On Smut in JFheat^ ^9 



^ood order, and in good time. Mr. Barton's crop was 

 free from smut, at the folloM^ing harvest, but the crops 

 6fthe other two persons were much infected.* 



Mr. Somerville in the paper before quoted upon 

 blight, smut and mildew in wheat, says that from his 

 own observation, aided by the testimony of the most res- 

 pectable farmers, the salt pickle has always prevented 

 the crop from suffering by smut, where it has been ju- 

 diciously applied, yet that under certain circumstances, 

 it may be injurious. 



3. In the Farmer's Magazine,! we find the following 

 remai'ks, under the Banffshire quarterly agricultural re- 

 port: "what wheat we have, where free of smut, is of 

 excellent quality. The advantage of pickling was ap- 

 parent in a patch, where part had been pickled, and part 

 of it not. The former was very little touched, while the 

 latter was at least a fifth or sixth smutted. Several in- 

 stances of this kind shew the utility of that preparation, 

 and though it may not at all times be an entire preven- 

 tive, it should not be omitted." 



A ^^Titer in the same volume : J who signs J. W. and 

 dates from Norfolk, offers for a trifling premium per 

 acre, to insure the whole seed of England from injur}- 

 by pickling, and the crop from being damaged by smut, 

 provided the following recipe be judiciously applied. 



" Steep your wheat five or six hours in water brought 

 from the sea, or in common water salted, till it is strong 



* Barton's Medical and Physical Journal. 2 Supplement, 

 f Vol. 5. page 483, printed at Edinburg. An excellent work, 

 which ought to be in the possession of every farmer. 

 X Page 443. 



