Alabama, likewise, owing to the great attention paid to the cotton crop, raises but little wheat. The crop of 1844, on the whole, seems to have been a "pretty good" one, and may probably be set down as an advance of 10 per cent. above that of 1843.

In Missouri, the earlier report in some places was favorable. In Madison, Washington, and Jefferson counties, it was thought that there would be an average yield of wheat; but the heavy rains destroyed a large proportion of the wheat crop, so that it is thought that there was not more than half an average crop; and we feel justified in placing it at 40 per cent. less than the crop of the previous year, believing that, taking the various elements which help to form our conclusion into view, we shall not err greatly in such a deduction..

Besides the particular notices which have been given of the wheat crop under the different States, we find the following general estimates respecting the wheat crop of the whole country, which it may be well to quote, as showing the views of those who have paid considerable attention to the subject. The Cultivator thus sums up the product of wheat for the year 1844, in a late number, (December:)

"This great staple product has yielded variously in different sections of the country; but in a territory embracing so many degrees of latitude, and possessing so varied a climate, it can hardly be expected that the same crop will succeed equally well in all parts the same season. In Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the spring wheat is generally cultivated, as it is considered better adapted to the climate than the winter wheat. The worm in the head, (cecidomyia tritici,) improperly called weevil, has prevailed there to such an extent for several years, that this crop has been considered quite uncertain. The insect has, however, been less destructive during the two last years, and, from all the accounts we have seen, the yield of wheat in that section has been generally good the past season. In the eastern part of this State, (New York,) the insect above mentioned injured the winter wheat to some extent; but in the Genesee valley, and the great wheat districts of the State, the crop was good. In northern Indiana, northern Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the fly (cecidomyia destructor) did much injury to the crop, in many instances occasioning almost a total failure; and we are informed that this enemy has already made its appearance in great force in the early fall-sown wheat. In the southerly part of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, wheat, in many cases, did not fill well; the growth of straw was very great, but the prevalence of warm wet weather occasioned much of it to fall down or rust. This was quite generally the case on rich land. On the uplands, of not so rich a quality, the crop was better, and the grain plumper and heavier. Taking the Western States together, however, we think the wheat crop did not give an average yield per acre, though, from the large quantity of ground sown, the aggregate product was not probably less than in any previous year. So of the country at large, there was probably as much wheat produced the past season as in any former one."

The aggregate of the wheat crop, as appears by the tabular estimate, for the whole country, during the year 1844, was 95,607,000 bushels.

The ravages of the Hessian fly are becoming every year more alarming, and there is great danger, if more pains is not taken in time to counteract the evil, that the wheat crop in our country will be seriously lessened, if not destroyed, by the same. In the hope of aiding the wheat growers

against this destructive enemy, an able paper has been procured from Ed-ward C. Herrick, Esq., librarian of Yale College, who has devoted much time to microscopic observation and collecting information respecting this insect and its habits, and whose well-known ability and accuracy of investigation entitles his valuable remarks to great weight. This interesting document, which Mr. Herrick has in the midst of his other avocations kindly furnished us, will be found in appendix No. 1.

He thinks, as will be seen by a reference to his views, that the only possible method of extirpation is in burning the stubble, and ploughing it. It is hoped that the farmers will endeavor to practise on the recommendation, so that there may hereafter be less injury sustained from the ravages of this insect.

Dr. Harris, in his treatise on insects, speaks of the wheat fly, which is very destructive of the wheat crop, and which is sometimes confounded. with the Hessian fly. Some extracts from his volume may be found in appendix No. 2.

As a means of destroying slugs or worms which sometimes do great damage in England, salt is very highly recommended in the English Farmers' Magazine, ir. the volume of which for 1843 may be found an account of the experiments of a Mr. Buske, which were extended over some hundreds of acres.

He says: "In every situation, at every time, the effect appeared equally beneficial; the quantity used per acre was four or five bushels, sown out of a common seed shuttle in the evening. In the morning, each throw may be distinguished by the quantity of slime and number of dead slugs on the ground. In some fields, it has certainly been the means of preventing the destruction of the whole crop."

