males from good laying hens that have been mated to good males, and I would con- sider it worthy of a trial to buy the new males annually from some one reliable breeder year after year so long as the resulting offspring is satisfactory. Where eggs are wanted, especially during the first year of the hen's life, it is of importance to select birds, particularly males, which mature to nearly the desired weight at about five or six months. Closely associated with this, in our experience, is the question of early feathering over the back. Slow back feather- ing generally means slow maturing, which in turn is late laying. Our best layers usually begin la^'ing at five, six or seven months of age. The next side of the triangle refers to environment; that is, age of stock, housing, feeding and range. These conditions must be first class. Late-hatched pullets seldom mature early enough to lay during the period of the high prices of eggs, neither do yearling hens commonly lay as well during the period of high prices as early hatched pullets, and hens two years old and over pay only as special breeders. Our records show, yearly, that birds that lay well during the winter are equally as good layers for the No. 400. Laid 208 eggs in ten months. No. 523. Laid 50 eggs in twelve months. No. 312. Laid 194 eggs in nine months and three days. Three Hens from the Massachusett.s Agricultural College Flock. balance of the year as those who make little or no performance during the winter months. Sizes, shapes and styles of houses are almost endless. This problem is ever present, and each one settles it to please his or her own conditions. It matters not so much the kind of house so long as abundance of fresh air is secured without direct drafts over the birds, and as long as the house is light and roomy. Dryness and reasonable cleanliness are also prime factors. The smaller the flock the larger proportionately should be the house, and, moreover, the labor cost per hen for caring for her is also increased. A man will take care of 15 one- hundred-bird flocks w^ith less exertion than 70 ten-bird flocks. Your labor charges for care and management should be about 35 or 40 cents per hen per year. Keep your poultry houses well aired, dry and clean. Feeds and methods of feeding are countless. Common sense appears to be an inactive factor in many human beings. Some try to mix and feed the most complicated grain mixtures possible. All these things take time and time costs money. I am not at all sure that a hard and fast rule for feeding can be laid down. The essentials can be enumerated and are as follows: green food, grain food, animal food, mineral food and exercise. Green food ordinarily is cheap and handy, receives little at- tention, and hence I place it first to draw your attention. Poultry require considerable green food; it reduces the ex- pensive feed bills and sustains health. In summer various grasses and waste garden truck supply the wants. Little chicks require very tender, crisp, green feed. For winter foods, clover, hay, roots, cabbage or sprouted oats will give good results. Feeding cooked roots is also a good means of cheapen- ing the ration. Experimental demonstrations with us show no great differ- ence among these foods. Cabbage, if anything, encourages laying, while rape tends to color the yolks of eggs in some instances seriously, from a market standpoint. A full-grown hen will eat about 1| cubic inches of sprouted oats per day. Ordinarily give the birds all they want, but do not feed de- composed or highly flavored feeds. 8 Wheat, corn and crushed oats are the staple grain feeds, and for animal foods nothing equals sour milk or buttermilk; when meat scrap has to be fed, about 10 per cent, of the mash food is all that may be given with safety. The birds would eat more and might do better for a short period of time, but a reaction is almost sure to follow. Mineral foods are supplied by granulated bone, granulated rock or grit, and oyster shell or old plaster. It might be well to give you our method of feeding and then we might discuss the same. During the winter we use about equal parts of whole wheat and corn. This is fed in about 6 inches of litter early in the morning, say two handfuls for three birds. At noon the green food is given, and at night all the whole grain they will eat. We keep crushed oats in hoppers constantly before the birds. If the flocks gets lazy we close the hopper for part of the day to make them work. Sour milk is used as drink. Grit, oyster shell and granulated bone are always in little boxes where they can help themselves. When we cannot get sour milk and have to feed beef scrap I rather prefer mixing ground grain, such as middlings, corn meal, oat chop and 10 per cent meat meal, then feeding as a moist mash at midday. Sometimes we add to such a mixture about one-third in bulk of cooked roots. The environmental factor of range is overlooked so frequently that I desire to call special attention to it. The following illustrations are two birds of the same breeding. The larger one is grown on free range where there are not more than fifty chickens per acre, and the smaller one in a small city lot where chickens are penned up. The case is extreme, yet at the same time is not uncommon. Clean ground, tender green food, clean water and shade are essentials to growing chickens. Ground