Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Story
July 2, 1872
The Charlotte Democrat
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
What is this article about?
An editorial argues that raising calves is essential despite initial costs, as it sustains milk, butter, cheese, and beef production. It dismisses the 'does it pay?' question as frivolous, comparing it to asking if eating or living pays, and extends the logic to other livestock to avoid societal collapse.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
Does Raising Calves Pay?
Of course not. A calf drinks milk wherever it can get it, and milk being cash at the cheese factory or in the general market here is so much loss. If milk is withheld, something else must be substituted, and this involves expense—another loss. It takes time to feed them, and as 'time is money,' here is another item to go down in the debtor column. Now, is it not clear that raising calves does not pay? But, says one, the calf will make a cow or an ox—the one makes cheese and butter and finally beef: the other works several years and then goes to beef also. These facts must be taken into account by way of balancing the debtor column. If this is so, the question is a frivolous one and about as sensible as it would be to ask, 'Does it pay to eat or live?'
This everlasting iteration 'does it pay?' ought to be consigned to the tomb and be denied the promise of a resurrection. If calves are not raised, milk, butter, cheese and beef must soon be expunged from the gastronomical vocabulary. An interrogatory with respect to sheep, swine and poultry would be as pertinent as the one about calves, and must receive a kindred answer. While the human family, following the example of Nebuchadnezzar, would all go to grass! If this alternative is to be avoided, we must raise calves, sheep, swine and poultry, passing by the stale cry of 'will it pay?' as impertinent and out of place.—American Farmer.
Of course not. A calf drinks milk wherever it can get it, and milk being cash at the cheese factory or in the general market here is so much loss. If milk is withheld, something else must be substituted, and this involves expense—another loss. It takes time to feed them, and as 'time is money,' here is another item to go down in the debtor column. Now, is it not clear that raising calves does not pay? But, says one, the calf will make a cow or an ox—the one makes cheese and butter and finally beef: the other works several years and then goes to beef also. These facts must be taken into account by way of balancing the debtor column. If this is so, the question is a frivolous one and about as sensible as it would be to ask, 'Does it pay to eat or live?'
This everlasting iteration 'does it pay?' ought to be consigned to the tomb and be denied the promise of a resurrection. If calves are not raised, milk, butter, cheese and beef must soon be expunged from the gastronomical vocabulary. An interrogatory with respect to sheep, swine and poultry would be as pertinent as the one about calves, and must receive a kindred answer. While the human family, following the example of Nebuchadnezzar, would all go to grass! If this alternative is to be avoided, we must raise calves, sheep, swine and poultry, passing by the stale cry of 'will it pay?' as impertinent and out of place.—American Farmer.
What sub-type of article is it?
Editorial
Agricultural Argument
What themes does it cover?
Moral Virtue
Survival
What keywords are associated?
Calf Raising
Farming Economics
Livestock Necessity
Agricultural Advice
Rhetorical Argument
Story Details
Story Details
The piece rhetorically argues that while raising calves incurs short-term losses in milk and time, it is necessary for long-term production of dairy and beef, dismissing cost-benefit questions as absurd and essential for food sustainability, extending to other livestock.