This indicates the progressive tendency of the country and the great improvements that have been wrought in the cattle. As late as 1894 2,000,000 were killed in the saladaros or beef-salting factories of Argentina; in 1901 only 403,000, and in 1907 about 270,000. It is true that much of the saladaro in dustry has been transferred to Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. However about one and one-half million cattle represent the entire number of cattle slaughtered in these establishments in the countries named. While the number of beef cattle in Argentina, the most prosperous Latin Republic, does not seem to be increasing, improvement in quality has kept pace with the extension of the area under cultivation.

I will skip a part of this article in order to save time.

The climate makes it possible for the entire life of cattle to be spent out of doors without shelter and without shade of any kind. The feasibility of a very large acreage for the growth of alfalfa and other nutritious grasses and legumes, together with cheap land and labor, make it possible to produce beef cheaply. To anyone unacquainted with the possibilities of the country the degree of fatness which cattle acquire on grass or alfalfa alone is a marvel.

I will stop at this point to say that I have talked to men who have seen those cattle, and they say from the point of fatness they are the finest cattle they have ever seen, and the pictures in this book indicate the quality.

A statement of the distribution of cattle throughout 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, as, for example, in the Province of Buenos Aires and other favored sections of the country where cattle may be kept, for agriculture is more profitable. I am not going to take your time too much in detail, but I will point out a few instances.

The Provinces of Buenos Aires, Corrientes, Entre Rios, Santa Fe, and Cordova are at present the leading cattle sections. These five Provinces contain upward of 80 per cent of the cattle in the Argentine Republic. Their cattle ranches are large, those of from 12.500 to 25,000 acres in extent being common, while those of 200,000 acres are not unknown. Alfalfa, which grows luxuriantly over a large part of the Argentine is yearly becoming more and more the cattle raisers mainstay. The 9,000,000 acres devoted to this crop by no means represents the extent of its probable use, as its gross is rapidly increasing. Alfalfa is pastured with cattle, sheep, horses, and hogs. As a rule, only the surplus is cut and stacked for hay. If the entire crop is left for hay it can usually be cut five times and will yield 5 tons or more for the season. Ranches well set in alfalfa and intelligently handled will graze 4,000 cattle, 1,000 sheep, and 100 horses to the league of 6,672 acres. Alfalfa is by no means a new crop and, notwithstanding the rapid extension of its growth, its wealth-producing possibilities are not yet fully appreciated by our southern neighbors, else its culture in Argentina, where possible, would be universal.

I want to make one statement. To emphasize the importance of this crop to the Argentine beef producer, a single instance will suffice. A progressive Englishman assumed the management of an estancia of some 140,000 acres in extent. That was 13 years ago. At that time the pastures were simply of the native grasses. As the estancia was owned by a stock company, it was divided and subdivided and parts of it were sold until to-day but 55,000 acres remain. This is all well set in as fine alfalfa as it has ever been my privilege to see. This 55,000 acres support as many cattle and sheep as the original 140,000 acres before the adoption of alfalfa.

Much more is to be said, but I will hand my type written manuscript to the stenographer to be inserted instead of what I am stating. I submit, in this connection, a statement of the weekly prices per head of cattle at Buenos Aires, which was furnished by the Department of Agriculture. I will not stop to read that, as I have given you the range of prices as from $23 to $30. I will assume in my statement that these cattle will average with 1,000 and 1,200 cattle sold

ing Chicago. I am pretty certain they will average very much more, and if this committe might desire to know that they may have it more explicitly by sending for the representatives of the Agricultural Department, who have been down to examine into this matter, including Mr. Rommel or Mr. Mumford, from whose address I last read.

