SHEBP HUSBANDRY. 191 



substance in the carcass of a half-fattened sheep, is four per cent, 

 greater than in the ox of the same condition, and six per cent, 

 greater when fattened. The percentage of dry substance in the 

 offal parts of the half-fattened sUeep are at the same time two per 

 cent, less than in the ox, and when fat, three per cent less, while 

 the percentage of water in the ofFal parts are somewhat greater in 

 the sheep than in the ox, in the different stages of fattening. 

 Thus we see that the carcass of the sheep, by its very consti- 

 tution, possesses an advantage at the outset, over that of the cow 

 or the ox. Not only is this true, but we further learn, that while 

 both parts of the body, the carcass proper, and the offal, increase 

 during fattening, the increase of the former is greater, and that of 

 the latter less, in the sheep, than in the ox and the cow. 



As might be inferred from the foregoing facts, we also learn 

 that sheep will make a greater increase of live weight from the 

 same amount of food than will cattle. The difference stated 

 is about 25 per cent. Or given in other words, of a mixture of 

 good hay, meal and roots to be fed to fattening animals, a sheep 

 will make as much meat out of 75 pounds of the mixture, as the 

 ox will from 100 pounds. 



On this point we can clearly trace the comparative value of 

 these two machiYies, which nature has given us, with which we 

 may convert the products of our fields into a marketable commo- 

 dity. How long could a cloth-maker afford to run a set of 

 machinery that wasted 25 per cent, of the wool fed to it ? or which 

 made one-fourth less cloth than another, from a given amount of 

 material ? 



While upon this point, it may be as well to notice an objectioo 

 which will be raised here, namely : — that the higher price of beef 

 in market is always sufficient to more than compensate for this 

 assumed loss in feeding cattle. The objection is worthy of notice, 

 but may not prove as formidable as would seem at first sight. 



As a people the Americans, and New Englanders in particular* 

 have a strong prejudice against mutton as an article of diet, and 

 for the best of reasons — our markets furnish but a scanty supply 

 of anything deserving that name. The tough, lean, blue carcasses 

 that are sold under that name, would disgust any meat eating 

 animal, from man downward, and it is by comparing the price of 

 beef with this dry and juiceless trash, that the objection has arisen 

 which we are now noticing. 



Poor mutton has always sold at a low figure, and always must, 



