UMASS/AMHERST 31EDt.bDD531DH'^7 Elecnomic V'actors in Cattle Feeding I|Jlinoi§> Elv^p. Sta- C»r. \(oZ. 144, \(o'\, HS SF 203 M85 »4 LIBRARY OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DATE DUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT AMHERST r 2 > > X m 2 Cfl •n 2 n H H8ERVED ] FOR < EFERENCE ' EADING. WOT TO BE TAKEN raOM THE LIBRARY. LleoT\oTnic t-^cToT^ in CaTtle. heed in UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station URBANA, ILLINOIS. JULY. 1912 CIRCULAR NO. 163 ECONOMIC FACTORS IN CATTLE FEEDING I. RELATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE WORLD'S BEEF SUPPLY By Herbert W. Mumford and Louis D. Hall Exports or Bzek 19/0 Arpenfina . *^5.4Q0,000 Un/fed Jfafe3 i */£. 196,000 Australia ^5,ZJ6,000 [ Uruguay ■ ^4.9J4.000 NcLu Zealand w^^^£.Q4Z000 f:xP02T^ or L/vr Cattle, I9 JO l/nifed 3 fates *JC£00,000 Canada — ^— — —i ^/O, doa 000 Argentina ^^t^mmi^J,90Q000 Mexico — ^— i ^£poo, ooo Uruguay -^^ ^/ 400. OOO 4 54'>-+- ?/;f / Summary 1. Introduction.— A knowledge of market conditions and of the world-wide influences that affect them is essential to a thoro understand- ing of the principles of profitable cattle feeding. Page 3 2. Geographical Distribution op Cattle. — Of approximately 450 million cattle in the entire world, the United States contains about 71 million (1910) ; but considering type and size of animals, it is estimated that this country produces about one-third of the world's beef supply. Pages 3. Ratio of Cattle to Population. — The United States contains .77 cattle per capita, compared with extreme ratios of 4.27 :1 in Argentina and .18:1 in Italy. An increase in population has, in most countries, been accompanied by a still greater rate of increase in number of cattle. Page 4 4. Cattle in Proportion to Area. — This country contains only 23 cattle per square mile, compared with 164 in Belgium and 2 in Canada*. The relative number in Illinois is 56. Page 8 5. Surplus of Cattle and Beef.— In 1910 the leading live-cattle ex- porting countries were the United States, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, and Uruguay, in the order named. The leading beef-exporting countries were Argentina, United States, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand. Total ex- ports of live cattle and beef in 1910 were approximately 29 million dol- lars from Argentina, 24 million from the United States, and 11 million from Canada. In 1905 the amounts aggregated 72 million dollars from the United States, 24 million from Argentina, and 15 million from Can- ada. Page 9 6. Distribution of Exports. — About 85 percent of the value of cat- tle and beef exported from the United States in 1910 was shipped to Oreat Britain. Page 10 7. Growth and Decline of American Surplus. — Exports of cattle and beef from the United States increased gradually up to 1900, contin- ued comparatively constant during the next five years, and have shown a marked decrease since 1906. Unless a rapid increase in cattle raising oc- curs in this country, exports of cattle and beef must sooncease. Page 10 Note: In view of the rapid decline in production and the present seri- ous shortage of beef cattle in this country, and recognizing the imrportance of economic factors in relation to the cattle-feeder's problems, an attempt has been made to analyze these economic factors from the standpoint of the beef producer and to state the results in such form as to assist him in solving his own problems. This circular, treating of the relation of the United States to the world's beef supply, is the first of a series which will deal with other aspects of the subject, including Argentina as a fac- tor in international beef trade, beef production in the United States, cattle feeding conditions in the corn belt, and cattle feeding in its rela- tions to farm management and soil fertility. RELATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE WORLD'S BEEF SUPPLY . By Herbert VV. Mumpord, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and Louis D. Hall, Assistant Chief in Animal Husbandry Market conditions have a peculiarly important bearing upon the cattle-feeding business. A knowledge of these conditions and of the factors which affect them is essential to a thoro under- standing of the principles of profitable cattle feeding. A clear conception of the world-wide influences that govern supply and demand will aid materially in forming a correct estimate of pres- ent conditions and future tendencies in our own country. It is therefore appropriate to consider at the outset the world's sup- ply of cattle and our relations thereto. Geographical Distribution op Cattle In the following table are given enumerations of cattle in the countries indicated, in round numbers. Certain allowances must be made in considering these fig- ures. The cattle of British India, for instance, are not commonly used for beef, but consist chiefly of water buffalo, which are kept as work animals. In some other countries cattle are used only for milk or work, and may therefore be largely disregarded in the present connection. It is estimated that the total number of cattle kept chiefly or largely for beef production is approximately Table 1.— Number of Cattle by Countries Country Year Total cattle^ Percent British India 1909 1910 1908 1908 J 9082 1907 1908 1909 1910 1909 1910 108 000 000 71 000 000 47 000 000 29 000 000 25 000 000 21 000 000 18 000 000 14 000 000 12 000 000 11 000 000 7 000 000 85 000 000 24 United States 16 Russia 10 Argentina 6 Brazil 6 Germany 5 Austria-Hungary France . . United Kingdom 4 3 3 Australia . . Canada 2 2 Other Countries 19 Total 448 000 000 100 lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1910, pp. 6U 2Estimated. )— 20. Fi^. 1. Geoguai'Iiical Distribution of Cattt.e 300,000,000; hence the United States possesses nearly one-fourth the number of beef cattle in the entire world. Considering size and type of cattle il may be stated that (his couiilry produces approximately one-third of the world's supply of beef. Cattle and Population The number of cattle in various countries in proportion to population is shown graphically in Fig. 2. Botih beef, milk, ana draft cattle are represented in this diagram. It is impossible to differentiate sharply between spe- cial-purpose beef cattle and others, since milk and draft cattle are usually used ultimately as beef. The large relative numbers of cattle in Soulh American countries, Australia, and Canada, are explained by the small population of these countries in proportion to their vast areas. In Denmark, on the other hand, is found a large number of cat- tle per capita together with a dense population, due to the sys- tematic development of intensive dairying. The supply of cattle Cattle Per Capita Australia ■ ■——^^^^^6' Brc7^// i^^— -^ /^^ Canada DznmarK Un//ed states Dr/fj3h India rrance Ausfna-Jiunpary Germany M:f/?er/and3 Bu^jja United Kinpdonn Detpjum Italy Fig. 2. Relation of Cattle to Population^ i in the United States is greater in proportion to population than is that of most European countries in which agriculture is a lead- ing industry. Excepting Denmark we have more than twice the number of cattle per capita found in any European country for which staiistics are available. This in part explains the large export trade in beef cattle and beef which we maintained until recently, but which is now rapidly declining, as shown in a succeeding paragraph. . n has been asserted by some that as population becomes more dense live-stock production must gradually be abandoned in order to render a larger proportion of the grain and vegetable products directly available for human food. It is also believed by many farm'ers that it is impossible, under normal conditions, to raise or feed cattle on land worth $100 to $,200 per acre. Whether these statements are warranted may be determined in a general way by observing the number of cattle in proportion ^Computed f rom Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1910. pp. 33, 42, 672, 732; Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agr., 1910, pp. 615—20; Hazell's Annual, 1911; Stateman's Yearbook, 1909, p. 238. 6 to population in various countries at different stages of their history.^ Evidently a dense population and an intensive system of agriculture do not necessarily involve a decrease in the cattle- raising industry; but, on the other hand, it appears to increase. Only in Holland, where the cattle are chiefly of the dairy type, is a relative decrease noted, and this is so slight as "to be considered insignificant. In general, the value of land increases more or less directly in proportion to the increase in population, from v^hich it is apparent that cattle raising has not been found incompatible with high-priced land in the countries represented above. Had it not continued to be profitable as population and land values increased, it would long since have been discontinued. On this point we may quote from one of the highest agricultural authorities. Sir J. H. Gilbert of the Rothamsted Experiment Table 2. — Influence op Increasing Population upon Number OF Cattle No. of Country Date cattle per capita Increase Holland 1850 1904 .36 .30 -.06 Belgium 1856 .28 1906 .25 -.03 United Kingdom , 1850 .28 1910 26 i r-.02 Italy 1852 .16 1908 .18 .02 Germany 1810 .25 1907 .33 .08 Denmark 1881 1909 .74 .83 .09 France 1852 .16 1909 .36 .20 Canada .. 1871 .72 1909 .98 .26 United States 1867 1910 51 77 .26 iComputed from data in Statesman's Year-book. Statistical Abstract of theU. S., twelfth U. S. Ciasus R3p3rt, MulhiU's Dictioiarj^ of Statistics, Annual Cyclopedia, and Beport of British Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. station, England, who said:^ "As population increases' in proportion to area, there arises the neces- sity for increased production over a given area. It has already been pointed out that, in our own country, gradually a greater variety of crops came to be grown; that first leguminous crops and then root crops were introduced, and fmally the system of rotation became general. Thus a much greater variety and a much greater quantity of home-produced stock foods became available, and in time foods of various kinds were imported from other countries. "Somewhat similar changes in their food resources occurred in vari- ous parts of the continent of Europe; and, with these, came the induce- ment, if not the necessity, to pay more attention to the subject of feed- ing With us, more special attention was paid to the improvement of the breeds of the farm animals themselves, not only to enhance the development of the most valuable characters in the fmal product, but to secure early maturity, and thus materially to economize the expenditure of food in the mere maintenance of the living meat-and-manure-making machine." As has been stated elsewhere,^ "there is a condition under which it is true that the number of cattle per capita sometimes decreases while population is on the increase; viz., in the early history of a country when the population is small and extensive systems of live-stock production largely constitute the agriculture of the country." In Argentina, for instance, population is in- creasing at a more rapid rate than the number of cattle, and will doubtless continue to do so until a ratio is reached which more nearly resembles that found in the older agricultural countries. In the United States, altho the ratio of cattle to population is at present apparently at a standstill or slightly on the decline it by no means follows that a continued decline is inevitable. On the contrary, considering the cattle per capita in Denmark, whose population per square mile is 173 as compared with 25 in the United States, the possibilities of cattle raising in America are evident. Altho it is true that most Danish cattle are of the dairy type, it is nevertheless true that Denmark also produces a surplus of beef cattle, as shown by the fact that in 1906 she exported 105,000 live cattle and 26,500,000 pounds of beef ,^ and in 1910 her exports of beef to the United Kingdom alone were 4,737,000 pounds.* lU. S. :Oept. of Agr.. Office of Experiment Stations, Bui. 22, p. 232. 2lllinois Agr. Expt. Sta., Circ. 140, p. 5. SfU. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries, p. 210. *U. S. Consular and Trade Reports, 1911, Cattle in Proportion to Area The United States produces a small number of cat lie in com- parison with the great area of the country. The figures given below indicate clearly the undeveloped slate of beef production which we have thus far reached. C/irrif: p^jq .5ql/A2E Mile Denmark ^m^t^^^mn^m^m^mmm^^^m J44 Nef her/a nd3 wmmmmmm^m^i^mi^mmBmmmmmmii^i 135 Germany ^nmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm^ 99 United Kingdom wmat^^^^a^^ma^Sp^ Fhxnce ^m^hhhhh 69 Aasina-Nun^ary mmmmmm^^^ 64 Dr/fl3h fnd/a m^^^mmmam 61 Ifa/y wm^^mmm^ 56 Ar^enf/na Un/fed 3/ate3 Brazj/ 2u33ja ' Aa3fra//a Canada Fig. 3. Densfpy op the Cattle Supply^ It is seen, then, that there. are less than one-sixth as many cattle on a given area in this country as in Belgium, and less than one-half the relative number found in Italy. Only two of the counlries (Australia and Canada) in which beef production is susceptible of large expansion, rank below the United States in number of cattle per square mile. While it is true that vast areas of desert and mountainous lands partly account for the small number of cattle per square mile in this country, yet in Illinois, which contains but little waste land, are found only 50 cattle per square mile, or but one-third to one-half the relative number in various countries of Europe. These figures should furnish food for thought to those who consider the cattle busi- ness overdone in the United States and should lend encourage- ment to all who are engaged in the industry. ^Computed from references cited, on p. 3. International Trade in Beef Cattle and Beep The importance of the United States in the beef trade of the world may be determined by comparing the surplus or exports of live cattle and beef from various countries. Table 3. — Exports of Cattle^ ' Country 1900 1905 1910 No. Value No. Value Nb. Value United States. Canada Argentina — Mexico Uruguay 397 000 206 000 151 000 184 000 61 000 $30 635 000 9 081 000 3 549 000 2 706 000 482 000 568 000 167 000 263 000 99 000 46 000 $40 598,000 11 361.000 4 979,000 1 090,000 402,000 139 000 $12 200 000 157 000 10 800 000 90 000 3 900 000 193 000 2 500 000 203J000 1400 000 1 Year books U. S. Dept of Agr., 1900, 1905. 1910; U. S. DepD. Commerce and Labor, Sta- tistical Abstract of Foreign Countries. Part III; and personal communications. As an exporter of live cattle the United States stands pre- eminent, our only near rival being Canada. Exports from Argen- tina are sent principally into adjacent South American countries. The figures for Mexico represent, chiefly, stock cattle brought into the States to be matured, and are therefore scarcely compar- able with the fat-cattle surplus of other countries. The marked decrease in live-cattle exports from the United States, as well as from other exporting nations, during the past five years, is clearly shown by these figures. It is due chiefly to the increased domestic demand for beef, and consequently a reduced margin between prices at Chicago and at British ports. (See cover illus- tration.) Table 4. — Exports of Beef^ Country 1900 1905 1910 Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Argentina United States Uruguay Australia New Zealand Canada 93 492 000 434 258 000 127 310 000 96 216 000 35 895 000 5 727 000 $4 418 000 37 772 000 6 290 000 5 529 000 1 812 000 529 000 398 223 000 359 247 000 103 050 000 43 ,525 000 17 418 000 39-688 000 $18 598 000 31836 000 4 250 000 2 150 000 930 000 3 631 000 580 142 000 127 406 000 125 450 000 71 140 000 56 012 000 1 312 000 $25 480 000 12 196 000 4 934 000 3 568 000 2 847 000 115 000 lU. S Dept. of Commerce and Labor. Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries, Part III; Statist. Abstr. of U.S., 1910, p. 443; U. S. Dept. of Agr. , Bureau of Statistics, Bui. 39; personal communications. 10 Distribution op Exports The countries to which beef cattle and beef products are principally exported from the United StaLes are shown in the fol- lowing table, together with the relative importance of each. Table 5. — Exports op Cattle and Beep prom the United States, 1910^ Country Cattle, number Beef products, pounds Total value Percent Great Britain Canada Newfoundland & Labrador Germany South America British West Indies Mexico Belgium Norway and Sweden Cuba All other countries 122 139 10 283 129 79 5 149 270 207 1 174 90 551 837 1 676 773 5 213 053 4 150 754 3 448 541 3 146 318 110 847 2 550 879 1 409 885 262 182 14 884 506 520 596 056 453 147 364 264 299 927 298 055 277 998 265 958 250 925 126 148 39 218 1 454 362 54.32 1.86 1.48 1.23 1.22 1.14 1.09 1.03 .52 .16 5.95 Total 139 430 127 405 575 $24 426 058 100.00 lU. S. Dept. of Com. and Labor, Kept, on Commerce and Navigation, 1910. The importance of Great Britain as a factor in our export beef trade is here made plain, that country taking about 85 percent of our total beef exports. Under their free- trade policy American live cattle and meats are received free of duty. Other European countries bar our cattle and fresh beef, and their duties on cured and canned meats are so heavy as to limit the trade to the com- paratively small amounts noted above. Growth and Decline op our Beep Surplus Altho the United States held first rank in respect to exports of cattle and second in exports of beef in 1910, the surplus is now diminishing at a rapid rate owing to the rapidly increasing population and inadequate supplies of beef cattle. The general tendency of our export beef trade may be judged from the fol- lowing table, in which the decrease during the past five years should be especially noted. The significance of the data given in Table 6 will be more readily seen by referring to the graphic illustration of the same data in Fig. 4. 11 Table 6. — Exports of Live Cattle and Beef from the United States^ Year Cattle, Beef, number pounds 1851 1 000 18 000 000 1861 9 000 26 000 000 1870 28 000 27 000 000 1880 183 000 130 000 000 1890 395 000 354 000 000 1900 397 000 435 000 000 1905 568 000 359 000 000 1906 584 000 414 000 000 1907 423 000 361 000 000 1908 349 000 272 000 000 1909 208 000 183 000 000 1910 139 000 127 000 000 ^U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, pp. 608,9; U. S. Report on Commerce and Navigation, 1910. Fig. 4. Exports op Live Cattle and Beef prom the United States From these figures it is evident that unless a rapid increase in cattle raising occurs in this country, we shall very soon cease to export beef cattle and beef. Indeed, unless ample encourage- ment is given beef producers, it is quite possible that we shall shortly become an importing nation, so far, at least, as the lower grades of beef are concerned. Small shipments of South American beef have already been brought to New York, and un- der certain market conditions this trade may now be carried on with profit. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station URBANA, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER, 1912 CIRCULAR NO. 164 ECONOMIC FACTORS IN CATTLE FEEDING II. ARGENTINA AS A FACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL BEEF TRADE By Herbert W. Mumford Large beef herds are seen which are practically pure bred Beef making is a pasture proposition. Alfalfa grows luxuriantly, and to anyone unacquainted with the possibilities of the country, the degree of fatness which cattle acquire without grain is a marvel. Summary 1. INTRODUCTION.— The Argentine Republic recently has superseded the United States of America in the amount of surplus beef produced and sold abroad. Recognizing the important bearing of the Argentine cattle industry upon foreigii and domestic markets for beef cattle produced in the United States, the author, on behalf of this experiment station, made a thoro investiga- tion and personal inspection of beef production in Argentina. Page 3 2. NATURAL ADVANTAGES FOR CATTLE RAISING.— Climatic conditions are such that cattle can be raised and fattened out of doors without shelter and generally without shade. Abun- dance of alfalfa and other nutritious legumes and grasses, together with cheap land and labor, makes it possible to produce beef cattle cheaply. They fatten readily without grain. Should corn- fed beef become profitable, an ample supply of corn can be produced. Page 4 3. QUALITY OF CATTLE. — Great improvement in the common r,tock of the country has been effected by importations of high-class pedigreed cattle from Great Britain during the last 25 years and particularly during more recent years. Several large beef herds were seen which were practically pure bred. Page 5 4. DISTRIBUTION OF CATTLE.— Five provinces, Buenos Aires, Corrientes, Entre Rios, Santa Fe and Cordoba, known as the pampa grass region, contain over 80 percent of the cattle in Argentina. 222,000 establishments occupying 288 million acres were engaged in the cattle business in 1908. Many individual land holders and land companies own very large tracts. Page 9 5. SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES.— A municipally controlled market and slaughtering establishment in Buenos Aires is creditable. Efficient government veterinary inspection is con- •ducted. Convenient locations and sanitary conditions have been provided, with reference to both local and export beef trade. Page 10 6. CONSUTMPTION AND EXPORT.— Approximately 5 million cattle were slaughtered in 1911, of which approximately one million were shipped abroad as dressed beef and a considerable proportion of the remainder were prepared for export in other forms. The per capita consump- tion of beef is about equal to that in the United States. Exports of beef have increased from 64 million pounds in 1885 to 193 million pounds in 1900 and 580 million pounds in 1910. Argentine ^rass-fed beef sells in the English market within two to five cents per pound of corn-fed beef from the United States. Page 11 7. DIFFICULTIES SURROUNDING THE INDUSTRY.— British ports have been dosed against Argentine live cattle since 1900 (except a short time in 1903) owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, altho there is little, if any, of this disease in Argentina at the present time. Texas fever ticks, anthrax or "carbuncle", and tuberculosis are prevalent. Droughts and locusts -are plagues which are more or less localized. Nevertheless, cattle raising is a favored and favorite industry in the Republic. Page 13 8. THE OUTLOOK. — Argentina's natural advantages enable her profitably to compete with the grass cattle and lower grades of native beef produced in the United States. North American •corn-fed beef, so long as the supply lasts, doubtless will continue to command a premium over Argentine grass beef in the markets of the world, but domestic demand in the United States will soon absorb practically the entire amount of beef produced here, thus rendering foreign competi- tion abroad an unimportant factor in the industry. The chief concern of beef producers in this country, so far as Argentine competition is con- cerned, should be the effect of possible importation of South American beef to the United States upon the production of beef cattle here. That corn and likewise corn-fed cattle can be produced in Argentina, Uruguay and some other South American countries is an assured fact. The exter.t to which it will be fed to cattle, however, is limited by the relatively small production of corn and further by the fact that it is a new industry and will not gain favor rapidly because it involves more cropping and labor and considerably more expense. Expansion of the cattle-raising industry in Argentina has ceased, largely because gram growing is proving more profitable than cattle raising. The beef product will be much improved but the available supply for export doubtless will not increase more rapidly than the combined factors of increased population there and among nations consuming her surplus and the relative de- crease of beef production elsewhere. Again, the cost of beef production will increase with *"- creased cost of labor and land. On the whole it is not anticipated that the business of raising beef cattle in the United States will be permanently menaced by Argentine competition. Pages 14-16 BIBLIOGRAPHY. Page 17 NOTE: This is the second of a series of circulars dealing with economic factors in cat- tle feeding. Following publications will treat of beef production in the United States, cattle- feeding conditions in the com belt, and cattle feeding in its relation to farm management and soil ^fertility. ARGENTINA AS A FACTOR IN INTERNATIONAL BEEF TRADE! By Herbert W. Mumforu, Chief in Animal Husbandry Notice has been taken in a preceding discussion (Circular 163) of tlie fact that Argentina now outranks the United States with respect to the surplus of beef produced and that the change in relative positions of the two countries as beef-exporting na- tions has occured since 1905. So marked has been the develop- ment of this trade that: the attention of the entire world has been called to Argentina as a rapidly growing and exceedingly im- portant factor in the world's supply of beef. For many years the United States of North America was the chief factor in the export trade of this commodity, and an especially important factor because supplying beef of high quality. Today the Argen- tine Republic must be looked upon as the most important factor in the world's market as regards the amount of surplus beef sold; and, furthermore, the quality of her beef product is fast improving. Notwithstanding the embargo against importation of live cattle from Argentina into Gr"eat Britain which, on account of foot-and-mouth disease, has been in force since 1900^, aggregate exports of cattle and beef from Argentina have risen from $8,000,000 in 1900 to $24,000,000 in 1905 and $29,000,000 in 1910; while corresponding figures for the United States were $68,000,- 000 in 1900, $72,000,000 in 1905, and $24,000,000 in 1910. (See Circular 163.) With only twenty-nine million cattle, as compared with seventy-one million in the United States, (1910) ^ Argentina is in a position to maintain her export trade in beef by reason of the small population (seven million) and consequently limited domestic consumption of beef in that country. Whether or not expansion of beef production in Argentina takes place in the fu- 1. In confining this discussion largely to the production of cattle in Argentina, the writer does not overlook other possible sources of beef in South America, such as Uruguay, Bra- zil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Venezuela, and possible others which, with the exception of Uruguay and parts of Brazil, are only partially exploited. Operations in Argentina may be taken as a type and indicative in a general way of the development which is likely to follow in ether countries. Argen- tina is and will remain for some time to come the largest producer and most important single factor in the export trade in beef from South America. 2. Except a short period in 1903. 3. The U. S. Census Bureau estimates the number of cattle in the United States in round numbers at 64 million, April 15, 1910, and 67 to 69 million, June 1, 1910. The U. S. Dept. of Agriculture estimates 71 million, Jan. 1, 1910, and 60 million, Jan. 1, 1912. ture will depend largely upon market conditions. In the United States, on the other hand, a rapidly growing population of 92 million renders it doubtful whether our production of beef will equal our demand unless a rapid expansion of the cattle-raising industry occurs in the near future, which is improbable. It is evident, therefore, not only that the condition and possibilities of beef production in Argentina have a vilal bear- ing upon our beef trade in foreign markets, but also that the Republic even may become a competing factor in the beef supply of our own country. Recognizing [he importance of this factor, the author, on behalf of this experiment station, made a thoro investigation and personal inspection of the beef-cattle industry in Argentina, upon which the following statements are based. Natural Advantages for Cattle Raising Cattle raising for beef in Argentina, especially in the tem- perate zone, is a much more favored industry than in the United States. The climate makes is possible for Ihe entire life of cattle to be spent out of doors without shelter and generally without shade of any kind. Alfalfa grows most luxuriantly, and the suitability of a very large acreage for the growth of that crop and of other nutritious indigenous and introduced legumes and grasses, together with cheap land and labor, makes it possible to Fig'. 1. Baled Alfalfa IN THE Stack produce beef cheaply. To any one unacquainted with the pos- sibilities of the country, the degree of fatness which the cattle acquire on grass or alfalfa alone is a marvel. Corn feeding as a supplement to pasture for beef production is extremely rare. Beef-making in Argenlina at present therefore is practically a strict pasture proposition. There is quite an extensive area well suited to, and at pres- ent partially used for. the growing of corn, but as yet, and probably for some years lo come, this product will be either exported or used for horse, dairy cow, and pig feeding. Only the flint varieties are grown generally. If the time ever comes when slaughterers will pay a sulTiciently high premium for corn- fed beef, it is believed the country can produce ample for this purpose. Quality of Cattle One of the most striking features of the recent development of beef production in Argentina is the great improvement in quality or breeding of the cattle. Many Argentine estancieros have spared no trouble nor expense in effecting improvement of the common slock of the country. This has been accomplished FiG; 2. An Argentine-bked Shorthorn Bull that Would Find Favor IN THE Show Rings op any Country 6 chiefly by importations of high class pedigreed beef and dairy cattle from. Great Britain. It is an historical fact that the cattle breeders of Argentina, and more especially the breeders of regis- tered beef cattle, have bought the best that Great Britain has pro- duced, without much reference to their cost. In the herdbook of the Argentine Rural Society in 1909 there had been registered about 50,000 pedigreed cattle of beef breeds, some 4,000 of which were imported; and not all pedi- greed cattle are registered in the Rural Society's book. During the period from 1880 to 1907, 16,150 pedigreed cattle were im- ported into Argentina, 14,624 of which were brought from the United liingdom; and in the two years 1907 to 1909 over 9000 head were imported from England alone.