SHEEP HUSBANDRY IN THE SOUTH. 



to the Marshal as 300, of course, for the census makes no distinction be- 

 tween lambs and grown sheep. He gave in 600 Ibs. of wool, which would 

 be 3 Ibs. per head for those which had been sheared. But by the lambs 

 being included in the census returns, it is made to appear that his sheep 

 sheared but 2 Ibs. of wool per head. In the next census the lambs and 

 sheep should be separately returned, not only to obtain accuracy, (without 

 which iueh statistics are valueless,) but the annual increase thus indicated 

 \vould be, of itself, an interesting and valuable statistic. 



In the preceding enumeration of erroneous returns, I have set down 

 none as under returns where the product of wool has not been given as 

 less than a pound per head; and where it has fallen under that amount, 

 the returns from contiguous counties, possessing the same natural features, 

 exhibiting a far superior product, as well as the general complexion of the 

 returns throughout the State, have authorized me beyond a reasonable 

 doubt so to consider it. I may add, that it is a fact of universal notoriety 

 that there is no variety of sheep in any section of the United States, whick 

 shears but a pound of \vool per head.* A careful inspection of the census, 

 moreover, will not fail to satisfy any one that there are a multitude of under 

 returns, (not specified by me, as the product is given over 1 Ib. of wool per 

 head,) in most of the States. This is shown by the same kind of compari- 

 sons which have already been alluded to. These are far more common in 

 the extreme Southern States, where wool growing had not yet (in 1839) 

 been reduced to any system, and where sheep had been little looked after 

 or regarded. These errors grow less, as we approach the wool-growing 

 regions of the north and north-west. 



Taking those returns which we are authorized to consider correct,t it 

 will appear that there is no great difference in the average product of wool, 

 per head, in States separated by from ten to fifteen degrees of latitude, 

 and no more than is clearly referable to incidental or extraneous causes, 

 unless we come to the conclusion that the difference is in favor of the 

 Southern States. In proof of this, the following table is offered, giving 

 the products of some of those counties in each of the States enumerated 

 in Tables No. 1 and No. 2, which exhibit the highest averages rer head, 

 (excluding those obviously over returned.)^ 



TABLE No. 3. 



* I consider such to be unde^ returns, independent of the mistake made by including lamba ia ih 

 numeration, 



t With the exception of the error arising from tne return of lambs which perhaps would not greatly 

 ry the proportionable result. 



\ It is proper to say that though I designed to tke the highest averages. I did not go through a formal 

 reckoning of the average in every county in the eleven States. 1 took those which appeared the highest 

 after a somewhat careful general inspection. 



y Excluding the fractious of the ounces in preceding column. 



