IM •mr liil .^;iSl!::l. 'S.srijij II •ft ■ililii-l; ill ; Cornell University Library HD9410.S.H85 Our meat supply. 3 1924 013 810 936 OUR MEAT SUPPLY. PREFACE. Jlbject in the preparation of this Paper has not been to throw impediments in the way of the importation ttlo from foreign countries^much less from Irela^ — but on the contrary, to suggest the adoption oiu measures, which, i£ put in force, would speedily rid the United Kingdom' of diseases of modern origin, thus prepare the way for the abandonment of all restrictions. The present regulations are notoriously cient ; ,ihey satisfy no one ; they cause anxiety to, and embarrass the foreigner by their uncertainty ; also harass the home producer without affording him the needful protection. ,,It will be seen, by reference to page 8, that I advocate the adoption of more thorough measures, or ibandonment of the inoperative regulations now in force, substituting, in lieu, penalties for moving or iing for sale animals suffering from contagious diseases. ^ I have been led to write this short Preface tg correct misconceptions which have arisen' in the minds rtain newspaper critics, who have probably been misled by the abridged reports of the Paper which ired the morning after its delivery. f Ckpham Park, Bedford, JAMES HOWARD, Feb. 14, 1876. PHE subject selected by the Committee of the Club for the openmg of the ;nt year's disfcussions, whilst being one reat moment to the British farmer, :sses an interest extending far beyond Dounds of the agricultural circle. The supply of the country is a question li comes home- to every household ; ;d, it has become one of the most press- iomestic questions of the day. It. may St be said to be a vital question, for not does the population rapidly increase, neat among all classes has become much : an article "of diet than formerly, ifific men teli us that meat is not so itious, .weight for weight, as some kinds vegetable (food — Scotch oatmeal, for nee — but owing to its being more tempt- o the appietite and stimulating in effect, ; who can afford it are content to pay far more for the luxury than its intrinsiwalue. Evidence was given before a Parliaftientary.'- Committee in 1873, that owing to the increase in mining and manufacturing, and th|i^onse^! " queut rise in wages, the consumption/of meat- ;, in Germany, Belgium, Holland, and>oth^jf' countries' on the Continent had become much' greater, than formerly. Seeing, however, how.' , many aspects will present themselves fQ|' - remark or discussion, I will not waste timfe in introductory remarks, but plunge at once- into the subject, which, for convenience, I have ra.nged under the, following heads : — i. Prices, Gonsiimption, Waste. 2, sHome Production, Foreign Supplies. 3, ^Cattle' Diseases— their Origin, Effect, and Danger. 4, Legislation; — its Defects and Remedt'gsS'!;^^''; Stockowners' Prudence and Hindrandfe^^j'fe" I^roductiOn. ■ ^ '^'"■■ Within the limits of the present generation "" the normal price of meat was about 6cl. per lb. I call remember several periods when prime joints were sold in the country at much less than that sum. From the examination of the books of a large country butcher, placed at my disposal, I find that during the past twenty-five years the retail price of meat has increased 4d. to sd. per lb., and, singularly enough, it has risen by gradual steps ; at the end of each five years the advance has just been about id. per lb. Of course, during this lopg period there have been occasional checks to this upward tendency, but these have invariably been of short duration. I may say that, from inquiries I have made, the advances in London butchers' prices corres- pond closely to those I have named. From a table I have given in an appendix, it will be seen that between 1853 and 1863, an advance of 20 per cent, took place, in the' Metropolitan Market, in the price of prime, beef in the carcase, and as much as 30 per cent, in mutton. In the following ten years, viz., tO'i873, the total advance was 32 per cent, in beef, and 42 per cent, in mutton. The prices in 1875 were, again, higher than in 1873 i beef having advanced J^d. and mutton ^d. per lb. The butchers' profits have, unquestidttabiy, been relatively higher than when prices were lower; but it must be remembered that the •butchers' profits, per stone, must be greater when the carcases cost 6s. per stone than when they are to be bought at 4s. ; still, taking the greater risk and the greater capital into account, it cannot be denied that the correspondence between the prices charged by the butcher, and the prices realized for the animal has been upon the side of the retailer. An important element in dealing with prices is quality; but I do not think it necessary to go into this subject further than to remark there can be no question that the average quality of home-produced meat is far higher since our improved breeds of cattlg, sheep, and pigs have extended themselves so widely throughout the country. Now-a-days, in what are known as low neigh- bourhoods, both in London and in the pro- vinces, one constantly sees meat of such quality. as formerly was only expected to be met with at the West End or at first-class butchers. What is the average consumption of animal food by the British beef-eater ? although a curious, interesting, and important question, is not one that could be easily answered with exactness, even if our agricultural statis- tics were not so imperfect as we find them — a fact which intelligent farmers begin to de- plore — still, we are not altogether without data to go -upon. The members of the Club will not forget the interesting and elaborate paper by Mr Jenkins, Secretary of the Royal Agri- cultural Society, who went so fully into the question in 1872. In the appendix to my paper, to which I have thought it well to relegate all statistical matter, a number of tables* will be found ; from the information which these afford, I hav^e arrived at the conclusion that the average yearly'con- sumption of meat is about 96 lb. per head, which, at 8d. per lb. — taking the population for 1875, at 32j^ millions — amounts to the enormous sum of , 104 millions per annum. Although, not strictly within the limits of my subject, I would say, that to these figures it would perhaps be safe to add 20 per cent, as representing the value of the fish, fowls, birds, game, rabbits, pigs (" notenumerated"), goats, &c., required to satisfy the national appetite. Before concluding this part of ^the subject, I would say just a word upon waste of animal food, , for notwithstanding its dearness, the waste which takes place is proverbial; nor is this confined to the kitchen or the household, * Most of the tables I have given were prepared by Mr J. Algernon Clarke for the Select Commiftee on Gontagious Diseases (Animals), and subsequently published in the report. I consider the country 'owes a debt of obligation to Mr Clarke for his great pains, and the valuable information afforded. Had these tables attiracted the notice of the Statistical Society, I have no doubt Mr Clarke would long since have had the privilege conferred upon him of, putting F.S.S. at the end of his name. a waste that has so often been pointed out by students of cookery, and lately brought so prominently before the pubhc by Mr Buck-- master — but the waste in bad weather from ■. putrefaction is enormous. It has Occurred to me, that at our meat markets and large butchers' establishments, some such plah as that recently adopted in, transporting carcases across the Atlantic might be introduced with no httle advantage. I shall refer to this- new feature of the trade presently. Such a de- vice would not only save much valuable food from being wasted, but the possessors' of' such an appliance would be enabled to sup"' ply well-hung meat, an advantage which could not fail to 'be appreciated, and that speedily. ■ Rotatory fans could be constructed for small establishments, which would only require winding up like a clock. I have at my house in Bedfordshire an American fan ' of this kind, used for making what is .termed air- gas. When I come to the importation of live animals, I shall have to point to- another source of waste. Having therefore said thus much upon Prices, Consumption, and Waste, I will pass on to the more important and perhaps in- teresting question of HOME PRODUCTION. No greater change in -the condition of • English agriculture has taken- place than in the production of meat ; an English farm is now regarded as a meat manufacturing ' establishment, quite as much as for its corn- growing capacities. If we had the means of ascertaining how deeply interesting it would be to know the increase in the production of animal food since the commencement of the present century : here again we feel the loss of agricultural statistics, for we have lio data to go upon. Some idea may, however, be formed of the growth of our meat production, from the fact- that