Field Experiments. 



135 



seed-drill. Both bags were thus kept under exactly similai' conditions after 

 treatment, but the bluestone-troated seed was mouldy, iiiul a large proportion 

 of the grains soft and rotten, while that treated with formalin was a little 

 mouldy, but there were much fewer rotten grains than in the other. 



The plots were critically examined on 9th December, and afterwards 

 stripped with the following result : — 



Table XL — Treated and Untreated Bunty Wheat, compared as 

 TO Germination. Infection, and Yield. 



Plot. 



I'cd Treatment 



Bluestone 

 Formalin 



l^ntreated 

 Bluestone 



Formalin 



Bate of Treat 1 



12th March. 1909 



17th June, 1909 



Peri entat-'e of Bunt. 



(1 plant af- 

 fected) 

 .85 



(1 plant only 

 affected) 



The experiments are at least suggestive, if not conclusive, and, as far as 

 th3y go, they are strictly comparative. 



In Plot 1 the seed was so rotten that no one would think of sowing it but 

 for experimental purposes. The crop was very inferior, and the plants so 

 scattered that they were only stripped for comparison. 



In Plots 4 and 5 the treated seed was kept for eleven days before sowing 

 on account of the weather, and the results of germination were relatively 

 similar to that already recorded on p. 115. 



The treatment was practically effective in preventing the bunt, onlv one 

 diseased plant being found in the earlier formalin-treated and later bluestone- 

 treated plot respectively. In the untreated plot, the bunt was only .85 per 

 cent., the amount being calculated by counting the diseased plants in several 

 rows, then estimating the number of plants in a row, and this multiplied by 

 the total number of rows in the plot, gave the number of plants altogether, 

 and from the number of diseased plants in each row the percentage was 

 determined. 



There is one outstanding fact in all the experiments for treating the 

 grain on a large scale — that the untreated gives a supei'icr yield to the 

 treated, the same amount of seed being used in eacli case. This shows the 

 necessity for so improving the treatment, that, wlirle destroying the spores 

 of the smut, it will not impair the vitality of the seed Experiinents by 

 Messrs. Sutton and Pridham' have shown tJie ameliorating eftoct of lime 

 after bluestone, but a fungicide which is fatal to the spore while >tiiuulating 

 to the seed is still a desideratum. 



The loss caused by disease in crops must be very large in the aggregate, 

 and, as Mr. Pye' has remarked in his article on Diseases and Pests in Cereals 

 — " If statistics could be published of the financial loss to the State, due to 

 the ravages of fungoid and allied pests, the amount would be astounding." 

 It is practically impit>s!ble to oljtain exact data of the loss caused by diseases 



