l8C4- 0'^ Farm-MaUngemeut heiivixt Forth and Tyfie. 16 f 



tion of the ploiiph ? The fituatlon of feveral farms is no doubt 

 favourable for obtaining larj.'e fupplics of foreign manure and 

 fca-v\'eetl : (Ull, however, the quantities applied in many parts, 

 fecm inadequate to the fupport of that high (late of fertility in 

 vvhich fucli excellent foil may be continued. 1 intended to have 

 oiFered a few remarks <Su tlie couife of crops recommended by 

 the Afibeiated Farmers in Pecbleslhire, ihferted in your Magazine 

 for November iafl, and, particularly, whether in the end it 

 would not be more advantageous to purfue a five or fix, inllead 

 of a four-courfe Ihift ; but, having already occupied too many 

 of your valuable pages, I mull requeQ that fome of your more 

 i'ble correfpondents will fully inveiligate fo important a fubje6l. 

 Local fituation, and the relative prices of corn and butcher- 

 meat, will, no doubt, have great weight in determining the 

 tourfe which ouglit to be purfued. I c^^nnot, how.ever, but con- 

 ceive it extremely doubtful, whether, under a four-courfe fliift, 

 any bnd but that of the firft quality can be continued for a length 

 of t hue in a fufTiciently produdlive (late. Permit me to fubfcribe 

 myfelf a well-wifher to your Publication, 



VlATOPv. 



TO THE CONDUCTOR OF THE FARMER S MAGAZINE. 



Thoughts en the Anahfation of Lime ^ \2fc. 

 By Sir Geo. S. MACKEhziE, Bart. 

 Sir, 



I EEG leave to notice your correfpondent A. S.'s lime paper, 

 p. 27, who, I am perfuaded, was not aware how much his me. 

 thod of afcertaining the purity of limeilone is apt to miflead 

 perfons not converfant in the analyfis of minerals, other wife iit; 

 would not have allowed you to publifli it. Stridl fcientiiic lan- 

 guage is not to be expefted from a farmer, nor ought he to he 

 cxpe£led to be able to underftand it \ and therefore, on the che- 

 mical language of A. S. I forbear making any remarks. 1 truft 

 lie will not be offended at my preluming to corred^ him, when 

 I do not pretend to be a profound chemid, but only profcfs to 

 have a fmattering of that fcieace. 1 have fo much experience, 

 however, in the art of analyfis, that I can affirm, without dan- 

 ger of contradiction, that although the analyfis of limellone is 

 comparatively eafy, it is by no means very eafy to dillingniru 

 good from bad, as A. S. aflerts. I btg leave to inform him, 

 firJJy that limeftone is a neutral fait, ?.nd is now known among 



chemilii 



