WHEAT. 



Putting the same samples into the hanck )f an 

 extensive corn-factor and miller, his opinion of 

 its value, and what he would give to buy, was for 



No. l. 

 No. '2. 

 No. 3. 



- 61s. per quarter. 



- 63*. do. 



- 61s. do. 



Adding these values respectively "togetht., and 

 taking the mean price of each (by which we 

 shall obtain as near an approximation to the 

 truth as possible), we have 



No. 1. 



No. 2. 

 No. 3. 



61s. Od. per quarter. 

 63s. 6d. do. 

 6U. 6d. do. 



" The loss or gain on these samples, by reap- 

 ing at different periods, will be best seen from 

 the following 



Table of the relative Weights and Value of Wheat 

 cut August 4, August 18, and September 1 ; that 

 cut last (or ripe') being taken as the standard, 

 and unity assumed as its value in each column. 



"According to this table, it is evident that 

 the wheat reaped a fortnight before it was ripe 

 has the advantage of the ripe in every point : 



1st. In weight of gross produce 3 4 5 5, or 13 j, 

 per cent. 



2d. In weight of equal measures /.,, or near- 

 ly per cent. 



3d. In weight of equal number of grains ^ 3 r , 

 or nearly 21 per cent. 



4th. In quality and value -pjj, or above 3J 

 per cent. 



5th. In weight of straw j\, or above 5 per 

 cent. 



On the other hand, that reaped a month before 

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

 in weight of straw, compared with the ripe, 

 but in every other point has the disadvantage : 

 thus, 



1st. In weight of gross produce 5 y s , or 11 T 5 3 

 per cent. 



2d. In weight of equal measures ^-, or 

 rather more than $ per cent. 



3d. In weight of equal number of grains ^f, 

 or better than 13J per cent. 



4th. In quality and value yij, rather more 

 than | per cent. 



"It maybe here necessary to mention that 

 the sample No. 3 (ripe) was very bold, but 

 rather coarse, feeling rough in the hand ; while 

 No. 2 (raw) was quite as bold, but very fine and 

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

 and clear sample, but much smaller than either 

 of the others. This will account for the appa- 

 rently anomalous fact of there being scarcely 

 any difference in the marketable value of the 

 green compared with the ripe, while there is 

 a difference of 13 per cent, in favour of the 

 ripe in weight of equal numbers of grains; for 

 the sample being dry and good, the buyer lost 

 little bv this inferiority in the size of grain, as 

 the weights of equal measures were the same, 

 143 



WHEAT. 



the difference of ^ scarcely making ib 

 in the sack. 



" Before venturing to draw any deductions 

 from these experiments, let us put their results 

 in a still more practical point of view. 



"Suppose we have 3 acres of wheat, 1 of 

 which, reaped when ripe, yields us 30 bushels 

 of corn and 1 ton of straw ; what will be the 

 gross value of the same ? And what the value 

 of the other 2 acres, according to the data fur- 

 nished by the foregoing experiments, supposing 

 each acre to be exactly equal in crop, and the 

 one reaped a fortnight and the other a mont.h 

 before the ripe. 



" Before answering this, we must fix a value 

 for the straw say 2rf. 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 7J 

 1 ton of straw, at 2d. per stone - - 1 6 8 



Gross produce - 12 17 3J 



" Let us next take the acre cut ' raw. 1 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 

 bushels, 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, we cannot found our calculations upon 

 the gross weight of the two samples (Nos. 2 and 

 3) ; for, although there is no doubt but that this 

 weight was materially affected by the condition 

 of the wheat at the time of reaping (indeed, 

 the difference 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 them than those taken out 

 of the other. This, then, would affect 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 

 ~>f grains. 



" To the weights of equal measures, and of 

 equal numbers of grains, both the result of 

 many careful 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, 



No. 2. (raw) 

 No. 3. (ripe) 



Wtifcht of equal Weight of equal 



Measures. Numbers of Graint 



580 23-25 



570 22-75 



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

 ber of grains weighed of each sort ; then 



n : 22-75 : : 1 : ^-^=the weight of one grain 

 of No. 3., whence 

 ^^ : 1 : : 570 : Sfe=the number of gram* 



n 22- / 5 



of No. 3 in the measure m. 



Again, similarly, n : 23-25 : : I : ^, weight 



of one grain of No. 2, and 



1137 



