likewise hindered the development of the trade. For years there had been an understanding between the agents and the wholesale dealers in London. The agents agreed not to handle the bacon for less than a 3 per cent commission and to sell only to the wholesale dealers and to a small number of retailers entered on an old list that was seldom revised. The wholesale dealers promised to buy only from the agents and not from the packers. Thus the packers had to sell to the agents, and the retailers, with the exception of those on the list, had to buy from the wholesale dealers, even though their business had meanwhile grown large enough to entitle them to buy directly from the agents. This artificial arrangement was profitable to the middlemen, but directly antagonistic to the Danish principle of working in the interests of the producers and the consumers. In the eyes of the Danes the London agents represented an antiquated system and served only to increase the price of the bacon. The wholesalers, on the other hand, formed a necessary link and kept up large and expensive establishments, stores, smokehouses, ovens, service, etc. The Danish trade now represented 10,000 packages of bacon a week and was of sufficient importance to have a separate agency.

For the purpose of counteracting these difficulties and obtaining an independent position on the market, some of the largest and oldest Danish packing houses established in May, 1902, a stock company known as the "Danish Bacon Agency, Limited." In the first year the agency handled about 2,000 packages of bacon a week. Since then more packing houses have joined the company and the sales have increased. After fighting the agents about a year and a half the packers came off victorious. The commission for handling bacon has been reduced to 1 per cent and the market quotations have become stable.

DANISH IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF BACON AND HAMS.

The table which follows shows the foreign trade of Denmark in bacon and hams for the past twenty-one years. The statement is compiled from Danish official reports, and both the imports and exports as given are classed as "Special" trade that is, the imports were only such as were brought into the country for consumption, while the exports were exclusively Danish product-thus eliminating the transit trade. It is well to state here that, contrary to the usage in this country, the Danes ship the sides whole, so that bacon and hams are always combined.

As might be expected in a country which produces so much bacon, the imports are of very small importance compared with the exports. They probably consist mostly of such trade as may occur near the border with contiguous countries. It will be seen that the exports of

Danish bacon have steadily increased with the development of the industry down to the present time. Before the methods of curing were as well understood as they are now, the exports of live hogs far exceeded those of bacon and hams. The turning point came in 1887. After this year the exports of bacon increased rapidly, and those of hogs decreased until in 1896 the shipments of live hogs practically ceased entirely, and they have not since revived. The bacon trade at first was distributed among several countries, but it speedily gravitated toward England. In 1885 the latter country received twothirds of the total, and after 1888 nearly all the bacon and hams from Denmark were sold in English markets.

Recognizing the importance of the English trade, the Danish Government took steps to foster it. The Royal Danish Agricultural Society took the matter in hand and sent trial shipments to England, also experts to report on the markets, and in the spring of 1888, as previously stated, the Government subsidized a line of boats to run regularly three times a week between Esbjerg and London for the purpose of carrying the bacon. Thus the Danes set about systematically to win and to hold the London market, and the exports have risen accordingly. In the twenty years between 1886 and 1905 the average annual increase has been over 7,000.000 pounds a year.

Danish imports and exports of bacon and hams, 1885 to 1905.

SUGGESTIONS FOR HORSE AND MULE RAISING IN THE

SOUTH."

By GEORGE M. ROMMEL, B. S. A.,

Animal Husbandman, Bureau of Animal Industry.

INTRODUCTORY.

With the development of agriculture in the South and the discussion of the best methods to follow and the best policies to adopt few subjects have received more attention from public speakers and writers than the production in that section of the animals needed for work purposes and meat production. The idea is not only that the South should supply its own demand for these animals, but that southern farmers should feed as far as possible the enormous amount of cotton-seed meal and cake which is now shipped out, and thus replace commercial fertilizers to a considerable extent and keep up fertility with barnyard manure. Southern farm methods now in vogue have been criticised by outsiders, but none have been more severe than the leaders in agricultural progress in the South who are southern bred and born.

It certainly seems anomalous to contemplate a vast section of our country spending millions annually for horses and mules, for beef and pork, and for commercial fertilizers, and selling hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of fertility as cotton-seed meal and cake, when we realize that the condition of soil and climate generally throughout the South are excellent for animal production. This condition is still more surprising when we know that, properly fed, cotton-seed meal is probably the most valuable protein-bearing feed the country produces, and that its fertilizing value after having gone through an animal's body is almost as great as its feed value. It is also more than passing strange that a southern farmer will buy hay shipped from the West at from $15 to $23 per ton when his own land will often yield more hay per acre than the land where the western hay was produced and of as good a quality.

a This article is based on an address delivered before the South Carolina Dairy and Live Stock Association February 8, 1907. Although the address was prepared primarily for a South Carolina audience, the statements made therein apply equally well in other Southern States, especially those east of the Mississippi River.

