PARAGRAPH 225-CATTLE.

Average weekly price per head for native (criollas) fat steers at Buenos Aires, 1899-1912Continued.

All animals are raised, and if not raised by the feeder they are purchased at the central market and not generally bought directly from the range, so that the farmer becomes equally interested with respect to the price of the finished product with the growers and feeders, so called, from whom he purchases.

As is well known, the price of cattle for the past two years has been good, and has afforded a reasonable profit to the producer. But there is no chance whatsoever for the producer to have encouragement to continue production except where the incentive lies in the price which he may obtain for what he raises either from what he raises and fattens for the market or from what he raises and fattens for somebody else to put on the market.

From what has been shown it seems clear that the price of cattle has advanced, and but for that we would not produce the supply we have to-day, which would result in decreased production of cattle.

If the duty on cattle and meats is removed and cattle and meats are landed in this country without such duty, it will demoralize the business. No man will engage in the business of cattle breeding away from local farms unless the price tempts him to take a chance on the investment, and he must have the place to carry on his business, to procure which he must now pay a very large increased cost on land. Singularly enough, it seems to us, the Government has been too short-sighted in failing to lease its public lands and thus enable stock raisers to engage in a breeding business.

The benefits which might possibly flow from the free introduction of meats from foreign countries would be far exceeded were the United States to adopt a policy of renting the public lands on some basis which would induce the breeder of cattle in our own country to use the land, which is so largley vacant and unoccupied, for that purpose and now utilized for only nomadic grazing.

What is the use of Congress trying to secure cheaper meats from countries which can grow cattle cheaper than we can, when lying at our own doors are vast areas of public lands of the United States which the laws forbid anyone to fence, and thus forbid anyone to occupy as a breeding and grazing ranch? There are 300,000,000 acres of land in this country belonging to the United States which are practically

PARAGRAPH 225-CATTLE.

unfit for settlement, which, if leased in large enough quantities to induce private capital to test for water by wells, would be leased and fenced, and thus induce the establishment thereon of breeding ranches, as well as increase the cattle production of the United States. If Congress is so interested in procuring the cheapest meats that can be afforded in this country, why resort to putting cattle and meats on the free list when the opportunity for increased production in our country is so patent? For lack of popularity the subject has not been much agitated in Congress. Nomadic grazing has led many people, some of whom are in Congress, to desire a continuance of that condition, notwithstanding the fact that the example of leasing Indian reservations and the use of the forest reserves has demonstrated the fact that the public lands can be used to increase the cattle in the United States on the only cheap lands which we have available for that purpose.

To bring the cattle producer of this country into competition with the cheapest labor and the cheapest lands in Mexico, and with the cheapest labor and cheapest lands in South America, by placing cattle on the free list and by placing meats on the free list, would be a crime against the Nation.

Why should we give to Mexico, the northern half of which is as good a breeding country as is western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or southern California, the free markets for cattle, and thus raise the price of their lands while reducing the price of ours, when lying at our doors are vast areas in the semiarid regions of the United States which could be as well utilized as are the lands in Mexico, without an opportunity for private control and development of our own lands afforded to those who would as readily engage in the business as those who would engage in it in Mexico?

Even Mexico has no such absurd policy of leaving its land unoccupied and idle where the men with means to do so desire to acquire the same for the purpose of breeding cattle, developing water, and otherwise making the lands useful for the present and future.

As to the result of placing Mexican cattle upon the free list, it may fairly be said that this country could gain no benefit therefrom. As heretofore shown, the imports for 11 months amounted to 268,891, which is less than 1 per cent of the total number of cattle of this country other than milch cows, as shown by the preceding statement. If placed on the free list, the value of cattle in Mexico would simply be advanced by the amount of the tariff, and the Government would be deprived of the revenue.

It is currently reported, but we are not prepared to prove it, that contracts for the sale of cattle which move to the United States are bing made in Mexico on the condition that if the Congress of the United States removes the duty then the amount of the duty will be added to the contract price. Naturally this is so, because cattle bought in Mexico to be brought to the United States must pay the duty. This being the market, and the only market for such cattle, the price is fixed in Mexico by the American standard, and the importer must pay the duty. We can not expect that the owner of cattle in Mexico would have little enough sense to sell his cattle for less than the American price for the same quality could they be brought to this country free. So, therefore, whether such stipulations are made or not in contracts, that would be the result.

