15.—1846.] 
THR AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE. 
243 
years ago, and published at the time in Evans and 
uffy's * Farmer’s Journal But though so old, they 
may be new to many of your readers ; and at all events 
they show now as clearly as they did then— 
Ist, That the disease is mainly attributable to infec- 
tion ; that is, to the bringing sound healthy grains in 
contact with the powder contained in smutty ears ; in 
other words, inoculating them. 
2d, That however slight this contact may be, the pro- 
luce of seed so infected will invariably be more or less 
smutty, unless counteracted by certain preparations 
applied to it before sowing. 
3d, That on the contrary, however highly such seed 
May be infected, if afterwards carefully washed and 
Steeped, the produce will be clean, healthy, and free 
om smut. 
_ To render my experiments the more satisfactory, I 
did not confine myself to one variety only, but extended 
them to five varieties of Wheat; in every one of which 
the disease is clearly traceable to infection, as the pri- 
mary, if not the sole cause thereof. 
Experiments, Nov. 1816, 
No, 1. Old Kentish red, of the) 
harvest of 1815, sown Very slightly smutty. 
Results, 1817. 
ALY bie Mb C TUR 
2. Kentish red, of harvest] Several ears of Pepperbrand, 
1816, ditto .. s gi but no smut. 
3. Ditto, kiln-dried, rather) ojeg 
EE neat 
White Wheat sown dry Sli 
. Yellow Lammas, ditto The s i 
38. Spring Wheat, ditto .. {Slightly smutty, perhaps 100th 
I 
ghtly smutty. 
e same 
The results are, as T anticipated, various ; yet though 
the maximum of disease seems to be 1 per cent., surely 
that ought, if possible, to be prevented ; for, on the 
Principle of contagion, this 1 per cent. may become 50 
Per cent. in the next generation. We shall see:— 
0.21, Old Wheat (of 1815), 
merely put into the 
bag where smutted 
E corn had been a, s. 
» New Kentish red, kiln- raati 
dried, ditto ditto cz One-twentieth smut: 
Yellow Lammas, ditto One-third smut. 
43. Spring i 
One-thirtieth smut, 
Considerably more than half 
mut, 
shaken in amongst it 
In the above cases the grain was not moistened, but 
sown dry, Now, for a rather larger dose of the powder 
on grain previously moistened, the better to make it 
adhere— 
No. 11. Old Kentish red Wheat) 
rubbed with smut-) One-seventh smut. 
powder of new Wheat) 
12. New ditto ditto.. .. h smut. 
13. Ditto kiln-dried, ditto One-eighth smut, 
14. White Wheat, ditto.. One-third smut. 
15. Yellow Lammas, ditto " One-seventh smut, 
39. Spring Wheat, ditto.: Hight in 10, or 80 p. cent. smut, 
Before we go any further, let me ask, what but the 
application of the smut powder, in a more elaborate 
manner, if not in an increased quantity, can have occa- 
Sioned the difference between Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, aud 38, 
11,12, 13,14, 15, and 39? They were all, 
except the spring Wheat, sown at the same time, and 
in rows adjoining each other. 
So much for the eaüse. Now for the remedy. This 
may be any preparation that will destroy the infectious 
quality of the smut powder without injuring the grain. 
lue vitriol (sulphate of copper) I have found as good, 
ecause as safe, any other steep. 1 allowed 3 Ib. 
to a bushel of Wheat, dissolved in water, into which 
mixture the Wheat is carefully sifted, and the light 
grains, smut balls (if any), and seeds of weeds are as 
carefully skimmed from the surface. In this steep the 
Ollowing previously infected parcels of Wheat were im- 
ersed, but only for a short time :— 
9. 1. 16 old Kentish Reds (of 
1815), inoculated, then 
Steeped in the above 
mixture se 
1 of smut to about 200 clean, 
m 
2 
on Red, 
Inoculated ne ifto Jj Clean. 
Ditto, kiln-dried, ditto Clean. 
