744 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. n 



The following year, in a series of twenty-seven 

 experiments I continued to subject to proof in va- 

 rious combinations, lime and common suit, and I 

 added to these carbonate of soda, combined in dif- 

 ferent proportions with the lime as well a? the chlo- 

 rure of lime employed alone in solution, and in di- 

 vers proportions, and the hydrochlorate [muriate] 

 oflime. The results confirmed perfectly those of the 

 preceding year; as to the efficacy of the mixtures of 

 lime and common salt employed for steeping, they 

 showed again, that lime employed alone by sprink- 

 ling has little effect,and that the hydrochlorate of so- 

 da [common salt] and the hydrochlorate of lime 

 have scarcely any, nor has the chlorure oflime. Be- 

 sides I did not succeed in obtaining from any of the 

 agents employed a sufficiently powerful action 

 without using the steeping process; and as I was 

 much interested to discover a preservative means, 

 by the more simple and easy process of sprinkling 

 I determined to pursue my course of experiments 

 the following year. In fact, those persons who have 

 recommended the use of steeping for liming wheat, 

 do not know how much trouble and difficulty this 

 process occasions in country farming. This trouble 

 is so great, that there is not, I believe, one farm in 

 a thousand, on which the grain is limed by steep- 

 ing; and every where the practice is confined to 

 sprinkling, although it is well known that steep- 

 ing is much more efficacious. I considered it then 

 very important to find out a process by sprinkling, 

 which should be at least equally efficient with the 

 use of steeping, as practised by a very small num- 

 ber of farmers. 



My experiments of the succeeding year, were 

 therefore directed to investigate the efficacy which 

 might be expected from agents applied by sprink- 

 ling. I subjected to these experiments, lime, the 

 carbonate, the hydrochlorate, and the sulphate of 

 soda, using the lime alone, in various proportions, 

 with various modes of application, as well as com- 

 bining with it each of the three salts in different 

 proportions. The number of smutty heads in the 

 sowing made of wheal artificially infected with 

 smut, was five hundred and seventy, in a thou- 

 sand. By sprinklings with white-wash oflime in 

 different proportions, some of which were in enor- 

 mous quantities, I succeeded with difficulty in ob- 

 taining a diminution of one-half in the proportion 

 of smutty heads. In the beds sown with wheat 

 treated with mixtures of lime, and the three salts 

 which I have just mentioned, the proportion of 

 smutty heads was still very great, and generally 

 from two to three hundred in a thousand: from 

 these I must except, however, a single one of the 

 beds — the result of which, struck me forcibly; it 

 had been treated with lime and sulphate of soda,* 

 and it was ascertained that it did not contain a sin- 

 gle smutty head. It was the first time since I had 

 devoted myself to experiments of this sort, that I 

 had obtained in the result, the complete destruc- 

 tion of the germs of smut in wheat infected to a 

 very great degree, as was that which I used; foraf- 

 ter treating the wheat in the preceding years even 

 with sulphate of copper, or lime, aided by the pro- 

 cess of a long steeping, there had still been from 

 eight to twenty smutty heads in the thousand; and 

 after treating it in like manner by steeping, with a 

 mixture of hydrochlorate of soda, [common salt] 



* The sulphate of soda, is what is commonly known 

 as Glauber's salts. Ed. 



and lime, the most efficient combination which I 

 had till then met with; there were still found two 

 smutty heads in the thousand. But here there was 

 not one smutty head in more than twenty thousand 

 that the square contained ! Yet on the side of this 

 one, and in the neighboring squares, I had beds 

 treated with the same substances in proportions al- 

 most exactly equal to those of this exempt square, 

 and they had given from two to three hundred 

 smutty heads in the thousand. As I am in the 

 habit of keeping exact notes of the most minute 

 details of experiments of this kind, I examined 

 these notes with care, and discovered that the 

 square free from smut had indeed been treated with 

 the same substances as the others, but with a 

 mode of management a little different. In all the 

 operations made with lime, and one of the three 

 salts above mentioned, the infected wheat had been 

 first sprinkled with a certain quantity of slaked 

 lime, and mixed with care; afterwards the solution 

 with which the experiment was to be made, waa 

 poured upon the wheat, and it was mixed again. 

 By adopting this order, I could make the mass ab- 

 sorb a greater quantity of the solution — but in a 

 single one of these operations, and for some unim- 

 portant reason, an opposite order had been ob- 

 served; that is, the wheat had been first wetted 

 with the solution; and when the mixture had been 

 well made, the grain still wet, had been sprinkled 

 with the same quantity of lime as the other. I 

 had never at that time had any idea that this dif- 

 ference could produce any effect on the results; but 

 this square, as has been seen, was the only one 

 quite free from smut. On consideration, I conclu- 

 ded that when lime, or a mixture oflime with a so- 

 lution, was first used, it might be conceived that 

 the lime incrusts the surface of the grain so as to 

 weaken the action of the other agents; while if 

 the surface of the grain and the dust of the smut 

 are first wetted with the solution, they are much bet- 

 ter impregnated with it; and that the lime, coming 

 after, modifies in some way the solution with which 

 these bodies are impregnated. Nevertheless, how- 

 ever striking was the fact observed, this explana- 

 tion was but a conjecture, which it was necessary 

 to test by new proofs. Consequently, I made no 

 publication of my experiments of that year, and 

 repeated the course of them by new sowings in 

 the autumn following. 



In these experiments the same steps were fol- 

 lowed as in those of the years preceding: a dou- 

 ble decalitre* of seed wheat was first artificially in- 

 fected with smut: afterwards a piece of ground 

 was divided, as equally as possible, into squares of 

 25 metres length;! separated from each other by 

 paths one metre wide; and in each of these squares 

 was sown, with the most minute care, one-half U- 

 trc\ of infected wheat, either in its natural state, 

 or subjected to the various preparations intended 

 to destroy the infection. This year, however, in 

 order to make a nearer approach to the ordinary 



* The decalitre is equal to 2.200B667 gallons English, 

 /or American,) or rather more than 2 and one-fifth. Ed. 



t The metre is equal to 3.2803992 English, or near- 

 ly 3 and three-tenths. 



\ The litre is 1.760773 English pints, or a little more 

 than \l . 



