S 4 
early dawn and commence their duties for the 
day almost with the precision of military 
discipline, and are expected to travel about 
sixteen miles for a day’s work. Sixteen miles 
of sod, sixteen inches wide, furnish a mathe¬ 
matical problem l'or some of our youthful 
readers, to determine the area of a day’s 
breaking with a single plow. Mules are prin¬ 
cipally used instead of horses, ns they are 
considered more hardy and more easily kept. 
The wages of the men employed in this de¬ 
partment of the work; that is, from about 
May 20, at which time breaking usually com¬ 
mences, until about July 1, when the seu- 
son for breaking closes, are $20 per month 
“ and foundthat is, iu addition to board and 
lodging. By cutting the sod only three inches 
thick, the roots of the grasses, under the action 
of heat and moisture, rapidly decay and dis¬ 
integrate. The estimated gost of breaking is 
$2.75 per acre, which, of course, would include 
a proportionate outlay for implements, la¬ 
bor, supplies, etc.; but, as the ground once 
broken is ready for continued cultivation, it 
is universally regarded as having added at 
least its cost to the permanent value of the 
real estate. The “ broken ” land is then, with 
propriety, termed a farm. 
Mr. Dalrymple told us that he used the 
Deere plows, manu 'actured at Moline, Illi¬ 
nois, exclusively, upon the several fauns, and 
was using now to a considerable extent the 
Deere Gang plows iu croaking. This feature 
we can better illustrate than describe without 
illustrations, and will endeavor to do so later 
on. 
FAVORABLE EXPERIENCE WITH 
ENSILAGE. 
You ask mo what I know about ensilage. I 
answer very little, as I oonside the system in 
its infancy as yet. The only thing I can door 
say is to give my short experience with it. 
After reading Professor Brown’s book trans¬ 
lated from the French of M. Goifart, I be¬ 
came convinced that the matter was worth 
looking into. 1 at once commenced gathering 
together the different articles written on the 
subject, such as tho e on how to build silos; 
where to build; what corn to plant for ensi¬ 
lage ; extraordinary yields to the acre; making 
milk for one cent a quart; makiug butter at 
ten cents a pound, and the thousand and one 
things that usually follow new discoveries. 
But m all that was said and written about 
stone masonry, concrete walls, the methods of 
building, cost of silos, etc., etc., all agreed 
that the great requirement for preservation 
was continuous pressure. Then, I reasoned, 
that being the case, what difference can it 
make whether the endlage is encased iu an ex¬ 
pensive stone and concrete silo or in a dry- 
goods box set in the ground, allowing constant 
pressure to be the main element ? 1 went still 
furthex'. I said, if a silo of 1UU tons’ capacity 
(for example) costs $4DU to $600, the system is 
useless to the majority of farmers, as not one in 
ten could spare tho means to build such struc¬ 
tures, buy cutting machines and other things 
needed to make a beginning, and those that 
could spare the means would not go to that 
expense to try experiments. 
At last 1 decided to build a wooden silo on a 
small scale and if it proved a success, then 
the theory would be correct: if a failure, 
it would be a cheap way tosettl) the question. 
I set to work and excavated a pit (covered by 
a tight shed) 24 feet long, 12 feet deep and 12 
feet wide; then built a box of the same dimen¬ 
sions by setting four chest nut posts ou each 
side and two at each end and lined up with 
two-inch dressed spruce planks, with two 
inches of sand and cement on the bottom, and 
my silo was complete. Thh first week in 
September, IfriO, 1 filled it with .coin planted 
the last week in Juue. I then covered it with 
a very light layer of rye straw, put on plank 
and boards sufficient to keep the weight in 
place and then weight d with stone at the 
rate (jy estimate) of oue ton of stoue to ten 
of ensilage. On the lUth of January 1881 I 
opened the silo and found the contents in the 
most perfect state of preservation. My stock, 
some 22 head, ate it with avidity from the 
first feed to the last basket, which was fed out 
in early May. I pursued the same course in 
1881 and with the same results. The silo is 
now open and about one-quarter emptied. I 
uncover a section—say one-eighth—and leave 
it open till cleaned out to the bottom; then 
uncover another, and so on to the la«t. There 
is no unpleasant odor or sour smell arising 
from it, such as is often o< served - where stone 
silos are used. There is no drain in the bot¬ 
tom, nor is any needed, as the feed comes out 
alike from top to bottom; from the first feed 
to this time there have not been two bush 
els of ensilage wasted. The milch cows are 
fed one bushel each day at noon with steamed 
corn fodder nights and mornings. The fatten¬ 
ing and growing stock are fed twice or three 
times a day, as happens to be convenient. 