may be cleaned bj'^ crop rotation, which is undoubtedly the best plan, or it may be kept in fair condition by frequent plowing or digging. The proposition can be put in another form; that is, raise the young stock in the country, where there is an abundance of room and a variety of food, then you may bring them, when well grown, to the city, or the permanent long houses with limited runs. Old fowls can be maintained fairly well on old ground, but 9 young stock rarely does well. This is the outstanding point in the farmer's case. He raises better chickens at less cost, owing to clean and pure surroundings. Let us now consider the remaining side of the triangle. The attendant is worthy of serious consideration. My father told me that "one man's breath was good for stock and other men's breath was bad." This appears in a sense to be true. The attendant must develop a bond of sympathy between the birds and himself; in order to do a day's work he must move rather quickly but gently. Birds that are afraid of the attendant do not do their best. The attendant must consider his stock first and foremost and himself last. I beheve in having a man dressed neatly but plainly. A poultry house is no place for blue clothes and white collars. A khaki suit shows little dirt and looks fairly neat. The attendant must be a keen observer, punctual as to hours, and have an abundance of common sense. Caring for live stock is no position for the careless, or the person who is looking for 6 o'clock. In conclusion I would suggest the attendant keeping in his hat the following words: "Fresh air and common sense." If these are there and he removes his hat occasionally he will not forget. Mr. N. W. Sanborn. How about the weight of these high- laying females? Do you get as many pounds of eggs from the large egg-layers as from the moderate sized ones? Professor Graham. Generally speaking, you will find more 200-egg hens which lay 23-ounce eggs than lay 25-ounce eggs to the dozen. We constantly have hens which will lay large eggs, — many of them. One of the hens we showed on the screen — No. 58 — laid 25-ounce eggs; but I will say that if you don't watch it you will produce little eggs. Mr. W. H. Gould. Which do you consider the best flooring for a hen house, especially in the winter season, — earth or cement? Professor Graham. Well, my experience in regard to the best flooring for hen houses is this: when you consider the cost of the litter and the cost of taking the ground out of the hen house every other year and renewing it, cement is the best 10 floor. It takes more litter on a ground floor, and in a series of years, if yovi figure up the time and the cost of renewing the earth floor, it is better to have the cement floor. Now, where you use the cement floor, ordinarily you must supply some sort of a dust bag in one corner of the house. If you use only a little litter — say, two or three inches — then in a cold climate you get into trouble with the cement floor. In addition to that, never make the cement floor smooth or very rough. If you make it smooth the litter will blow all round the place; if you make it very rough the hens will wear their toenails down to the quick. The common finish, such as you have on side- walks, is about the best that we know of. We have taken out practically all of our board floors and all our ground floors and are using almost entirely cement floors. Mr. Thomas D. Govern. Can you get as many eggs by feeding hard grain and dry mash as by feeding wet mash? Professor Graham. Where we use rolled oats we can, but I doubt it with other mixtures. The backbone of our egg pro- duction, in a word, depends on the rolled oats and the sour milk and the green food. Mr. Govern. In Massachusetts, with milk at 42 cents a can, we can't very well afford to feed it to hens. Professor Graham. That is true. There is a difference in different sections of the country. With us sour milk is worth 20 cents a hundred. That is not very high. We buy oats at $28 a ton, $1.40 a hundred. But we can't get as many eggs out of beef scrap or cooked meat as we can out of sour milk. If you want to use beef scrap I would strongly advise your using a little bit of muriatic acid in the drinking water, for the reason that the hen's digestive tract is normally acid, and we frequently get into trouble when their digestive tracts be- come alkaline, and with sour milk, too, you get a value beyond the feeding value of the milk, largely due to its physical action, which maintains the normal sour or acid digestive tract. It has a value greater than its chemical composition shows. Mr. C. F. WHITMAN. You dwelt considerably on feeding vegetables to poultry. Would you recommend feeding fruit, — apples or pears? Professor Graham. Yes. I would recommend the feeding of apples. A pair of good utility fowls. Massachusetts Agricultural College. 