198 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
[J ULY, 
gave were that small potatoes having been check¬ 
ed in their growth, before fully ripening, though 
they possessed the germ of life, were weak, and 
sickly, and communicated disease to their prog¬ 
eny. In other articles of produce the best are 
selected for seed, even at the expense of import¬ 
ing from a distance. If small kernels of corn, 
wheat, or other grains are unfit for seed I see no 
reason why the same is not true of potatoes. 
Will some more experienced agriculturist give 
the results of their own praclicel 
Fairfield. Co., Ct. CHAS. F. RAYMOND. 
Remarks.— It is quite doubtful whether the 
potato disease results entirely from the cause 
suggested by our correspondent. As in all dis¬ 
eases, weakly plants are most liable to suffer, the 
use of partly ripened seed may predispose the 
progeny to the rot, even if it do not cause it. 
The produce of inferior kernels of grain is usual¬ 
ly inferior, but no special disease prevails in con¬ 
sequence. With the potato there is an actual 
malady whose causes are not fully known, but 
every thing which tends to give vigorous growth 
will aid in resisting it. For this reason we should 
advocate thorough drainage, high cultivation, and 
the use of the best tubers for seed, as practiced by 
Mr. Raymond.—E d. 
Experience in Under draining. 
[We believe thorough underdraining invariably 
pays well, on comparatively dry upland as well 
as upon that which is low and swampy, and this, 
too, let the draining cost what it may, within 
reasonable limits, of course. We have expended 
as much as $50 per acre in draining land not con¬ 
sidered wet by any means, and we firmly believe 
it would have paid a good profit on the investment 
had the draining cost $100 per acre. For illustra¬ 
tion, suppose a field in its ordinary condition will 
yield an average of 40 bushels of corn per acre. 
Drain this field, and there is hardly a doubt 
that the average would be raised to 60 bushels, 
with no increase to the cost of cultivation. All 
experience has proved that this estimate is not 
too high. Call this corn worth only 37£ cents 
per bushel, and the increase of 20 bushels per 
acre will be $7.50, or 15 per cent on the in¬ 
vestment of $50 in draining. But our object 
now is not so much to discuss the profits of 
draining, as to introduce the remarks below 
from a recenrthntribution by W. J. F., to the 
Rural New-Yorker, in which he gives the result 
of his own experience in regard to the art of 
draining. He states that since 1855 he has put 
down an agregate of 3[ miles of drains, and feels 
prepared to “talk like a book” on the subject. 
We think his estimate of the expense too low, to 
he a guide in general practice, but he certainly 
shows that the expense is not so great an ob¬ 
stacle, as is frequently supposed.] 
We think a great misapprehension prevails in 
regard to the cost of making under drains,—it be¬ 
ing generally considered more expensive than it 
really is. We know it has not cost us as much 
as we expected ; and as many others who admit 
the importance of draining, may be deterred by 
its supposed expensiveness, we deem it essential 
to the cause of farm “ Progress and Improve¬ 
ment,” that this matter should be set right. We 
have seen estimates of the cost of draining in 
which the ditches were run through the field at 
the uniform distance of two rods apart, and the 
cost, at fifty cents and upwards per rod, was 
made to amount to $40 or $45 per acre. No 
wonder that at this rate the expense of draining 
has been made a stumbling block, and the great 
bug-bear to frighten farmers from farm improve¬ 
ment. We protest against any such calculations, 
for it is scarcely possible for even the most thor¬ 
ough underdraining to cost nearly so much. 
In the first place, even on low, wet land, drains 
do not need to be placed so near as two or even 
three rods apart. A good drain should drain from 
two to three rods on each side, according to its 
depth—(the deeper the drains, of course the fur¬ 
ther on each side they will dry the land.) We 
find that drains three feet deep will drain the 
land from two and one half to three rods on each 
side, or five or six rods wide, while two feet 
drains will only drain half that width. But with 
a retentive clay subsoil, the deep drain is little 
better than the shallow one, and it is better to 
make them little more than two feet deep, of 
course placing them nearer to each other. When 
the subsoil is moderately porous, drains should 
never be made less than three feet deep, (of 
course taking care to secure a good outlet,) and 
we have made some nearly 4£ feet, filling in two 
feet of stone, in order to get them out of the way. 
Taking four rods apart as sufficiently close to 
secure dryness of low, flat land, we find 40 rods 
of drains per acre. On much of our rolling land 
they will not be needed, except between the 
gentle rises of the ground. On much of this kind 
of land 20 or 25 rods per acre, or even less, will 
make the ground dry enough for all practical 
purposes. 