Any result which must necessarily follow would be an increase in the value of grazing lands in Mexico, which sell at an average of not more than 50 cents per acre, and a consequent decrease in the value of grazing lands in the United States but without an increase in the value of cattle until the vast areas in Mexico could be occupied and the breeding of cattle resumed and extended, which would require several years. It must not be overlooked that it takes five years to produce a 4-yearold beef steer.

Once the cattle-raising business in the United States is led to understand that it must compete with production in the cheapest producing countries of the world, the discouragement will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of cattle bred, raised, and fed in the United States.

It needs no argument to show that such a result brings disaster to the business, disaster to the farmers, and disaster to every interest dependent upon the production of live stock.

So we have come to the point in this argument that the public can not benefit by endeavoring to enforce a business to be carried on without profit, because if it must be so carried on it must case. Regardless of whatever system of laws brings about such result, in the end who is to be benefited?

If it is proper to put cattle and meat on the free list then every other food product ought to be placed upon the free list. If it is proper to do that, everything we wear ought to be placed upon the free list. If it is proper to do that, everything we buy

PARAGRAPH 225-CATTLE.

and use ought to be placed upon the free list, so that the logic of the argument to place live stock and meats on the free list leads inevitably to free trade, and free trade leads inevitably to disaster. It means that Congress will attempt to force us to sell in competition with the world when we can not ship to any country on the face of the earth the products we raise without paying a duty in order to have access to their markets.

Yet Congress will levy considerable duties upon the imports of nearly everything that we buy. Wherein lies the justice of it? It can not be justified unless at the same time everything useful and needful shall likewise be placed upon the free list, which no party would dare attempt.

It has been stated, by persons uninformed we believe, that American beef was sold in London at prices lower than those in this country. To controvert this statement, I take at random from the official records of the London Central Market for August last, the price of United States beef "Deptford-killed" (Deptford being the killing point of American steers shipped to London) at 13 to 131 cents per pound in the carcass. At the same time, i. e., during the month of August, 1912, the wholesale price of beef in Washington City ranged from 9.76 cents to 11.70 per pound, which absolutely refutes the statement that American beef sold cheaper at wholesale in London than it sold in the United States. Doubtless the statement that American beef was sold cheaper was based upon the price of South American meats. As will be observed from the statement of Mr. Mumford, heretofore quoted, the South American meats from Argentina of the best quality sells 2 cents per pound less than the American dressed beef exported to London, and the poorer quality of Argentina beef sells 3 or 4 cents per pound less than the corn-fed beef which we export to London. Dr. Melvin, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry, in his annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1912, says:

"Some incorrect statements have appeared to the effect that American beef is sold cheaper in England than it is here. A comparison of market quotations shows that there is no material difference in the prices of the same quality of beef here and in England.

It is true that large quantities of cheap beef are imported into England, but it is not United States beef. This meat is from South America and Australia; it is mostly frozen, and is of very different grade from that exported from this contry."

Candidates for public office often seek votes by declarations unfounded in fact, which the business interests of the country, particularly people situated like the livestock raisers of this country, have little opportunity to refute. So, the oft-repeated expression sometimes made in the halls of Congress, and sometimes upon the stump, that meats should be placed upon the free list because they are sold cheaper in London than in the United States, is without foundation. If the committee acts upon the hypothesis that such declarations are true, it will act upon a false hypothesis.

Considering the fact that our demand in this country equals our supply, it is absurd to suppose that the packers who buy our steers which to-day, for the prime first quality, sell between 8 and 10 cents per pound, would seek a market to sell the dressed beef at a lower price than is easily obtainable in this country.

