FORTY-FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT. 39 



nets, but from the standing it gives the State among tlie States of the 

 Union. 



In comparing the 40 States, the 13th Census gave Michigan the rank 

 of eleventh in maiiufattnrers, tenth in production of rough lumber, the 

 lead in production of beecli and umi)le, second in iron ore production, 

 third in copper, eighth in cement production, first in salt, third in 

 gypsum. 



Based on crop valuation for 1000, the ranking on cereals and other 

 field crops was: corn, 15th; wheat, 12th; oats, 0th; barlej-, 11th; rye, 

 1st; buckwheat at 3d; dry edible beans, 1st; dry peas, 2d; grass seeds, 

 0th ; flower and vegetable seeds, f;th ; hay and forage, Sth ; potatoes, 4th, 

 (second in yield) ; vegetables, 7th; sugar beets, 3d; chicory, 1st; mint, 

 1st. 



In total number of farm animals, our average rank was not so high, 

 the different kinds ranking as follows: Horses, 14th; all cattle, 15th; 

 dairy cows, 10th; swine, 10th; sheep, Sth; poultry, 11th, and for colonies 

 of bees, 13th. 



Micliigan's rating in horticultural production, based on crop values 

 for 1000, was: total orchard fruits, 3d; total small fruits, 2d; apples, 

 2d; peaches, 4th; ])ears, 3d; plums, Sth; grapes, 3d, and cherries 4lh. 



In the treatment of this subject, I am iiicluding among the horticul- 

 tural products, in addition to tlnjse mentioned in the preceding para- 

 graph, poultry, bees, dry beans, dry peas, and potatoes, because of the 

 attention given then.i in connection with the products more generally 

 recognized as horticultural. 



These rankings have been attained, please note, in the face of tlie 

 fact that at the .time the figures were complied, only 51.5 per cent of the 

 total land area of Michigan was included in farms, with enormous 

 areas of good lands remaining to be reclaimed. . 



Of the land in farms, 07. S per cent was improved, so that only 34.0 

 per cent of the entire land area of the State was improved for agri- 

 cultural production. 



In other words, of the fraction over half of the total land area of 

 the State that was included in farms, only a slight fraction over two- 

 thirds was imi)roved for agricultural production, or a little over one- 

 third of the total laud area was improved tor agricultural production. 



Dean Shaw makes a comparison with Iowa, one of the richest and 

 most exclusively agricultural states in the country, of which !>5 per 

 cent was in farms, with SO per cent of the farm land in the improved 

 class. 



Development of our undeveloped lan<l, as well as the further improv- 

 ing of that included in farms, will probably increase the production of 

 the agricultural products in somewhat larger proportion than tliose 

 of the horticultural, due to the nature of the lauds involved. But they 

 will increase the production in both lines and thus help in maintaining 

 our higli rankings, and possibly lifting us even higher among our sister 

 states. 



Even more significant than the figures and rankiugs tliat I have 

 quoted are these facts. 



Although Michigan was tenth in number of bearing trees of all 



