NOTES ON RURAL TOPICS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1895, 16 March 1888, Page 7

NOTES ON RURAL TOPICS.

It is generally considered to be very foolish of fanners to neglect to inInsuring sure their grain, and people Stacks. on hearing of uninsured stacks being burned are apt to say that it serves the owner right. Now, although an insurance agent may say that the wisdom of insuring stacks admits of no argument, I beg to differ so far as to think that there are several sides to this question from a farmer's point of view. For instance, I think a large graingrower should be his own insurer, and then his loss by an occasional fire would not amount to so much, probably, as the premiums he would have to pay for the unburnt stacks. Supposing a man has 20 stacks in 10 separate couples and insures the lot for £600. For this he will pay, perhaps, a premium of £9 at the rate of 30s, or I.} per cent. Now it one pair o£ stacks bo destroyed by fire, he will, according to Biy knowledge of insurance regulations, only receive £60, because the two stacks arc supposed to be one-tenth of the total amount oC grain and £G0 is one-tenth of £600, the total amount insured. But the two stacks burned may be larger than any of the others, and perhaps worth £100, and the farmer would thus be the loser; or, on the other hand, they may be smaller than the average, in which case he would be the gainer. However, I will waive that point and consider the question from another aspect. The 10 pairs of stacks are insured, but there is not the slightest chance of more than one pair being accidentally burned, and for that the farmer would get £G0 ; therefore it seems to me that he pays £0 for insuring grain worth £60, which is at the rate of £15 per cent., rather a stiff premium. In a case of this sort I do not think it pays the farmer to insure, provided he takes all necessary precautions to guard against accidental fires — incendiarism, of course, he cannot take into his calculations. If a farmer has only a few stacks he should certainly insure them, as by so doing he guards against the loss o£ his little all by the payment of a few shillings. A neighbour of mine has been growing grain on a pretty large scale for 25 years and he has never had a stack or a stook burned, either accidentally or otherwise. He says that if he lost the whole of his crop this year the amount of his loss would not be more than the aggregate of the premiums he has paid during all those years, to say nothing of interest and compound interest. That fact, however, though perfectly true arithmetically speaking, would not be much consolation for the loss of his crop. My advice is, if your stacks are near a highway or railway, or near your homestead where children are likely to play around them, by all means insure even if you have to pay pretty high for it, but if you have a large number of stacks standing in large fields removed from such sources of danger, then, I say, give yourself the benefit of the cfoaaces

of immunity from fire and be your own insurer.

Whether a farmer insures or not he should

take all possible precautionPloughing ary measures against fire— if Around Stacks, insured, in justice to the company; if uninsured, in justice to himself. If the stubble be thick and strong enough to carry fire a belt should be ploughed around the stacks, for a spark of fire might, in a high wind, sweep the whole field— stubble and stooks and stacks and a. It is a dangerous plan to build stacks close to large gorse hedges or old straw stacks, or in a direct line with a nor-wester and the washhouse chimney. If one intends to insure it is advisable to insure as soon as the grain is in stook and, if possible, for such a period as will cover risk while threshing.

It is sometimes the better plan to sell grain as soon after harvest as posThreshing. sible if a fair price can be got for it than to hold it for the chance of gaining by a speculative rise. But whether a farmer intends to sell or to .store it he must be careful not to make the mistake of threshing too soon. I have heard complaints of wheat going into market already in a very soft condition— quite unfit for immediate milling. This soft wheat must have either been threshed from the stook or while undergoing the supposed process of "sweating" in the stack. If the wheat be cut very ripe or left in the stook until the grain is as hard as shot, it might be threshed at any time, but this has been such a windy season that most of the wheat was cut on the green side in order to prevent loss by shaking, and therefore would require some time to become hard enough lo be fit to go into the bags. If New Zealand never shipped good wheat before there should be nothing to complain of in the shipments this year, and anyone who sends sofb or dirty wheat away is deserving of universal execration, as wheat of that description after such a dry harvest must be the result of wilful carelessness and gross negligence.

There is no doubt that wheat does undergo certain changes during the Sweating in first month or six weeks it is Stack. in the stack, unless both straw and grain are thoroughly dry when stacked. If, as is generally the case, there is any sap in the straw and the least degree of softness in tho grain, it stands to reason and science that a certain amount of heat will be generated. In due time, longer or shorter, according to the state of the atmosphere, this heat or sweat will pass off and leave the grain free from moisture of any kind, and it is then fit to be threshed ; but if put through the mill while in the sweating stage the drum cannot do its work properly, and, moreover, the grain may become a little " fusty" in the bags.

In the olden times, when most farmers devoted their whole attention Stacking the to gvaingrowing, they could Straw. net find any use for the straw, which in a few years would accumulate to such an extent as to encumber the land if some of it were not burnt out of the way every year. All that is now changed, and stockraising and graingrowing are generally combined, and no one feels disposed to burn any straw except in a few isolated cases where wheat is grown in such large quantities that the straw cannot be got rid of in any other way. If straw is worth keeping it is worth stacking, as it will be of little value if forked away from the elevators in a shapeless heap. A well-built straw stack will not take much harm from the rain for some time, but it should also be secured in some way to prevent the northwesters from blowing away tho top and thus letting the rain into it. After the straw has settled down a little it is a good plan to take a long ladder and a rake and go carefully over the roof, raking out all loose straws lying horizontaly, and thus leaving a sort of thatch formed by straws pointing downward.

Although a well-built stack may stand unthatched through the winter Thatching, without taking any harm beyond the outer sheaves being damaged, yet I think ib is much better to thatch them and have all snug and safe against all weathers. A good coat of thatch can be put on at trilling expense, and then the stack is fit for threshing ab any time, whereas without thatch a stack requires several days cf fine weather to dry it out after a heavy rain, or else many of the outer sheaves must be thrown aside or stooked out to dry. If straw is convenient a good-sized stack can be thatched at a cost of 10s to 15s, and the loss and waste on a stack top after standing without thatch through the winter could not be made good for three or four times that amount.

Last year a series of important experiments were carried out at the New Loss in Weight York Experimental Station, iv Keeping in order to decide the quesGrain. tion : "Is there a loss from shrinkage in holding a cereal crop; and, if so, to what extent?" About 111b wheat was suspended in very light netting bags, and exposed to the temperature of an ordinary living room during the autumn months. At the end of three months the 111b had lost about 21b in weight by drying," or nearly 20 per cent., and at the end of another month the loss amounted to 24 per cent. Another trial with wheat taken from the farm grain-bin showed a considerable loss in drying, but not so much as the first lot. An experiment made with oats taken from the farm oat-bin gave a very different result, for in one week a gain of 80 per cent, was noticeable, and at the end of ten weeks the loss was only 5£ per cent. It therefore follows that grain, especially wheat, loses in moisture when the atmosphere is fairly dry. The amount o£ the loss must necessarily largely depend upon the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the loss is greater on the exterior portion of a mass of loose grain than on the interior of the bulk. It follows that a large quantity of grain stored closely together cannot suffer much loss in weight, as it is removed from, the influence of the atmosphere to a great extent, as also must be grain

kept in fair-sized stacks. Anyone who has ! experience in handling grain must be aware of the effect the atmosphere has upon wheat when quite ripe. On a very hot day, or when a fiery nor'-wester.is blowing, the grain is as hard as shot and the straw dry, brittle, and slippery, but directly the wind changes and a cool breeze comes up from the south the grain seems to absorb moisture, and in a short time becomes tough and comparatively soft, so that it can be bitten between the teeth without cracking as it did in the dry state of the atmosphere. Ageicola.