11 Mr. Whitman. Do you think it is good to feed vegetables? Professor Graham. As long as they do not eat too many of the seeds, which is ordinarily not the case. At the present time we are mixing them in with roots. I would say in a gen- eral way that it is a good plan to give the hens any waste products that you have, like apples or turnips, but do not feed them on waste products exclusively. Mr. Whitman. I asked that question because I want to know whether the cider pulp is better, or the apples and fruit itself before extraction. Professor Graham. I will have to go back a number of years to give you my experience on cider pulp. During my first experiences in the chicken business I happened to be sit- uated near a cider mill, and was able to secure cider pulp from the mill at Ioav rate; and when I got that pulp fresh, when it had been ground the same day, and when I cooked it a little I got good results; but if I kept it on hand and it heated or turned a little sour the results were disastrous. Judging from this experience it would be necessary to feed it fresh. ]Mr. J. M. Schwartz. In mentioning your green feed you don't say anything about alfalfa. How does that compare with cabbages? Professor Graham. I have good results from good alfalfa, but in many instances with the alfalfa that we come in' con- tact with, apparently they have taken the leaves off and used them for some other purpose. They sold us the woody stems as chicken feed, which has not given very good results. If you can get good alfalfa you will get very good results indeed. Personally, I would just as soon have the roots as I would alfalfa. Mr. G. S. Dodge. How about feeding green ground bone? Professor Graham. That depends on the kind of bone. If you are grinding the bones yourself by hand, I would say do not feed it, because you will get all of the knuckle bones which contain a very high percentage of fat, and are easy to cut. We have found in our experience that the machine-ground green cut bone, if fed with good judgment, will give good results. Where it is fed fairly liberally to the heavy breeds, such as 12 Plymouth Rocks or Wyandottes, it is apt to have some effect upon the hatching power of the eggs in the spring, and it is a food that has to be fed with discretion. I would say, in a nut- shell, it is a good food for a man with an abundance of common sense to use, but it is a bad food if considered fool-proof. Question. Is there any easy way to sour milk in the winter time? Professor Graham. Yes, a very easy way is to put the sweet milk in a pail that has had sour milk in it and set it behind the kitchen stove over night and it will be sour before morning. One of the finest things about feeding sour milk is that you don't have to worry about everything being absolutely clean. If you are feeding sweet milk you must have everything clean. The easy way to get it sour is to use a barrel or large hogshead that holds from 30 to 100 gallons, and keep on pour- ing in and out. Question. Do you feed the sour milk clear? Professor Graham. Yes. As far as drink is concerned, when the thermometer goes below zero, all drinks are taken away and the chickens all eat snow. You will have less trouble with frozen combs and things of that kind if you feed snow. Question. You do not think snow^ brings bowel complaint in any form whatever? Professor Graham. No, I have never had that experience with' it at all. We let them wallow around in the snow and eat it in cold weather. We dump the water out of the drinking tins and keep them filled with snow. Mr. C. R. Harris. You mentioned the use of hydrochloric acid in the drinking water. Would anything else answer the same purpose? Professor Graham. I am not in a position to answer that question. I have gotten my information along this line from our veterinary general of the dominion, and I asked him one day, "Is there any other acid that I could use or recommend in the place of this one?" He answered, "That is the only one that I have positive information on." So that is the best an- swer I can give you. Mr. Harris. Is there anything other than judgment by which you can determine the amount and frequency of the use of hydrochloric acid? 13 Professor Graham. From the available experience, for the quantity for general preventive work, about 1 teaspoonful of commercial acid to 2 gallons of drinking water. Either earthen- ware or wooden drinking articles should be used. You could not use the acid and metal very long or you would be in trouble. Mr. Brown. Would a flock of hens get sufficient drink through the winter from snow alone? Professor Graham. From our experience, yes, because we have numerous flocks of hens that are laying heavily in the win- ter time that don't get anything to drink except snow for weeks at a time. They may get some cooked vegetables or substances containing water, but, for example, in this open-front house I showed }ou we sometimes have a week at a stretch when the thermometer is between 10 and 29 below zero, and the ther- mometer inside the house shoMang from zero to 7 below. Now, you take an ordinary pail of water and set it down there and it is ice before you get out, almost. So there are weeks and weeks when they don't get anything but snow. Professor Brooks. I would like to ask the speaker whether he has ever had any complaints of the quality of eggs from feeding cabbages. Professor Graham. We have gone fairly thoroughly into the matter, and even from a high-class retail trade in eggs we have never had any complaints as to flavor, even when the hens had all the cabbages they could eat. I cannot say the same when the hens were fed rape, scorched or musty grains or onions, however, for these almost always affected the flavor unfavorably, and our customers noticed it. Professor Brooks. I don't want to occupy the time that belongs to the speaker, but I do wish to say that a number of years ago I compared two flocks of hens of similar breeding and similar housing in every respect, and fed similarly except as regards vegetable food. The eggs from the two lots were sent under numbers to a number of families, and the house- keepers were discriminating. There was never any failure to indicate that the eggs from the hens which were fed with the cabbage were superior to the others. They spoke of their sweetness and fine flavor; they did not recognize the cabbage. 