VOL. XVfl, NO. 4. 



AiNTD GtAUDENER'S JOURNAL. 



29 



philosopher Menj-Tsu, who lived in the fourth cen 

 tury before the Christian era, says "that of the per- 



J^ote. It is not meant tliat exactly at the peri- 

 ods above mentioned these changes take place in 



tion of land allotted to each family, it is sufficient to tlie horse; much depends upon his constitution 



plant tlie twentieth part with mulbnry trees, to en- 

 able the family to clothe themselves ;" and since 

 then, the lax imposed on each peasant's family 

 is generally paid by a certain number of bushels of 

 grain, a fixed quantity of silk stuffs, and some 

 ounces of silk thread. This pioves incontestably 

 tliat each family rears worms to clothe themselves, 

 as they cultivate the fields with their hands to feed 

 themselviij. Hence we may reasonably infer, that 

 the methods prescribed in the Chinese treatise 

 are eqiinlly applicable to private nurseries on a 

 small scale ; indeed, we might go much farther and 

 say, that the great establishments are the excep- 

 tions, ra tlier than the cottage of the husbandman ; 

 for as the work wks drawn up for the general in- 

 struction of the nation, can we suppose that the 

 writers had not in view the circumstances and con- 

 dition of those for whom the_ work was intended ? 

 And as the vast majority of the inhabitants are of 

 moderate means, ought we not to believe that the 

 work was chiefly written for them, rather than for 

 rich capitalists possessing large establishments ? 



We feel convinced that this branch of industry 

 can easily be introduced into this country ; and we 

 do not deem the day far distant, when it will prove 

 a source of wealth to thousands. Should our re- 

 marks lead to this desirable result, it will certainly 

 be a source of great gratification to us ; should we 

 fail to excite public interest, we shall still have the 

 consolation of tliinl<ing that we have faitlifully dis- 

 charged onr duty. — English publication. 



REMARKS ON PURCHASING A HORSE. 



My neighbor Tyson, having occasion to purchase 

 a horse for hard and immediate work, I advised him 

 not to buy under five years of age. He yesterday 

 took me to see a horse, for which he had partly 

 agreed, warranted sound and five years old. On 

 examining the mouth, I inquired of the owner if 

 he would warrant him five years old ? He an- 

 swered, " he is coming five." " Yes," I replied, 

 "and will be so, for nearly two years to come ; the 

 fact is, he is a three year old colt." This common 

 trick reminds me of a butcher I once knew, who, 

 when he had old beef for sale would spread his 

 hand upon it, and declare it was under five, mean- 

 ing it was under font- fingers and a thwnh. 



Few persons, even amongst those to whom the 

 knowledge ought to be indispensable, are acquaint- 

 ed with the mode of judging of the age of a horse 

 by tlie teeth. As the lesson can be committed to 

 memory in five minutes, I copy it from my mem- 

 orandum book, asking for it an insertion in your 

 valuable Cabinet. 



How to form a judgment of the age of a Iwrsc hijhis 

 teeth. 

 At two years old, the horse sheds the two mid- 

 dle teeth of the under jaw. At three years old, he 

 sheds two other teeth, one on each side of those 

 he shed the year before. At four years old, he 

 sheds the two remaining, or corner teeth. At five 

 years old, the two middle teeth are full, no longer 

 hollow, as all the others are ; and the teeth have 

 penetrated the gums. At six years old, the four 

 middle teeth are full, the corner teeth only remain- 

 ing hollow : the tusks are sliarp, with the sides 

 fluted. At seven years old, the corner teeth are 

 full, the tusks longer and thicker, and the horse is 

 said to be aged. 



whether he be a late or early foal ; alsc upon the 

 manner in which he has been reared, as to food and 

 shelter, &c. The corner tooth too, might remain 

 a littl; hollow after the age of seven, but the ap- 

 pearance is still very unlike the mere shells, which 

 they are, at the age of six. An old Faumkr. 



[Far. Cabinet. 



ON SMUT IN CORN, WHEAT, &e. 

 In The Cidtivateur of last year, there is a curious 

 article on " Smut in Corn," from the pen of M. 

 Philippar, Professor of Agriculture in the Normal 

 School of Versailles. He declares that smut is a 

 " parasite plant, belonging to the mushroom tribe, 

 of the genus Uredo.'' The article is neatly writ- 

 ten, and does honor to the talents of the young pro- 

 fessor. The opinion adopted and propagated by 

 M. Philippar has been generally received as cor- 

 rect by the writers who have preceded him. The 

 works of MM. Tillet and Tessier on this subject 

 are well known to agriculturalists in France. M. 

 Benedict Prevost, and M. de Candolle, have also 

 written on " Smut in Corn ;" and they have all as- 

 serted that it was a kind of mushroom ; tliis opin- 

 ion is now controverted by M. Poiteau, who has 

 lately written in opposition to the views of the 

 above-named authors. Pie addresses himself par- 

 ticularly to M. Philippar ; not because there was 

 any thing to blame in that gentleman's work more 

 than the other writers, but because, being the last 

 who tocdv pen in hand, he may be supposed to have 

 illuminated the subject with the latest rays of sci- 

 ence, and to have collected and detailed all that 

 was known which had reference to his work. 



