116 AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST!. 
ier draught. But this has nothing to do with 
the question at issue—the combination of 
the above conditions in the harvest field. 
Now, conceding to the soundness of our 
proposition, which is susceptible of easy 
proof, we come to the practical question— 
Was it realized at Lincoln 1 And the obvi¬ 
ous answer is, Certainly not; for the horses 
there were neither properly driven, nor the 
machine equally fed : granting that the other 
conditions were correct, where farmers must 
judge the hight of their own teams, &c., 
At times, for instance, it would have cut six 
inches more, and sometimes even a foot. 
Consequently the pole was thus far from the 
center of resistance ; so that the line of trac¬ 
tion must have formed an angle with the line 
of motion, although not very perceptible to 
casual observers. To counterbalance this, the 
man at the steerage operated against the 
horses with a long lever-power,like the driver 
of an engine with abreakon the wheel; hence 
the consequences which follow, viz., an in¬ 
crease of draught not easily estimated when 
a herculean rustic is alternately pushing this 
way and that with all his might. In the bus¬ 
tle of a trial field such as Lincoln, less or 
more exciting horses, the smallness of the 
patches into which it is subdivided by open¬ 
ings, affording advantages to the other class 
of machines which are not to be met with in 
the harvest field generally, and the many 
turnings consequently experienced. Cross¬ 
kill’s, and those of this class depending so 
much upon driving and feeding, must always 
experience a difficulty in getting fair play on 
such occasions—at least, until our laborers 
and all parties involved are more thoroughly 
masters of their work. But, in the mean¬ 
time, that is no reason why we should im¬ 
pute to machines the misconduct of their 
drivers and teams ; or, vice versa, impute to 
them the good conduct of those who work 
them, as in the case of the man and rake on 
Dray’s, on whose management so much de¬ 
pends, and who at Lincoln received so little 
for his trouble at the hands of the public ; 
and Harkes’, which was hardly looked at, 
because an ignorant man did not drive it 
right. 
So much for the cutting and gathering ap¬ 
paratus of reaping machines, and the mode of 
draught. Many improvements have been 
made since Pliny wrote his description of 
the Roman, or rather Gallic machine, used 
in the extensive plains of Gaul, and no doubt 
subsequently in Britain, from whence Rome 
received a large annual import of corn ; and, 
doubtless, if we could see as far before us in¬ 
to the realms of futurity, it would be seen 
that we are yet a long way from the end of 
the chapter. But, be that as it may, many 
improvements were made last year in both 
classes of machines, although we cannot say 
that these are sufficient to justify the rever¬ 
sal of the Royal Agricultural Society of 
England. The utmost that can safely be 
said here, is, that Carlisle, or the experience 
and judgment of the future, is left to say 
whether Gloucester or Lincoln is right; for 
it can not be denied that greater improve¬ 
ments have been made on the prize machine 
of the former than on that of the latter, since 
last year. It is no doubt possible that the 
one was better prepared for a short trial 
among green rye, while the otherwas worse; 
but what have exceptions or any conditions 
of this kind to do with the merits of either 
machine for general harvest work 1 We are 
far from saying that the recommendations of 
the society last year, so generally and justly 
approved of, have been complied with on 
either side, especially by the two rival ma¬ 
chines ; for the principal objections brought 
against the prize machine from the com¬ 
mencement, still remain in force, while the 
improvement or simplification of the other, 
has been effected at an increase of expense, 
instead of a decrease, as the public obviously 
had a right to expect, the American machines 
being cheaper than Bell’s. When a mer¬ 
chant mixes a less expensive article with 
one of greater, the buyer naturally expects 
the compound at a medium price. In agri¬ 
culture, farmers can never separate the me¬ 
chanical value of a thing from its pecuniary 
—a fact much in favor of the reversal of the 
judgment of the society, if not the only ba¬ 
sis on which it can be founded. The French 
reaper belonging to the one class of machines 
and Mr. Harkes’ to the other, have done 
more perhaps to comply with the recommen¬ 
dations of last year, than any other; the 
former, by suggesting the reversal of the 
cutting apparatus, and the latter, improve¬ 
ments on the old circular-knife and gather¬ 
ing drum of Kerr, though neither was suc¬ 
cessful for reasons already given. Contin¬ 
uous motion has much in its favor, while 
draining, grubbing, and clod-crushing ma¬ 
chines are fast obviating the early objections 
brought against the circular-knife. As a 
side delivery, again, the revolving drum has 
been found to lay the corn better than the 
endless web, or revolving rakes, in the har¬ 
vest field, where the machines were in con¬ 
stant operation, and hence had the best op¬ 
portunity of testing their merits. The mas¬ 
ter point is, to effect successful combination 
at little expense, for fortunes can not yet be 
made out of imperfect machines. 
[Mark Lane Express. 
MANAGEMENT OF BARN YARD MANURE. 