^ The extension of fencing has been an important factor in making systematic, selective cattle raising possible. At present, in place of the old native cattle, estancias are stocked with mestizo (half breeds), and in many cases more highly im- proved slock. In several instances large beef herds were seen which were practically pure bred. Shorthorns (more frequent- FlG . Ax Lmi^okted ShohthoHxN Bull Doing Sehvice l\ the Ahgentlxe. ESTANCIEROS HaVE BOUGHT THE BeST THAT GrEAT BRITAIN HaS Produced, Without Much Reference to Their Cost 1. Census of the Nation: .Stock Breeding and Agriculture in 1908^ ,,Vol. 3, -pp. 97, 371. ly called "Durhams"' in the Republic) are by far the most nu- merous and popular, altho some fine herds of Herefords and Aberdeen Angus exist. Of the 50,000 registered cattle mentioned above, about 37,000 were Shorthorns, 10,000 Herefords, and 2500 Aberdeen-Angus. A still larger proportion of the grade cattle of the country than of registered animals are Shorthorns. There is considerable rivalry among the leading breeders of pedigreed beef cattle in their attempts to bring out prize winners at the live-stock shows, the chief one of which is an annual exposition at Palermo, Buenos Aires. Of the cattle produced for slaughter the best are sold to the frigorifh.cos, where they are either chilled or frozen for export. There is no absolute standard set by these establishments as to the quality and condition necessary for their trade, as consider- able variation in the quality and degree of fatness occurs, de- pending upon available supplies and foreign demand. Demands in the way of breeding and finish in cattle for consumption in the Argentine Republic are not exacting, and a Fig. -4. Good Herds of Herefords are Occasionally Seen cheaper, less improved, half-fat class of cattle is slaughtered to supply local butchers. Discarded cows, youne stock, and work oxen in many instances are important factors in this trade. Fig. 5. Map of Argentine Republic, Showing Distribution op Cattle Distribution op Cattle A statement of the distribution of cattle thruout the various provinces of the Republic will serve to show what parts are considered best adapted for cattle raising. In some instances these statistics might be misleading; for example, in the prov- ince of Buenos Aires and other favored sections of the country still more cattle might be kept, but agriculture is more profit- able. Table 1. — Number op Cattle by Provinces and Territories, According TO the Last Live-Stogk Census in Argentina (1908)i Buenos Aires 10 351000 Corrientes — Santa Fe — Entre Rios . . . Cordoba S. del Estero- San Luis Salta La Pampa . . . La Rioja — Tucuman Chubut 4 276 000 3 413 000 3 146 000 2 639 000 629 000 579 000 560 000 465 000 417 000 404 000 335 000 Mendoza 330 000 Rio Negro 279 000 Catamarca 268 000 Chaco 265 000 Formosa 234 000 Neuquen 194 000 Jujuy 113 000 94 000 82 000 25 000 12 000 1000 Total 29 111000 Misiones- San Juan Santa Cruz Tierra del Fuego Los Andes 1. Agricultural and Pastoral Census of the Nation (Argentina): Stock Breeding and Agri- culture in 1908, Vol. 1, p. vii. From the above statement and the accompanying map < Fig. 5) it will be seen that the five provinces of Buenos Aires, Corri- entes, Entre Rios, Santa Fe and Cordoba were the leading cattle sections, containing upward of 80 percent of the cattle in the Argentine Republic. This portion of the country, known as the pampa grass region, is naturally the most favored section for grazing, and with the introduction of improved beef cattle and of foreign grasses and legumes, chief among which is alfalfa, the industry has advanced rapidly. Cattle growing has radiated from the pampa grass region with the more extensive cultiva- tion of alfalfa. The number of establishments engaged in the cattle business in 1908 was estimated at about 222,000, and these occupied more than 288 million acres, or an average of about 1,300 acres. Many individual landholders and companies own very large tracts, a number of which range in size from 10 to 50 square leagues (about 75,000 to 385,000 acres;. Some of the smaller estancias are set largely to alfalfa. These extensive areas are stocked with literally thousands of cattle. Besides 29 million caltle in Argen- 10 Fig. 6. Some Prominent Breeders Maintain Good Herds of Aberdeen -Angus Cattle tina, there were in 1908 about 67 million sheep, 7 million horses IV2 million hogs, 4 million goals, a half million mules and 285 donkeys. The total length of wire on grazing lands amounted to 1,015,500 kilometers (631,000 miles). ^ It has been estimated that the inclosing of rural properties in Argentina during the last 25 years has cost 100 million dollars for wire alone.^ Slaughtering Facilities The municipally controlled mataderos or market and slaugh- tering establishment in Buenos x\ires is creditable. The govern- ment veterinary inspection at this plant, as well as (hat at the frigorificos and fabricas, is to be commended as contrasted with the slovenly methods in common use in isolated sections where competent government inspection is unknown. Ample provision has been made for slaughtering cattle for domestic consumption and for export, and these establishments are located conven- iently both to care for the bulk of the city and export trade and to provide sanitary conditions. The number of packing houses owned and operated by North American companies is on the in- crease. 1. Report on "Cattle Breeding in the Argentine Republic", Pan American Union, Wash- ington, D. C. 2. U. S. Consular and Trade Report, Nov. 16, 1910, p. 621. 11 Consumption and Export With its relatively large production of beef and its small population, Argentina has a very considerable beef product for export. It is estimated^ that in 1911 five million head of cattle were slaughtered, of which approximately one million were Fig. 7. Four- year-old Steers Bred in Northern Santa Fe, AND Being Finished on Alfalfa Pasture in Southern Santa Fe shipped as dressed beef to markets abroad, and a considerable proportion of the remainder were prepared for export in the form of canned meat, jerked beef, beef extract, and other pro- ducts. Statisticians differ as to the per capita consumption of meat in the Argentine Republic. The amount annually con- sumed per capita is estimated at about 140 pounds.^ The per capita consumption in the United States is estimated at 185 pounds. One would ttiink from casual observation that the per capita consumption of meat in the Argentine Republic is much larger than in the States, and it is quite possible that the civailable statistics on the subject are not very reliable. At any rate, of the total meat consumed in Argentina a much larger percentage consists of beef than in the United States. The same statement would be true if for no other reason than the scarcity of swine products. Relatively speaking, but a very 1. U. S. Consular and Trade Kept., May 18, 1912, p. 669. 2. Mulhall's Dictionary of Statistics, 1890. 12 small percentage of the meat consumed by the better classes is pork or bacon. Mutton is used extensively. As seen from some points of view, it would seem that the Argentine Republic is not favorably located for developing an extensive and profitable export trade in beef. Closer study shows that their slaughtering establishments can be and are located within easy access to the most favored cattle-producing sections, and also at or near seaports having direct and frequent communication with British and European ports. That exports of beef have increased rapidly is shown by Table 2 and the ac- companying graphic illustration (Fig. 8). The decrease shown in exports of live cattle is due, as already stated, chiefly to the closing of English ports against them. Table 2. — -Exports op Beep and op Live Cattle* Year Beef2, lb. Cattle, No. 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 64 280 000 88 288 000 113 .352 000 193 492 000 398 223 000 580 142 000 312 1503 408 126 150 550 262 681 90 000 1. From Census of the Nation (Argentina) 1908; U. S. DeDt. of Com. and Labor, Statist. Abstr. of Foreign Countries, Part 3; U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Statist., Bui. 39; U. S. Con- sular Rept., Nov., IS, 1910. 2. Including chilled, frozen, jerked, and canned beef. 3. 1889. Great Britain being by far the leading buyer of dressed beef, the amounts shipped to that country from Argentina and from this country during recent years are significant of the trend of trade conditions. The following table includes chilled and frozen beef: Table 3. — Dressed Beef Imported into Great Britain from Argentina and United States'* From From Year United States, Argentina, cwts.* cwts. 1905 2 232 000 2 582 000 1906 2 427 000 2 796 000 1907 2 418 000 2 692 000 1908 1 432 000 3 571 000 1909 857 000 4 208 000 1910 477 000 4 899 000 1911 174 000 6 111000 4. Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries. 5. 112 lb. 13 These figures show how rapidly Argentina has practically mo- nopolized the British beef market. Of the total dressed beef im- ported by Great Britain in 1911. 84 percent was shipped by Ar- gentina and but 2 percent by the United Stales. Fig. 8. Exports op Beep and op Live Cattle prom Argentina, 1855 to 1910 It should not be expected that the beef produced in the Argen- tine Republic on grass alone will grade in the market as high as English, Scotch or corn-fed beef from the United States of North America. Notwithstanding this, beef is being produced, and in the manner spoken of, that sells in the English market within two cents per pound of the corn-fed beef from the United States. The bulk of the Argentine product sells at three to five cents per pound below North American dressed beef. Difficulties Surrounding the Industry Some discouragements confront the Argentine beef pro- ducer, altho they maybe of quite a different character from those elsewhere experienced. For example, since 1900, owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the consequent supposed prevalence of this disease in the Argentine Republic, the ports of Great Britain have been closed against the importation of Argentine live cattle, except a few months in 1903. There is very little, if any. of this disease in Argentina at the present 14 time. Ill fact, it does not seem to be a serious handicap to cattle raising there, except as mentioned. Argentine cattle raisers have even gone so far as to suggest the possibility of its being pre- valent in a herd without its presence or effect being especially manifest. Other discouragements are found in the way of Texas fever ticks, a form of anthrax commonly spoken of as carbuncle, and tuberculosis. Added to Ihese diseases, other obstacles to be reckoned with are droughts and locusts, which seem to be more Fig. 9. Not Infrequently, T\vo-year-old Steers that Have Been Largely Developed on Alfalfa Pasture Make Acceptable Killers for Export Chilled Beef or less localized. But notwithstanding all that may be said with reference to the difficulties encountered in cattle raising, it is still a favored and favorite industry in the Argentine Republic, as indicated by the number of men engaged in it and their pros- perous condition. The Outlook O'h the whofe, it appears evident that the natural advantages of Argentina enable her cattle products profitably to compete, as they -are aTready doing, vvith the grass cattle and lower grades of native Ix'of produced in this country. North American corn- fed beef, so long as the supply lasts, doubtless will continue to command'apremilim over Argentine grass cattle in the markets of the world. '''^Ttli^Argeiitina eventually may develop the pro- 15 duclion of corn-fed cattle, which her soil and climate render quite possible, it is probable that the domestic demand in the United States by that time will absorb, and indeed already ab- sorbs, practically the entire amount of beef produced here, thus rendering our export trade, and consequently foreign competi- tion abroad, an unimportant factor in the industry. The chief concern of beef producers in this country should be, not what effect will South x\merican competition have upon Fig. 10. A Former Oalifornian's Attractive Home in the Argentine our export trade, but what effect will the possible importation of South xAmerican beef to the United States have upon the pro- duction of be-^.f cattle here. That corn, and likewise corn-fed cattle, can be produced in Argentina, Uruguay, and some other South American countries is an assured fact. The extent to which it will be fed to cattle, however, is limited by the relatively small production of corn and further by the fact that it is a new industry and will not gain favor rapidly because it involves more cropping and labor and considerably more expense. It is significant that the expansion of cattle raising in Ar- gentina has ceased, and largely because grain growing is prov- ing more profitable than cattle raising. The beef product will be much improved but the supply available for export doubtless 16 will not increase more rapidly than the combined factors of in- creased population there and among nations consuming her sur- plus, and the relative decrease of beef production elsewhere. South American beef surplus will be in strong demand; ob- viously countries willing to pay the highest premium for it will secure it. Again, the cost of production is sure to increase with increased cosi of labor and land. Under such conditions it is not anlicipated that the business of raising beef cattle in the United States will be menaced permanently by Argentine competition. 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alfalfa and Beef Production in Argentina. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Report No. 77. By F. W. Bicknell. 190i. Animal Industry of Argentina. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Ani- mal Industry, Bui. 48. By F. W. Bicknell. 1903. Argentine International Trade; Its Development. Pan American Union, Bui. 85. Buenos Aires, 1911. Argentine Meat Production and Export, U. S. Daily Consular and Trade Reports for 1910: Cattle raising, old and new. Bui. 118, p. 673. Character and volume of the trade. Bui. 114, p. 605. Chilled and frozen beef. Bui. 115, p. 618. Gold storage companies. Bui. 116, p. 634. Evolution of the beef industry. Bui. 115, p. 620. Increasing prices and expanding markets. Bui. 115, p. 617. Pastoral life in the republic. Bui. 118, p. 673. Present position and outlook. Bui. 114, p. 601. Rising price of cattle. Bui. 116, p.. 633. Stock on the ranch. Bui. 119, p. 684. Summary of conditions. Bui. 119, p. 685. Argentine Plains and Andinc Glaciers; Life on Our Estancia and an Expedition into the Andes. By W. Larden, London, 1911. Argentine Republic. Agricultural and Pastoral Census of the Nation; Stock Breeding and Agriculture in 1908. Vols. 1-3. Argentine Republic. International Bureau of American Republics, Washington, D. C. (now the Pan American Union), Bui. 67. Argentine Republic. International Bureau of American Republics, Washington, D. C. (now the Pan American Unionj. Review Bulletin, July, 1910. Argentine Republic in 1911. A geographic, agricultural-zootechnic and economic summary. Pan American Union. Bui. 103. 