14 They did not know what the feeding was. The two lots of eggs were simply sent with the request that they use them and advise if they found them different. There was always a report favorable to the cabbage. As to the analysis, they did not show a great difference but there was no taint in the eggs from the fowl fed with cabbages. Many of the housekeepers re- ported that they found that the flavor of the cabbage eggs was strong. They did not describe the cabbage flavor. Professor Graham. I think what Professor Brooks says is absolutely correct. Now, I don't know whether you have in your locality here a trade for certified eggs such as there is for certified milk. I am under the impression that if that trade ever develops, the hens w^ho lay those eggs will have to be kept indoors all the time. You will have to feed them right up on a diet arranged by a practical dietician, because there is no doubt that people who are not living an active life are mighty par- ticular about the flavor of the eggs and the color of the yolk. Mr. H. K. Proctor. I would like to ask about the fertility of hatching eggs. Professor Graham. Do you mean fertility or hatching power? Mr. Proctor. Well, hatching power. Which would be better, to put, say, four or five males with a flock, or alternate them one each day for five days and then repeat? Professor Graham. I think from my experience the answer to that question would depend upon the range and the style of house in use. That is to say, if you had 5 males in the flock and 100 females there, or 75, and a house 20 feet square and the birds fastened inside, you would get better results to use the males a half day each, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, or one a day. But if the birds can get outside, or if the birds are in a long house in which there are partitions going three-quarters of the way across, then I doubt very much whether you would get actual results for the labor of cooping these males. Mr. Proctor. Once in a while there is a cockerel who will give his head a little shake. He seems to be vigorous and all right in every way. I would like to know if that is a bad habit. 15 Professor Graham. Well, I don't know, Mr. Proctor, whether that is a habit. It is sometimes one of the symptoms of worms. You could find out easily by going to your druggist and getting a worm powder, or take a piece of bread and put on turpentine and put it down his throat, or give him a chew of tobacco. Professor Brooks. About the rolled oats. Are those the oats from which the hulls have been separated? Professor Graham. The commonest kind of horse feed with us is the rolled or crushed oats, in which the whole oat is run through a roller and the oat comes out flat. Now, the men who handle horses in the largest number are farmers, and the farmers swear by rolled oats for horses. The way we started to feed them to the hens was, when ordering ground oats from a miller, he said he hadn't any on hand, but he sent us some rolled oats. The hens took so kindly to the proposition and liked it so much better than they did the chopped oats that I was perfectly satisfied. Now, they don't eat all the hull. As near as we can tell, they waste about 18 per cent of the hull. Professor Brooks. Would you blame them for wasting 100 per cent of the hull? Professor Graham. Yes, for this reason, which brings up a very interesting point: it seems to me that there are two sides to a feeding proposition, — a physiological side and a commer- cial side, and a certain amount of bran or alfalfa may obviate trouble in the stomach and give the juices of the stomach a better chance to act. We have tried the ordinary oats along- side of the common horse oats or crushed oats, and invariably we have gotten for a long period of time better results from the horse kind of oats than we did from the human kind of oats; but for a short period of time, say ten days or two weeks, if you want to fatten a chicken or get him ready for show, you can get there quicker with the aid of flour or rolled oats which you have for human food than you can with the crushed oats as fed to horses. But in the end we lose out in that we run into digestive troubles, particularly in the liver, we get a soft, pink liver. The average hen with us eats 72 pounds per year, — 24 pounds of corn, 24 pounds of wheat and 24 pounds of crushed oats. 16 Question. What do you consider the best feed for fattening chickens? Professor Graham. Ours is a milk-feeding proposition. We teach our people to eat milk-fed chickens, and those are the chickens that bring highest prices. We use about two parts of finely ground oats or flour, or oats with the hulls partly sifted out, two parts of buckwheat and one of corn meal, mixed with sour milk. The vital factor is sour milk. Mr. Robert Johnson. How about barley for feeding? Professor Graham. It depends entirely upon the