Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

constitute more than one-tenth the entire weight of the insect. Allowing, then, that he fills his stomach twice a day, the grasshopper will consume his own weight in five days at the outside. Allowing his weight to be one, two, and four grains for the first,second, and third month of his life respectively, he will consume, in three months, forty-two grains of food. On this moderate basis, the seven hundred and fifty million grasshoppers, if not killed by the crows, would have consumed over two thousand tons of grass and other fodder. In other words, during the single month I have mentioned, the crows saved thousands of tons of grass and other produce to the inhabitants of Moss Vale through the destruction of grasshoppers. Surely, in the light of these facts, we may well spare a few sheep and chickens without complaining. This is not an isolated case; on the contrary, something similar is of annual occurrence in various parts of the country. Wherever grasshoppers become unusually numerous, crows soon congregate to fatten on this their favourite food. A noticeable feature of the locust plague in the western and north-western parts of New South Wales in 1891 was the presence, in parts of the infested districts, of large flocks of these black police. Even in seasons when grasshoppers are only ordinarily numerous, their number is much reduced by the crow, and the good done in this way should not be overlooked.

Early in the season, before the appearance of grasshoppers, particularly during ploughing time, the crow does the farmer another good turn, for he may very often be seen following the plough for hours at a stretch, busily picking up grubs that would otherwise remain to injure the following crop. Both white grubs and cutworms are cleared off in large numbers by this means. It is only necessary to imagine what would happen if the grasshoppers and cutworms were not kept in check in such a case as that at Moss Vale in 1894 to realise the debt we owe to the crow. Suppose, for instance, the crows to have been all killed off on that occasion, and the insects to have been given full swing. Soon there would have been bare paddocks, halfstarving stock, desolated gardens, and possibly a dearth of fruit; for there is hardly anything in the way of crops the grasshopper will not eat, and when driven for food, he does not despise even such articles as wood and cloth. Indeed, it is not necessary to suppose such a case, for something of the sort has actually occurred. Previous to the year 1750, in consequence of the premiums paid for killing crows and blackbirds in the colony of Massachusetts, these birds became so nearly extirpated that they were rarely to be seen, and the traveller Kalm wrote ::

"But as, in the summer of the year 1749, an immense quantity of worms appeared on the meadows, which devoured the grass and did great damage, the people have abated their enmity against the maize thieves, for they thought they had observed that those birds lived chiefly on these worms before the maize is ripe, and consequently extirpated them, or at least prevented their spreading too much."

Here, at least, is a case of widespread belief among an intelligent people that the worms and so forth, that destroy grass, were so greatly increased in consequence of the extirpation of crows and birds of similar habits that the hay crop was ruined; and it may be added that recent investigations tend to show that the opinion was entirely correct.

It must not be concluded that because I have given such prominence to the destruction of the grasshopper, the white grub, and the cutworm by crows that they destroy these insects only. Dung-beetles are eaten by them, as well as "June-bugs," weevils, ants, borer-beetles, click-beetles, and crickets, all of which are more or less injurious.

How the Crow should be treated.

In my opinion the crow should not be the subject of legislation. To make it an offence at law to kill a crow would be to put, at least, a nominal restriction on the destruction of such crows, for instance, as contract the habit of stealing eggs and chickens, and this would be unwise, even if the law were not enforced, and the restriction, therefore, merely nominal. Again, the shooting or poisoning of the bolder crows that pull sprouting grain or steal fruit is so obviously commendable that the law should not interfere with the farmers' efforts in this direction.

On the other hand, so useful a bird should not be outlawed. As a matter of fact, it makes very little difference if he is, for he is eminently well able to take care of himself, and any bounty sufficient to pay for the trouble of extirpating him would probably bankrupt the State. Considering the difficulty of shooting or entrapping him, 6d. per head would be no great attraction to hunters, and at this rate it is doubtful if this Colony is able to pay for all the crows within its borders.

The most reasonable way to deal with our sable friend is to frighten him away from places where he is liable to do damage, but otherwise to let him alone. There are many devices for keeping him at a distance, and a list of them will not be out of place here.

