30 TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE. 



Classification of Forks. 

 The committee thought it most expedient to arrange the forks 

 into two classes. The first class embraces those that elevate the 

 material to be pitched by grappling it. The second class com- 

 prehends those forks that operate on the harpoon principle — by 

 thrusting the implement straight into the hay or straAV, holding 

 their load by means of flukes, square shoulders in the sides of the 

 blades, or by spurs or claws thrust out laterally into the hay. 

 Most of the first class of forks are adapted to pitching anything 

 and everything that any farmer desires to handle with a horse 

 fork. In the second class, those of forks only are arranged that 

 are simply designed for handling hay and straw. Therefore, if a 

 farmer wants a fork for pitching hay only, a fork like Blodgett's 

 round harpoon fork will give him the best satisfaction. But if he 

 desires to remove hay from his mows or stacks in square blocks, 

 without picking it apart, one similar to Sprout's combined knife 

 and fork will subserve a better purpose, as with this implement 

 the mow can be cut into squares containing one or two hundred 

 pounds of hay each, lifted bodily with the knife and placed on 

 the load. This mode of moving hay is worthy of recommenda- 

 tion, as hay will waste much less when taken out in solid squares 

 than when pulled apart in the usual manner. 



Points of Merit. 



Although the following points of merit were chosen by the 

 committee, for the purpose of testing the forks entered at the 

 trial, still they were not able to make a satisfactory record oppo- 

 site point No. 13, touching the time required to unload a ton of 

 hay, as most of the men who managed the forks did not possess 

 the necessary experience and skill for working a fork to its great- 

 est ability. The committee perceived that if some of the forks 

 could have been in the hands of farmers who are accustomed to 

 handle such implements, they would have accomplished their 

 assigned task in half the recorded time. They therefore feel it 

 their duty, in justice to inventors and manufacturers, to attribute 

 the failure of certain forks, in time, to want of skill and cxpcrt- 

 ness on the part of the man who worked the implement, rather 

 than to any imperfection of the fork. 



The points of merit are herewith given : 



1. The ease Avith Avhich the fork is handled and loaded. 



2. The ease with which the fork lifts its load from the cart. 