barley. If your barley is well ripened and is not musty I would be inclined to feed about two-thirds barley, but I would want to be absolutely certain that that barley was not musty and had not been scoured before I used it, because it is one of the grains about which it is difficult to tell whether it has been a little bit musty or not. Mr. HiGGiNSON. How often do you feed cooked food? Professor Graham. I don't suppose, ordinarily speaking, that we fed cooked feed twice a year, except from an experi- mental standpoint, until this year. Now we are feeding more cooked food than we ever did before, because grain is high and we have a host of mangels. It is a question of getting the mangels out of the way and cutting down the grain bill. But ordinarily we do not cook any feed. We sprout oats for them, or we give them cabbage and go ahead without any cooked feed. Just at the present moment labor is cheaper than feed. Ordinarily labor is dearer than feed, and when labor is dear and feed is cheap we will feed the feed and do away with the labor. ®l)e (Hommonwealtl) of iHa0sa(l)usctt0. STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. CIRCULAR No. 34. January, 1915. Household Accounting. By Miss LAURA COMSTOCK. From the Sixty-second Annual Report of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture. BOSTON: WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 32 DERNE STREET. 1910. Approved by The State Board of Publication. HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTING. MISS LAURA COMSTOCK, EXTENSION PROFESSOR OF HOME ECONOMICS, MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, AMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS. Mrs. Lucas^ has said that "in olden times women thought and thought and thought before they spent, — now women often spend and then think and think and think." If this is true, how may a change be brought about? By convincing the homemakers of their responsibihty with regard to the expendi- ture of funds; by showing them that homemaking has in it all the elemental features of a true business, and that to succeed in it requires the best of training. Contrast the present-day housekeeping with that of fifty years ago. Have the keepers of the home made as great an advance in their business as the farmer, for instance, has in his? If not, how may this be remedied? Organizing ability is one of the requisites. The routine of housework in the least time and with the least energy can be accomplished only after much study, but that is not all; the responsibihty of spending much of the income also rests upon the housewife. This is one of her greatest problems. To succeed she must view the question in all of its phases before spending a dollar. In other words, a budget should be made and lived up to as nearly as possible. When a home is started there should be the utmost frankness in the discussion of the standards to be maintained in that home. It is taken for granted that there will be certain ideals. These ideals will undoubtedly change from year to year, — grow higher as the lives of the homemakers enlarge. These changes will affect the way in which the income is spent. More money will be devoted to one purpose and less to another. Certain standards will be felt to be absolutely necessary to the home life. True co-operation must exist from the first, so that no differences may later arise to shatter these ideals. When both husband and wife fully realize what they wish to express 1 Lucas, Bertha J. R., "The Woman who spends," p. 12. by their home, and know the yearly amount of money at their disposal, then let them discuss how to spend that income to the best advantage. To have clearly in mind what each particular purchase will give to the home, to know that it supplies a real need, w^ill bring true contentment. It will satisfy not only the individual but the group which constitutes the family. The right idea of use will prevent worthless buying. How may this be accomphshed? Not only by making a budget but by keeping a strict account of all expenditures. Mrs. Richards has said that "the great educational value of knowing how our money is spent cannot be overestimated." Budgets. First, then, the budget must be considered. If a home is just being established, then recourse must be had to the budgets of families living in similar circumstances. If it be a family of some years' standing, and no accounts have been kept, the budgets X)f other groups must be consulted; but in addition some help may be given bv an estimate of the outgo of previous years. In dividing the income the ideals of the family will modify the amounts suggested for each column. In the budgets con- sidered the average American family will be taken as the unit, two adults and three children under working age, or the equivalent of four adults. Suggested Budgets. ^ Family Income. Percentage for — Fqod. Rent. Operat- ing Exr- penses (Wages, Fuel, Light, etc.). Clothes. Higher Life (Books, Travel, Church, Charity, Savings, Insurance). Two adults and two or three children (equal to four adults): — Any income (ideal division), . $2,000 to 14,000 $800 to $1,000 $500 to $800 Under $500 20± 20± 20 15 15 15± 15± 15± 20± 10 15 10 10 5 10 1 Richards, Ellen H., "The Cost of Living," 1905, published by J. Wiley & Sons. In the "ideal division" it will be noted that 25 per cent is spent for food; 20 