1. Scarecrows.-Probably no object for frightening crows is more familiar than some imitation of a man placed in the midst of a field of corn. These humorous figures are too well known to require description. They have found a corner in the lore and literature of most of the peoples of the world, and also, no doubt, in the traditions of the birds themselves, if they have traditions. A tradition handed down from cock to fledgling of the brood of birds" horn and brought up in the very hat of the identical scarecrow up to intimidate them, hardly requires a stretch of the imagination. It is certain that the birds soon see through this trick, and take the greatest liberties with the person of the scarecrow, alighting on his arms and head, and carrying off pieces of his clothes for nest linings. Still, the scarecrow is not a failure, and even if he were, one would be sorry to see him become extinct.

set

2. Windmills.-Toy windmills are easily made, and are effective in frightening birds so long as the wind blows, but unfortunately when the wind stops the mills follow suit, and at such times the birds become accustomed to them, and no longer fear them, even when in motion. The windmills are most effective placed near, or even on a scarecrow, this combination, for a time at least, forming a terrifying mystery that is beyond the bird's ability to fathom.

3. Pendant Tins.-Sheets of bright tin or bright tin-cans hung from poles by a string, so as to sway and revolve in the breeze, make a good defence against feathered thieves, especially if arranged so as to rattle.

4. Poles and Strings.-White cotton twine strung round and across a field on poles eight to ten feet high appears to have such a mysterious and snare-like look as often to prove highly effective in keeping crows at a distance.

5. Feeding. It has been found that where crows are in the habit of pulling grain the damage may at very slight cost be much lessened by sowing some grain on the surface of the ground. Birds are astonishingly quick-sighted, and they at once discover and feed upon the grain thus offered them, so that

B

they pull much less. Grain thus sown on the surface should be first soaked in water, and should be sown on the side from which the crows usually approach. A bushel of grain sown in this manner, a peck at a time, and at intervals of a few days, at the critical season, is a very good investment.

6. Poison.-Grain that has been pickled for at least twenty-four hours in a concentrated solution of common white arsenic (arsenious acid), or in any other tasteless strong poison, will be eaten by crows if sown on the field where they are pulling recently-sprouted grain. The intelligence of the birds is well illustrated by the fact that after one or two such doses, causing the death of a few of their number, they will generally avoid the field for some time, and occasionally will forsake the vicinity in a body.

7. Tarred Grain.-Grain that has been given a coating of gas-tar, or any similar substance, is offensive to crows, and after pulling a little of it they give it up as a bad job. The method of tarring is as follows:-Soak the seed overnight. Spread it out and stir until the surface of the grains is somewhat dry. Mix tar and grease so as to form a thin and soft mixture when warm. Add warm slaked lime until the mixture is well thinned and perfectly liquid. Stir in the corn, and as soon as it has received a coating, remove it and plant it. The flavour of tar will be retained by the grain for several weeks, or until it is too large to be easily pulled by the birds. Any sort of tar answers the purpose. Long soaking in the tar mixture will kill the grain.

These methods of dealing with crows, combined with shooting some of the boldest of them, are quite sufficient to keep them from doing any consider able amount of mischief, and leave them at most seasons to assist in keeping grasshoppers and other injurious insects in check, and be assured their efforts will be more effective than any devices yet known to man.

Just consider for one moment the helplessness of man before the advance of a plague of grasshoppers. Day by day the young hoppers issue from their breeding-grounds, and in countless numbers make their way over the country on foot or by flight, eating every green thing. To-day the country is flourishing,-to-morrow the plague passes by, leaving desolation, and often ruin, in its path! One who has not experienced it cannot imagine the feeling of utter gloom wrought by such a visitation. Nothing will avail against it. All the spraying experts in the country may fire insecticides by the ton into such a mass of insects without any appreciable effect. It would be like Mrs. Partington trying to keep back the Atlantic Ocean with a mop.

The fields of nature are, however, patrolled by a feathered police, whose function it is to keep this destructive insect in check, and if man does not interfere with these friendly watchmen, locust plagues will be much fewer, farther between, and less destructive when they do occur, while the ravages of ordinary seasons will be kept at a minimum.

Note on Imported Wheat and Flour.