nearly 2,000,000 home- grown cattle are tinnually slaughtered, and no fewer than 11,000,000 sheep, besides 5,000,000, pigs. " The total annual value of animal food, produced in the United King- dom; canndt'be estimated at less than from 85 to 90 millions sterling. Notwithstanding this apparently large production, .there dan be no question, as 1 shall point^'out in conclusion, that it could be enormously increased were all the impediments to production swept away. My observations on home production may be considered brief: to those who would pursue the subject inore ifi detail, I refer them to Mr Clarke's tables already alluded to, and which have rendered an^ lengthened observation on this branch of my subject un- necessary : I will therefore pass on to the question of FOREIGN SUPPLIES. ' When Sir Robert Peel's tariff was intro- duced, throwing open our ports to foreign animals, no little consternation was created in the minds of British farmers by the pro- posal ; that they were about to ' be eicposed to the rigours of Free Trade in corn seemed inevitable, but stock owners were taken by surprise when it- was proposed to extend the principle to live stock, and many regarded the latter as a calamity, the worse of the two. I Well remember the dismay which the memorable tariff caused ; the fears,' however, turned out to be groundless, for owing to the enormous growth of our trade and commerce, to the rapid increase and prosperity of the population, all the meat which we could pro- duce at home, all the foreigner could spare us, was wanted, and prices, instead of reced- ing, steadily advanced. I would take occa- sion, here, to remark upon what has recently been said by some of my political friends about British agriculturists seeking to restore the principle of protection by hampering the ' trade in foreign cattle. I have no hesitation in saying that such utterances display ignor- ance, and are neithet more nor less than libels : the present ra:ce of agriculturists have accepted the principles of free trade, and- this as cheerfully as any other branch of the community : they desire nothing in theshape of protection or monopoly. These sentiments met with the loudest applause from the audience. Free imports of meat must not, however, be confounded with un- checked importations of disease — what is demanded, in respact of importation of dis- ease, I shall speak of presently. There are few subjects of which I can claim as much knowledge as Mr Bright, but I am quite sure that the right honourable gentleman, who is both a political and personal friend, would be the first to acknowledge that upon agricul- tural and rural subjects, upon the views and the opinions of the agriculturists of England, I have the right to claim as full a knowledge, and even a more intimate acquaintance. I will, therefore, "say I deeply regretted that Mr Bright was tempted to write upon a sub- ject, of which, he confessed, he had but an imperfect knowledge. The other day I saw in a Manchester paper the report of aspeech expressing similar views by another friend of mine, Mr P. Rylands, late M.P. for Warring- ton, which was far more offensive than Mr Bright's letter, because more dogmatical and denunciative. I was sorry to find such a man descanting upon a topic he really knew nothing about. The Table, in the Appendix, shewing the importation of live and dead meat for the past thirtj'-five j-ears is the best answer to these insinuations and charges. A glance at the figures will shew to what proportions the foreign trade in live animals and dead meat has attained. To shew its expansiveness, I will refer to the past two years : in 1874 our imports of cattle, sheep, and swine were 1,068,167, valued at ;i^S, 250,000 ; in 1875 they rose to 1,313,489, shewing an increase upon the year of nearly 300,000 animals. The value of imported animals in 1875 was ^^7,330,420, shewing an increase over the previous year of more than ;^2, 000,000. The importations in 1875 of dead meat, in the shape of bacon, hams, and other meat, fresh, salted, or preserved, amounted to 3,431,542 cwt, which, taken at 60s. per cwt, gives the total value as ;^i 0,2 94,6 2 6. Large as the figures I have quoted may ap- pear, it will be seen by reference to the Tables appended, that the supply of live animals from abroad bears but a small — a very small — proportion to the home production. If due allowance be made for the greater weight of the British animals, to say nothing of quality, the foreign proportion of the whole supply may be put down at 5 per cent.* In making a comparison between home production ajid foreign supplies, it will be seen from the above statement that imported dead meat bears a much larger proportion than live animals, yielding in proportion to the home supply something like 12 per cent. A very large addition to the importation of fresh meat may now be expected, for it appears that Nature has at length yielded up her secret, how meat may be kept fresh for an indefinite, at all events, a protracted period. Several consignments of fresh meat have already been received from America; the vessels bringing over the carcases are fitted with rooms kept cool by currents of cold, dry air, from a fan: a full description of these compartments, and the whole pro- cess, will be found in The Farmer of January 10. i The Editor of this ably-conducted journal states that " the meat has stood every test, not only of the salesman, but of consumers, and both' City ^nd West End speak favourably of it. Not only is it fresh, but it has that quality which housewives know as 'old killed,' so often wanting in our home-killed meat." For my part I have grave doubts about the quality. During my joumeyings in America, I never met with either beef or mutton that was not only dry, but com- paratively tasteless. However, the discovery of the process, if the shipments should pay the projectors, will, unquestionably have an influence upon the dead meat trade to this country, the extent and importance of which we can scarcely recognize or anticipate. Not only will the vast capabilities of Texas, and *As I^ndon takes the great bulk of the foreign supply, the proportion for the metropolis will be fer higlier.-[J. H,] other cattle rearing Stat;es, receive a vast stimulus, but if it is found profitable and safe to send fresh meat across the Atlantic, the present trade in live animals from the Coi^- tinent will speedily become a thing of the past, and a tradfe in dead meat take its place — a consummation to be greatly desired by the British farmer. With respect to this so- called American process, it is well known that our own countryman,. Professor Gamgee, has for years past been working in the same direction, and I have reason to believe that no small share of the credit of the invention is due to his exertions, and to the experi- ments he made with refrigerators and cool rooms when out in Texas, some seven years ago. I was much impressed by a statement made before the' Parliamentary Committee (1873) as to the enormous waste of meat attending the foreign trade in live animails. Mr Robin- son — an importer I shall again refer to — in- formed the Committee that the waste in a 12 cwt. bullock, five days at sea, is no less than 2 cwt, and this notwithstanding that these bullocks have all the food and water they will take. Such rapid waste seems almost incredible, but as the animals in question wefe weighed when embarked, and again upon landing, there was no doubt of the fact. Mr Robinson also spoke of it as about the average waste. What an additional and pov/erful argument is this in favour of the dead meat trade ! Having now dealt with, as briefly as I well could, the two first heads of my subject, I will proceed to the more knotty and thorny questions involved in that ot CATTLE DISEASES — THEIR ORIGIN, EFFECT, AND DANGER. The, question of the origin of cattle diseases, more particularly of foot-and-mouth complaint and pleuro-pneumonia, has given rise to much discussion and a good deal of heated controversy. Having for years watched the strife, I have ^bserved that the prepon- derance of scientific opinion-and the evidence of facts have been tending slowly and gradu- ally to the conclusion that both diseases are of foreign origin. It will not be forgotten that when the cattle plague (rinderpest) sud- denly, broke out in this country, and created such consternation by its fatal consequences and the rapidity of its march, we were gravely assured by professional men, and by pro- fessional writers, that the malady was generated in the London dairies, through the confinement, the dirty and unnatural condi- tion in which the cows were kept. The opinions, as to its foreign origin, of such men as Professor Simonds, Professor Gamgee, and others — founded upon ex- perience gained abroad — stood for nothing ! the whole profession was condemned for its incapacity to cure the disease, and the views expressed as to its