1911. Argentine Shows and Live Stock. By Prof. Robert Wallace. 1904. Argentine Trade Notes. U. S. Daily Consular and Trade Reports. Bui. 118. p. 669. 1912. Argentine Yearbooks. Bibliography of South America, arranged by order of dates, in Mulhall's Handbook of the River Plate, p. 101. 1885. Cattle Raising in the Americas. Pan American Union bulletin, April. 1910. Handy Guide to the Argentine Republic. Buenos Aires, 1909. Improvement of Herds. Yearbook U. S. Department of Agr., p. 25. 1896. 18 Live-stock Breeding in Argentina. South ximeriea Journal, Lon- don, January 14, 191 L Meat in Foreign Markets. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Statistics, Bui. 39, pp. (35-70. 1907. Meat Making Prospects in Tropical America. John Barrett, Direc- tor General of the Pan American Union. Breeder's Gazette, Chicago, December 6, 1911. Meat Supply and Surplus. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Statistics, Bui. 55, p. 98. By Geo. K. Holmes. 1907. Modern Argentina. W. H. Koebel. 1907. Notes on Animal Industry of Argentina. 25th Rept., U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry, pp. 315-333. By Geo. M. Rommel. 1908. Sketch of the Argentine Republic as a Country for Immigration. Argentine Republic, Dept. of Agr. 1904. Story of an Estancia. By George Crampton, London, 1900. The Argentine Estancia. By Fernandez, Buenos Aires, 1903. Through Five Republics of South America. By Percy F. Martin. 1905. Trade and Travel in South America. By F. Alcock, London, 1903. Trade Conditions in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. By Lincoln Huchinson. U. S. Dept. of Commerce and Labor, Bui. 31. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Agricultural Experiment Station URBANA, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER, 1913 CIRCULAR No. 169 ECONOMIC FACTORS IN CATTLE FEEDING III. A REVIEW OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES By Herbert W. Mumford and Louis D. Hall MILLIONS 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 SO 90 iOO PEOPLE Ratio of Catti^e; to Popui,ation, 1870 to 1910 Summary ^-.» . 1. Introduction. — American beef production naturally divides into two epochs, which may be termed "Early History" and "Recent Development." This division is marked by the adoption of refrigeration in shipping dressed meat. Page 3 2. Early History. — Corn-fed cattle were first produced near the begin- ning of the 19th century in southern Ohio and were driven overland to be marketed in Baltimore. Increased eastern demand led to a gradual extension of the industry thruout the Mississippi valley until checked by the Civil War. Page 3 3. Recent Development. — The extension of railroads and the invention of the refrigerator car in 1868, followed by the use of the tin can in packing meat, extended the beef production industry to remote western states and made it possible to slaughter cattle in the West and to market the salable product considerably cheaper. Page 5 4. Numerical Increase of Cattle. — Statistics show that the number of cattle on farms and ranges in the United States increased from 20,000,000 in 1867 to 68,000,000 in 1900, but that during the last ten years the rate of increase has diminished rapidly, and the last part of the decade shows an actual de- crease in numbers. Page 8 5. Ratio of Cattle to Population. — The number of cattle has decreased but little; however, the proportion of cattle to population was only 75 percent in 1910 compared to 84 percent in 1890. This decrease has been accentuated by the rapid increase in population. Page 9 6. Ratio of Beef Production to Surplus. — The value of the cattle in the United States has increased $129,000,000 in seven years. On the other hand, the decline in the number of cattle in proportion to population has reduced the export of meat products from $72,435,000 to an almost negligible amount dur- ing the same period. Page 9 7. Cattle Classified by Age and Sex. — A census of the cattle by age, sex, and value indicates among other facts that approximately 60 percent of the cows of breeding age are' considered dairy cows. Page 10 8. Geographical Distribution of Cattle in the United States. — A com- parison of the distribution of the cattle (other than milch cows) and the popu- lation shows that while more than two-thirds of the cattle are west, more than two-thirds of the population is located east of the Mississippi river. Page 11 9. Development of the Great Cattle Markets. — Cattle m.arkets develop in the wake of the producing areas. This is indicated by the growth of Chicago and cities west of Chicago, as cattle markets, while eastern cities have declined as cattle markets. Page 13 10. Local Sale and Slaughter of Cattle. — The large central markets are of primary interest to the feeder. Reliable statistics gathered in 1903 indicate that only half the 13,000,000 cattle marketed for slaughter that year were slaught- ered in large central markets. Page 16 11. The Passing of the Range. — The range country is undergoing a transition during which the number of cattle is decreasing, but an increased production is promised in the future. Page 17 12. Mexican and Canadian Cattle Ranges. — Mexico offers opportunities for great development, but a decade or more will be required to reconstruct the country and develop its latent possibilities. Western Canada is rapidly being taken up by homesteaders who give little attention to stock raising at present. Eventually Canada and Mexico should become important factors in the world's beef supply. Page 23 13. Beef Production in the South. — Various handicaps have' prevented the southern states from exerting much influence upon the beef industry, but better conditions, the need of crop rotation, and the many natural advantages for stock raising are now tending to promote the southern cattle industry. II''' • Page 26 Note. — This is the third of a series of circulars dealing with economic fac- tors in cattle feeding. (I. Relation of the United States to the World's Beef Sup- ply. II. Argentina as a factor in International Beef Trade.) Following publica- tions will treat of cattle-feeding conditions in the corn belt, and cattle feeding in its relation to farm management and soil fertility. A REVIEW OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES By Herbert W. Mumford, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and Louis D. Hall, Assistant Chief in Animal Husbandry One hundred years have elapsed since beef-cattle production be- came a prominent feature of American agriculture. A study of the tendencies that have marked the development of the industry dur- ing* that period throws much light upon present and prospec- tive conditions with which the cattle feeder has to deal. In this brief sketch, general developments only can be considered, and the more recent decades will receive chief attention. Two comparatively distinct periods constitute the history .of beef production in this country. Up to the Civil War, cattle feeding ac- companied general agriculture in its gradual extension westward thru the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. At the same time, the graz- ing industry spread from Texas over the great western plains. Im- mediately after the war an enlarged beef demand in the East, to- gether with improved facilities for the transportation of cattle and distribution of beef, stimulated the production and marketing of beef cattle and marked the beginning of modern conditions. The general divisions of this review, therefore, may be designated as the "Early History" and the "Recent Development" of the beef industry. EARLY HISTORY Pioneers from the Allegheny region, and especially from the Virginias, introduced the grazing and corn feeding of beef cattle into the valleys of southern Ohio and northwestern Kentucky near the beginning of the 19th century. In 1805 the first fat cattle were driven by Felix Renick from the then new country of the Scioto valley, Ohio, 350 miles eastward across the Alleghenies to Balti- more, where they found a profitable market. During the next de- cade the trailing of cattle was extended to Philadelphia and New York. The establishment of an outlet and the growth of the east- ern demand for beef stimulated the cattle business in the Ohio valley region and gradually extended it westward over Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Until the early fifties, it was customary to take cattle to market on foot. In many instances, this meant a drive of a thousand miles, requiring ten to twelve weeks. Indeed it was not uncommon for cattle to be driven to the large eastern cities from points as far west as Iowa and as far south as Texas. One of the first shipments of cattle by rail from Kentucky to eastern markets, made in 1852, is described by the shipper as fol- lows : "One week was consumed in driving the cattle, 100 in num- ber, from the neighborhood of Lexington, Kentucky, to Cincinnati. Here they were loaded in box cars and shipped by rail to Cleveland, whence they were taken by steamboat to Buffalo. After a stay of several days at Buffalo, the animals were driven to Canandaigua, New York ; thence were hauled in immigrant cars to Albany, where they were unloaded in the freight house. After spending two days in a feed yard near Albany, the stock was taken by boat to New York. The freight on these cattle from Cincinnati to Buffalo was at the rate of $120 per car and the total expense from Kentucky to New York was $14 per head." About 1855 shipments by rail were made from Indiana to New York, and in the same year began the shipment of cattle from Chicago. The westward extension of rail- roads during the next decade resulted in a proportionate increase in rail shipments of cattle eastward and gave rise to various slaught- ering and shipping centers in the Middle West. 1805-1815 185a 1815 - 1860- 18S7 - 1865- 1870 Fig- 1. — RouTKS ojf E^ARi^Y Shipmejnts of Catti^e; Coincident with the extension of beef production from east to west was the expansion of the industry from the Mexican border thru Texas and northward. Mexicans settHng in Texas brought with them large numbers of Mexican or Spanish cattle and made ranching their leading occupation. The peculiar adaptation of the vast prairies of western and northern Texas to cattle raising, be- cause of their luxuriant mesquite and buffalo grass, abundant streams, and mild climate, soon attracted large numbers of stock- men from all parts of the United States; and by 1815 these early stockmen were the leading ranchmen of this section. During the next few decades and until the Civil War, the herds increased with great rapidity ; but the outlet for cattle was restricted by the distance from market and the lack of railroads. At this time they were marketed principally in New Orleans, Mobile, and Mexico, while smaller numbers were carried by boats to cities along the Mississippi river. The latter trade was cut off by the Civil War, and this, to- gether with the impoverished condition of the South, virtually de- stroyed the market for Texas cattle. The industry was abandoned to a large extent, and cattle became almost worthless, some chang- ing hands at $1 to $2 per head. There was no demand for many that were offered, and some herds were abandoned on the range. "As an evidence of the low value of cattle in Texas at this period, it is recorded that a buyer went into a herd of 3500 steers and cut out $600 at $6 a head, and 600 more at $3 a head."^ Statistics of cattle in the United States during the first two- thirds of the century are almost entirely lacking, and such as are available must be regarded as rough estimates. Consequently, it is difficult to record the development of beef production during that period further than to outline its general tendencies. RECENT DEVELOPMENT During the five-year period following the Civil War, several significant factors combined to revolutionize the beef-cattle business in the United States. Rapid increase in population and the devel- opment of manufacturing industries in the East and North brought about a new demand and a larger outlet for beef. Railroad exten- sion thruout the Middle West made possible the establishment of central markets which became accessible to beef-cattle producers at long distances. In 1857 the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad was extended from Cincinnati to St. Louis. Here it connected with the Missouri Pa- cific, which was then under construction from St. Louis to Kansas City. Altho this latter road was started soon after 1850, it was not finished until 1865. At the same time the completion of the Han- nibal and St. Joseph between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers IB. O. Cowan, Breeder's Gazette, Jan. 22, 1913, p. 193. established rail service between Kansas City and Chicago. Conse- quently, when it was planned to extend the Kansas Pacific still far- ther westward, the southwestern cattlemen, with access to both the Chicago and the St. Louis markets in sight, saw a bright future for their industry. In Texas and the western states, the effect of improved condi- tions and better marketing facilities was marked. The wide dif- ference in the market price of cattle in the North and in the South opened a profitable outlet for the southwestern herds, and a strong movement of Texas cattle to northern markets soon developed. By 1870 three principal routes to eastern markets had become estab- lished. "One way led by coastwise steamer to New Orleans, whence the animals were taken northward on river boats. At Cairo, Illi- nois, the railroad journey was begun northward to Chicago, thence to the East. A second route from Texas was over a trail to shipping points on the Red river, whence the cattle were forwarded on steam- boats to Cairo, thence to be shipped by rail northward. A third route followed the trails from Texas to feeding grounds along the railroads in Kansas and in regions farther north. From stations along these railroads the animals were forwarded to eastern mar- kets."i The northern demand for these southwestern cattle, due to im- proved methods of slaughtering animals, the use of refrigeration in shipping dressed beef, and the utilization of packing-house by-pro- ducts, increased enormously about 1870. Accordingly, the opening of a railroad shipping station at Abilene, Kansas, in 1867, marked the beginning of heavy shipments of southwestern cattle to St. Louis, Chicago, and the East. About 35,000 head were shipped from Abilene in 1867, 75,000 in 1868, 150,000 in 1869, 300,000 in 1870, and 600,000 in 1871.^ Some of the cattle enumerated above were grazed and wintered on the ranges of western Kansas ready to take advantage of a favorable market. The severe winter of 1871 put a check on this movement. "This was the flood year of cattle drives from Texas, and it is estimated that 600,000 cattle arrived in western Kansas that season. Many of them were young stock cat- tle, and a large number of the steers intended for market were in thin flesh and could not be made fat that summer and fall because of excessive rains and the washy condition of the grass. The supply brought forward was greatly in excess of the demand, and in conse- quence, prices dropped. Many herds were held on the prairies un- til late autumn, waiting for buyers. It is thought that 300,000 of that season's drive had to be wintered in Kansas. As this had not lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 231. sCattle Trade of the West. J. G. McCoy. Pp. 106, 179, 225, 226. been foreseen, no preparation for it had been made."