Connecticut western news., 1883-02-21
Smut in Corn.

s. w., Hudson, Mass, writes: 'As
 it will soon be time to think of planting,
 should like to see the matter of smut in
 corn more thoroughly discussed. If I
 can find no preventive of smut I shall
 be inclined to discontinue the planting
 of corn. may say, first of all, l have
 seen more smut in one season here on
 half an acre of corn than saw Altogether
 in the first fifty years of my life in other
 States. In the spring of 1881 l saw 1t stated that soaking the seed in strong
 pickle or brine would prevent smut.
 That spring put my seed into pickle as strong as it could be made with salt and cold water. I intended to soak the seed twenty-four or thirty-six hours, but con- tinuous rainy weather prevented the planting some eight or nine days, during which the corn remained in pickle. That year I had about the usual quantity of smut. As this corn was planted on old corn ground, l thought that this might have much to do with the smut, but last spring (1982) turned over sod ground or greensward, and noticing in paper that soaking the seed in 8 solution of blue vitriol would kill smut, l soaked the seed as directed by the paper, and yet the smut was as plentiful as in the years before. think, in fact, that 1t was more thoroughly diffused among the corn than usual. In cutting little corn which cured for fodder, think l threw out fully six or seven per cent. of the stalks as worthless because there were, perhaps, half dozen spots of smut on on each stalk. From my experience l feel justified in asserting that neither brine nor sulphate of copper is any pre- ventive W hatever of smut.
 Reply.-Your conclusion, although at
 first sight it may seem reasonable, IS not a just one. We may say virtue is against vice. That seems reasonable, but there is. not enough vir- tue in the world to prevent vice, because vice springs up in thousands of quarters where virtue does not appear. Now, without the stepping of the salt or the there might have been 20 or 50 per cent. of smutty stalks, while with 1t there was only or per cent. The fine black dust is the seed of the smut, and that is scattered profusely by the winds everywhere and will remain in the soil for years, until it finds a corn plant to grow in The pickle only kills the smut on the seed and not that which IS in the ground but if the seed is cleansed from the pest so much is saved. It IS known that picking the seed wheat does pre- vent smut in wheat, and the practice IS very common. We don't understand all about smut, although we know it is fungus and grows from seed; but whether corn, wheat, oat, onion, and all other smuts are the same or forms of the same plant we do not know. Nor do we know yet a complete remedy against it, although we do know that by the use of salt, copper sulphate, lime and other cor rosive solutions we can kill it on the seed, and so prevent the seed from car rying the infection with it into the soil.
 How to get the soil free from it, when it is infected by the myriads of smutty ears and stalks left in the fields or thrown in the manure yards, seems to be seri- ous difficulty. If every smutty stalk or ear were burned up it is very certain that we might in few years become wholly free from the pest, because 8 new supply of seed would be prevented. It Is as certain we can rid ourselves of it as that
 we can get rid of daisies or other weeds
 if we try to-N Y Times