THE CULTIVATOR 
147 
Kemedy for the Tumep Fly. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —As every thing is of interest to 
the farmer which enables him to guard against the depredations 
of the insect world, as well as to overcome the notions of by¬ 
gone days which have long since been exploded by the light of 
science and experience, I have taken the liberty of communicat¬ 
ing for the Cultivator some experiments relative to the preserv¬ 
ing ruta baga and other turnep plants from their most destruc¬ 
tive enemy, the black fly. 
Many farmers have abandoned the ruta baga culture entirely, 
in consequence of the great uncertainty of the crop. I have for 
several years contended with the little black fly or flea, -which 
attacks the piant as soon as it appears, and often in a single 
night destroys,a whole field. Many a seed seller has been over¬ 
whelmed with anathemas for selling bad seed, when the little 
fly has made way with the plants before the farmer was up in 
the morning. I have never until this season been able to arrest 
the depredations of the fly, except partially. 
In the June number of the Genesee Farmer, I noticed a reme¬ 
dy for the fly, recommended by Mr. Parsons, of Perry. The 
method which he has adopted with entire success, is “ to soak 
the seed for 24 or 48 hours in tanner’s oil, and then roll it in 
plaster to facilitate sowing.” A very little oil will be sufficient. 
I tried the remedy on my seed this year; and with most entire 
success. The ofiensiveness of the oil is imparted to the plant, I 
presume, and if so, it is no wonder the fly is willing to seek 
some more delicious herb on which to perch and satisfy himself. 
I made trial of some seed as usual in the same field, but found 
that the fly took nearly all the plants. 
With Mr. Parsons, I would say to the incredulous, put this re¬ 
ceipt by, and make the experiment. It will not cost you much, 
and if it save you four or five hundred bushels of roots, for an 
expenditure of six cents for oil, you will be repaid for having 
yielded once to experimenting. B. P. JOHNSON. 
Rome , N. Y., August 4, 1841. 
On the Use of Lime. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —There are few things connect¬ 
ed with agriculture about which so great diversity of opinion 
exists among theorists and practical farmers, as the value and 
effects of lime when applied to the soil. By some it is regarded 
as a manure, which may be profitably used upon every soil; 
others think it a stimulant that can only be used with profit 
where the soil possesses dormant vegetable matter that requires 
the action of artificial heat to cause fermentation and prepare 
it to become food for plants. “ The use of lime as a manure is 
supposed to have been introduced into Great Britain by the Ro¬ 
mans, and has been extensively used there for the last two cen¬ 
turies ; in fact it may almost be termed the basis of good Eng¬ 
lish husbandry, as a large proportion of the soil in the British 
islands is of a cold, heavy and moorish nature, and could never 
have been brought to its present high state of cultivation with¬ 
out the application of an alterative, or some powerful stimu¬ 
lant that would warm up the soil, bring its dormant powers into 
action, and cause fermentation; thereby changing its very 
nature, so far at least as its productive qualities are concern¬ 
ed.” Thus heavy clay soils, by a sufficient application of lime 
to cause thorough fermentation, lose their tenacity, and (while 
the vegetable matter is prepared to become food for plants) the 
soil itself appears by a chemical process to have undergone a 
change. 
It has been asserted that the expense of an application of lime 
to heavy clays is amply repaid to the husbandman by the in¬ 
creased facility with which such soils can be worked—perfect 
tillage not being half as expensive as before the application. 
We think lime will be found invaluable upon all clay soils, es¬ 
pecially in the improvement of those that have been worn down 
by improper tillage. Such soils receive but little benefit from 
yard manure, except given in large quantities; at least, they 
are slow in their action upon vegetation; from the reason of the 
coldness of the soil, its heavy texture, fermentation is slow and 
imperfect. By a sufficient application of lime with the manure, 
fermentation will be more rapid and complete, the close texture 
of the clay will in a great measure be destroyed, and that an 
improvement has taken place after tillage and crops will fully 
attest. I have frequently noticed an experiment made by a 
farmer in an adjoining town; the results of which are so satisfac¬ 
tory that I am induced to give them in detail. In the spring of 
1836, 6 bushels of lime was applied to 4 rods of clay in its hot 
state ; the land was thoroughly worked with a plow and sown 
to oats; fermentation soon commenced, and was so great as to 
injure the oats. The process resembled that of yeast in bread, 
and the effect was the same; the soil was lighter and resembled 
a soft loam. In July, the oats were turned tinder and turneps 
sown; the crop was large and of good quality. The spring fol¬ 
lowing, it received a dressing of manure, with the rest of the 
field, and Was planted to corn. The decided superiority of this 
piece could be noticed through the whole summer; it grew ra¬ 
pid, rank, and produced double the corn harvested on the ad¬ 
joining 4 rods. Spring of ’38, sown to oats and clover, both of 
which were vastly better than on the adjoining land treated in 
the same manner, with the exception of the lime. 