per cent plus or minus for rent; 15 per cent plus or minus for operating expenses; 15 per cent plus or minus for clothes; and 25 per cent for the higher life. Food. There are five divisions made in dividing the income. Food is first, for without that life cannot be maintained no matter what else may be possessed. This is absolutely essential. It may not be the kind desired, but if it contains proper nutri- ment the body may maintain its working efiiciency. Some of the cheapest foods contain the various nutrients in available form, so that economy along this line is entirely possible. A knowledge of food values will enable one to regulate this column to a nicety, and still the family be nourished in proper form. To buy out of season always adds much to the cost and seldom adds materially to the food value. Some of the most expensive foods, such as meats, have substitutes. If vegetables are not strictly fresh they may have deteriorated decidedly and there- fore be expensive. One must be well trained in the business of buying and have a knowledge of food values in order to keep this item within bounds. ]\Iany inexperienced housekeepers order too much or prepare too much. If these left-overs are not properly utilized there will be a leak. Look well to the garbage pail. Keep it free from foodstuffs that can in any way be used. You know that as a class American cooks are wasteful, and that our more thrifty relatives across the seas know much better than we the value of left-overs. Is it true that a French family could be fed on what an American family throws away? Food must, as before stated, contain the proper nutriment. It must be clean. The standard of cleanliness is constantly rising; greater demands are placed on the producers, with a resulting rise in prices. It must be properly cooked, otherwise a perfect food might be spoiled for use. It must look attractive. There necessarily must be variety; but not so much as some people think. In this respect we may be able to save on the cost of food. Twenty-five per cent is the proportion set aside for this necessitv. It will be noted in the budgets that the smaller the income the higher the percentage spent for food. A man earning but $500 spends 60 per cent, or $300, of his income to supply the amount of food necessary. If he has a garden or gets some produce from the farm, the percentage spent for food may seem abnormally low, but these factors must be considered. Rent or Ownership. The next item to be considered in Mrs. Richards' "Suggested Budgets" is that of rent or ownership. In securing a dwelling in which to house one's family, many factors must be taken into consideration. These will directly affect the percentage of the income devoted to this end. The wise person is one who secures a house that is not lacking in any sanitary requirement. The nature of the soil and the ease with which the plot may be drained should be two determining factors. Light should be abundant, and a free circulation of air made possible. A good neighborhood should be selected, for the moral side has to be considered in the selection of a home. Many a small house in an unpretentious street or neighborhood may measure up to all requirements in sanitation, outlook, arrangement of rooms and moral tone. There is no question that owning a home helps to develop character. A greater pride in the homestead is usually taken, a responsibility for the general condition of things in its immediate neighborhood, and this interest widens many times into responsibility for the affairs of the community. As the social part of life is of importance this must be reckoned with when considering the question of owning or renting a home. The amount set aside for rent is about 20 per cent. Not more than 25 per cent of the income should be used unless heat is included, as in apartments in a town or city. Operating Expenses. The home having been secured, the question arises as to the maintenance of the same. No house should ever be con- sidered without carefully estimating the fuel required to heat it comfortably, the kind of lighting system afforded and cost of maintenance, and cost of keeping the house clean and in repair. The matter of keeping the house clean should be looked into more carefully than it usually is, as it means pleasure or pain to the housewife. Aside from these points which help definitely in the choice of a house there are such items as express, postage, car fares (incidental), water tax, and other small expenditures which in the aggregate amount to a surprising sum. It is in operating the house that small leakages occur. As a rule, details are neglected and the bills run up. A strict account kept of all disbursements in this department will many times reveal interesting means of saving without crippling efficiency. Fifteen per cent plus or minus is indicated in the ideal division, and in all incomes of $1,000 or over it is practically covered by that amount. Clothes. The same per cent is indicated for this department as for operating expenses. Certain budgets indicate that more has been spent than the 15 per cent, but these are individual cases. One should buy with a long plan. By this is meant that one winter certain pieces of wearing apparel could be bought, such as a suit, two suits of heavy underwear; the second winter a coat, and in place of the underwear, stockings