[ 20 ] 



one; whereas that of No. 8th was only 2.6 to one. 

 But the total average produce of the 3d and 4th 

 rows was only 52.6 bufhels; whereas that of the 

 eighth row was 453.9 bufhels.* 



To obtain a juft notion, however, of the profit 

 that would be derived from cultivating a field in the 

 one or the 4 other of thefe ways, it is neceflary to 

 deduct the feed in both cafes from the grofs pro- 

 duce, the remainder only denoting the free produce. 

 The laft column in the table above marks this free 

 produce, in all the different cafes above ftated. And 

 from this table it appears, that the total free pro - 

 duce from the fmalleft feed here employed was 

 only 50.65 bufhels per acre; and that where the 

 largeft feed was employed, amounted to 283.7, *° 

 that one acre in the laft cafe yielded nearly as much 

 free produce as fix acres in the firft. 



Hence ft feems reafonable to infer, that it is in no 

 cafe profitable to plant fmall potatoes, or fmall cut- 

 tings unlefs where it is meant to increafe as faft as 

 pofiiole a 'favourite kind; in which cafe it may be 

 fometimes eligible to plant pieces very fmall, as in 

 that way the kind will bernoft quickly multiplied.-}* 



* By experiments more at large fince that time, and on a richer dunged foil, 

 1 have obtained a return from feeds even larger than thofc in No. 8th, in the 

 proportion of at leaft ten to one, fo that the very final! returns in this experiment 

 muft be afcribed to the great poverty of the foil. 



f Since the ab^ve was written, I find reafon to believe, that the returns from 

 large potatoes may be augmented greatly b J 2nd what it was in this experiment ; 



whether 