The quantity of lime used in this experiment was large, at 
the rate of 240 bushels per acre. But the experiment has shown 
that all of the effects that have been attributed to lime may be 
realized where a sufficient quantity is used. The lime in this 
case evidently acted as a manure, which is proven by the supe¬ 
riority of all four of the crops, as a stimulus both to the soil 
and the crops, and as an alterative (how permanent 1 cannot 
say) from the appearance of the soil, resembling more a loam 
than clay, and the ease -with which it can be perfectly tilled, 
compared to the same soil before the application. The results 
of this experiment are desirable, and the question naturally 
arises, if heavy or clay soils are to be limed, should not the 
quantity given be sufficient to produce all the above results ? 
Half the quantity would probably have assisted the partial de¬ 
composition of the inert vegetable matter, operated as a stimu¬ 
lant and as a manure, but would not have produced the same 
effect upon the soil, which was certainly improved, and in ad- 
' dition to being more easily worked, will probably continue to 
Carry heavier crops. Perhaps as a general rule the quantity of 
lime to be used will depend and should be governed by the qua¬ 
lity and nature of the. soil, and the results wished to be pro¬ 
duced ; the lighter the soil the less the quantity required to pro¬ 
duce all the good that can be expected on such soils, and vice 
versa. I have seen crops evidently improved by a very slight 
dressing of lime. There are few farmers that have not noticed 
its good effects when used as a pickle on wheat, and yet the 
quantity used was so small that it could only have benefited the 
crop as a stimulus. I noticed a few years since in one of my 
neighbor’s fields a very great difference in the appearance of the 
wheat. In one part of the field it was bright and rank; in the 
other it looked rusty and bad. On inquiry I found he had been 
building a house, and had drawn the old mortar and rubbish on 
his fallow. This was five years ago, and the effects may still be 
seen. 
Some writers assert that the only benefit vegetation receives 
from lime is in the heat it imparts to the soil. Lime can only 
be reduced to a calx by intense heat. And they contend that a 
great proportion of this heat is partially fixed in the operation. 
In support of this theory it is said lime promotes the growth of 
some plants, and is destructive to others, or that all native 
grasses of northern climates are killed by it, while the cultivated 
or natives of more southern latitudes are benefited. This the¬ 
ory, like the fixed heat in lime, will hardly stand the process of 
slaking . It is more probable that the native grasses are de¬ 
stroyed by cultivation, as an application of lime and good cul¬ 
ture generally succeed each other. The heat lime produces 
when slaked, or rather the heat thrown off from the large 
quantity of water which by its union with the lime is formed 
into a solid, is without doubt beneficial: but to assert that this 
is the only benefit lime produces to vegetation is mere theory, 
which has been falsified by every experiment that has been made 
in its use. 
Lime is found in the formation of a great many of the plants, 
grains, &c., and wheat cannot be successfully cultivated with¬ 
out the existence of it in the soil. Our geological survey has 
shown that there are large quantities of lime in a majority of 
the counties in this state, which, with the numerous beds of 
shell and earth marls, are destined to be valuable resources to 
the farmer. JOHN C. MATHER. 
Schaghticoke, N. Y., 1841. 
Blight or Mildew in Wheat. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —The notice you were pleased to 
take of the papers by Col. Smith and myself on the subject of 
blight, in the Cultivator for July, was not observed by me until 
now; otherwise it should have had earlier attention. You re¬ 
mark that “it struck us as not a little singular that while the 
first half of his (Mr. Gowan’s) paper is devoted to proving that 
sudden changes of temperature are the cause of this evil, the 
last part should be an argument to prove the frequency of the 
disease in British wheat, a country where the climate is more 
equable, the range of the thermometer less, and the changes less 
sudden and extreme than in almost any other.” 
