SMUT IN WHEAT. We have learned from various sources that this disease of wheat has done great damage in several portions of the State, in some cases ruining the whole crop, and in others injuring it very seriously. We have been requested to write an article on the subject by a good many of our friends, and a correspondent from Campbell, I. H. W., propounds the following queries, which, as covering the whole ground, THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. we shall make the basis of this article: ONE DOLLAR and TWENTY-FIVE CENTS per annum, which may be discharged by the payment of ONE DOLLAR only, if paid in office or sent free of postage within six months from the date of subscription. Six copies for FIVE DOLLARS; thirteen copies for TEN DOLLARS, to be paid invariably in advance. Subscriptions may begin with any No. No paper will be discontinued, until all arrearages are paid, except at the option of the Publisher. Office on Twelfth, between Main and Cary Streets. Communications for the Southern Planter, upon other than business matters, may be addressed to the Editor, FRANK: G. RUFFIN, Esq. at Shadwell, Albemarle Co., Va., which will insure their being more speedily attended to. BUSINESS LETTERS will be directed as heretofore to "The Southern Planter," Richmond, Va. Postage prepaid in all cases, TIMELY WARNING. All subscribers who do not order a discontinuance before the commencement of the new year or volume, will be considered as desiring a continuance of their papers, and charged accordingly. POSTAGE ON THE PLANTER. The following are the rates of postage on the Planter, per quarter, for the distances annexed to be paid quarterly in advance: Not over 50 miles, 14 cents. Over 50 and not over 300 miles, 2 cents. 1. What is the nature of smut, and its cause? 2. Is there any preventive of it? 3. Can it be propagated from crops that have it to crops that have not, by threshing the latter with the same machine with which the former was threshed? 4. Is it peculiar to particular varieties of wheat, and if so, to which? Premising that we have no experience in the matter, having never discovered but two heads of smutted wheat in all that we have made, we will answer the above queries without regard to the order of interrogation. Smut is nothing more or less than a microscopic, parasitical fungus, or mushroom, of the same species with those which grow in the fields and other situations where they are commonly observed. It was for a long time questioned whether this order of plants, of which there are 2,400 species, belonged to the family of vegetables or animals, but it has now been demonstrated to be a vegetable, though of a sort which, like the sponges, links the animal and vegetable races. The species which constitutes the smut in wheat,-perhaps others also, is composed, to a very considerable extent, of a substance precisely like putrid gluten; and gluten is the characteristic ingredient of wheat, and chemically, though not in form, the same substance with animal gluten, or, as it is more commonly called, albumen. Hence the liability of wheat to be attacked by this fungus, and hence also the dispute as to the appropriate kingdom of the fungus. Upon shaking or striking with the hand a Ismutted head of wheat, a quantity of dust will be observed. This dust is composed of the microscopic seed of the fungus, uredo segetum, as it is called, and there are millions of them in each head of smut. The same thing may be observed upon bursting the common | seems to fasten upon indifferently, seems to mushroom, or puff balls, of our fields; the forbid the ascription of it to the usually aspurplish dust which rises is the seed of the signed causes, and would appear to require plant. more accurate and continuous observation Numerous experiments have clearly ascer-than has heretofore been given to it. tained two modes by which these seed may infect the wheat-by absorption from the soil, in which case the seeds ascend along with water taken up by the roots of the plant-and by infection from seeds of wheat that have by some means got into contact with this powder, which adheres to it. The last is the most frequent cause. In either case the plant is poisoned, not only in the head, but in the straw also, which is reduced in product some eigh teen per cent. It is, in fact, an organic disease which attacks and injures the whole plant, though the greatest damage is done to the grain. Of this it does not seriously affect the saline or inorganic constituents, but it prevents the formation of starch, as is known from the facts that none is ever found in smut heads, and that the fecula is never affected by the dust when treated with it independently; and it decomposes the remaining organic or vegetable particles, which consist mainly of gluten. It requires the nicest chemical examination to decide whether it putrifies the gluten, or consumes and appropriates it, since there is but a shade of difference between its substance and putrified gluten. The countless millions of its seeds existing in the shape of finest dust, wafted about by every breeze, and not easily destroyed by the agency of the seasons, are scattered over the land ready to poison, by absorption, the crops which from some cause may be