(reneral Notes. 1021 



GENERAL NOTES. 



Formalin for Smut. 



Confessions of an Amkiucax DRutKiisT. 

 Professor Ladcl of the North Dakotii Experiment Station, U.S.A., 

 has been inquiring into the complaints made by some farmers that 

 the formalin treatment for smut proved ineffective in their hands. 

 The following extract from Bulletin 60 issued by that Station will be 

 read with interest in connection with the revelations recently made 

 by Dr. Howell, regarding the (juality of formalin sold locally. To 

 make the subject clear, it should bo stated that formalin is a trade 

 name for a 40 per cent, solution of formaldehyde in water. 



"In our efforts to get at the true inwardness of the trouble one 

 prominent druggist gave us the following statement which may help 

 to throw some light upon this mooted question. 



' Many of the druggists of the state are dispensing a so-called 

 pound of formaldehyde in a Best tonic bottle and two pounds in a 

 beer bottle. In other words less than 16 fluid ounces is sold as a 

 pound, Avhile as a matter of fact a pound by weight occupies moi-e 

 than 16 fluid ounces space. The result is plain. From the druggists' 

 standpoint it means the discrediting of formaldehyde as a smut 

 killer and a consequent falling off in sales. From the farmers' stand- 

 point they suffer in at least three ways by this short measure. 



1st. They pay for a pound and get 10 ounces. 



2nd. They use 10 ounces, believing it to be a pound and get a 

 solution of so weak a germicidial strength as to be nearly worthless 

 and lose their labor in applying it. 



3rd. Much the most important of all they lose in .smut laden 

 crops where they have paid their money and expended their energies, 

 believing that they have complied with all conditions necessary to 

 ' give formaldehyde a chance ' and be rid of smut. 



Their natural and legitimate conclusions are that formaldehyde is 

 no good. They have used it according to directions, they think, and 

 failed to get results. From the papers and also from a circular 

 received from you a few days ago I see you blame this failure to get 

 results to under strength formaldehyde. Your conclusions are 

 partly right, but I thought you ought to know the short weight fact 

 (maybe you do) 12 ounces or three-fourths measure of 40 per cent, 

 means only practically the same as 30 per cent, full measure, and I 

 don't believe the farmers add enough of these light weight ' pounds ' 

 to make a solution of the desired strength to kill smut. 



Now I suggest that a circular be sent out to all the pharmacists 

 of the state, telling them that an effort v/ill be made to secure these 

 light weight packages, and if found the dispenser will be exposed 

 unless he can prove that he has issued them in error. 