foreign origin were regarded as unscientific and the effects of prejudice. When, however. Government at length stepped in to save the cattle of the country. from annihilation, and adopted the " stamping out " policy, all along advocated by the veterinary professors, it was seen by the results, that they were not, only right in their theory as to the foreign origin of rinderpest, but that their views were also correct as to foot-and-mouth and pleuro- pneumonia being imported diseases ; for in stamping out cattle plague, the latter diseases were simultaneously extirpated; not a case too appeared again in England, until some time after the cattle plague restrictions were removed, and importations freely resumed. I would not maintain), that under no possible circumstances could these diseases be gene- rated in England ; I simply maintain- that not only is the balance of evidence against the theory, but that there' is little- or ho evi- dence on the other side-^'tis all opinion — so far as I have been able to ascertain, ihese maladies are no more indigenous to this country than are yellow fever, leprosy, or cholera-taorbus. In support of the above position I will give two or three facts. In certain dis- tricts in remote parts of Ireland^ the foot-and- mouth complaint hS,s never appeared. In a recent letter by Mr R. O. Pringlc, of Dublin, author of the " Live Stock of the Farm," I find the following statement : — " There are many extensive cattle-rearing districts in Ire- land where foot-and-mouth disease is un- known, simply because no strange cattle are ever taken into these parts of the country,the .breeders being exclusively exporters." When, ' in i874i pleuro-pneumonia was prevalent in England and Scotland, the official report sta.ted that not a single case had been re- ported from Wales, also an exporting country. Again, the isolated countries of Norway and Sweden, which are non-importing countries, have enjoyed an immunity both from foot- and-mouth and pleuro-pneumonia. Similar cases could be quoted . from the Antipodes, from America, Canada, and other countries ; but it is now well known that disease every- where follows the lines of cattle traffic, and that the animals themselves are the chief carriers;, the old theory of these contagious diseases being " in the air " is entirely ex- ploded. Again, it is a very significant fact that the old veterinary writers appear to have known nothing of the foot-and-mouth or pleuror pneumonia diseases. I have in my posses- sion the agricultural portion of the library of the late Fisher Hobbs. The .other day when looking it over, I found " Pearson's Horse, Cattle, and Sheep Doctor," published in 1 8 1 1 . The author, a Leicestershire veterinary surgeon of thirty years' standing, treats of some sixty diseases of cattle and sheep, but no mention is made of either of the diseases in question, or of any akin to them. The late Professor Ypuatt traced the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease to two lots of some bovine species brought over in 1839 for the Zoological Gardens, Regent's Park. Clater, again, in the earlier editions of his " Cattle Doctor," says nothing about these diseases, but in the loth edition (1S53), I find the following remark : — " Since the 8th edition of this work was published, a new disease [foot-and-mouth] has appeared among cattle and sheep, and for the last twelve years has spread through the King- dom, scarcely sparing a single parish." So again of pleuro-pneumonia : in the same loth edition Clater states, that although long known to exist upon the Continent, its first appearance in this country was in the winter of 1842-43. One word upon the theory of exposure inducing contagious diseases. Many in this room remember the time when cattle and sheep were sent up, from distant counties to London, in droves. They also know the heat, the dust, the wet, the cold, the hard- ships,' and the fatigue which animals, in those days, had to undergo. How many a "dropped bullock" have I seen in my younger days; but whoever heard of these exhausted, and often cruelly-treated, animals dropping with foot-and-mouth complaint? Who, ' again, in those days, ever thought, when they brought home a fresh lot of bullocks from a fair, of putting them into quarantine, although they might have known that the animals had been driven hundreds of miles firom fair to fair? I should not have dwelt so long upon the origin of disease', but that interested persons T-importers,' dealers, butchers, and others — liave so persistently urged the opposite view, and have induced so many to believe their statements. However, the fact that somehow or other these diseases have got amongst our flocks and herds is of ftiore practical import- ance than the thfeory of their origin. Still more important and practical questions are, how they are to be held in check, how to extirpate them, what are the means to be adopted to prevent their recurrence ? Before, hovirever, I pass to the consideration of these points, and as arguments in favour of vigorous measures, I would first call atten- tion to the grave danger, which exists ol these maladies becoming naturalized among our animals, for a closer study and a growing knowledge of the facts of epiciemiolgy are constantly adding more and more support to the view that diseases not naturally inherent may, by their prevalence in generation after generation, become indigenous. To my mind this is one of the most serious aspects of the whole question, for it would be 'con- verting naturally healthy flocks and herds into unhealthy ones, subject at any time to out- breaks of contagious diseases. If, as we are assured, there is danger of such a calamity, it behoves Government — it behoves all con- cerned — to make a determined and united effort to stamp out and ta keep out so dire an enemy. I would further point to the direct money loss the nation has sustained tlirough cattle disease, to the enhanced cost of irieat to the consumer, and to the grave consideration of the permanent effect in checking breeding and prpducfion. I know how tedious to a meeting like the present are long lists of figures or statistics, an4 I therefore shall give general results instead. , The country is much indebted to a former neighbour of mine — Captain Johnes Smith — for the zealous man- ner in which he^ has discharged his duties as chief constable of Cheshire in relation to cattle diseases ; also for the ability and care displayed in the returns he has obtained and published. For, the year 1872, I find from Captain Smith's tables that no fewer than 52,000 cattle were affected in Cheshire with the foot-and-mouth complaint. Cheshire being a breeding and dairying county, the number of cows and heifers is large in pro- portion, as would be the loss also. In this county alone, to say nothing of sheep and pigs, the loss cannot be estimated at less than ;^i5o,ooo to ^160,000 for the year. An old member of this Club, Mr Duckham (widely known as the ieditor of the " Hereford Herd Book "), gave very important evidence before the Parliamentary Committee in 1873. This Committee was a most important one, moved for, it will be remembered, by our friend, Mr. C. S. Read. I remember that I never rose to speak in the House with grefater pleasure than in support of the motion for its appointment. 'Mr Duckham also handed in a paper and returns (published at p. 634 in the Report of the Committee), shewing the direct money loss sustained in the year 1872 by the stock owners of Herefordshire from fo6t-an'd- mouth disease. Mr Duckham, in this paper, shewed that if the loss was as great in other parts of the United Kingdom, it would amomit to the astounding sum of ;^2o,ooo,ooo, a sura exceeding by four times the total value of our importations of live stock. , So great a loss as this has probably never taken place in any year ; but if taken for the disastrous year in question at one-half or one-third this amount, themagnitude of the evilis sufficiently apparent. I need not dwell upon the effect which such an amout of disease has upon the price of meat, for striking as it does, at the root of production, its influence is obvious — chefa^p' meat arid diseased stock cannot go together. Last autumn the Dai'fy Telegraph, which has' ' not always written with wisdom on the sub- ject, took the wise step to inform itself by obtaining Reports from correspondents in various parts of the country. The publica- tion of these Reports, from seventy different centres, shewed how important an element in the price of meat is disease. Serious, however, as are the direct money losses to the nation, and the immediate effect in raising prices, the influence of, disease in checking breeding is far more serious, inas- much as it is cumulative in its effects. I have heard farmers make light of foot-and- mouth complaint — as did Mr Dent Dent in a letter to the Times last autumn. It is well known that there are two types of