EUTHALLEPHYTA—EUMYCETES— SMUTS 213 



spores is IS min. 105°-106° C. in dry oven, and 52° C. when immersed in water; 

 and that corn is unable to come through an inch of soil after 15 minutes treat- 

 ment with water at 70.5° C, and in dry oven at 78° C. Brefeld found that 

 smut spores produced an abundance of secondary conidia when they were ger- 

 minated in sugar solution, but with us this has never been a very satisfactory 

 method of propagating them as the cultures soon became infected with bacteria 

 which materially check the progress of the germination of spores. 



Distribution and Hosts : Corn smut is found from the Atlantic to the 

 Pacific wherever corn is cultivated, also in other parts of the world. In addi- 

 tion to occurring upon corn, it is found upon teosinte. 



Poisonous properties. It has been held by many that corn smut is injurious 

 to cattle. This has been a common belief in some quarters. In some kinds 

 of smut a small amount of ergotin is found. Kedsie reports the following 

 composition: Moisture, 8.30 per cent; albuminoids, 13.06 per cent; carbohy- 

 drates, 25.60 per cent; cellulose, 24.69 per cent; sugar, 4 per cent; fat, 1.35 

 per cent; ash, much sand, 25.5 per cent. Professor Kedsie was unable to find 

 any poisonous alkaloids. In 1868, the United States department of agriculture 

 employed Professor Gamgee to ascertain the cause of the cornstalk disease 

 Professor Gamgee records his experiences as follows and concludes that smut 

 is not injurious : 



One cow was fed thrice daily one and one-half pounds of cornmeal and three ounces 

 of smut, mixed with as much cut hay as she would eat. The second had the same allow- 

 ance, but wet. The amount of smut given in each case was increased to six ounces. The 

 cow fed on dry food lost flesh. Eight days later the dose of smut was increased to twelve 

 ounces three times a day. The cow on the wet food gained in condition, the other one lost. 

 In three weeks the two cows consumed the forty-two pounds of smut. They had a voracious 

 appetite the whole time, and the only indication of a peculiar diet was a very black color 

 of the excrement and the loss of flesh by one animal, although liberally fed on nutritious 

 diet, which, however, was given in a dry state. It is evident that smut is not a very active 

 poison in combination with wholesome food, and especially if the animal is allowed moist food 

 and plenty of water to drink. 



Prof. W. A. Henry, in his work on "Feeds and Feeding" speaking of work 

 done by the Bureau of Animal Industry, Clinton D. Smith and Gamgee, says : 



In experiments by the Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture^ 

 Washington, corn smut was fed to heifers without ill effects. With all the trials but one 

 ending without disaster, it seems reasonable to conclude that corn smut is at least not a 

 virulent poison, if, indeed, it is one in any sense of the word. It is probable that in the 

 Wisconsin cases, where one cow died and the other was indisposed, the animals suffered 

 because of eating too much highly nitrogenous material rather than anything poisonous. 

 Worse results might have followed the feeding of the same volume of corn meal or cotton 

 seed meal. It would seem that there is little or no danger from corn smut unless cattle 

 consume a large quantity. This is possible where they are allowed to roam tliroug'u stock 

 fields and gather what they will. There may be cases where animals seek out the smut 

 and eat inordinately of it. <* 



A few years ago Prof. Smith of the Michigan Agricultural College gave 

 the results of some experiments with corn smut. Varying amounts of smut were 

 fed to three grade Shorthorn cows and one grade Jersey. Two of the cows 

 were started with two ounces a day and increased to eleven pounds. Two others 

 were started with two ounces and increased to a pound. The test lasted 

 forty^nine days. They appeared to relish the smut. It produced no signs of 

 abortion in pregnant cows, the milk yield was normal. Prof. Smith concludes 

 that the smut in corn fields is not likely to prove injurious. 



Beal states that under certain conditions smut is likely to be injurious to 



