The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1877-06-20
Smut in Wheat.
TALBOTT's STATION. !
june Is, 1877. !
To the Editor of the Morristown Gazette


. June Is, 1877.
To the Editor of the Morristown Gazette
wish through the medium c
your paper to present to my brothe
farmers some facts that have com
tony knowledge in regard to thi
pest, and some deductions therefrOm
hoping they may be of some service t,
the wheat grower, and may lead to
complete understanding of the caus,
that produces smut, and the remedy
therefor. Here are the facts: Last yea
one of my neighbors raised a superior
crop of wheat, admitted by all who saw
it to be the finest wheat, not only be
fore it was harvested, but after it was
thrashed, that was raised in our neigh
borhOOd. The grains were large, plumI
and apparently perfect, fair and bright
it was of the TappahanOck or BougtOn
variety-grcw upon a sod that had lain
out for several years-and made about
eighteen bushels to the acre, which was
fine yield for last year. l bought this
crop of wheat, paying premium of 10
/
! sowed all my crop from this seed, ex-
| cept some red wheat. l sold and swapt
with several of my neighbors this wheat
for seed, it being so fine and clear of
smut, cheat or cookie. Now for the Sc
quel. In every instance, without single
exception, where this seed was sown,
its product is about one-third smut; and
on every farm only parts of the field
was sown with this particular seed, and
frequently with the same variety, and
at the same time and in the same man
ner, and in every instance the remainder
of the field is clear of smut These
are the facts. What do they prove?
To my mind, clearly and beyond all
question of doubt, that the cause of
smut, or the smut producing element in
wheat, exists, not in the air, the climate,
the soil, the cultivation, the condition
of the land at the time of sowing, or the
time of sowing, bit IN the seed yOu soao,-
and that the seed may be perfect, so far
as the naked eye can detect. These are
the premises-frOm them different men
may deduce different theories. The
correct one is what we farmers want.
will venture one, it is this: That during
the progress of maturity, probably while
the grain is in the milk or dough state,
an egg is deposited in the grain by a bug
or fly; that egg Matching at some period
during the progress of the next growing
crop, right at the very seat of vitality,
and producing a worm that destroys the
productive principle in the stalk, causing
it to blast and produce this fungus
growth. am supported in this conclu-
sion by the fact that, so far as [ have |
examined, the tap-root in all smut stalks |
are missing, and rOttenness and decay /
prevails about the center of the root. |
Of course the worm cannot be found, /
for it is matured and gone forth to re-
produce itself by a similar process upon /
the then growing crop, and hence the |
reason why one smutty crop produces /
another, not that smut will reproduce /
Itself, for that is an absurdity, but that
he cause which produced the first is
present to produce the second, and so
IN; nor is this theory at variance with
he generally accepted remedy for smut
soaking seed wheat in a solution Of
blue stone, but harmonizes exactly with
t, the solution killing the egg in the
,rain and destroying the cause. The
ruth or falsity of this theory, think,
nay be established by a microscopic
Investigation of this same wheat, some
If which I propose, Mr.. Editor, to leave
With you, and if any gentleman of your
,lace has a miscroscope and feels an in
crest sufficient in the subject, he can
make the test and report, or if l can get
)ne will do so myself. But as further
proof that this is the right theory, l
would ask, may not the little worm we
often find so thick in wheat that has
been put up a damp state, be the
7eritable smut worm, Matched out and
brought to life by the heat and moisture
n the wheat, while in a cool dry state
he egg would remain undeveloped. 4
heOry that is not at variance with any
# the laws of nature, or with any Of
he known facts in a case should be be
ieVed, until some other discovered fact
tets it at defiance. On the other hand
t matters not how plausible theory
nay be if it is opposed to one known
act, strips it of all its beauty and makes
t untenable. I claim for this theory
If smut that it is in harmony with the
avs of nature, and with all the known
acts. The objcctor may say, if there
vas no smut in your seed and none in
he crop that produced that seed, where
lid the insect that deposited the egg in
our beautiful seed come from? Idont
lain that this worm can only be PRO.
uced through the medium of agrowing
wheat crop. Not at all. Only that this
5 one of the ways for its transmigra
ion and reproduction, and probably, the
1ost natural, and certainly the most
atal one to that crop. That it may b.
ound in the ground, think there is M
OubtI hence the reason ii at the blue
tone solution sometimes fail. Hoping
D have this theory proved, if correct,
T disproved if erroneous, ! shall await
response from some good farmer.
L. NJ KING
Trihufa Of Teecnaok.