THE GENESEE FARMER. 



109 



Ull)cat i^ttsbauitrg. 



ON SMUT IN WHEAT, AND THE CAUSE OF IT. 



We liave received tlie following communication 

 from one of the most experienced and observing of 

 Seneca county farmers. The subject is one well 

 worthy the consideration of thinking men -• 



Messrs. Editors : — In the last Fanner I notice 

 an article from an old and excellent friend of mine, 

 upon the subject of smut. We are at issue, and I 

 conclude he re-publishes his articles from the Argus 

 of many years ago — thoroughly satisfied of the accu- 

 racy of his views. Herein you have an article writ- 

 ten by me, aiming to cure an evil which I had noticed 

 among my neighbors, though for myself I have never 

 seen srmit on my fann, e?;cept occasional ears of corn 

 or a few among my barley — never in my wheat. 

 My excellent friend J. H. H. is a sound thinking 

 man ; and my first feeling when I diflfer from him, is 

 that I am wrong. Yet, upon every examination of 

 the subject — upon a close scrutiny of his articles — 

 I see nothing to change my views, which seem to me 

 more in accordance with sound philosophy than those 

 of my friend. You will, I think, upon examining his 

 articles, see, and perhaps very clearly, that the insects 

 noticed by him were, as ke says, feeding on the s/nut. 

 This I believe was the fact — they were attracted to 

 their natural food — they found good pasture grounds 

 and pleasant habitations in kernels of wheat for the 

 care of tlioir young, fee. I could call your attention 

 to otlier points of fact in the numbers, a!! strictly true 

 as stated, but all susceptible of very different infer- 

 ences from those of my friend ; at least, so I think, 

 and shall be right glad to be corrected if I am in 

 error. If the question appears to you worth pursu- 

 ing, it might be well to quote the article written for 

 the Seneca County Observer, and published in that 

 paper, which ie enclosed herein : it will give to your 

 readers the opposing views of two farmers, and may 

 lead other farmers to closer observation. I have 

 pursued Entomology for many years -as a study, and 

 feel a powerful iirterest in drawing forth facts from 

 observing men. 



Smut. — Thia is n diwc;we too fnmiliar to wheat growers 

 generally, and is so exLpnsive, to the discredit of firmers. 

 tbat most millers h!i\e been compelled to erect smut 

 machines, to cleup.se llip fjrain before grinding it ; and even 

 in England, where tUey boast so loudly of their agriculture, 

 this disease is so extcusive that many eatablishments have 

 been erected for ira-'yli'/in wheat, and for which process tiie 

 millers pay nhout one shilling or i.'2 cents per quarter, caus- 

 ing a severe loss to the lormer, who is ju.9tiy accountable for 

 the deiicieney in wejj:hi at'trv washijig. 



There are two khifL- of smut nuliceable by the farmer. 

 The one is common to wheat, barley, and oat8, and when 

 mature, it bursts the husk and appears among the chalT like 

 soot. This kind of smut is not very injurious. It affects 

 but few heads and riQscT, as I believe, any crop extensively. 

 It matures also before the grain is ripe, and is blown away. 

 or washed off by the rains before it can reach the ripening 

 harvesi. The grain attacked by it perishes, but no evil is 

 eoramunicated to the adjoining plant. 



The other kind of smut attacks iclimt only, and when 

 neglected it is destruciive. We ran readily detect it as soon 

 as the ear breaks forth from the sheath ; each grain is swollen, 

 first appearing brown and then turning black. This smut 

 wi!!, also, when crushed between the lingers, yield a fa?lid, 

 disagreeable smell, lioia kinds of smut are fungi, or para- 

 sitic plants, of the same nature as the mushroom. They are 

 to be found upon the leaves and stems of many plants, giving 

 a brown or scorched appearance. We know it to be fungus 

 because, when under the lena of a microscope, it fully 

 exhibits its vegetable character, and feeding on the juices of 



the piant infected, it destroys the structure of the grain to 

 which it is attached. 



Whatever may be the origin of this disease, it is easily 

 propagated, and a few smutted grains will communicate the 

 seeds of disease to very many, blighting the hopes of the 

 farmer. 



Happily for us, science and close observation present for 

 our use an infiiilible remedy, and that is, a steep or wash of 

 urine and salt. This has been tried again and again with 

 success ; but there can be little doubt that a plain soliUion 

 of salt is all-sufficient ; for we know that salt has an imme- 

 diate and powerful effect upon all the fungus tribe. I would 

 advise, therefore, to wash the seed first in pure water, then 

 soak it in a solution of salt for the night, and no smut will 

 be found in the succeer'ing crop. Lime water will produce 

 the same effect, and so will a solution of vitriol : but com- 

 mon salt brine is within the easy command of every farmer, 

 and will answer the desired end. Let no smut, therefore, 

 be seen or known on Seneca county wheat. An old Far- 

 mer.— OaWnnifc, N. K, March. 18.50. 



A WORD ON SMUT WHEAT, THE CAUSE AND 

 PREVENTIVE. 



Messrs. Editors : — In your Farmer for March, is 

 an article from J. H. H., on the subject of "Smut in' 

 Wheat, and the cause of it," which I perused with 

 much care. I saw that the subject was to be con- 

 tinued. The Farmer for April arrived, and my first 

 attention was given to the continuation of the same 

 subject. I anticipated that he was soon to arrive at 

 the real and true cause of smut, when I found him 

 among the " roots of young wheat," ex&mining the 

 " vitality'^ of the roots of the plants that produce 

 smut ; and had he continued his examination a little 

 farther, he wouW have arrived at the true cause of 

 "Smut in Wheat." But, unfortunately, he ran off 

 from the track, or, in other words, instead of contin- 

 uing to trace the effect to the cause, he turned about 

 and followed the effect to its termination, viz : to the 

 top of the plant, where he found the head containing 

 the fruit (grain) of the cause which he sought, but 

 not the cause itself, as yet. But it seems, from his 

 last or improved article on this subject, that he has, 

 in his opinion, arrived at the cause of " smut in 

 wheat." He says : " Having, as I confidently believe, 

 fully established the fact that smut in wheat is caused 

 by the operations of an insect," he then proceeds to 

 give said "operations" of the insect: " It perforates the 

 glume (chalf case) of the grain, and deposits its 'nit,' 

 or 'egg,' " And he says that this "insect appears to 

 be brought to maturity at the time that it is usually 

 earing, or ' heading' out, and the depositing of the nit 

 or egg is commenced immediately thereafter." 



It will be observed that, by the theory of J. H. H., 

 the process by which smut is produced is after the 

 heading out, Sic. Now, if J. H. H. would go into a 

 close examination to investigate the cause of heads 

 of smut wheat, or the heads that his "bugs" have 

 manufactured into smut, which stand, generally, 

 through the field, one-fourth lower than those of the 

 good wheat, 1 opine he would soon strike a vein that 

 would lead to a different cause than that of insects 

 producing smut. 



Farmers generally know that vines are the natural 

 food for a certain class of insects ; that peas are the 

 natural food for another class of insects, which by 

 instinct perforate the peas and deposit their nits or 

 eggs. So of potato tops, tomatoes, and various other 

 vegetables ; and so of smut wheat, peculiar for its 

 odor, which is the natural food of still another class 

 of insects ; and by instinct, as the pea-bug, as appears 

 from the discovery of J. H. H., deposits its " nits," 