the dis- ease; those who have had experience of the more virulent form have- reason to re- gard it with considerable apprehensions ; whether, however, in respect of store stotk, it is a subject to be treated lightly or not, the serious effect upon breeding stock is unques- tionable. The York Chamber of Agriculture — Mr Dent's own county — in a string of re- solutions passed at its meeting last'.September, shewed how fully alive its members were to its serious character, and with what different views they regarded it to the former medber 8 for Scarborough. The TYnies — whatever opinion we may entertain as to its general policy — is seldom wrong when facts and scientific principles are involved. In a re- cent article on the subject of foot-and-mouth disease it was very forcibly pointed out that the effect must, by no means, be measured by "the comparatively trivial nature of the disease as it affects a single animal." The writer fully recognized, as he termed it, " the magnitude of the evil," and proceeded to advocate thoroughly practical and efficient measures for the speedy extinction of the malady. The foot-and-mouth complaint is a fruitful source of abortion, barrenness, and drying up of the milk, as every man of experience knows, too well. Let any one, who entertains a doubt, read the evidence of Mr Duckham and other witnesses before the Parliamentary Committee. Were the materials at hand for making the calculation as to the extent to which our stock of cows has been kept down by the death of cows, heifers, and heifer calves, as well as by abortion or barrenness, the cumu. lative effect would stand out in piroportions, so large, as to be altogether startling ; even to the authorities of the Privy Couhcil. That there is no full or official record of the losses the nation has sustained is to be deplored. Had one been kept, I have no doubt that it would have revealed the fact that our losses from disease far exceed the total amount of the importation of live ani- mals: 1,000,000 head of cattle in the six years preceding the outbre^ of rinderpest, perished from pleuro-pneumonia alone, whilst the total importations during the same period were only about 500,000. LEGISLATION, ITS DEFECTS AND REMEDIES. It was my intention to give an outline of the legislation upon the cattle trade and cattle diseases, but I came to the conclusion that the time would be better spent in con- sidering and discussing what further legisla- tion and regulations are needed. I .will therefore briefly state that the importation of cattle was prohibited in the last century, but the rule was, for exceptional cases, at times suspended, and occasionally a few animals were allowed to enter by special Custom's permit ; others, it is said, were run in without. In 1842, Parliament rescinded the pro- hibition and put on a duty, of los. to 20s. per head. In 1846 this duty was repealed, and our ports thrown completely open. The outbreak of cattle plague led to the passing of the Cattle Diseases Prevention Act (1864). This Act mainly dealt with rinderpest, and did not touch the main home difficulties. The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act (1869) was next brought in and passed; this, as is generally known, invested the Privy Council with powers to deal with every kind of cattle disease by the issue of Orders in Council, classified thus, (i) Local orders, re- lating to particular places in the United Kingdom ; (2) General orders extending to all parts of Great Britain ; (3) Foreign orders. The Contagious Diseases .(Animals) Act, considering the great difficulties surrounding the subject, and the still greater prejudices which had to be contended with, was a wise and well considered measure : its great de- fect was, that it left too much power in the hands of the Privy Council Department. At all events I am sure you will concur with me that the powers given under the Act have not been as wisely used as they might have been, or as Parliament had a right to expect. I can testify how desirous was Mr Forster, during the passing of the Act, to avail him- self of the opinion of our friend, Mr C. S, Read, upori the clauses and amendments, and how often he said, in relation to particular points, " What are Read's views ?" The work- ing, or, more properly speaking, the marring of this Act by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, has shewn, perhaps more than any other circumstance, the necessity for an Agricultural Department of Govern- ment, presided over and worked by men practically acquainted with the work and duties of such an office. Mr Read, as President or Vice-president — if a Peer must be at the top — would certainly have been more at home, and able to render the country better service, than at the Local Government Board j but then it is proverbial that in the filling of places in Governments, special knowledge, considered so indispens- able in other pursuits, is neither required nor thought of. Although about to suggest a number of provisions in respect of the cattle trade and cattle diseases,' I am not insensible to the difficulties surrounding legislation upon the subject, nor would I have the members of the Club, shut their eyes to these im- pediments, or to the necessity for joint and individual exertion. The position of the President or Vice-president of the Privy Council is a most difficult and unenviable one. On the one hand, he is urged with more or less pressure, as diseases increase or diminish, to adopt more vigorous and stringent measures for checking and keeping out disease. On the other hand, populous towns and cities, often misled by ignorant or in- terested parties, urge upon him, by deputa- tions or through their members, the necessity for relaxing existing restrictions, maintaining that the regulations in force check the sup- plies. I know the pressure that was put upon Mr Forster by both sides, and how difficult he felt the position, notwithstanding his determination to take the course best calcu- lated, in his opinion, to serve the general interests of the community. I believe that I speak tlie sentiments of the stockowners of the kingdom when, in a few words, I say, all that we desire is — a]l that we ask of the Government is — the adop- tion of the best remedies for stamping out disease already existing, and of keeping it out of the country for the future. Stock- owners complain, and, as I think, justly complain, that their views have not had the attention they are entitled to, either from the late or the present Govern- ment. I would not, for a moment, obtrude my political preferences upon the Club, but I am bound to say that we have, in this matter, far more to cpmplain of in the present than in the late Government; the present would seem to have left itself completely in the hands of its intractable and incompetent per- manent officials. Witness the letter, addressed some three months ago, from the Department to the Monmouthshire Chamber of Agriculture : in substance it was, simply, a cool refusal even to consider a very reasonable resolution of that Chamberj.or to acknowledge in any waythe necessity for further steps being taken to arrest the progress of foot-and-mouth disease. Again, look to the last Report of the Depart- ment ; why it reads very much like a confes-. sion of incompetency upon the part of the present officials for their position. As I have already called attention to, the Act of 1869 entrusts the Privy Council with almost un- limited powers, and yet, so armed, the officials all but declare themselves helpless before the face of the destroyer. At length, it transpired that nothing short of the retirement from office of our friend, Mr C. S. Read, could break this spell, or rouse the Duke of Richinond from l)is apathy. The new-born zeal which impelled his Grace to rush down into the country — a few. days after this retirement-^ostensibly to address the farmers of Sussex, but really to demolish Mr Read, was simply amusing. The casual listener or reader might be at a loss to imagine who the darts of the noble Duke were being aimed at, for the individual was nameless., His Grace might be supposed to be addressing " the man in the moon," and altogether oblivious of the existence of such a being as the Secretary of the Local Govern- ment Board. The travelling inspectors, paraded by his Grace for the first time with such pomp, had long ago been urged^as necessary ; before the Parliamentary Committee in 1873 their ap- pointment was urged as indispensable to the proper carrying out of the regulations in force. How often Government was subse- 10 quently appealed to upon this and other points, we shall perhaps learn when Parlia- ment meets. The results of the recent cases of prosecution against the railway companies and the General Steam Navigation Company conclusively shew that the long resistance to the appointment of travelling inspectors was a blunder. Again, the plea • that the Irish