802 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



clearly won the prize. Now, giving Mr. Smith the 

 benefit of his own computations, and his interpretation 

 of the judges' description of his work, there is j ust one 

 point which he appears to have overlooked. One im- 

 plement may be said to turn over the soil " efficiently," 

 and another may be said to do so too ; but there are 

 degrees of efficiency, and we are no more bound to 

 take the lowest tender in steam-culture than in the 

 building of a house, where workmanship may be done 

 to the letter, but be worth double in one case what it 

 is in another. The terms of the offer promised a prize 

 to the steam-cultivator that should "in the /»05^ effi- 

 cient manner turn over the soil ;" and it is just possi- 

 ble, therefore, that judges might prefer, as most con- 

 formable to their instructions, the work which turns 

 over furrow-slices, burying the sward and exposing the 

 underside of the slices upon the top, rather than that 

 •work which boasts of leaving the surface unburied, and 

 its torn pieces not inverted, or that which turning over 

 Blices right and left covers up half the ground without 

 moving it at all. The plough mould-board certainly 

 does not turn the soil completely upside down, but lays 

 it up atan angle — still it is commonly said to "invert j" 

 and as many of the broken pieces in Mr. Smith's work 

 are tumbled over, and a portion of the under soil 

 brought up and exposed, perhaps the term "invert" 

 may also be applied to describe a part of his process. 

 But we think the judges must have taken a most 

 favourable view of the work done by Messrs. Howard at 

 Chester ; for we certainly should never say (as they do) 

 that, while the first operation with the three-tined im- 

 plement left the surface "more or less in its original 

 position," the crossing with the five-tined implement 

 "reversed the whole of the top soil." Whatever 

 " reversing " may mean, our own inspection assured us 

 that the surface grass and rubbish were far from being 

 buried ; indeed, one of the chief merits of the work con- 

 sisted in the rubbish being left at top, to die or be ex- 

 tracted and got off. They report that Messrs. Howard's 

 operations exposed " a rough, irregular surface to the 

 action of the atmosphere," and that Mr. Fowler's 

 ploughing left the soil "in a far more desirable con- 

 dition, and better adapted for all the purposes of hus- 

 bandry " than horse-ploughing does. And it is clear 

 ih&t for autumnal cultivation and for cleaning land 

 they preferred the action of the scarifying apparatus ; 

 while for the general rcquiremeiits of husbaiidry, in 

 which the plough is by far the most important and most 

 extensively used implement, they selected the ploughing 

 machine. And again we repeat that the mere per- 

 formance of one process at a cheaper rate than another 

 machine accomplishes a different process caxinot alone 

 entitle a machine to be considered the winner. If this 

 principle were admitted, we might have a steam machine 

 rolling, or drilling, or hoeing with a greater per-ccntage 

 of saving over horse-work, than another machine could 

 show in ploughing or grubbing, and so consider itself 

 the most valuable because "most economical;" when 

 in a more important process, as ploughing, it might 

 work at disadvantage, compared with the other inven- 

 tion, or be altogether incapable, 



And now let us distinguish between things that differ. 

 You may work most economically, owing to the ex- 

 cellence of your implenwnt or the superior nature of 

 the process for certain purposes, when your mechan- 

 ism for actuating the implement may be less econo- 

 mical than that of other inventions. Or, on the other 

 hand, you may work at least expense for every hun- 

 dred-ioeight draught of your implement, and yet the 

 saving in your work be less than in the other ; because 

 you may be performing an operation much more 

 wanted in general practice, though the other can be 

 done at more profit while it lasts. Which is the more 

 valuable apparatus of the two ? Why, clearly that 

 which can apply power most cheaply j for you have 

 only to attach the implement of the first machine, to 

 work with greater economy still, and beat it in its own 

 advantageous process ; while the other apparatus would 

 work your implement, or indeed any implement what- 

 ever that is adapted for traction by rope, at a loss as 

 compared with your performances. 



Apply this consideration to the rival Chester steam 

 tilling-machines. And here we need have nothing to 

 do with engine-power, length of rope, number of pul- 

 leys, &c. ; but simply take the expenses as estimated 

 by the judges, and the draught and speed of the im- 

 plements as deduced from their investigations. Six 

 horses, yoked three before three, were found to pull 

 Messrs. Howard's three-tined cultivator very well at 

 their own pace, going the same width and depth as 

 with the steam-power. And that the work was not at 

 all above average pulling for the horses may be judged 

 of from this fact : The draught of a Wilkie's swing- 

 plough, turning a furrow 9 inches wide by inches 

 deep in this land, was 6| cwt,, that is, fair draught for 

 three horses. The scarifier took about the breadth of 

 three furrows, not cutting all this width, but teai'ing 

 up the soil both to a greater breadth than the outside 

 shares extended, and also between the shares, which 

 are set with an interval between their tracks instead of 

 " overlapping." The depth was and sometimes 7 

 inches. Everybody who has worked a good scarifier 

 knows how much less power is required to break up 

 hard soil into pieces without turning them over, than 

 to cut rectangular slices, and turn them with the screw- 

 shaped, frictional incline of a mould-boai'd. However, 

 as we reported of the trial at the time, the six horses 

 drew the implement without any excessive exertion of 

 strength. Taking 2 cwt. for each horse draught, the 

 whole draught of the implement was thus 12 cwt. The 

 average speed, including the turnings at the end, was 

 observed, and found to be at the rate of 3,G00 yards 

 per hour. 



Now, let us get similar items of Mr. Fowler's work. 

 In the first place, what was the di-aught of his plough ? 

 Had it been thought of, a couple of the plough bodies 

 might have been removed from the frame, and a num- 

 ber of horses yoked before it ; but, as it was, the four 

 furrows at once were evidently beyond the pulling 

 force of any reasonable team. The draught of a single 

 furrow an inch narrower than each of those taken by 

 the implement, was found (as we have said), to be 6g 



