1850. 
THE CULTIVATOR 
327 
width and depth of furrow, turning over and com¬ 
pletely covering the sod and all vegetable matter. 
To sum up the merits of this plow, it appears to 
us that it combines in a very remarkable degree the 
somewhat opposite qualities of ease of draft with 
pulverizing power,- it buries the vegetable matter 
very thoroughly; it is made of very excellent mate¬ 
rials ; it is not expensive; the workmanship is of 
the best quality; it can be easily repaired, and fa¬ 
cility in its use is easily acquired by the plowman. 
It is steady and equable in its motion, requiring lit¬ 
tle labor on the part of the plowman, and is sus¬ 
ceptible of most accurate adjustment. The com¬ 
mendation which we have bestowed on the dura¬ 
bility of the materials, strength of construction, 
neatness of finish, and general excellence of work¬ 
manship exhibited in this plow, applies with equal 
force to all the plows exhibited by the same pro¬ 
prietors. 
Bosworth, Rich & Co.’s Iron beam D .—This 
plow has the merit of being the cheapest of any ex¬ 
hibited. Its construction gives it some advantages 
in plowing in stumpy land, and from its facility in 
turning, it is convenient where the furrows are very 
short. But your committee are constrained to say 
that the work performed by this plow, does not 
meet their approbation, as it requires too much aid 
from the foot of the plowman to place the furrow- 
slice in a proper position. It packs and solidifies 
the furrow-slice in consequence of the pressure of 
the hinder part of the mould board; the draft is 
heavy, and its action is vibratory and unsteady. 
Finch’s Empire A 3.—The same objections ap¬ 
ply to this plow as to Randerson’s, but it presses 
the furrow harder and requires more power. 
H. L. Emery’s Albany Plow, does good work, 
except that it fails to bury the stubble well. 
W. U. Chase’s Amsterdam Plow No. 6.—This 
implement was not properly adjusted for showing 
its peculiar properties, and therefore your commit¬ 
tee hazard no remarks on its action. 
E. J. Burrall’s Shell-wheel Plow .—Much inge¬ 
nuity is displayed in the construction of this plow, 
and from inspection, and from theoretical conside¬ 
rations, we should have been inclined to attribute to it 
valuable qualities; but it failed to effect a thorough 
pulverization of the soil, and to cover under the 
vegetable matter, without assistance from the foot 
of the plowman. 
Prouty & Mears’ Connecticut Valley Plow .— 
We cannot entertain a doubt of the excellence of 
the execution of this implement in soils adapted to 
its use; but it was not adapted to the soil where it 
was tried in our presence. 
Your committee have thus passed in review all 
the plows offered for competition in this particular 
kind of land, and have given their opinions so far as 
they know their own hearts, with entire impar¬ 
tiality. They would have praised with far greater 
pleasure than they have blamed; but their duty to 
the society, and to the farmers of the State, seemed 
imperiously to require that they should honestly 
state the facts as they presented themselves to their 
view, with their conclusions, without fear, favor or 
affection. 
Stiff Soil Trials.— Having thus finished the 
trial of plows on “ Old Ground,” they proceeded to 
test those entered for plowing stiff sod. 
The field selected was of a stiff clay soil, with a 
smooth and almost level surface, generally free from 
stones, in a very wet condition from recent rains, 
and covered with a sod which had been unplowed 
for many years. The size of furrow-slice prescrib¬ 
ed by the rules was 7 inches by 10 inches. The 
lands were 150 feet long by 23 feet wide. Twenty 
two plows were entered for competition, and the 
annexed table shows, 1st, the name of the competi¬ 
tor; 2d, the name of the plow; 3d, the draft; 4th, 
-size of furrow; 5th, the price of the plow, and 6th, 
the weight of the plow. 
Names of 
Competitors. 
Name of 
Plow. 
Dft. 
Size of 
Furrow. 
Price of 
Plow. 
Wt. of 
Plow. 
French & Smith, 
Michigan sod 
1 
and sub-soil, 
500 8 by 10 
$13.00 
174 
Miner & Horton, 
No. 21, 
425,7 bv 10 
7.50 
107 
French & Smith, 
Michigan Joint 
plow, 
510,71 by 12 
10.00 
Eddy & Co., 
Washington 
Co. D, 
450 7 by 12 
10.00 
1124 
Miner & Horton, 
No. 22, 
550:7 by 12 
Prouty & Co., 
Centre draft, 
No. 25, 
490 7 by 11 
11.50 
108 
H. L. Emery, 
Albany, 
580 7 by 11 
10.50 
133 
Bosworth & Rich, 
Right and Left, 
550 7 by 10 
7.00 
122 
Finch, 
Empire A 3, 
525 7 by 12 
8.75 
994 
Gilbert, 
New Jersey, 
560 7 by 12 
6.00 
93 
Starbuck & Co., 
Trojan No. 5, 
425 7 by 12 
9.00 
109 
Scott, 
Ohio, 
650 
Prouty & Co., 
Centre draft, 
5* 
470 74 by 114 
12 00 
119 
Prouty & Co., 
Centre draft, 
No. 30, 
450 7 by 101 
10-50 
934 
Bosworth, Rich & 
Iron Beam, 
Co., 
ED, 
380 7 by 10 
8.50 
1024 
W. U. Chase, 
Amsterdam, 
No. 2, 
500 7 by 11 
114 
Randerson, 
Schodac, 
390 64 by 104 
8.00 
109 
Starbuck & Co., 
Iron Beam, 
410 7 by 12 
8.50 
A. Fleck, 
Wilkie’s 
Scotch swing, 
475 7 by 10 
28.00 
175 
Starbuck & Co., 
Trojan No. 3, 
460 71 by 12 
P. Auld, 
Improved 
1 
Scotch, 
475 7 by 11 
9.50 
1164 
E. J. Burrall, 
Shell Wheel, 
410 7 by 11 
11.00 
126 
French Sc Smith’s Michigan Sod and Sub-soil .— 
We reserve our remarks on this plow for another 
place. 
Minor Sc Horton’s Peekskill Plow No. 21.— 
This plow does excellent work, though intended for 
a wider furrow, and working disadvantageous^ in 
this. It yet made good work, pulverizing the soil 
in a satisfactory manner. This plow, as well as 
No. 22, hereinafter mentioned, was held by a per¬ 
son unaccustomed to the implement, and for that 
reason all the excellencies of the plows were not 
developed. It runs with great steadiness, and re¬ 
quires very little interference on the part of the 
holder. 
French 8c Smith’s Michigan Joint Plow .—This 
implement has merits, but is inferior to the “Sod 
and Subsoil Plow” of the same proprietors. 
Eddy 8c Co.’s Washington Co. D .—This plow is 
not calculated for so deep a furrow as seven inches. 
When working at this depth, much power is expend¬ 
ed upon the furrow slice which is hardened and pol¬ 
ished by the pressure. It cleans out the bottom of 
the furrow well, and runs very steadily. 
Miner 8c Horton’s Peekskill No. 22.—This 
plow does not leave the land as light as No. 21, nor 
is it as well adapted for the work required by the 
rules. 
Prouty 8c Mears’ Centre Draft No. 25.—Leaves 
the furrow too flat and heavy for stiff soils, but 
buries the grass satisfactorily. 
H. L. Emery’s Albany Plow .—The furrows were 
smoothly cut, but the grass was not well covered, 
and the soil not sufficiently pulverized. 
Bosworth, Rich 8c Co.’s Right and Left Hand, 
Plow .—This plow performed its work admirably, 
with a single exception of the great power which 
was required to operate it. It pulverized the soil 
well, and buried the grass very thoroughly 
