o 



38 ON IMPLEMENTS SELECTED FOR TKIAL. 



breaks down the drills, and makes the labour of the horse more 

 severe. Aspinwall's patent plants only one drill, but is very 

 light in draught ; by a very ingenious invention the potato-seed 

 is picked up by a series of steel needles fixed on a revolving disc, 

 which lift it from the hopper and drop it in the bottom of the 

 drill. It is simple in construction, and appears unlikely to be 

 easily put out of order. Your Committee do not consider that 

 any of these machines are thoroughly perfect, but at the same 

 time the improvement is so marked, and the work really so fairly 

 done, that they deem it right to recommend the Directors to award 

 two prizes of, say, L.IO each to one of the double-drill machines 

 constructed on the cup principle, and to the single-drill machine 

 constructed on the needle principle. Your Committee had con- 

 siderable difficulty in deciding which of the two machines on the 

 cup principle was the best, but came to the conclusion that, 

 taking the difference in price of the machine and everything else 

 into consideration, they were justified in giving the preference to 

 Mr Guthrie's machine. They would therefore recommend to the 

 Directors to aw^ard a L.IO prize to Mr Alexander Guthrie, Craigo, 

 Montrose, for double -drill potato-planter on the cup principle, 

 and a similar prize of L.IO to Messrs J. AV. Eobertson & Co., 

 Liverpool, for Aspinwall's patent single-drill potato-planter on 

 the needle principle. 



The following letter on the subject was then read: — 



Banff Foundry, N.B., 10th April 1876. 



Dear Sir, — I have read with much interest the account of the trial of 

 potato -planters held at Liberton, under the auspices of your Society, as given 

 in the Scotsman and North British Agriculturist, and as I observe the decision 

 has to be confirmed by your Directors, I take the liberty of oflBcially address- 

 ing you, not with a view of pronouncing dissatisfaction with the judgment, 

 but in order to direct the attention of your board of practical agriculturists to 

 some points of great importance, which I consider your judges will even agree 

 with me in saying are worth reconsideration. From the accounts given in 

 the papers named, I learn that the machine forwarded by my firm did as good 

 work as any, and was only thrown out because the horse had to walk and the 

 wheels to run on the top of the drills. The first thing I would respectfully 

 ask your board to consider is, should a potato-planter run in the bottom of 

 the furrow or on the drill-top ? Personally, I was so satisfied that it should 

 run on the toj) that I incurred an extra expense of L.3, 3s. in the price of the 

 machine to secure this ; and can at once supply the same machine to run in 

 the furrows at L.3, 3s. less money. But a furrow-running machine, when farm- 

 yard dung is used, which is the case in four instances out of five, has this dis- 

 advantage, that the dung is very much displaced by the horse's feet, and the 

 wheels clogging and collecting it in hillocks, leaving parts without and parts 

 with excess of dung, so that the plough following cannot properly cover the 

 same. This displacement of the dung also tends to displace the seed, even to 

 .such an extent as many remain exposed to the ravages of the crows. On the 

 other hand, when farmyard dung is used, and the horse made to walk and the 

 wheels to run on the tops of the drills, the dung is left even and undisturbed, 

 and from its open nature tends to prevent the seed from rolling when it falls. 

 Our machine was sj)ecially made for this class of work, and, through no dung 



