288 
1849. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Table No. 1. 
Kind ob Top-Dre33INo 
D, Q. 
frS* 
a °-g 
C5 u, 
£ »- 0> 
O* c* -a 
QJ G 
o ai 
u £ 
<D HD 
a, 
O o 
If 
P ^ 
1? £ 
£3 
d . 
8 s 
V O 
2. S, 
> O 
Increase of 
product per 
acre by top¬ 
dressing. 
Co.-t per ton of 
increased pro- 
! duct. 
Profit per aere 
in consequence 
of top-dressing. 
1. None, .. . 
2. Sulphate Soda, ........ 
3. Sulphate Magnesia,.... 
4. Sulphate Ammonia,.... 
5. Nitrate Soda,. 
6. Sulphate Soda,. 1 
Nitrate Soda,. J 
7. Nitrate Potash,. 
8. Sulphate Soda,.1 
Sulphate Ammonia,.. J 
9. Nitrate of Soda,.1 
Sulphate Magnesia, .. i 
i 
1 
i. 
Cwts 
•to 00 
3 75 
3 12 
7 75 
7 75 
6 19 
10 /5 
6 19 
7 25 
Tons. cwts. qrs 
$117 93 
117 93 
122 53 
134 13 
148 00 
166 50 
171 12 
174 70 
208 1 2 
I'otis. cwts. qr. 
$0 00 
MO inc 
6 25 
4 43 
2 38 £ 
1 18 
1 87 
1 01 
0 74| 
$0 00 
loss. 
1 50 
8 45 
22 31 
-12 38 
42 44 
50 53 
-2 94 
0 
2 
1* 
H 
H 
u 
l 
1 
12 15 0 
12 15 0 
13 5 0 
14 1 0 
16 0 0 
18 0 0 
18 10 0 
18 16 2 
22 10 0 
0 0 0 
0 0 0 
0 10 0 
1 15 0 
3 5 0 
5 5 0 
; 
6 
9 15 0 
Table No. 2. 
Kind op Manure. 
>> ti) 
ill 
3* .“Q 
<6 
5 
a 
c* 
w 
G 
o 
c*T 
<D G 
^3 
o .3 
53 „ 
15 v * 
9^o 
o 
c3 
o 
U 3 . 
BaJ 
cC T3 
V txi 5 
l if s 
cs — n, 
<u 
o O <u 
z. 
G TJ 
G p 
5 i j 
6 c £ 
- r 
i % bf. 
r 7? 
00 
■5 Q "G 
- <♦-. 
w.r: o 
Tons cwt. qrs. 
I’ous. cwt. qrs. 
1. None,. 
13 10 0 
$124 87 
2. Salt, .) 
! cvn 
Quick Lime,.f 
4 cwt. 
$3 00 
14 17 0 
137 36 
1 7 0 
$2 23 
$9 4« 
3. Nitrate of Potash,. 
2 cwt. 
13 50 
15 5 0 
1.41 <6 
1 15 0 
7 72 
2 68 
4. Bone Dust. 
is hu. 
11 25 
15 13 0 
144 76 
2 3 0 
5 2i 
8 63 
5 Farm Yard Manure,... 
10 t’n- 
15 00 
16 3 0 
119 40 
2 13 0 
5 66 
9 13 
6. Ni;rate of Soda,. 
2 cwt 
9 17 
16 19 0 
156 79 
3 9 0 
2 66 
22 75 
7. Nitrate of Ammonia... 
2 cwt 
13 87 
17 15 0 
164 18 
4 5 0 
3 26 
25 43 
10 50 
19 11 0 
ISO 84 
6 10 
1 71 
t.5 45 
Table No. 3. 
Is not table No. 1, worthy 
of attentionj of study? If, 
after our potatoes are plant¬ 
ed, we can by an outlay of 
$7.25, reap an additional 
clear income of $82.94, shall 
we not do it ? 
This table (No. 1,) is wor¬ 
thy of study on another ac¬ 
count, What produced the 
great increase in No. 9 ? 
Was it the soda ? The soda 
alone . (5) in larger quantity 
only gave 3^ tons increase. 