would not submit to the same regulations as were im- posed in England met at once with a prompt reply from the other side of the ChanneL The Irish^Cattle Defence Association immediately passed the following resolution : — "That it is most desirable that the regulations with re- gard to contagious diseases in animals should be uniform in Great Britain and Ireland." This, and othjer resolutions upon the sub- ject, were at once endorsed by associations in Ireland, North,, South, and West; it would therefore appear that Government was ab- solutely without any defence for the position it had taken up. With respect to further legislation or Orders in Council, I believe the fact is,i that the Go- vernment, past and present, has been afraid not only of Irish opposition, but of the clamour raised by -cattle salesmen, shipping agents, butchers, and importers, who, to serve their own ends, have come forward as the champions of cheap meat for the people; singularly enough, leading men, populous places, and a portion of the press have been induced to listen to the wily talk, and to be- lieve the unsupported statements of these dis- interested individuals as to the high price of meat being the result of restrictions,, adopted merely, to keep out contagion. Aglance at the tables annexed will show how unfounded are these assertions. Whilst the English con- tinues to be the highest market-r-as it long has been — and the demand most regular, the surplus meat from other countries will find its way to British ports. The only period when foreign supplies have, to any extent, been di, verted from the English market was during the Franco-German war; the combatants were then, for a time, competing customers. I will now refer to the provisions' and regu- lations I deem necessary and desirable. 1. That, in order to avoid the present diversity of action, all Orders in Council or legislative enactments bearing upon the trade and disease in animals, should be imperative, and not permissive ; further, that their appli- cation should extend throughout the United Kingdom. 2. That provision be made to secure the practice of inspection throughout the three kingdoms being more thorough ; to this end a sufficient number of qualified men should be appointed by Government to act as itinerant inspectors, who should be charged' with the duty of visiting fairs, markets, and ports, to see that local authorities;, railway companies, wharfingers, shipping agents, local inspectors, &c., attend to the respective duties imposed upon them by Orders in Council or Acts of Parliament. Further, a sufficient number of veterinary inspectors should be appointed at the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, to make a proper examination of animals before shipment or landing. 3. That a universal system of local'Officers be established^ such officers (farmers or vete- rinary surgeons) to be armed* with powers to enter, at all reasonable times, upon farms and premises ; . to order isolation of diseased ani- mals, as well as those in contact with them,, also to give orders as to the treatment of in- fected places; the owners of cattle or oc- cupiers of premises to possess the right of refusing admittance to such officers tintil they have undergone the process of disinfection. 4. That the owner of any animal affectfed with a contagious disease shotild be com- pelled to give immediate notice of such case to the local officer, nor should such animal, or those which have been in contact, be allowed to be removed until the inspector reports them free from disease. 5. That, upon the outbreak of contagious disease in any loGality,the local inspector should have the power, subject to the local authority, of prohibiting, the movement of animals with- out an order^not only from the infected farm Ill or premises, but from any adjoining farm or premises the local inspector may deem requisite. 6., That, whenever foot-and-mouth disease or other contagious maladies become general or dangerously prevalent, it shall lae the im- perative duty of the Privy Council to order a temporary stoppage of fairs and markets for store stock, and the adoption of other regu- lations enforced during the time of the cattle^ plague. : 7. That, in respect of pleuro-pneumonia, all affected animals be immediately slaughtered ; that compens.ation be made to the owners at the rate of three-fourths the value of each animal, and one- third the salvage to belong to the owner. That the remainder of the herd be isolated for a period of not less than five clear weeks; that they also be immediately inoculated for the disease at the expense of the local authority. 8. That as the success of any regulations depends mainly upon the action and co- operation of cattle dealers, they should be required to take out a licence,, and' which should be liable to be suspended or revoked by the -magistrates in theevent of such dealer being convicted more than once of offences against the Act or Orders in Council. Cf. That in respect of animals from Ireland or other of the British fsles,' so long as such islands are free from contagious disease, no restrictions should be imposed upon exporta- tion^or importation j animals coming ithere- from should, in all respects, be itreated as English,^ Welsh, or Scotch cattle,., or animals arriving coastwise • at one British port from another ; but in the event of contagious disease being reported to existin either of these islands, all animals before leaving such island should be passed by an inspector at the port of embarkation, arid the owner should be called upon to produce a certificate from the local authority of the district the animals come from that such district is free from contagious diseases. Shouldithe animals be unsound, or the owner fail to produce a satisfactory certificate^ such animals not to be embarked until they have been subjected to such quarantine as the inspector: may order, or in accordance with rules to. be issued by the Privy Council. . lOk That all vessels, used for the importa- tion of . animals, be certified by the Board of Trade as to space, ventilation, convenience, &c. ; and that regulations for the efficient cleansing, and disinfecting of such vessels be issued and rigorously enforced. 11. That all animals, intended to be slaughtered for. meat, should be landed at specified ports and sent to markets, separate from those used for English stock. That all such animals should be branded or marked on landing, and not allowed to be removed alive from the place of debarkation. 12. That proper quarantine grounds should be provided by Government for foreign store stock arriving from " unscheduled " countries, which stock shall not be removed therefrom until, se^en clear days have elapsed. In the event of contagious disease? breaking out among any lot thus placed in quarantine, the whole should be slaiaghtered with the least possible delay.: Should cattle arrive at an English port from any country where pleuro- pneumonia 'exists, such cattle should either be slaughtered upon arrival or be subjected to a quarantine of not less than 28 days, and immediately inoculated for the disease. . The suggestions embodied in the above list may appear a formidable array of restrictions and regulg,tions. To any, who may be of opinion that they are too numerous or too striu" gent, I would point out that their object is to stamp out disease with the least possible delay, and to destroy the virus. The existing regu- lations have been tried long, enough to shew how totally inoperative they are ; I therefore maintain that as they are harassing without being effective, they should either be supple- mented by some such plan as I have sug- gested or swept away altogether, and, in lieu, severe, penalties imposaijl for moving or ex- posing for sale animals suffering from con- tagious diseases, or that have been in contact with affected animals. I would further point out that if the pro- posed machinery's as effective, as I believe it would prove to be, in ridding the country of the contagion and its germs, nearly the whole machinery could then be stopped and laid aside, like the scaffolding of a building, until again required. It was ray intention to give reasons for each of the foregoing proposals, but my paper has already run to great length, and I believe the necessity for most of the sug- gestions will be obvious to members of the Club. I shall be prevented taking the ordinary course of defending my proposals, in a reply after the discussion, having, lost — I hope but temporarily — my powers of .speech. There is one knotty question I would say a few words upon, viz., Irish cattle. It has been urged, of late, that they should be sub- jected to the same restrictions as are advo- cated for foreign animals. Home-rulers would look upon such a course as an ad- ditional argument for their cause. I am not for dissevering the two countries ; on the con- trary, .1 advocate, as far as