1850. 



THE GENESEE FARMER. 



205 



than is usually found in the ash of this grain. It is, 

 however, never so abundant as magnesia ; and Prof. 

 Emmons has shown that the best corn lands in the 

 State of New York contain a considerable quantity 

 of magnesia. All experience, as well as all chemi- 

 cal researclies, go to prove that potash a,nd phosphoric 

 acid are important elements in the organization of 

 maixe. Corn yields more pounds of straw and grain 

 on poor land than either wheat, rye, barley, or oats : 

 and it does infinitely bettor on rich than on sterile 

 soils. To make the earth fertile, it is hotter economy 

 to plant thick than to have the rows five feel apart 

 each way, as is customary in some of the southern 

 States, and only one stalk in a hill. This gives but 

 one plant to twenty-five square feet jf ground. In- 

 stead of this, throe square feet are sufficient for a 

 single plant ; and from that up to six, for the largest 

 varieties of this crop. 



Much has been written in the agricultural journals 

 of the country on the propriety of thin and thick 

 planting. Among the advocatbs of the latter system 

 Dr. M. W. Philips, of Mississippi, has become con- 

 spicuous and is understoiid to be a sviecessful grower 

 of this great American staple. If one has not a 

 dee]), mellow soil on which to grow corn, it will pay 

 well to form such a soil by deep plowing, turning in 

 green crops, and draining, if necessary. Few farm- 

 ers have ever made themselves rich by raising corn 

 on jjoor land. There is vastly too much of unpro- 

 ductive soils plowed and hood in the United States. 

 Tlvis practice is bad economy : for it impoverishes 

 the earth, without enriching either the agriculturist 

 or the community. It is so much cheaper to grow 

 100 bushels of corn on two than on ten acres, that a 

 general efl'ort should be made to bring all corn lands 

 up to the average of 50 bushels per acre. 



A writer in the Maine Farmer estimates the quan- 

 tity of southern and western corn annually imported 

 inlo that State, for home consumption, at 3,000,000 

 of bushels. No other population three times as large 

 out of the United States consumes an equal amount 

 of American corn. Maine is a great ship-building 

 and lumber-producing State, which makes her an 

 excellent customer for the grain and meat-growing 

 districts of the Union. The demand for ships, bread- 

 stuffs, provisions, ready-made houses, farm imple- 

 ments, and wearing apparel of every kind, for the 

 California trade and market, is operating very sensi- 

 bly on the agricultural interests of the country. The 

 mere its labor becomes diversified, the less danger 

 there is of over-producing any one important crop 

 like that of corn, cotton, or wheat. It will not do 

 for the productive industry of five millions of agri- 

 cukurists to be constantly em|)loyed on a few loading 

 1 crops, unless the design is to give a great deal of . 

 work for a very little pay, and impoverish the land 

 at the same time. 



Calf Story agai.n. — Eds. Gen. Farmer: — ^The 

 calf noticed in your April number, weighing 150 lbs. 

 when twelve hours old, was found to weigh, v.'lien 

 two months old, 310 lbs. At four months old, his 

 weight and measure were again taken, as follows : 

 Weight, five hundred and eiglit paunds ; height, four 

 feet; girt, four feet seven inches; length from the 

 horns to the root of the tail, five feet seven inches. 

 He has the milk of one cow only, with pasture. His 

 torni as well as his size has been admired by numer- 

 ous visitors, excelling any steer they have seen. 

 M. HtrrcHiNSON.— iTiag-'s Ferry, JV. Y., 1850. 



SMUT m WHEAT, AND THE CAUSE OP IT. 



Mfssrs Editors ;_ As you and your corresix>ndent8 

 have all spoken pretty freely" in regard to my tlie- 



p'ectea a,a?! ^:S^ °[ rt'^l '^^'"'^ '•' "^'y ""' «''- 

 your objections and ttJ/ISf /^^ ^ P^'.rnf, n"'" °i 

 iriend, of "Oaklands," comes g?s'?l' Pi'' ^f,'"™<, 

 with me, I will first pay my respects ta»his aiftTcfe, 

 which being dated in Marcli, must, I infer, have been 

 written before the piiblication of the last part of my 

 communication, which was not published until your 

 April number came out. Not having seen the last 

 or concluding part, I presume he had not an oppor- 

 tunity of drawing any fair '• inferences" respecting 

 the '-soundness" of my philosophy in regard to this 

 matter. Besides, as he says he has " never seen 

 smut on his farin, except occasional ears of corn, or 

 a few among his barley" — never in his wheat — I am 

 at a loss how to account for his, as I thinl<, rather 

 positive assertions that smut in wheat " is a fungus, 

 of the same nature as the mushroom" — that it " feeds 

 on the juices of the plant, and destroys the structure 

 of the grain to which it is attached." Has my friend 

 had opportunities of examining it, personally, " under 

 the le IS of a microscope," by means of which he 

 could fully ascertain and' determine its vegetable 

 character as a fungus plant ? or has he based liis 

 assertions upon the phautastical imaginings of others, 

 who, not having been practical farmers, probably had 

 not even the limited opportunities and advantages 

 possessed by my "Old Farmer" friend ? But it ap- 

 pears to me that notwithstanding all his "sound 

 pliilosophy" in regard to this matter, he is even 

 doubtful as to the fact that " smut is a fungus ;" for 

 he says, "whatever may be the origin of this disease," 

 SiC Now, if " we know it to be a fui gus," it strikes 

 me that there is really no propriety in saving "what- 

 ever" (or "be it this, or that,'- origin,) about it. 



But let that pass ; and allow me to ask my friend 

 how he knows that this supposed " fungus" feeds on 

 the juices of the plaat ? Atid if it does, how, or in 

 what manner, (by sinjply "feeding on the juices," 

 and only thereby diminishing the quantity.) it "de- 

 stroys the structure of the grain, and changes it to 

 smut 1" My friend also says that "we can readily 

 detect it as soon as it breaks forth from the sheath." 

 I have examined a great number of heads immedi- 

 ately before, as well as immediately after, they "broke 

 forth from the sheath ;" but I was never able to de- 

 tect smut until some time (several days) had elapsed 

 after the head " broke forth" — sufficient time, at 

 least, for mt/ bugs (if you please) to have produced 

 the effect which I charge upon them. In regard to 

 some of ray "Old Farmer" friend's " infallible reme- 

 dies," he or I must be egregiously mistaken. I have 

 tried very strong lime water as a remedy, by steep- 

 ing my seed wheat in it tv/elve hours or more ; and 

 I know by experience, which I believe to be the best 

 of teachers, that it did not prevent smut in the pro- 

 duce ; nor did wetting the seed v.'hcat and mixing it 

 thoroughly with quick lime — having also tried that 

 experiment. But if common salt brine is all-suffi- 

 cient to destroy the seed of this villainous " fungus," 

 why does my friend advise to "wash the seed first 

 in pure water," and then "soak it in the brine 1" 

 These suppose^ remedial means may sometimes be 

 serviceable by destroying the egg or maggot of the 

 insect, contained in the smut grains in the seed, and 

 thus (in cases where the insect does not come from 



I 



11 