They ai’e all doing remarkably well and I am 
getting milk and butter of a quality equal to 
that from grass-fed stock. My cows always 
THE BUBAL 
a 
JAB. 28 
increase in their flow of milk as soon as I be 
gin to feed from the silo. 
My experience has led me to believe that I 
would pi efer a wooden to a stone silo, even at 
the same cost, as I have noticed in most stone 
silos there is more or less water or liquor ou 
the bottom. My theory is that heavy mason¬ 
ry' walls, etc., collect and hold a large amount 
of dampness which is injurious to the fodder 
and helps to furnish material for that acidu¬ 
lated odor so often found arising from the pit 
or silo. I am so well pleased with the system 
that I shall build another silo of the same 
kind the coming season, and continue to use 
the fodder to such time as I become convinced 
that I am in error. Others must draw their 
own conclusions and judge for themselves. 
Westchester Co., N. Y. W. D. Warren. 
tium (Sroncmuj. 
DRAFT OF PLOWS. 
PROFESSOR R. 0. CARPENTER. 
What is Needed. 
Although a great many experiments in re¬ 
gard to the draft of plows have been made, 
little or nothing has been determined in regard 
to the general laws which govern this draft. 
Two reasons for this state of things have ex¬ 
isted, one of which . has been a previous want 
of study of the plow, by the experimenter, 
giving us as a result experiments disconnected 
and imperfect. The other reason has appa¬ 
rently arisen from a disbelief in any general 
law of draft, and as a result tho experi¬ 
ments have taken the form of mere trials of 
different plows. The only plow trials of 
which 1 have any knowledge, to be considered 
as of special value, are those by Morton and 
Passey in England, a nd by the New York Ag¬ 
ricultural Society in this country. These 
trials, though often omitting important, data, 
are made with an intelligent end in view, and 
are of great value. 1 f other trials possessing 
value have been made, the results of them 
have not fallen under my notice. 
The existence of general laws of d ra ft has 
often been questioned by experimenters, be¬ 
cause the variation caused by different depths 
of furrow, different widths of furrow, differ¬ 
ent soils and apparently trifling irregularities 
have been very great- so great that the exper¬ 
imenters have argued the existence of general 
laws impossible. Tbat, variations constitute 
no argument against the existence of general 
laws is shown by the laws governing the 
strength of materials. All know that great 
variation exists in this case, and yet it is a 
well-known fact that if the kind of material, 
its size and its condition be known, an engineer 
can tell its strength within a few per cent.; so 
in regard to the flow of water through pipes, 
and nearly every engineering question of 
practical importance. 
Admitting the probable existence of general 
laws of draft, we will next consider the steps 
necessary to find them. These la ws at first will 
be very general in their nature, and can hard¬ 
ly be considered as practical rules: it is prob¬ 
able, however, that they may be made to an¬ 
swer such questions as “ What is the increase 
of draft with increase of depth or width?” 
Debarring theoretical considerations, which 
are valuable only as they agree with experi¬ 
ments, the first step necessary to determine 
general laws is a series of careful experiments, 
which should, if possible, be made to answer 
questions regarding the draft of plows—with 
increased depth or width of furrow, on differ¬ 
ent soils, friction from its own weight,, work 
ol’ cutting and turning furrow slice, etc. The 
second step should be the comparison of these 
results and their combination into a general 
law in such a maimer as to give each experi¬ 
ment its proper weight. This second step re- 
quirt's tho application of the Theory of Proba¬ 
bilities and the Method of Least Squares. 
Nearly every experiment contains one or 
more abnormal results, which are caused by 
accidental circumstances beyond control. The 
method used in reducing these observations 
must bo one that will eliminate such results, 
or at least give them their proper weight. It 
is farther to be uotieed that laws deduced 
from experiment arc to be relied on only as 
far as they have been thoroughly tested. It 
will uot do to assume them true for limits ex¬ 
tending beyond those of the experiment. 
What is Found 
A few years ago I made careful comparison 
of all experiments in regard to the draft of 
plows, that I could find, to determine if possi¬ 
ble general laws of draft. This research was 
far from satisfactory; there was found, how¬ 
ever, a certain agreement of increased draft 
with a function of increased depth,tbat, to say 
the least, is worthy attention. From these 
experiments this seems the probable law: 
“ that the draft increases in the same ratio as 
the square, root of the depth," 
When I first noticed this agreement I hoped 
soon to be able to make a series of exhaustive 
experiments which should determine its truth 
or falsity. Other duties came in to occupy 
my time, and I have now given up all idea of 
being able to test this law by experiment. I 
am in hopes that some experimenter in this 
direction may be led to test this probable law. 