and shoes. One should be a good judge of textiles and should have in mind the physical need and also the aesthetic need. It is a duty o* all mankind to look as well as possible. Neat clothes which are w^ell made, simple in outline and of good wearing material are no more expensive in the long run than those which are untidy in appearance, extreme in style and unsuited to the wearer. Clothes should have a distinctive air. They should look as if they were meant for the individual wearing them. Higher Life. Twenty-five per cent in an ideal distribution of funds is set aside for the intellectual and emotional life, — to that which contributes so much to our truest enjoyment. In this list is included sums given to church or philanthropy, savings, which may include insurance and investments, education, travel and recreation. Papers and magazines, books, subscriptions to concerts and the like could be credited to education. 8 The matter of cultivating a habit of saving and putting aside definite sums each '»A^eek, month or year, depending on the manner in which the income is received, should be emphasized. Whenever the income will permit this should be regularly done. The habit of saving is worth everything to young people, and will prepare not only for the "rainy" day, but for the sunshiny one as well. Accounts. After the cjuestion of the proper distribution of the income has been thoroughly discussed, and definite sums apportioned for different purposes, the next thing is to decide on the best way to keep accounts. He would be a poor business man who did not know where his money went after he had earned it. How can one tell where it is best to retrench, if that becomes necessary? Where would it l)e best to appropriate more in order to lead most efficient lives? Is the doctor re- ceiving a goodly percentage of the income for keeping the homemaker in fit physical condition, while little if any money is spent for help with the housework? Accurate accounts, if carefully studied, reveal much of an interesting nature. Com- parisons by months and by years will prove profitable by show- ing the wisdom or error of the method of expenditure. What is the best method of keeping household accounts? That method which will give the least trouble, take the least time, and show daily, monthly and yearly expenditures. An elaborate "system" has killed many an honest attempt to keep accounts. Keep them in such a way that a balance can be made at any time between receipts and expenses. Items should be so listed that there will be no difficulty in seeing how much is spent for food, how much for clothing or other purposes. The account keeper must decide how minutely itemized the record shall be, e.g., are there to be subdivisions under food, such as dry groceries, vegetables, canned goods, meat; under clothes are the individual members to have separate accounts. Operating expenses may profitably have subdivisions such as fuel, lighting, laundry, outside help. The extra time taken to place expenses in the right column will be little and the returns will be great. Above all, make the record fit the family needs. If five columns would show all that was desired as to better ways of expending the income the following year, have five. If seven are needed, have seven. Head them to make them most useful to your family. The following explanations are given to suggest ways of keepmg accounts that are workable: — Envelope System. The simplest way of keeping accounts is by the envelope system. This plan, however, seems only advisable when one's income is not much above SI, 000 a year, and is received at stated times. Envelopes are marked and the apportioned sum placed inside. When any money is taken the date and amount should be recorded on a slip of paper and placed within. The account should be balanced weekly or monthly, depending upon when the appropriation is renewed. If any money is borrowed from one envelope for another careful record should be kept of it. Following this method means that many times more money is kept about than is safe or desirable. Also, when money is borrowed from one account for another and not credited there is confusion in balancing accounts. Note-book System. An ordinary unruled note book or loose-leaf note book may be used by ruling the pages to suit the divisions of the income; or a family expense book may be bought with printed head- ings. Two pages should be used for the account. Reference to the specimen pages shown will make plainer the following explanation. On the extreme left of the first page should be a column for the days of the month. The source of receipts should be noted as well as amounts. Food has but two divisions, groceries and meat. It seems inadvisable to keep these items in greater detail on such a page. If one wishes to know exactly how much is spent for dry groceries, how much for green groceries, how much for fruit, these accounts can be easily kept by retaining grocers' slips, and entering amounts on a separate page; or by using a small pass book, where items are entered, prices noted and the totals 10 ^ P< X o - « o o 1 2. 2 O o e 1 8 O H 0 3 1 »-'C-lCCTjiiC:Ct^COC50^HC0^^(MeO'*lOCOt^00050»-< 11 5i, H 6q X _>,f£] o3'c3 a at ?;, H >>«) ^o ^fl a o 9-4 o 3-g 5 3'- 2-^ 3^- »-HC^CO-^iO«Dt^GOCsO«— <(MCO^»OX)t^OOOiO'— iC^C0'^»0«0t-»000:O'— " T-ii-ii-irt.-i,-i.-Hf-ti-.,-(C^C^iMC^(N