1840.] SENATE— No. 36. 175 



very visible when the crops were cut, the drilled stubble being very 

 clean, and the broad-cast foul. I am decidedly of opinion that if I 

 had not hoed the broadcast, and if the drilled had not suffered by the 

 rooks, and by being overflowed with water as mentioned, the drill 

 would have beat the broad-cast at least one fourth part." 



I add an interesting experiment of much more recent date, on nar- 

 row and wide drilling of wheat, which the intelligent inquirer will find 

 highly interesting. 



"Trial of nai'roio and tcide drilling of wheat on the I5th October, 

 1833. — The quantity of land drilled, was 7 roods and 27 poles, half of 

 which was drilled with 13 rows on a stitch 10 feet wide ; the other 

 half with 19 rows on the stitch, the land being divided into 4 stitches. 



The same quantity of seed was used at the rale of 3 bushels per 

 'acre which produced from the 



Bushels. Pecks. Stones. Lbs. 



19 rows 348 sheaves 23 If weighing net 106 8 



13 " 374 " 21 Oa " 96 8 



Bushels, 2 1 Stones, 10 



The 4 stitches were along side of each other, and were all cut by 

 the same men; and no perceptible difference in the size of the sheaves. 

 The 13 rows did not stand so well as the 19 rows; but were a fehade 

 the better sample, weighing about one sixth of a pound per bushel 

 more. 



The soil was mixed. The sort of wheat was Golden Drop." 



Journal of Eng^ Ag. Soc. v. iii, p, 24. 



c. 



ON THE CULTIVATION OF WHEAT BY ELIAS PHINNEY. 



Lexington, Feb. 1, 1840. 



Dear Sir, — Your favor of the 25th ult. was duly received. You 

 ask my opinion as to the probable success of the wheat culture in Mas- 

 sachusetts, and request me also to give the results of my own expe- 

 rience in the cultivation of this crop. Allow me, my good sir, the 

 yankee privilege of answering one question by asking another. Why 

 may not wheat be successfully cultivated in our State ? It succeeds 



