SOUTHERN CULTIVATOR. 
223 
BI.IND STAGGERS IN HORSES. 
Editors Southern Cultivator — I have noticed in 
several of the back numbers of your valuable paper in- 
quiries for the best mode of treating Blind Staggers. 
I have a mode that has alvmys pi'oved suc'-essful in my 
hands; but being unused to writing for the publiceye, and 
the remedy a remarkably simple one, I have been deter- 
red from giving it lest I might expose myself and it to the 
criticisms of your numerous readers. However, hoping 
some one may be disposed to try it, in the hour of extrem- 
ity, and thus save a valuable horses, I lay aside all fear of 
consequences and give it for what it is worth, only re- 
questing a fair trial. It is simply the timelii application 
of cold water to the occiput or back part of the head and 
spine. If the animal can walk he should be placed in the 
shade and a stream of cold water, say half an inch or less 
in diameter, if the temperature be low, let fall from a 
height of two feet on the back part of the head. Two or 
three gallons is sufficient for an application, but should 
be repeated as often as the symptoms recur. If the appli- 
cation has not been made within a few hours of the at- 
tack, the stream of water should be about half the above 
named size, but continued much longer, or until there is a 
marked improvement. The animal must be closely 
watched, and the indications promptly met, bearing in 
mind that any remedy is such only when properly 
applied. At the same time apply wet cloths of several 
thicknesses to the spine to be re-wet as often as they be- 
come warm. Give injections of warm water, mixed with 
soap suds and common table salt; take no blood ; and if 
the above plan is judiciously followed, will I insure nine 
out of every ten horses, provided they were sound at the 
period of attack. It will certainly do no harm. Try it. 
A. P. Hardee. 
Wheelings Winn Parish, La., May, 1857. 
AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATE.S. 
There can be no subject more interesting either to peo- 
ple or philosophers. The whole subsistence of mankind 
depends upon it ; and not only that, but all the relations 
of business, of commerce, of industry and human happi- 
ness arise solely from the development of agriculture. 
The agricultural statistics taken in 1850 contain many in- 
teresting developements. That year was not, however, of 
itself, enough to determine all the problems relating to 
American farming — for in any one year there are some 
crops which partially fail There are some things, such 
as the size and value of farms, and the proportion of im- 
proved lands, which are determined with considerable ac- 
curacy, although, of course, their proportions vary with 
the growth of the country. The following table will show 
the relation betv.?een the numoer of farms and the number 
of people in the principal States of each section : 
States. 
Farms. 
Population. 
Ratio. 
Maine 
46,670 
283,169 
1 to 13 
Massachusetts 
34,069 
994,514 
1 to 30 
New York 
170,621 
3,097,394 
1 to 18 
Pennsylvania 
127,576 
2,311,786 
1 to 19 
Virginia 
76,013 
1,421,661 
1 to 1 9 
North Carolina 
57,963 
866,039 
1 to 15 
Tennessee 
1,002,017 
1 to 15 
Louisiana 
13,422 
517,762 
1 to 40 
Ohio 
143,808 
1,980,329 
1 to 14 
Indiana 
93,896 
988,416 
1 to n 
Illinois I. .. 
76,208 
851,470 
1 to 11 
Here we see the largest number of farms in proportion 
to the inhabitants, is in the Northwest, and the smallest 
numoer in Massachusetts and Louisiana. The reasons 
for this are quite obvious. As a general principle, the 
number of farms will be less where there is most of the 
civic, or city and manufacturing population. On the 
other hand, there will be the largest number of farms in 
those States where the population is chiefly farming or 
planting; but there is a modification to this in the laws 
and customs subdividixig estates. Thus we see Louisiana 
has the smallest number of farms, although it is a plant- 
ing State. The reason is, that in Louisiana the culture of 
sugar and cotton requires large plantations In Ohio — 
although one of the most purely agiicultural States — 
there is but little more than rwefarm to three voters, so 
that, in fact, after allowing for the inhabitants of the tovvns^ 
not more than one-half the voters are freeholders. 
Let us consider now the number of acres to a farm, and 
the amount of improved land. Let us take one State 
from each of the great sections as an example: 
States. Farm Lands. Average. 
Massachusetts 3,350,009 acres. 99 acres. 
New York 19,109,084 acres. 113 acres. 
Virginia 26,152,311 acres. 340 acres. 
Tennessee 18,984,022 acres. 261 acres. 
Ohio 17,997,493 acres. 125 acres. 
Here we see that Virginia, with, relatively to Ohio a 
small number or farms, has them of large size, and so- 
Ohio, with a greater number of farms, has them of small- 
er size; but this rule does not hold in Massachusetts, 
where there is not only a smaller number of farms, but a 
smaller average size. The reason is obvious — Massachu- 
setts has a small surface, and an immense town popula- 
tion. 
The improved land in the above five States, with the 
proportion to the population, is as follows ; 
Improved Lands. 
Proper. Acres 
Acres. 
to 1 person. 
Massachusetts 
2 
New York 
12,408,964 
4 
Ohio 
5 
Tennesssee 
5,175,173 
5 
Virginia 
10,360,165 
7 
If these States all produced the same average per acre^ 
it is plain that Virginia would raise the lurgest surplus — 
Ohio and Tennessee next. But this is far from being the 
fact; and, in order to show which are the largest produ- 
cing States, we will give the following table of average 
productions per acre : 
Wheat. 
Corn. 
Oats. 
Potatoes. 
New York, bushels . . 
12 
27 
25 
100 
Ohio, bushels 
12 
36 
21 
75 
Tennessee bushels. . . 
21 
19 
120 
Virginia bushels 
7 
18 
13 
75 
It will be seen that Ohio is, in this table, far superior to 
Virginia, and above Tennessee. When this is combined 
with the results in the other table, we see at once what 
the statistics of production also inform us, that Ohio is far 
ahead in the production of surplus food for export. 
We may close this view of agriculture with the relative 
value of farms. Take, for example^ the following States; 
Average Average Value 
acre per farm value, per acre. 
New York 113 S3, 250 S3U 00 
Pennsylvania 117 3,197 28 00 
Virginia 340 7,021 21 00 
North Carolina 369 1,192 3 25 
Tennessee 261 1,345 5 00 
Ohio 125 2,495 20 00 
Indiana 136 1,453 11 00 
This is a very instructive table. We may draw from 
it, in connection with other well known faets, the follow- 
ing practical instances: 
First, That nearness to city markets, with every means 
of communication, greatly enhances the value of farms, 
as by comparing New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio with 
the other States above. 
