370 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



June le, 182e. 



the usual proi'ess, he sowed and in due season 

 harvested a good crop without smut. I sowed also 

 of the same, prepaied by the same process ; and 

 on the border of the same field, sowed a quart or 

 more of my neighbor's smatly wheal in its smutty 

 state. But at harvesting, my wheat was found 

 g'ood and clean ; and not a smutty head could le 

 fjund. 



The natural soil of our fields is similar, being 

 such as is generally found on " graiiite hills." — 

 Mine had been less exhausted by crops, and was 

 enriched with more permanent manure as was dis- 

 coverable by tlie sulisoquent growtli of grass. — 

 My first field liad been in part manured witli leach- 

 ed ashes nine years before the last, the year be- 

 fore sowing with wheat. His had about four 

 bushels of good aslies to the acre spread on them 

 after sowing. 



Now the following queries arise — if this " dis- 

 ease," as you inforui us, "proceeds from micros- 

 copic grniiis or atoms of black dust which germi- 

 nate and produce themselves, and take possession 

 of the ear," v>hence came the geriiiinaling 

 grnins to give my neighbor so plentiful a crop of 

 smut the second year, as not an "atom" was dis- 

 coverable in the preceding year's produce from 

 which the seed was taken ? If " microscopic 

 grains" of smut e.'iisted undiscovered in the seed, 

 why did tliey not germinate in my field the sinie 

 year ; and more especially the year after, when 

 the smutty wheat was sown with its full propor- 

 tion of disease, without its usual accompanying 

 antidote ? 



Two facts must be inferred of course, that the 

 steeps used above were not sufficient to prevent 

 smut ; and that smut may be sown in its natural 

 state and produce nollnn^. 1 came therefore to 

 the conclusion, tliat smut v.as truly a disease, and 

 like many diseases of the human system depended 

 on general and local causes — that the season and 

 the soil must cooperate to produce it. It is not 

 impossible but the leached ashes on my fields, 

 thougli their own propertie.; had been before near- 

 ly or quite exliausted, mi^ht have produced such 

 a favourable state of the soil, as to resist the tend- 

 ency or predisposition to this disease from the 

 operations of the season. But I can hardly be- 

 lieve that there was eaustlcity yet remaining in 

 the ashes suflitient to destroy the germinating 

 principle of smut, if there really be such a princi- 

 ple. 



Other facts could be mentioned to support the 

 above conclusions — one or two must suffice — one 

 farmer in thifs vicinity has for several years in suc- 

 cession grown fine crops of wheat without even 

 washing liis seed. No smut was ever seen in his 

 fields. Another merely washes his wheat and 

 mixes a few ashes with it at the time of sowing 

 to separate, as he says, the kernels. Yet, his 

 wheat is not smutty oftener than once in five or 

 seven years, even thou he continues his old seed 

 in the same way. Ho uses no other than barn- 

 yard manure and that not profusely and the quan- 

 tity of wheat j«, as would be supposed, in propor- 

 tion. 



I would not be understood to disapprove of the 

 undoubtedly good praclict of soaking seed of any 

 kind, but wouW not Iiave the farmer unmindful tliat 

 by whatever process he prcpari's liis seed wheat, 

 ;' depends, under providence, on the prfparalioii 

 nf liis soil to receive it, wh(!thcr he reups ton or 

 twenty, fold, and it is not improbable, whether 

 tienn or smutty wheat. 



I would add that perhaps it might be correctly 

 inferred from the abofre, that if any known proper- 

 ly in manure will prevent smut, it is alkaline, or 

 that which is common to alkali and alkaline earths. 

 Ashes or lime then for this reason, but not this 

 alone, should compose a part of the manure for 

 wheat fields. If there be any steep for the seed, 

 which would operate on the growth of the wheat 

 to preveut this disease, it undoubtedly contains 

 this property. And if so, house ashes or any of 

 >'(*' salts would be equally as efficacious as (juick 

 lime and often more convenient, in making the 

 preparation for soaking seed wheat. H. 



Jaffrey, jV. H. May 1826. 



By the Editor. — The article on the subject of 



smut, published in our paper, vol. iv. page 30D, and 



referred to by our correspondent, as above, was not 



written by the Editor of this paper, but, was one 



of a number of " Scientific Memoranda," written 



and selected by Jesse Buel, Esq. of Albany, and 



originally published in the American Farmer, and 



I republished by us with the approbation of Mr Buel. 



M:.ny theories have been proposed relative to the 



! causes of smut. Some consider smut as proceed- 



I ing from insects. Others attribute it to parasitic 



I plants, that is small plants which derive nutriment 



I from other plants to which they are attached, and 



, on whose juices they feed. Others consider smut 



is a disease, &c. When eminent writers disagree, 



it is not for us to decide. 



An elaborate " Essay on Smut in Wheat," was 

 published in the Mass. Agr. Repository, vol. v. 

 page 234, from tiiis we e.xtract the following 



Rules for the Preve.ntio.v of Sjiut. 



