We prefer to intrust a brood of pintadas to the care of a common hen, rather than to that of its own species. Their habits are not dissimilar, as is the case with the duck,-and her nature will not be outraged in bringing them up. A hen will, with ease, cover seventeen or eighteen pintada eggs, as they are smaller than those of the common fowl.

We repeat, they are not difficult to rear; we have never lost a chick, except by accident. In consequence of their small size and minute beaks, it is requisite that their first food (groats) should be broken for them. They are exceedingly fond of, and thrive rapidly on ants' eggs,-whole nests of which should be sought for, and brought to them with a shovelful of the mould in which they are found. This, if thrown partly within the coop, the mother will amuse herself with scratching while she at the same time instructs her chicks to seek for their own sustenance.

We have been surprised to find, that in books professing to give the natural history of this bird, its disposition should be courageous: it is the most remote from courageous; it is cowardly, fierce, and tyrannical in the extreme. These birds persecute all other inmates of the poultry-yard, with relentless perseverance, but always in a body. We were on one occasion witness to an assault upon a solitary pullet, by eleven pitadas. They surrounded their victim, pecking it with violence, and whenever one of the inner range of assailants received a blow from the poor bird, it retired to the outer circle. A very few minutes would have sufficed to destroy the pullet, but fortunately, the dastardly creatures were driven away. Their beaks are remarkably strong and sharp when they are full grown.

Their cruelty to all other poultry passes imagination. While among themselves they are placid and affectionate; hence they ought either to be kept in a separate yard, or, if that arrangement be inconvenient, the stock of poultry ought to be confined to these birds, or they should be rejected.

The treatment of pintadas differs so little from that of other fowls, that, with the foregoing remarks, we close the subject. Turkeys.-The following observations and method of rearing turkeys are not the results of our own experience; but are from the pen of the gentleman above quoted. We have refrained

from keeping them, being deterred by fear of the trouble and difficulty which writers have thrown in the way; though, in consequence of the gratifying success which has attended us in our other feathered stock, we have no doubt our attempts would have been equally satisfactory, as we have always of late years taken nature for our guide, and endeavoured to treat them rationally. For example, although we have Mowbray's authority for the practice, we would not "withdraw the chicks from the nest, and keep them very warm." Turkeys are amenable to the same wise laws, that the common hen obeys; hence we should leave them to the more congenial warmth of the mother's breast. Indeed, we are no sooner instructed by this author to remove the chicks, than he renders the advice nugatory by saying, "The turkey, from sitting so close and steadily, hatches more regularly and quickly than the common hen." (!)

Who removes the chicks to a warm situation when the mother steals a nest, or is in a state of nature?

In the article of food, we have equal contradiction, as well as absurd directions; the chicks are to have curd, eggs boiled hard and chopped fine, oat or barley meal kneaded with milk; yet immediately afterwards adds-" milk is apt to scour them;" then why give it? Water is their natural beverage, and will not scour them. Then, in case of cold weather ruffling their feathers, they are to have half-ground malt with their meal, "and, by way of medicine, caraway, or coriander seeds." (!) Nor must we omit "artificial worms, or boiled meat, pulled into strings, in running after which, the chicks have a salutory exercise." (!!). He justly observes afterwards, that "superfluous moisture, whether external or internal, is death to the chickens, therefore all slop victuals should be rigorously avoided ;" and in this remark we cordially agree.

Pea-fowls, tame pheasants, partridges, &c. we candidly own, we know nothing of practically, and, as they are only kept for amusement, abstain from introducing any observations on their treatment from the same work.

530

ON THE CULTIVATION OF BOG BY AN ARTIFICIAL SUBSOIL.

By Mr SAMUEL NICHOLSON, Dublin.

Communicated by C. G. Stuart Menteath, Esq. of Closeburn.

HAVING been engaged on the Government valuation of Ireland since I last had the pleasure of seeing you at Closeburn, now some years ago, I have had ample opportunity of examining bog; and in consequence of an agricultural and engineering tour in the south and east of England in the summer of 1835 (more especially in the Fens) my attention has been drawn pretty closely to the subject.

A great deal has from time to time been said and written on the reclamation of bog, some advocating the floating away of the surface, where the subsoil is good, as in the case of the Drummond Moss in Scotland; another recommending draining and the application of earth, as in the case of Chat Moss in Lancashire; a third proposes irrigation; while a fourth says that shallow-draining, paring and burning, tilling and laying down with grass-seeds, is quite enough to secure a fair return for capital expended upon any bog.