In an essay, by the late Willis Gaylord, on insects injurious to the farmer, published in the New York State Agricultural Transactions, he says: "Kiln drying the wheat effectually destroys the weevil;" and from some late experiments, recorded in the Tennessee Agriculturist, it appears, that if a hogshead, with one head taken out, is inverted over a fire, till thoroughly heated, and then is immediately filled with wheat, and headed up, all the weevils in the wheat will be killed, and the grain may be kept in safety until wanted for use. Keeping a granary well ventilated and cool, frequently stirring the grain, will do much towards preserving it from insects. A gentleman in Ohio gives the following account of a successful experiment against the weevil, in a letter to this office. He says: "I was, some twenty years ago, induced to make the experiments by the ravages of the weevil. They completely destroyed two crops of wheat. The third I was determined they should not entirely deprive me of. I let the grain stand in the field until completely dry, and then threshed and had it immediately ground, or before a sweat could take place. It made more and better flour than I had ever got before. I expected it would soon sour, but it continued perfectly sweet till the next harvest. I then laid a barrel by till the next harvest, and then opened it, and found it to be as sweet as when first ground. I have continued to act in the same manner for a number of years, and have never known it fail." In the last agricultural report, some suggestions were made with reference to the disease called smut, in wheat and other grain. The importance of the subject justifies further remarks in this connexion. We notice that, in a recent lecture, Professor Johnston gives the following account of this

disease, which is a species of fungus, the sporules of which are so exceedingly minute that they are taken up and ascend through the pores and sap vessels of the plants.

Professor Johnston observed, it is said, "that the smut had received the name of uredo segetum; that these puff balls or sporules were so minute that it would take 2,800 of them to cover an inch. There was no doubt that they ascended through the plant. By examination, it could be seen where they had come up. The tubes of the stalk were filled with black matter that had come through the vessels, affecting first the straw, and then getting into the ear, where it spreads itself all over. After passing through the stalk, the smut fixed itself under the root of the flower, which it rendered barren; and as the grain approached perfection, the puff balls became tight, and burst, showing black dust of very minute particles, so minute that it took about 1,100,000 of them to lie across a single inch." He then went on to speak of the manner in which smut was propagated. It was in the first place sown along with seed. Very often it was so minute that thousands of the particles might attach to a single grain, and yet not be visible to the naked eye. Oats are more subject to smut than other grain. Rye is never attacked by it, and wheat seldom. Grasses are sometimes attacked by it, and much injured.

"Certain substances have been employed for the prevention of smut. The substances used are, sulphate of copper, or blue vitriol, wine, common salt, wood ashes, lime water, and sometimes arsenic. The application of these substances to the seed grain destroys the black dust, or the spores of the fungus; and, in addition to this, they make the grain grow better. Professor Johnston mentions an instance where a large field of oats was divided into several parts, and the seed doctored in different ways-some not being doctored at all, other portions being dressed with guano, and others steeped in the following composition: phosphate of soda, sulphate of magnesia, nitrate of potash, common salt, sal ammoniac, or sulphate of ammonia. One pound of each, in ten gallons of water, to steep 300 pounds of seed, the moist seed to be dried with gypsum or quicklime.

"On looking at that field, it was found that the grain to which nothing had been done was smutted; that which was dressed with guano was also smutted, as was likewise a portion where Campbell's steep had been used; but there were only two or three stalks affected with smut in the grain steeped in the composition above mentioned.

"The smut which is sometimes found in wheat, called dust brand, or pepper brand, is supposed by some to be a different species of uredo from that above spoken of. It is sometimes called uredo fœtida. But the same remedies against its attacks are used with equal effect."

In an agricultural paper, we find also the following statement as to an approved method of remedying this evil: "A gentleman near Baltimore has for several years been in the habit of washing his seed wheat in a strong solution of glauber salts, (sulphate of soda,) with the view of preventing smut, with complete success. He says he makes the solution strong enough to bear an egg, fills a tub half full of it, and then pours in half a bushel of wheat at a time, stirs it round well with the hand, skims off all the floating grains and other foul matters, dips out the wheat with a colander, lets it drain, spreads it out on the barn floor till not quite dry, then rolls it in air-slaked lime, and sows it. One man can wash and prepare in this way as much as a dozen men can put in the ground. Every descrip

tion of foul seed, garlic, and filth, (except cockle,) is effectually taken out of the wheat by this process. He has no smut in the wheat since he adopted this plan. Glauber salts can be purchased by the barrel at about one cent and a half a pound. The wheat swells while undergoing the process about 25 per cent.; that is, four bushels will become five. If, after washing, it be left upon the barn floor all night, and thus become dry, it will lose a large portion of its increased bulk. It is better, however, to put it in the ground while somewhat moist, as germination will take place sooner; and the quicker any seed germinates after being put in the ground, the better. Besides the great object in view, the getting rid of smut and other impurities, there can be no doubt that a most valuable nutritive and stimulating principle is added to the seed grain, in the soda that is absorbed. Farmers will do well to try the experiment. They may be assured it will do no harm, and it is not very costly. Probably a dollar's worth of the salts would be sufficient for fifty or a hundred bushels of seed."