19. White Wheat, do. do. Olean. 
20. Yellow Lammas, ditto 3 of smut in 2000 clean. 
wo points are thus established; Ist, the infectious 
Quality ofthesmut-powder; and 2d, the power, by chemical 
Means, to destroy, or at least to neutralise, this infection, 
Bat to make the matter as decisive as possible, I took a 
Portion of the above parcels 16, 17, &e., after they had 
een inoculated and steeped as above (cured, as one 
Say), and again inoculated them. These are the 
Yesults ;— 
gy 
No. 24, Old Kentish Red (of) 
1815; inoculated, | 
steeped as No. 16, then PEE ME 
again infected " forge smut, 
ing it in contact 
ed, 
treated in the same > One-twentieth smut. 
Mantera vine tad 
36. White Wheat, do. do. Full one-third smut. 
27. Yellow Lammas, do. One-twentieth smut. 
q Many farmers think that whatever risk may attend 
© use of new Wheat for seed, there is perfect safety in 
Sowing old Wheat without any preparation whatever. 
et us bring this opinion to the test. 
N Sown March 9, 1817. 
9.40, Spring Wheat, mixed 
with a small quantity 
of old Wheat that had | Very smutty, the old Wheat 
been infected Nov. 8, f partienlar!y so. 
1816, and kept in a 
drawer during winter 
41, Spring Wheat mixed) Very smutty, but the new not 
with new Wheat in- much as the old in 
fected as above... 0. 
Spring Wheat, with 
White Wheat infected ) More than half smut, 
as aboye 
FS 
D 
Wheat smut has no effect on Barley, the produce of 
the latter, after infection by the powder, being perfectly 
clean and healthy. 
I conclude with a few words on pepper-brand, a dis- 
ease entirely different from smut. It is a hard round 
black substance, not much unlike a grain of pepper, 
whence its name., I had no idea that this, like the smut 
or bladder-brand, was capable of being generated by 
infection ; but the following experiments leave no doubt 
of the fact :— 
At last Wheat sowing (1816), I had made use of a 
few bushels of Wheat-seed of the growth of 1815. As 
usual, I trimmed it, and found that the skimmings con- 
sisted of a good deal of pepperbrand and some little 
smut, These skimmings I laid by themselves, and 
afterwards applied them as follows :— 
No. 6. Old Kentish Red Wheat) Almost every ear pepperbrand, 
(1815), wel! rubbed with and all the plants weak and 
the above skimmings ..) 
T. New Kentish Red, rub- | 
edasabove.. se s 
stunted. 
One-fifth pepperbrand — the 
plants diseased ; but not 
near so much as those of No.6 
..The same, with some smut. 
One-half  pepperbrand and 
smut. 
8. Ditto kiln-dried, ditto 
9. White Wheat, ditto. . 
The plants in No. 6 presented the strangest appear- 
ance through the winter I ever witnessed ; not the ear 
merely, but the whole plant was visibly affectel. As 
the spring advanced, the leaves eame on eurled and 
shrivelled, and the stems so short and erooked, that no 
person would have believed they were sown from off 
the same heap, and at the same time with Nos. 1 and 
10, which grew on each side of them ; but such was the 
fact. What was the effect of the vitriol-steep in this case ? 
I have only one experiment, but that is most decisive of 
its efficacy in the prevention of pepperbrand, as it had 
been ia the foregoing cases of smut or bladderbrand ;— 
and be it observed, that the Wheat which formed tt 
his 
experiment (No. 10), was part and parcel of this very 
No. 6, which I have described as so singularly diseased. 
The only difference between them is that before sowing, 
one (No. 10), had been steeped, the other (No. 6), not. 
No, 10. Sameas No. 6 
with skimmir > 
then steeped as in the 
former cases  .. + 
I have only to add, that having conducted every one 
of the above experiments with my own hands, I can 
vouch for the general accuracy of the details. I have 
since at various times repeated these experiments to 
satisfy any one who might be sceptical on the subject, 
and always with the same results. 