Another proof of this fact is, as can be easily ascertained, that Canada, which is an export country to England, has shipped large numbers of cattle to the Chicago market during the last season. We can scarcely credit them with being fools enough to ship it to this country unless the prices were higher here than they are in England, and especially when we consider the fact that they must pay a duty on such cattle in order to ship them here and that they do not have to pay any duty when they ship them to England.

FERTILITY.

Any action by the Congress of the United States which tends toward the diminution of the live-stock industry will have an important and exceedingly deleterious effect upon the whole agricultural industry of this country. Should the Congress of the United States, through tariff legislation, bring about a further lessening of the number of animals maintained on the farms, the result will be beyond question a decrease in the fertility of the soil and a corresponding decrease in the production of all crops. This statement is borne out by the fact, which can not be disproved, that there is no fertilizer known to the agriculturist which equals in potentiality the manure from the stable yard. Unfortunately the Agricultural Department has not yet devoted much consideration to this very important subject, probably because of the natural belief that the statement is axiomatic and needs no proof. Still, I have been able to obtain from that department, through the courtesy of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Bureau of Soils, from Dr. Bonsteel, scientist of the Soil Survey, a state

PARAGRAPH 225-CATTLE.

ment which bears directly upon this subject, and which I submit for the consideration of the committee. The statement is hereto appended:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

BUREAU OF SOILS, Washington, D. C., January 14, 1913.

Mr. S. H. COWAN, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In compliance with your request and as directed by the Secretary of Agriculture, I hand you herewith a statement regarding the relationship of the livestock industry and the maintenance of soil fertility, prepared by Dr. J. A. Bonsteel, of this bureau.

MILTON WHITNEY, Chief of Bureau.

Very truly, yours,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
BUREAU OF SOILS,
Washington, D. C., January 14, 1913.

Mr. S. H. COWAN,

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: In reply to your request for information concerning the relationships of live-stock industry and the maintenance of soil fertility, transmitted through the Chief of the Bureau of Soils, I would say that such relationships are generally recognized to exist.

For the maintenance of permanent soil fertility there is probably no method which is as effective as the feeding of the crops grown upon the land to some form of live stock, coupled with the saving of the manure and its application to the land.

This is so well recognized as an essential of permanent agriculture that farm leases in many localities are drawn with the provision that none of the hay or corn grown upon the land shall be sold, but all must be fed and the resulting manure saved and applied upon the farm.

There are many communities in the older settled portions of the United States which have been occupied for farming purposes for a period ranging from 100 to 150 years where the crop yields at the present time equal or exceed the yields which have been secured at any previous period in the history of the community. In these localities a rational crop rotation has been supplemented by the feeding of live stock and the use of stable and yard manures.

Lancaster County, Pa., is such a community.

"The principal crops grown are grass, wheat, corn, oats, rye, and tobacco, as well as potatoes, small fruits, and truck for the local markets. All of the crops grown, with the exception of tobacco are consumed or manufactured within the county. Instead of hay and grain being shipped out of the county, large quantities of feed are each year brought in and used for the fattening of cattle. Little or no commercial fertilizers are sold in the county, but special effort is constantly made to increase the productiveness of the land by liberal applications of well-rotted stable manure. As a result, the soils, as stated, produce far more than they would even a few years ago.

Similarly in the Genesee Valley of western New York the high fertility of the land has been maintained through the feeding of beef cattle. The crops grown have been utilized for this purpose and the manure produced has been applied to the fields. As a result the crop yields of the region have been maintained and increased through a century of profitable agriculture.

In northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, where dairying constitutes the chief form of agricultural activity, crop production has been increased from the averages secured in the earlier days when grain farming was prevalent and such counties as Dekalb County, Ill., and Waukesha County, Wis., show increased crop yields and increased agricultural prosperity under a combined system of crop growing and of dairy husbandry.

In many sections of the United States some form of animal production is absolutely essential to the proper utilization of the agricultural resources. Either a considerable portion of the area is too rough for tillage uses and is only available for pasturage, or climatic conditions render the use of the land for cropping uncertain. In such localities animal husbandry renders possible the occupation of territory for food production which would otherwise remain waste land and of low economic value.

