1851. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
233 
No. 
1 ,... 
2 ,... 
a.... 
Flour, i 
75 pounds, 
76 “ 
80 “ 
77 
72 
in the 12th and 13th volumes of the Quarterly Journal 
of Agriculture. The trials were made under his own 
direction, and with great care. He cut samples of wheat 
at five different times, as 
No. 1, was cut a month before fully 
2, ' u three weeks “ 
3, 11 two weeks u * 
4, u two days f‘ 
5, u when fully ripe. 
Of these lots, 100 pounds of grain of each yielded as 
follows: 
Seconds. Bran. 
.. 7 pounds, _17 pounds. 
..7 “ .... 16 
■•5 “ .... 13 “ 
..7 “ .... i4 
$;... 72 ....11 “ .... 15 « • 
Thus it appears that No. 3, which was cut two weeks 
before it was fully ripe, was superior to the other lots; 
giving more per bushel than No. 5, (cut when fully ripe,) 
by 6-g pounds of flour, and again of about fifteen per cent 
on the flour of equal measure of grain; 100 pounds of 
wheat of No. 3, makes 80 pounds of flour, while 100 
pounds of No. 5, yields 72—showing an average of eight 
per cent in favor of No. 3. In grinding, it was found 
that No. 5 ground the worst—worse than No. 1. There 
were in No. 5 a greater quantitj r of flinty particles which 
would not pass the bolt, than in any of the other lots. 
The bran from No. 5 was also much thicker and heavier 
than that of No. 3. 
Mr. Hannam concludes, therefore, that in cutting 
wheat two weeks before it is fully ripe, there is a gain 
of fifteen per cent of flour upon equal measures, a gain 
of fourteen per cent in the weight of straw, and a gain 
of 7s. 6d. sterling in the value of every quarter (560 
lbs.) of wheat. Many trials have been made in this 
country in cutting wheat at various stages, and the re¬ 
sults agree, generally, with those above given. 
But when grain is cut before it is ripe, it is necessary 
that it should undergo a process of curing, before it can 
be safely stored in the barn or stack. Hence it is usual 
to place the sheaves in shock for several days, according 
to the state of weather, or the degree of moisture in the 
straw. But it sometimes happens that loss is occasioned. 
more or less, by the sprouting of the grain while it 
stands in shock—especially in warm, showery, or damp 
weather. This was the case last year, in the western 
part of this state, and it is not unusual in other states. 
To guard, as well as possible, against loss from this 
cause, the shocks should be put up in the best manner. 
They have been made of various forms; but those af¬ 
fording the most effectual protection are described in the 
Pictorial Cultivator Almanac , belonging to our current 
volume, page 10. 
Caps, made of cotton cloth, have been used for pro¬ 
tecting hay, while in the process of curing. We have 
several times described the mode of making and using 
them. (See Cultivator for 1848, p. 286—for 1849, p. 
260—for 1850, p. 315, 380.) They cost but little, and 
have proved'very useful in protecting hay from rain- 
many farmers who have used them, have derived an ad¬ 
vantage in one season, more than sufficient to pay their 
cost, and the caps will last, with proper care, many 
years. We see no reason why they might not be used 
to profit in curing grain in shock. 
Stephens Farmer’s Guide. 
Axalytical Laboratory, Yale College,! 
aiESSRS. Editors— 
the head, of this letter, and propose to make some 
comments upon it, with the intention of leading our far¬ 
mers to an appreciation of its value. As my name is 
connected with the book, it may be thought that my writ¬ 
ing in its praise is somewhat indelicate, but I can free 
myself from this charge by saying here,—that I never 
expect to derive the least pecuniary benefit from its cir¬ 
culation, having no interest whatever in its sale, except 
that which arises from a strong desire for the spread of 
agricultural knowledge. The book is owned and pub¬ 
lished by Leonard Scott & Co., of New-York, in con¬ 
nection with the Messrs. Blackwood of Edinburgh. My 
part has been the appending of some notes and com¬ 
mentaries, limited in their extent by the already volu¬ 
minous character of the work. 
Under these circumstances, I have felt that there is no 
impropriety in my calling some attention to this work, 
in addition to those commendatory notices which have 
already appeared in your columns. It is now rapidly 
approaching completion, and before this letter is printed, 
is expected to be entirely finished. The American pub¬ 
lic will then be in possession of one of the most com¬ 
pletely and beautifully illustrated books issued from any 
press, overflowing with matter and detail, and accurate 
in every department of practice, for the small sum of $5, 
an almost unexampled instance of cheapness. 
In recommending the perusal of this, or any other 
standard foreign work on agriculture, we arc always met 
in the outset by the objection, that this author has writ¬ 
ten of practices and theories which are applicable to 
•another country, and not to ours. It is said—that these 
foreign writers will only lead us astray, will only recom¬ 
mend systems that are totally inapplicable here. Now 
this is partly founded upon reason. If we were to take 
Mr. Stephens, or any other foreigner for our guide, and 
follow his directions implicitly upon one of our farms, 
the result would probably be quite disastrous; this, how¬ 
ever, would not prove that the system was not a good 
one for another country, and that parts of it, or modifi¬ 
cations of it, might not with advantage be adopted here. 
I maintain that the great principles which ought to 
guide the farmer, are the same the world over. He who 
cultivates the soil of a high northern climate, and he whose 
fields are bright with the ceaseless verdure of the tropics, 
must be guided, if both are good farmers, by the same 
great laws. Climate exercises a controling influence up¬ 
on the character of the crop, and upon the kind of cul¬ 
tivation which it is most profitable to adopt; so also does 
nearness to, or remoteness from, the great markets. The 
appearance of farms then, the implements used, the crops 
ripened, all differ most materially, and yet I reiterate 
the assertion that at the bottom the same rule governs in 
every case. 
All cultivated plants, whatever their nature, draw a 
portion of their food from the soil; if they are carried 
away year after year, the supply of certain substances in 
the soil becomes greatly reduced, so that finally the crop 
will not grow, excepting in places where fertility is con¬ 
stantly renewed from foreign sources. Here then, is a 