possible, uniform laws and equal privileges. Ireland must, in this matter, be recognized as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Irish may ob- ject to my proposal for inspectioii and quarantine on their side, but I maintain that they can have no grounds for valid objection — remembering how rigorously they shut their own ports against EngUsh cattle during the time of the rinderpest, and this, I believe until some time after England could shew a clean bill of health. The regulations pro- posed would be an additional incentive to active local efforts for extirpating contagion in the sister isle. With respect -to the proposal for separate markets for foreign stock, I always thought that the late Government made a mistake in yielding to the Corporation of London upon the foreign cattle market question, and I remember, with satisfaction, that I did my best to prevent it All imported animals intended for immediate consumption should have been sent to the Deptford market for sale and slaughter there ; at present only cargoes of animals from scheduled (suspected) countries are sent there. If the entire foreign supply were sent to this market, no restric- tions, whatever, would be necessary, either in respect of inspection or quarantine; the whole might at once be abolished, and thus an end put to all controversy. I know that it is objected that two markets are inconvenient to cattle salesmen and the trade ; this might be alleviated by holding ihe foreign market on a separate day. Whilst the convenience of a class should be consulted, it ought not to be allowed to outweigh far graver considerations. Then again, it is objected that there are fewer buyers at Deptford than at the Metropolitan Market : with the present fitful and irregular supplies, this is doubtless the case, but with a more regular and larger supply, the market on a separate day, competition would increase, and the necessary number of buyers would assuredly be attracted. Perhaps there is no man in this country better acquainted with all the bearings of the foreign trade in animals than Mr Anthony George -Rpbinson — a large importer, mer-; chant, and shipper of foreign cattle. To those, who woulfl gam a full knowledge of this subject, I commend the adrairable^evi- dence he gave before the Select Committee . (1873). Mr Robinson advocated water-side markets for all foreign cattle, and maintained that if slaughter at these markets were made universal and compulsory, it would not in- juriously affect the trade in foreign animals, nor diminish the supply, but on the contrary, for in answer to a question from the Chair- man (Mr Forster), Mr Robinson said, " I think we should have a steadier trade, taking it all through, even with our Spanish cattle, if they were slaughtered at the water- side." The foreign trad.e, he said, was interfered with by the uncertainty which our regulations caused, and by the pre- sent market arrangements. Mr Robin- son's testimony is all the more valuable because of the financial interests he has at stake, and which would be jeopardized by 13 unwise regulations or restrictions. Further, Mr Robinson is a Liberal — a member of the Reform Club — and therefore politically op- posed to restrictions which would hamper trade. I may say, that having had the plea- sure of Mr Robinson's acquaintance for some years, I put great faith in his opinions — he is a man who can look at both sides of a ques- tion. As to quarantine for store animals, I regret that there is no separate record kept of the number of store animals imported from foreign countries, but as the number is known to be very small, the carrying-out of the •sug- gestion, for providing quarantine grounds, is surrounded with the less difficulty. The great bulk of imported store animals is from Ire- land ; I have always felt the difficulty Of pro- viding quarantine grounds, for so large a number as come from Ireland, hence I came to the conclusion that the arrangements for guaranteeing England against disease from the sister country, should be carried out by the Irish themselves.* Having said thus much on the subject of legislation, I will conclude with * few observa- tions — a veiy few — ^upon STOCK- owners' prudence, AND HINDRANCES TO PRODUCTION. Disease is spread in a number of ways over which tlie farmer has no control. He is the victim of other people's carelessness, and the State's neglept. At the same time, in how many instances are diseases spread by the carelessness and neglect of stock- owners themselves? To put fresh stock, whether bought at a fair or from another farm, is, in these days, running a risk which a prudent man would avoid ; yet how often is it done, not only to the injury of the owner, but also of his neighbours. My own Bailiiff, whom I have more than once cautioned for * Since I pointed out, when in the House of Commons, that Irish cattle were often depreciated, to the extent of £t to £2 per head, through their liability to fall with disease after purchase, and from the consequent suspicion attaching to them. The Irish breeder has, therefore, by far the greater interest in the removal of the evils.'-[J. H.] his temerity, came to me, last summer, with the information that a heifer he had recently bought from a neighbour, had fallen with the foot-and-mouth complaint. Thinking there was no danger, she had been turned out with a number of others. I had, at thd time, kbout a hundred and sixty head of horned stock upon the farm. Fortunately,- by the adoption of prompt measures, we managed to confine the outbreak to the cattle in immediate contact, and thus avoided a very serious loss. I am not sure that an action for damages , could not be sustained against a man, who injured another by selling animals he knew had been in contact with diseased stock, and who had held back the fact. When taking a stroll in Yorkshire, some time ago, I came across a lot of cattle, terribly bad with foot-and-mouth disease. The field, in which they were depastured, adjoined a large common, upon which some hundreds of cattle were turned out — a post and rail fence being the only division. No difficulties were interposed to the spread of the contagion. Surely, I thought, the owner of these animals ought to have provided means against in- juring his neighbours and the public in such a way ; and if he were not amenable to the law, I thought that the laws, in the interest of the community, should be amended. It would be beyond the scope of my paper to enter into details as to the treatment of disease. I would, however, observe that I believe the mafn remedies to be isolation, cleanliness, and the use of disinfectants. Care should be exercised that deodorants are not used for disinfectants, the former being simply sweeteners and purifiers of the atmo- sphere, whilst the latter destroy, in some mysterious way, the very germs of contagion. That the capabilities of the United King- dom are sufficient for producing a far larger meat-supply, no one informed upon the sub- ject can entertain the shadow of a doubt; the margin ' for expansion in this depart- ment, moreover, is much wider than in an increased corn production. The following instances are proofs of what 14 may be done in the production of meat. A weU-known member of this Club occupied a laige farm belonging to a Peer — himself a practical agriculturist. This tenant, who had; ample security for his outlay under the terms of a long lease, and great confidence also in his landlord, prepared for me, not long since,, returns of his saks for the previous two years. These shewed that he had sold beef,, mutton, and pork to the amount of ;^4o,ooo:j deducting from this, sum ^^28,000 for, animals purchased, left a net meat return of ;^S per acre. From returns made to me, from other parts of the Kingdom, I find that; this case, although far, above the average, is: by no means exceptional. In one such, re- turn the production was no less tlian £^1 per acre. From a return just furjjished by my, own ba,iiiff, I find that, last year, the net amount of sales of beef,, mutton, aijd porfc; upon 563 acres was ^^32,00, being at the rateof;^5, 13s. 8d. per acre. No tenant can continue to farm upon this ; scale of production without enhancing, from year to year, the value of the land; in his occupation, or without embarking cpnsider- , able capital in the enterprize. T^lie profits, moreover, upon meat, manufacture are gener- ally more jprospective than imrnediatej the producer has to waitj therefore, unless a tenant be secured, not only in respect of his outlay, but secured against advance of rent upon the improvements he hiijiself has effected, it need be no mar\fel that he does not launch out to the extent I have just in- stanced—nor, seeing that a man, who attempts ) siich a course, exposes himself to greater ^isks, and losses, through fluctuations in the yalue of stock, as well.as disease, need it cause sur- prise that such instances are