There is no crop, the skilful and successful cultivation of which on the same soil, from generation to generation, requires more art than is demanded to produce good wheat. To grow this grain on fresh land, adapted to the peculiar habits and wants of the plant is an easy task. But such fields, except in rare instances, fail sooner or later to produce sound and healthy plants, which are little liable to attacks from the malady called "rust," or which give lengthened ears or "heads," well filled with plump seeds.

Having long resided in the best wheat-growing district in the Union, the writer has devoted years of study and observation to all the influences of soil, climate, and constitutional peculiarities, which affect this bread-bearing plant. It is far more liable to smut, rust, and shrink in some soils than in others. This is true in western New York, and every other section where wheat has long been cultivated. As the alkalies and other fertilizing elements become exhausted in the virgin soils of America, its crops of wheat not only become smaller on an average, but the plants fail in constitutional vigor, and are more liable to diseases and attacks from parasites and destructive insects. Defects in soil and improper nutrition lead to these disastrous results. Soils are defective in the following particulars:

1. They lack soluble silica, or flint in an available form, with which to produce a hard glassy stem that will be little subject to "rust." Soluble flint is never very abundant in cultivated soils; and after they have been tilled some years, the supply is deficient in quantity. It is not very difficult to learn with considerable accuracy the amount of silica which rain-water as it falls on the earth will dissolve out of 1,000 grains of soil in the course of eight or ten days. Hot water will dissolve more than cold; and water charged with carbonic acid more than pure water which has been boiled. The experiments of Prof. Rogers of the University of Virginia, as published in Silliman's Journal, have a direct bearing on this subject. The researches of Prof. Emmons of Albany, in his elaborate and valuable work on "Agriculture," as a part of the Natural History of New York, show that 10,000 parts of soil yield only from one to three parts of soluble silica. The analyses of Dr Jackson, as published in his Geological Survey of New Hampshire, give similar results. Earth taken from an old and badly exhausted field in Georgia, gave the writer only one part of soluble flint in 100,000.

What elements of crops rain water, at summer heat, will dissolve out of ten or twenty pounds of soil, in the course of three months, is a point in agricultural science which should be made the subject of numerous and rigid experiments. In this way, the capabilities of different soils and their adaptation to different crops may be tested, in connection with practical experiments in field culture, on the same kind of earth.

Few wheat-growers are aware how much dissolved flint an acre of good wheat demands to prevent its having coarse, soft, and spongy stems, which are anything but a healthy organization of the plant. In the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, vol. 7, there is an extended "Report on the Analysis of the Ashes of Plants, by Thomas Way, Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester," which gives the result of sixty-two analyses of the ash of wheat, from as many samples of that grain, mostly grown on different soils and under different circumstances.

A young growing animal, whether a child or a colt, that is kept on food which lacks bone-earth, (phosphate of lime,) will have soft cartilaginous bones. Nature cannot substitute iron or any other mineral in the animal system, out of which to form hard strong bones; nor can any other mineral in the soil perform the peculiar function assigned to silica in the vital economy of cereal plants. To protect the living germs in the seeds of wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley, &c. the cuticle or bran of these seeds contains considerable flint. The same is true of chaff.

The question naturally arises,—How is the farmer to increase the quantity of soluble silica or flint in his soil? This is a question of the highest practical importance. There are three principal ways in which the object named may be attained. First, by keeping fewer acres under the plough. Land in pasture, if well managed, will gain its fertility, and in the process accumulate soluble silica in the surface soil. In this way more wheat and surer crops may be made by cultivating a field in wheat two years than four or six. If the field in the mean time be devoted to wool-growing, butter or cheese-making, or to stock-raising, particular care must be taken to make great crops of grass or clover to grow on the land, and have all the manure, both solid and liquid, applied to its surface.

There are many counties in England that yield an average of thirty-two bushels of wheat per acre for ten crops in succession. There are but few of the old counties in the United States which average the half of that quantity: and yet America has greater agricultural capabilities than that of Great Britain.

