206 



THE GENESEE FARMER. 



Sept. 





some other field or farm,) preventing, in whole or in 

 part, the evil v.hich would probably have occurred it 

 the luidestroyed eggs or maggots had been sown in 

 the smut grains with the seed wheat. But, alter the 

 experience which I have had, it is not possible for 

 me to believe that any remedial means. V was)»"g, 

 steeping, or other modeof pren-'-fe' the seed wheat, 

 will be found to be '"•''-'""!• 



„. ^^ „ .V. iiuovo was written, I have seen a second 

 artic'fe from %e pen of my " Old Farmer" friend, in 

 which he appears to have made an attempt to account 

 for the sm!it in wheat in a different manner from that 

 contained in his first article. He now appears to be 

 halting in a state of betweenity, or ratlier in a state 

 of plurality, as not-knowing which one of the many 

 absurd theories published by the scores of very " sci- 

 entific" authors who have supposed and conjectured 

 in regard to this matter of smut in wheat. Some- 

 times appearing to be inclined to adopt one, and some- 

 times another, of those unfounded hypotheses, does 

 he not involve himself in some degree of inconsis- 

 tency when he says that " one characteristic (of the 

 smut, as well as his other fungi plants,) is, tha ' 

 "they will not grow unless fed with decaying animal 

 or vegetable matter," and afterwards gravely asks, 

 "who shall say that growing toheal can not absorb 

 through its pores or vessels, matter so minute that 

 the unaided human eye can not detect it" ? I under- 

 stand him to say that "smut will not grow unless 

 fed upon decaying matter." Does he mean to have 

 it understood that he believes that smut finds " de- 

 caying mailer" in " grou'ing wheat," and that, too, 

 as soon as the head breaks forth from the sheath ? I 

 should be much pleased if my " Old Farmer" friend 

 would "define his position" more clearly, and let us 

 know what he really believes to be the cause of smut 

 in wheat. 



In regard to the communication of " E. T.," of 

 Batavia, .1 should not probably have thought the 

 "game worth the candle," had he not, as I think, 

 misrepresented me by saying that I " virtually admit 

 that the grain has formed its shape" before it is 

 changed to smut. If I understand myself rightly — 

 and 1 think I do — no such admission can be fo\md in 

 my communication. In my third article I seated that 

 the puncture by the insect "probably injures the 

 small vessels which would otherwise supply the 

 grains with their proper nourishment, (in whole or 

 in part,) and causes an entire change in the sub- 

 stance of the grain." Also, that " my observations 

 have convinced me that the change in the grain is 

 produced after the earing or heading out, and while 

 the gc'in IS cxpiDtding," &c. I contend that even 

 this language, fnirly construed, would not lead one 

 to suppose that I intended to convey the idea that the 

 grain had "formed its shape," and that afterwards 

 its substance v.as transmuted into something else ; 

 but that the puncture caus^ed the change during the 

 process of the fnination of the substance of the grain. 

 But if this language admits of doubt, yet in the lat- 

 ter part of my communication I stated the particular 

 manner in which I supposed the insect produced the 

 smut, as 1 tliought, in perfectly clear and intelligent 

 language. I refer him to that part, and request him 

 to ferret out its meaning, if it is not so plain that 

 " he that runs may read." " E. T." also objects to 

 my theory because "he has never known the pea 

 bug nor his [my] bug to change the pea or berry," 

 Sic. Is Mr. K. T. so conceited as to suppose that it 

 is demonstrative proof that a thing is not done, or 



does not exist, because he did not know the fact ? 

 He asserts that " we farmers know that the grain of 

 smut is globular." Now "I, for one," have not dis- 

 coveied that it is so ; and, upon inquiry, I find that 

 other farmers are as ignorant as I am in regard to 

 the globular form of smut grains. 



I confess, Messrs. Editors, that after, as well as 

 before, I discovered the cause of smut, I did, in the 

 simplicity of my heart, use means as preventive rem- 

 edies ; and it seems that "E. T.," after he supposed 

 he had discovered the cause, was also green enough 

 to use a preventive remedy in sowing only his first 

 quality wheat. And I can not avoid the inference, 

 that he must have been not a little verdant in form- 

 ing and adopting the conclusion that the "vitality, 

 not of the roots particularly, but of the seed, to be 

 wanting sufficient to produce good wheat." Until I 

 saw " E. T.'s" communication, I was not aware that 

 seed which had lost, or was wanting in, its vitality, 

 would grow at all ; but we can not all see that a 

 thi;;g " looks very like a whale," although our friend 

 may insist that it does. " E. T.," it would seem, 

 was easily satisfied, having tried a single experiment 

 only. But in his account of that, he has, I think, 

 furnished almost irresistable proofs, corroborative of 

 my theory. His third quality wheat being the latest 

 sown, (for he says he "reserved an eighth of an acre 

 to experiment on,") produced "nearly all smut and 

 chess," with some heads with pa.rt smut and part 

 wheat. 



Now, if his theory be correct, this result seems 40 

 be (to say the least of it,) most marvelous, if not 

 miraculous. His seed, which was "wanting in vital- 

 ity sufficient to produce good wheat," did, however, 

 groio, and produce good wheat, though of small size. 

 But the want of vitality in the seed also produced 

 heads with " part smut and part wheat ! " This 

 certainly appears to me to be one of the strangest 

 freaks which nature ever indulged in. It surprises 

 me to learn that seed " wanting vitality sufficient to 

 produce good wheat," should grow, so as to produce 

 smut or anything else. But I confess I should be 

 much more astonished to learn that it would not only 

 groir, but, by some " hocus pocus" operation, the 

 sap, which I had always supposed circulated through 

 the whole plant, like the blood in the human body, 

 should so separate itself into parts as to make one 

 grain good and another bad, in the same head ! and 

 that, too, in consequence of want of vitality (life) in 

 the seed ' Is aot all this theory an absurdity ? I 

 must conclude that it is, and rest upon my own, 

 which I think rationally accounts for the difference 

 in the produce of the same heads, as well as for me 

 formation of good flour and smut in the same grain, 

 or kernel. 



Messrs. Editors, I do not wish you to " regret the 

 necessity"(? ) which required you to notice and dis- 

 sent from my views. I have too long been search- 

 ing for the truth in this matter, to be now afraid of 

 finding it. If I am in error, I shall certainly be much 

 pleased to be convinced of it. You admit that there 

 are numerous instances where insects produce re- 

 markable changes in the growth and appearance of 

 planls. You also say that "smut is so well known 

 to be a parasitic fungus, which will grow as well 

 without a bug as peas and wheat — that it is as phi- 

 losophical to say that a skipper in a cheese made the 

 cheese, as to say that the eg;;; or maggot of a weevil 

 or 'beetle' produces the food on which it subsists." 

 Now, gentlemen, will you be so kind as to enlighten 



