46 DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



A careful comparison of these tables show results not unfavorable to 

 the agriculture of Suffolk County, and the averages of crops of the State 

 and county are these: 



PRODUCTION COMPARED. 



All fractions are rejected in the foregoing figures. 



Suffolk County contained in value one-seventieth of all the farm build- 

 ings, exclusive of dwellings in the State of New York. Its farmers owned 

 in round numbers one-eightieth of all the farm tools and machinery in the 

 State. They purchased one-sixth of all the fertilizers purchased in the 

 State. The value of the stock in the county was over one-eightieth part of 

 all owned in this State. The acres mown to feed that stock was less than 

 one-hundredth of all mown in the State, and the average cut of hay was 

 within a fraction of the State average per acre. The riumber of cattle 

 slaughtered in the county was oyer one-hundredth of all slaughtered in the 

 State. The pork made' in the county was over one-fiftieth of all made in 

 the State, and the average weight of hogs in the county beat the State 

 average ten pounds. Of all the corn raised in this State, Suff"olk County 

 produced over one-fortieth; of winter wheat over one-fiftieth, and of pota- 

 toes about one-ninetieth. The proportion of oats raised in the county was 

 about one hundred and thirty-fifth of the State production. It was thought 

 Suffolk County would be a poor county for the production of fruit, and 

 yet the apple crop of the county was over one-eightieth of the whole State 

 production. In the amount of poultry sold Suffolk County stands third 

 in the list of counties in New York State. In the value of eggs sold this 

 county stands first, beating every county, and beating Onondaga by over 

 $26,000. 



The results of the oat crop of the county as reported in the tables were 

 a disappointment to me. I knew that in 1865 our average and aggregate 

 product put this county among the foremost. Why in 1875 it was among 

 the hindmost seemed unaccountable. The census of 1875 reports the pro- 

 duct of 1874. Consulting my record of 1874, I found that I had ten acres 

 in oats. 1 remembered that the crop never promised better for from 50 to 

 60 bushels per acre than then. 1 threshed 50 bushels, and the army worm 

 threshed the rest. That clears the m}'stery. The loss on oats that year in 

 the best oat region of the county on the south shore was ten times more 

 than the amount harvested. Generally in my section none were threshed. 

 In round numbers 10,000 acres were sown in the county. I estimate the 

 loss by the.army worm to be not less than 100,000 bushels, of the value of 

 55 cents per bushel, and in the aggregate $55,000. This loss should be 

 credited to the county in any lair calculation of averages with other coun- 

 ties not so ravaged. This is pre-eminently the age of criticism. Moses 

 and the Pentateuch are questioned. All the old foundations are pried up 

 to see if they have good corner-stones. Men build capitols, and monu- 

 ments, and bridges, and hotels by the job, covering up vast frauds. Prac- 