M. Poiteau declares " Smut " to be " a local dis- 

 ease, contagious by touch, and not a parasite 

 pl.int." His arguments for and against his opinion 

 are given at great length. We shall, in a concise 

 manner, bring them before our readers ; and, first, 

 his reasons for deciding against the "mushroom" 

 theory. When Smut was first declared to be a 

 plant, the labors of the microscope, applied to bot- 

 any, were very imperfect ; matters were declared 

 to be uredos, erinees, and erijsiphes, which have 

 since been discovered to be insects' nests, or tissu- 

 lar maladies to which the plant was subject. Hence 

 it followed, that as microscopic botany became bet- 

 ter known, these pretended plants gradually disap- 

 peared from the following editions of botanical 

 works. Now these plants have been generally 

 classed in the category as the Smut ; and as these 

 have been proved not to be of the mushroom race, 

 so may Smut also. The opinions of some living 

 agriculturists are cited by M. Poiteau, who con- 

 sider Smut to be " an irritating humor, placed in 

 the plant by the puncture of an insect, invisible on 

 account of its smallness ;" but he gives no proof 

 that this can be the case ; he only asserts that such 

 is the opinion of men worthy of being listened to, 

 from their experience and habits of obser\'ation. 

 He brings forward the fact mentioned by Bose, 

 who says, " a most remarkable thing is, that if the 

 thick oil, which is taken from Smut by distilling it, 

 by holding it over a hot fire, is placed in contact 

 with sound corn, nearly a third of the ear will be 

 affected with Smut." M. Poiteau maintains, that 

 this is altogether inexplicable, unless Smut be con- 

 tagious by touch ; but even allowing this, it is no 

 proof that the former opinions may not still be well- 

 founded. M. Poiteau says, that every experiment 



tried by M. Philippar proves as much for the opin- 

 ion tliat Smut is a disease, as that it is a parasite 

 plant ; but admitting this, M. Poiteau does not 

 prove what he desires, namely, that his theory is 

 correct He also attacks M. Pliilappar's declara- 

 tion, that Smut is propagated by seed; but we can- 

 not find that he gives proofs that such is not the 

 case. M. Poiteau very fairly cites against himself 

 the Memoire of M. Benedict Prevost, at the Insti- 

 tute in 180(5 — in that paper he distinctly states, 

 that he saw the Smut change its ajjpearance and 

 germinate. M. Poiteau asks, if that can be called 

 germination wliicli is nothing more than a change 

 of form from round to oblong. " If," he goes on to 

 say, " all changes which are seen in plants are 

 taken for germination, every vegetable thing in 

 nature should be deemed susceptible of germina- 

 tion." ]VL Poiteau gives M. Philippar great praise 

 for his zeal and ability ; but not the loss insists 

 that he is in error. We do not profess to give any 

 opinion on the nature of Smut ; we merely are 

 anxious to lay before our readers the facts of the 

 controversy. We must, however, declare, that we 

 think M. Poiteau altogether fails to prove his posi- 

 tion, that " Smut is a malady contagious by touch." 

 He asserts boldly, and finds fault unhesitatingly ; 

 but he does not give proofs. We sliould much 

 have preferred to see some hints given which might 

 tend to remedy the evil. Smut does confessedly 

 exist ; and to be able to guard against its ravages 

 would be a great blessing to the husbandman ; but 

 to enter into discussion as to the origin of the evil, 

 without considering what are the best means of re- 

 moving it, seems to us but of little practical utility. 

 Any inquiry into the cause of Smut, or into its na- 

 ture, can be profitable only inasmuch as we may, 

 in our researches, discover the means of guarding 

 against the devastation with which agriculture is 

 so often cursed from it. If our neighbors, on the 

 other side of the channel, would give us some hints 

 bearing on this point, we should be more indebted 

 to them than for their discussions on the origin of 

 Smut. We conceive, however, that some good 

 may arise from making known in this country what 

 takes places respecting agricultural subjects in 

 France ; and for that reason have we referred to 

 the above controversy. Perhaps, some of the ex- 

 perienced agriculturists of this country may be ex- 

 cited bv it to give their view of the matter to the 

 public. Should they do so, our article will not 

 have been written in vain. — Lond. Hort. Jour. 



BUTTER. 

 The business of making butter, for sale in tlie 

 market, is a primary concern with a very large pro- 

 portion of farmers who reside within a reasonable 

 distance of towns or cities, and to obtain the best 

 price for it, is, of course, an object of much impor- 

 tance in this money-making age of the world. Yet 

 it is not a little surprising that notwithstanding ev- 

 ery body knows how to make butter, so small a pro- 

 portion of what is taken to market commands the 

 price of a first rate article. I think it rnay safely 

 be said, that not one-fourth part of it can be as- 

 sumed as first rate in quality, and, of course, much 

 the larger part of it is sold at inferior prices. This, 

 in many cases, must be ascribed to carelessness, 

 inattention to neatness and cleanliness, and, per- 

 haps, in many cases, to the impurities of tlie cellar 

 or milk-house in which the milk or cream is kept. 

 The atmosphere of the apartment where milk is 

 kept, should be entirely pure and free from all con- 

 tamination. No decaying vegetables, barrels of 