INADEQUACY OF LOCAL SUPPLY OF HORSES AND MULES.

According to figures of the Bureau of Statistics of the Department of Agriculture there were 83,026 horses in South Carolina on January 1, 1907. These horses had a total farm valuation of $10,437,182, an average of $126 a head. The same authority estimates the number of mules in the State on the same date at 134,690, with a total farm value of $20,598,121 and an average of $153 a head.

The average life of a horse in South Carolina from the time he is mature may be estimated at eight years and that of a mule at ten years. The stock of horses and mules must therefore be replaced once in each eight or ten years, respectively; or, to express it differently, 10,000 horses and 13,000 mules must be raised or brought into the State annually. If all were bred in South Carolina that would require at least 135 stallions and 12,500 mares for horse breeding, estimating a stallion to get 75 colts annually and 75 per cent of the mares to breed each year. For breeding mules the number of jacks required would be at least 240 and the number of mares 26,000, estimating a jack to get 50 mules a year and about 50 per cent of the mares bred to jacks to breed. This would mean a total of at least 38,000 brood mares. To keep up this supply of breeding mares probably 10,000 more should be added to the total. In other words, at least one-half the total number of horses now in the State should be mares used in breeding both horses and mules.

Furthermore, these estimates do not take into account the number of foals and horses from one to four years old necessary to keep up this number, which would be nearly as many more. Therefore, if South Carolina produced her own horses and mules, nearly as many horses and mares as the State now has altogether would have to be in the breeding ranks. In other words, the State has only half as many horses as are actually needed. If we had no other proof, this alone would show that the State goes elsewhere for its horses and mules.

REASONS FOR RAISING HORSES AND MULES AT HOME.

In the opinion of the writer, there are three reasons why South Carolina farmers should raise their own horses and mules. The first one is to keep within the State the great sum which is paid annually for stock shipped in from the North and West. From the estimates given and from the best information at hand, which is largely in the nature of estimates of southern men of experience and authority, it would appear that probably only about 2,000 of the horses and 1,000 of the mules used annually are raised in the State. Estimating the cost of the horses delivered to the South Carolina farmer at $125 each and of mules at $175 each, the amount of money sent out of the State

annually is $1,000,000 for horses and $1,925,000 for mules-$3,000,000, in round numbers, which could be retained in the State to good advantage.

It may be said that if the State produced its own horses and mules the general market of the country might suffer, and local horse and mule breeders might not be able to raise them at a profit. It is doubtful if this is true, in view of the tremendous activity of the horse and mule markets. The year 1906 was one of unparalleled prosperity for horse and mule breeders. Prices bounded skyward, and for all classes there was a demand greater than the market could supply. This demand shows every indication of being maintained until the supply can meet it, and as long as conditions in business are good there is little, if any, reason to fear an oversupply. The rise in prices of horses in the United States has been such that the export trade has practically ceased except for the best grades of light horses. The European market can not pay the American prices. Should domestic prices decline to the European standard, the export trade would begin again, and this would prevent them from falling below a profitable level.

The second reason is that by producing its own norses and mules the South has stock already adapted to its use. No time is lost in getting an animal to do his best under southern conditions. Furthermore, they would be produced at cost, without having to include in the expense bill a profit to any other producer or middleman. Not only that, but after a horse or mule is 2 years old he will earn his way, and a moderate amount of work is good for him. In this way the animal has been raised to 5 years of age at a minimum cost. Not only is all this a great advantage, but the breeding of the stock is known, or if not it can readily be ascertained. This is of immense importance. If a farmer owns a good horse or mule, naturally he wants another like him, and if the sire is within reach it is an easy matter to breed mares to him with a reasonable expectation that the sire will duplicate his previous performances.

Let us digress for a moment to point out more in detail the value of knowing something of an animal's ancestry before buying. The laws of heredity are powerful, and they work not through the parents alone, but through grandparents, great-grandparents, and even more remote ancestors. If a line of breeding is proposed which is composed entirely of animals of merit, the mating is almost sure to result satisfactorily; but if there is a stain in it, if some animal was below standard, its faults will crop out somewhere in its descendants. That is the reason why pure breeding is surer than haphazard breeding, and why it is undesirable to breed to "scrubs." It is for this reason that the persistent use of purebred sires of the same breed is sure to show great improvement over the original foundation stock. If