193 
Mr. W. R. Butler, in this work, counts of smut were also made in several 
fields where no treatment had been tried. 
The following table shows the results of the tests as reported by the 
county agents. 
TABLE 1. 
RESULTS OF THE FORMALDEHYDE TREATMENT FOR OAT SMUT ON TEST FIELDS 
IN FOUR COUNTIES. 
Average Average 
Number Per Cent. Per Cent. 
County. of Test Reported by. of Smuton | of Smut on 
Fields. Treated Untreated 
Fields. Fields. 
ivi ayo BUSOST Ae ORs a PR ROS eee ere ree ee 15 W. R. Butler... as 12.0 
(CREM os 3 a ache higs ACR ee Ole re OnE 4 OF @raneter..-k :8 | 13.0 
TETUULE PSS es ES fg ce 7 Wir Viele a sil yey 
BRemMtOs ncn ok ea eae 6 J.W. McFarland 57 11.0 
ANSTO 8 Mara RAINES leet Cali dy ie el i oc eer eee a ae 3 11.9 
| 
In Laporte County, Mr. L. B. Clore, the county agricultural agent, 
arranged for a test of the formaldehyde treatment on the county poor 
farm. The manager of the farm was very reluctant at first to make the 
test, claiming that there never had been any oat smut on the farm. When 
the smut was counted, however, it was found that fifty-two per cent. of 
the crop was smutted on the untreated field and only about one per cent. on 
the treated field. 
The results demonstrated to the farmers beyond any doubt the value 
of the treatment. The treated fields were practically free from smut, 
while those not treated had, individually, from one to fifty-two percent. 
of the crop destroyed by the disease. Three fields in Madison County had 
thirty or more per cent. of smutted heads, and one field in Pulaski County 
Showed a loss of forty-five per cent. The average percentage reported 
from Madison, Grant, Pulaski and Benton counties correspond closely, in- 
dicating that the prevalence of oat smut is fairly uniform throughout 
the sections these counties represent. 
13—-4966 
