324 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



main longer in brine than to stir it thoroughly, and 

 skim off the floating impurities, and then to steep 

 while the operator limed and stirred and spread the 

 last preceding washed wheat. The time of steep- 

 ing rarely exceeded half an hour. Yet, in the 

 growth of the crop, and by comparison with small 

 portions not steeped (and sown dry) it was manifest 

 that much of the steeped seed failed to come up. 

 This damage was doubtless increased by the thresh- 

 ing of that crop having been done by a new (spiked 

 cylinder) machine, which cracked an unusual great 

 number of the grains. Many grains are cracked 

 in all machines, though not perceptible to the eye. 

 And I believe that in all such, the germ is killed 

 by the penetrating brine. 



46. Experiments. — The same seeding time (1845) 

 of good wheat, a portion was put in a saturated 

 solution of Glauber's salts and lime, stood 12 hours, 

 then taken out and drained, and spread thin, and 

 sprinkled with and stirred in quicklime — so re- 

 mained, and still moist, 12 hours longer, but had 

 dried in 6 more, (or 18 in all.) After remaining 

 dry for 18 hours longer, 30 grains of this, A, were 

 washed slightly in fresh water, and put on cotton 

 cloth, kept moist, to sprout. 



Of same wheat, kept 12 hours in a saturated so- 

 lution of common salt and lime, B, then limed, &c, 

 as above, and had barely dried in 36 hours, when 

 washed, and 30 grains put to sprout on same cloth, 

 and at same time with A. 



Of same wheat, not steeped, and dry, C, mois- 

 tened and put to sprout with A and B. 



Results. — Of C, some germs had started in 12 

 hours, and in 48 hours, 24 grains of the 30 had put 

 out radicles. Of B, the first sprouting was 6 hours 

 later than of C, and 9 grains only had sprouted in 

 48 hours. Of A, no sprout was visible in 24 hours, 

 and one only in 48 hours. The drying of the cloth 

 and grains, by neglect, prevented longer observa- 

 tions. Of A, 100 grains were also carefully planted, 

 and not one came up. 



47. Seven bushels of seed had been saved from 

 the rear (or feeding place) of the machine, shat- 

 tered out without passing through the machine. 

 This had been saved separately, as of the most 

 perfect grain. But, without design, the sowing of 

 this seed showed the much greater damage sus- 

 tained by other seed being cracked by the machine, 

 and then killed by steeping. This "drum" wheat 

 was brined (say steeped about half an hour,) and 

 limed precisely like the seed sown on both sides, 

 and at the same rate. Yet, after the plants were 

 well up, the ground sown with the 7 bushels was 

 so much more thickly covered, that the difference 

 and the outlines could be distinguished at some | 

 hundreds of yards distance, and in any direction. 

 As the sowing of all was done in the same day, 

 continuously, by the same seedsman, it is very im- 

 probable that there could have been any percepti- 

 ble difference in the rate of sowing. The "drum" 

 wheat, like all other steeped in brine, was doubtless 

 retarded in germination ; but none being cracked, 

 none had the germs killed, as in the threshed wheat. 



Though still deeming the brining of seed an ef- 

 fectual remedy, (generally) against smut, it was 

 thenceforward also deemed too injurious to be used. 

 At a later time, I tried two other remedies. In 

 England, it is believed that the keeping of seed a 

 year will destroy the vitality of the smut, so that 

 the most smutty seed may then be sown safely. I 

 tried this with 30 bushels of seed kept from the 

 previous year's seeding, and which, like the new 

 seed, had a very little smut. The product of the 



old seed was obviously cleaner than that of the 

 new, (alike slightly smutted) but still was not en- 

 tirely free from smut. 



48. The next year I tried the intermixing of dry 

 lime, just slaked, with the seed wheat, as soon as 

 it was threshed and fanned. About a cask of BtOQB 

 lime (3 bushels) was used to the 100 bushels of 

 seed. This process had been before used by BOBM 

 of the farmers in Prince George and Charles City 

 counties, and supposed a good preventive against 

 smut, and it was certainly safe. This plan also 

 seemed to lessen the proportion of smut, compared 

 to the previous crop, but did not remove all. 



This keeping of seed wheat with dry quicklime 

 thoroughly intermixed, is beneficial in several re- 

 spects, besides so far as it may guard against smut. 

 The wheat so treated is almost safe from being 

 stolen, and is much less injured by rats and other 

 vermin. The grain is discolored and would be da- 

 maged for grinding. The germinating power is 

 certainly unimpaired. Of 100 grains of seed, which 

 had remained in lime for 14 months, tried in mois- 

 tened cloth for trial, 96 sprouted. The wheat, thus 

 treated, increases in bulk about 5 or 6 per cent, 

 after fanning off the loose lime. 



49. Experiment. — For the next year's seeding, 

 (1852,) I had left 84 bushels of old seed, which had 

 remained in lime for 14 months. In all the portion 

 of the next crop produced from this seed, I could 

 not find a head of smutted wheat, though observ- 

 ing closely through the reaping. The remainder 

 of the crop, sown with new seed, and also put in 

 dry lime, showed some little smut throughout. 

 From this last trial of keeping seed a year, and in 

 lime, and the entire exemption of the product from 

 smut, I thought a.safe and sure remedy was found. 

 All my seed for the next sowing was of this kind. 

 But the crop of 1854 did not show the exemption 

 so marked in the preceding year. There was, in- 

 deed, very little smut, but enough to show that 

 both these means combined did not make a com- 

 plete preventive. Lest I should be misunderstood, 

 I will add that, though not finding any remedy cer- 

 tain and complete, I have never yet had enough 

 smut in any crop of wheat to cause material loss, 

 or to make it an objection to the sale of the crop. 

 Rut my main object, in the foregoing minutes, on 

 smut, has not been so much to discuss the efficacy 

 of any remedies, as to indicate the danger of the 

 one most generally approved and in use. 



Messrs. John A. Selden and Hill Carter, both con- 

 cur in deeming all modes of steeping or washing 

 seed wheat in brine to be injurious. Each of them 

 uses (when necessary) a different mode for pre- 

 venting smut, and each confides in his method as 

 being effectual, or as having been so to this time. 

 They are as follows : 



50. Mr. John A. Selden, has long been satisfied 

 of great injury being caused by steeping seed wheat 

 in brine, and has avoided all use of brine for that 

 purpose. He has seen two seedings of large crops, 

 so much injured in germination, that there was no 

 mistaking the cause, or the operation. In one of 

 these cases, very little of the seed sown germinated. 

 He does not know how long, in that case, the seed 

 remained in the brine. He entirely believes in 

 smut being contagious, and that merely washing 

 in fresh water, and then dusting the wet seed with 

 dry caustic lime will prevent smut, even when the 

 seed was greatly mixed with smut. He washes the 

 seed, if smutty, in three waters, then spreads it 

 thin on the barn floor, sifts over and stirs among 

 the wheat enough lime to slightly coat over every 



