WHEAT. 
From this it appears, that had not the very green 
failed in quantity, it is superior to the ripe in quality 
—making more flour by 2 per cent.; while the raw, 
No. 3, is superior to all the other varieties. Thus, 
the bushel of No. 3 gives more flour than the bushel 
of No. 5 by 64 lbs., showing a gain of 152 per cent. 
in weight of flour upon equal measures of grain. We 
also find that 100 lbs. of wheat, No. 3, make 8049 
lbs. of flour, while 100 lbs. of No. 5 yields 7235 26 Ibs. 
—showing an advantage of 7°984, or nearly 8 per 
cent., in favour of No. 3 upon équal weights of wheat. 
To those who are acquainted with Mr. Hardcastle 
it will be unnecessary to say, that neither ignorance 
nor design produced these results. And, when I 
state that he devoted his attention for several hours, 
and a portion of his machinery, to the exclusive trial 
of these wheats, it will be of little use to add, 
(though such was the fact) that every operation was 
conducted under my own eye, and that each parcel 
underwent an exactly similar process. Indeed, I 
must say that Mr. H. entered into the investigation 
with a spirit fully equal to my own, and conducted 
it with a skill that left me nothing to do but to thank 
him. And surprising as the results of this investi- 
gation may appear—surprising as they appeared to 
me—I must give Mr. Hardeastle credit for antici- 
pating them in some degree; for, before the opera- 
tion of grinding was concluded, he expressed to me 
his pleasure at being chosen to carry out an experi- 
ment of such interest; ‘asa mark of which interest,’ 
added he, ‘I have no hesitation in saying, (and my 
opinion is confirmed by the senses of a practical mill- 
er—the sight, hearing, and touch)—that No. 5, the 
ripest wheat, grinds the worst—worse even than the 
greenest; a fact which few would believe unless 
they saw.’ The results, as we have seen, fully con- 
firmed Mr. H.’s opinion; and further examination 
explained the whole matter. In No. 5 we found a 
much greater quantity of flinty particles, which would 
not pass through the flour-sieve, than in any other, 
—a fact which clearly explained why it should, in 
millers’ parlance, ‘grind worst.’ The deficiency of 
No. 5, in yield of flour, when compared with No. 3, 
was accounted for by the difference in the quantity 
of the pollard (or sharps), and in the quality of the 
brans; the bran from No. 5 being coarse and heavy, 
while that from No. 3 was thin as a bee’s wing. 
‘Should a practical miller examine these brans, and 
be informed that they were from one sort of wheat,’ 
remarked Mr. Hardcastle at the time, ‘he would 
call No. 5 a very common specimen of grinding, and 
censure the miller; the other he would term a beau- 
tiful piece of workmanship, and say that the man 
who ground it knew how to prepare his machinery; 
yet the fact is, one miller and one mill have ground 
and dressed both.’ The flour from the various wheats 
Mr. Hardcastle declared to be worth, at that time, 
2s. 6d. per stone wholesale. The pollard he valued 
at ls. 3d.; and the bran at 10d. per stone. Taking 
the straw at 2d. per stone, the real value of the re- 
spective cuttings will stand thus:— 
+ 
8st. 12 Ibs. of flour, at 2s. 6d. per phone, Oo Gell Bh ai 
te Ibs. of pollard, atls.3d. - pi tO) Le OF 
2 st.1 1b. of bran, at10d. - - - - 0 1 & 
223 st. of straw, at2d. - - - - =) 0) 3109 
Total value of the produce of 20 perches, £1 8 7 
No. 2 
8 st. 6 lbs. of flour, at 2s. 6d. per MO) - £1 1 Oj 
11 lbs. of pollard, atls.3d.  - - - 0 O18 
1 st. 11 lbs. of bran, at 10d. epee eV OH Dl 63 
21 st. 3 lbs. of straw, at2d, «9° 3 «.5' = 0 3 6% 
Total iam t sa! Goat Og 
No. 
12 st. 6 Ibs. of flour, at 2s. Bau per Shay - £111 03 
12 ibs. of pollard, at 1s. 3d. - 0 1 Of 
2st.1lb.ofbran,atl0d. - -  - - O1 8 
20 st. 8lbs. of straw, at2d. - - - - 0 3 5 
Total of Leth Menu net ety Shi LG'S 
693 
No. 
