■.'>0-2 



(JLKAMNUS IX lii:K CULTLliK 



May 1 



Thirdly, '"No one teaching?: in rep. rd to diet 

 will absolutely suit every case.'' " Our 

 hodus are a sort of {garden," etc. 



Later. — To-day, Ajril '23, we are back 

 once more in our Ohio home. J)uring our 

 trip, which occui)ie(i the greater i)art of 

 three days, we carefully followed our diet of 

 two meals a day, eating nothing after our 

 dinner at nooii.* As we reached Medina 

 just about sui)per-tinie, each one of o\u five 

 children urged us to sit down to supper; 

 and I shall have to confess that the smok- 

 ing viands were quite a tei iptation to us to 

 break our pledge; and after our long and in 

 some respects tiresome trip, the temptation 

 was very great to have one more good square 

 meal between five and six in the afternoon. 

 But Mrs. Root and 1 both decided that we 

 would not break in upon the new regime 

 that has given us so much satisfaction. It 

 requires some self-command and self-sacri- 

 fice, and "ruling of one's own spirit." and 

 I am sure we both felt better than if we had 

 l)artaken of food. The next morning I felt 

 well rested, and not particularly hungry. 

 And this whole matter explains fully what I 

 have been trying to teach for many years — 

 that in these lives God has given us to live 

 we are to let duty rule, and not inclination. 

 Our constant motto should be what I ought 

 to do and not what I tvaut to do — that is, 

 our lower appetites and animal nature 

 should be constantly subservient to reason 

 and good common sense. 



Now I will add in closing that I still have 

 my ajjples in the evening — that is, a few 

 good rii)e mellow a])ples, so you will not 

 think I do not practice what I preach. I 

 have tried both ways, with and without the 

 apples, and I am satisfied that the fruit 

 alone does not tax my digestive ajjparatus 

 in any way so as to be a detriment. Mrs. 

 Hoot does not care for the ajjjiles in the 

 evening. 



Poultry Department 



15.V A. 1. IJooT 



GETTING KICH WITH CUU'KKN.S; TUK OTHKK SIDK OF 

 TUK MATTKK. 



Mr. A . I. Root: — J notice that .voii have been kind 

 enough to express hearty api^robation of Mr. Boy- 

 er"s write-up <>f the Corniiie e!rp:-fariii. You have 

 al.so even more lieartily appri;vefi Milo Hastings' 

 book, "The Dollar Hen." as well as the Prairie .State 

 Inculiator f'o"s catalog. It is a long distance be- 

 tween the conservative statements in the latter 

 Ijooks and the title of the f'orning egg-book. 



I have been waiting for criticism of the Corning 

 egg-book; but I have not yet read any thing of that 

 kind. I was hoping t'- it, w 1th your penchant for 

 showing up the poultry fakes, .vou would have rc^d 

 this book carefully enouuh to discover the deli. si ve 

 mode of reasoning employed to obtain the above- 

 mentioned title. The statement of "S6.41 per hen 



* I have already talked about the saving in time 

 and money bv having only two meals, li this is 

 true in the home, how much more is It true when 

 traveling: Three meals a day taken in the dining- 

 car is rather expensive buslnes.s, as you know if you 

 have tried it. Well, you not only cut ofT a third of 

 the expense, but you will find you can stand the 

 wear and tear of travel very much better. 



per year" will, if allowed to go unchallenged, cause 

 a great many would-be poultry-farmers to embark 

 in the poultry business who never would have gone 

 into it had the statement been conservative. This 

 letter Is written to try to save those who may risk 

 thtir small .savings in the "Corning method "(?i. 



In the first iJlace. look at the admission that the 

 Comings have spent three years and over 820,000 on 

 this egg-farm — a considerable part of one's life, and 

 a good-sized fortune for the ordinary man. 



In obtaining the net profit per hen, no mention is 

 made of the inlerext on ixrextmetit, in.mrance, up- 

 keep due to depre<-iation. ete. I^et us estimate what 

 this amounts to. 