Was it the magnesia ? The 
magnesia alone (3) indy gave 
i ton increase. I am rather 
disposed to give the soda the 
credit for the crop, as pota¬ 
toes do not contain the one- 
half of one per cent, of mag¬ 
nesia; and Prof. Johnston, 
in his suggestions for experi¬ 
mental agriculture, mentions 
a crop of 30 tons produced 
with a mixture of one-third 
nitrate, and two-thirds sul¬ 
phate of soda; whilst, on the 
other hand, Fleming mentions 
another experiment made by 
him, in which the magnesia 
only gave 11| tons. Yet if 
the soda made the crop, why 
did not. the soda (5) by itself 
Top-Dressing-. 
Quantity. 
Cost. 
Produce. 
Value.j 
Increase. 
Cost of inc It To fit. 
None,.. 
Soot,. .... 
Manufact'r’d Guano, 
Common Guano,.... i 
40 bush. 
2£ cwt. 
Is cwt. 
$4 17 
9 37 
7 50 
Tons ewt. qrs. 
7 10 0 
10 7 0 
9 7 0 
11 7 3 
$69 37 
05 75 
86 50 
105 -7 
Tons. ewt. qrs 
12 17 0 
1 17 0 
3 17 3 
Per Ton. 
$1 46 
5 07 
1 "i 
$22 21 
7 7 ■ 
9- .50 
ture more productive/’ it behooves my brother farmers 
to pay attention to everything that can possibly improve 
it, as it is undoubtedly the most profitable and certain 
crop we raise. Therefore, I wish through your valua¬ 
ble journal, to bring under their notice the advantages 
of “ top-dressing ” with artificial manures. But at the 
same I wish them to understand that I am not speak¬ 
ing from practical experience, for until within the last 
month, I have not. myself thought of it, though I hope 
next year to try it, and if so to give you the result. 
Happening into a book auction one market night, I 
purchased “ The Potato, by G. W. Johnson,” a book 
published in London as one of a series, entitled *• The 
Gardener’s Monthly Volume.” I have studied it tho¬ 
roughly, and think lhat others could do so with great 
advantage, but as it is an English work not. reprinted 
in this country, that will be impossible for most of your 
readers; therefore I have taken the liberty of preparing 
from it the accompanying tables and remarks, illustrative 
of the benefits to be derived from “top-dressing.” First, 
let us examine some experiments made by Mr. Fleming, 
of Barocban. He had a light, loarny soil, with a hard 
retentive subsoil. He planted his potatoes on the 18th 
of April, in rows 26 inches apart, manuring the bottom 
of the rows with farm-yard manure, at the rate of 40 
cubic yards per acre. The top-dressings were added on 
the first of June. 
The Potato was, what in England is called the Ear¬ 
ly American. Table No. 1 shows the result. The price 
of potatoes that fall was <£1.13s, (say $9.25) per ton. 
and the cost of the top-dressing includes hauling and 
putting it on. 
do as well? Possibly there 
was some acidity in the 
ground, which neither salt 
by itself corrected, but. which 
when combined they operated 
on. 
The experiments as per 
table No. 2, were made entirely with “ top-dres¬ 
sing,” the land being prepared on what is known 
throughout Ireland as the Con-acre system. That 
is land that has been long in grass, is marked out 
in ridges, the sets are laid on the sod about a foot 
apart, and covered about, three inches deep with soil 
from the furrow. A shocking bad system, but one that 
occasionally yields a good crop. The sets were plant¬ 
ed on the 15th April, and aft«r they had sprouted, but 
before the shoots reached the surface, the dressings 
were applied, and an additional quantity of about two 
inches of earth placed upon the top. This was done on 
the 20th of May. The dung was well rotted. The 
other manures were mixed with dried mould before they 
were applied. The salt was that which had been used 
in a provision store, and consequently contained a con¬ 
siderable quantity of blood, fat, and other animal mat¬ 
ter, which probably made it of greater utility than pure 
salt would have been. 
The results as per table No. 2, are curious. Salt and 
lime produce the additional crop at next to the least cost 
per ton, yet they ar q fourth on the list as to profit. They 
produce cheap, but not in sufficient quantity. In this ex 
periment, the nitrate of potash is the worst, making the 
extra product cost $7.72 per ton, whilst in the one 
above, it made it cost only $1.87, and was third best 
out of the nine, but then stable manure was used. The 
bone-dust and farm-yard manure are nearly equal, the 
former growing at a less cost, but the latter in greater 
quantity. Both of these will benefit the next crop, in 
all probability the farm-yard manure the most. The 
guano produced the greatest quantity at the lowest cost 3 
