The loss or gain on these samples, by reaping at dif- 
ferent periods, will be best seen from the following 
Table of the Relative Weights and Value of Wheat 
cut August 4, August 18, and September 1; that 
cut last (or ripe) being taken as the standard, and 
unity assumed as its value in each column. 
ES 
B Bias 2 E 
ISSN! ct dst) 
Bes 5-3 3 Ne, 
Snlilrvead 4 “ot St 43 
Sf H 3 von 
om OR poi aD © 
2 Oe WS a = ca 
= §/io 5° ~ 
eS 
No. 
3, Sept. 1, (ripe, )| 1 ] ] 1 1 
. ~ 1 1 
2, Aug. (raw,) | 1s485) 14) | er | late) Lb 
8 84 79 1 
1, Aug. (green,) | $33) 283) o¢ | 133/18 
According to this table, it is evident that the wheat 
reaped a fortnight before it was ripe has the advan- 
tage of the ripe in every point: 
Ist, In weight of gross produce 343;, or 131 per 
cent. 
2d, Do. equal measures =, or nearly } 
per cent. 
3d, Do. equal number of grains 2;, or 
nearly 21 per cent. 
4th, In quality and value ;45, or above 31 per cent. 
oth, In weight of straw 5, or above 5 per cent. 
Or the other hand that reaped a month before it was 
ripe, has an advantage of 22 per cent. in weight of 
straw, compared with the ripe, but in every other 
point has the disadvantage: Thus, 
Ist, In weight of gross produce 347,, or 11,3; per 
$259 
cent. ; 
2d, Do. equal measures 545, or rather 
more than ¢ per cent. 
3d, Do. equal number of grains 32, or 
better than 132 per cent. 
4th, In quality and value ;35, rather more than 
# per cent. 
It may be here necessary to mention that the sample 
No. 3 (ripe) was very bold, but rather coarse, feeling 
rough in the hand; while No. 2 (raw) was quite as 
bold, but very fine and thin in the skin. No. 3 
(green) was also a good and clear sample, but much 
smaller than either of the other. This will account 
for the apparently anomalous fact of there being 
scarcely any difference in the marketable value of the 
green compared with the ‘ripe,’ while there is a dif- 
ference of 13 per cent. in favour of the ripe in weight 
of equal numbers of grains; for the sample being dry 
and good, the buyer lost little by this inferiority in 
the size of grain, as the weights of equal measures 
were the same,—the difference of 535 scareely mak- 
ing 4 lb. in the sack. 
‘* Before venturing to draw any deductions from 
these experiments, let us put their results in a still 
more practical point of view. Suppose we have three 
acres of wheat, one of which, reaped when ripe, 
yields us 30 bushels of corn and one ton of straw; what 
will be the gross value of the same? And what the 
value of the other two acres, according to the data 
furnished by the foregoing experiments, supposing 
each acre to be exactly equal in erop, and the one 
reaped a fortnight and the other a month before the 
ripe? Before answering this, we must fix a value 
for the straw—say 2d. per stone, which, taking into 
account that used by the farmer himself—and many 
cannot sell any—is as much as it is actually worth. 
Whence we have, for the acre of ripe, 
WHEAT. 
| 
a 
e 
691 
30 bushels of wheat, at 6ls. 6d. 
per quarter (the price of sam-+ £11 10 7% 
ple No. 3,) : : : 
1 ton of straw, at 2d. per stone, I 6 8 
Gross produce, ele 17 3} 
Let us next take the acre cut ‘raw.’ Before we 
can come to its value, we must first resolve the 
question, How much, in measure, will the acre pro- 
duce us, supposing it to produce 30 bushels, if cut 
when ripe? In solving this, as we must assume each 
crop to be exactly equal if cut at the same time, it 
is obvious that, if we would determine the differ- 
ence caused by reaping at an earlier period, we can- 
not found our calculations upon the gross weight of 
the two samples (Nos. 2 and 3;) for, although there 
is no doubt but that this weight was materially af- 
fected by the condition of the wheat at the time of 
reaping (indeed the difference in the weight of equal 
numbers of grains proves the fact, ) it is possible that, 
in selecting the 100 ears from the sheaf, I might take 
out of one sheaf ears with a greater number of grains 
in them than those taken out of the other. This, 
then, would affect the total or gross weight; and, 
therefore, it cannot be taken into account in the pre- 
sent case, where both acres are supposed to have an 
equal number of grains. ‘To the weights of equal 
measures, and of equal numbers of grains, both the 
result of many careful trials, this objection cannot be 
urged; and they are amply sufficient to enable us to 
tell the produce of an acre of ‘raw,’ when that of 
the ‘ripe’ is 80 bushels. Thus, in the first table, we 
have 
Weight of equal Weight of equal 
measures, numbers of grains. 
No. 2 (raw, ) 5 580 
No. 3 (ripe, ) ; 570 22.75 
Now put m = this measure, and nm = the number of 
grains weighed of each sort; then 
(28 OP ()B3 Ie ae = the weight of one grain of 
No. 3, whence 
22.75 
rere 1:: 570: as 
No. 3 in the measure m. Again, similarly, n : 23.25 
Se Ite 7 weight of one grain of No. 2, and 
270” — the number of grains of 
580” 
:: 580 : 5,5, =the number of grains of 
510m 22.75 m ___ 
ys ae Bg 
the space occupied by one grain of No. 3 (ripe); and 
. 580n___ 23.25m | 
+ 23,25 — 5802 
grain of No. 2 (raw.) Now, as there are the same 
number of grains upon each acre, and as the acre of 
ripe yields 30 bushels, w2 have 
22.75m  23.25m |. Y 
Sn: Bspn 2: 80 bushels : 30.1307313 bush- 
els, the produce of one acre cut a fortnight before the 
ripe. Again, by reference to the second table, we 
have | and 1,4 as the relative weights of the straw 
No. 8and No. 2; whence as No. 3 is supposed to pro- 
duce one ton, 
1: 15: +: 160 stones : 168% stones, the weight 
upon the acre reaped whenraw. And for the whole 
produce of the acre, we have 
30.1307 bushels of wheat, at 63s. 6d. 
No. 2in the measure m. And m — 
=the space occupied by one 
per quarter, ( ; : is 
168 stones of straw at 2d. per stone, rp oh ls 
£13 7 32 
Adopting the same course for the produce of the 
acre Cut first, 7. e. a month before the ripe, and which 
corresponds with sample No. 1, we get 
