18G7. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



175 



This would leave a gain, per acre, by planting 

 5 butts in a hill instead of 4, of 25 1-2 bushels. 

 Take out 8 bushels for the extra seed, and it 

 leaves, omitting fractions, 17 1-2 bushels clear 

 gain over and above the extra seed. 



The way I account for the discrepancy be- 

 tween these experiments is this : — In my first 

 experiment I commenced planting at the best 

 end of the field ; and consequently as we ap- 

 proached the other end, which was poorer, the 

 odd rows were on better soil than the even 

 rows. Had I commenced at the other end the 

 result would doubtless have been more in favor 

 of heavy seeding. Inequalit}' of soil is a great 

 obstacle in the way of trying accurate experi- 

 ments. In my second experiment, as I used 

 no manure with the mud, this obstacle was 

 avoided. 



The only valid objection which can be brought 

 against such heavy seeding as these experi- 

 ments indicate is, that the more seed you put 

 in a hill the smaller will be the potatoes. 

 Whether this objection outweighs the advan- 

 tage of a larger product, each one must decide 

 for himself. I think I had as many good sized 

 eating potatoes from 4 butts to a hill as fi-oni 

 3 ; so that the extra product was clear gain, 

 if the gain was in small potatoes. 



Sprouts or Eyes. 



1 wish to say a word about the impropriety 

 of planting small potatoes, or large ones cut in 

 small pieces. The root of the potato sprout 

 or eye extends to the center of the tuber. 

 Sever the sprout or eye from its root, and you 

 lessen its vigor. In proof of this, pare off the 

 outside of the potato to the depth of one-eighth 

 of an inch, and the inside, if planted, will com- 

 monly grow, Ijut it will grow feebly. Plant 

 the paring and it will grow feebly, just in jjro- 

 portion to its thinness. Cut a potato as you 

 will ; the smaller the piece, the more feebly it 

 will grow. As to planting small potatoes it is 

 contrary to all analogy. When tanners win- 

 nowed their wheat in the wind, they kept the 

 butt of the heap for seed. Gardeners always 

 prefer the middle head of the parsnip for seed. 

 Thus with all kinds of seeds ; the largest, most 

 perfect and best ripened are always preferred. 

 Should one go counter to the common practice 

 in selecting seeds, his sanity would at once be 

 called in question. Why. then, should potatoes 

 be an exception to this universal rule ? 



Derry, N. H., Jan. 18G7. e. b. 



For the New England Farmer. 



A PLEA FOR THE BIDDIES. 



Mr. Editor: — I am right glad to see the 

 pleasant cover of The Monthly Farmer 

 once more. I have greatly missed its visits 

 for two or three years past. True, I have had 

 the weekly Farmer, but that is not in a proper 

 form for occasional reference or for binding. 

 It is only a newspaper ; and, at the week's end, 



like all newspapers, it is common property as 

 wrapping paper. 



But your i\Ionthly collects that which is most 

 valuable in the weekly ; gives it to us in pam- 

 phlet Ibrm, which says, "hands olf" to the de- 

 stroyer. And, at the end of each year, we 

 can have a volume for reference which is worth 

 a dozen times what it costs. Few books in my 

 house are consulted oftener than some old vol- 

 umes of The MoN'raiA' Fauaier. If those 

 who CTiltivate the soil were not blind to their 

 own interest you would print a larger edition 

 than you do. But we must wait and hope. 



And now, having paid you what 1 really feel 

 to be a well deserved compliment, I want to 

 point out what I think is a glaring inconsistency 

 in your January numljer. On page 10 you say : 



The Poultry — This branch of farm stock prob- 

 ably pays more for the money invested than any 

 other. Treat the poultry fairly nud the poultry 

 will treat you to Iksh and eggs accordingly. 



All that is strictly true ; but on page 26 I 

 read the following : 



The great profits which arc occasionally realized 

 on a few fowls induce many people to think of ex- 

 tending the business. Frequent inquiries are made 

 for our opinion as to the expediency of engaging in 

 the Inisiness on a large scale. From our oljserva- 

 tion and reading wc have felt obliged to advise 

 against all such enterprises. 



Now, Mr. Editor, are both these paragraphs 

 true ? Is it, indeed, a fact that a lew fowls 

 are very profitable to a farmer, but, when the 

 n'.imber is increased, the business becomes un- 

 profitable? For one, I am not ready to accept 

 (he theory or admit the lact. It is a well set- 

 tled principle that one can feed ten cattle or 

 ten sheep proportionately cheaper than we can 

 one ; that we can cultivate ten acres of corn, 

 or cut ten aci'cs of hay or grain, at a less rate 

 than one. Why doesn't the same rule apply, 

 at least in some degree, to the poultry yard ? 



When I went to school — the old scjuare brick 

 house, you know ; inverted nn'il-hopper lor a 

 roof; brick lloor ; seats around the walls like 

 a mon-is-board, it took me some time to mas- 

 ter the rule of which these signs are the repre- 

 sentative, : : : : But, once mastered, I 

 never forgot it. And I aver that as ten fowls, 

 well kept, 15 to "pay better than any other 

 Ijraneh of farm stock," so is a hundred fowls 

 equally as well kept to ten times as nnich profit. 



I don't say that I am not wrong in this, but 

 if I am, will some one ])lease to tell xcliy 'J It 

 is no argument to say that all attempts to raise 

 poultry on a large scale have been, so far, fail- 

 ures. Further on, in this very January num- 

 ber you (juote from a Rhode Island paper 

 which tells us that, "Mr. A. C. Vose, near 

 Manville, has enclosed an acre and a (juarter 

 of land with a high fence ; and in this enclo- 

 sure he keeps about a hundred and fifty hens. 

 During nine months of the year these fowls 

 gave a net profit of two dollars a day, or five 

 himdred dollars a year." 



If this story is true, why could n't Jlr. Vose 



