1837] 



FARMERS' REGISTER, 



23 



thickest cotton 1 had, rottod leust. I examined j 

 many crops and constantly Ibund very rank, thick 

 CDiton least rotted. Last year appears to have 

 h;^en dilferent Irom former years ; bnt altltough I 

 nai confident cotton does not rot li'om beino- too 

 thiclc, si ill it may be an exciting cause and lielp to 

 increase lite evil. 



These, [ sav, and many more, were the theories 

 of (he most noted coiton planters. Facts contra- 

 dicted them all, and showed conclnsively that ev- 

 ery one waswroniT; sliii the observation of age 

 and exj)erience should receive attention. Allhouo-h 

 not one suggested the constant and specific cause 

 of rot, yet, no doubt, most or all of them were cor- 

 rect to a certain extent: experience had proven 

 that when the prechsposition to rot existed, all 

 these miijht be exciting causes to increase it, while 

 they miijht prove harndess when the predisposition 

 was less ; and so, indeed, it would appear that they 

 were all mtended, lor when the inquiry would be 

 made, why this or that cause increased or dimin- 

 ished the rot, it would always prove that they had 

 m view the etl'ect that they would have in increas- 

 iuij or diminishing the msecfs which almost all 

 planters appear to believe the great and constant 

 cause of this (jreat evil. The constant and popu- 

 lar opinion of the day appears then to be, that an 

 unknown insect injures the coiton bole, and causes 

 rot; but the numbers of these insects may be in- 

 creased or diminished by circumstances. "When 

 the predisposing cause is entirely unl<nown, and 

 no idea can be formed of the extent to which it 

 may prevail, experience goes very slow in finding 

 out exciting causes ; for where, in one instance, we 

 have noticed an exciting cause that has done great 

 injury because the predisposiiion was strong, ui the 

 next instance, tliat same exciting cause is harm- 

 less, because the predisposition is weak. Thus it 

 is with coiton ; the predisposing cause of rot ie un- 

 known, or conjecture; experience has discovered 

 man}'' exciting causes, but little or no profitable 

 use has been made of them. In consequence of 

 the unknown extent to which the predisposition 

 may prevail, the rot has for many years done great 

 injury to the coiton planters, and we know now lit- 

 tle more how to diminish it than when it befjan. 

 The opinion that rot is caused by insects, is, I be- 

 lieve, wholly an error, and it is the most unlbrtu- 

 nate opinion that could have been formed. To be- 

 lieve that insects produces rot, at once makes the 

 evil remediless, and we must quietly consent to an 

 evil so (Treat, because there is no prospect of get- 

 tmij clear of it. Had this unhappy conjecture 

 never have been formed, and had the rot \vdve 

 been thought to be a disease, and the facts tliat 

 experience could collect have been arranged, we 

 would loii!? since have got rid, il"not altogether, in 

 part, of this evil. The opinion that insects cause 

 rot, appears to be so general, that I will relate some 

 facts and experimenis to contradict it. 



I remained a long time perfectly still in my cot- 

 ton field ; I could see very small files liijht and re- 

 main on the cotton boles; the smallest motion, and 

 they were gone. I could not see what they were 

 doinn-, nor could I catch one of them. I took a 

 number of boles and examined them with a very 

 powerliil microscope. I could see on the bole a 

 great many small white egnrs, so small tliat I could 

 not see them with my naked eye, or common ma<j- 

 nifyinii; glass. I held them to my mouth, and let 

 the vvcirm breath come upon them — I could see 



notiiing of them ; but upon examining with the 

 microscope, I could sec many lillle vviiite worma 

 with yellow heads; they ()uicUly passed into the 

 bole, and apparently wiih so much ease, that tiiey 

 must have passed in the pores of the bole. Thia 

 a[)peared to confirm the opinion, that insects 

 caused rot. It would appear probable that the 

 fly pertbrated the bole, and caused the bruised 

 lookinir spot, lodged its eggs, these hatclied into 

 little worms, and they went into the substance of 

 the bole and continued to injure it. INlany of these 

 boles were marked; some rotted, and some did not. 

 I saw the eggs on sound as well as rotted boles ; I 

 could not see that they did any injury, nor could I 

 discover, by the most careful examination, what 

 became of the little worms after they went into the 

 bole. I also fbund as nmny of these worms and 

 etriTs on the crop of cotton that rotted none, as the 

 crop that nearly all rotted. 



To know certainly whether insects did produce - 

 the rot, I have tried a great number of experiments, 

 which, to me, were convincing. The smell of cam- 

 phor is deadly to most insects ; a butterfly, for in- 

 stance, passed over a lump of camp-hor, dies im- 

 mediately. I have from time to time put lumps of 

 camphor around cotton stallcs; I have dipped the 

 cotton boles in a stronir tincture of camphor, as well 

 as a strong infusion of it in hot water, but no effect 

 in preventing rot was produced. I have painted 

 the boles over with several coats of paint, dipped 

 them in oil, and then given them a covering of co- 

 pal varnish, but they rotted as before. 1 have dip- 

 ped them in every thincj 1 could think of that in- 

 sects would probably abhor, such as arsenic, cor- 

 rosive sublimate, &c. ; I have put on them mer- 

 curial ointment; I have spread adhesive plaster 

 on cloth so that no insect could pass through it, 

 then made liitle bags and tied them round the 

 boles, all of which, had no efiect in preventing rot. 

 In some instances, where boles did not rot that 

 were experimented on, other boles treated in the 

 same way, would all rot. From a great variety of 

 experiments tried and repeated on holes of differ- 

 ent sizes, and under every different circumstance, 

 I am confident I neither caused or prevented ihe rot. 

 Repeated experiments prove that the rot cannot be 

 caused by insects; reason proves it also. We may 

 walk into a cotton field and find one stalk ol"cotton 

 with nearly every bole rotted, while the stalk next. 

 to it shall not have a rotted bole, although the boles 

 of these two stalks shall be interlocked; or perhaps 

 one row of coiton rotted very much, while the ad- 

 joining row shall be rotted none. I saw JMr. Con- 

 nerly pull up twelve adjoinin<f stalks, and on the 

 twelve there was not a sound bole. I then noticed 

 three stalks, every bole of which was sound, the 

 next stalks were rotted very bad. Who can be- 

 lieve insects would be thus choice which boles to 

 destroy, and which to let alone ? and this is a con- 

 stant occurrence in the worst rotted fields. We 

 may every now and then find stalks with not a 

 rotted bole, and where there is very little rot, we 

 may find stalks with not a sound bole. Some 

 places in a field or plantation, is ofien rotted very 

 much, while others have very little, or none. 

 These facts, and many more that might be named, 

 must prove that we must look for some other cause 

 for roi than insects. But to make certainty more 

 certain, it next remained to fry if the rot could be 

 produced by injuries done to the boles. To deter- 

 mine this, i have taken a, number of stalks as they 



