Jasper County Democrat, Volume 2, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 September 1899 — WHY BEEF IS HIGH. [ARTICLE]

WHY BEEF IS HIGH.

Much is just now being said about the rise hr meat prices and the causes therefor. The administration shooters, of course, say that it is all caused by the Major, but the more thoughtful man looks for other causes before accepting the statements of the overzealous partisan press. Added to natural causes he finds that the beef trust is largely responsible for the sudden and rapid rise of the past few weeks. A Clark county writer in the Farmer’s Guide gives some facts and figures in explananation of the natural causes which are worthy of the careful consideration of every farmer and stock raiser. He says; “The following are figures from the reports on agriculture, from Washington: Year No. of oxen and Price other cattle M per head 1877 ...17,966,000. 1880 21,231,000... 916 10 1892 37,651,000 15 16. 1899 27,994,000 22 79 Milch Cows 1877 11,260,000 ; 1880 12,027,000 23 27 1892 16,424,000 21 40 1899 15,960,000 29 66 The above figures should be of interest to all farmers and stock raisers. The fifteen years previous to 1892 our beef cattle more than doubled with an average of 14,000,000 of cows to breed from and a declining price, with everything unfavorable for an increase in numbers. Since 1892 our loss on beef cattle is ten million, decreasing from thirty-seven to twenty-seven million, yet we had 16,000,000 of cows to breed from, and an increase in price of about SB.OO per head and everything favorable for an increase, This has happened under the management of 5,000.000 farmers, while the increase was made with 4,000,000 farmers. Our average annual loss since 1892 is within a fraction of the average gain of twelve years, from 1880 to 1892, being 1,260,000 cattle. Thus, if we have exchanged an annual gain for an annual loss of 1,260,000, it makes a difference of 2,520,000 in our annual progress on beef cattle. There seems to be no letting up on the alarming decline, as the last year was as much as the average seven years’ loss, being 1,260,972. Only Kansas and California escaped this seven year shrinkage. Texas was the greatest loser; of the 10,000,000 loss, Texas lost 2,500,000, or 25 per cent of the whole. Even Cuba is heavily in the decreasing business. Of 860,000 in 1895, Cuba now has only 25,000 cattle. It seems that 30 per cent advance in price has yet had no effect on the decrease. Even if we are unable to arrest the decrease in 1910, our population would be 90,000$K) and our beef cattle 27,000,000, we would" have only 300 cattle for each 1,000 persons, against 559 in 1892. Should our population be 90,000,000 in 1910, we should have 50,000,000 of beef cattle to be in proportion to 1892. The probabilities are that our population will reach 95 or 100,000,000 in 1910. Five years of a continued annual loss of 1,260,000 and we will be on a basis of Fiance and Germany on cattle. We can offer no satisfactory theory for this annual loss of cattle. In our own state (Indiana) we have more acres of grass, an increase of price, and yet we have 349,000 less cattle than in 1890, while with wheat and corn, with a declining price, have increased their acreage. Corn has increased 700,000 acres in Indiana since 1890. From these statements we conclude that many years will elapse before beef cattle will be cheaper than now. Our assessors’ late bulletin of Clark county shows about 348 less cattle on April 1, 1899, than on April 1, 1898. So it still goes on. Also on hogs of all kinds, 3,421 less than a year ago, or about 16 per cent of a loss. Wm. Adams.