All alkaline minerals, such as potash, soda, lime, ammonia, and magnesia, hasten the solution of the several insoluble compounds of silica in the soil. This fact should be remembered by every farmer. To undertake an explanation of the various ways in which alkalies, oxides, and acids act and re-act upon each other in the surface of the earth, when subject to tillage, would be out of place in this outline view of wheat-growing in the United States. I may state the fact, however, as ascertained by many analyses, that a cubic foot of good wheat soil in the valley of the Genesee, contains twenty times more lime than do the poorest soils in South Carolina and Georgia. The quantity of gypsum, bone-earth, and magnesia, available as food for plants, varies in an equal degree. Not only lime, but phosphoric acid, potash, and magnesia are lacking in most soils, if one desires to raise a large crop of wheat, and have the seeds of the grain weigh as much as the straw. In a number of the specimens of wheat analyzed by Prof. Way, when cut close to the roots, the dry wheat outweighed the dry straw.

Having secured the growth of a bright, hard, glassy stem, the next thing is to develop a long, well-filled ear. To this end, available ammonia or nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, and magnesia are indispensable. Ammonia (spirits of hartshorn) is necessary to aid in forming the combustible part of the seed. The other ingredients named are required to assist in making the incombustible part of the grain. In 100 parts of the ash of wheat, there are the following substances, viz.:—

If we subtract the 111 pounds of silica from 160 pounds of minerals in the straw and chaff, the difference between what are left and those in wheat, is not great. As the stems and leaves of wheat plants grow before their seeds, if all the phosphoric acid, potash, and lime available in the soil is consumed before the organization of the seeds begin, from what source is nature to draw her supply of these ingredients to form a good crop of wheat? If the farmer could reverse the order of nature, and grow a good supply of seeds first, and make straw afterwards, then many a one would harvest more wheat and less straw. But the cultivator must grow the stems, roots, and leaves of wheat, corn, and cotton, before nature will begin to form the seeds of these several plants: and every one should know that the atoms in the soil, which are consumed in organizing the bodies of cultivated plants, are, in the main, identical in kind with those required to make their seeds. The proportions, however, differ very considerably. Thus, while 100 parts of the ash of wheat contain an average of 45 parts of phosphoric acid, 100 of the ash of the wheat straw contain an average of only 5 parts. The difference is as 9 to 1. In magnesia the disparity is only a little less striking.

In Great Britain, where the necessity for liberal harvests and artificial fertilizing is far greater than in this country, the yield of wheat is said to be governed in a good degree by the amount of ammonia available as food for growing plants. This opinion is founded not at all on theory, but altogether on the teachings of experience. But in England, limeing and manuring are so much matters of constant practice, that few soils are so improverished as many are in the United States, With land as naked and sterile as is much that can be found in the whole thirteen colonies between Maine and Alabama, English farmers could hardly pay their tithes and poor rates, to say nothing of other taxes, rent, and the coat of producing their annual crops.

The first step towards making farming permanently profitable in all the older States, is to accumulate in a cheap and skilful manner the raw material for good harvests in the soil.

Over a territory so extensive as the United States, it is extremely difficult to lay down any rule that will be applicable even to a moiety of the republic. There are, however, many beds of marl, greensand, gypsum, limestone, saline and vegetable deposits available for the improvement of farming lands, in the Union. In addition to these, there are extraneous resources, the ocean with its fish, its shells, its sea-weeds, and its fertilizing salts, which will yield an incalculable amount of bread and meat. In the subsoil and the atmosphere, every agriculturist has resources which are not duly appreciated by one in a thousand.

As a general rule, the soil must be deepened before it can be permanently improved. One acre of soil 12 inches deep is worth more to make money from, by cultivating it, than four acres 6 inches in depth. Thus, admit that a soil 6 inches deep will produce 14 bushels of wheat, and that 12 bushels will pay all expenses and give 2 for profit. Four acres of this land will yield a net income of only 8 bushels. Now double the depth of the soil and the crop: making the latter 28 bushels, instead of 14 per acre, and the former 12 inches deep, in the place of 6. Fifteen bushels instead of twelve, will now pay all annual expenses, and leave a net profit not of two but of thirteen bushels per acre. If small crops will pay expenses, large ones will make a fortune; provided the farmer knows how to enrich his land in the most economical way. It is quite as easy to pay too dear for improving lands, as to lose money at any other business whatever.

