8 Jan., 1908.] Fuugusiiic as a Smut Preventive. 35 



FUNGUSIXE AS A SMUT PREVENTIVE. 



D. Mc Alpine, Vegetable Pathologist. 



A sample of the powder known as '" Fungusine " was purchased from 

 the National Cattle Food Co. in order to test its efficacy in preventing 

 Smut. According to the description accompanying the packet it is " The 

 infallible seed protector for pickling wheat, barley, oats and other grains 

 and seeds before sowing. A sure preventive of Smut, Rust, Take-all, 

 Wireworm, and all fungoid diseases. Superior to bluestone, formalin 

 or any other known dressing." If it possessed all these virtues claimed 

 for it, then it would be one of the greatest boons ever offered to the 

 farmer, and even if it could be relied on. for the prevention of smut alone, 

 it would still be worthy of general use. This one quality of smut pre- 

 vention was chosen as a test, because it could be comparatively easily 

 done and the results could be compared with that of other clressings 

 previously experimented with. 



It must be remembered that there are various smuts attacking cereals, 

 some of which may be prevented by the use of bluestone and formalin 

 and others not; but as this preparation was said to be superior to either 

 of these fungicides, it was considered the fairest course to deal with a 

 common smut which had already proved amenable to treatment and 

 therefore comparable with this new treatment. Accordingly the Stinking 

 smut or Ball smut was chosen for trial and the seed-wheat to be used in 

 the experiment was infected with the spores of this fungus. One portion 

 of this infected seed-wheat was treated with Fungusine according to the 

 instructions laid down and another portion was left untreated. A piece 

 of land was selected at Wilby which had been under wheat the previous 

 season and the treated and untreated seed sown with the drill just as in 

 ordinary farm practice. There were two strips of each, the width of 

 the drill, sown alongside of each other. 



The usual time of sowing in this district is April, but on account of 

 the deficient rainfall the ground was rather dry then. Over three inches 

 of rain fell in the months of May and June and as this improved the 

 seed-bed, the plots were drilled in on i6th July. Although there were 

 onlv 11.42 inches of rain for the year up to loth December when the 

 crop was ready for stripping, there was a fair crop even thoiigh the strav/ 

 was short. A portion of the same paddock was used for experimental 

 plots of wheat, but except where the seed was infected, no Bunt appeared 

 in either the treated or untreated p^ots. 



In order to determine the average amount of Stinking smut in each of 

 the plots, a square patch was cut in each and the number of diseased and 

 healthv ears carefully counted, the result agreeing perfectly with a count 

 made of healthy and diseased ears in several rows. As the result of this 

 determination there was 81 per cent, of Bunt in the untreated plot and in 

 the plot treated with Fungusine there was only 7.8 per cent. There was 

 thus a considerable reduction of stinking smut in the treated plot, but it 

 is necessary to consider how the results of the treatment compared with 

 those from the use of bluestone and formalin respectively. 



In comparing this treatment with that of bluestone and formalin there 

 are previous experiments to fall back upon. In the Journal of Agriculture 

 for July 1903, the results of Stinking smut experiments conducted at Port 