INVKSTMKNT— 



12 acres of land at SoOO - - - - $6000 00 



1 Homestead 4000 OO 



1 plant, including implements, automo- 

 bile, horses, etc., 30000 00 



Insurance — 



Plant at rate of 50 cts. per .*i(K) - - - S150 00 



House, S2500 at 25 cts. per SlOO - - 6 25 

 Up-keep — 



15* of S30,000 (see Dollar Hen. p. 71 > - ?4.500 OO 

 Interest — 



8* of S30.000 - - - - - - • - ft2400 00 



69^ of §10,000 ---.-.. 600 00 



Note that the homestead is charged against the 

 hens, because just that amount is tied up and can 

 not be used in the egg business. 



Accepting the figures on page 13 of the Corning 

 egg-book relating to revenue and expenditures at 

 their face values, we shall have for revenue S15.714.84. 

 To the expenditure of 83194.03 we will add insurance, 

 S156.25: up-keep, S4500: Interest, *3000. or a total <jf 

 S10,850.28. Subtracting this from the revenue we 

 get 84864.56, or the Coi-nings would have over 8240O 

 each for their labor per year, out of which they 

 would have to pay their living expenses. Taking 

 the above figures into account, the net profit per 

 hen per year would be 82.49 — a figure much more 

 reasonable than 86.41. 



Not wishing to throw any doubt on the figures as 

 set down, and criticising only the methods of ob- 

 taining them, let us try to show what the average 

 would-be poultry-farmer could expect. We learn 

 that 23,316 dozen eggs were laid in ten months on 

 the Corning farm. This number was obtained by 

 multiplying the total number of hens 1 19531 by the 

 average egg yield per hen for only ten months. A 

 serious misstatement is made on p. 18, end of para- 

 graph three of the Corning book — " Ijeghorns on 

 Sunny Slope Farm la.st year averaged 143.25 (eggs) 

 for ten month.s. at the rate of 171.9 a year." Sup- 

 pose the hens laid no eggs for the remainder of the 

 year, the yearly average would be about 120 eggs per 

 hen year instead of 171.9. Probably 125 would be a 

 fair estimate, as some hens would lay during tl.e 

 moulting season. What would this do to the Cor- 

 nings' figures, if they kejtt their hens for 12 mouths 

 after they began to lay, as most of us do? I do n<.t 

 see why it is not correct, when figuring on a yearly 

 basis, to count in two jnonths before pullets begin 

 to lay. I should like to ask the Comings if they 

 would buy several thousand moulting hens (year- 

 lings) and pay just one dollar apiece for them. Cer- 

 tainly 144 eggs per hen per year is not exceptional 

 for a large flock of hens when the drones are elimi- 

 nated by trap nests. The Comings u.se no trap 

 nests, and 125 eggs per hen per year is all they 

 could expect by their method — see lif'iible I'oultr.ij 

 Journal. December, 1908, page 9(i7. end of first para- 

 graph of first column. 



When it comes to the price leeeived for eggs sold 

 by the Comings, it appears to me that they forgot 

 to mention the cost of shipping, and .also that only 

 the best retail prices were averaged .\o mention 

 is made of the prices received from commission 

 merchants, although it is admitted that eggs were 

 sold to such (see middle of pace 15. Coming book'. 

 ?. omerilou Is made of the cost of selling, such as 

 iiJveri .jing.. stationery, postage, printing, greasing 

 the Stewarts' palm, etc. Such things as these would 

 h.i.J-tobc paid for by the ordinai-y farmer. Note 

 ii.at the Comings" letterhead reads that their eggs 

 are " delivered daily by mes.senger." which ought 

 to cost something when 20,(KK) dozen eggs are so de- 

 livered. 



The average price i)aid for eggs by consumers in 

 the United Stales during 1SKI9 was 33 cents, and they 

 were sohl by the farmers at an average price of 22 

 cents per dozen. ^1 ilo Hastings has charted a price- 

 curve on page 172 for the price of eggs during 1908. 