^ It was es- timated that 250,000 cattle died from exposure on the range during that winter. During the following season only about 300,000 head were driven north; but in 1873 the trade revived because of in- creased demand, and approximately 450,000 Texas cattle were driven into Kansas. Gradually the practice of taking southwestern cattle to the northern ranges of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana increased, and continued during the 70's and 8o's. In 1884 it was estimated that 415,000 head were trailed: over this route. Follow- ing that date, railroads developed more rapidly and carried a large proportion of the cattle to northern pastures, and by 1890 the old trails were abandoned. Along with better facilities for shipping live cattle came im- proved methods for transporting dressed beef and beef products. The invention of the refrigerator car in 1868 made it possible to slaughter cattle in the West and ship the dressed beef to the large eastern cities and to Europe. Thus the fresh-meat trade extended over the summer season as well as the four cold months to which it had been previously confined. This invention greatly reduced the cost of transportation besides making it possible for the packers to oper- ate thruout the entire year. For example, from Chicago to New York in 1908 the freight and other expenses of the road on an export steer of average weight (1250 pounds) varied from $4 to $4.40, while the freight on the carcass of the same animal (700 pounds) was only $3.15, not including the expense of icing. From Kansas City to New York the difference between live and dead freight was still greater, amounting possibly to $2.25 or $2.50 per head. The total cost of shipping a live steer from Chicago to Liverpool, in- cluding freight, feed, and attendance is estimated to have been $13.60 to $16.70, or considerably more than double the cost of ship- ping the average weight of fresh beef yielded by the animal.^ Fresh beef was first shipped in a refrigerator car frOm Chicago to Boston in September, 1869, but it was not until 1875 that this sys- tem became well developed. About the same time, the tin car was introduced into the meat-packing industry and it contributed still further to the successful shipment of beef products to markets in distant parts of the world. The utilization of previously wasted by-products for the manufacture of valuable products also began to receive close attention. These factors, together with the settlement and extension of the cattle-producing regions of the West, the build- ing of railroads, and the development of agriculture and industry in general, combined to mark the most important turning point in the annals of American beef production. IB. O. Cowan, Breeder's Gazette, Jan. 22, 1913, p. 193. 2U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 243. NuM:eRiCAi, Incri:as^ of Catti^e Statistics indicate that the number of cattle rapidly increased from decade to decade up to 1900, Since that time, it shows evi- dence of having declined, altho the figures obtainable for this later period are hardly comparable with those of the previous decade. These facts are illustrated by Table i. It will be observed that the number of cattle other than milch cows is approximately 60 percent of the total number of cattle. Tabi,e 1.-Catti,e on I ^ARMS AND Ranges, 1867 to 1912^ Total cattle, number Cattle other than Increase in total Year milch cows, number cattle bj decades, percent 1867 20 000 000 12 000 000 1870 25 000 000 15 000 000 25 1880 33 000 000 21 000 000 32 1890 53 000 000 37 000 000 38 19002 68 000 000 45 000 0003 28 1910 69 000 OOQi 47 000 000 2 62 000 000* 41 000 000 - 8.7 19125 58 000 000 37 000 000 lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1910, p. 630. SAbstract of the 12th Census, p. 238. 3 Estimated. ^Abstract of 13th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," p. 316. ^Statistical Abstract of U. S., 191 1, p. 155. Before passing this table, an explanation should be given for the two sets of data for 1910. The Bureau of Animal Industry es- timates the number of animals in the country on January i of each year, and in 19 10 this estimate was 69,000,000. While this number is quite accurate, it is approximate, and so is not comparable with the more carefully gathered census figures. The census report of 62,000,000 cattle, while accurate, is not comparable to previous cen- sus reports, due tO' the time of year that the data were gathered. In 1900, the census was taken June i, while in 1910 it was taken April 15 — a difference of six weeks at the season of the year when the largest numbers of farm animals are born. The inaccuracy of di- rectly comparing the 1910 census report with previous census fig- ures is shown by the following statement made in an abstract from the 19 10 census report. After estimating that from five to six million calves would have been born from April 15 to June i, 1910, and that probably one or two million of the older cattle would have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, the report continues : "Instead, therefore, of a decrease in the total number of cattle from 67,719,000 on June i, 1900, to 61,804,000 on April 15, 1910, a decrease of not more than three million, and possibly not over one million, would have resulted had the enumeration of 1910 been made as of June i." This statement indicates only a small de- crease in the actual number of cattle during the past ten years, but this decrease is significant when the present demand is taken into consideration. Ratio op Cattivi: to PopuIvATion Altho the cattle of the United States have increased numerically by decades up to the present time (with the probable exception of the last few years), their number has not kept pace with the grow- ing population during the last two ten-year periods (see Table 2). In 1890 the number of cattle was equal to 84 percent of the popula- tion, while in 1910 it was at most no higher than 75 percent, and in- dications are that the ratio is rapidly diminishing at the present time. The number of cattle as compared with population is more striking when it is considered that while the number of cattle in 1910 at best may have been on a par with the number in 1900, the popu- lation between those same years increased 21 percent and there is little tendency toward an abatement in this rate of increase. How- ever, the most recent reports indicate that the number of beef ani- mals is on an actual decrease at present. TabIvB 2.— Ratio o^ Cattle; to Popui,ation, 1870 to 1910^ Year Total cattle per capita Cattle other than milch cows, per capita 1870 1880 1890 19002 19102 .64 .66 .84 .89 .67 .39 .42 .59 .66 .45 iBased upon Abstract of the 13th Census, pp. 24, 316; U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1910, p. 630; Abstract of 12th Census, p. 32. 2Based upon Bureau of Animal Industry figures. Total cattle per capita for 1900 was .58, for 1910, .75 ; cattle other than milch cows per capita in 1900 was .36, in 1 9 10, .51. Ratio op Be^pp Production to Surplus A natural consequence of the decline in the relative number of cattle as compared with population has been a diminution in both the relative and the actual surplus of beef cattle and beef products. Comparing the annual value of cattle other than milch cows with the annual value of exports of beef cattle and beef products at ten- year intervals, we find a marked decline in the percentage value of the surplus, and it is evident from the following table that in this country the consumption of beef has practically overtaken its pro- duction. 10 Tabi,e 3. — VaIvUE of Catti^e on Farms and op Exports op Beep Catti^e and Beep, 1867 to 1912 Year Farm value of cattle other than milch cows^ Value of beef cattle and beef exports^ Percent of value exported 1867 $185 254 OOO $2 143 000 1.2 1870 290 401 000 2 693 000 .9 1880 341 761 000 31 544 000 9.2 1890 560 625 000 56 170 000 10.0 1900 689 486 000 68 407 000 9.9 1905 661 571 000 72 435 000 10.9 1908 845 938 000 55 466 000 6.6 19103 917 453 000 24 400 000 2.7 1912^ 790 064 000 14 602 000 1.8 lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 571. 2Calculated from U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. of Statistics, Bui. 75, pp. 23-29. 3U. S. Dept. of Agr,, Yearbook 191 1, p. 629. 4U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, pp. 681, 726. CaTTIvE ClvASSII'lED BY AGE AND StX In Table 4 are given the numbers and percentages of the vari- ous classes of cattle on farms and ranges in the United States, April 15, 1910, and also a comparison of the average value of the cattle of the different classes. Tabi^- 15^ mo ) 7 806 539 5 450 289 7 598 258 7 295 880 12 023 682 20 625 432 1 003 786 12.6 8.8-] 12. 3J 11.8 19.5 33.4 1.6 1 52 000 133 347 901 174 103 194 026 269 160 193 706 236 307 21 031 774 $ 6.66 26.66 14.14 Cows and heifers not kept for milk, born before 1909 22.39 Cows and heifers kept for milk, born before 1909.. 34.24 20.95 Total 61 803 866 100.0 $1 499 823 607 A V. $24. 27 1 Abstract of 13th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," pp. 313, 314. 11 Several Interesting facts are revealed by the above figures. Al- most two-thirds of the cows of breeding age are designated as dairy- cows, the remainder being kept primarily for raising beef calves. The ratio of bulls and steers to cows and heifers is i to 1.46. An explanation of the small number of calves as compared with the number of breeding coWs is given on page 8. Unfortunately, the data are such that no comparison can be made between the values of cattle of the same sex at different ages nor between the values of steers and heifers of the same age. However, a comparison can be made between the values of dairy and beef cows, the former being worth almost $12 per head more than the latter. Geographicai, Distribution of Catti^e in the United States The accompanying map shows graphically the relative import- ance of each group of states in numbers and money value in the pro- duction of cattle other than milch cows, in 19 10. In addition to the data brought out upon the map. Table 5 gives the total number and value of cattle other than milch cows for the entire United States at the time of the last census and the average value per head. In the north central states, from Ohio to Nebraska, and in the region including Oklahoma and Texas are found the greatest rela- tive numbers of cattle. However, owing to wide variation in type and quality, numbers are only a partial indication of the importance of cattle raising in the various sections ; the value per animal must also be taken into consideration. TabIvE 5. — Number and Value of Cattle other than Milch Cows IN THE United States, April 15, 1910' Section Number Average price Total value North Atlantic 2 130 000 $16.54 $35 234 000 South Atlantic 3 029 000 13.79 41 760 000 North Central west of the Mississipi. , 12 320 000 22.12 272 538 000 North Central east of the Mississipi. . 4 990 000 18.57 92 669 000 Southern and Gulf. . 10 786 000 16.28 175 574 000 Far Western 7 925 000 22.15 175 512 000 Total 41 180 000 (Av.$19.28) $793 287 000 1 Calculated from Abstract of 13th Census, "Live Stock on Farms," p. 316. 12 13 The average value of beef cattle in the Atlantic and south cen- tral states is shown to be comparatively low. Altho the north central states have only 41 percent of the cattle of the country (other than •milch cows) numerically, the aggregate value of such cattle in these states is more than 46 percent of the total value. The so-called "corn-belt" states — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas — have about one-third of the cat- tle other than milch cows in the United States, but they represent more than one-third the value of such cattle in the country. In ad- dition to the cattle regularly enumerated, upon which the preceding statement is based, we must consider the hundreds of thousands of feeding cattle that are annually brought into the corn belt to be fat- tened. Including this supply of cattle, and considering their qual- ity and value, perhaps one-half the beef-producing industry of the country is centered in the seven states mentioned. It is interesting to note that while more than two-thirds of the cattle represented on the accompanying map are west of the Missis- sippi river, more than two-thirds of the population of the United States is in states east of the Mississippi. In 1880, 78 percent of the population^ was east and more than one-half (about 55 percent) of the cattle^ west of the Mississippi. Another striking comparison is that of the manufacturing and the non-manufacturing sections of the United States. At the time of the last census, more than one-half of the population was found in less than one-seventh of the area of the country, viz., the states east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers. This portion of the country produces more than three-fourths of our manufactured products, pays more than four-fifths of all salaries and wages, and contains more than two-thirds of the assessed value of all real and personal property. It is therefore the great consum- ing area of the country; but (east of Chicago) it has less than one- eighth of the beef cattle and less than one-fifth of all cattle of the United States. In other words, seven-eighths of the beef cattle and four-fifths of all cattle are produced west and south (principally west) of the manufacturing district. Consequently, there has been an enormous movement of cattle from west to east to supply the de- mand for beef in the more densely populated sections. This has brought about the establishment of the great cattle markets at Chi- cago, the "Missouri river points" — Kansas City, St. Louis, Omaha, St. Joseph, Sioux City and South St. Paul. Dl^VDLOPMENT OF THE GrEAT CaTTEE MARKETS A study of the growth of the important market centers sheds much light on the development of the cattle-raising industry of the lAbstract of the 12th Census, pp. 32, 33. 2U. S, Dept. of Agr., Bureau of Statistics, Bui. 64, p. 57. 14 country. Comparing the annual receipts, in round numbers, at ten- year intervals since 1870, we have the summary given in Table 6. (The markets are arranged in the order of receipts for 1910.) A study of these market records shows clearly the extent to which western slaughtering has replaced the shipment of live cat- tle to eastern cities. The markets at Chicago, Missouri river points, St. Paul, Ft. Worth, and Denver have grown rapidly, while a number of eastern markets (e.g., Buffalo and Pittsburg) show a marked falling off. The recent development of the far-western markets Denver and Ft. Worth is especially noteworthy. Large markets are also being developed at Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and San Francisco which will contribute still further toward local slaughter in the Tabi^e 6 Number oif CattivB Received at Large Markets, 1870 TO 19101 Market 18702 18802 18902 19003 1910* Chicago 533 000 1 382 000 3 484 000 2 729 000 3 053 000 Kansas City. 121 0005 245 000 1 472 000 1 970 000 2 230 000 Omaha 87 000« ^ 607 000' 828 000 1 223 000' St. L/ouis ... 234 C007 8 346 0007 511 000^ 698 000* 1 207 000' Ft. Worth... 