liim — this cannot be, because the worm must live upon the substance of the 

 grain, like the weevil, and the grain could be destroyed only to the extent of the 

 part consumed by it ; its entire nature, from starch to fetid, greasy smut, could 

 not be so changed by this worm, nor could it be resolved into smut spores, ca- 

 pable of vegetating and reproducing itself. It only shows that there is a worm 

 whose natural food is the smut spores, and the egg of the fly is deposited among 

 them, that it may there hatch, where the worm can obtain its food. It is but 

 an instance of an insect enemy against a vegetable parasitic enemy of the wheat. 

 But the bluestone is a much more efficient one, for we have tested it in the same 

 way that Mi-. Hadeii did, and it is in common use in the we-st. 



Fayette County, Kentucky, 



Nca)- Lexington, Decemher 8, 1864. 



Dear Sir: As you propose, in the next number of the bi-monthly report, to 

 say something as to the best mode of "avoiding smut, and other deteriorating 

 matters of our wheats," I have thought a few lines, giving my experience on 

 the subject, might not be uninteresting, and perhaps furnish some additional 

 information on a subject of vital importance to the wheat-growers of our coun- 

 try. To prevent smut, I simply soak my seed-wheat in u strong solution of 

 bluestone, using ten pounds of the bluestone to one hundred bushels of wheat. 

 It has proved infallible as a preventive. 



Some four years since one of my neighbors harvested sixty acres of wheat, 

 and I think I am safe in saying that one-fifth was smut. He sowed the following 

 fall his entire crop from his smut wheat, after soaking it well in bluestone, and 

 raised from it as fine and as pure wheat as I ever saw harvested. At the com- 

 mencement of his seeding I prevailed on him to sow one acre in the same field 

 without soaking it ; the result of which was so much smut that he did not cut 

 it, but let it remain for the hogs. To satisfy myself thoroughly, I concluded 

 to sow three acres of the same wheat without soaking, and it produced so much 

 smut that I did not harvest it. Since then we have always used the bluestone, 

 and always with the most perfect success. Some of our best wheat-growers 

 use a strong solution of salt, many of them claiming that it answers the purpose 

 as well as the bluestone ; but others who have used it have sometimes failed. 



I think that I have made an important discovery as to what produces smut. 

 I propose to state some facts, which I have never seen referred to by any writer 

 on the subject, leaving it to time and the investigation of wheat-growers of the 

 country to determine whether I am correct in my conclusions. 



Some six years ago I was in one of my wheat fields, about twelve days 

 before it was ready to harvest, and just as the grain began to assixme a slightly 

 yellowish appearance, I soon discovered that there was a f[uantity of smiit. 

 After a close examination, I discovered on many of the smut-heads a very small 

 black and nimble insect, that always at my approach disappeared from the stalks 

 of wheat by falling off, or sometimes by taking to wing. To my astonishment 

 I found each grain perforated or punctured as if done by some insect, the hole 

 or incision being perceptible to the naked eye at the distance of eight or ten 

 feet. I cut several heads of the wheat, and exhibited them to many of my 

 friends and farmers of the neighborhood. I was so struck with what I thought 

 to be an important discovery that I carried them for examination to a gentle- 

 man of large experience, and who was in the habit of purchasing the wheat of 

 my neighborhood. There happened to be present a half dozen or more of our 

 best wheat-growers, and an examination of them revealed the fact that in many 

 of the punctured grains of smut was found a small worm, which, in its general 

 appearance, very closely resembled the common grub worm of our countiy, so 