F. B. GUTHRIE.

IN consequence of the lamentable wheat harvest of last year many of the larger Sydney millers have been obliged to look beyond the Colony for supplies in order to make up the deficiency.

It is a noteworthy fact for our farmers that a considerable proportion of the grain thus imported was obtained from Manitoba, or was a similar closelyrelated wheat grown at Duluth.

These wheats were bought to blend with the softer Californian grain, in order to give strength and gluten to the flour.

Duluth wheat and the Manitoba wheat are small, hard, red grain, of the Fife family.

The flours of the Fife wheats are characterised by a high gluten-content combined with great strength, two points of the greatest importance to the consumer, since the gluten is the nourishing constituent of bread, and upon the strength of the flour depends the production of a well-fermented, thoroughly-aërated, and well-risen loaf-shortly, the wholesomeness and digestibility of the bread.

The objectionable qualities in these wheats, from the millers' point of view, are, or were, two in number-firstly, a somewhat greater difficulty in the milling; and secondly, a yellow colour in the flour.

The first of these objections has, as I ventured to predict, been easily overcome when seriously confronted by our leading millers, with their perfected machinery and superior resources.

It is

The second is purely a question of fashion, a passing fancy, based upon the assumption that you can only get a white loaf from white flour. difficult to find out who is responsible for the white-loaf theory. The consumer is ultimately blamed for it by both miller and baker, but the average consumer knows nothing about it, except that he wants a clean loaf. The assumption is, moreover, an entirely wrong one. You cannot, fortunately, get a white loaf from dirty flour, and it is quite remarkable how much dirtier a loaf always looks than the flour from which it is made; but you can make a white loaf from flour with quite a yellow colour.

In the course of a series of investigations into the "Milling qualities of different varieties of wheat," published in this Gazette, March, 1895, I baked a number of loaves made from different flours, especially several of the Fife wheats, which appeared to me, on account of the many other good qualities which they possessed, to be a particularly desirable type from the consumers' point of view.

With one exception, they all gave in my hands excellent results, producing loaves almost identical in bulk and appearance with those made from flour milled by the local millers, or from flour manufactured in our testing mill from Purple Straw wheat.

Baking is an art, and, like all arts, is susceptible of improvement by means of a number of little tricks and dodges which have to be learnt by experience. My baking was learnt and practised on the white flour locally milled from the soft wheats grown in New South Wales, and I am quite convinced that if I had had the time to go into the matter more thoroughly I could have got a far better loaf from the Fife and kindred wheats than I actually did get.

In other words, an intelligent baker who knows his art will have no difficulty in turning out a better loaf from strong flour than from weak. By better, I mean better fermented, more bulky, of better texture and appearance, not necessarily of a more blinding whiteness.

As an instance of the lengths to which this striving after a white ideal in flour is carried, I may remark that the flour which was awarded the first prize in the recent Sydney Agricultural Society's Show contained no more than 6 per cent. of gluten.

Through the courtesy of one of the leading Sydney millers, I obtained a sample of a consignment of 1,500 tons of wheat imported early in the year from Canada, and which is either Duluth wheat or of a closely-related type. On milling it gave the following results:

[blocks in formation]

The scale of colour to which the above is referred was published in the article already mentioned. I must ask those who are interested in the matter to refer to the same. I can only describe the colour as being a distinct yellow.

A short time back I obtained from Professor E. M. Shelton, of Queensland, a sample of flour from Pillsbury's well-known mills at Minneapolis, together with two samples of the grain from which it bad been milled. I am not clear whether the flour, which was labelled " Pillsbury's Best," was the result of milling a blend of the two grains, or whether it was obtained from one of them exclusively. One sample of grain was labelled "Blue Stem and the other "Power's Fife." They were both very similar-hard, red, small, and sometimes pinched grain.

"Pillbury's Best" flour gave the following numbers on examination:

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

A result practically identical with that I have given above, as obtained by our testing mill from the imported grain, except that Messrs. Pillsbury can produce a better colour. I cannot help saying here that "Pillsbury's Best

* The milling notes are due to my assistant, Mr. E. H. Gurney.

« AnteriorContinuar »