1836] 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



239 



wheat had betjun to be heated in the kiln, a great ] 

 number of verj- small worms, previously invisible, 

 make their a|)|)earatice oii the top of the irrain, 

 and are soon killed by the iieat. Now, there can 

 be little tioubt of this fact of the appearance of 

 the worms, lew parcels of corn being without 

 eoaje species of insect; but this does not in any 

 way prove that these worms are the cause of 

 smut. AliKoujfh, therelbre, tiie opinion in ques- 

 tion was adopted by Liun;eus and many others, 

 we may safely conclude in the words of a much 

 hiirher authority respechnii insects, the Rev. Mr. 

 Kirby, that the notion of brand (arid he miii'hr 

 have correctly added smut and rusi) being "pro- 

 duced by insects is not supported by one fact or 

 experuuent that 1 have ever heard of." (^Liii- 

 «(EtfH Transact inn fi, v. 120.) 



2. Imperfect Fecundation: — Amongst the sup- 

 posed injuries already mentioned, as referred lo the 

 ai!:ency of insects, the devouring of the pollen 

 holds a prominent place; bat independently of in- 

 sects interfering in this way at the important pe- 

 riod of blooming, other causes have been allejred 

 by Dr. Darwin and others to operate injuriously. 

 (^Phiflologia, p. 323.) Heavy rains at this period, 

 by washitiij away the pollen, may, no doubt, do 

 great damas^e, as they are known to do to the 

 blossoms of fruit trees; but that this will cause 

 smut, as has been asserted ( Bath Sncietifs Mem.^, 

 is not supported by more than conjectural evi- 

 dence. Dr. Darwin's antiloiry drawn from the 

 non-lecundated eggs of fowls becoming addled on 

 hatchino;, is more ingenious than correct. 



M. Duhamefs reliitation of all such opinions is 

 quite unanswerable. Smut, he remarks, aHects and 

 destroys the organs of both sexes, long before the 

 time of fecundation; and it cannot be imputed to 

 wet or other causes acting on the anthers, &c., for 

 the ears are fi'equently smutty long belbre they 

 issue from the hose-leaves, which, continue green 

 till the distemper has made great progress, (-^/g'- 

 ricnltiire by Millar.) 



The opinion of Wolfius, that .smut originated 

 in a monstrosity in the embryo seed, is no less er- 

 roneous, as it does not agree with the facts ob- 

 served in the progress of the aflection already 

 minutely detailed. 



The opinion of the Rev. H. Bryant alluded to 

 above, is partly analogous, as he supposes the dis- 

 order caused by the milky juice in the ear runrfmg 

 first into fermentation, and then into brand, by 

 being prevented from blooming in consequence 

 of the anthers, as Kirby understands him, or as 

 we rather think he means, the sheath-leaf or hose 

 hardening over the ear by the weather, and pre- 

 venting its evolution and proper bloomin<;, ( Cause 

 of Brand, p. 51.) But even were it well ascer- 

 tained, as it is not, that the anthers or the sheath- 

 leaves were so agglutinated as to prevent their 

 duly expanding, this would not account for the 

 disease taking place so early in the growth as it 

 has been often found. 



3. Over-luxuriant growth. — Dr. F. Hone, in 

 'his celebrated prize-essay — the foundation of Bri- 

 tish Agricultural Chemistry — supposes that smut 

 is caused by an over-abundance of juices, or in 

 ot.her words, from too luxuriant growth; and in 

 ' this he is partially followed in Chamber's Cyclo- 

 . paedia, where the cause is said to be the rankness 

 of the soil or the use of fresh dung. Mr. Don- 

 '■ aldson says, that on rich lands that yield much 



straw, o'ver-luxuiiance, or stagnation and corrup- 

 tion of juices, gives a jirubable appearance to this 

 being a cause ot'snnu; and we ourselves have 

 frequently observed that stray jjlants of oats or 

 barley grown on duny-hills^ or compost heaps, 

 are very commonly ailected with smut. This, 

 however, is too vague an observation, to draw a 

 general conclusion fi'om ; and there can be no 

 (juestion, as Mr. Donaldson remarks, that smut is 

 equally prevalent on poor soil.<, not yielding above 

 fifteen bushels per acre. 



It is a [)Oj)ular notion in France, as we learn from 

 M. Duhamei, thtit the dung of pigeons or of 

 sheep causes smut, probably fiom some sinfilar 

 observation to the one just mentioned respecting 

 dung-hills; but it did not agree with the experi- 

 ments of iJuhamel, who says, '-we have large 

 pigeon-houses, the dung of which is strewed upon 

 our wheat lands, and the same is done with the 

 dung of our sheep, and we even feed our flocks 

 upon those lands; yet we do not find that these 

 fields are more affected with smut than others." 

 (^ilgrlculture by Millar, vol ii.) 



It appears to be from similar views that Tull, 

 and others, have been led to ascribe smut to too 

 much moisture either of the soil or of the seasons. 

 That wet seasons are more productive of smut 

 than dry ones, there can be little doubt, though 

 this by no means proves such seasons to be the 

 cause of smut, but only that its developement is 

 fiivored by moisture more than by thy weather. 

 With respect to soils, it does not appear that a 

 greater number of atrected ears are usually found 

 in the lowest and richest parts of a field, than in 

 the highest and dryest. fiicts which have been 

 proved by the observations "of" Duhamei, Tessier. 

 and other writers of authority. Tlie drill hus- 

 bandry, therefore, recommended by Tull as a pre- 

 ventive, can in this respect be of little advantage. 

 M. Tillet, in order to put this matter to experi- 

 mental proofj planted some wheat, which he kept 

 during its growth in a very moist state; but the re- 

 sult was, that it did not produce a single ear af- 

 fected with smut. 



4. Debility in growth. — The fallaciousness of 

 the' preceding views respecting over-luxuriance, is 

 rendered obvious from the very opposite doctrine 

 having been maintained. M. Aimen, for exam- 

 ple, an intelligent French writer, is of opinion, 

 that whatever weakens the plant is apt to produce 

 smut. He proves this view. He thinks, that it is 

 a frequent practice with the farmers on the Conti- 

 nent to cut down their rye, as soon as it spmdies, 

 as food for their cattle; and that the rye which, 

 tillers up fi-om the cut plants, most commonly on 

 account of weakness, produces distempered ears. 

 M. Aimen also tried the experiment of woundinjj 

 seed-corn with a needle, and found it subject to 

 smut, similar to that which had been imperfectly 

 ripe, which also is very liable to smut when used 

 as seed. 



Similar experiments with those of M. Aimen 

 did not, however, succeed with Dr. Hales, the ce- 

 lebrated author of the "Vegetable Statics," wha 

 conceiving that smut might be caused by the 

 seed-corn having been bruised by the flail in the 

 process of thrashing, look a number of grains 

 of different sizes, bruised them with a hammer, 

 and sowed them, but they grew well and were not 

 afl'ected with smut. 

 Lisle proceeding upon the mistaken notion that 



