-= "welch are Parafitics of the Wheat. 117 
fowed the two undreffed portions, before he covered the feed with | 
earth he fprinkled upon it fome Brand duft. The refult of his expe- 
riment was, that the three firft portions ‘of both forts which had 
been prepared for fowing were very little injured by the Brand. 
Thofe which were from feed of the clean fample had only one ear 
affected, and that partially. "Thofe from the: branded fample pro- 
duced two ears that were partially branded, and three that were 
affected by the Smut or Duft Brand (Reticularia figetum). But the - 
"produce of thofe portions which had been fprinkled with the duft 
of the Pepper Brand was greatly injured by it, three-fourths of the 
grain being deftroyed. There appeared no difference in the number 
of plants produced from each portion of the clean feed; every grain, — 
vegetated, except in one inftance, where it was evident that thofe 
which perifhed were deftroyed ‘by an infect: but the number of 
plants produced from the injured feed was various ; that which was 
wafhed with water produced the greateft number, and that wetted 
with vinegar the fmalleft. Mr. Lathbury, in the dreffing of the 
feed for his experime it, does not appear to have ufed lime ; which I 
prehend to be the moft efficacious preventive of the evil, 
though at the fa 
fame time it may probably be moft deftru&àive of the ` 
feed. ‘Thefe portions of wheat were fown at Orford on the 2oth of 
- September 1786. L6 
"The other experiment was made in the neighbourhood of Wood- 
bridge in the following year. I íhall give it in Mr. Lathbury's 
words: “ Mr. John Woolnough of Boyton,-a moft intelligent and 
excellent farmer, read Mr. Bryant's pamphlet, and, in confequence — 
of his arguments, the next year fowed a large field in alternate 
breadths with wheat taken from a good fample (without drefng) 
-and wheat that had been dreffed in the ufual manner. Long before 
the corn was ripe, the difference was moft diftinguifhable. Upon 
a | thofe : 