exceptional. Last year a Bill was brought into Parlia- ment, the avowed object of which was to id- crease the food of the people, by njaking our fields and homesteads yield a larger increase. According to the glowing and generous open- ing statements of his Grace the Duke of Richmond, the provisions of the Bill were to have a marvellous effect in inducing the farmers of England to lay out their capital in, the,iraprovement of their occupations by the security which this wonderful Bill was to give them. As I listened to the Noble Duke my spirits rose. Surely, I thought within myself, the deputa,tion from this Club to the Prime Minister had the desired effect— we are, after, all, to haye z,- real Bill, but 9,las^-a speech, v^hich commenced by an acknowledgement of the justice of the teriants' claim, — by a recognition of the national advantage which ■ would accrue — wa-s brought to a close by the naiye statement that the Bill would be found; to have nothing binding it — an assurance which appeared greatly to relieve the minds of my lords. Although the avowed object of the Agri- cultural Holdings Act bears directly upoh the subject, of my paper, I will not make tljis the, occasion to enter upon a lenglhened criticism of its provisions, but I do desire^for a moment, to recal, to your recollection what was asked of the Prime Minister by the deputation from; this Club. When asked to, introduce; the subject befora the Premier, I endeavoured to put the case in the , simplest possible form.; I remarked to the right hon. gentleman that the capital! which a tenant embarked upon' his holding consisted, for the one part, of his liv,e and, dead stock, which were removable, and, for the .other part, of labourj manure, • and materials, sunk in or upon his holding, which were irremovable. That,.as both were paid for out of the same pocket, the law ought to. secure the tenant's right in the property he could not remove, just as fully as it did. in the live and dead stock, which he could remove. This is all that was asked ^ of the Government— nothing more* nothing less. What has the Bill done^ It has changed the presumption of the law— which a stroke of the pen can render useless. I, do not deny that the discussion upon the Bill, in Parlia- ment and throughout the country, may lead to good results, but as to the Act itself, I con- tend it has done ribthing, or next to nothing,, toward carrying out the object for which it. 15 was brought in. It has not conferred a single right upon a tenant which he did not possess before, but it has conferred rights upon the owner, and, therefore, perhaps, Mr Holborow, a farmer and valuer, who spoke upon it at Cirencester last week, had some justification for saying that the Bill had got a wrong title, that instead of " The Agricultural Holdings Act," it should have been " The Landlord's Protection A,ct." Yet, I have heard tenants meekly remark, that it is a step in the right direction. It may be, but my conviction is that the step was of the nature of a move, a dexterous move, taken to shelve a question, simply because it was likely to become embarrassing in county politics. When the , Land - laws of England are thoroughly overhauled — as doubtless some day they will be, perhaps' in a ruder fashion and under greater excitement than we foresee or any of us desire — the Duke of Richmond's and the Duke of Argyll's speeches, with the Lords' debates upon the Bill, will probably be exhumed and brought forward as proofs, that through traditional sentiment, the great landowners of England are unfitted to legislate on land questions in the public interest j for] if the debate, in their Lord- ships' house, was characterized for one quality beyond another, it was that pf selfish- ness— a quality, I am bound to confess, the Peers display less of, in the ordinary affairs of life, than, perhaps, any other section of the community. -■ The Marquis of Huntly was. a notable ex- ception among the Peers. He took' through- out a broad view of the question, and after the Bill had passed, he gave expression to ttie follpwing sentiinents : — "I think," said thd Marquis, "that when once the Legis- lature has been asked to interfere Avith the pre- sent law to change the presumption of the' law in favour of the tenant, to declairp^ fhat, by the application of capital, increased industry and increased production resulted, to assume that it was of national advantage to promote that industry, and therefore to give security for that capital in order to maintkin its appli- cation — I^think, I say, that Parliament might have gone one step further, and made certain provisions in the new law iompul- sory." With a quotation of these expressions, from one of our youngest Peers, I wilL con- clude my address with the remark, that it is seldom so much wisdom is conveyed iii so few words. APPENDIX. TABLE I.— Abstract from Sir H. S. Thompson's Paper on " Agricultural Progress,", in thk Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 1864 (completed up to 1875). Shewing the Wholesale Price of Prime Meat per Stone of 8 lb. in the Metropolitan Market. Kind of Meat by the Carcase. Average Price for S Years; ending tSJs- Average Price for ' J Years ending 1863. Increase In 10 Years.- Average Price for S Years ending I8J3.- Increase in so Years. Average ■ Price for 1874 and 18)$.' Increase in 33 Years. Beef. • s. d, 4 2^ 4 S s. d. " S 9 Price. d. 10 16 P. ct. 20 30 s, d. s ^Vz 6 4 Price. d. 16 23 P. cL 32 43 s. d. 5 8^ 6 S Price. d. I8 24 P.ct. 4S Mutton TABLE IL — Abstract supplied to Mr James Howard from the Statistical Department OF the Board of Trade. QUANTITIES OF LIVE AND DEAD MEAT IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED , UN EACH OF THE VEARS FROM 1840 TO 1875 (INCLUSIVE). KINGDOM Animals. Beef, Saltec Bacon and Pork. Meat, Salted Meat Prei Years. served other- Oxen, Bulls, Cows, and Calves. Sheep and Lambs. Swine and Hogs. or Fresh. Hams. or Fresh. wise than by SaltlDg. No. No. No. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. 1840 ... 998* 29,779 6,181 29,532 • •• ... 184I ... 1,453* 43,960 5ii94 44.579 ... 1842 4,264 644 410 30,022 8,355 54,164 ... 1843 I,S2I 217 361 60,724 7,36& 27,118 ... I844 4,889 2,817 265, 106,768 6,768 30,844 184s 16,833 15.957 1,590 87,815 5,483 39,700 .•• 1846 45.043 94.624 3,856 , 177,172 14,203 72,789 'l*t >S.7I7 142,720 1,242 117,695 107,732 235,899 • tf • •• 1848 62,738 130,583 2,119 121,980 219,033 254.132 ... .,. 1849 S3.449 129,266 2,653 149,962 396,447 348,275 1850 66,461 143,498 7,287 135,414 352,461 211.254 • ■• , 1851 86,520 201,859 15,599 "7,384 192,118 154.800 • >• ... 1852 , 93.061 230,037 10,524 124,693 81,436 95.555 ... 1853 125.253 259,420 "2,757 183,285 205,667 152,731 • •> 1854 114.338 183,436 11,077 192,274 423,510 160,898 ... 'fss 97,527 162,642 12,171 230,75 s 241,494 204,326 382 2,155 1856 83.306 145,059 9,916 187,838 -372,793 156,266 1,170 23,899 '^57 92,963 177,207 10,678 151,174 366,934 ■ 88,752 327 6,134 1858 89,001 184,482 ",565 168,558 196,685 89,765 632 575 'ii^ 85.677 250,580 11,084 219,589 107,251 163,330 2,690 1,758 i860 104,569 320,219 24,452 262,194 326,106 173,325 15,007 6,131 1861 107,096 3«2,923 30,308 150,635 515.953 136,416 1,101 2,7ji4 1862 97.887 299,472 18,162 189,761 1.345.694 227,758 695 725 'i^3 150,898 430,788 27,137 288,369 1,877,813 170,751 973 2,310 1864 231,733 496,243 85,362 346,821 >.o69,3go 228,015 1.474 1.474 1865 283,271 914,170 132,943 244.431 713.346 222,419 3,480 8,083 1866 237.739 790,880 73,873 232,948 635,782 205,282 151,820 2,318 1867 '^I'?tl 539,716 48,079 246,767 537, "4 150,285 97,916 15.5.39 1868 136,688 341,155 33,721 245,120 638, 127 151,362 38,343 20,118 1869 220, 190 709,843 69,067 229,233 740,193 190,874 50,247 32.214 1870 202,172 669,905 95.724 215.748 567,164 257,014 34,300. 80,636 1871 248,611 917,076 85,562 302,079 1,093.838 296. 144 42,340 . 254.833 ■ 1872 172,993 809,822 16,100 228,912 2,001,855 218,260 55,354 350.729 '873 . 200,802 851,116 80,978 260,554 2,987,229 289,695 79,841 260,749 1874 193,862 758,915 "5,389 261,721 2,542,09s 322,574 119,403 265.223 •875 263,698 977,863 71,928 216,516 2,629,901 268,392 144,987 171.746 ' Cliiefly from the Cliannel Islands or Isle of Man. Table III. — Abstracts from Papers handed in by Mr John Algernon Clarke, to the Select Committee on Contagious Diseases (Animals) 1873. ESTIMATE OF THE ANNUAL HOME PRODUCTION OF MEAT. Table A. — Shewing the Number op Cows and Heifers 'and the Number Annually Drafted FOR Meat. 1 V SI „ s i S u Drapes or Drafted Cow. g In If il rtO Si £■3 ^ u if •Bo ■ s 5-° 1^ £■3 a< - Period of Calving. ^1 %^ ■s = '1- ■SB n X-a '•^ «■« •°S a g' •s^ 6j. /4 So n 11 E "1 So c ^S ^r oO 27, ail = i w Si "1 1^- Ji 3f 3 ° Si in n! 1^1 First Quarter of the Year 300,000 270,000 2jO,O0O 230,000 310,000 20,600 1460,000 190,000 _ Heifers, Heifers Cows Cows Cows Cows in calf. in milk. in milk. in milk. in milk. in milk. Second Quarter of the Year 300,000 Heifer?, 270,000 Heifers 2J 0,000 Cows 230,000 Cows 210,000 Cows •■ 1,260,000 200,000 — ■ — in milk in milk. in milk in milk Third Quarter of the Year Jo.ooo Heifers in calf. Jo, 000 Cows in calf. 50,000 Cows in calf. 40,000 Cows in calf. 40,000 Cqws in £alf. 230,000 40,000 Fourth Quarter of the Year I, ^- « V « a « m"3 il _ •73 V *^ ' 0.S.I3 ■§:g,S!t- •2" JS 5 p, M. !