predisposed to the malady, and having once got hold on the grain, it is rapidly propagated by contagion. That these seed do always exist in the soil is not probable, though the fact of their presence or absence is not ascertained. Those of the rust, which is a plant of the same family, certainly do; but the intermittent and less universal attacks of the smut would seem to warrant the opinion that it is neither so hardy, prolific, or pervasive. What may be the exciting cause of its attack is not known. There are numerous opinions on the subject; but its prevalence in various seasons, over large districts containing every kind of soil, exhibiting great diversities of culture, and presenting many varieties of wheat which it The specific remedy for infected seed wheat is somewhat troublesome, but very simple, and certain in its operation. It consists in steeping the wheat just previous to sowing in certain solutions which destroy the vitality if not the structure of the smut seed. Mr. Bevan, an Englishman, has made several accurate experiments with various steeps. It is not necessary to state those experiments in detail: it is sufficient to mention that specimens of smutted wheat steeped in solutions of common salt, soot, lime saturated, muriatic acid, and sulphuric acid, each produced crops free from smut. Of these, salt, as being cheapest, most common, and most easily handled, is altogether the best. It is used in this way: the wheat is first washed in pure water which is to be poured off along with all the floating grains. Then it should be soaked twelve hours in brine made strong enough to float a hen's egg. It should be then taken out and rolled in slaked lime until the grains becoming coated with it cease to adhere and can be easily scattered by hand. The lime steep is made by mixing one pound of fresh lime with three gallons of boiling water, and in that proportion for any quantity that may be wanted, pouring off the clear liquor and using it immediately. The seed to be rolled in lime as above. In both the above cases the wheat ought to be frequently stirred that the surface of each seed may be well washed. We have seen in one of our exchanges a statement made by a gentleman in South Carolina of an effective steep made of bluestone. We have written to that gentleman requesting his recipe and his practice, and shall publish it if we get it. Repeated washings in pure water are also said to be effective, but as the water must be changed at each washing the process is a very troublesome one. We have heard that some gentlemen in Prince George who have used these solutions not as steeps, but as a mere wash, have had the smut very much curtailed, but have failed to have a good stand of wheat in consequence of the swelling and drying which prevents the germination of a good many of the grains | preceding crop may, and probably will, convey of wheat. To a certain extent this is to be the infection. This is all we can gather on the subject that we deem it necessary to communicate. The processes may seem tedious, but we believe them necessary to cleanse a crop thoroughly, and we think time will be well spent if it accomplish that object, as smut is the vilest pest that can infect the wheat crop. Having no personal experience, we can of course say nothing with absolute certainty. But the confidence with which we would recommend these remedies and preventives, gathered from such books as we have access to, is strengthened by the assurance of a neighbor that his crop was completely purged of smut some few years ago by brining and liming as above. If others shall succeed in consequence of what we have written, as we are very sure they will, we request as a favor that they will communicate the source of their good fortune to that thick headed and prejudiced class, the anti-book farmers, who act as if they thought every truth became a lie as soon as published in an agricultural newspaper. expected. But we should apprehend less harm of this sort from a thorough soaking than from a superficial wetting, because the grain would dry much sooner in the latter case. It is within the observation of every wheatgrower that if a slight shower occurs during seeding, barely wetting the surface of the ground, but not stopping the work, that the|| wheat which was dampened by the same rain, or by being immediately enveloped in the moistened surface, vegetates very feebly if a drying sun follows and evaporates the moisture, because the incipient germination has been checked. Would this have happened if the grain had been thoroughly wetted so as not to dry out so easily? We think not. Nor would it, in our opinion, occur in ordinary seasons unless continued dry weather should supervene, such as injures the stand of wheat at all times. But if we are mistaken in this opinion, which ought rather to be called a suggestion, there are still two conditions which may, to a great degree, if not entirely, obviate the risk-ploughing the wheat in pretty deep, I. H. W. (whose compliments, by the way, say about three inches, so as to place it be- are duly appreciated, only we wish he had yond the influence of ordinary droughts, and backed them by a handsome list of subscriadding seed enough to compensate the calcu- bers—we like pudding