The only reason for calling this a “law” is that 
it seems to agree with actual trial. In conclu¬ 
sion, I present as arguments the only experi¬ 
ments of value that I have seen. In order to 
show how closely this law agrees with actual 
trial, the followingexperinientsaregiven, also 
the theoretical draft on the supposition that 
at the first depth given in the table the actual 
and theoretical drafts are the same, and that 
the theoretical draft increases with the square 
root of the depth. It will be seen that in a 
few cases where the ground is plowed unus¬ 
ually deep, the law of increase stated holds 
true only for moderate depths. Possibly it is 
true that the ground was not of uniform hard¬ 
ness, the upper portion having been softer 
than the part not usually disturbed by the 
plow. 
Trial A.—Plow-trial of New York Agri¬ 
cultural Society (Report of 1807, page 641). 
For convenience of reference we will call this 
Trial A. Experiment made with Holbrook’s 
Plow No. 65, adjusted to lay fiat furrows. 
Soil sandy loam, covered with 12 years’ Blue 
Grass sod. 
£3 
*5 
ET 
2, 
o 
7J 
Width in inches. 
Actual draft. 
Theoretical draft 
j Difference. 
Remarks. 
2 k; 
n 
326 
.'128 
0 
Average 2 trials. 
:su. 
n 
898 
376 
22 
«4 2 44 
m 
n 
439 
428 
13 
«t o “ 
5k 
u 
-us 
473 
89 
44 4 44 
7 
H 
512 
-21 
*• 3 " 
8 
n 
553 
668 
— 16 
44 4 44 
By consulting the above table it is seen that 
if we assume the difference between the theo¬ 
retical and actual draft to be 0 when the 
depth is inches, we find the difference in 
no place exceeds 2!) pounds. This small dif¬ 
ference may be largely accidental, for by con¬ 
sulting the same report further, it is seen that 
in repeating the same trial a larger difference 
between the results was often given; thus the 
difference between the two trials at a depth 
of 2j-s inches was four pounds, the two at a 
depth of inches was 12 pounds, the two at 
a depth of 4V.V inches was Iff pounds: between 
the least and greatest at a depth of inches 
was 29 pounds; of seven inches was 16 pounds, 
and of eight inches was 46 pounds. From this 
it is seen that the aetunl trial gave results 
which differed from each other more than the 
average of these results differed from the theo¬ 
retical value. 
Trial B.—Trial made by Pussey, of Eng¬ 
land with nine different plows:— 
It is not thought necessary to give any 
more of the separate trials included uuder 
trial B, those already given being a fair sam¬ 
ple of the remaining ones. 
Trial G.—Made by Mr. Pussey upon a 
poor, raoory soil with Ferguson’s Scotch 
plow:— 
FURROW NINE INCHES WIDE. 
Depth In | 
inches. 
Actual draft. 
Theoretical draft. 
Differ 
enee. 
5 
322 
322 
0 
6 
308 
351 
-48 
7 
350 
3S1 
1 —31 
8 
420 
407 
1 -|-13 
9 1 
!. 434 | 
•|- 2 
10 
| 580 
I 455 
| .|-105 
11 
700 | 
478 | 
- 1-222 
13 I 
700 
498 1 
- -202 
In the above experiment after reaching a 
a depth of nine inches the draft is increased 
to a gront extent, and for 10, 11 and 12 inches 
varies nearly as the square of the depth. This 
may be due to a harder layer of earth than 
that for a depth of nine inches. It is believed 
that the law holds true only for soils of uni¬ 
form hardness. 
Trial H.—Experiment by Johnstone on 
hard clay never before plowed. New York 
Agricultural Report 1867, page 589:— 
FURROW TEN INCHES WIDE. 
Depth of 
furrowln 
Inches. 
Actual draft. | 
1 
Theoretical draft. | 
Differ¬ 
ence. 
8!8 
659 
659 
0 
10 k 
753 
732 
- -21 
13k 1 
SOI 
800 
1 -|-1 
The above experiment shows that under 
some conditions this law holds true to the 
depth of at least one foot. 
These are all tho trials to determine the in¬ 
crease of draft w ith the increase of depth in 
the use of the ordinary plow, that have fallen 
under my notice. The New York Agricul¬ 
tural Report for 1867 gives the result of a sin¬ 
gle trial to determine the increase of draft 
with increase of depth in the use of the sub¬ 
soil plow. As the action of this plow is differ¬ 
ent from that of the ordinary plow, as might 
be expected the law of increase appears dif¬ 
ferent. Though no conclusion can be arrived 
at from a. single experiment, the draft seems 
to increase directly ns the depth. 
Apples as Stock Feed. 
In connection with Mr. McCann’s and Mr. 