I shall not say much upon any of these methods, but I have little hesitation in asserting, that for one successful attempt which has been made in the cultivation of flow bog, like that of the bog of Allen in this country, Lochar Moss in my native country, or Chat Moss in Lancashire, there have been twenty failures. Indeed, I have yet to learn whether Chat Moss improvements themselves have paid, notwithstanding favourable locality, and all that has been said about them. No doubt floating off the surface, where the subsoil is good, is a safe method, but then we lose the fuel, and if we only look at the accelerated rate at which our coal-fields are being exhausted, it becomes an object of great national importance to preserve our turf as much as possible. Irrigation is no doubt very often a desirable method, but like floating it is seldom practicable. The fourth method, draining, laying on earth, &c., has been often tried and is still recommended, but any one who chooses to visit Chat Moss, may see that bog so reclaimed has a tendency to revert to its natural state, and requires top-dressing to prevent it. This,

I am of opinion, arises from the want of an earthy subsoil, which I take to be the great evil in all bogs, the main barrier to successful improvement. With regard to improving red-bog by draining, paring, and burning alone, I confess I have never seen a successful instance of it; for, besides the necessity of an earthy subsoil, I think I could shew that we must have earth in the soil itself, especially if we intend to cultivate white crops; I grant that it is not so necessary for meadow and green crops.

Before saying more upon this subject, I shall take a hasty glance at the nature of the various kinds of bogs and fens which I have met with. I think I have discovered three pretty distinct classes of peat formations, to use a geological term. First, That which chiefly occurs on the sides of mountains, and is composed of the decayed roots and stems of heath and coarse grass. It varies from a few inches to three or four feet in depth; is of a dark brownish-black colour; contains some earthy matter; and produces heath and coarse grass. For want of a better term I shall call it Mountain Bog, though it occurs sometimes in low countries where the substratum is not very retentive.

The second class is that which has been formed on the scite of lakes or in stagnant, or comparatively tranquil, water, and is composed of the decayed stems and roots of aquatic plants. It is of a blackish colour, contains a considerable portion of earth and also animal matter, and generally, in its natural state, produces coarse aquatic plants. This variety I would denominate Lacustrine Bog or Peat. The fens of Lincolnshire and Cambridge are mostly of this description, and are the most profitable kind of peaty soil we have.

The third class is a well-known kind, named Flow or Fibrous Bog, and is composed of numerous species of decomposed or decomposing moss-plants, among which the Sphagnum predominates. It is deep, wet, and spongy; remarkable for its antiseptic quality, and absence of earthy ingredients. It is commonly met with in low flat situations, though sometimes on the sides of mountains, where the subsoil is retentive; but stagnant water, which encourages the growth of the mosses, appears to be the chief cause of its generation. Many of them appear to have grown upon the surface of class second. The Bog of Allen is of this kind, so also is a great part of Lochar Moss and Chat Moss.

The practicability of improving this kind of bog is a subject which, you are well aware, has engaged the attention of the most eminent agriculturists. Many, after trial, have given it up as hopeless. Fortunes have been expended, and ruin has been the consequence. To offer a new mode for the improvement of this kind of bog, as well as that of the worst kind of lacustrine bog, is the chief object of this communication.

We are well aware that the lacustrine or fen bog is the most profitable of all the three classes, and this, I presume, is easily accounted for. It is better decomposed, less astringent, more consolidated, and contains more earth and animal matter; qualities which it appears to owe to the peculiar circumstances under which it was formed. If, then, we can by any means so alter the nature and composition of the flow-bog as to make it approximate to that of the lacustrine bog, we shall have made a successful step towards its amelioration, and this I think can be done.

In order to effect this, I would follow to a certain extent the example which has hitherto been set by the most approved bog-reclaimers, namely, drain to get quit of the astringent water, to destroy the growth of the bog, and to consolidate it. Then apply earthy material and quicklime, &c., to bring it into a state of decomposition, and to assimilate it to the nature of our more prolific soils. All this, and no more, has been done already, and yet it is found inferior to the lacustrine or fen bog, and is still considered a dangerous subject for the investment of capital. The cause of this is a subject worthy of inquiry, and one which does not appear to have been hitherto accounted for. The following is my view of it.

Although we may have succeeded in assimilating the soils, still there exists a material difference between the subsoils. In the case of the lacustrine bog, there is more or less earthy matter to the very bottom, by which a due circulation of moisture is promoted, a circumstance which, in my opinion, is of the greatest importance to both soils and subsoils. But in the case of the flow-bog, all below the soil is a mass of dead inert peaty matter, almost impervious to moisture and air, and the moisture it does contain must be of an astringent and pernicious quality, and injurious to vegetation.