better than praise,) lated deficiency, a safe approximation to which informs us that one of his neighbors did may be easily obtained by first steeping a not mean to thresh his wheat, but would given number of seeds the required time, then feed the whole of it to his hogs. We would sowing them in the way the crop is to be thank him to note the result carefully and sowed, and counting those that come up. But communicate it to us. It is by no means cerhowever all this may be, the smut must be got tain that it will be a very good food for them. rid of, and we know no other mode of doing Most of the fungi family are poisonous, and it. it is known that horses, and even people, fed on spurred rye, or rye infested with ergot, which is another fungus of the same family, have been killed by it. If the wheat was threshed and then brined we should not anticipate any danger; nor do we know that there is any at all. We merely suggest it as a pos sibility. Particular care should be taken after the wheat is removed from the steep not to spread it upon a floor which has been previously occupied by smutted wheat until it has been thoroughly scoured first with pure water, and then with brine as strong as the steep itself, as otherwise it would be liable to infection from the powder which might remain on the floor. The walls ought to be washed in the same way, or, preferably, whitewashed. As preventives we would advise that wheat should not be sowed on the stubble of a preceding smutted crop, that the crop should not be manured with the straw of a smutted crop, and that the machine should be thoroughly cleansed before threshing, as the dust of the Another of our correspondents inquires for a good smut machine. The Rev. Walker Timberlake, to whom we applied on this head, says that Messrs. Wilson & Funk of Winchester, manufacture a machine, which he considers effectual. "It costs one hundred and fifty dollars, makes eight hundred revolutions in a minute; has been running six years, and has never been repaired." He advised a friend to get one of a much smaller size, costing, he thinks, half as much, and he informed him afterwards that he had no further use for any other machine to clean his wheat. And this is "all the information we can get on this subject." We hope it may prove satisfactory to our friends. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. It is very desirable that gentlemen asking information should furnish their names. Sometimes it is unnecessary to publish replies, and yet we are forced to do so because we cannot write a private letter from ignorance of the querist's name. Sometimes, too, we desire to communicate further with our unknown friends. Whenever it is necessary to publish the letters that we may get information which we do not happen to possess, we can suppress the name whenever it is desired. "A James River Farmer" desires to know how guano will operate on very salt reclaimed marsh land-land that has been reclaimed for ten years, and now brings very fine herdsgrass. Whether the land is too wet for grain is not stated, and yet that is a very important condition. If it is, we should think it hardly worth while to sow guano on the grass, as the moisture and vegetable matter in the land seem now sufficient to produce a maximum crop of grass. If it is dry enough for wheat or corn, and rich land, we would think it useless to apply guano, as on very rich land it rarely pays well. The saltness of the land we would not regard at all. It is recommended sometimes to sprinkle salt and water over manure for the purpose of retaining the ammonia, which, it is said, becomes changed thereby from a volatile to a fixed salt-from the carbonate to the muriate of ammonia. We do not know if this is so, but we should apprehend no danger from the presence of salt. But we beg that our opinion in the above shall not be relied on, but that accurate experiments shall be instituted to test the matter. We may be mistaken; for instance, in the opinion that guano pays badly on rich land. There are facts on the other side that we occasionally hear of, such as this: we learn that Mr. Richard Sampson, of Goochland, applied guano on some of his best low grounds, and thought it a failure. He put on no more for a year or two, until having a small portion left over one fall, he sowed it again on the low grounds and made greatly superior wheat on the land. I. H. W. of Campbell county, and others, will find their inquiries on smut answered in the leader of this number. They would have been answered in the August number, but we had neither time nor space. They are answered now in good time. CHINA FOWLS. Our thanks are due to Mr. CHAS, SAMPSON of West Roxbury, Massachusetts, for the very acceptable present of a pair of these fowls. They came safely to hand per steamer Roanoke. Judging from these, and from some very fine specimens shown us some time ago by our friend, Mr. Butters, (at Nash & Woodhouse's bookstore,) we believe this to be a very superior stock, certainly the largest and finest we have ever seen-and we think poultry-raisers would do well to supply themselves with some of this breed. See Mr. Sampson's advertisement in another page. P. D. B. GREAT SALE OF SHORT HORN CATTLE. We call the attention of our readers and particularly those who are improving their breed of cattle, to the advertisement of Mr. George Vail, in another column. The high reputation of his herd renders any remarks from us in reference to it unnecessary. Catalogues of the sale can be had on application in person, or by letter, at the office of the Southern Planter. OAT STRAW.