12 st. 3 Ibs. of flour, at 2s. 6d. ‘ber sone - £110 63 
1 st. 3 Ibs. of pollard, at Is. 3 en 
2st.5lbs.ofbran,atl0d. - « - - 0 1133 
19 st. 2 Ibs. of straw, at2d. - “- = - 8 38. 2} 
Tocaly) ha crt wv he ae eM CT ap 
No. 5. 
10 st. 11 lbs. of flour, at 2s. 6d. 3 stone, - 
1 6113 
1 st. 9 lbs. of pollard, at 1s. 3d = - 0 2 (3 
2st.5lbs.ofbran,atl0dd. - - - - 04111 
18 st. of straw, at D cle Ginn Na INGE - 03 0 
Total = = = - -  « £113 115 
Giving for the value of an acre of 
No. 1.—cut a month before fully mipe) =e 19) 12 
No. 2.—do. three weeks, - - - 1016 4 
No. 3.—do. afortnight, -  - - = ‘= 1418 0 
No.4.—do, tendays - - - - - 1417 0 
No.5.—do. yipe, - - - - - - 1311 8 
The loss, therefore, upon the green plots is respec- 
tively £2: 2:6 and £2: 15:4 per acre; and the 
gain upon the plots (3 and 4) cut raw respectively 
£1:6:4and £1:5:8 per acre, when compared 
with the ripe. It will be observed here, that the 
loss upon No. 2 is greater than upon No. 1, which 
arises from the former being less in quantity than the 
latter. But the grain of No. 2 was bolder, and a 
better sample than No. 1. We have seen from the 
foregoing tables that it also made more flour to the 
bushel than No. 1; it will therefore appear strange 
that the produce should not be equal, at least, to 
that of the other. In reply to this I would say, that 
it is scarcely possible to select two plots of ground, 
the produce from which will be equal in all respects; 
and therefore a slight variation in the produce may, 
in any case, be accounted for. In this case, how- 
ever, another cause operated, I have no doubt, in 
producing the apparently anomalous result. Thus, 
owing to the plots of ground being reaped before any 
other in the neighbourhood, they were, in spite of 
all precaution, robbed to some extent by the birds. 
Indeed, I have no doubt but that the loss upon the 
two cuttings 1 and 2 (especially upon the latter), 
would have been much less but for this circumstance ; 
for though the desiccation or shrinking of the grain, 
from being cut too early, undoubtedly caused the 
quantity by measure of each to be less than that of 
the later cut samples, it could not, in my opinion, 
cause a difference of a bushel in 20 perches; nor could 
it have caused the measure of No. 2 to be less than 
that of No. l—a far smaller sample. In order, 
therefore, to see how much of the deficiency in mea- 
sure was to be attributed to the shrinking of the 
grain by drying, and how much to the other acci- 
dental circumstances, I took a long glass tube—sealed 
at the bottom—of 3-inch diameter, and partially filled 
it with water. Having made a mark on the glass at 
the point where the water reached, I made another 
some distance upwards. After this I poured grains 
of wheat from the sample No. 1 until the water’s 
edge touched the top mark. The tube was then 
emptied, and a similar operation performed with all 
the samples. From this I found that it required 
1110 grains of No. 1, 1005 of No. 2, and 910 of No. 
5, to fill the tube so far that the water rose to the 
top mark. Between Nos. 3, 4, and 5, I could not, 
after several trials, find any real difference—the va- 
riation scarcely ever exceeding | per cent., and that 
in favour first of one sample and then another, From 
the foregoing test, however, we learn that, supposing 
the number of pial upon each pention to be origi- 
nally the same, 7715, robs» and g45, will represent 
the comparative measures or spaces occupied by the 
produce of Nos. 1, 2, and 5 respectively; whence— 
Bushels. Bushels. 
gto i rts 2: 3s : ee ta produce of No. 1. 
nN 
gto ops 2: 34 : 3°16, the produce of No. 2. 
Tie ey hen 
1 
