•vsL, 



(IMtnr's €Mt 



Artotcial Manures. — The editor of the Work- 

 ing Farmer appears to dislike our remarks in the 

 July number on Artificial Manures. This proba- 

 bly arises from his not having read them atten- 

 tively when he replied to our article. We called 

 attention to Ids own ably written puff of his 

 " improved superphosphate of lime," which he 

 says "is now in such demand that the manufac- 

 turers can not supply one-tenth of the quantity 

 asked for, notwithstanding their factory is capa- 

 ble of delivering ten tons or more per day." 

 This manure is sold at fifty dollars a ton ; and if 

 there is a demand for ten times more than the 

 manufacturers can make, then it reaches the large 

 sum of five thousand dollars a day, thirty thou- 

 sand a week, and a million and a half dollars in 

 fifty weeks, or less than a year ! 



Prof Mapes should be proud to have his edito- 

 rial brethren invite the public to take note of so 

 magnificent a business. He says : " The improv- 

 ed superphosphate of lime was introduced by 

 ourself but a little more than twelve months ago." 

 Now, if there is any truth in the learned Pro- 

 fessor, the demand exceeds a million and a half 

 dollars' worth in a year I But what he appeal's 

 most to dislike is our "plain statement of the 

 abuses to which analytical chemistry is liable in 

 its application to artificial manures, and rural 

 affairs generally, without reference to Mr. Mapes." 

 Mr. M. coolly appropriates to himself remarks 

 applied expressly to "rural affairs generally, 

 without reference to Mr. M." in particular, in il- 

 hislration of the "abusesof analytical chemistry," 

 and then he falsely says that we accuse him of 

 " having made two qualities of manure, giving 

 oit small quantities of a better quality for experi- 

 ments, and of publishing in a hundred papers the 

 ef!ect-? procured by these lei^scr quantities." We 

 have never said that Mr. Mapes, or his manufac- 

 tureri^, had ppictised a fraud of the kind named ; 

 but we luive stated, as was due to our numerous 

 readers, how such an imposition was entirely 

 practicable by any one having a moderate knowl- 

 edge of the theory of agricultural chemistry. 

 This statement was bo plain, and the garment 

 appeared to fit so well, that the Professor volun- 

 tarily put it on, and insists on his right to wear 

 it» That being purely a matter of taste, we can 

 have no dispute on the subject. Mr. M. says : 

 " Wo are well aware that this article, as well as 

 some others which have formerly appeared in the 



Oenesee Farmer, are not from the pen of the 

 senior editor. Dr. Lee; for he informed us in 

 Washington at the time of tlie meeting of the 

 K"ational Society, that the articles which had ap- 

 peared in that journal in reference to ourself 

 were not written by himself, nor had his sanc- 

 tion, and that if he had been at home they would 

 not have appeared." It is quite true that we 

 told both Mr. Mapes and Mr. King, editor of the 

 Boston Journal of Agriculture, in Washington, in 

 February, when the first annual meeting of the 

 jSi'ational Society was held, that we did not write 

 the articles to which they had taken exceptions, 

 and that we regretted tlieir appearance, for we 

 desired to be on good terms with all men, but 

 especially with the conductors of agricultural 

 papers. These editors, however, were not satis- 

 fied with this frank and truthful disclaimer, and 

 took no pains to conceal from us the fact that 

 they are dishonorable men. Thus regarding them, 

 we hare felt it our duty to put our readers on 

 their guard against humbug and successful quack- 

 ery in that quarter. The proprietor of the 

 Genesee Farmer, (who wrote the article in the 

 July number headed Artificial Manures,) has an 

 unconquerable aversion to the mixing up of truth 

 and falsehood in agricultural literature and 

 science for any purpose, and especially for the 

 mercenary one of speculation. Man really needs 

 but little during the few years he stays on earth, 

 and with industry and economy all his wants 

 may be easily and honestly Bup[ilied. 



The Greatest Wheat-grow ixq County in the 

 Union. — Monroe county, of which Rochester is 

 the capital, returned, at the last census, 1,441,653 

 bushels of wheat, grown in the 3'ear 1849. In 

 that year the six New England States produced 

 1,039,112 bushels, being 402,541 bushels less than 

 the crop of a single small county in Western 

 New York. 



Livingston county, which joins Monroe on the 

 soutli, returned 1,111,986 bushels, exceeding the 

 crop of all New England by 72,874 bushels. 

 Tlae crops of Ontario anJ Niagara counties fall 

 but little below a million bushels each. We 

 shall, in our next, publish the agricultural sta- 

 tistics of each county in the State, and follow it 

 with abstracts of those of Ohio and other States, 

 as collected under State laws, and since the 

 United States census was taken. 



IaS^ 