The first thing for the operator to do is to acquire all the knowledge within his reach, from the experience of others who have done for their soils what he proposes to accomplish for his. Twenty or fifty dollars, invested in the best agricultural works in the English language, may save him thousands in the end, and double his profits in two years. The Agricultural Journals of the United States abound in information most useful to the practical farmer: and the back volumes, if collected and bound, will form a library of great value.

Nothing is more needed at this time than a good geological map of the United States, accompanied by an accurate and popularly arranged work on agricultural geology. The writer had hoped to give such a map in this report; but it is thought best to devote another year to the collection of geological surveys and facts, and to the making of more critical and extended researches before publishing.

In the matter of rotation of crops in connection with wheat culture, clover and corn are generally preferred in all the Northern, and most of the Middle States. In New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northern Indiana, and Illinois, so far as the writer is acquainted, a crop of wheat is made in rotation, either every third, fourth, or fifth year. Wherever wool growing is united with wheat culture, clover and wheat are the staple crops of the farm. Wool and superfine flour are exported; farmers taking nearly all the bran and shorts of the millers who purchase their wheat.

The offal of wheat makes not a little feed with chaff and cut straw. Many agriculturists grow peas, beans, turnips, beets, and carrots in large quantities, as well as clover, corn, oats, and barley. Peas and beans, both stems and pulse, when well cured, are excellent feed for sheep; and on good land they are easily grown. They prepare the soil well for wheat.

All the manure derived from sheep is husbanded with extreme care by the farmers who are gradually enriching their lands. On a deep, rich, arable soil, quite a number of sheep may be kept per acre, if highly cultivated; and their manure prepares the land for producing generous crops of wheat at a small expense. Of all business men, farmers should be the closest calculators of profit and loss.

Great care should be taken to sow good and clean seed on clean land. Previous to putting the seed in the ground (drilling is preferable to sowing broadcast), wheat should be soaked five or six hours—not longer—in strong brine. After this, add a peck or more of recently slaked lime to each bushel, and shovel it over well, that the lime may cover each seed. It is now ready to commit to the earth. Most good farmers roll the earth after seeding: some before.

In the Southern States, planters are in the habit of permitting their wheat to remain too long in the field after it is cradled, and in small shocks. Good barns are too scarce in all the planting States, and in some others.

Summer fallowing is generally abandoned, except in cases where old pastures and meadows, new prairie, or bushy bad fields are to be subdued. As a general rule, friable soils need not be ploughed long before the intended crop is expected to begin to grow. Among fertilizers, wood ashes, salt, bones, lime, guano, and poudrette have been used in wheat culture with decided advantage. In Great Britain, manure derived from the consumption of turnips and other root crops by sheep and neat cattle, is much used in preparing land for wheat. Sheep, clover and peas, corn and hogs, rotate well to insure the economical production of this staple. Manure is usually applied to the crop preceding wheat.

It may be interesting to some readers to see in this place the mean result of several organic analyses of wheat made by M. Boussingault. Wheat, dried at 230 deg. in vacuo, was found to contain:

A short wheat crop in England, Mr. Webster says, affects the exchanges of the civilized world. In the vast increase of population in the absence of long wars and famines, the importance of this staple is constantly increasing. Its cultivation is the most attractive and pleasant of all descriptions of husbandry; and its rewards are generally remunerating, when the soil and climate are favorable, and the markets are not too distant.

