AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
403 
For the American Agriculturist. 
BLACK MERCER POTATOES. 
Thy letter of the 17th inst. was received, 
and in answer would state that we are hap¬ 
py to do any thing that would benefit our 
brother farmers, and we think that in recom¬ 
mending the black Mercer potatoes to their 
notice through thee, we may benefit all those 
who are led to give them a fair trial. 
We have raised them for the last three or 
four years, and the last two years almost 
exclusively, never failing to produce double 
of the black that we can of the white Mer¬ 
cer ; and one year (1853) more than three 
times as many. Last year we had the poor¬ 
est success we ever had, owing to the ex¬ 
cessive drouth, and we planted too early, so 
that this crop amounted to almost a failure, 
not producing over fifty bushels per acre ; 
while, before, we have ranged from 125 to 
270 per acre. 
We think them fully as good as the other 
varieties, but many are prejudiced against 
them. We use them altogether, and are not 
ashamed to ask our friends to partake with 
us of as white and. mealy potatoes as any can 
show. They (the women) say they take 
rather more cooking than the white Mercers. 
They always grow till frost, yet our experi¬ 
ence is, that it will not do to plant before the 
10th or 12th of May. We have had them 
weigh 38 oz., and could pick out forty that 
would make a bushel. But our last year’s 
crop was small, and the potatoes quite infe¬ 
rior to what they have been heretofore. 
They generally bring us from four to five 
cents less per bushel than the white ones 
are selling for here. They are now worth 
$1 12^. They do not appear to-be affected 
with the rot like the white ones. Owing to 
their growing till frost, and continually set¬ 
ting, we think the small ones do not do well 
for seed, as they do not sufficiently mature 
with any degree of certainty. We do not 
know of any other information thee would 
desire, but should be happy to answer any 
inquiries. Thine, J. N. & E. R. 
Montrose Farm, N. J. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
PLOWING IN GUANO AND BONEDUST. 
In the paper of November 22, vol. XIII, p. 
161, a correspondent gives some valuable 
experiments with concentrated fertilizers on 
corn, which alone I consider worth the entire 
year’s subscription to your paper, to those 
who have brains to appreciate them, and are 
not too much wedded to the ways of their 
grandfathers, or too indolent to take the 
trouble to think for themselves, to be bene- 
fitted by them. But your correspondent 
omitted one important feature in giving his 
experiments, and that is the method of apply¬ 
ing those fertilizers. Were they sown broad¬ 
cast and plowed, or harrowed in 1 or were 
they put in the hill at time of planting or 
hoeing ? or both 1 May we not be enlight¬ 
ened on this point! 
Inyour article on the “ cultivation of spring 
wheat,” page 3§5 of this volume, under the 
head “preparation and manures,” you say, un¬ 
der circumstances, “ guano and bone-dust 
should be plowed in,”(a) and in the next 
paragraph you say that guano should be 
plowed in, but “ bone-dust, and lime, and 
plaster when the latter is used, should be 
left near the surface of the soil if possible. ”(i) 
Now as “ bone-dust ” can not be left near the 
surface if it is plowed in, especially if we plow 
as deeply as you recommend, which direc¬ 
tion shall we follow 1 Plow it ini or leave 
it near the surface by plowing first and har¬ 
rowing it ini A little light here would clear 
away the fog and let us act understandingly. 
I have composted guano, about the first of 
February with charcoal dust from locomo¬ 
tives, some rich muck, finely disintegrated 
by frost, and gypsum, have already turned 
it over twice and intend to add still more 
muck.as soon as the frost will permit and 
turn it over two or three times more. Will 
it then be sufficiently mixed with the other 
ingredients, and its causticity sufficiently 
ameliorated to use with safety and advan¬ 
tage this spring on corn, and various garden 
vegetables, fruits &c.1 
I must add, the American Agriculturist is 
my most welcome weekly visitor, and I con¬ 
sider its pages more valuable to the brain 
farmer, than all the pretended wisdom of all 
the conceited old fogies in Christendom. 
Essex Co., N J., March, 1855. II. 
(<z) Bone-dust was added here through in¬ 
advertence, in the hurry of writing ; it should 
not be plowed in generally near so deep as 
guano. 
(b) This is correct—bone-dust and plaster 
should be left pretty near the surface. They 
may be plowed in two to four inches deep, 
or harrowed in. On grass land they maybe 
spread broadcast. A good rule for the ap¬ 
plication of bone-dust and plaster is to place 
them as near the roots of the plants, which 
are deeper or shallower according to the 
kind cultivated. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
FARMERS AND BOTANISTS. 
I am aware that though science has fur¬ 
nished its humblest student with ample 
means to defend its truths from the popular 
fallacies, and the encroachments of the more 
practical and less studious cultivators, the 
pages of a journal like this is not the proper 
place to demonstrate clearly, by abstract 
scientific data, any fact, however correct. 