90 000 785 GOO New York. . . 683 000* 674 000* 630 000* 615 000 St. Joseph . . 28 000 7 9 380 000 510 000 St. Paul 32 0001 0 93 000 176 000 482 000 Sioux City . . 55 000^ 10 167 000' 300 000 411 000 Denver 54 000' " 114 000' 240 000 383 000 Indianapolis. 119 000^ 12 133 000'' 120 000' 140 000 309 000 Cincinnati. . . 128 000* 8 189 000* 172 000* 177 000 257 000 Buffalo 654 000 220 000 Pittsburg . . . 251 000 150 000 Baltimore . . . 163 000 142 000 Philadelphia 165 000 Jersey City. . 228 000 Boston 227 000* 168 000* 178 000* 128 000 L/Ouisville . . . 94 000* 126 000 Portland, Or. 90 000 Seattle 10 000*3 19 00013 55 000*3 Note. — Omissions in this table are due tO' the fact that statistics were not obtainable, either because a market had not been established or because no records were kept. 1 Calves not included. 2Bureau An. Indus. Rept., 1897, pp. 209-239. 3 Bureau An. Indus. Rept., 1900, pp. 569-583- ^Chicago Drover's Journal Yearbook, 191 1. Stock Yards Co. reports. 51871. 61884. ^Includes calves. 81874. "Statistical Abstract of U. S., 1910, p. 495. 10 1888. 11 1886. 121878. 13 Estimated. 15 West and thereby diminish the relative number of live cattle shipped eastward. The factors that have brought about this great move- ment, chief of which are railroad development, the refrigerator car, and the tin can, have been discussed in a preceding paragraph (page;). In order to comprehend the relative importance of the markets included in the foregoing table and the relation of each market to the cattle trade of the country, we should know, not only the num- ber of cattle received, but also the number shipped out and the proportion of stockers and feeders in the shipments. Table 7 is therefore presented to give these facts, so far as they are available, regarding the various markets. Comparing the large markets as slaughtering centers, according to the number of cattle actually utilized, as shown in the first col- umn, we find that they rank in approximately the same order as when compared on the basis of gross receipts, with a few marked exceptions. Chicago ranks first and is followed by the five Mis- souri river points, together with Ft. Worth and St. Paul, after which come Cincinnati, Denver, and Indianapolis. St. Paul shows the largest proportion of shipments to receipts. This is due to the fact that many range cattle enroute to Chicago Tabi^e 7. — Receipts at and Shipments from L^arge Markets in 1910 Market Net receipts^ Proportion of shipments to gross receipts, Stockers and feeders shipped Proportion of stockers and feeders to ship- percent ments, percent Chicag'o 1 741 000 1 286 000 43 42 406 000 ^631 000 31 Kansas City 66 St. Ivouis 897 001) 31 101 000 27 Omaha 799 000 35 432 000^ 102 Ft. Worth 529 000 33 St. Joseph 355 000 30 59 000 38 Sioux City 200 000 51 178 000 84 Cincinnati 188 000 27 Indianapolis .... St. Paul 169 000 146 000 130 000 45 70 251=000 71 Denver^ Buffalo Pittsburgh lyouisville 63 000 50 42 000* 66 New York3 Jersey City^ Baltimore 63 000 55 Boston 61 000 52 Portland, Ore 51 000 43 Seattle^ San Francisco^ . . iReceipts minus shipments. 2Includes feeders driven out. 3 Statistics not obtainable. ^Estimated. 16 are fed in transit at that market. Sioux City and Denver like- wise are feeding points for cattle enroute to northern ranges, and thus record large percentages of cattle shipped. Of the larger markets Chicago shows the greatest proportion of shipments to receipts, due to the number of feeding cattle handled and the extensive movement of fat cattle from that market to eastern cities that formerly included many export cattle. Kansas City also ships over two-fifths of the cattle it receives. In general, the proportion of shipments to receipts at the different markets varies from one-third to two-thirds. Referring to the last two columns, it is observed that Kansas City outrivals all other centers as a feeder market, both as to the actual number shipped out and the proportion of feeders to total shipments. Omaha occupies second place and is regarded by corn- belt cattlemen as a rapidly growing feeder point. The excess of feeders over total shipments at Omaha is due to the large number of feeding cattle driven out of the yards and not counted in ship- ments. As to the actual number of feeders shipped, Chicago ranks close to Omaha, altho less than one-third of the cattle shipped from Chicago are feeders. The high percentage of feeders in ship- ments from Sioux City, Denver, and St. Paul consists largely of cattle fed in transit, as explained above. The source of receipts and the destination of shipments are re- corded at the Kansas City market. In 1907, 59 percent of the cattle were consigned from Kansas, 15 percent from Oklahoma, II percent from Missouri, 6 percent from Texas, and the re- mainder principally from Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska. Of the cattle shipped in the same year, 12 percent went to Missouri (besides St. Louis), 10 percent to Kansas, 5 percent to Illinois (be- sides Chicago), 4 percent to Iowa, 15 percent to various large mar- kets, and the remainder to various other states.^ Export trade accounts for the comparatively small net receipts of some of the eastern markets whose gross receipts are large. The importance of these markets as points of export is illustrated by the figures for the year ending June 30, 1908, when the cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Portland (Maine), and Detroit, named in order of their importance, exported 299,000 cattle.^ In 1910 the export trade from these same cities was much lighter, totaling 122,000 cattle, or only 40 percent of the ex- port trade in 1908.^ LocAi, Sai^i: and S1.AUGHTER OP Cattle Altho cattle feeders are primarily interested in and affected by the large central markets, it should be borne in mind that a com- lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 234. 2U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 236. 3 Commerce and Navigation of the U. S., 1910, p. TJ^. 17 paratively laro^e number of cattle are converted into beef by local butchers, and the influence of this factor in the aggregate is consid- erable. It was estimated by the United States Bureau of Corpora- tions^ that the cattle slaughtered in 1903 were divided thus: No. of cattle slaughtered At large central markets 6,570,000 In other cities over 50,000 population 930,000 In cities and villages under 50,000 population 3,500,000 On farms and ranges 1,500,000 Total slaughtered 12,500,000 Exported alive 520,000 Total 13,020,000 Nearly 6,000,000 cattle, or about 45 percent of those marketed for slaughter (which includes those exported alive), were therefore slaughtered at points other than the large stockyard centers ; and of this number 5,000,000, or 40 percent of the total number slaughtered, were slaughtered in small cities and villages and in the country. In other words, about two-fifths of all cattle killed for beef in 1903 were handled by local butchers and farmers. The Bureau of Corporations also ascertained that about 5,500,000, or 45 percent, of the cattle killed for beef were slaughtered by six companies known as the "big packers." The Passing oe the Range A large part of the agricultural progress of the past has meant the extension of soil cultivation at the expense of the grazing in- dustry that preceded it. Home-seeking emigrants, leaving behind farms that have been devastated by poor management, have pushed forward continually toward the most fertile western graz- ing areas, absorbing or driving the cattle and sheep to new terri- tory, until now the limits of the United States have been reached. Large ranches which formerly sent train loads of fat and feed- ing cattle to the central markets and to corn-belt feeders have been completel}^ absorbed by settlers. Formerly, such a condition meant the establishment of ranches in new, unclaimed lands, but further extension of this kind is impossible. The effect of western emigration upon future beef produc- tion is a disputed question. Some regard a marked shortage of cattle as the inevitalDle result; others claim that the cultivation of new lands will ultimately increase the production of cattle in such sections. However, a gradual increase in cattle will not neces- sarily mean a greater shipment of beef animals from these regions eastward, for the meat consumption of these newer western states will increase along with the increase of population. Neither will iReport of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Beef Industry, 1905, pp. SS-S7. 18 an increase of cattle mean a larger beef production, for the dairy cow soon makes her appearance in large numbers in the thickly- populated sections. From the foregoing statements it will be seen that beef produc- tion has a very uncertain future. The free grazing lands that re- main are in an unsatisfactory condition because of indiscriminate grazing and a scramble to secure what is left of the already de- pleted ranges. No business is so full of annoying difficulties as the handling of cattle on the remaining free ranges; and it is little wonder that stockmen have grasped the opportunity to quit business as quickly as prices warranted such a change. It would seem that adequate laws have not yet been provided for the control of pub- lic range lands. The setting aside of large areas of the public domain as na- tional forest reserves, in the opinion of some men has been beneficial to the grazing industry. Thru the issuing of grazing permits and the collection of fees, the Forest Service seeks to show that "regulated grazing and fewer numbers spell more ac- tual profit than over-grazing and hungry cattle."^ In the effort to prevent over-stocking, fewer cattle are permitted on some sections of the forest reserves than those ranges are capable of carrying. The section known as the range country is included principally in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyom- ing, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, the Dakotas, and the west- ern portions of Kansas and Nebraska, as shown on the accompany- ing map. In order tO' observe the course of development of the cattle industry in different sections of the West, the following statistics are given, representing the number of cattle other than dairy cows in the various states of the range country. Tabi^e; 8. — Number op Catti^e in Various Western States, 1870 to 1910 State 1870 1890 1900 1910 Texas Oklahoma . . . New Mexico. Colorado . . . Wyoming . . . Montana Idaho Utah Arizona Dakotas 3 220 000 375 0002 365 0003 780 OOO 2 590 0002 195 0002 103 0002 145 000^ 220 0002 7 024 000 121 0001 1 341 000 1 017 000 1 096 000 933 000 382 000 384 000 725 000 740 000 8 567 000 1 544 000 975 000 1 333 000 669 000 923 000 312 000 278 000 725 000 1 808 000 7 131 000 1 637 000 901 000 1 425 000 959 OOO 842 000 340 000 327 OOO 626 000 1 957 000 Total 5 993 000 13 763 000 17 134 000 16 145 000 1I893. 21882. 31877. ijohn H. Hatton, Breeder's Gazette, Aug. 30, 1911, p. 329. 19 ^^^ Ranges Used Ckicfl) For Cottle. ^^^Rowjfcts Used Ck;*% Rr SW»«4>. lonMkS Usod Vor Both Cottle avid SHe«)>' IH^SJ^aBarrwi Desert. Fig. 3.— L/OCation of the Range Country^ Notwithstanding the fact that the above figures are partly es- timates and were made at different times of the year, they are sufficiently accurate to represent the general trend of conditions. A marked increase in cattle is shown in each state from 1870 to i8qo. This was the period that saw the establishment and growth of the big bonanza cattle ranches thruout the entire West ; when beef cattle "kings" were at the height of their prosperity. During the next decade further increases are to be noted in Texas, lU. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1908, p. 232. 20 oiet I b06l 0691 mtmmm^i^^i^^mmmtmt «B8t 006I ■■^■■■■^^^^■■■■■■■■■■■■■i O 0681 ■■H^^^HHHI^MHIHi g S , O oo«i aHH^^^^ i <=> 2 1- 0«8t a^lH^^HHBaHB g 00 «88I ^^B w oiei wmmimi^Kmmm «, ^ ooei ■■■■■■■■i z ^ 0681 ^■■^■^^^■^H S ^ Z88t ^^iHl^ " ^ . M 006t ■— — ^— — 1— — ■— ■ P ^ 88Bt HHlHBaiHMBHi^^^^HHl S Oldl 0161 eesi , 0161 0O6t ^ 0L91 mmmammm^^mu^ammammm^^^^tmB OOQOOQO 9 s 9 9 X 9 9 9 . o. o. Q. o. o o o o. o. 5 9. «. o, o. Q. 88888f§|" |S8'§|iii O O O O O O'O OAA f to IDTftOi of K «r uf ! 4 e 8 MILLIONS 0 1 I 1 4 » ( Total Cattle Other Than Miloh Cows in Corn-Belt States Summary 1. Introduction. — Seven corn-surplus states— Ohio, Indiana, Illi- nois, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska — embrace the corn belt, which is the natural center of beef production. About one-third of the cattle of the country other than milch cows are contained in the states named, and their value is equal to about two-fifths of the total value of such cattle in the United States. Page 5 2. RAPm Evolution of the Industry. — Twenty to fifty years ago, the corn belt as a whole was a combined breeding, grazing and fattening ground for beef cattle, but now it is so generally devoted to corn raising that little grazing land — consequently few breeding cattle-- remain; and a large proportion of the cattle fattened for market are purchased as feeders from the West or elsewhere. The number of cattle other than milch cows appears to be diminishing thruout the corn belt, and in some typical districts is now no greater than it was forty years ago. Page 5 3. Influence of Dairying. — StaUstics of cattle in corn-belt states indicate a proportion of milch cows amounting to about one-half of the total cattle in the eastern section, one-fourth in Kansas and Nebraska, and corresponding proportions in intervening states. Dairying has in- creased enormously as a factor in the cattle industry. The introduction of dairy cattle and indiscriminate breeding has deteriorated the quality of beef cattle, and at the same time the actual number of cattle worthy of the name of milch cows has increased but little. Relatively more steers are found in the western than in the eastern portion of the corn belt. Page 10 4. Fattening Steers. — Four-fifths to nine-tenths of the beef cattle marketed from typical corn-belt localities are cattle that have been purchased as stockers or feeders. The number of stockers and feeders shipped to the country from Chicago and Missouri river markets shows a considerable increase by decades. The fattening of cattle has passed largely from the hands of general farmers to those of profes- sional cattle feeders, and in some sections has been abandoned to a considerable extent by the latter. Among the chief factors responsible for this tendency are relatively high prices for grain compared with those for fat cattle, increase in land values, extension of cattle feeding operations in the West, increase in farm tenancy, and neglect of soil fertility. Page 12 5. The Outlook. — The undeveloped state of beef-cattle produc- tion in proportion to population and area justifies the expectation of an ultimate extension and development of cattle raising and feeding. Corn- fed beef cattle doubtless will continue in demand by a class of trade in which the grass beef of the West can not compete. The grazing lands of the West may be expected to furnish a partial supply of stockers and feeders to the corn belt for many years to come; however, an increasing proportion, and eventually a large proportion, of the cattle matured in the corn belt must be reared there. Page 15 Improved and intensified farming methods, the