The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1841-07-21
AGRICULTURAL.
From the Plough Boy.
SMUT IN WHEAT.

SMUl In w
Mr.. Editor Sir-I do not intend lr
this communication to CRAFTY the reader
in a learned and elaborate essay, uponthe
subject under consideration, but simply to
impress upon the minds ofthe Agricultural
public, the improperly of subscribing too
hastily to the different theories that present
themselves in this age Of experiment ard
Improvement. Much has been said and
written upon the subject of Smut, not on
Iy by the practical and experienced Far
mcr, but bv those who have had the ad-
vantage of a more liberal education; yet,
Notwithstanding all their experience and
intelligence, / am at ia loss to account, salts,
factorilv, how the Smut is produced, and
what is the preventative. Most Farmers
have however subscribed to the doctrine;
that Smut originates from impure seed,
and that a strong solution cf blue stone,
copperas and salt will prevent the Smut,
this believe to be the experience OF al!
most every Farmer in the country; but yet,
there are few who have but little faith
in the above recipe, and | confess | am
one of that number; and have been con
firmed in my opinion, from an experiment
ofone of nv neighbors, who by the by, is
a close observer, and an excellent Farmer.
A suitable field was selected, of about the
same quality ofsoil, the land was prepared
as usual in the neighborhood, and the
wheat sowed, but previous 10 seeding the
wheat, about one half oft was soaked in
strong solution of blue stone, copperas,
and salt, for twenty four hours. the other
half was not soaked at all; the wheat came
up looked fine and healthy, and continued
to grow luxuriantly throughout the season;
at length however, the Smut made its ap-
pearance, much to the astonishment and
disappointment Of my friend. Without
the least exaggeration, we believe, the
wheat that was soaked in the solution
produced about one half Smut; yes, the
real Smut, when in the other, that was not
soaked, comparat vel speaking, rhera
was noe. This, Mr. Editor, IS a matter
of fact. Some Farmers, >av, that impu G
seed will pr duce it, or rather is tie caHse
of Smut: this last doc,ri am at a
loss to subscribe to, for | recollecta an expe-
r.ment, made by a fir end of mine, some
several wears ago; he had almost lost his
seed wheat, 0he little white) but for few
bushels left in hogshead in the barn,
through the whole summer, exposed to the
weavel and every thing of the sort; at
length the wheat was sown, the worst
weavel eaten lever had seen; whether it
: was soaked in the blue stone or not, am
unable to say; it came up and done finely;
Produced as fine wheat as ever grew in
any country, entirely free from Smut or
any thing else. | should like, MIR. Editor,
for some of the large wheat growers to
Z tell us how to raise this valuable staple, in
"A pure and unadulterated state. My own
opinion about the Smut, is, that it is dis
ease peculiar to some kinds of wheat, and
whether soaked in blue stone or not will
make its appearance, some time oranother.
If we wjshte raise wheat successfully, we
must procure the best seed we can, that
variety that is free from Smut, and all 9TH
er impurities. and perhaps none would sue
ceed so we'll as our native wheat. am
among those, who believe an all wise
Providence has provided every section o
country with the kind of plants, most coge'
NAL to the climate. and its only remain:
for us to select and cultivate properly, tc
obtain the different kinds of seed thai
would be best for us; and here might OBJ
serve, the greatest variety of vegetation
have seenin any section of country through
which / have travelled,is portion leading
from Cambridge to the Island ford on Sa
luda river, down Wilson's and Ninety-si,
Greeks; through that region of country
we have seen the native wheat, rye, oat
and blue grass. ! firmly believe the blu'
grass will grow, ifpropery managed, a
luxuriantly among us, as it does in Ken
tucky. 4 You're PLANTER.