Nor do I wish to enter into such a style of 
correspondence, though I confess a little dis¬ 
posed naturally to controversy, upon such 
topics as your correspondent from Ovid, N. 
Y., has referred to on page 355. The elu¬ 
cidation of even so trifling a matter as the 
proper name and identity of a weed, or trou¬ 
blesome grass, will, I hope, be admitted of 
sufficient moment to spare space for a few 
more sentences from one who prefers no 
claim to any information on the subject, 
other than he has obtained from actual ob¬ 
servation and good botanical authority. 
I need not now recall to your memory 
why and under what peculiar circumstances, 
this subject of confounding names of common 
plants, was forced on your notice, except to 
remark, that it was full time to make our¬ 
selves, at least, clear on the subject when a 
professor (1) of agriculture produced before 
the U. S. Agricultural Society, at one of its 
sessions, a spike, reported to bear at once 
cheat and wheat. 
Again, a writer, whose authority should be 
considered of some weight, having the tacit 
sanction of the London Gardeners’ Chroni¬ 
cle, states that Couch grass is one of the 
Agrostis family, and finally, your correspond¬ 
ent, Mr. Brewer, sets the matter at rest, by 
stating that Couch or Bitch, Quack or Tivilch, 
Squitch, (and all the multitude of syno¬ 
nyms heaped on this pest, which Dr. Mackay 
and Asa Gray tells us is Triticum Repens, 
which no botanist doubts), is Agrostis alba 
stolonifera; at least, such is the Twitch or 
Quack grass of western New-York, which 
he proceeds to describe. This, the only 
means of setting the matter at rest, is com¬ 
mendable if it is practicable ; but every one 
who at all studied grass botanically must at 
once see the difficulty of a novice in botani¬ 
cal observation furnishing any descrip¬ 
tion competent to serve as a guide to the in¬ 
dividual who, with no other data but the 
grass, and this abbreviated, generalized de¬ 
scription, enters upon the examination of the 
species in question. 
To what purpose has all I he labor of sys¬ 
tematic botanists been, if a mere novice in 
the science can furnish such a description as 
will convey to the anxious student this very 
important knowledge, viz : the identity of a 
true species of plant, thereby opening the 
.way to its full history, habits, nature, treat¬ 
ment and uses 1 I am rejoiced to find that 
at least one person has taken up the matter. 
And now, in conclusion, let me request Mr. 
Brewer to procure specimens of the grass 
known in his locality by all the various 
names already ennumerated. First decide 
whether all can be referred to one identical 
form, whether Triticum Repens, or Agrostis 
alba (Fiorin). And in this examination let 
us be satisfied with the truly scientific (cor¬ 
rect) descriptions laid down by well known 
botanists, and not resort to any simple (in¬ 
correct) description, however easily under¬ 
stood to the casual or mere practical reader. 
I trust that the above remarks will be re¬ 
ceived as aiming at the elucidation of a simple 
fact in agricultural botany. As Mr. B. has 
furnished his address, I have no hesitation in 
appending mine. R. Robinson Scott. 
Kingsessing, Philadelphia, March 3. 
For the American Agriculturist. 
QUACK GRASS. 
Whether this is the kind of grass known 
as Couch, Twitch, or Quitch grass, the Tri¬ 
ticum repens of botanists, or some other 
name, is a question of more indifference to 
the mass of practical farmers, than the prac¬ 
tical one of how it may be exterminated 
once it has taken root. 
In this part of New-York, this grass grows 
extensively, and its destruction has come to 
be a matter of economy, imperative necessi¬ 
ty, and consequently of serious inquiry 
among farmers. Indeed on some farms in 
this and other counties adjacent, this grass 
has become so firmly and densely rooted 
that not half a crop of corn, wheat, or pota¬ 
toes, can be raised without a most discour¬ 
aging amount of labor; and so great is the 
power of reproduction or increase of this 
grass, that whole farms, which a few years 
ago were tolerably free from it, arc now 
completely overburdened. Instances have 
come under my observation where farms 
have been sold at a sacrifice—the owners 
being actually driven out before this pest. 
From my observation of this subject, 1 am 
satisfied that there is no means of entirely 
eradicating it, except by the plow, hoe. and 
harrow. Draining to destroy Quack grass, 
is out of the question, for it will grow as well 
on upland (if it be not too arid) as on land 
that needs draining ; and I have seen vastly 
more of it on good corn and wheat land, 
than on any other. For several years the 
writer lived on a farm all of which was liter¬ 
ally and overrun with this pernicious grass, 
excepting about six acres of low pasture- 
land. On all sides of this field, the adjacent 
ones being upland for wheat and corn, this 
grass grew rankly ; and so firmly had the 
stout roots become interwoven in the soil, 
that plowing was rendered quite difficult. 
In the low pasture,however, scarcely a spire 
could be seen. It is not true, that the Quack 
grass of central and western New-York 
flourishes best on low land, or that it can be 
destroyed by draining. It prefers, it is true, 
