S////k///i^ SiiiNt or Ihtut in \\ heat. 83 



the fences. But when the wheat plant is above ground, it is proof against 

 infection from bunt spores, so that there must be some other reason for the 

 failure of the treatment. 



There are questions sometimes put by the farnier, however, which cannot 

 receive a definite answer, because his experience does not always take note of 

 the accompanying (;onditions, and because his love of paradox sometimes 

 overrides his experience. I am often asked by farmers, " Why is one part 

 of a paddock of wheat smutted and the other not, the seed in each case being 

 treated properh' and sown at the same time ? " It all depends here on what 

 is meant by proper treatment of the seed, as it is implied by the question that 

 the fault must be in the soil. But it is found by experiment that when the 

 seed is properly treated with bluestone solution and all the smut balls re- 

 moved, there is no smut in the crop, even although spores of the smut may be 

 in the soil from a previous crop or from self-sown wheat. Then the farmer 

 almost invariably upsets any answer you may give by adding that the next 

 season things were reversed, the clean part of the paddock being smutted and 

 the other not, even with the aforesaid proper treatment. Bearinor in mind 

 that there is no fungus disease known which can be more readily or more 

 absolutely prevented than this smut, we will now propound a few of the ques- 

 tions which arise in connexion with it. 



1. Is the smut of loheat, oats, and barley the same ? 



No, they are quite distinct, for the smut of wheat cannot infect oats or 

 barley, nor can the smut of oats or barley infect each other or the wheat. 



2. Why does hunt sometimes appear in a paddock when the seed is supposed 

 ■to he properly treated ? 



This may be due to various causes, such as returning the treated grain 

 to bags which have not been disinfected and thus re-infecting the grain ; or 

 sowing the seed with a drill which has not been properly cleaned. It may 

 be, however, that the smut balls had not been skimmed off in the process of 

 pickling, and being crushed in the drill, the seed is infected. 



3. Will the hunt spread from one paddock to another or from one plant to 

 ■another, like the rust, ivhen the crop is groiving ? 



Since infection occurs in the seedhng stage only, and the germ-tubes pene- 

 trate at the point where stooling occurs, and that is beneath the ground when 

 the grain is covered with earth, there is no possibility of the disease spread- 

 ing from one growing plant to another. 



4. Should seed-wheat he used from a crop known to he hunted ? 

 Decidedly not, for there is a strong probability that the grain will not be 



so plump as if perfectly healthy. A crop may have but comparatively few 

 actually smutted ears and yet give a much reduced yield and a poor quality 

 of wheat, because the smut was in the straw and affected the yield, although 

 it did not reach the ears before maturity of the grain. 



5. Will spores lying on or in the ground from, last year's crop infect the next ? 

 This question of infection from the soil often crops up, but since it was 



found by repeated experiments that properly treated grain, even although 

 grown on very smutty ground was free, it may be concluded that soil-infection 

 practically does not occur. I say practically, because there is a possibility 

 of stray infection taking place when there are numerous spores around the 

 germ end of the seed, where the young plant bursts through. 



0. May hunt originate from self-sown ivheat ? 



Self-sown wheat is rarely affected by bunt, still it may occur in some sea- 

 .sons. I have usually seen self-sown crops perfectly free, and have also found 



