270 Journal of Agriculture, Yictoria. [10 May, 1912. 



to the miller or merchant, and keep the shrivelled grain for seed. If 

 there is one thing that has been conclusively demonstrated by carefully 

 conducted experimental work it is the fact that plump grains are greatly 

 superior to shrivelled grains from a productive point of view. 



As no local experimental results are available to assist us on this sub- 

 ject, we may consider what has been done at the Ontario Agricultural 

 College, Canada. Professor Zavitz reports results extending over six suc- 

 cessive years with winter wheat, and eight years with spring wheats. 

 Large, plump grain, of winter-sown wheat, gave 46.9 bushels per acre, 

 as against 39.1 bushels of shrivelled grain of the same variety, i.e., 7.8 

 bushels per acre extra. Again, with spring wheats the difference amounted 

 to 5 bushels in favour of graded grain, the large, plump grain yeilding 

 21.7 bushels, whilst the shrivelled grain of the same variety gave 16.7 

 bushels. 



In view of what has been said above, it follows that growers should 

 make every endeavour to secure the very best seed — large, plump, vigorous 

 — and if the seed represents the progeny of strong, selected, vigorous plants, 

 good results will be assured. Great emphasis must be laid on the necessity 

 for the selection of hardy, vigorous prototypes, because, under favorable 

 conditions, small, but well-developed seeds from highly productive, vigor- 

 ous plants, may give better results than large grains from unproductive 

 plants. 



It can readily be shown, however, that, in general, the more vigorous 

 plants possess the larger kernels, and that, by mere grading, the bulk of 

 the grain obtained would come from the more vigorous plants. 



The large grains, obtained as a result of such grading, might be ex- 

 pected to give more v'gorous, and, inferentially, more productive plants, 

 because of the greater reserve food supplv for ihe young plant in the 

 early stages of its growth. 



(3) Pickling the Seed. 



Pickling of the seed for the prevention of " stinking smut,"' or 

 Bunt (Tilletia Tritici), is now regarded as a regular part of the farm 

 routine. Much effort has been spent on the evolution of bunt-proof 

 wheats, and it would appear that already a considerable amount of 

 success has been obtained. Florence and Genoa, e.g., have been shown 

 in experimental trials tO' be practically immune from smut, whilst wheats 

 like Medeah and Huguenot have long been known to be smut-resistant. 

 The same cannot be said, however, for the varieties in general culti\ation, 

 for some of the most prolific yielding wheats we grow are verv susceptible 

 to smut. 



The advantages of securing a bunt-resistant prolific wheat must be 

 manifest. The process of pickling would be unnecessary, and the time, 

 labour, and expense, involved in the operation, would be saved to the 

 farmer. Seeing that the quality of smut-resistance has already been 

 observed in a few varieties, it is not difficult to impart the quality to 

 other more prolific, but more susceptible, varieties. 



The cost of the actual pickling operations is not great, but as a con- 

 siderable proportion of .seed is destroyed by most of the fungic'des in 

 general use, it follows that the total cost, including the damaged seed, is 

 verv considerable. 



The production of a hunt- p> oof prolific warietv is, therefore, a legiti- 

 mate aim of the wheat-breeder, and it is not too much to expect that such 

 a variety will materalize in the near future. 



To understand why any treatment for smut should be effectual it is 

 necessary to realize that bunt is caused by a fungus which reproduces itself 

 by small bodies called spores, which are analogous to the seeds of the 