-A writer in a June number of the Farm Journal, gives his expe rience of the injury of oat-straw, when fed to milch cows. He states that in the early part of June his cows ate of the oat straw litter, and, although fresh, their milk immediately failed, and was not restored unthe straw. This, we believe, accords with til the cattle were entirely excluded from the universal opinion among farmers, of the deleterious effects of this straw upon cows in milk; but it is well enough to mention the fact, in order that, through inattention, others may not suffer from negigently allowing their cattle to feed upon it.-Germantown Telegraph. For the Southern Planter. GUENON'S THEORY OF THE MILCH COW. All mankind, and farmers more especially, are prodigiously afraid of the monster, humbug. Nor is this surprising, considering the constant vigilance necessary to guard us against his insinuating machinations in the countless shapes in which he appears, in the moral, political and agricultural world. Prudence (always commendable) will nevertheless dictate the importance of investigating the claims of what professes to be a new discovery or invention, before the stigma of humbug is fixed upon it. It has been the fate of most of the grand discoveries, to which the world owes its present state of civilization, in their early history, to be pronounced humbugs, and so it will continue to be to the end of time. A few years since a work was issued from the press, called "A Treatise on Milch Cows, whereby the quantity and quality of milk which any cow will give, may be accurately ascertained by observing natural marks or external indications alone; the length of time she will continue to give milk, &c. By M. Francis Guenon, of Libourne, France, and translated for the Farmers' Library, by N. P. Trist, Esq. late United States Consul at Havana." This work on its first appearance attracted the attention of a few individuals who took the pains to study it; but to the community at large it seemed difficult and inexplicable, and therefore was set down as a humbug. The author of this work has consumed about twenty years in perfecting and systematizing his discovery, which has been subjected to the best tests by the distinguished agricultural societies of France, who have awarded him gold medals, as may be seen by reference to the work. A discovery that will teach us to choose between cows that will yield six gallons of milk and those that give one quart per diem-to distinguish those that give milk during the whole time of pregnancy from such as go dry as soon as impregnated-by external marks, is surely one of the greatest of the age, 1 But does any one believe it? I must confess that, after two years' investigation and practice, I see very little to shake my faith in the accuracy of the science, and that where I have been at fault in pronouncing upon a cow, it has invariably grown out of my own inattention or ignorance of the subject. According to Guenon, cows are divided into eight classes, each having a general and distinguishing mark. These are again subdivided into eight grades of each class, with a mark which fixes the rank of the cow in her class. Cows are also divided into three classes, according to size, viz: high, medium and low. He has given a name to each class, which is altogether arbitrary, but most generally suggested by a resemblance of what he calls "the escutcheon" to the thing whose name it bears. There occur in all grades of every class what he calls "bastard" cows, who go dry immediately on being impregnated. These have likewise their distinguishing mark. The marks exist on a calf as soon as it is born, and may be defined at two months old, both on male and female. We may, therefore, always know whether to retain any calves for breeders or turn them out for beef. The book contains plates exhibiting the marks of every grade, of every class, and tables showing the quantity of milk, and the length of time each will give milk after being impregnated. A considerable degree of practice is nenessary to acquire a perfect knowledge of the subject and to retain a distinct recollection of all the marks. Some persons show a great fondness for, and facility in, learning the marks, and are much astonished at their accuracy. There must be a perfect combination of all the marks, before the character of a cow can be known, and the rates for milk are based on the supposition of perfect health, maturity of age, and abundance of food. Under these circumstances, his standard will often be found too low. Let the learner take the book and first make himself familiar with the distinguishing mark of each class. He can then learn the marks which fix the grade in each class. He must then learn the bastard marks, and the task is done. The improved English breeds have a much larger proportion of well marked milkers than the common stock, which is a strong evidence of the truth of the theory. |