With permission I beg leave to say a word on what appeared 
to you so singular, and am especially moved to the explanation 
because the Cultivator ranks so high with farmers; and circu¬ 
lates so extensively among them, that I am unwilling the posi¬ 
tion I took, however feebly maintained, should be affected in 
the view of so many readers by the inference that I was incon¬ 
sistent. 
My sole object in reviewing Col. Smith’s theory was, to cause 
grain growers to pause before they changed their practice of 
sowing grass seedL with their grain, merely to provide against 
blight, being fully convinced that however proper it might be 
for other reasons to work for grain alone, it would be as liable 
to blight without the grass as with it. 
Col. Smith stated that blight was unknown in England, “be¬ 
cause,” as he said, “there it was not the custom to sow grass 
with winter grain,” and especially did he point to the drill sys¬ 
tem as being worthy of imitation. It became me then, to show 
that the disease was known in Great Britain, notwithstanding 
there, as Col. Smith alleged, it was not the practice to sow 
grass with grain; and more particularly did I show that the 
drilled wheat, with the plants at certain distances from each 
other to let in the sun to the very roots, and without grass or 
weeds, was more susceptible to blight than that sown broad¬ 
cast. This was conclusive against the theory that the grass 
was the cause of the blight. 
I did not attempt to prove “ the frequency of this disease in 
British wheat,” but on the contrary took pains to prove that it 
was owing to the equableness of temperature, not to the ab¬ 
sence of grass, that Great Britain was indebted for so much ex¬ 
emption from blight. In proof of the difference in the two 
climates; I gave thermometrical observations made at Ply¬ 
mouth, England, and at the United States Arsenal near Phila¬ 
delphia, and relied upon them as determining why blight is not 
as usual in Great Britain as in the United States. 
Although the climate of England is more equable than ours, 
still it is not so uniform as to forbid all apprehensions of blight 
from change of temperature in the air. Changes sometimes oc¬ 
cur there while the wheat is maturing, that blight it, causing 
considerable diminution in weight, and consequently affecting 
it most seriously in quality. If the London correspondent of 
the New York Courier, under date of the 13th July, per the 
Great Western, may be relied on, this very season in England is 
likely to prove the correctness of my views as to the cause of 
blight. In speaking of the corn maritet, he says—“anextraor¬ 
dinary change in the temperature ofthe air tool?place on Sunday 
last. The thermometer standing at 52 deg. during several hours, 
and during the whole of the following night, a degree lower 
than has been known in England on a Christmas day.” Now if 
the wheat in England was in a certain state of forwardness at 
the time this change took place, and should the cold have con¬ 
tinued for a few days, there is little doubt on my mind but it 
will be injured by blight. 
The experience this summer and harvest have afforded, con¬ 
firms me in the opinion that grass has no agency in producing the 
blight on our grain, and that mildew or fungi, m the proper 
sense, has as little to do with it. Late sowing, rank, juicy 
plants, by reason of our rich soil, or culture that keeps the 
plants too fresh, thereby retarding their ripening, may endan¬ 
ger or predispose, but cannot blight. The scald, as I described, 
and the sudden transition from heat to cold, are the prevailing 
causes. Very respectfully, your ob’t serv’t, 
Mount Airy, Pa., August 2, 1841. JAMES GOWEN. 
Blight or Bust in Wheat. 
Messrs. Editors of the Cultivator— Observing the discussion 
upon this'subject, I am induced to throw in an ounce of expe¬ 
rience. Perhaps the most universal and most extensive blight 
ever known, Is that which fell upon almost every acre of wheat 
in the-northern parts of Indiana and Illinois in 1840. Upon five 
hundred thousand square miles of as rich soil as ever the sun 
shone upon, not one acre in ten was worth cutting. Early and 
late sown, and upon every grade of soil, on hill or dale, wood¬ 
land or prairie, all was affected. Though in sheltered situa¬ 
tions in woodland, and upon the poorest soil, it was the least 
injured. And what goes far against the “ grass theory of Col. 
Smith,” is the fact that what is termed “sod wheat” was the 
most injured. “ Sod wheat” is the term given to the first crop 
on the prairie. The land is usually broke in July or August, 
about four inches deep—it is turned over flat in furrows from 16 
to 24 inches wide, and the sod is often in unbroken strips half a 
mile long; and these are so full of grass roots that the harrow 
makes but little impression, and the consequence is, that the 
wheat is drawn into the cracks between the furrows, and as it 
grows it shows every appearance of having been drilled in long 
straight rows. Such land is usually very bare of all grass and 
weeds, and the wheat comes to early maturity. 