A word or two in conclusion, Itis apparent from 
the above experiments, that some varieties of Wheat 
are more susceptible of the effects of the smut-powder 
than others. Of these the most so appears to be the 
spring White Wheat, I say nothing in reply to the 
arguments that have from time to time been advanced 
against this theory of infection, and in favour of atmo- 
spheric causes, as producing the disease ; Ist, because I 
do believe the former ; and 2d, because 1 do not believe 
the latter ; and so long as I ean produce the above re- 
sults, which I will pledge myself to do in any season, why 
should I alter an opinion, the result of many years’ ex- 
perience i— Samuel Taylor, Stokeferry, Norfolk. 
rubbed) Plants sound and healthy, 
PW only one ear of smut in 
about 2000. 
Home Correspondence, 
Potato Disease, Drainage, &c.—As I am led to be- 
lieve, from some articles or correspondence which I 
have read in your valuable Paper, that you are under 
the impression that the Potato disease which showed 
itself so almost universally last year, only then appeared 
for the first time, or, at farthest, the year previous, I 
am induced to let you know that in 1843 I had a field 
of about 8 acres in Potatoes, from which I had taken a 
crop of Oats in 1842, having been previously drained 
with tiles at 12 feet apart, over and through old drains 
and which had lain in Grass for 30 or 40 years. The 
crop of Potatoes was very luxuriant, but even when 
taking them up they showed many symptoms of the dis- 
ease now, alas ! so well known. I lost more than a third 
of the whole crop, notwithstanding our having taken 
the greatest care, trying to stop the disease by picking 
and repicking them many times, until they were all 
consumed or sold. Two or three of my tenants lost a 
large part of their crops that year, and although very 
little was said publicly of the disease by the farmers in 
the county (Ayr), for fear of prejudicing purchasers 
against their Potatoes, my land steward was-well aware, 
and told me at the time, that the disease was felt in se- 
veral localities to a considerable extent. Last year, all 
felt the disease more or less, and one of my tenants lost 
nearly his whole erop ; he sold none. The land on my 
property is generally speaking a very adhesive clay. My 
father drained to a considerable extent,with stone drains, 
from 3 to 4 feet deep, in the old herring-bone fashion, a 
main drain running up and down the hill, with diagonal 
side drains, 30 feet apart, running into it. These drains 
were all made in what was then considered a very per- 
fect way, and consequently very expensive, having a 
built eonduit below, covered about a foot with broken 
Íreestone, next coarse gravel, then finer gravel and 
sand, after which the clay ; about two or three inches 
of gravel brought to the surface by means of a frame, 
drawn up as the drain was filled, on one side of which 
was placed the clay, on the other side two or three 
inches of gravel, until brought to the surface. 
These drains have been found not to free the land from 
surface-water, and in walking over them it is quite evi- 
dent where the drains are—Rushes, as formerly, grow- 
ing pretty luxuriantly between the drains, whieh 
— 
apparently only act 2 or 3 feet each way. I am now 
putting in tile-drains, 30 inches deep, in each furrow of 
12 or 13 feet, using the old diagonal drains as submains, 
which, I hope, will thoroughly drain the land, Our 
clay, however, is of so stiff and retentive a nature, that 
Ihave doubts whether we shall ever be able to make 
the land so dry that Rushes will not grow upon it when 
laid down to permanent pasture. My father latterly 
deained a good -deal with tiles upon the frequent drain 
system, about 24 inches deep in the furrow. Several 
of these fields are now becoming quite covered with 
Rushes between the draias, which are only 12 or 13 
feet apart, and I am obliged to break them up again. 
One field I walked over the other day was drained in 
1837; in 1838 an Oat crop was taken ; 1839, green 
crop; 1840, Oats laid down without furrows; 1841, 
Grass pastured by sheep; since which time it has been 
pastured with sheep or young cattle. In many parts 
of the field the Rushes are becoming numerous between 
the drains, which can always be distinguished by the 
green Grass which grows upon them, and I fear I 
shall be obliged again to break it up. Can you give me 
any advice as to such pastures, to insure permanent 
ood pastures free from Rushes ?—John Hamilton, 
Olive Mount. [Rushes are to be got rid of only by 
thorough drainage ; and you seem to be going to work 
the right way to secure that. Will it not answer your 
purpose to attempt the laying down of Grass by inocu- 
lation, obtaining the sward from some good pasture? 