It is important to know what our relation is to this staple of the world, and what is, and what is likely to be, our contribution to the great aggregate of production. Beyond feeding our own great and rapidly increasing population, it probably will not soon, if ever, be very great. It is a mistake, I apprehend, to suppose our country is naturally a great wheat-producing country. The wheat district at present, in comparison to the whole extent of our territory, is limited. It is confined, so far as any appreciable amount is grown, to about ten degrees of latitude and twenty degrees of longitude, and embracing about one half the number of the States. The crop of 1848 is estimated by the Commissioner of Patents at one hundred and twenty-six millions, and our population at twenty-two millions. This gives a less number of bushels, per head, to our population than the consumption of Great Britain, which is generally set down at one hundred and sixty millions, or six bushels to each inhabitant. But with us Indian corn is a great substitute; so are potatoes and oats in Ireland and Scotland. Still our consumption of wheat, including the black population, is undoubtedly less, per head, than theirs. But in the absence of any certain data, to ascertain either the actual production, or our consumption, our only safe course is to take the actual excess, or the amount exported, after supplying our own wants. This, for the fiscal year 1848, being the crop of 1847, amounted, in flour and wheat, to twelve millions two hundred and ninety-four thousand one hundred and seventy-five bushels, although Mr. Burke's figures would show a surplus of some forty millions! That there was not, and never has been any such surplus in the country is very evident, for the foreign demand was all the time good, and drew away all we had to part with.

The crop of 1848 was, undoubtedly, one of the best and largest we have ever grown; yet I have ascertained, by application at the registrar's office, that the exports for the fiscal year 1842, amounted in wheat to but 1,527,534 bushels, and in flour to 2,108,013 barrels, or less by 226,676 bushels than the exports of 1848. Twelve millions is comparatively a small surplus in a favorable season, for a country with a population of twenty-two millions of inhabitants. The loss of a small per cent. in an unfavorable season would at once sink this excess.

Let us now notice more in detail the different sections of our country as adapted to the growth of wheat.

The New England States, some of them aided in their recent enterprises by bounties offered by the state governments, have failed to insure such success as is likely to encourage them to continue the culture of wheat; or, at all events, to induce them to aim at increasing their product to any considerable extent, since, as one of their own farmers candidly states, "the attempt to grow a crop of wheat is an experiment."

Kentucky and Tennessee, though their agricultural history dates back beyond the settlement of the north-western states, have already been out-stripped by at least two of them. In neither of these states has the culture of wheat ever been put forward, and regarded as one of their best staples, or as very favorably adapted to their soil and climate. Still, notwithstanding the formidable danger from rust, the production of Tennessee is estimated to be equal to nine bushels to each person, and Kentucky about seven and a half bushels. Missouri may be classed with Kentucky and Tennessee, which she much resembles in soil, climate, and productions, except that she raises much less wheat than either, her crop being placed by the Commissioner of Patents at only two millions, or less than four bushels to each resident of the state. But, besides that the experience of the past discourages the idea that these fine states are likely to become great wheat-producing states, the fact that the staple of cotton may be cultivated over a considerable portion of one of them, and that hemp and tobacco are among the valuable products of the other two; that Tennessee is the very largest corn-producing state in the Union, showing her soil and climate are particularly adapted to this description of grain, and that Kentucky and Missouri are unsurpassed as grazing countries, and there is little ground to suppose that any change in their husbandry will very greatly or suddenly augment the production of wheat. Let us come now to the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, and that fabulous wheat district or territory to the west of these again, from which, according to the vaticinations of some, may be drawn supplies of wheat to feed the population of both Europe and America, or fill warehouses that would sustain our people through a longer famine than that which afflicted the people of Egypt! I cannot help thinking that, to some extent, this generally fertile district of country has, so far as the production of wheat is concerned, been "shouted forth in acclamations hyperbolical." My own impression in regard to it is, including the states last named, derived in part from observation, from intercourse and correspondence with intelligent agriculturists of these states, and from a careful examination of a geological survey of two of them, that the soil and climate of this whole district of country are not particularly favorable to the production of wheat. The popular idea I know to be otherwise. I am not going to dwell upon it, or to examine the subject at any length. There is a single remark that may help to explain the reputation that has gone abroad in reference to the wheat-producing qualities of these lands. The prairie sod, when first broken up, generally produces wheat well, often most abundantly, provided it escapes the rust, insect, &c. But, when this ground has been much furrowed, becomes completely pulverized by exposure to the atmosphere, the light and friable mould, of which most of it is composed, drenched, as a good deal of it is, at times, with surface water, fails to hold or sustain the roots of the plant, it is thrown out, or winter-killed; and "winter-killed," "winter-killed," "winter-killed," we all know, is among the catalogue of disasters that almost annually reach us. Sometimes, when escaping the winter, the high winds of spring blow this light soil from the roots, exposing them to such an extent, that, in a dry time in particular, the wheat often perishes. When breaking up fresh prairies, there was much encouragement and promise of hope, but which, I believe, has not been, nor is likely to be, realized by their husbandmen, in the degree that early experiments induced them to look for.