No local cause could have produced the great blight of 1840. 
In the latter part of June, the wheat had attained a most luxuri¬ 
ant growth. Then came several nights in succession of most 
bitter cold, followed by a succession of “scalding hot, muggy 
weather.” This must have been the cause that produced a dis¬ 
tressing effect. Spring wheat at the time had not reached suffi¬ 
cient maturity; and consequently escaped the blight. 
It is my opinion that no human foresight and care can be ex¬ 
ercised sufficient to prevent a natural cause and effect of the 
wheat grower’s hopes. 
Of the crops of the present year, in this region, the farmer 
has no cause of complaint. Wherever good seed was sown, 
good harvests are gathered. And you may be sure there is a 
goodly quantity here to make up any deficiency in the crop else¬ 
where. For my own part, I have learned to place but little re¬ 
liance on the assertions of “crop croakers,” which always 
abound at this season of the year. Indian corn now promises 
the most abundant harvest ever gathered in this region. Be as¬ 
sured famine is yet “afar off.” Let us be thankful for present 
bounties, and enjoy the pleasure of hope of future ones. 
Lake C. H., Ia., July 16,1841, SOLON ROBINSON. 
Preservation of Timber. 
To the Editors of the Cultivator— My name having been un¬ 
expectedly associated, with the publication in your columns of 
the discoveries of M. Boucherie, relative, to the preservation of 
timber, by the infusion of various antiseptic fluids into the pre¬ 
vious circulation of the tree, it seems proper that I should com¬ 
municate a few explanatory facts. 
There seems to be some doubt in the" minds of many of the 
practicability of infusing liquid substances in the manner re¬ 
commended. To such I respectfully suggest, if they happen to 
have a favorite ash or oak growing near their dwellings, to bore 
a few holes with an auger near the place where trees are usu¬ 
ally cut with an axe—entirely into the heart of the tree—fill 
the hole with the preserving or coloring substances, plug up the 
holes carefully, and mark the progress of the fluid by means of 
the leaves. This is a very cheap and easy process, and is a 
practical remedy for those who apprehend any difficulty in 
placing large timbers in tanks and saturating them by external 
applications. 
Under Kyan’s patent, (obtained in England, throughout the 
most of Europe, and in this country,) corrosive sublimate has 
been used for preserving from the dry-rot, timber and textile fa¬ 
brics. This salt combines with the fluids of the timber, and 
forms solid precipitates that are not capable of absorption from 
the atmosphere of either nitrogen, oxygen, or ammonia. Many 
cheap substitutes have been suggested, and as early as six years 
ago, Dr. Woollastan proposed sulphate of copper, or blue vi¬ 
triol; and some trials were reported to the House of Commons. 
The whole evidence produced and submitted to that assembly 
is important; it seems to prove beyond dispute that Dr. W.’s 
discovery is more important than Kyan’s, and was suggested by 
his acquaintance with the copper mines, where he had noticed 
that wood subjected to the operation of the cupreous waters 
had been preserved many years, while those in the iron and lead 
mines soon decayed. He has since made numerous trials with 
various salts, and has uniformly found that sulphate of copper 
is the best preservative. Since his experiments have been suc¬ 
cessful, Mr. Margery has taken out a patent for the exclusive 
right of using sulphate of copper for this purpose, and it has 
excited much interest in the English journals. A patent, I un¬ 
derstand, has been refused in this country, either on account of 
the individual not being a citizen, or of his not being the in¬ 
ventor. 
In the Boston Daily Advertiser, of a few weeks back, you may 
find a copy of Margery’s specification. I have not the paper by 
me, but the following is part of the specification: “ To I lb. of 
sulphate of copper add four gallons of water ; let it be for about 
two days, frequently stirring it; then let it run upon the wood 
or other substance intended to be preserved, which should be 
allowed to remain in a tank, and be kept under the fluid two 
days more ; it should be submitted in a perfectly dry state.” 
Respectfully, &c. CALEB CARMALT. 
Friendsville, Susquehanna co ., Pa., 7th mo. 26, 1841. 
The Sulphates and Salts of Iron. 
We received a long and pointed communication from 
our correspondent ‘ Holkham’ in reply to the paper of 
‘ N. N. D.’ page 82 of the current vol. of the Cultivator. 