See last Calendar. We gladly accept your obliging offer 
of the duplicate papers. ] 
Substitutes for Potaioes.— When so many individuals 
were hot upon autumn-planting Potatoes, L considered 
it a rash experiment, and the present lamentable ae- 
counts bear me out, I regret to say, in my prognostica- 
tions. Let men who can afford to do so continue their 
exertions, and endeavour to ascertain the best mode of 
getting rid of the disease. But I strongly recommend 
the poor man, who has only a small piece of ground, to 
give up Potatoes altogether this year, and substitute 
either Carrots or Parsnips, or a proportion of both 5 
these, well boiled and mixed with Rice, with the addition 
of a bit of fat bacon, and a modicum of pepperand salt, 
will prove a most excellent dish, not more expensive 
than Potatoes, and exceeding the latter in nourishment, 
comparing the cost of one with the other. Potatoes 
cannot, with any safety, be grown on the same land 
they were taken from last year ; the spawn of the fungi 
is there, and although the fungi may not be the cause 
of the rot, yet they are the result, and their seed will 
attach itself to the tubers and certainly not improve 
them, but tend to their destruction. Peas aud Rice 
mixed with a small quantity of salt butter are by no 
means to be despised by either ‘the palate or the con- 
stitution. The analysis of Potatoes is certainly not 
favourable to their extensive cultivation as a means of 
recruiting exhausted nature. Let us, therefore, hope 
that other vegetables will in a great measure supersede 
them in household economy.—Z'a/con. 
Checking Turnips.—1t is the practice with one 
farmer, if not more, in my neighbourhood, to check the 
too rapid growth of their Turnips simply by pulling 
them up, and setting them down again in the same 
hole—a process which is likely enough to prove effec- 
tual, though, through want of personal experience, I 
cannot vouch for its success. F. A. M. 
Artificial Yeast—Boil 5 oz. of coarse brown moist 
sugar in 1 gallon of water ; when lukewarm, stir in 
oz. of flour, then add 2 oz. of patent yeast, and when 
it has risen by the fire, fill quart bottles half full, and 
cork them. It may be i directly, and the bread is 
ready.to bake in an hour ; or it will keep a month, pre- 
vious to the expiration of which a fresh quantity can 
always be made.— A. E. 
Winter Vetches.—At the ploughing-mateh which 
took place at Hooton, Cheshire (the seat of Sir Wm. 
Stanley, Bart.), on Thursday week, March 12, a bundle 
e bited, of 18 
inches in length and upwards, whieh were mown from 
ji ton, Cheshire, the 
enhead. There 
here.— 
or 
W.B. 
cut a ton of hay per aere now.) 
forieultural Education.—In a letter on this subject 
of the Gazelle, signed “F. A. 
greeable lessons still from bis ragged and 
Turnip-tops, his smutted Wheat, and his 
^ ‘By your answers to correspond- 
more G 
yanishing 
blighted Apple-tre y) 
ents I also perceive that the Wheat of * T. A., Alton,” 
is affected by the maggot of Oscinis vastator, a little 
fly, the history of which is given in the * Royal Agri- 
cultural Journal.” I am also at the present^time a 
sufferer from the same cause, having last week 
much surprised at seeing a field of seven acres, which 
was previously in perfect health, rendered quite bare in 
many places by she ravages of.this little maggot. It is 
also at work in several other fields in this neighbourh:od. 
I have known individuals plough up 40 or 50 acres o 
Wheatin one year, which, from its similar appearanee, 
I believe to have beet destroyed by the came insignifi- 
eant erenture, although the m ischief was attributed to 
other agents. Now, in order to preseribe a fit remedy 
for injuries of this kind, it must be necessary first to 
ascertain the causes of them. With this view the e¢o- 
nomy of various insects injurious to vegetation has been 
given from time to time in your Paper, as well as of 
