1839] 



t^ARMERS^ REGISTER. 



353 



vert into silk ; yet Rt either purpose I should not 

 estimate the value oi' its culling at half a cent, 

 or one-eighth of the estimate of Dr. Gibbons, al- 

 thouf^h here the trees wilJ yield at least two crops 

 a year. 



Counter estimate of the value of the morns mulii- 

 catdis for silk-culture. 



1. One acre of the poorest soil, with common 

 culture, may commonly yield 5000 lb. leaves per 

 ttcre, 



2. Two hundred pounds of leaves wilh common 

 ruanafrement maycoaimonly yield 1 lb. silk. 



3. Hence one acre ol' the poorest soils, wilh 

 common labor and common success, may yield 

 251b. silk, 



4. Twenty-five pounds of silk might commonly 

 be reeled li-om 250 Ik cccoons, ef 400 to each pouiid. 



5. The relaiivc value of leaves is estimated at 

 -one-fourth ihe quantily of cocoons. 



6. The relative value ol picking and transport- 

 ing the leaves at one-lijurth ditto. 



Hence — 



Isl. One pouTid of ordinary raw silk, as com- 

 monly reeled, may bear the average price of ,*!3. 



2. The ten pounds of cocoons from which the 

 «ilk would be reeled, at 20 cts. per lb., equal ^2. 



3. The two liuniired pounds of leaves eaten 

 lo make those cocoons, at one-lburth [the value of 

 the cocoons,] or ^ cent per lb.=50 cents. 



4. The picking and transportation of said 200 

 lb. leaves to the cocoonery, at one-fourth— 50 cts. 



Thus for one cent — 



1. The cultivator must raise 4 lb. of leaves j and 

 the picker must transport them lor one cent. 



2. The li'eder must rear 40 worms into cocoons; 

 and the reeler must unwind them for one cent. 

 Now if the farmer can get but 25 cts. (he 100 lb. 

 for leaves on the trees, or 50 cts. when carried to 

 market, he will obtain for 5000 lb. but 12^- dollars 

 per acre in the field, or iT^25 at ihe cocoonery. And 

 what larmer would consent for this result to give 

 even half a cent each for 1200 cuttings, or j^60 

 the acre 2 



Charles Howe, esq. of this islet, who has been 

 propagating the njorus multicaulis on this barren 

 rock during upwards of two years past, has ocen 

 forced, by the removal of his fence, to avail himscll 

 of an accidental rain at the season, in setting out 

 the cuttings of the trees which would otherwise 

 have been left outside of his enclosure, is now 

 multiplying them lor the express purpose of af- 

 fording fodder lor his cows during the dry season, 

 when the common grass herbage is withered or 

 dead. He obtained them at first under the com- 

 mon delusive impressions of the great profits to 

 be derived from the silk culture ; and indeed if 

 there be any profits at ail, north of Florida, he wa« 

 certainly warranted in the inftirence that he could 

 make at the least double profits, by the fact that 

 in Tropical Florida the trees will yield, at the very 

 least, double the weight of foliage every year. 

 And hence, at all events, whether as Ibdder for 

 cows or feed for worms, if the leaves can be raised 

 in the middle states at any profit, they can be 

 raised here at one hundred per cent. more. As 

 during the last eight years, I have almost con- 

 stantly used a manfukl writer., I am enabled to 

 transmit you the copy of some estimates made by 

 me at Campeachy, in March, 1836, in order to 

 Btimulate the indolent Mexicans to engage in the 

 Vol, VH— 45 



combined propagation of the mulberrj;; and the 

 culture of silk. You will perceive by the data 

 contained in that article that 1 was misled into the 

 error of admitting ten thousand pounds of leaves 

 to one crop from one acre, which is just 100 per 

 cent, more than S am now willing to admit will be 

 commonly obtained, by common culture, from one 

 acre of the poorest soils. Judging, however, by 

 the variant estimates of those writers who wish 

 it> encourage the sales of mulberry trees at high 

 prices, one hundred per cent, is a very trivial mis- 

 take ! In the table of probable produce per acre, 

 given by E. Roberts, from 16 dilierent persons, we 

 find the numberof pounds of silk varying from 18 

 to 27, and 61 lbs. iii the lowest, to 333', to 666, and 

 even 1296 lbs. in the highest; and hence the esti- 

 mate of the leaves per acre multiplied by 200 lb, 

 leaves for 1 lb. silk, must vary Irom 3600 lbs. to 

 259,200 lbs. of leaves to the acre! ! or 7200 per 

 cent! ! ! Mr. Roberts very gravely remarks that 

 some of these are quite too high ! ! and then very 

 gravely sums up the total, divides by 10, and as- 

 sumes that 249 /j5 lbs. at $\ per lb. or ^1000 per 

 acre, may saliily be put down as the average pro- 

 fits ! ! ! This mode of ascertaining profits reminds 

 me of the mode of ascertaining damages prac- 

 tised by a frontier jury in Illinois, when I resided 

 there many years ago, Eacli juror chalked dowH 

 his individual estiuiate of the damages in a suit 

 for assault, the lowest being one cent and the 

 highest 500 dollars, the aiigregate of 600 was di- 

 vided by 12, and the verdift brought in lor 50 dol- 

 lars ! Rut seriously, tlu'se extravagantly discor- 

 dant estimates will injure the progress ol legitimate 

 silk-culiure in the United States. I have seen the 

 weight of leaves requisite lor one ounce ol eggs 

 vary from 1050 to 2500 lbs. in eitiraalcs ; the 

 weiglii of cocoons from one ounce of eggs vary 

 from §0 to 165 lbs. ; the weight of cocoons from 

 100 lbs. leaves from 3] lbs. to 7;f lbs. ; the weight 

 of cocoons for 1 lb. silk, from 8 to 13 lbs.; the 

 number of cocoons lor 1 lb. silk from 2000 to 

 6000 ! ! What the public wants are positive facts 

 fi'om the bona fide silk-culturists themselves. 

 When a series of poor men on the poorest soils 

 shall credibly testify that their ordinary crops of 

 leaves, with ordinary culture, have exceeded 5000 

 lbs. leaves per acre, I shall believe the facts, but 

 not till then. With these moderate opinions of 

 the value of the silk culture, I nevertheless esti- 

 mate its national importance on a much higher 

 scale than those who attempt to seduce the public 

 by the specious prospect of speedier and greater 

 profits than are obtained li-om our old staples ol ag- 

 riculture. 



I was the first person that introduced the mo- 

 rus multicaulis, not only in Tropical Florida, 

 but into any part of East Florida, i^y the '.Silk 

 Culturist' of July, 1836, p. 123, I perceive that 

 under the date of St. Augustine, June, 1836, a 

 Mr. D. Brown, claims that honor by saying, '-In 

 November, of '33 I anived in S!. Augustine with 

 fitly small plants of the morus multicaulis, obtained 

 fi'om Mrs. Parmenlier. They were the first ever 

 brought to Florida." 



Now the facts are, that the same worthy lady, 

 under date of the 5th April, 1833, slujiped for 

 me twelve trees of morus multicaulis in the 

 schr. Olynihus, Capt. Trowbridge, care ol T. A. 

 Browne, Key West, by whom they were for- 

 warded (or rather backwarded) north-eastwatdly 