A distinguished agriculturist recommends the following recipe, on the information of one who said he knew it to be infallible, after many experiments: "Dissolve a pound of blue stone in as much water as will cover five bushels of wheat, and let it remain about eighteen hours before it is sown, and you will never have smut in your wheat."

We find, also, in one of the numbers of the Southern Cultivator, the recipe for the prevention of smut in wheat, which we give as we find it:

Mr. EDITOR: I discover that you have several correspondents, giving various means to prevent the smut in wheat; and, as this is an important matter, I will give you one.

My neighbor, Alexander R. Bell, of this county, has long been considered a great wheat grower, and a great many persons are in the habit of sending some distance to purchase his wheat, on account of its superior quality. About the time he was cleaning his crop, I happened in, and he took me to his barn, to show me his great yield. I was astonished to find that there was no smut in his wheat, and remarked it to him. He said, no; I never have smut in my wheat. I inquired the means of preventing it, and he gave me the following: Sow your wheat the first of October, and when you harvest let what you intend to make seed of remain five or six days longer in the field before it is cut, and by this means all the grains will be perfectly ripe and good. This is all he does to prevent the smut, and he never has it in his wheat.

I stated that I had been out to see his yield, which I found to be fine. He sowed one bushel and a peck of wheat, and it yielded him forty bushels and a fraction over; it was as nice and as fine wheat as I ever saw, and made good flour. Yours, respectfully,

W.

COLUMBIA COUNTY, GEORGIA. An editor of an agricultural journal recently established in Cincinnati, Ohio, a good judge in these matters, says, that the failure of the wheat crop in Ohio is often falsely ascribed to rust, as he states that many fields said to be destroyed from rust, on examination, "were in reality very little affected by rust at all. The straw merely turned brown because it had not the materials to give it a better color; and the berry did not fill, simply because the plant could not obtain the proper elements for it to fill with." To obviate the evil which arises from the mixture of cheat with wheat, the following is said, in an agricultural paper from which it is taken, to be a good method:

"Instead of having a riddle, as ordinarily used, in the fan, place a board in the riddle's place; it may be an inch or two narrower than the riddle in width. By this means, the cheat is carried nearly off the screen board; and, with the aid of a strong wind, is driven pretty effectually out at the second run of the grain.

"The present year I undertook to clean some Mediterranean wheat, which had a pretty large share of cheat in it. By the aid of the above plan, at the second run, it was pronounced by an old and experienced farmer to be clean enough. I believe I might have run it five or six times the ordinary way without having it as clean. Thus I saved much labor, as well as some time, though it must be let through slowly and regularly, to prevent the falling sheet of wheat from obstructing the passage of the cheat while blowing out and falling through the fan sieve. This I accomplished by resting the half bushel on my shoulder, and letting the grain fall gradually into the fan hopper, which was aided by the jar of the fan in motion. This last precaution may not be necessary where hoppers are new, and properly constructed; but ours was old, and worn loose at the connecting points."

In the report for 1843, some notice was taken of a few varieties of wheat, and their adaptedness to our country. We find in the last volume of the New York State Agricultural Society a valuable essay on this subject, by General Harmon, of that State, who has done much to improve the culture of this valuable grain; and though it has been more or less published in the various agricultural journals in our country, yet it is believed that some extracts from it (in appendix No. 3) will not prove an unacceptable addition to this report. Different varieties are of course adapted to different soils and climates.

The following is a notice taken from a public journal respecting a kind called the China or hardware wheat, said to have been originally found in a crate of China ware, imported from the north of China, and by the way of Canada introduced into this country. It is said to average from 150 to 180 grains to the head, and that it will yield from 45 to 50 bushels to the acre, and ripens 8 or 10 days sooner than any species of wheat. The crop is said to have been ripe at an early date.

Mention is made in some of the papers of a species of wheat, in the vicinity of Cincinnati, called Alabama wheat, from the fact that half a pint was brought from that State in 1839. It is said that 2,000 bushels of this variety has been raised in 1844, in the Whitewater valley, and that it takes the preference over all the wheat brought into the market at Cincinnati, weighing from 64 to 68 pounds to the bushel, and the yield averaging. 30 bushels to the acre. Some of this variety may perhaps be received for distribution this winter at the Patent Office.

The Black Sea wheat, a spring wheat, has been already alluded to as a favorite variety in Vermont. It is said to be very hardy, free from rust, and produces a better yield than any other of the varieties there cultivated, especially on unfavorable soils. It is stated, by one conversant with it, that he believes it will yield better there than rye, even where rye has heretofore been considered the safest crop.

The flint wheat is highly commended in Michigan, and it is stated, that where it is used it is quite free of the fly. One person says, that in Unadilla were two fields immediately adjoining each other, of like soil, and both prepared and sown alike, and about the same time, one with