1871. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



161 



■which is equivalent to 13.17 pounds per bush- 

 el. In this trial I realized for my corn 65 

 cents and 8 mills per bushel. 



They were fed fourteen days upon cooked 

 meal, and consumed 46 l-'2 bushels ; their net 

 gain was 6y6 pounds, which is equivalent to 

 14.96 pounds per bushel : this sold my corn 

 for 74 cents and 8 mills per bushel. 



Taking the two extremes, I find I got 24 cts. 

 and 4 mills more per bushel for my corn by 

 grinding and cooking, than when fed whole 

 and raw. After deducting one-seventh for 

 grinding, leaves 21 cents per bushel. 



Had I ground and cooked the feed for my 

 20 hogs, I find I would have made 663 

 pounds more pork than I did, which would 

 have given me $33.00 more. 



I find it will require 345.51 bushels of raw 

 corn to make 3,480 pounds of pork, and onh' 

 232 bushels when cooked — a difference of 

 112.6 bushels in favor of cooked feed. 



HOW TO LOAD A ■WAGON. 



Some three or four weeks ago the question 

 was asked whether a Avagon should be loaded 

 heavier on the hind than on the front wheels. 

 Your reply, though not asserted to be con- 

 clusive, implied that the load should be equally 

 distributed. I propose a scientific elucidation 

 of the subject, which will prove that the load 

 should be heavier on the hind wheels, in the 

 proportion of their diameter to the diameter of 

 the front wheels. 



A wheel is a lever, whose long arm, theo- 

 retically, is the distance from the ground to 

 the centre of the axle ; tlie short arm is a pivot ; 

 but, practically, it is impossible to construct a 

 lever of such proportions. Hence, in calcu- 

 lating the advantage of the lever, a wheel or 

 a lever, allowance must be made for the size 

 of the axle, and for friction dependent on size, 

 other things being equal. Without going into 

 too elaborate a discussion, it will be sufficient 

 to say in general terms that the power gained 

 by a wagon wheel is in proportion to its semi- 

 diameter, and hence that the load on a wagon 

 should be placed proportionally to the diame- 

 ters of the front and hind wheels. 



Suppose the front wheels are four feet, and 

 the hind wheels five feet in diameter — then 

 five-ninths of the load should rest on the hind 

 wheels and four-ninths on the front wheels. — 

 Cor. Rural New Yorker. 



GLASS-BLO"WrN"G. 

 The juvenile mineralogist, constructing his 

 first cabinet, brings home, as a rare curiosity, 

 a crystaline stone which shines like glass. It 

 is glass — the glass of nature, the foundation 

 of much of modern civilization and science, 

 without which neither astronomy, chemistry, 

 nor physiology could ever have emerged from 

 their crude condition, since without it neither 

 the telescope, nor the chemist''s vessels would 



have been possible. Subjected to an intense 

 heat, and mixed with other substances, such 

 as soda, lime, oxide of iron, oxide of lead, 

 oxide of tin, according to the fabric to be 

 wrought, it becomes ductile, is drawn out into 

 the most tenuous threads, is rolled, beaten, 

 moulded, cut at will, yields to even the slight- 

 est breath of the workman, and, patterned by 

 him, takes any form he chooses to impart to 

 it. Cooling, it loses its curiously ductile 

 character, and becomes again the hardest 

 and most brittle of substances. This quartz 

 rock the boy fancies to be a jirecious stone. 

 He is laughed at for his wild conjecture. It 

 is a chance if he be not nearer right than 

 those who ridicule him. Colored in nature's 

 man-elous dye-house, it becomes precious only 

 because it is more rare. Violet, it is an ame- 

 thyst ; uncrystalized and waxy in its struc- 

 ture, it is a chalcedony ; red, it is a earn lian ; 

 of variegated colors, it is an agate ; opaque, 

 and yet colored, red, yellow, brown, it is a 

 jasper. In a word, the same substance which 

 is the chief component of glass is also the 

 base of most precious stones, yet in its com- 

 monest form most precious of all ; for we 

 might well relinquish jasper, agate, chalce- 

 dony, and amethyst for glass, if we could ob- 

 tain the latter only by such an exchange. — 

 Harper^s Magazine for February. 



EXTBACTS AND REPLIES. 



cows EATING UP THE BARN ! HEREFORDS AND 

 DURHAMS. 



My cows will eat pieces of wood and tear shingles 

 off the walls of my bam when in tlie yard. They 

 seem healthy and are in good condition. What is 

 the cause, and what is the cure ? 



Do you consider Hercfords superior to Durhams 

 for the general keep or feed of New England far- 

 mers ? I do not see much in the Farmer as to 

 their quality or where most kept. 



New Subscriber. 



York County, Me., Feb. 13, 1871. 



Remarks. — AVe must refer you to some remarks 

 in our last paper on "Why do Cattle Eat Boards r" 

 for our reply to your first question. 



As to the second question, our first remark is 

 that there is a sort oi fashion about the different 

 kinds of stock. Each kind has its admirers, and 

 it would be difficult to convince one that there is 

 anything better than his owi\. According to some 

 who have claimed large experience, the Hereford 

 cow has little reputation as a milker. The milk is 

 rich, but too little of it,— not much more than to 

 rear her calf in good condition. As a working ox 

 the Hereford is the peer of any other, and superior 

 to most, according to Mr. L. F. Allen, hi his 

 American Cattle Book. As a beef animal the 

 Hereford is superior. They feed kindly, arc thrifty 

 in growth, mature early — at three and four years 

 oldj— and prove well on the butcher's block. And 

 we have heard experienced Brighton butchers say 

 that crosses of the Hereford afforded a larger pro- 



