372 THE CULTIVATOR. Dec. 
qaBgflHBBaagagssBBB is^smifl miaKgBmsiMs^^ 
actually takes place; they get g*ood seed, but allow it 
to degenerate and become adulterated by their bad 
management. Their land is not properly tilled; their 
crops are light; their grain is mixed with seeds of per¬ 
nicious plants; and this spurious product is sown year 
after year without any attempt to improve it. What 
but degeneracy could be expected? 
We believe the grand principle of improvement, both 
in plants and animals, is selection. Always choose 
the best for propagation, and improvement may be ad¬ 
vanced to the highest practicable point. 
THE BARBERRY. 
Mr. Editor- —Tn the October number of the Cultiva¬ 
tor, is a communication from Mr. Barnes, in which he 
inquires if the barberry will blight wheat and rye; and 
Blinking the following may assist in coming to a cor¬ 
rect conclusion, I submit it for consideration. 
On my father's farm, is a lot on the south-west side 
of which are two large barberry-bushes, standing near 
each other, and the only ones in the neighborhood. This 
lot has been repeatedly sown with rye, and no delete¬ 
rious effect perceived from the barberries;—in tact, we 
thought they would not blight;—but in the fall of 1837, 
this field was again sown to rye, and the next summer 
the effect of the barberries was too apparent to be mis¬ 
taken even by the most casual observer. 
A piece of about two or three rods in width, and ex¬ 
tending into the field eight or ten rods, in a north¬ 
eastern direction from the bushes was totally blasted— 
the straw black, and falling down with no grain at all; 
while on either side and beyond, the rye was good and 
well-filled. This blight extended over about one- 
fourth of an acre; some part of it, but partial, was 
traced directly to the barberries; because on the side 
next to them, the blight extended to the outside of 
the field, while on the opposite side, the rye was 
perfectly good; and no blight was perceived in any 
part but adjoining these bushes. It was noticed at the 
time by many persons, who can be referred to for the 
truth of the above statement. 
Now this we consider proof postive that the barberry 
will blast rye, although your opinion, (always entitled 
to great weight,) is so decided to the contrary; for we 
can account for it in no other way. 
Is not this the true cause of the blight?—that the 
barberry and the rye were in blossom at the same time, 
and the pollen of the barberry was blown by the wind 
on the open blossom of the rye, thus causing blight? If 
this be so, the one must be in a proper state to give, 
and the other to receive the blight at the same time, 
which would be very short, and might not often occur; 
and will not this explain the reason w r hy it does not 
every year produce the blight, or more frequently than 
it does. Besides, it might require the weather to be 
damp; but, evidently, the wind had an effect, for, if it 
had blown harder it would have carried the blight fur¬ 
ther; and if it had been in a contrary direction, or had not 
blown at all, it is probable no effect would have been 
produced. 
Now in the statement of Mr. Hecox, vol. vn., p. 175 
of the Cultivator, did the bush which he set in the mid¬ 
dle of his field—and which to him so conclusively 
proved that the barberry will in no case blight—pro¬ 
duce any blossoms? I should think from its being trans¬ 
planted it would not, and this might be the reason that 
it had no effect. But this one case, or the three cited 
by you. no more proves that the barberry will in no 
case blight, than the escape of a few persons from a 
prevalent disease would that it was not contagious. 
Mr. Barnes says, the person of whom he procured his 
bush had three large ones standing on his farm for 20 
years without any influence whatever on his wheat; but 
he does not say that he has sown wheat in their imme¬ 
diate vicinity—perhaps he has not within a mile of 
them ! 
That one bush will blight an entire field of many 
acres is absurd; but we, although not given to belief in 
the marvelous—or that wheat is chess and chess is wheat 
-—still are satisfied that in some cases the Barberry will 
blight rye—for facts are stubborn things, and cannot be 
easily overthrown by philosphical theories or chemical 
experiments. J. G. Clarke, Jr. 
Kingston, JR. I., October 29, 1846. 
Be marks. —-W e differ altogether with the writer of 
the above communication, in regard to the tendency of 
his “ facts.” The first and main point which he wishes 
to make out, is, that in 1838, a field of rye was blasted 
by two barberry bushes; at the same time he admits 
that “ this lot had been repeatedly sown with rye 
a,nd no deleterious effect perceived from tke barberries. ,f 
As soon, however, as a season occurs in which a por¬ 
tion of the grain blasts, it is charged to the bushes! 
But he suggests that the exemption of the previous 
crops from blight, was owing to there having been no 
blossoms on the barberry bushes in those years. In 
this, we will give him the credit of being the first, 
to our knowledge, who has attempted an explanation 
of the supposed deleterious influence of this shrub. But 
will “facts” support his theory? We feel quite con¬ 
fident they will not, though we would not pronounce 
rashly. In the instance to which we referred, as hav¬ 
ing fallen under our own observation, we know the 
bushes bore fruit, and of course had blossoms, nearly 
every year. 
He says the “three cases” cited by us do not prove 
that the barberry will in no case cause blight. We 
cited four cases, and he throw's into the same scale the 
£< fact ” of a field having been for several years sown 
to rye without any ill effect being observable from the 
barberry-bushes standing near, and yet attempts to 
prove, by only a single case that they will produce in¬ 
jury ! 
But the principal “fact” in regard to the subject is, 
that grain sometimes blasts and sometimes does not 
blast, in the vicinity of barberry bushes and elsewhere. 
It is difficult to assign causes, in all cases, for this effect, 
as well as many other phenomena in nature. It is, 
however, only by an accumulation of ££ facts ” that w r e 
can expect to trace effects to their legitimate origin. 
At present, we think, the weight and number of ££ facts ” 
decidedly against our friend's theory. 
CHARCOAL AS MANURE. 
Mr. Tucker —I see in the report of the Commis¬ 
sioner of the Patent Office, notice of some extraordina¬ 
ry results, gained in the wheat crop, by the application 
of 50 bushels of pulverized charcoal to the acre. Will Mr. 
Haywood, of Sandusky, Ohio, or some other farmer, who 
has successfully tried it, inform me through the Cultiva¬ 
tor, on what kind of soil the coal should be applied for the 
best result? Whether moist or dry land, clay, loam, 
or sandy soil; and if it should be applied invariably in 
the spring; and if it is known to have a better effect on 
soil that contains a good portion of lime, or that with¬ 
out lime? 
To gain orthodox information I send to the Albany 
Cultivator, as head quarters. Although the Southern 
Cultivator is gaining ground rapidly, yet the southern 
farmers have not thrown off their loose habits of doing 
things so much at random. They must practice closer 
observation to learn the best way of making any ex¬ 
periment before they can judge of the cause of failure, 
or the particular point to be observed, in order to give 
the most complete success. Henry M. Earle. 
Earlesville, S. COct. 22, 1846. 
P. S.—The sides of our mountains, in this latitude, 
35 degrees, 10 minutes, promise good success for the 
culture of the grape and the manufacture of wine. Ts it 
known what kind of manure will give the best flavor 
to the grape, and produce the most luxuriant growth? 
[We believe it has been decided in Germany that the 
best manure for vineyards is the leaves and trimmings 
of the vines, mixed with ashes, and worked into the 
ground.—E d.] 
