PROFIT AND LOSS 215 



tion of some trucking and fruit raising with poultry rais- 

 ing, not merely for the profit from them in itself, but 

 because he regarded them as a means of staving off cer- 

 tain definite losses common to poultry raising, through 

 utilizing the manure and keeping the land in wholesome 

 condition. " It is not impossible," he says, "to make an 

 exclusive poultry plant pay, for a period of years ; but 

 if the land is overcrowded, the risk of loss is increased, 

 and a time may come when the land becomes positively 

 unfit for poultry." I call especial attention to the fact 

 that his view goes beyond that to which I have previ- 

 ously drawn your notice, viz., the crowding as it affects 

 individual birds directly, and talks of overcrowded 

 land as a fundamental, wide-reaching source of loss. 



A certain statement of Professor W. J. Spillman, one of 

 the government employees, may well come in for a 

 brief consideration. He affirms that more money " can 

 be lost with chickens, relatively, than with sheep or pigs." 

 The mind of any reader instinctively demands, " Why ?" 

 This is one of those statements which prove irritating, 

 because so indefinite that analysis can do nothing with 

 them. What does " relatively " mean, for instance ? 

 Relatively, one loses a hen much oftener than he loses a 

 sheep, possibly, if he raises both. But again, relatively, 

 with common stock, he can afford to lose eight to ten 

 hens for each sheep lost, and still come out even. If he 

 chance to be carrying sheep worth five dollars each and 

 hens worth ten or twenty-five dollars each, it would be 

 marvelously easy to prove the learned Professor's point. 

 As a matter of fact, if a man is ignorant enough, 

 careless enough, or stupid enough, he can probably lose 

 all he invests either in sheep or in pigs, not to mention 



