318 



MONTHLY JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE. 



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

 tween lanil>s and grown sheep. He gave in 600 lbs. of wool, which would 

 be 3 lbs. 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 lbs. of wool per head. In the next census the lambs and 

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

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

 would be, of itself, an interesting and valuable statistic. 



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

 none as under retunis where the product of wool has nr^t 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 wool 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 lb. 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 eiTors grow less, as we approach the wool-growing 

 regions of the north and noith-west. 



Taking those returns which we are authorized to consider con'ect,f it 

 will appear that there is no gi-eat 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 per head, 

 (excluding those obviously over returned. )| 



TABLE No. 3. 



Virc 



North Carolina. 



County. 



C Fauquier. . . . 

 ] Harrison . . . . 



• ] Ohio 



1^ Rockingham. 



Currituck . . . 



Person 



Perquimans . 

 Tyrrel 



, Average PVeight nf Wool\ Total average of 

 per Skcfp. It/ie Counties givenW 



Lbs. 

 9 



Oz. 

 0225 

 "'7 011 



O.y'"-'^' 



35119 

 9 9JJ15_P_ 

 '-' ^ 2 t) 6 H a 

 9 111143 

 ^4 7 9T 



714 3 



'459 



' 3 :> 7 



J M ( 



; 3 i? 3 



q 1 2(l_ 

 '-1947 



Lbs 



2 H 



2 



* I conskler such to be under returns, inclcjjendenl of the mistake inade by including !aral)S in th« 

 enumeration, 



t With vhe exception of tlie error arising from the return of lambs— which perhaps would not gr'-atly 

 vary the proporlionalile result. 



t'lt is proper to gay that though I designed to tMte the highest averages. 1 did not go throush n formal 

 reckoning of the average in every county in the eleven States. I took those which ai)peared the bigbcGt, 

 after a somewhat careful general in.ipeclion. 



II Excluding the IVaclioiia of the ounces in preceding column. 

 (liSl; 



