1805.] On Siberian Wheat. 307

fected when no discolouration can be perceived by the naked eye. Hence the danger of sowing wheat, of the most cleat and pure appearance, without pickling.

In the course of my experiments, I have observed a very considerable variation in the proportion of smut in crops which were raised from“ unprepared" wheat, Lhough tbe whole of the Seed appeared perfectly bright and clean. In one of them the crop appeared as free from Smut as an ad- Joining ridge from pickled Seed. From a very minute exa- mination, however, 1 discovered a difference in favour of Pickling. But even if there had been no difference in these crops, 1 would not have considered the result as a proof of the inutility of that practice, but as a proof that the geed from which they were raised was free from infection.

Various modes of preventing Smut have been practised, Perhaps there are two or three remedies. But farmers in general have placed the greatest confidence in immersing the grain in very strong pickles,(of Salt and waters) or in cham- ber-Iye. Some have doubted the utility of lime except in rendering the Seed dry and more easily Scattered in SOwINg. My own experience, however,(for part of which, in an accurate comparative trial, 1 refer to your work) has con- vinced me of the beneficial effects of this Substance as a Preventive of Smut. And I repeat that it Should be applied in fine powder, and in its caustic State, to Seed wheat that has been recently immersed in stale ehamber-Iye. Chamber-Ive 80 old as to have produced ammonia in the process:of pu- tretaction.* Skimming off the light grains,&c. at the top of the liquid 1s also advisable.

But though I am Satisfied that chamber-]ye and lime will prevent the smut, I believe there are modes of employing these materials that will often prove ineffectval. Hence tbe diSsappointments of Some agriculturists; and bence the dif- ferent phenomena of various Parts of the Same field, even where the crop has been wholly raised from the very Same Sort of Seed pickled with the two Substances I have just named.

I have now, Sir, to notice the concluding part of your correspondent's letter, in which he states that a parishioner of his dressed 30me Seed wheat“ most curiously io preyent the smut;" but that instead of reaping pure wheat from this Seed, he bad“ not a peck free from smut, whilst 1 crop fvom the Same Sort of Seed, Sown dry and untouched," Suflered neither blight, smut, nor mildew.** This circum- Stance calls for minute investigation.

.“ I have always found Such chamberlye more effectual than water Strong!y awpregnated with Salt.

Ag. Mag. Yol.-13. Os