introduction of corn silage, alfalfa and other forage crops, the more complete utilization of waste roughage, and increased attention to manure as a means of main- taining fertility v^ill tend to render cattle production more practicable. Nevertheless, those upon whom the cattle feeder is dependent for his market must consider the increasing cost of producing cattle and pay prices commensurate therewith; the resumption and extension of beef production will come only as a result of higher relative prices for fat cattle. Page 17 Note. — This is the foui^th of a series of circulars dealing with eco- nomic factors in cattle feeding. The circulars that have been published are: No. 163, Relation of the United States to the World's Beef Supply; No. 164, Argentina as a Factor in International Beef Trade; No. 169, A Review of Beef Production in the United States. The next circular in the series will treat of cattle feeding in its relation to farm management and soil fertility. CATTLE FEEDING CONDITIONS IN THE CORN BELT By Herbert W. Mumford, Chief in Animal Husbandry, and Louis D. Hall, Assistant Chief in Animal Husbandry Seven "corn-surplus states" — Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska — embrace the great corn-pro- ducing area and constitute the natural center of beef production in the United States. As shown in Circular No. 169, about one- third of the cattle of the country other than milch cows are con- (ained in the states mentioned, and their value is equal to about Iwo-fifths of the total value of such cattle in the United States. I^'urthermore, large numbers of cattle are shipped into these states to be: fattened and forwarded to market, and are not included in \he estimates of annual cattle population. Corn-fed cattle are the distinctive feature of the cattle industry of the United States, and this circular deals primarily with problems and methods of cattle feeding in the corn belt. It is therefore proper to consider some- what fully the trend of general conditions surrounding the indus- try in that section and the fundamental economic factors that' affect it. Rapid Evolution op the Cattle Feeding Industry During the period of settlement and the earlier years of cul- tivation of corn-belt lands — a period extending from the fifties to the nineties inclusive, of the last century, — these lands gen- erally were stocked with cows of beef type ; and while the coun- try was being brought into cultivation, they became a combined breeding, grazing, and fattening ground for cattle. Such local- ities were admirably suited to beef production because of the abundance of cheap grass and cheap corn they afforded. A most vivid and concise illustration of cattle-feeding conditions and methods in Illinois about 1880 is contained in the following statement quoted from one of the most widely known stockmen of that day, Mr. John D. Gillette:^ 1 Feeds and Feeding, W. A. Henry, 1st ed., p. 389. 6 Cost of Steer Twelve Months Old •Value of calf at birth $3.00 Expenses of dam of calf, chargeable to calf for one year as follows : 8 percent interest on $50, value of cow 4.00 Keep of yearling and feed of cow 12 months 12.25 Insurance on cow 1.00 Risk of failure of cow to breed 1.75 Loss of calves by death, etc 1.00 No corn fed up to 12 months. Value of pasture and keep up to 12 months 6.00 Total 29.00 Weight of calf at 12 months, 700 pounds, at 5 cents 35.00 Profit at 12 months of age 6.00 Cost From Twelve to Twenty-four Months of Age Value of steer at 12 months of age 35.00 Value of shock corn, 110 bushels, at 35 cents 38.50 Pasture 12 to 24 months 3.00 Interest and risk 2.80 Total 79.30 Less 500 pounds of pork made on droppings of steer, at 5 cents. . 25.00 Net cost 12 to 24 months. . 54.30 Weight of steer at 24 months, 1,600 pounds, at 6V2 cents , 104.00 Profit at 24 months of age 49.70 Cost From Twenty-four to Thirty- six Months of Age Value of steer at 24 months of age 104.00 Value of shock corn consumed in entire year, 125 bu., at 35 cents. 43.75 Pasture, May 1 to Nov. 1 4.00 Interest and risk 8.32 Total 160.07 Less 500 pounds pork at 5 cents, made on droppings of steer. . . . 25.00 Cost at 36 months of age. . 135.07 Weight at 36 months of age, 2,200 pounds, at 7 cents 154.00 Profit at 36 months of age 18.93 As the remarkable corn-growing possibilities of the soil and climate in the corn belt became more and more evident and the demand for corn grew greater, the westward movement of agri- culture naturally stimulated the growing of corn and, to a cor- responding degree, diminished the area of grazing land. Grad- ually, but surely, the plow drove out the cow until in the heart of the corn country but few females of the beef type remained. For thirty years or more in some such sections, it has been a proverb that "it does not pay to keep a cow a year for the chance of a calf." At the same time that conditions within the corn belt were tending to reduce the rearing of beef cattle there, the industry was extending on the great breeding ground of the Southwest and the grazing lands of the West (see Circular No. 169). Thus an increasing supply of cheap stockers and feeders from the range was a further large factor in causing the abandonment of cattle raising by many farmers, who reasoned — and logically so — that calves coiild be produced and grown more econom- ically on the cheap grass lands of the West than on corn-belt farms. Moreover, the attractive opportunities which the range country offered the cattleman induced many live-stock farmers of the Mississippi valley to migrate west, thus diminishing still further the proportion of cattle feeders to grain growers in the central states. The extent to which this change in conditions has affected beef production is indicated somewhat accurately by the results of inquiries that have been made on an extensive scale among cattle feeders of Illinois and Indiana. In 1902 this experiment station secured reports of methods used by 509 cattle feeders in Illinois, and found that only 12 percent raised their entire supply of feeding cattle.^ It was estimated that only about 15 percent of the native steers marketed in Chicago from Illinois were carried from birth to maturity without changing hands. ^ The Indiana Experiment Station in 1906 investigated the methods of 929 cattle feeders in Indiana, and reported that "only 6 percent are really beef producers, that is, breeding their own 1 111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 88, p. 1. 2 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 79, p. 6. N r^ ^^^ / i o / f^ 1 V tf> ( 5 < f M (A 1 1 GO 2 5 u 1:3 u u " J2 OOO OO " oo 8.1.8.8. SSetS ? I 2 O t*0 H *-^ • • « ta I ^-M^-^*,- O 0 000 3 040 000 942 000 744 000 1 '-I91 000 2 919 000 1 671 000 2 202 000 2 225 000 885 000 707 000 1 266 000 2 773 000 1 50'. 000 1 87 2 (100 2 002 000 814 000 686 000 1 228 000 2 607 000 1 444 000 1 778 000 1 902 000 Tola!... 4 722 000 11 503 000 16 048 000 12.094 000 11 009 000 10 459 000 1 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Bur. An. Indus., Ann. Rept. 1897, pp. 267-289. 2 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 572. 3 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yeajbook 1911, p. 630. . 4 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, p. 682. 1 Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 12, p. 11. 10 Influence op Dairying The remarkable growth of large and small cities thruout this fertile section resulted in a corresponding demand for milk and butter. This could be met only by the establishment of dairy farms within comparatively short distances from the cities and an increased production of dairy products on general farms; whereas the supply of beef could readily be secured from greater distances, especially in view of the increasing beef pro- duction of the range country at this time. Table 2 shows the actual number of milch cows and also the proportion of milch cows to total cattle in the corn-belt states by twenty-year periods since 1870, including 1913. Table 2. — Number of Milch Cows in the Corn-Belt States ! 1870' 1890' 19102 19133 '^i;^ '°^^ 07^ i^ 0--^ States Number Pet. tot calt Number Pet. tot eatt Number Pet. tot eatt Number Pet tot eat! Ohio 734 000 -'iB 783 000 46 947 000 49 869 000 52 Indiana... 435 000 37 608 000 36 687 000 40 634 000 48 Illinois. . . f^83 000 36 1 094 000 38 1 232 000 38 1 007 000 45 Iowa.. .. 465 000 36 1 279 000 32 1 570^000 30 1 337 000 34 Missouri.. 371 000 34 813 000 .31 925 000 30 789 000 35 Kansas. . . 162 00(1 32 1 758 000 28 737 000 18 698 000 28 Nebraska. 35 000 39 1 424 000 24 879 000 22 607 000 24 1 U. S. Dept of Agr., Bur. An. Indus., Ann. Rept. 1897, pp. 267-289. 2 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1909, p. 572. 3 U. S. Dept. of Agr., Yearbook 1912, p. 682. Passing from the eastern to the western states of the corn belt, the percentages in the right-hand column show a remark- ably uniform decrease in the proportion of milch cows. Approx- imately one-half of the cattle of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are classified as milch cows, while only about one-fourth of those of Kansas and Nebraska are so classified. As in the case of beef cattle, the increase in the number of milch cows has been much less marked during the last twenty years than in the previous period, owing to the less pronounced changes in population and industrial development. The slight increase in the proportion of milch cows to the total number of cattle in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois during forty years does not 11 . adequately represent the increased importance of dairying as a factor in the cattle industry, nor the extent to which the dairy type predominates in the cattle stock of the states mentioned. It is a result of the extension of general farming and the neglect of systematic beef-cattle breeding, together with a great tendency on the part of the average farmer to cross-breed cattle of the beef and dairy types, thereby deteriorating the quality of both. In this way the relative number of animals worthy of the name of milch cows has been limited, and at the same time in most corn-belt localities, the production of steers suitable for the feed lot has very nearly approached the vanishing point. The marked decrease in the proportion of milch cows to the total number of cattle in the four states west of Illinois, in spite of a large increase in their actual numbers, is explained by the general movement of range cattle into those states from the Southwest and West. It is likely with increased population and the adoption of intensive systems of agriculture, the proportion of milch cows will approach more nearly that of the states farther east. Further light may be thrown on the types and classes of cattle kept on corn-belt farms by summarizing the returns of the United States Census relating to age and sex of cattle. Figures from the Twelfth Census are presented because of the more minute classification it affords in this particular. Table 3. — Relative Proportion of Various Classes op Cattle in the Corn -Belt States in 1900^ States Ohio Indiana . . Illinois . . Iowa . . . Missouri . Kansas . . . Nebraska V3 s_ c^ D CD rf 3§i" -/} rt Sh 3; c« > nerct. perct. perct. perct, 10.6 H.9 11.4 13.5 12.7 12.4 12.5 6.9 8.3 9.5 11.2 12.0 11.7 9.9 1.4 2.1 3.7 3.2 5.2 9.5 3.9 w =^ 53 — L. > 3 rt o CO 73 ^ CO S O t- > C CS Q O CO 03 O C-r 03 f_^ 03 ' ---J CD O perct. perct. perct.^ perct. perct. 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 l.i 1.4 1.6 10.4 10.7 10.4 10.9 10.3 9.9 10.8 41.0 35.2 33.1 27.2 26.6 15.7 16.7 4.: 5.1 7.2 8.5 10.7 18.9 21.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Average 22.7 12.4 110.4 4.6 1.6 10.5 26.1 11.7 1 100 1 Calculated from Abstract of Twelfth Census, 1900, pp. 238, 240, 246, 247. 12 The smaller proportion of milch cows in the more westerly states, as previously shown, is here verified, and a correspond- ingly larger proportion of other cows is noted. Relatively more steers are found in the western portion of the corn belt, and the difference is more marked in the case of the. older than in that of the younger steers, thus showing the natural tendency to keep cattle longer in those sections of the country where pasture lands are both cheaper and more abundant. With respect to the proportion of calves under one year, heifers under two years, and bulls, the data show no striking differences; and likewise, with regard to the proportion of bulls to cows and the proportion of calves to cows, the various sections of the corn belt appear comparatively similar. Table 4 gives available data from the Thirteenth Census. While these data are not in all respects comparable with similar data from the Twelfth Census, they show the same general ten- dencies. Table 4. — Relative Proportions of Various Classes of Cattle in THE Corn-Belt States in 1910^ States Calves Steers and bulls Year- ling heii'crs Dairy cows Other COW.s Unclas- sified animals Total Ohio Indiana Illinois Iowa, Missou'^i . . . Kansas^ Nebraska^. . . perct. 13.9 13.5 13.3 12.8 11.6 12.4 12.5 perct. 16.3 16.9 19.5 29.1 31.0 34.1 30.0 perct. 12.8 13.3 12.6 12.7 12.0 10.9 12.4 perct. 49.3 46.5 43.0 31.6 33.4 23.9 21.0 perct. 7.7 9.8 11.6 13.8 12.0 18 1 24.0 P erct: O.C) 0.1 perct. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Average.. . 12.8 1 26.9 12.3 33 2 14.7 0.1 100. 1 Calculated from Abstract of Thirteenth Census, 1910, pp. 316, 317. 2 Includes unclassified animals. Fattening Steers in the Corn Belt Notwithstanding the rapid extension of the acreage devoted to corn growing, and the great demand that has arisen for corn for other than feeding ourpcses, the crop is still fed chiefly to farm animals. As nearly as can be estimated, 80 percent of the crrn produced in the United States is fed to live stock. ^ It is, of 'III. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. No. 140, p. 9. 13 course, more largely sold off the farms of the corn-belt states than those of other sections of the country, but probably not far from one-half of the crop of Illinois is fed on the farm/ A temporary curtailment of one branch or another of the live-stock industry, especially cattle and hog feeding, is so promptly reflected in a reduced corn market that stock feeding is quickly resumed to a greater or less extent, tho with increasing reluctance and mis- givings. This applies especially to fattening cattle, as this branch of live-stock production offers the most immediate and ready means of disposing of large quantities of corn, and at the same time utilizes much otherwise wasted roughage, such as stalk fields, corn stover, and straw. That beef production in the corn belt has become largely a steer-fattening enterprise apart from breeding is clearly demon- strated by the investigations of the Illinois and Indiana Experi- ment Stations quoted in a preceding paragraph. In Illinois it was found that in 1902 more than one-half of the cattlemen from whom reports were obtained were feeders who purchased the cattle they finished for market ; in addition, more than one-third were both feeders and breeders, but even the latter purchased most of their feeding cattle.- About 85 percent of the native beef steers marketed in Chicago were fattened after having been pur- chased as stockers and feeders.'