472 



THE FARMERS' REGISTER. 



1st, In weight of gross produce g'V'j, or 13\ per 

 cent. 



2d, In weight of equal measures 3',, or nearly 

 -^ per cent. 



3d, In weight of equal number of grains g\, or 

 nearly 2\ per cent. 



4th, In quality and value ^^-^, or above 3^ per 

 cent. 



5th, In weight of straw -g, or above 5 per cent. 



On I he other had, that reaped a month before it 

 was ripe, has an advantage of 22 per cent, in 

 weight of straw, compared with ihe ripe, but in 

 every other point has the disadvantage : thus, 



1st, In weight of gross produce 3^5, or 11 y^g per 

 cent. 



2d, In weight of equal measures og^, or rather 

 more than ^ per cent. 



3d, In weight of equal number of grains if, or 

 beiier than 13^ per cent. 



4th, In quality and value j\^, rather more than 

 ^ per cent. 



h may be here necessary to mention that the 

 sample No. 3 fripe) was very bold, but rather 

 coarse, feeling rough in the hand ; while No. 2 

 (raw) was quite as bold, butvery fine and thin in 

 the skin. No. 3 (green) was also a good and 

 clear sample, but much smaller than either of the 

 other. This will account lor the apparently 

 anomalous lact of there being scarcely any diti'er- 

 ence in the marketable value of the green compa- 

 red with the ripe, while there is a diHerence of 13 

 percent, in favor of the ripe in weight of equal 

 numbers of grains ; for the sample being dry and 

 good, the buyer lost little by this inferiority in the 

 size of grain as the weights of equal measures 

 were the same, — the difference of 253 scarcely 

 making 5 lb. in the sack. 



Belbre venturing to draw my deductions from 

 these experiments, let us put their results in a still 

 more practical point of view. 



Suppose we have three acres of wheat, one of 

 which, reaped when ripe, yields us 30 bushels of 

 corn and one ton of siraw ; what will be the 

 gross value of the same 1 And what the value 

 of the other two acres, according to the data 

 furnished by the foregoing experiments, supposing 

 each acre to be exactly equal in crop, and the one 

 reaped a fortnight 'diid the other a monf A before 

 the ripe? 



Belore answering this, we must fix a value for 

 the straw — say 2d. per stone, which, taking into 

 account that used by the farmer himself^— and 

 many cannot sell any — is as much as it is actually 

 worth. Whence we have, for the acre of ripe.- 



30 bushels of wheat, at 61s. 6d. per 

 quarter (the price of sample 

 No. 3,) £11 10 7i 



1 ton of straw, at 2d. per stone, . 16 8 



Gross produce, £12 17 3^ 



Let us next take the acre cut " raw.''^ Before 

 we can come to its value, we must first resolve 

 the question, How much, in measure, will the 

 acre produce us, supposing it to produce 30 bush- 

 els, if cut when ripe? 



In solving this, as we must assume each crop 

 to be exactly equal if cut at the same time, it is 

 obvious that if we would determine the difference 

 caused by reaping at an earlier period, ve cannot 

 found our calculations upon the gross weight ol 



the two samples (Nos. 2 and. 3); for, all hough 

 there is no doubt but that ihis weight was mate- 

 rially affected by the condition of the wheal at 

 the time of reaping (indeed the diffiirence in the 

 weight of equal numbers of grains proves the 

 fact), It is possible that, in selecting the 100 ears 

 from the sheaf, I might take out of one sheaf ears 

 with a greater number of grains in ihem than 

 those taken out of the other. This, then, would 

 aflect the total or gross weight ; and, therefore, 

 it cannot be taken into account in the present case, 

 where both acres are supposed to have an equal 

 number of grains. 



To the weight of equal measures, and of equal 

 numbers of grains, both the result of many care- 

 fiil trials, this objection cannot be urged ;, and 

 they are amply sufficient to enable us to tell the 

 produce of an acre of " raw," when that of the 

 "ripe" is 30 bushels. Thus, in the first table, we 

 have. 



Wgt. of eq. measures. Wgt. of eq. Nog. of grs. 



No. 2 (raw,) 580 - - 23.25 

 No. 3 (ripe,) 570 - - 22.75 

 Now put m = this measure, and n = the num- 

 ber of grains weighed of each sort; then 

 22.75 



n : 22,75 : : 1 : = the weight of one 



n 

 grain of No. 3, whence 



22.75 570/1 



: 1 ; : 570 : = the number of 



71 22.75 



grains of No. 3 in the measure m. 



23.25 



Again, similarly, n : 23.25 : : 1 : , 



n 

 weight of one grain of No. 2, and 

 23.25 580 n 



: 1 : : 580 : = the number of 



n 23.25 



grains of No. 2 in the measure m. 

 570/1 22.75 m 



Andm-^ = = the space occupied 



22.75 570 n 

 by one grain of No. 3 (ripe ;) and 

 580 ft 23.25 m 



m- = :=; the space occupied by 



23.25 580 n 

 one grain of No. 2 (raw.) 



Now, as there are the same number of grains 

 upon each acre, and as the acre of ripe yields 30 

 bushels, we have 



22.75 m 23.25 m 



: : : 30 bushels : 30.1307313 



570 ft 580 ft 



bushels, the produce of one acre cut a fortnight 

 before the ripe. 



Again, by reference to page 27 in the second 

 table, we have 1 and lA as the relative weights 

 of the straw No. 3 and No. 2 ; whence, as No. 3 

 is supposed to produce one ton, 



1 : Ifg : : 160 stones : 168| stones, the weight 

 upon the acre reaped when raw. And lor the 

 whole produce ol' the acre, we have 

 30.1307 bushels of wheat, at 

 63s. 6d. per quarter, - - £11 19 1| 



168 stones of straw, at 2d. per 

 stone, 18 If 



£13 7 3^ 

 Adopting the same course for the produce of the 



