20 



NEAV ENGLAND FARMER. 



Jan. 



We would say to those who read the articles over 

 the signature "O. K.," that he is a practical farm- 

 er, and only writes of tilings upon v/liich he is in- 

 formed, unless it be in the form of inquiry. 



Fur the New England Farmer. 



IS THSP.E AWZ SUBSTITUTE FOB. THE 

 PLOW? 



Friend Brown : — I find the following para- 

 graph in the American Agriculturist, (a valuable 

 paper, by the by.) 



"Since the benefits of deep tillage and thorough 

 pulverization of the soil have been recognized, it 

 has become apparent that some new implement is 

 needed in place of the plow. With the latter it is 

 impracticable to reach the required depth without 

 great expenditure of animal power, and the work 

 of pulverization is imperfectly performed. . . . An 

 implement is needed, to work by horse or ox povr- 

 er, that shall at one operation invert the surface 

 growth, stir the soil deeply, and not make the sub- 

 soil still more dense. The invention of a success- 

 ful apparatus of this Idnd wiU bring a large fortune 

 to somebody." 



Yes, I believe the fortune is a sure thing to who- 

 soever will bring out an apparatus of this kind. 

 But is it within the reach of possibility, is the ques- 

 tion with me. That it is a felt necessity, none will 

 gainsay. All admit, to greater or less extent, the 

 evils alleged against the plow as now constructed, 

 but all the suggestions made to obviate them, by 

 substituting other methods, except spading and 

 trenching, seem utterly impracticable for general 

 use, while spading and trenching are so very ex- 



Eensive, that they can be adopted only to a very 

 mited extent. A plow with pulverizing apparatus 

 attached, was described recently, before the "Amer- 

 ican Institute Farmers' Club," which was commend- 

 ed by some, and regarded as utterly worthless by 

 others. It roots up the soil and digs it to pieces, 

 leaving much of the sod upon the surface, exposed 

 to waste, and in a wet time to grow and be trouble- 

 some to extirpate. Let us look at some of the evils 

 alleged against the plow. I may not enumerate 

 th^m all, but some of the most prominent. The 

 first and foremost is the pressure of the sole of the 

 plow upon the bottom of the furrows; another, the 

 treading of the team in the same, and the lifting of 

 the furrow slice in order to turn it over properly, 

 and again, the great amount of power requisite to 

 di'aw the plow. 



According to some, each time the plow passes 

 over a field, it increases the compactness of the 

 subsoil, and diminishes the cha.nces for a good 

 crop. ' This position I am not willing to admit. If 

 the sod is brought u])on the surface, I care not 

 how many times ray fields are plov/ed previous to 

 being jilanted with almost all farm crops. I do 

 not iDelieve the pressure of the plov/, or the foot of 

 the team, in the bottom of the furrow, so gi-eat an 

 evil, as not to be very much counterbalanced by 

 the increased advantage of Vac more ]5erfect disin- 

 tegration and mixture of the soil by repeated 

 plowing. 



As to the objection urged, that the weight of the 

 furrow upon the mould board adds very much to 

 the draught, I do not think much of it, for the rea- 

 son that I suppose it not so great as genei'ally 

 thought, upon a well constructed plow. I tliink 



Ave are not to believe the pressure of the furrow- 

 slice upon the plow, anything like the toeirjld of 

 the same upon the scale. I think, according as the 

 team moves slow fast or, the weight is increased or 

 dinrinished. The fast team gives the sod or soil a 

 momentum that greatly relieves the plow of its 

 dead weight. The objection urg#d against the 

 plow, that it reqiures great power of draught, I 

 look upon as groundless, considering the work it 

 performs. The simple fact, that every and aU sub- 

 stitutes I have ever heard or seen described, re- 

 quire far more power to operate them than the 

 plov/, and at the same time not doing the requii-ed 

 work enough better to supersede it, is conclusive 

 evidence that for the quality of its work and power 

 necessary to do it, it has not, and probably wiU 

 not have very soon, a successful competitor. 



That some substitute will eventually be found 

 for the plow, is within the range of possibihty, but 

 I doubt whether, with the same amount of power, 

 it will accomphsh better results. If we wish to do 

 more than our plows now Accomplish, I tliink it 

 must be at the expense of greater poAver. The 

 plow will undoubtedly undergo improvements in 

 the future, probably in not so great a ratio, but 

 quite obvious. AVe have in oiu* improved subsoil 

 plows a remedy for the packing of the bottom of 

 the furroAv by the plow and team. On some soils, 

 it is as really necessary to be used as the plow. 

 Suppose Ave take the double, or Michigan ploAv, 

 and follow it Avith a subsoil ploAv, Avhat better is it 

 possible to do, unless we resort to the ^pade, or 

 trenching ? 



It is far from my intention to discourage the in- 

 vention of superior implements to those Ave now 

 have, but let us not overlook their merits in some 

 wild goose chase after a substitute. o. K. 



Rochester, Mass., 186L 



Singular Facts in Hum.\n Life. — The av- 

 erage length of human life is about 28 years. 

 One-quarter die previous to the age of 7 ; one-hak 

 before reaching 17. Only one of every 1000 per- 

 sons reaches 100 years. Only six of every 100 

 reaches the age of Go, and not more than one in 

 500 lives to 80 years of age. Of the Avhole pop- 

 ulation on the globe, it is estimated that 90,000 dae 

 every day ; about 3700 every horn-, and sixty ev- 

 ery minute, or one every second. These losses 

 are more than counterbalanced by the number of 

 births. The married are longer lived than the sin- 

 gle. The average dm-ation of life in all civilized 

 countries is greater noAv than in any anterior pe- 

 riod. Macaulay, the distinguished liistorian, states 

 that in the year 1G8J — not an unhealthy year — 

 the deaths in England Avere as one to 20, but in 

 1850 one to 40. Dupni, a Avell knoAvn French 

 Avriter, states that the average duration of life in 

 France from 1776 to 1843 increased 52 days an- 

 nually. The rate of mortality in 1781 AA-^as one in 

 29, but in 1850 one in 40. The rich men live on 

 an average 42 years, but the poor only 30 years. 

 — Free Nation. 



Words are nice tilings, but they strike hard. 

 We Avield them so easily that Ave are apt to forget 

 their hidden poAver. Fitly spoken, they fall like 

 the sunsliiue, the dcAV, and the summer rain — but 

 Avlien imfitly, like the frost, the hail, and the deso- 

 lating tempest. 



