[49 } 
1794, table ii, row 2) the method, recommended by 
fome writers on farming, to pull away the fupernu- 
merary ftems, is evidently improper. It would like- 
wife appear, that the doétrine broached by Dr. 
ANDERSON, that the acreable produce depends on 
the weight of feed, is ill founded.* The potatoes in 
row 2 were not only confined to one eye, but to one 
ftem, by pulling up the fupernumerary ones. This laft 
precaution became the more neceflary, as {tems were 3 
found iffuing in abundance from potatoes which had 
been deprived of all the eyes; and even from two out 
of twelve potatoes, which had »een planted after all 
the outer furface was pared off. The refult was, 
that row the 2d, though it had moft weight of 
feed, had the leaft produce of all the experiment rows; 
it had more than four times the quantity of feed 
contained in row 4, the produce of which, however, 
exceeded it at the Edinburgh prices, by more than 
6]. per acre. The produétivenefs of potatoes, then, 
is probably not occafioned by the weight or quantity 
of the fets planted, but by their having that number 
of round and perfe& growths, which the foil they 
feed in can bring to perfection. The general refult 
of the experiments is unfavourable to the opinion, 
that the weight of bulb has any effec in determining 
—————————  _V_—a— _ia“_CSaesaeEeEe__eeeeeeeeeeee le eae 
* We think it right to obferve, that Dr. ANDERSON having ac- 
cidentally feen the MS. of this piece before it went to the prefs, con- 
fidered this remark as an erroneous deduétion from his reafoning, 
and, with his ufual candour, he will readily explain wherein, 
the 