As ‘ N. N. D.’ in an explicit manner acknowledged the 
error in part of his former communication, and as the 
subject in controversy is not one of great or immediate 
interest to the majority of our readers, ‘ Holkham’ will 
pardon us if we confine ourselves to that part of his 
letter which shows the improbability of sterility being 
caused in a soil by the sulphate of iron ; and its con¬ 
cluding paragraph : 
“Let us, however, throw aside all our own reasonings and 
conclusions, and give our opponent all he asks, the sulphate and 
its pernicious qualities; we will then proceed to a calculation 
of quantities. Dr. Priestly obtained about 1700 cubic inches of 
sulphuretted hydrogen from a ton of manure ; its weight when 
obtained is probably 500 grains, say one ounce. Now an ounce 
in a ton of such materials as we have obtained with it [the se¬ 
veral substances that result from decomposition] may be of aw¬ 
ful consequence, but we advise those farmers who have applied 
their manure without anticipating its effects, not to be alarm¬ 
ed; inasmuch ns mass in quantity modifies affinity, and attrac¬ 
tion in general is as the weight of atoms; while chemical affin¬ 
ity is as the weight of dissimilar atoms, those which are the 
nearest inweiglit combining in the greatest proportion, and those 
combining in the smallest proportions "which are most dissimilar 
in weight j and two bodies whose particles are of different spe¬ 
cific gravity, being united, any third body whose particles are 
heavier than those of the lightest, will decompose the compound 
and unite with the heaviest..—(Laws of Chemical Affinity by 
Prof. Vanuxem, page 47.) Now when we come to cart out a ton of 
manure, and spread it upon the usual quantity of land, and mix 
it with two or three hundred tons of soil, wc have, supposing 
none of the sulphuretted hydrogen lost in the atmosphere, or 
absorbed by growing plants, 1-10,000,000 part of the whole : if 
used with Dr. Jackson’s one per cent, of lime, it is just 1 • 100,000 
part as injurious as the lime is beneficial. If we now recollect 
that all that is lost in the atmosphere; all that combines with 
alkalies, all that meets with antagonist forces to prevent its 
joining the iron, is actually beneficial; when we recollect that 
a hundred thousandth part of one per cent, of lime, potash, or 
other alkali, all of which are evolved by the decomposition of 
manure, is adequate, among many other contingent agencies 
with which we are acquainted, and probublv many minute and 
imperceptible principles of vegetable vitality with which we are 
unacquainted, to counteract the tendency to barrenness produc¬ 
ed by the sulphuretted hydrogen, we shall begin to think that 
the reasoning in favor of sterility is like beating the air, more 
troublesome than profitable. They may well afford to grant us 
fertility upon calcareous soils, constituting perhaps one-tenth 
of the habitable earth; but we mean to have it upon all, be¬ 
cause the poorer we are, the more we need assistance. And if, 
in addition to the loss of lime, we are to be deprived of our ma¬ 
nure, we may, like Shakspeare’s Iago, when be bad lost his cha¬ 
racter with his purse, be called poor indeed. Fortunately, how¬ 
ever, there is no land totally devoid of all alkaline substances, 
and upon these too we are allowed to apply our manure, be¬ 
cause the sulphuretted hydrogen acting upon'the alkali converts 
the whole into manure. 
“Having thus ventured, with the freedom that should always 
distinguish the love of truth, to dissent from the opinions of one 
of your most valuable writers, it would be doing him injustice 
if I did not bear testimony to the high estimation in which his 
investigations are held. " There are few men whose opinions I 
have read with more intense interest than his whose conclu¬ 
sions I have endeavored to controvert; and if the great object 
of these strictures, the leading of farmers to think, to take a 
deep and abiding interest in such subjects, is accomplished, it 
should, instead of being characterized by N. N. D. as a rebuke, 
be considered by Mm as a benefit derived from his contributions. 
With his objects I heartily concur, and if his efforts to establish 
an agricultural school should be successful, he may then per¬ 
haps have reason to think there is one man who can appreciate 
the value of the service he has rendered the public; there is 
none who, according to his limited means, will go farther to as¬ 
sist him; and while I express a fear that between a state and a 
national institute, our efforts may be paralyzed, I cannot be in¬ 
sensible to the infant struggles of either the one or the other.” 