It is estimated that the live stock of this country annually produce a manure value of approximately $2,000,000,000 and that one-half of this manurial value is saved and

'A Soil Survey Around Lancaster, Pa., Bureau of Soils, Field Operations, 1900. 78959°-VOL 3-13-31

PARAGRAPH 225-CATTLE.

applied to the land. This restoration of fertility is only possible under a system which includes crop production for the feeding of farm animals.

In many fixed experiments to determine the best form of manure or fertilizer to be applied to the land the plats treated with stable manure alone or with stable manure and other forms of fertilizer have shown the largest increases in crop production over the untreated check plats.

Very sincerely,

J. A. BONSTEEL, Scientist, the Soil Survey.

CANADA AS A COMPETITOR IN CATTLE IN FOREIGN MARKETS AND IN THIS COUNTRY.

It should be observed in the statement of Mr. Mumford, heretofore presented, that the total value of cattle exports in 1910 places Canada at $10,800,000 and the United States at $12,200,000, and that in the statement as to geographical distribution of cattle is it shown that there are 7,000,000 head of cattle in Canada.

In that part of the statement showing the number of cattle it shows 0.98 per capita in Canada and 0.77 per capita for the United States; that is to say, there is in each case less than one head of cattle for each person.

Under the heading "Influence of increasing population upon the number of cattle," it is shown that in 1871 Canada had 0.72 per capita and in 1909 0.98 for each person, an increase of 26 per cent, and the United States in 1867 had 0.51 per capita and in 1910 0.77 per capita, being an increase of 26 per cent. Thus Canada from 1871 to 1909 increased its cattle per capita the same per cent as did the United States from 1867 to 1910. Looking further at table No. 3 of exports of cattle in the pamphlet presented by Mr. Mumford, it appears that in 1910 the United States exported 139,000 head of cattle, against 157,000 head exported by Canada.

In the statement heretofore presented it is shown that for the 11 months ending November, 1911, Canada imported into this country 1,717, but in 1912, 14,916, worth, in the latter case, $700,678. No doubt these cattle sought the markets of the United States because of the attractive price, and this notwithstanding the fact that Canada is second is only to Argentina in exports of cattle, according to the figures of Mr.

Mumford.

Many persons believe that because Canada is a cold country that it is not a cattleproducing country. That is a great mistake, and is a mere supposition unfounded in point of fact as the preceding figures of the increase of cattle per capita indicates. The live stock commissioner of the Department of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada issued a pamphlet in April, 1910, published by direction of Sidney A. Fisher, minister of Agriculture, at Ottawa, entitled "Beef raising in Canada, Bulletin No. 13." This pamphlet was presented to the Finance Committee of the Senate when it had under consideration the Canadian reciprocity treaty and the free-list bill, which placed meats upon the free list, and so important was the document considered by the committee that it was directed to be reprinted by the Finance Committee. Copies thereof can be obtained from the clerk of that committee. In that pamphlet the whole subject of beef raising in Canada is thoroughly considered, and it is there shown that it is a large and profitable business.

From the statistics of exports from the United States and Canada to the United Kingdom, it appears that in 1909 Canada exported 143,661 head of cattle and in 1910 140,421 head, as against the exportation from the United States to the United Kingdom of 185,000 in 1909 and 122,000 in 1910. In 1908 Canada exported to the United Kingdom 124,000 head. This demonstrates that Canada was selling her cattle cheap enough to compete with Argentina beef in England, whereas the United States, by reason of its local consumption in part and by reason of the inability to compete with Argentina in the United Kingdom, reduced its exports, as it has continued to do, as hereinbefore shown.

Among other things in this interesting pamphlet it is said, at page 109: "A careful study of the statistics shows that the export trade of beef to Great Britain is rapidly shifting from North America, and if present conditions continue it will not be long before the United States will cease to be a competitor of Canada and Argentina in the British Market."

This was written in April, 1910. How prophetic and accurate was this statement. We might pause to inquire why the United States, being unable to compete either with Canada or Argentina in the only country to which we can ship either cattle or dressed beef, should invite those countries to come into this territory and take our market; i. e., take the market of every farmer and stock raiser from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Canada to the Gulf.