Now', then, as to the cost per rod. Drains are 
frequently dug by the job, at 12$ cents to 18$ 
cents per rod, and even higher, according to depth 
and the hardness of the ground. As they are gen¬ 
erally dug, 18$ cents is a fair average price. But 
this is by no means the cheapest way to have 
ditching done. There are various drain diggers, 
patented and in operation, but we are not ac¬ 
quainted with their working, having never seen 
any operate. But where these can not be tried, 
the common plow is a good substitute, and should 
always be used. By plowing two or three paces 
from the center of the proposed ditch, turning the 
furrows out from, the center, a dead furrow can 
be made ten to fifteen inches deep. It would be 
advisable to let the plow in several inches deep¬ 
er the last two or three furrows, though we have 
seldom done it. Where it is not sward land, in 
which case it would of course be impracticable, 
this process should be repeated, plowing a little 
wider than at first, by which five or ten inches 
more may be loosoned—making, when the loose 
dirt is cleaned out, quite a respectable ditch, from 
eighteen to twenty inches deep. In a dead fur¬ 
row, thus deepened, a man can dig one half more, 
to the depth of three feet, than by beginning at 
the surface. 
What we have done on the farm at draining has 
mostly been at parts of days, seldom a whole day 
at a time ; but we have hired a good deal done, 
at $1 per day, and find from eight to ten or twelve 
rods per day a good flag's work, varying accord¬ 
ing to the hardness of the ground. Sometimes 
we have had fourteen or fifteen rods dug in a day, 
three feet deep ; hut it was very easy digging. 
Taking ten rods as a good day’s work, in ground 
well plowed out, and it will average 10 cents per 
rod, for three foot ditch—merely for the cost of 
digging. We say nothing of cost of plowing out 
the ditch, as it is but a trifle, and much more than 
re-paid generally by the benefit it affords to the 
soil. 
Next, as to the cost of material. If stone are 
used, it is difficult estimating the exact cost; in 
fact, they generally cost nothing, except the labor 
of procuring and laying them, and this varies so 
much that each farmer must, of necessity, make 
his own calculations as to the expense. Two- 
inch pipe tile can be obtained in Rochester at 
$10 per thousand, or one cent apiece. These are 
large enough for the great majority of drains— 
for all, in fact, except the main drain, into which 
the others empty. As thirteen will lay a rod, 
the cost of the ditch, excepting laying and filling 
in, is only 23 cents per rod. Where the bottom 
of the drain has been smoothed so as to remove 
all inequalities, (for which a narrow hoe is con¬ 
venient,) the laying of the tile is very quickly per¬ 
formed. Care must be taken to prevent the de¬ 
pression of the tile in the soft places, for if a tile 
sinks below the others it will, in time, fill up so 
as to leave no room for the water to pass through. 
A spirit level and a long narrow board, of uni¬ 
form width, are also very useful where the ground 
is almost level, in order to see that there is a 
uniform fall. Two inches fall in fourteen feet is 
plenty—but one inch, or even less, will do, pro¬ 
vided it is uniform. 
In filling in the ditch, a little straw should be 
thrown on the tile in order to keep the loose dirt 
from running in at the joints, before it gets set¬ 
tled. Some prefer coarse gravel for covering the 
joints of the tile, and where it can be easily ob¬ 
tained it may be well to use it; but straw will do 
very well. We have used each with good results. 
Then throw in a little dirt to prevent the tile from 
being broken or misplaced, and plow in the soil 
again. It is no matter if some of the yellow dirt 
from the subsoil remains on the surface. ,It will 
soon be as good as any, and we think a little bet¬ 
ter for wheat. 
You have now a ditch completed, (three feet 
deep,) at a cost, (allowing two cents per rod for- 
laying tile and filling in, which we think is enough) 
of only 25 cents per rod. We can aver that the 
cost of our ditches, with two inch tile, has rarely 
exceeded this, and on easily digged ground has 
often fallen below it. So the cost of thoroughly 
draining wet land—drains four rods apart, or forty 
rods per acre—is just $10 ; and on much of our 
land where wheat almost always winter-kills, the 
soil can be made, dry enough at a width of twen¬ 
ty rods, at a cost of $5 per acre. Those who 
have thought draining too expensive to pay, will 
see that it is not impossible for two crops, or 
even one, by their increased value, to more than 
pay all the cost of draining the land. We are 
quite certain it frequently does. But draining is 
a permanent investment, and it is not fair to 
charge one crop with all the expense. The real 
annual cost of this draining, costing $5 or $10 
per acre, is 35 to 70 cents per year. 
- - -» ---- - - - 
“ Thorley’s Cattle Food "—Is it worth the 
Price asked for it ? 
During a year or more past, our city and neigh¬ 
boring towns, as well as many distant points, 
have been overrun with flaming handbills, calling 
attention to an article imported from England, 
entitled “ Thorley’s Cattle Food.” We have ob¬ 
served that it is even more extensively advertis¬ 
ed in England, than here. The mode of adver¬ 
tising, both there and here, is very ingenious a’nd 
“ taking,” and the article has attracted not a little 
attention. 
As a matter of public interest, and to be able 
to answer a great number of inquiries, we have 
been desirous to ascertain something of the 
probable value of the article, and we have exper¬ 
iments now in progress. As it is an organic 
compound, it js somewhat difficult to make an 
accurate analysis that shall give exactly the ma¬ 
terials used in its composition. Like many 
of the so-called “ patent pills,” it is not patented 
