REPORT OF THE STATISTICIAN. 



463 



The average would be a little lower than that for 1883. He reports as 

 follows : 



Texas wheat is, as a rule, quite heavv. The grain is small, plump, and firm, and 

 frequently weighs 63 pounds— the highest in my experience as a miller, nine years, 

 being 64 pounds. Much allowance should be made for loose and careless cultivation 

 and lack of proper care after cutting; also for want of proper cleaning when it comes 

 to the market, which reduces the weight. Wheat-growing in our State is in its 

 infancy, and its development will be slow, owing to native predilections iu favor of 

 cotton) which can bo grown profitably over the entire area of the State. Yet the 

 capabilities of Texas, especially the northern half of her territory, are vast, and the 

 quality of the grain superb. The Mediterranean variety seems to be developing into 

 a variety peculiarly suited to this soil and climate, and quite superior to the original 

 type. 



State Agent C. E. Bowman, of Kentucky, estimates the crop of 1883 

 at 58 pounds; that of 1881 at 60, those of 1880 and 1882 at 64 to 65 

 pounds — the best on record. 



W. C. Smith, of Louisville, makes the weight of the last crop 57 

 pounds j George Denny & Co., of Lancaster, report for that section 59 

 to 60 pounds in 1S83. 



Secretary W. J. Chamberlain, of Ohio, places the average for a series 

 of years at 60 to 61 pounds, and that of the last crop at 55. 



The Akron miller, Ferdinand Shoemaker, makes slightly lower esti- 

 mates — 59 pounds as the usual average and 56 for the last crop. 



The Toledo inspections, from July 10 to November 1, amounted to 

 12,903 car loads, of which 50 per cent, or 6,540 early No. 2, 3,617 No. 3, 

 with three times as much of No. 4 as of No. 1. 



The Michigan department of agriculture, as the result of an investi- 

 gation, fix the average at 56.4 pounds per bushel. 



Our State agent of Minnesota makes the following statement in his 

 report: 



Since my letter of November 20 was written I have succeeded, with the assistance 

 of one of our oldest and most intelligent wheat dealers, in finding data for the infor- 

 mation you requested about the average weights of Minnesota wheat crops. First, he 

 informed me that my method of ascertaining the weight of the crop of 1882 was wrong, 

 because I made up my average from the minimum weight of each grade, whereas the 

 average for each grade approaches much more nearly the maximum weight. He 

 claims that the average for the crop of 18S2 was 58.52 pounds per bushel, instead of 

 57.32, as I made it. This year's crop, according to his estimate, will average fully 

 59.21 pounds per bushel. His estimates of former crops are as follows: 



Pounds per 



vnauu< 



Crop of 1872, average 57. 94 



1873, average 58. 78 



1874, average 57.89 



1875, average 58. 64 . 



1876, average 54. 27 



1877, average 59. 62 



1878, average 56. 81 



1879, average 55. 72 



1880, average 58. 14 



l-?8i, average 57.76 



1882, average 58. 52 



1883, average 59. 21 



I am satisfied that these estimates approximate the truth very closely, as they are 

 made up from records of transactions in wheat in all parts of the State. 



Charles A. Pillsbury, of Pillsbury Mills, Minneapolis, Minn., thinks 

 56 pounds per bushel would be an average weight. He says, u A. cer- 

 tain per cent, of it is frost-bitten and somewhat pinched, and the wheat 

 in such localties is lighter on this account." 



