The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1889-07-03
SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL.
Rust in Cotton.

ject has generally been treated by two
classes of writer's from very different
standpoints.
l. The scientist, the college profess
sor, who understands a great deal
about science, and who may be correct
as far as his experience goes, but who
has had few opportunities of observa-
ton in the field.
2. The practical farmer who has no.
ticed all the phenomena of rust, but
who is unable to form conclusions
from these observations
For years | have been observing rust
in cotton, and the conclusion which l
have reached, is that it is a general
term for variety of diseases, some
times local in the leaf but generally in
the plant itself, indirectly affecting the
leaf, and is due to variety of causes.
Injury to the leaf from parasites, de-
fective circulation from general or
special poverty, bad and irregular sea-
sons, defective drainage. and some
times from some poisonous element in
the soil. / have seen rust or decay
from all of these causes. and he who
asserts that rust is a specific disease
due to any one cause is, in my opinion,
very much in error. We have it upon
the authority of learned professor of
tho South Carolina University that
rust comes from animal para
sites, and he has established this to
his own satisfaction by actually prop
agating the disease. / am far from
asserting that it never comes from this
cause. have myself seen it from the
depreciation of ordinary cotton lice,
but that this can not be the general
cause is evident from the fact that the
insect enemies of plants always select
the most healthy, because the most
succulent growth. The cotton worm
is invariably found first upon the most
vigorous and tender plants. If this
was the true cause, rust would prevail
generally when the crop was under the
most favorable conditions, and would
exist without regard to seasons or
soils. Such is not the fact.
Again, that distinguished farmer and
agricultural writer, DR.. Lee, for whom
I have the highest respect, tells us that
rust is always the result of fungus
growth. My observations do not sus-
tain this. l have never been able to
detect any reddish deposit upon the
diseased leaf as is the case with the
grains, hence the name.
DR.. Henry Ravenel, of Aiken, S. c.,
who was widely known as all eminent
bootanist, especially in this class of
plants, cryptogamia, once stated to me
chat he had been deeply interested in
the subject of rust in cotton, having
himself been for years a cotton plant
or, and that he had never been able
with the most powerful glass to discov-
er any fungus growth. Now, if DR..
Lee has detected this growth by the
microscope, then there is here a con-
flict of high scientific authority. But
has he or has he not accepted this
theory from analogy with other plants.
Again, David Dickson, the great
practical farmer, asserts that rust is
nothing but poverty; manure your
land and you will remove the disease.
There is no doubt that poverty OF the
soil is the most general cause of decay
or rust; every observant farmer will
admit of some limitation. lnjudicious
manuring of poor lands with very
soluble fertilizer sometimes produces
the disease. This doubtless happens
from the manure becoming exhausted
or ceasing to act from want of moisture
at the critical period when the plant,
highly stimulated and loaded with
fruit, is left in worse condition than if
no manure had been used. Such has
been the fate of many a promising
crop. But this occasional experience
is no argument against the position
that manure combined with humus is
the best general remedy for rust, if
not specific.
Again, we hear Il great deal of late
about kainit as a sovereign cure.
There is no doubt that upon certain
lands where potash has been exhausted
or is absent. that the effect of kainit is
admirable in sustaining the plants. l
have seen remarkable illustrations of
this on my own farm. But neither
general or special manuring will pre-
vent rust upon lands radically insult
| ed to cotton.
There are certain sour lands, gum
ponds. which will not make cotton even
with the best manures, and there are
other lands which rust so badly as to
indicate not simply the absence of
fertility, but the presence of some
noxious element, probably iron, in
some injurious form.
A summary of what have written
is that rust in cotton is rarely disease
OF the leaf, but generally decay of
the plant, and is due not to one, but a
number of unhealthy causes. But it
may be asked why is it that cotton is
more subject to this decay than any
other of our cultivated crops?
think we need not go far to find the
rue explanation. 1t is said that wheat
is the most civilized of all our agri-
cultural plants, but l doubt if cotton
may not be regarded as more civilized
than even the great cereal, as it is fur