Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1922-09-06
RURAL ACTIVITIES AND NEWS
OF INTEREST TO THE FARMER
SAYS BARBERRY NOT 10 BLAME

Following is an extract from a let
ter to Rev. s. ]. Hedelund, rector Of
st. Johns Episcopal church here, from
n. Dure of Hallock, Mimi, an old and
experienced farmer &. Il
was born in Ontario IS years ago.
My father being bricklayer and q
to attend the farm. My first expert
ence with wheat rust was when I was
IA years of age. That season we had
20 or 80 acres In wheat; the summer
was hot and showery making the
wheat very heavy and rank. The pros
poets was for fine crops. Especially
at the time Of heading, it was very
warm. Then very suddenly a cold
wave came from the north. Three
days later the wheat was badly rusted
and we had to burn it. That is over
20 years ago, and since them have
made a study Of the rust problems
There was no such thing as barberry
bushes in that section of the country
and if barberry causes rust, why dc
we not have rust every year? My
experience teaches me this: When the
wheat heads begin to shoot up, the
sap is thin and watery. If then a
sudden chill takes place, the inside OF
the stalk being harder than the out
side, the outer part. contracts OF
shrinks faster than the inside, causing
cracks which allow the sap to Ooze
out, causing black rust II this takes
place later on when the sap is thicker
and milky, then it forms little Jumps
called red rust, ~. ~
A few years ago I had 800 acres
of wheat near HallOck. One day q
man came to me and said, "I see rust
spores in your wheat" assured him
there is no such a thing as rust
spore. There was no rust in the wheat
that year. If our agricultural experts
and scientists can regulate the wealth
er so that it will never rise above a
certain temperature or 60 below a GER
tain temperature, I will guarantee
there will be no rust. Burberry caus-
ing rust is mere guess-a myth. (.
My experience with smut has been
equally wide. When I was is, we let
10 acres summer fallow for winter
wheat. The day began to plant we
had a heavy mist. We completed
about half the sowing that day. The
next day was fine and it continued
dry all that fall. The next spring
that 10 acres looked fine, not bit of
it winter killed. But the part we
put in the damp day was full of smut.
If we had dragged it that misty day
it would have been better. But there
was not a trace of smut in the part
we put in the dry days. For years
after that when saw evidence of
smut I examined the roots and al.
ways found them curled up like a
cotton ball or in a hard lump. II
the weather had kept damp while the
grain was sprouting so that the roots
would not be congested there would
have been no smut, or if the wheat
had been treated even with warm
water So as to cause the wheat to
sprout quickly, there would have been
no smut. Smut is caused entirely by
the roots not having free liberty tC
spread. New ground is not given much
to smut as the ground does not harden
like old ground SIS
This is my half pound of experience
and I have found it is worth far more
than 100 pounds of theory. In agri
culture, as well as in religion, we
have so called experts giving out their
guessings and rawlings. 1t makes me
think of the third verse in the 18th
chapter of Ezekiel "Woe unto the
foolish prophets that follow their owl
spirit, and have seen nothing"