Hoffman’s estimates of the value of rutabagas 
carrots, beets, <&e., for feeding stock, as given 
in a late Rural, it may be well to consider 
the value of apples. Experiments here ex¬ 
tending over a number of years, lead to the 
conclusion that they are worth from two- 
thirds to three quarters as much as corn. If 
properly fed they are considered beneficial to 
horses, cattle and hogs, but most so to the lat¬ 
ter. Iu one case hogs were fattened on sweet 
apples without any corn whatever. 
4 
5 
8 
FURROW NINE INCHES WIDE. 
no*5 
*-•>-* 
C rt 
P 3 CO 
: pS? 
: 
t> 
CPSgfgg 
: -S.ca 
: Set? 
• M.- .. — 
• C. — i 
Theoretical 
draft. 
221 
140 
221 
227 
128 
247 
264 
112 
272 
oU6 
182 • 
399 
EEs § 
e.~ a 7 
5~a a 
Sc rr 
3? <r? 
0 
-20 
— 8 
-1-7 
In this case the disagreement of the average 
with the general low is strikingly small as 
compared with the difference of draft of dif¬ 
ferent plows. 
Trial C.—Trial mode by Mr. Pussey, of 
England, with Ferguson’s swing plow, said 
plow being included in Trial B:— 
Depth in 
India*. 
| Actual draft 
1 in pounds. 
Theoretical draft 
In pounds. | 
1 Differ¬ 
ence. 
4 
252 
j 252 
0 
5 
286 
272 
— c 
6 
266 
809 
—13 
7 
308 
33-1 
—26 
This experiment shows the abnormal result 
of the draft at a depth of six inches, not ex¬ 
ceeding that at five inches—which of a cer¬ 
tainty is due to some accident or error. 
Trial D.—Made by Mr. Pussey, of England, 
with Ransome’s two-wheeled plow (included 
in trial B):— 
Depth. 
Actual draft. 
Theoretical draft. 
Dlf’nce 
4 
168 
168 
0 
5 
182 
188 
— 6 
6 
252 I 
206 
-1-18 
_7_ 
294 
1 222 
-'-72 
Difference in this case is great; as this is a 
single experiment, the cause of the difference 
is unknown. 
Trial E.—Included in trial B. Made by 
Mr. Pussey, of England, with Clark’s swing 
plow:— 
Depth. | 
Actual draft. | 
Theoretical draft. | 
Dlf’nce 
4 
2:43 
238 
0 
5 
238 
265 
—27 
6 
252 
291 
—39 
7 
294 
315 
—21 
An evident error, as in trial C. 
Trial F.—Included in trial B. Made by .. 
Mr. Pussey with King’s plow:— 
Depth. 
Actual draft. 
Theoretical draft, j 
Dlf’nce 
4 
224 
2 - 24 
0 
5 
238 
251 
—13 
6 
294 
1 274 | 
. 1-20 
7 
I 322 
1 297 
1 -|-25 
South eastern Ohio. 
Ijorliculiuvol. 
THE BEST VEGETABLES. 
PETER B. MEAD. 
TnE time for the annual seed catalogue is 
near or quite at hand. To many the excite¬ 
ment of hunting up the novelties and reading 
their glowing descript ions is not exceeded by 
the reading of a first class romance. There is 
a certain charm about the modern seed cata¬ 
logue, with its profuse and well executed, but 
sometimes misleading, illustrations, printed 
on fine paper and in the best style of the art, 
that is sure to fix the attention of both old 
and young. The old and experienced gar¬ 
dener generally knows what he w-mts, but 
tho young one and the amateur are often at a 
loss, and ord- r \\ hat they really do not want, 
and too much o*' it. A few hints, therefore, 
may bo of use to the inexperienced and those 
who are limited as to space and means for 
supplying the family with fresh vegetables 
during the year. 
The garden produces few vegetables which, 
in the estimation of many, equal in delicacy a 
well-grown cauliflower. Its praises are iu the 
mouths of everybody, if not the thing itself. 
But the caul flower is not always to be relied 
upon, and many utterly fail with it. There 
is, however, a very good substitute for it in 
the Savoy Cabbage, which is easily grown. 
The Ulm Savoy, or the Netted-leaf 
Savoy, served, with drawn butter like 
the cauliflower, has much the taste of 
that delicious vegetable and is but little in¬ 
ferior to it; and the Savoy is such a good sub¬ 
stitute for it that I recommend it for the small 
garden, and to all, iu fact, to whom the cauli¬ 
flower is only a dream. For Winter use there 
is no cabbage that equals the American Drum¬ 
head Savoy. 
In a small garden, again, it is wasteful to 
plant half a (Jozcn or more different kinds of 
cabbage; and there is no necessity for it, as 
there is one very good variety that will go on 
growing the whole season. I refer to the 
