830 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Oct. 
Sod and Sub-soil Plow, because in our opinion, it 
could not be brought into competition with other 
plows, without great injustice to the proprietors of 
the latter. In the first place, it is properly a three - 
horse plow, while all the others are two horse plows. 
Secondly, its double character distinguishes it from 
all others. 
We regard this implement as a most useful pre¬ 
sent from the mechanic to the farmer, and in our 
opinion its introduction will effect a great improve¬ 
ment in the tillage of some kinds of soil. It pul¬ 
verizes the soil in an excellent manner, which to be 
fully appreciated, must be seen; and it accomplish¬ 
es this pulverization with an amount of power 
which, in reference to the work performed, is cer¬ 
tainly not large. It buries the sod completely and 
covers it with a coating of loose earth which makes 
a seed bed almost as perfectly as a spade. 
In other plows tried, there was one size of fur¬ 
row-slice which the plow turned better than any 
other; if a broader or narrower furrow was taken, 
the plow would act less perfectly. This was not 
the case with the “ sod and sub-soil” plow; it 
seemed to perform equally well whatever was the 
breadth of the furrow, and this quality we deem a 
great advantage. We do not wish, however, to be 
understood as recommending this, as a plow adapt¬ 
ed to “ all work.” Where, from peculiar circum¬ 
stances, it is not desirable to plow deeper than six 
inches, we cannot recommend this implement; its 
peculiar pulverizing powers are not fully developed 
with a furrow shallower than seven inches. Its 
properties may be given in substance as follows:— 
1st. It is particularly useful where trench plow¬ 
ing is required; that is, where it is wished to bring 
the sub-soil or a portion of it to the surface. This 
is a useful operation where the sub-soil abounds 
with vegetable food in a greater proportion than the 
surface soil; as on alluvial and other very deep 
soils, where the upper stratum has been exhausted 
by cultivation. 2d. It is also exceedingly valua¬ 
ble for ordinary stiff adhesive soils, the greatest de¬ 
fect of which is their tendency to pack too closely. 
This defect is in a great degree obviated by the 
manner in which this plow performs its work. It 
cuts its furrow-slice in two parts, horizontally, by 
which operation it makes twice as much division of 
the soil as is effected by an ordinary plow when go¬ 
ing at the same depth and width, and from the fact 
that each part is turned over by itself, it falls light¬ 
ly, and remains in a pulverized state. 
In consideration of all the circumstances we 
recommend that a premium equal to the first, in 
amount and in honor, be awarded to this plow for 
“ old land” and “stiff sod”' plowing. In view of 
the results of the trials instituted by us, and de¬ 
tailed above, we recommend the following 
AWARD OF PREMIUMS. 
To French & Smith, for their Michigan Sod and Sub-soil Plotv > 
for plowing on “ Old land” and “ Stiff sod” .Diploma and $15.00 
OLD LAND. 
1st Premium to Prouty & Hears for their Centre Draft 
No. 5...Diploma and 10.00 
2d Premium to Miner & Horton, for their PeeksJcill, No. 21, 8.00 
STIFF SOD SOIL. 
1st Premium to Provty & Hears, for their Centre Draft 
No. 30,_••••...Diploma and 15 00 
2d Premium, to Miner & Horton, for their PeeksJcill , No. 21, 10.00 
LIGHT SOD SOIL. 
1st Premium, to Prouty & Mears, for their Centre Draft 
No. 25,.... .Diploma and 15.00 
2d Premium, Wm. U. Chase, for his Amsterdam No. 7,.... 10.00 
SIDE HILL PLOW. 
To Bos worth, Rich& Co., for their Side Hill Plow, . 
Diploma and 8.00 
SUB-SOIL PLOW. 
To Prouty & Mears, for their Sub-Soil Plow C, Diploma and $8 00 
The committee, in making the above awards, 
would not be understood as claiming entire perfec¬ 
tion for any of the implements; on the contrary 
they believe there is room for improvement in all; 
their decisions are intended to show, that, of the 
plows which came under their examination, those 
on which the premiums were bestowed, were the 
best for the purposes designated. We would ear¬ 
nestly invite the attention of manufacturers of plows 
to the necessity of adapting their implements to 
special purposes. It is a great mistake to suppose 
that the construction of a plow “ of all work,” as 
it is called, is possible. The different circumstan¬ 
ces under which plows must be used, and the differ¬ 
ent objects to be attained, render a difference of 
construction absolutely necessary. For instance, 
clayey and tenacious soils ought to be thoroughly 
pulverized, and to effect this, they must be plowed 
with a deep and narrow furrow, and left as light as 
practicable. Sandy soils, on the other hand, should 
be merely turned over, to expose a fresh surface to 
the atmosphere, and to bury the surface vegetable 
matter, without pulverizing or making the soil 
more loose—its lightness being already too great to 
prevent the escape of the aeriform and liquid mat¬ 
ters which constitute the food of plants. It may be 
observed, too, that plows of somewhat different 
construction are required for rough and smooth 
land—a shorter inplement, especially, being re¬ 
quired for the former situation, in order to adapt it¬ 
self to the inequalities of the surface. It is obvi¬ 
ously impossible that the same plow can fulfill such 
antagonistic conditions; and it therefore becomes 
necessary to ascertain what are the best plows-— 
not for general purposes—but for the various spe¬ 
cial purposes to which they must be applied. 
The committee would do injustice to their own 
feelings -were they to fail to acknowledge their ob¬ 
ligations to Ezra P. Prentice, Esq., the President 
of the Society, for his earnest efforts to promote the 
success of their experiments, by valuable advice 
and intelligent co-operation. They also desire to 
express their cordial acknowledgments to B. P. 
Johnson, Esq., the Secretary of the Society, for 
his assiduity in anticipating and providing for all 
their wants during the trials of the plows. Much 
of the success which has attended their labors, 
is due to his untiring watchfulness and intelligent 
zeal. 
They also desire to express their thanks to all the 
competitors, without exception, for their kindness, 
and for the liberal confidence which they displayed 
towards the committee during the protracted trials 
of their implements. To H. L. Emery, of Albany, 
and Wm. U. Chase, of Amsterdam, their thanks are 
especially due for active and willing assistance ren¬ 
dered by them on the field. 
Anthony Van Bergen, 'J 
John Stanton Gould, | 
Sanford Howard, } Committee. 
B. B. Kirtland, | 
Peter Crispell, Jr. ) 
Note. —Suggestions by the Committee in regard 
to points connected with the construction of plows, 
which require investigation, and also hints in re¬ 
gard to conducting trials of plows, will be attached 
to the report in a supplementary form, when it is 
published in the Transactions .— Eds. 
Large Field of Wheat.-— We learn that Mr. 
William Cook, of Lima, harvested this season 466 
bushels of fine wheat from ten acres of land. The 
wheat was of the Soule’s variety and was drilled in 
with one of Spencer & Co.’s drills. 