Average weekly price per head for native (criollas) fat steers at Buenos Aires, 1899-1911.1

2 Prior to July 1, 1904, the exact dates to which these prices refer are not given in the Review of the River Plata, but an effort has been made in this table to quote prices for the first business week of each month named:

Referring now to our competitors in the meat supply. By reference to page 43, table 13 of Bulletin 55, which I first read when I began my statement, it will be observed that the estimated world supply of meat animals was as follows; I will read round figures:

Cattle, 425,000,000 head, of which the United States had 17.5 per cent; goats, 91,000,000 head, of which the United States had 2.2 per cent; sheep, 609,000,000 head, of which the United States had 8.8 per cent; swine, 141,000,000, of which the United States had 4.1 per cent.

This table shows that the number of meat animals in the United States is as follows: Cattle, inclusive of milch cows, 74,000,000 head; goats, 1,948,000 head; sheep, 53,471,000 head; and swine, 56,612,000 head.

Practically all American countries produce a surplus, which the European countries, as well as the Orient, consume. We are chiefly concerned at present with the question as to whether the country can afford to open the markets of the United States to the free importation of meats and live animals from those countries which produce a surplus. As strange as it may seem, I have been told that on the free importation into this country China will take our trade in pork. I do not know anything about it. I do not profess to be informed, and I am not here to represent the hog business, but it was a surprising statement. But it is worth while to consider this before we open this country as a cheap market to dump stuff into, to become the place to market what we produce.

Senator WILLIAMS. It looks to me as if there is nothing we could produce in free competition with the balance of the world.

Mr. COWAN. I would not want to make a statement with reference to so broad a suggestion as that, but later on I-and if, in answer to your suggestion, my opinion would be worth anything, I would say that we have reached the point, Senator, of paying so much for our labor, and our land has become so valuable where we have absorbed and destroyed the natural resources of this country to reduce the earning power of men who cultivate the land; where we have brought the families of the farmers up until they wear good clothes and wear no longer knit galluses, who ride in a buggy, or have an automobile, a good house, books, and schools and churches, and pay for all these things. We can not sell our goods in competition with people who live on a lower plane and who get lower wages than do the citizens of this country.

Senator WILLIAMS. The manufacturers say they can not live in competition, the miners say they can not live in competition, the farmers say they can not live in competition, and if that is so we have got a right poor country.

Mr. CowAN. No, sir; we have the richest country in the world, because so far as farming products are concerned we are making what we consume, and every dollar of it should be left at home; and every dollar we send to South America and to Canada, and to Mexico, to buy meat, impoverishes this country and puts that money there in circulation and takes it from our stock of money in this country.

Senator WILLIAMS. Is not Texas raising more pounds of beef to the acre than it was some time ago, owing to the improved quality of the beef cattle and the improved methods of taking care of them? Mr. COWAN. There are no statistics that would enable anyone to answer that question, but with great respect, and of course I have known you so long, Senator

Senator WILLIAMS. I am not expressing any opinion, however. Mr. COWAN. I mean every answer, however enthusiastic, in the most respectful way. Going back 25 years ago, I will say we began then to rent the public lands of Texas and to fence it. We had begun it before, but drawing a line along the eastern boundary of New Mexico and to the Rio Grande, I do not believe there were many pastures west of that line at that time. A large part of the country lying east of that line was not in pasture, particularly south of the Texas & Pacific Railroad. The country was not occupied, so we could not estimate our production to grow in the State, for the reason that the acreage was not used for the purpose of producing the largest amount, or what might have been produced, but a man would locate at a water hole and spring, and graze a country for 50 miles around, not having one-fourth as many cattle as he could have raised. Senator WILLIAMS. Take around Dallas and Fort Worth.

Mr. COWAN. We produce a great many more and a great many better cattle.

Senator WILLIAMS. And don't you really raise more wheat to the acre in the wheat part of Texas than you did, say, 10 years ago?

Mr. COWAN. Our wheat production in Texas, Senator, has gone from 30 bushels to the acre in a good crop 20 years ago until we rarely get over 15 bushels, so far as my acquaintance with wheat goes. I believe Senator Bailey will bear me out in this.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is due to the spread over the poorer land. Mr. COWAN. It is all deep, black land, and it is not due to the poorer quality of the land.