££ "V^ S-25 ■3 S Nominal Number of Dams S,-SE ■a<.S "1 = fill 16 s-sl ' 1^ es Total, enumerated as under year old, at. the First Cem Mortality after four months at the rate of 10 per cent. j'ear, deducted. Km gel.-. Sx ■e-3-,' ■3ii " to Calve per Year. Mortality after the Census in June deducted. Actual Number o Year; from Delays a 30 per cent, less tha of Dams. Number of Live 'ducting 5 per cent, fi her of Calvings for and also 5 per ce before four months ■SSE m > 3 H Us g2 -If If Number of Calves and under two y Second Censiis. M cent, deducted. ' III =1^ Total,;enumerat^ old and 'under two Second Census; «i Second Census. V in t-2 First Quarter— 1,190,000. . 950,000 850,000 i7o,doo 170,000 ■ _ 670,000 670,000 620,000 ' 1,290,000 Mortality, 6 per cent Mortality, 2 per cent. 3 to 6 mnths old. Jitoii years old. li to U years old; Second Quarter— 1,160,000 930,000 840,000 170,000 100,000 70,000 740,000- 670,000, 620,000 Mortolity, 8 per cent. Mortality, per cent to 3 mnths old. I to ij years old. 1 toii years old. Third .Qaarter.^230,000 -.. x8o,ooo 160,000 30,000 30,000 — _ 120,000 120,000 110,000 40,000 70,000 190,000 Mortality, 2 per cent. Mortality, 7 per cent. 9 to 12. mnths old. .Ijt0 2 years old.. 1} to 3 years old. ijto 3" •years old. Fourth Quarter— 630,00a.. 500,000 450,000 90,000 90,000 . — 3401000 340,000 320,000 100,000 Mottalityj-4 per cent Mortality, 5 per cent. 6 too mnths old. litoii years old. 14 to l| years old. li to l| years old. 3,200,000 3,560,000 8,300,000 460,000 390,000 7o,oco 1,870,000 1,800,000 to 12 mnths old. 1,670,000 1 to 2 years old. 140,000 I^t0 2 years old. l,S3o,ooo I to J years old. 3,400,000 to 2 years old. i8 TABLE C.~ Shewing the Number of Cajtle at different Ages probably killed for Beef. U CO Cfl u umber of Stores, Fatting Beasts, rking Oxen, and Bulls enumerated wo years old and above at the Third sns. Mortality, 3 per cent., deducted. V •n iti .■ u bins m U *fl •d •d' 01 umber enumerated at the Secon sus as one year old and under tw s; with Age at the Second Census = g| i 1 1 fed. . E.S 9 rt •s ■a fid li umber of Fatting Beasts, Bulls, an rking Oxen enumerated as two year and above at the Tourth Census tality, 3 per cent., deducted. h ii •** MS feg .0 u EU Itting Beasts, Bulls, and Workiu n enumerated as two years old an f e at the Fifth Census. Mortality,- cent., deducted. 1 fe -a •0 ' a li. 11 11 1 E«ti „o„ m 1 B u I- 2 It i! 1 rt u S3 S s ii s B rt ^6i ""m 2E ■^g 2 o** c ^m rt & < '=11 ^l. H 6»,oao 300,000 330,000 10,000 300,000 40,000 350,000 — — _ li to Ij aj to ai 3ito3i years old. years old. vears old. 630,000 300,000 320,000 10,000 300,000 30,000 a6o,ooo — — — — — — — — I to ij 2 to 3^ ,3 to 3J years old. years old. years old. 70,000 10,000 60,000 .» 60,000 10,000 50,000 — — — — ... __ _ — I|t0 3 2|t0 3 3|t0 4 years old. years old. years old. 330,000 £0,000 170,000 10,000 160,000 30,000 740,000 — _ ^- — — — — . li to 1} ajtoal 3*to3| years old. years old. years old 1.530,000 660,000 870,00c 30,000 830,000 100,000 700,000 400,000 290,000 280,000 \ 340,000 50,000 a,aoo,ooo 9,360,000 1,71; 0.000 T to 3 li to 2i 2 to 3 3jt0 3^ 3 to 4 34 to 4^ 4t0S 44years < vears vears old. years vears old. years years old years years oldandjotd anc old. old. old. old. aboVe 1 above. N.B. — From a comparison of other Tables, prepared by Mr Clarke, and of estimates by. other authorities, I con- dude the number of Cattle, killed for meat, in 1S75, to be about 2,ooo,coo. — ^James Howard. Table D. — Shewing the Numbers and Dead Weight of Cattle, Calves, Sheep, Lambs, and Pigs probably Killed for Meat, Animals Killed. Average Age when Killed. Cattle * years Cattle years Cattle . . . ., '. years Cattle, Bulls, &c Drapes and Drafted Cows '. J J. to ? J a* to 3i 3* to 44 Older Veal, Calves . ft Total Beef. . Total Beef and Veal . weeks Lambs (lo per cent, of 10,640,000, Total Sheep and Lambs killed)., weeks Sheep years Total Mutton and Lamb .. . Number. Deadweight per Head, Imperial Stones. 30,000 i;oo,ooo 400,000 280,006 480,000 Weight of Meat in Imperial Stones^ Weight of Meat in Tons. 30 (420 lb.) 900,000 40 (560 lb.) 4,000,000 50 (700 Ib.y 20,000,000 50 (700 lb.) 14,000,000 46 (644 lb.) 22,080,000 1,290,600 47i(662lb.) 460,000 J (98 lb.) la to 16 Aver. 24 1,750,000 1,140,000 9,500,000 10,640,000 Sucking Figs and Porkers months BaconPigs yea Total Pork and Bacon Total Home Supply of Meat Aver. 5 Aver, ij 1,820,000 3,026,000 4,846,000 36§(5i4lb,) 3 (421b. 5H77!b. 4H67lb.) 4|(65jb.: 17} 250 lb. 60,980,000 3,220,000 64,200,000 3,420,000 47) 500,000 9^ ('34 lb.) 46,039,000 401,250 318,250 Price per Ton. 70 (7^d. per lb.) 84 (^d. per lb. ) Value of Meat 28,087, 5ca 26,733,000 287,731 65 (7d. per lb.) 18,702,515 73.523»oiS N,B. — The we^hts of the animals fron^ above are considered by many praeticaf men as much too low.- 19 TABLE E.— Shewing thbI TofAi, Estimated Meat Supply to the relative proportion Fur- nished BY Home and by Foreign Animals. Animals Imported in 1872. Oxen and Bulls Cows • Calves Total Cattle . Sheep and Lambs . Pigs Total Imported Foreign Animals Number. "o,S37 28,840 33.S2S 172,902 809,817 16,101 Deadweight: per Head, Imperial Stones. 46 (684 lb.J 40(560 lb) (Cattle 44}) (626 lb.) 7 (981b.)- 37i(524 lb.) 4 (56 lb.) 7 {98 lb.) Weight of Meat in Imperial Stone^, 5,084,702 1,153,600 ?34.675 6,472.977 3,239,268 112,707 Weight of Meat in Tons. 40,455 20,245 704 61,404 Price , per Ton. 70 (7id. per lb.) 84 (9d. per lb.) 6s (7d. per lb.) ■Value of Meat. 2,831,350 1,760,580 45.760 4,638,190 Summary. Home Supply of Meat J Foreign Animals in 1872 ■••• Foreigtt Bead Meat— Bacon, Pork, Hams, Beef, and other Meat in 1872 •_ Total Meat Supply. Potllilation of the United Kingdom, 1871 . Weight in Tons. 1,007,231 61,404 1,211,209 31,609,910 Per Cent. 83.16 5.07 11.77 6.09 Imperial Stones of Meat per head. A JOURNAL FOR THE COUNTRY HOUl THE^FARMER, A WEEKLY ILLUSTRATED JOURNAL OF THE FARM-THE FIELD-THE FOREST-THE GARD\ FIRST SERIES ESTABLISHED IN 18^. PRICE FIVEPENCE. The Farmer is published every Monday afternoon in time for the Mails, and will be.sent by.Post at perqr.; Half-year, lis.; Year, 2 is., payable in advance. Money Orders payable to T. W. Hanna| THE FARMER aims to be the vehicle of informatioo. directly and immediately ' to tlie important classes engaged in the practice, and interested in .the progress, of AgricU Arboriculture, Horticulture, and cognaite branches. The Editor makes it a special point to secure iat\ news of a directly Agricultural character, such as Papers read and Reports of Discussions at ChambI Agriculture, Farmers' Clubs, and at Meetings of Agricultural Societies. _ _ The department oiJCas-Breederand Grazier is conducted- with vigoar,- and special attention is ] matters affecting Shorthorns and other favourite breeds. . ■ j ■ A series Of articles on Seasonable Subjects is given at the period of the year when thes.e -demani attention and care of the Farmer. '.'- v v,, • ^ »i. J The rapidly extending interests of Agricultural Engineers and Implement Makers require at ttieil of those conducting such a paper as The Farmer, due consideration- and attention. Reports on I are fairly and fully given by the most competent writers, and all the nio.st recent Injplements andMapB together with Improvements made on otheirs, are described: and illustrated.' ' -I -Prominence is. devoted to the subject of ■Veterinary Science. Eminently practical venters enric| department with their contribiitions. , . ' . , .- Special and early descriptions of important Exhibitions of Stock and Implements and Machines, are i Reviews of Books interesting to Country Gentlemen and Farmers are published^ and Origittal-Comst cftce o£a directly practical character is carefully cultivated. f The other departments of The YaxuS^— Arboriculture, Horticulture, the Dairy and Poultry Yard\ that portion devoted to the Domestic Ecort^y of the Country House— axe written by competent authorsl are fully illustrated with Engravings. ', j r. i nr I A tgpecial Market Supplement, containing full Reports of all the principal Grain and Cattle M^ throughput the Country up to the last hour of going to press, is issued weekly, free of cost, to Subscribera FORM OF SUBSCRIPTION. To the Publisher of Tax. Farmer, Salisbury Square, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Please enter my name as a Subscriber to The Farmer for same thereafter until further orders. months, and for Name .... Residence Date Intending Subscribers should cut off the above Form of Order, and, having filled it up, send it to 0#m— SALISBURY SQUARE, FLEET ST., LONDON, El m U m ii!>"n 'I'l