The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1870-06-16

FARMERS CLUB OF SOCIETY HILL.
While. in this latitude, the cotton plant is
comparatively exempt from the ravages OF the
army and boil worm, it seems peculiarly liable
to injury from rust, not due probably to Gil
mate influences. / do not think over-estl-
mate the loss from this cause during the last
season upon many of our farms, when 1 place
it at one-third of the probable yield. With
propriety, then, we come to the consideration
of this insideous disease, its character, its
cause, and, if possible, its remedies.
WHAT IS RUST IN COTTON?
The first point of inquiry is, what is the dis
ease? Is it an external affection OF the stalk
and leaf, or is it the presence of animal or veg
etable parasites, or is it simply decay of the
structure of the plant from detective or nox-
ious matter in the soil
Each of these theories has been advanced
By respectable authority. Mr.. Rutin ascribes
the disease to minute animacule. (See Rufhn's
Report.) Professor Harper, of Mississippi,
(see "Cotton Planters Manual,'') says: "The
nature of this rust is easily found out by the
aid of a sufficiently powerful microscope, and
Is known to be nothing else but parasitical
fungus, growing upon the stock and branches
of the cotton plant" On the other hand, DR..
j. Lawrence Smith, chemist of distinction,
who was employed by the Black Oak Agricul-
tural Society to investigate this subject, says,
'that which attacks cotton shows no fungus
growth" and expresses the opinion that 1t IS
due mainly to noxious substances in the soil,
and especially to the proxide of iron. In this
opinion Mr.. Henry W. Ravenel, of Aiken,
concurs, than whom no higher authority ex-
lists in the South. In recent communication,
which I had the pleasure of receiving from
him, he says: Il have myself paid some at
tention to this branch of botany, and at the
time made frequent and close examination OF
the diseased plant, and could never in any in
stance find any indications of cryptogamc
growth am satisfied that rust in cotton Is
not caused by any parasite such as affects
wheat, rye, oats and other cereals, but IS only
diseased condition of the plant, affecting its
structural organization aud probably caused
by some deleterious agent in the SOIL"
Which Of these theories shall We accept :?
I'm the absence of direct authority, the weight
of probability is in favor of the fungus theory,
if we are confined to any single one. 1t Is
we'll known that there is a numerous order OF
cryptogamic plants, affecting almost every va
riety of vegetation, and there is no reason why
the cotton plant should be exempt. But the
probability is that the term crust" has been
employed in vague sense to indicate several
diseases of the cotton plant, so that each OF
these theories may be true to limited extent
The disease certainly presents itself to us in at
least two apparently distinct forms, designated
red and black rust.
The exact nature of the disease, however, is
an interesting question of science, rather than
one of practical value. 1t will be found,
whichever theory we adopt, that in all cases
over which the farmer can have any control,
the exciting cause is to be found in the soil.
The cognate disease which affects grain, and
Is known elsewhere under the term "Mildew,"
has been the subject of close investigation for
years, and especially by the intelligent agri-
cultural mind of Great Britain. This is known
to be a fungus, which is always more or less
present, (see Professor Johnston's article,
Farmers Encyclopedia, page $685. but which
only becomes destructive under circumstances
favorable to its development-gene fee
ble or diseased condition of the plant. This is
the exact theory with regard to rust in the cot
ton plant. 'This fungus" says Professor Har-
per, sis produced by diseased state of the
plant, caused by stagnation in its growth,
and consequent relaxation in circulation Of
the fluid or sap of the plant" And this dis
eased state of the plant he ascribes more gene
rally to a defective condition of the soil.
Whether. then, the disease is external or inter-
nal, the depreciation of parasite or decay
we are to look to for remedy.
OBSERVED FACTS IN THE CASE.
Having thus stated the theories of the
disease, it will be instructive to examine the
various facts which have fallen under our OBJ
servation, both in the appearance of the dis
ease and the remedies which have been en-
ployei, to see how far they may accord with
one or the other of these theories; how far
IL, III o1oir i1a6r
ciples, and how far they may throw further
light upon this obscure subject The first fact
which we observe is that in unpropitious sea-
sons, such as the last, the disease prevails gen.
orally, and affects soil of almost every descrip-
tion. Here the exciting cause would seem to
be in certain atmospheric conditions, and in
conflict with the theory of noXious matter
as an exclusive one. Here the disease would
seem to be beyond the control of the farmer );
but it is not entirely SO. On my own farm,
during the last season, amid the general preva-
lence of the disease, new ground and pre-
MUM acre under high treatment, on opposite
sides of the farm, were entirely exempt. This
fact proves that under the most adverse atmos-
pheric conditions, high condition of the soil,
natural or artificial, will mitigate if not pre-
vent, the disease The second fact which we
notice, is that certain soils arc extremely liable
to the disease, while others, and especially new
lands, are generally exempt. Here the excl
ting cause is evidently in the soil, and the cause
is often apparent Imperfect drainage and ex-
cess of vegetable or mineral matter are clearly
unhealthy to the growth of plants, and, as as
might be anticipated, removal of them will
correct the evil More thorough drainage and
the application of lime or ashes has, with the
observation of many of us, arrested the ten
dency to rust in certain lands.
But sometimes the cause is not so evident.
Lands will rust cotton in which we can discov-
er no physical or chemical defect. They seem
moderately dry, and produce other crops in
fair abundance. Here the defect may be from
the presence of noxiolls matter in the soil, IN
the form of peroxide Of iron, as has been often
suggested or it may arise from excessive mois-
L IL l..ah