( 314 ) 



XXX. — 'On the Hopetoun Wheat, and on Comparative Trials of 

 Wheat. By Patrick Shirreff. 



To Ph. Pusey, Esq. 



Sir, — When calling upon a friend in the autumn of 1832 I was 

 struck with an ear of wheat which had been culled from one of 

 his fields on the farm of Drew, East Lothian, and resolved to pro- 

 pagate from its seeds. Before coming into my possession 3 

 corns appeared to have been lost from the apex, and with the 

 point of a pin I pricked out 99 corns without ruffling the chaff ; 

 and the ear may still be seen in the Agricultural Museum at 

 Stirling. 



The produce from the ear proved a new variety, which has 

 been named Hopetoun wheat, and wbich was sold for the first time 

 in 1839. After numerous trials in East Lothian for two seasons^ 

 this variety is rising in public esteem, and has been successfully 

 grown in many parts of Scotland as well as in Gloucestershire, 

 Kent;, and Buckinghamshire. Everywhere this variety has put 

 forth ears of large size, supported on tall and strong straw, and 

 yielded grain of fine quality ; and in England it is represented to 

 have been much less affected this season with red gum, blight, 

 and mildew, than other varieties growing contiguous. Last year 

 a comparative trial was made by Mr. George Bell on the farm of 

 Inchmichael, Perthshire, with Chevalier and Hopetoun wheat, the 

 crop of the latter being represented as too thickly planted. Both 

 kinds yielded 36 bushels per acre ; but the grain of Hopetoun 

 wheat was best in quality, and weighed 2 lbs. per bushel heavier. 

 Another comparative trial was instituted in East Lothian by Mr. 

 Alexander Begbie, on the farm of Seggarsdean, with Hunter^ 

 Chidham, and Hopetoun wheat, the latter being thinnest in plant, 

 and the yield was found to be 34, 30, and 37 bushels respectively. 

 These trials appear to me to show the yield of Hopetoun wheat 

 to have been increased in the one case and diminished in the 

 other by the state of the plant, and tend to illustrate the difficulty 

 of making trials from which sound deductions can be derived re- 

 garding the respective merits of varieties. There is, however, no 

 way of estimating wheats but by comparative trials; and the 

 importance of the subject will, I trust, excuse the following 

 remarks : — 



In making a comparative trial with varieties of wheat it is 

 necessary to select a portion of land uniform in texture, subsoil, 

 and exposure, and which for a series of years has been cropped^ 

 manured, and laboured in all respects alike. The previous crop 

 should if possible have been potatoes, as after this preparation 