We gave a series of articles on this sub¬ 
ject, in the last volume of the Rural. In 
them we asserted that by judicious manage¬ 
ment all the ammonia might be retained in 
the manure without the application of any of 
the so-called fixers. Mr. S. W. Johnson, 
who is now a student at Munich, under the 
celebrated Liebig, translates for the Country 
Gentleman a series of able articles from the 
German of Prof. Wolff’; the last is on the 
“ Fixing agents in connection with liquid 
manures,” and we are pleased to find our 
opinion confirmed by such high authority. 
He considers “ the addition of chemical fix¬ 
ing agents to the mass of yard manure as 
unnecessary,” and further “ that where yard 
manure and composts are skilfully prepared 
the loss of ammonia is very slight, even 
without the use of fixing agents.” 
In our articles, however, we recommended 
the construction of a large tank for the re¬ 
ception of the drainings of the yard. Into 
these drainings as much sulphate of lime or 
plaster was to be thrown as they would dis¬ 
solve. The reason of this was that sulphate 
of lime in solution will convert the volatile 
carbonate of ammonia into the fixed sulphate 
of ammonia, while it will not do so in its dry 
state. This solution of sulphate of lime, 
when pumped back again in dry weather, 
not only serves to check excessive, injurious 
fermentation, but it converts the carbonate 
of ammonia in the mass into a fixed sulphate, 
and thus renders the loss of ammonia from 
volatilization almost impossible. We still 
think this method equal to any other we have 
seen suggested. 
Prefessor Wolff recommends substantial¬ 
ly the same process; he thinks the drainings 
of the tank should be pumped back upon the 
mass, and that they would be improved upon 
by adding green vitriol, (sulphate of iron) or, 
where this is costly, dilute sulphuric acid, or 
even plaster of Paris to the collected liquids 
in quantities sufficient to fix their ammonia, 
which may then be used to drench repeated¬ 
ly the solid portions. In this country, plas¬ 
ter is decidedly the cheapest substance that 
can be used for this purpose. Professor 
Wolff' says, “ in England sulphuric acid is 
preferred.” This may be so theoretically, 
but the practice is not at all general. In fact 
we have never seen it used except in more 
than two cases—Meehi, on his Tiptree farm, 
and the Royal Agricultural College at Cirn- 
cester, and this while sulphuric acid is cheap¬ 
er, and plaster much dearer than with us. 
As showing the extent to which ammonia 
maybe lost when common liquid manure is 
allowed to ferment, unmixed with the fixing 
agents, the experiment of D. Krutzsek is 
quoted. He found that the solid residue re¬ 
maining after the evaporation of perfectly 
putrid yard liquid, gave per cent of am¬ 
monia ; while the same liquid, treated with 
an acid (fixer) before evaporation, gave a 
residue which contained 12-J- per cent of am¬ 
monia. In the Rothamstead experiments, if 
we recollect rightly, sheep urine, evaporated 
without acid, lost even a still greater amount 
of ammonia. 
Yet we should be careful how we apply 
such results to common practice. It is 
known that water will hold a large quantity 
of ammonia, and we believe the loss of “this 
spirit-like essence of the farm, ever strug¬ 
gling to be free” from fermenting, common 
barn-yard drainings, is vastly less than the 
above figures would indicate. Yet it is suf¬ 
ficiently great to warrant the use of any 
cheap method of fixing it, such as the one we 
have suggested. [Rural New-Yorker. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
NO TIME TO READ. 
In distributing those extras which you 
gave to me the other day, I presented them 
to such persons as were reputed able to pay 
for and read a paper. I had good success 
in the distribution, and it will be a strange 
incident if no fruit is gathered from so much 
good seed sown. The recipients were thank¬ 
ful for the favors, with but one exception— 
and this was a person with profitable invest¬ 
ments enough to support himself and family 
without labor; yet he returned the paper 
without so much as unfolding it, and with a 
most chilling expression of countenance 
said : “ I don’t want a paper, for I have no 
time to read.” I took the paper back, for 
the soil appeared so shallow and dry, that 
the germination of seed was doubtful, and as 
to ever expecting fruit where the rocks were 
so completely unbroken, I concluded it a 
very absurd idea. For a person to excuse 
himself from the pleasure of taking the Agri¬ 
culturist, or any other paper, upon the ground 
that he has no time to read, appears to me to 
be equivalent to an admission that he is a 
bondman, although he is able to command 
the benefits and comforts of civilization. 
What a miserable life he must hereafter 
lead ! He has toiled to amass acompetance 
which gives him no time to read! I could 
not help musing upon the idea of what a 
poor solace it would be to civilization, if “ no 
time to read” were the inevitable result of 
industry and frugality. 
Man would have made but little advance¬ 
ment in the arts or sciences, or even in civil¬ 
ization, if he had never had time to read; 
for by reading he learns the advancements 
made and the errors committed by former 
generations. The histories of their errors 
and successes, are the guides [by which he 
may avoid"the one, and the incentives by 
which he tries to excel in the other, so that 
each subsequent generation grows wiser 
than the former. 
What a miserable lot must be that of the 
man who has no time to read of the creation 
of our globe; of man and his subsequent 
life; how his descendants were scattered 
over the surface of the earth, so that, at the 
present time, not a nook is unknown to him ! 
Go where he will, he finds his own species, 
and he finds them elevated in happiness, or 
