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 FOEMALDEHYDE TREATMENT FOR OAT SMUT ON TEST FIELDS 



IN FOUR COUNTIES. 



County. 



Number 

 of Test 

 Fields. 



Reported by. 



Average 



Per Cent. 



of Smut on 



Treated 



Fields. 



Average 



Per Cent. 



of Smut on 



Untreated 



Fields. 





15 



4 



7 

 6 



W. R. Butler . . . 



0. Crane 



W. V. Kell 

 J.W. McFarland 



.3 

 .8 

 .1 

 .2 



12.0 





13.0 





11.7 





11.0 













.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 per cent, 

 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 



