1853] 



EXTRACTS FROM THE CENSUS OF THE CANADAS. 



95 



in the United States has been 17 per cent., whilst in Upper Can- 

 ada it has been 133 per cent., — in Lower Canada, 41 per cent, 

 — and in both united 70 per cent. 



In Peas we find the increase in Upper Canada has been 140. 

 per cent., in nine years— that of the United States, or any of 

 them, is not given in the Abstract of the Census ; but, with 

 them, it appears to be an article of little importance, the whole 

 crop of all the States and Territories, being only a few bushels 

 over the produce of Canada. 



In comparing the different columns, of .the fqregoing tables, 

 some not uninteresting inferences and deductions may be drawn. 



It will be perceived that though the number of cultivated acres 

 in Ohio is one-fonrth greater than those of Canada, being 9,800,- 

 000 to 7,300,000, or rather more than ten to seven, yet the bush- 

 els of Wheat are one-twelfth less, being in Ohio 14,487,000 to 

 16,20^,27?. 



Ohio, in cultivated acres, possesses T V of all the United States 

 In uncultivated acres, possesses ■£» of the same. 



She possesses one-fourth more cultivated land per inhabitant 

 than Canada, having five acres to four. 



• All Canada produces one-seventh more bushels of Wheat than 

 Ohio, and 1^- bushels more per individual. Upper Canada, 

 however, produces six bushels more Wheat per individual than 

 Ohio — the latter producing in her staple Indian Corn twenty- 

 nine times more than Canada, which produces 77 times more 

 Peas, and 54 per cent, more Oats than Ohio. The land of Ohio 

 is valued at nearly double that of the average of the Union, — (see 

 the Report of Mr. Kennedy, page 46,) — and has more than three 

 times as many inhabitants to the square mile as the Average of 

 the Union — she having 49 T 5 o5- and the average of the States 

 being 15-^. 



The produce of Wheat per acre in Upper Canada is 16^ and 

 Lower Canada 7 ff s bushels per acre. The Census Superintend- 

 ent in the States has followed in the footsteps of the English 

 Superintendent in not giving an account of the number of acres 

 under any particular description of crop, and thus we can form 

 no just opinion of aereable produce. This is much to be 

 regretted as the more we particularize comparisons, not only of 

 County with County, or State with State, but Town- 

 ships with Townships, Fields with Fields, and Acr^s, with Acres, 

 the more easy shall we find it to draw useful deductions to account 

 for success here, or failure there, and to ascertain whether it be 

 climate, or soil, or management, or skill, or the absence of them, 

 or defect in -them, that gives one locality an advantage over 

 another. 



To give an example of this, it is only necessary to see the vast 

 difference which exists in the amount and value of different pro- 

 ductions in different parts of the same country. 



In the article of Wheat, we find that the whole United States 

 produced in 1850, only 100,479,000 bushels, whilst the one 

 State of Ohio,; — one out of 32 and 4 large territories— produced 

 more than one-seventh of the whole Union. 



Again, Ohio produced 7-J- bushels for each inhabitant, whilst 

 the whole of the United States produced only 4^ — the former 

 having one-eighth of her cultivated land under wheat, whilst the 

 whole Union has not one-twentieth of the cultivated land under 

 that crop. 



With perhaps equal advantages, we find an enormous discre- 

 pancy in some of our own wheat-growing districts. In the year 

 1850, the Township of Esquesing in the County of Halton, pro- 

 duced 26 bushels of wheat to the acre, and that of Adolphus- 



town, in the County of Lenox, only 6 bushels to the acre, and 

 this with soil and climate perhaps equally good. This is at once 

 accounted for by the ravages of that fearful plague to the farmer 

 the weevil. The worst wheat crops in Canada West, in the year 

 1851, were in those counties where the weevil was prevalent. It 

 committed the most serious depredations, in very many cases 

 rendering whole fields of most promising wheat not worth the 

 threshing. This fly, which deposits its larvae in the blossom of 

 the wheat, in order to feed upon the milk of the grain as it ripens, 

 was unfortunately in that year the most abundant in the Coun- 

 ties of Frontenac, Lenox, Addington, Hastings, and Prince Ed- 

 ward, and is travelling gradually west at the rate of about nine 

 miles every summer, and remains from five to seven years in a 

 locality. The only prevention yet discovered has been to sow 

 early seed on early land, and very early in the autumn, so that 

 the wheat may blossom before the enemy takes wing, the period 

 for which depends much upon the earliness of the season. So 

 destructive was the fly in 1851, that the fine agricultural county 

 of Lennox produced only 6 bushels per acre, Hastings about 10, 

 and Prince Edward, Addington and Fron,tenac, abo.ut 11. It 

 had not in that year reached the County of Northumberland, but 

 was very destructive in that county the following year, 1852. 



Canada possessed, in 1851, 46,939 more milch cows than Ohio, 

 and yet Ohio prqduces § more butter, and nearly eight times as 

 much cheese as Canada. 



This is a most important feature in the difference oetween the 

 two countries — amounting annually to the large sum of 

 £276,122 for butter, and £376,703 for cheese, in favour of 

 Ohio, although Canada possesses nearly 47,000 more cows. 

 How to account for so great a difference, the prices being taken 

 at the same rate in both countries, is a very difficult matter. The 

 having a more congenial climate than Canada East, shorter win- 

 ter, and the supply of green food continuing for a larger period, 

 may account for a great deal, but certainly not for such a serious 

 discrepancy. T.he natural inference is that the breed of cows in 

 Canada must be very inferior to those of Ohio. 



It may, however, fairly be observed that Ohio exceeds the ave- 

 rage of the whole United States, in the amount of butter per 

 eow, 27 per .cent., and in the amount of cheese, 133 per cent.; 

 Upper Canada exceeds the average of the whole Union by about 

 9 per cent, in butter, but is very deficient in cheese. The differ- 

 ence in the value of the yield of one cow in Upper Canada and 

 Ohio, calculating the price of butter at 7£.d. per lb. and cheese at 

 5d., in both places, would be 16s. 10£d. in favour of Ohio, and 

 the extra milk and whey would make 20s., supposing the returns 

 to be correct, which there is no good reason for doubting. As a 

 proof, however, if proof were necessary, that the climate of Ohio 

 is much less severe than that of Canada, it may be stated that 

 although she has one-third more horses, viz: 78,020 — rabout 

 63,000 more young cattle, and 2^ millions more sheep, she pro- 

 duces less hay by 204,203 tons, and very much less straw and 

 other fodder, even allowing that she lias 29 times more corn 

 stalks. 



The increase in the production of the articles of butter and 

 cheese in Canada, has notwithstanding been enormous, and we 

 find that within the three years, 1849, 1850, and 1851, 

 the amount of butter produced has, in the Upper Province, in- 

 creased 372 per cent., and that of cheese during the same period, 

 233 per cent., which leads to the inference, that our milch cows 

 are rapidly improving in quality. The census returns of the 

 Lower Province, previous to the year 1851, are very deficient as 

 to the amount of these articles. 



The next most important feature in the difference between Ohio 

 and Canada is in the number of their sheep, and the consequent 