^ In Indiana in 1906, 929 reports were received from cattlemen in that state, of whom 42 percent were found to purchase all their feeding cattle and 52 percent grew only a part of them and bought the remainder.* The extent and tendency of this important phase of the in- dustry are also shown in a measure by the shipments of stockers and feeders from the large cattle markets during recent decades (see Table 5). In the evolution, or transition, of corn-belt beef production from a cattle-raising to a steer-feeding proposition with a large proportion of the feeders purchased at the large markets, the business, to a considerable extent, has gravitated into the hands of men who handle comparatively large numbers of cattle — from a few carloads to several hundred head. Tho these professional cattle feeders in most cases are farmers, they usually buy all '111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. HO, p. 8. 2111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 88, p. 1. 3111. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 79. p. 6. nnd. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. No. 12. p. 12. 14 Table 5. — Shipments ofStockers and Feeders from Various Markets^ Markets 1880 1890 1900 1910 1913 Chicago^ 300 000 724 000^ 294 000 75 0008 51 0009 114 000 176 000^ 406 000 631 000 431 000 102 000 60 000 251 000 178 000 380 000 914 000 405 000 Kansas City.. Omaha* 136 0003 647 0003 266 000« St. Louis^.. St. Joseph^... . 159 000 67 000 St. PauF 130 00010 262 000 220 000 Sioux City-. . ■ Indianapolis". LiOuisviile^ . . . 42 000 Ft. Worth^2. _ 493 000 Denver" Buffalo" 1 1 From reports of Stock Yards Companies. 2 Statistics for 1880 and 1890 not obtainable. 3 Estimated. 4 1905. statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 5 Statistics for 1880 not obtainable. 6 1897. statistics for 1890 not obtainable. 7 Statistics for 1880, 1890, and 1900 not obtainable. 8 1908. statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 9 1901. statistics for 1900 not obtainable. 10 1898. statistics for 1890 not obtainable. 11 Cattle shipments not classified as to stockers and feeders. 12 Statistics for 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1910 not obtainable. their feeding cattle and a large part of the corn they feed, use but little of the manure produced, and freely admit the large element of speculation incurred. The capital, risk, business skill, and distance from markets involved in cattle feeding necessarily deter many farmers from converting their corn into beef. The proper place and purpose of beef production in the corn belt, however, is to provide a profitable market for the crops grovi^n on the farm and at the same time conserve the fertility of the soil. These con- siderations are of greater consequence to the small farmer than to the "big feeder." It is therefore essential to the v^^elfare of agri- culture that the business should be distributed more generally among farms of average size instead of being concentrated in the hands of a fev^^ farmers and capitalists v^hose farms, as well as their fortunes, are frequently enriched at the expense of the neighbors whose corn they buy. With a reasonable degree of skill in buying, feeding, and marketing, it is ordinarily safe and usually profitable for the general farmer to engage in the fatten- ing of steers. In some sections of the corn belt, cattle feeding has not only 15 passed largely from the hands of general farmers to the large feeders, but has also been abandoned to a considerable extent by the latter. This tendency may be assigned to several causes: (1) Prices of grain have been relatively higher than those of cattle, and inducements to sell corn for cash at the elevator in- stead of feeding have therefore been strong. (2) Land has increased rapidly in value, and it is a prevalent idea that high- priced land prohibits profitable cattle feeding. As a matter of fact, the actual influence of this factor is usually insignificant as compared v^ith prices of corn and cattle in determining the profit in feeding cattle. Increased value of farm lands has made it pos- sible for many cattlemen to retire or to relinquish active manage- ment of their farms to others less competent to engage profitably in the business. (3) Opportunities for cattle feeding in vari- ous portions of the West have attracted many successful cattle feeders from the older sections of the corn belt. The opportun- ities for exclusive grain growling in these newer regions have not been equally attractive; hence there has been a tendency for a large exodus of live-stock producers, while the grain growers more generally have remained. (4) The farms in many of the older, more prosperous communities have become occupied largely by tenants. The prevailing system of short-term leases and a lack of experience in feeding cattle on the part of tenants have resulted in a marked decrease not only in cattle feeding but in the production of live stock of all kinds. (5) The apparent continuation of satisfactory crop yields in a large part of the corn belt has resulted in a failure to appreciate the value and necessity of manure. This fact has blinded most farmers to an important factor in cattle feeding. (6) The fact that cattle, ready for the feed lot, could be produced cheaper in the West than in the corn belt has caused the general farmer, who pro- duced his own feeders and did not use enough cattle to pay to buy them from the western country, to go out of the live-stock busi- ness. That is, at the prevailing prices he could not compete in the production of beef with the "big feeder," who was able to place his cattle in the feed lot at a lower cost than they could be produced in the corn belt. The Outlook In the light of conditions set forth in this and foregoing cir- culars, a few general deductions may safely be drawn relative to 16 the probable future trend of beef production in the corn-growing section of the United States. The undeveloped state of cattle production in proportion to the population and the area of the United States as compared with the condition of the industry in older countries justifies the expectation of an ultimate extension and development of cattle raising and feeding in this country. Tht rapid increase of pop- ulation and the slower rate of increase in the number of cattle have rendered the export beef trade a relatively insignificant fac- tor; but with a large domestic demand in proportion to the supply, and limited competition from abroad, the industry should be practically independent of foreign trade. General market con- ditions are now and promise to remain favorable to the producer, for he has a domestic market as a regular outlet and a foreign market as an influential regulator of prices and as an elastic con- sumer of surplus. The "passing of the range" has not diminished the number of western cattle entering the markets, but the growing popula- tion of the West and, consequently, the increased amount of beef slaughtered and consumed in that section have reduced the rela- tive importance of western cattle as a factor in corn-belt markets. Further, corn-fed beef cattle, which can be properly and profit- ably finished only within a limited section of the country, doubt- less will continue in demand by a class of trade in which the cheaper grass beef of the West cannot compete. Notwithstanding the general subdivision of western ranges and ranches by settlers, the fact that large areas of the West and Southwest are adapted only to grazing indicates that these sec- tions will continue to produce a considerable number of feeding cattle. As Ireland with her abundance of grass has grown "store" or feeding cattle for the farmers of England and Scot- land for many years and continues to do so, similarly the grass lands of our great West and South may reasonably be expected to supply stockers and feeders to large markets of the corn belt for many years to come. An increasing proportion, and eventually a large proportion, of the cattle matured in the corn belt, however, must be reared there; because, as explained in Circular 164, the quality of west- ern cattle will be adversely affected by an increased proportion of 17 cattle of the dairy type, and at the same time the development of agriculture will facilitate the finishing of a larger proportion of feeding cattle on western farms. Certain sections of the corn belt, and some farms in all sections, are partially or wholly un- suited to grain growing, and these lands, in many instances, may be most profitably used for grazing purposes. \Mth the development of more intensive farming methods, the introduction of corn silage, alfalfa, and forage crops in gen- eral will tend to render both cattle raising and feeding more prac- ticable and profitable. Also, regardless of the price of land or of grain, a considerable amount of roughage and aftermath remains to be either fed or wasted on every farm, and this factor will con- tribute largely toward maintaining beef production in the corn belt. Eventually, manure will be regarded more highly by corn growers in the Middle West than it is now. Long continued crop- ping without adequate rotation and fertilization will ultimately compel such attention to manure as it now receives from cattle feeders, not only in Great Britain and Continental Europe, but also in certain parts of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Cattle feeding will be found to be one of the most convenient and satis- factory means of obtaining this valuable fertilizer. This factor is of sufficient importance to be treated at some length in a sub- sequent circular. Over against what has been said in the foregoing paragraphs, it must also be clearly understood that a remunerative and rea- sonably stable market will be indispensable to the further development of the beef-cattle industry. Farming in gen- eral, and stock raising in particular, must henceforth be recog- nized as a capitalized business, the products of which must sell above the cost of production in order to render the enterprise profitable. Those upon whom the cattle feeder is dependent for his returns must consider the increasing cost of producing cattle un- der present and future conditions, and pay prices commensurate therewith. Unfortunately, the cattle feeder frequently has been compelled to accept very inadequate returns, and seldom has his profit been in full proportion to his outlay if all elements of cost be figured at their just value. ^"The important fact connected with the cattle-raising in- dustry is a marked shortage, the extent and far reaching effects IS of which the public has by no means fully realized. The con- suming public have complained of the high cost of meats. At times they have accused producers of securing too great profits from the business. There should be no mistake or misunderstand- ing. The present shortage is due primarily to the fact that farmers have found meat production, and primarily beef production, less profitable than other agricultural enterprises. Over-production and cheap meat, while possible, are extremely remote. An increased supply will come, not as a result of lower prices, but only as a result of higher prices. Consumers generally do not appreciate the fact that for a generation or more they have been able to buy meat products at a price which does not cover the cost of production under present-day conditions. It is obvious that the conditions which have brought about the increased cost of meat products will continue to operate even in greater force in the future than in the past. "The public will ultimately come to understand that the pro- ducer must receive more rather than less for his product if an ample supply of meat is to be assured. In the past the price of cattle has been based, so far as it has been based upon anything, upon free or cheap range, cheap land and labor, and cheap corn. Even the cattle feeder of the corn belt has been guilty at times of relying for his profit upon sharp practice in buying feeding cattle for less than the cost of production when the producer, thru drouth or misfortune or possibly a lack of knowledge, has been forced to sell. Few, if any, of these conditions surround the industry today. "All will readily agree that the producer is entitled to a mod- est profit in cattle production. No business which depends upon sharp practice, or upon depriving some necessary factor in the trade from its just proportion of the profits of the industry can long survive. It may well be asked. What is a modest profit? In the past, with rapidly changing conditions, it has been next to impossible to answer this question. Conditions are now likely to be more stable; that is, changes will be less frequent and less radical. A business-like beef production which extends over such a vast area of country where conditions surrounding it are so variable naturally presents a most difficult problem. One thing, however, is certain, and that is that if there is any con- 1 Extract fiom an address by Professor Mumford before the Illinois State Farmers' Institute at Galesburg, February 18, 1914. 19 siderable increase in the production of beef cattle in the United States, it will come from the establishment of small herds on many farms rather than of large herds on extensive areas. This means, if it means anything, that the price will be fixed by the cost of producing cattle on improved farms, so that ultimately the producer will be by far the most important factor in fixing the price of beef. This does not mean that producers will be per- mitted to fix a price altogether out of proportion with the cost of production, but one entirely consistent with it. "Obviously, beef will be most extensively produced where conditions favor its economical production. Can it be denied that any considerable area in this or in any other country offers more favorable conditions for beef production than the corn belt? If not, then the corn belt holds the key to the solution of the cattle situation. Conditions surrounding the industry and the cost of producing beef cattle in the corn belt, therefore, will likely be a large factor in determining the answer to the question of a price basis which will represent the cost of production and a modest profit. Fortunately, nowhere in the country has the cost of production been more carefully worked out or more accu- rately determined. The largest and most advantageous use of these data is one of the problems of the corn-belt cattlemen. "No price basis can prevail which does not represent the greatest use of the best methods in cattle production. The cattle raiser who does not and will not avail himself of the most eco- nomical practice must be content to accept lessened or, in many instances, no profits. This means that ultimately he must change his ways or go out of business. "The resumption of cattle raising on many of the smaller corn-belt farms will present problems of marketing which will need adjustment. The producer of less than a carload is now distinctly handicapped, and yet it has just been predicted that the bulk of the cattle in the future will be produced by men who have considerably less than a carload of cattle ready for market at any one time during the year. There will need to be developed, there- fore, some method of marketing which gives to the smaller oper- ator substantially the same advantages enjoyed by the larger operators." r-WiS'a