" ]s< Rule. — Wheat is not to be sown on ground 

 which has borne smutty wheat in the year preced- 

 ing. Strewing smutty materials over the surface 

 of the ground where sound wiieat had been sownj 

 has been found to cause the crop to be smutty. 



" 2. Manure tainted with smut is not to be appliel I 

 to wheat land. | 



" 3. When manure is used, it is not to be spretd 

 too thickly ; and lience it follows, that even when 

 only a due proportion of manure is brouglit on tie 

 land, care must be taken to distribute it very 

 equally. 



"4. Pure seed is not to be left within the reach 

 of infectious materials. Tliis caution extends not 

 only to avoiding the use of a threshing floor cm- 

 ployed for aiQutty wheat ; but that of tainted sacks, 

 tainted casks, aad tainted vessels for measuring 

 wheat. 



I " 5. The Bowing of wheat should take place 

 early, that the seed may ripen early, smut fre- 

 i[uently attending l^te crops. 



"(5. The seed ought to be well conditioned; for 

 seed which is light, unripe, moul/iy, very much 

 ^bruised, worm eatuii, or otherwise iin])erfect or in- 

 jured, has in general, a tendency to produce smut- 

 ty wheat, and especially in smutty seasons. 

 I "7. None but good land should be employeil for 

 ' wlieal, and particularly it should belaud adniit- 

 j ting of early crojjs. — Hence wet land should never 

 be applied to w heat, ti!l its wetness is cured. 

 j " ff. Wheat is not to be sown in very wet weath- 

 ler, even when the soil is dry. 

 I "i*. A change of seed is equally recommended 

 I by Mr Tull and by M. Amien ; and tlie rule has 

 this in its favour, that few who are wise will pro- 

 cure worse seed to sow tlian that, which they pos- 

 sess already. 



" 10. The purest portions of the wheat plants in 

 a crop, should be set apart for seed; and v. hen 

 ripe, these plants should be harvested by them- 

 selves, and also threshed by themselves, as soon 

 as possible ; and the seed v.'nich is obtained, after 

 it has been washed by some protecting prepara- 

 tion, and thoroughly dried, should be preserved 

 apart in a safe piece. This rule will commonly 

 prove more important than the preceding one. 



" 11. The tliick sowing of wheat is improper 

 for the double reason, that it produces feeble 

 plants and dampness, both of which encourag-e 

 smut. 



" 12. No favourable moment for sowing wheat is 

 to be lost, nor any unfavourable moment to be 

 ado{)tcd, from a supposed necessity of paying at- 

 tention to the state of ihe moon." 



The above rules, with the commcn and proper 

 pickles or steeps, which every intelligent fanner 

 is in the habit of using for preparing seed wheat, 

 will, proaably, aUvays prevent the occurrence of 

 smut. The same writer above quoted, says "From 

 the appearance and dis.ippeariince of smut, accord- 

 ing to circumstances, v.e may conjecture, that the 

 rudiments of smut .ire always at hand and capable 

 of rapid multiplication ; thus furnishing a double 

 motive for purifying and protecting our seed." 



From the preceding, and from other sources of • 

 information we are inclined to believe that smut 

 is somet'iing [what pliilosophers have not agreed] • 

 which u contagious. That a small quantity of 

 smut issifficiont to contaminate a whole field of 

 wheat. That the contagion of smut, like th.-it of 

 small pov does cot alw ays operate, but there is al- 

 ways darger from it. That it may be generated 

 as well as communicated from substances already 

 containiig it. That as " a little leaven leavencth 

 the whrie lump" it is useless to prepare a part of 

 your deed wheat against snuit, and sow a part 

 w ithout preparation. That the matter, or seed, or 

 cause, or origin of smut may be rendered harmless, 

 that is incapable of prop-igating its likeness by 

 caustic, alkaline, acid, or any other matter whicli 

 is of a corrosive nature ; and finally that the sub- 

 ject d'''serves more room and leisure for treating it 

 properly than we can at present bestow on it. 



Mr Fessenden — Dr Mitchell of New York 

 lately received from a friend in South America, 

 some tubers supposed to be those of the common 

 potato found in a wihl state on the Island of San 

 Lorenzo in the bay of Callao. Dr Mitchell witii 

 his usual urbanity and public spirit sent them to. 

 my friend tiie Hon. Mr Quincy, and he obligingly 

 sent me a fair portion of thein. 



They arc very familiar to me, but I am sorry 

 to say, that they arc not whttt we much desire to 

 see, the tubers of the common potato found in a 

 wild state. 



They are the same, which I received last year 

 from Commodore Hull; nnd which I saw in every 

 stage of their growth. They have neither the fo- 

 liage, the flower, the fruit, or the tubers of the so- 

 lanum tuberosum. They produce no tubers upon 

 runners as the true potato does. They are a so- 

 lanum, and I believe one not yet described, tho' 

 there are many of this genus which resemble 

 them much, very much more than the common po- 

 tato docs. They have none of the habits of tht; 

 common potato, and yet to a cursory observer, 

 there is such a resemblance, that the mistake is a 

 natural one. Com. Hull has been informed of the 

 error, and it is probable tliat he will obtain the 