As appears by the last report of the Commissioner of Patents, the crop of Illinois, in reference to population and production, is below that of Kentucky, and both Indiana and Illinois are below that of Tennessee. The crop of Indiana is set down at 8,300,000, her population at 1,000,000, or equal to 8½ bushels a-head. The production of Illinois is stated at 5,400,000, her population at 800,000, or less than seven bushels to each inhabitant—and both these "fair and fertile plains" are still farther behind the old "battered moors" of Maryland and Virginia.

Again, he adds, "how does it happen that wheat does not flourish on a sandy soil (which much of the soil of these states is described to be), and that a calcareous soil is also unsuitable to its growth, unless it be mixed with a considerable quantity of clay?"

The late Mr. Colman, in his European Agriculture, states, that "the soil preferred for wheat (in England) is a strong soil with a large proportion of clay. But the question after all is, not whether these States cannot grow wheat, and in comparatively large quantities, for we know that while their lands are fresh, they can and do—but whether, considering the hazard of the crop from winter-killing, the rust, the fly—the risk from the two former being equal to a large per cent. premium of insurance, they are not likely to find their interest in grazing, in raising and feeding stock, instead of attempting to extend their wheat husbandry. Lord Brougham has said, that grazing countries are always the most prosperous, and their population the most contented and happy. The meat markets of Great Britain are likely to prove better and more stable for us, than their grain markets.

The Hon. Henry L. Ellsworth, a distinguished citizen, and large farmer of Indiana—distinguished throughout the Union for his zeal in the cause of agriculture—thus expresses himself on this subject: "After a full consideration of the subject, I am satisfied that stock-raising at the West is much more profitable than raising grain. Indeed, an examination of the north-western States shows a vast difference in the wealth of the grazier over those who crop with grain. The profits of wheat appear well in expectation on paper, but the prospect is blasted by a severe winter, appearance of insects, bad weather in harvesting, in threshing, for there are but few barns at the West, or transporting to market, or last, a fluctuation in the market itself."

Such is the opinion of Mr. Ellsworth, the result of observation and experience, himself largely interested in ascertaining the safest and surest course to be pursued. The destiny he has indicated for this beautiful fertile region of country, will undoubtedly be fulfilled; it will become a great pastoral, stock-raising, and stock-feeding country.

Michigan has also been successful in the cultivation of wheat. Her burr-oak openings are unsurpassed in producing wheat. They are intervening ridges between low grounds, or marshes and bodies of water, and their location not generally considered very healthy. A doubt has also been suggested as to whether this soil, being a clayey loam, resting on a sandy and gravelly subsoil, is likely to wear as well as some other portions of the fertile soil of the State. The Commissioner of Patents puts her crop for 1848 at 10,000,000 of bushels, which is equal to 23½ bushels to each inhabitant! By the census of 1840, the population of Michigan was 212,267; number of bushels of wheat, 2,157,108. Her population in 1848 is estimated at 412,000. While she has barely doubled her population, she has, according to the above estimate, more than quadrupled her production of wheat—increased it at the rate of about one million bushels a year for eight consecutive years, making the quantity she grows to each head of her population more than double that of any State in the Union.

We can at least say, and appeal to the past history of the country to show it, that for a period of more than one hundred years, the supply of the Atlantic wheat States has generally been constant, and for the most part abundant. They have furnished the "staff of life" to several generations of men, and cotemporary with it, an annual amount for export, that materially assisted in regulating the exchanges of the country.