THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



521 



come when it will to a great extent supersede all others, but 

 it will not do for a pioneer in the hands of the tenant-farmer- 

 Romaine's, too, must, I fear, be coutent with the fertile plains, 

 and leave the hills to others. Fowler's and Smith's appear, to 

 my mind, the favourites, and to them I shall now confine 

 myself. 



The chief points which should guide us in forming our 

 opinion are: 1st, the outlay; 2nd, the working expense re- 

 duced to the cost per acre ; and 3rd, the general application- 

 First as to the outlay. 



smith's. 



Steam-engine S-horse power £250 



Smith's apparatus, including windlass, anchors, bee- 

 tles, pulleys, &c 110 



Patent turning bow 21 



1,400 yards steel rope 60 



No. 3 cultivator 16 



Implements Nos. 1, 2, and 4 43 



Outlay 



£500 



fowler's. 

 Steam-engine, (8-horse power) adapted to Fowler's 



system £305 



Windlass, with self-moving anchor, headland ropes, 



porter8,&c 160 



Cultivator 25 



Ploughs or other implements 50 



700 yards steel rope 30 



Outlay 



£570 



N.B. In each of these cases we might probably reduce the 

 amount of outlay £20U by the sale of some of our horses. 



We may now turn to the working expenses. 

 smith's. 



8. d. 



Engine driver Per day. 5 



Sixmcnat2s „ 12 



Horse and cart at water „ 3 



15 cwt. of coals „ 15 



5 per cent, interest on £500 „ 1 8 



20 per cent, interest on £500 for wear and tear „ 6 8 



Total per day £2 3 



FOWLER'S. 



8. d. 



Engine driver Per day, 5 



Four men at 23 „ 8 



One boy „ 1 



Horse and cart at water , 3 



15 cwt. of coals ,; 15 



5 per cent, interest on £570 „ 1 11 



20 per cent, interest on £570 for wear and tear „ 7 8 



Total per day £2 1 7 



In these calculations I have p'lt down several sums which 

 can only be approximations to the correct ones, but they will 

 not materially affect the results, which are all we have to do 

 with ; and it will be seen that I have at all events given ample 

 scope on the /arwer's safe side, by allowing 15 cwt. of coals 

 for an eight-horse power engine, and 20 per cent, for wear and 

 tear; if, therefore, the result is favourable with such assump- 

 tions, it must be in practice. 



We have now arrived at the cost of a day's work under each 

 system ; the next question is. What will each perform in a 

 day ? and here it seems to me that much unnecessary com- 

 plication has been introduced, calculated to create suspicion 

 in the non-scientific mind. In both systems we have th'- 

 face exerted on the plough, scarifier, &c., in a direct line with 

 the path of the implement, and in each we have supposed the 

 power of the engine to be equal; all, therefore, we require to 



know is, how much of that force is absorbed by friction in the 

 two cases; and surely a few simple experiments made by sub- 

 stituting a dynamometer for the implement would at once 

 settle this, aud tell us without a shadow of doubt how much 

 available power is left. Of course the absorption by friction 

 must be greater in Smith's than in Fowler's : but it may be 

 greatly lessened by a liberal use of oil, aud by increasing the 

 size of the pulleys at the corners of the fields; but by all 

 means let the battle of the ropes, the dispute between 

 the direct and roundabout system be amicably settled by 

 a dynamometric umpire. Till this is done we must guess at 

 it as nearly as we can; and I will venture to put down the ab- 

 sorption by friction in Fowler's apparatus at 1 horse power, and 

 in Smith's at 2-horse power ; though I should hardly imagine 

 there would be so great a difference between them. We shall 

 thus have a tractive force of 7-hor8e power exerted on the im- 

 plement iu the one case, aud one of 6-hor3e power in the 

 other. But the force represented by 1-Jiorse power in a steam- 

 engine is equal to the strength of l^ horses ; therefore, the 

 force exerted on the implement by Fowler's arrangemeut is 

 equal to the strength of 10| horses, and by Smith's to that of 

 9 horses; and this, too, exerted uniformly throughout the 

 day, which must increase the work done enormously ; for who 

 has not been struck with the startling difference between the 

 calculated work of a pair of horses ploughing on light laud, 

 and the actual work done? Who has not reflected that, 

 walking at the regular rate of 2| miles per hour— including 

 stoppages and taking a 9-inch furrow — they would plough 

 rather more than 2^ acres in the day of 10 hours ; while the 

 work really done seldom exceeds one acre? 



Bearing this in miud, I think we may safely affirm that 

 Fowler's arrangement will accomplish iu a day, on light land, 

 whatever can be performed by 16 horses; and Smith's what- 

 ever can be performed by about 14 horses. Assuming this to 

 be true, we are in a position to calculate the cost per acre of 

 our work. 



No. of acres ploughed per day, on light land , 7 



Cost per day £2 Ss. 4d. 



£2 33. 4d. 

 Cost per acre = 6g. 2id, 



fowler's. 



No. of acres ploughed per day, on light land 8 



Costperday £2 Is. 7d. 



£2 Is. 7d. 

 Cost per acre =- 58. 2|d. 



Here then we have a very great advantage in point of 

 economy iu steam over horse-labour, when applied on light 

 land, to the horse's pet-implement, the plough. But this is 

 a small part of the advantage to be derived from its adoption ; 

 because on heavy land the absence of " treading," the oppor- 

 tunity of breaking up the land at favourable times, and the 

 power of going to a great depth, present inducements which 

 every heavy-land farmer will thoroughly appreciate. The field 

 on the Prince Consort's Flemish Farm, at Windsor, scarified 

 by Smith's apparatus last autumn, and ploughed lately by 

 Fowler's, is a fair illustration of this remark. 



It appears then that the time has come when either of these 

 systems is preferable to the employment of horse-power; and 

 we may proceed to make a few remarks on their respective 

 merits. The difference in the first outlay is not so considera- 

 ble as to be much thought of; but the expense of the work 

 done, amounting, according to the previous calculation, to la. 

 per acre iu favour of Fowler's system, it an important con- 