Senator BAILEY. What is true of our land is true of the land in every State.

Mr. CowAN. Of all the black wheat land of Texas.

Senator BAILEY. It is true of every State in the Union where wheat is produced, North Carolina being the only State I know of where the production of wheat will show an increase production per acre on old land.

Senator WILLIAMS. I do not want to testify myself, but in answer to that I think you will find on the older lands, where intensive farming is practiced, that the product per acre of corn and wheat and oats has gone up. Of course, when you come to take the entire acreage of the entire United States it has gone down.

Senator BAILEY. Senator Williams, you are mistaken about that as to Texas.

Senator WILLIAMS. I do not know whether intensive farming was practiced around Dallas or not.

Senator BAILEY. The average production of wheat per acre in north Texas will show a diminution of 20 per cent on the same land; the greatest wheat-producing county in our State, which is now Denton, will show a diminished production to the acre now as compared with 20 years ago. We have never found a restorer, nor have they done so in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, but they have in North Carolina. I have seen reports from that State that show increased production per acre.

Senator SIMMONS. It is due to a tendency toward more intensive cultivation in our State.

Senator WILLIAMS. Three boys in my county last year made over a hundred bushels of corn to the acre in a county which averages about 20 bushels.

Senator BAILEY. Undoubtedly; and it cost almost as much to make it as it was worth. In South Carolina there was once produced 255 bushels of corn to the acre, but they had the ground in the condition of a garden, and they cultivated it like a garden.

Senator STONE. When?

Senator BAILEY. Within the last 25 years.

Senator SIMMONS. Near the capital a man of my State raised about 250 bushels to the acre, but there was no profit in it, since an immense quantity of fertilizer was put on it.

Senator SMOOT. And it was perhaps the richest piece of ground in your State?

Senator SIMMONS. No; but they made it intensely rich with fertilizer.

Senator McCUMBER. We can make our lands better in the Dakotas if we cultivate more carefully, but the cost of cultivation at the present prices of the product is so great that there would be no gain.

Senator BAILEY. In South Carolina they had made preparations to irrigate, but it happened that the season was so favorable that they did not need to do it. I beg your pardon for my interruption.

Mr. COWAN. I have a few more remarks. I do not object to being interrupted. The only point I was trying to accomplish was to present this consecutively as well as I could, and your statements only emphasized the point I was trying to make.

Answering further with respect to the conditions in Texas, Senator Williams, take Denton County as an example of the best wheat county in Texas. I came to Denton County myself and went to farming and taught school in the winter time to pay myself out of debt, and I am an experienced farmer, because of my experience with the hoe; and my father lived in Denton County until he died last fall, and I have been perfectly well acquainted with it during the entire period of 30 years. My brother-in-law has 700 acres in wheat land just west of Denton, and I have knowledge of that country, and I am making no mistakes when I tell you-and you may rely upon it-that the average production of Denton County in wheat, if we measure it by the average of the last 5 years with the period of 25 years ago, is more than one-third less, I was about to say, but I would be safe in saying one-half at this time.

Senator KERN. And the yield is steadily decreasing.

Mr. COWAN. I would not say that that is the case during the past 10 years, but it is-I believe that that is the case. We have had two years now of hard drought, and of course this has interfered to some extent, but my opinion is that it is a steady, continuous decrease, and to-day I believe that Texas would be better off if we did not try to raise wheat at all, at present prices. That is the opinion of nearly everybody who owns land around Roanoke, and that is one of the best places to raise wheat.

Senator KERN. What is the name?

Mr. COWAN. Roanoke, which is 20 miles north of Fort Worth on the "Katy," but the difficulty of getting labor for raising cotton is so great that men have to utilize their farms for wheat when they would make a great deal more money out of cotton.