1817. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
213 
solid or cubic feet to the ton of hay in the mow. This 
would give nearly fifteen square yards, (instead of 
ten,) to the ton. But it is obvious that no invariable 
rule can be adopted in such a case, so much depend¬ 
ing on the amount of pressure which the hay may have 
received, or its susceptibility of being reduced to a 
small compass.— Eds.] 
Hydraulic Ram. —I notice in the June .Cultivator, 
a partial description of Messrs. Farnham, Brown & Co.’s 
Hydraulic Ram. I wish to make some inquiries of 
you in regard to the machine. In the first place, I 
live about 75 feet above, and about as many rods from 
the pond of water that I wish to use. I can have from 
five to twelve feet fall, and I should like your opinion 
about the machine affording me a stream of water, and 
whether it would be liable to freeze up in winter, here 
amongst the Green Mountains; and whether I can car¬ 
ry the’water in pine logs, and how long the machine 
will be warranted to operate. E. H. Weeks. 
[We publish the above in the hope that Messrs. F. 
& B., or some one else, will furnish the information 
called for.— Eds.] . 
Horse Rake. —It is well, Messrs. Editors, to pre¬ 
serve the memento of implements useful to the farmer, 
and as the farmers of America have profited largely 
by the advantages derived from the horse rake, I deem 
it but justice to the inventor, a poor son of Africa, to 
treasure up its history. 
A black man, who lived in Hempstead Plains, Long 
Island, says the Farmer’s Cabinet, invented the horse 
rake. He died in 1821. It was first introduced into 
Pennsylvania in 1812. The first one was destroyed by 
a malicious person, who feared its innovating effects 
on the price of labor. It is now becoming universal, 
and many a patent instrument is to be found, while 
the inventor is forgotten. It saves at least one half 
of the expense in gathering the hay. Let Africa’s son 
have the credit. Surely the farmers of America will 
not be unwilling to award credit where it belongs. H. 
The Influence of the Barberry, and the 
Doctrine of Transmutation. —We trust our friend 
the writer, will pardon us for giving publicity to the 
following extract from a private letter: 
“ The barberry was out of flower a fortnight to 
three weeks before our wheat came into bloom. I 
have never yet seen the man or writer, -who could give 
any satisfactory reason why the barberry should blast 
wheat; yet Sir John Sinclair believed in the notion, 
being misled, if I remember right, by one of his sci¬ 
entific friends; and it is sad to think that science 
should be perverted to such purposes. In the June 
number of the Genesee Farmer, however, at page 137, 
we have two extracts from a very learned work, and 
no less a name than that of Dr. Lindley, of London, is 
given as authority for the transmutation of oats into 
rye ! Dr. Lindley ought to be high authority, but great 
men are not always wise. Even Linnaeus himself be¬ 
lieved in the annual submersion of swallows ! and many 
celebrated men have been equally credulous. 
“ People generally believe too much; and I shall not 
be misunderstood when I comprise all superstitious 
folks in this class. I have thought that farmers occu¬ 
pied a conspicuous place in this legion; but it is so 
much easier to believe—-to take a thing for certain— 
than to observe and to reason; that thousands, like a 
flock of sheep following a bell-wether, wander in the 
devious wilds of error. And when once fairly within 
the enclosure, how unwilling they are to have old pre¬ 
judices disturbed, and how eagerly they catch at every 
straw that promises the least support f 
E. S. Johnson, of Penfield, is the champion on this 
occasion, who comes forward in the garb of philoso¬ 
phy, to prove the doctrine of transmutation. A little 
more discernment, however, might have saved him 
from this trouble. The second extract, in my judg¬ 
ment, disproves the first. After telling us with great 
gravity, that if the stems of oats are out down, u inva¬ 
riably rye is the crop reaped,”—he tells us with equal 
gravity, that Lord Hervey only got a very slender bar¬ 
ley, resembling rye, a little wheat, and some oats ! Not 
a word is said of the cleanness of the ground—of the 
impossibility that rye, wheat, or barley, could be ac¬ 
cidently dropped there-—or that any care was taken 
to prevent it. The mind that can be satisfied with 
experiments of this kind, must be in a deplorable con¬ 
dition; but yet not very dissimilar to what we have 
generally seen amongst the advocates of transmuta¬ 
tion. 
“ When oats are thus turned into rye, a thin crop 
only is produced. What becomes of the rest of the 
oats ? and by what magic process is some turned into 
barley and some into wheat? As Gideon B. Smith 
once remarked, 1 Verily, we are making rapid advan¬ 
ces back again to the darker ages.’ 
tc During the long controversy on wheat turning into 
chess, several instances were stated by gentlemen of 
unimpeachable veracity, of farms and districts, where 
not a single stalk of chess was discovered among the 
wheat in many years—say 20, 30—and even longer 
periods. Now, one well established fact of this 
kind, is sufficient to outweigh the testimony o f a thou¬ 
sand Dr Lindleys, where the more careless the expe¬ 
rimenter in favor of transmutation, the more likely he 
is to succeed.” ... 
Aroma of Plants — Inquiry. —Allow me to in¬ 
quire whether the culture of aromatic plants in proxi¬ 
mity, would have any effect on the innumerable insects 
that infest and often destroy our vegetation ? The 
aroma of certain plants is obnoxious to most insects, 
evinced by their absence if not virtual destruction. 
Aside from this influence, may not the effete matter 
of the protecting, furnish direct support to the protect¬ 
ed plant. An established principle in the “ animal 
economy ”—“ the bane of one is food for another,” 
would seem applicable to the vegetable. The fertili¬ 
zing properties of certain plants for the growth of 
others in alternation, furnishes an apposite illustration. 
Those broad-leaved and vigorous plants that live in 
quite different latitudes, may they not be properly 
iuxta-posed in our orchards, vineyards, and nurseries ? 
I am almost ready to ask, may not the “ creeping 
ivy,”—the multiform parasitic vines that climb and 
even rise with the “ proudest oak,” be a source of sus¬ 
tenance and consequently a support, instead of an ab¬ 
solute dependant on their trellised upholders. D. T. 
Brown. 
[It may be possible, that in some cases, noxious in¬ 
sects may be effectually repelled by the odors of plants 
—of which actual experiment would be only conclu¬ 
sive —but in most cases the remedy would be worse 
than the disease, as the amount of such plants required, 
would entrench largely on the space and soil needed 
for other purposes. It is very much to be questioned 
if any useful end would be thus attained, except in 
very extreme cases. 
With regard to the aroma from plants affording 
nourishment to other plants, there is nothing in the 
known experience of horticulturists and of vegetable 
physiologists, nor in any theory based on fact, which 
strengthens such a supposition. The matter constitu¬ 
ting aroma, is exceedingly small, and can contain but 
little of a fertilizing nature.] 
Laborer’s Cottage—-Sheep Rack. —The corres¬ 
pondent of the Cultivator over the letter “ T,,” will 
confer, a favor by informing us, (through the same 
