1 Ocr., 1897.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 287 
Smut of Corn. 
From a paper read before the Agricultural Discussion Society by Mr. Thomas 
Winter, M.A., Professor of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, 
Bangor, the Mark Lane Express takes the following on the remedy for smut 
dn barley :-— 
Jensen found there are two distinct species of smut which affect barley. 
The species which occurs more frequently destroys the entire ear, including the 
outer envelopes of the kernels, so that in a week or two the spores are 
scattered by the wind, leaving the rachis bare. This species is now known as 
Ustilago nuda, “the naked smut.” In the other species, Ustilago Jensenit, 
“the covered smut,” the outer cases of the kernels are not destroyed, but 
remain intact for some time; eventually, however, minute fissures appear in 
them, and through these, some of the spores escape. Of the two, the naked 
‘smut occurs more often, but the covered smut is much more injurious if the 
crop is affected to any considerable extent. The spores of the naked smut are 
blown away before harvest, so that the injury is confined to the ears attacked ; 
but as the ears affected by the covered smut remain intact and are harvested 
with the grain, it may cause very serious damage by blackening the bulk of 
the corn when it 1s threshed. 
Oats do not suffer in the same way as barley, as they are only affected by 
4 loose smut, the effects of which disappear before harvest. : 
Since 1888 several methods have been tried for the prevention of smut, 
chiefly on the Continent and in the United States, with varying results. 
Dressings of sulphate of copper, which have been so successfully used for the 
prevention of bunt in wheat (Zilletia tritica), are much less effective in the 
case of smut. This is no doubt due to the fact that the spores of bunt are on 
the outside of the grain, while the smut spores in oats and barley are within 
the husk, where they are out of reach of the ordinary dressings. Jensen found 
that dressing seed barley with a 1 per cent. solution of sulphate of copper (1 lb. 
-of sulphate of copper to about 10 gallons of water) did not check the smut to 
any extent. A 5 per cent. solution of the same substance was more effective, 
but did not prevent the disease, although it killed a considerable amount of 
seed. Jensen’s results have since been confirmed by Kellermann and Swingle. 
In 1896 the seed for over 70 acres of the barley previously referred to, in 
Yorkshire, was dressed by Mr. T. Winter with a preparation which is largely 
employed in the neighbourhood for dressing wheat, and about one-third of 
which consists of sulphate of copper, but, so far as could be seen by comparing 
‘with a crop grown from the same seed in an untreated state, the disease was not 
perceptibly diminished. The dressing in this case was equal to a 1 per cent. 
solution of sulphate of copper. Sir John Thorold appears to have killed the 
fungus by dressing the seed with tar and paraffin, but Carruthers points out 
that “this isa somewhat dangerous dressing which, if applied either a little 
too long or too strong, will kill the seeds of the barley as well as the spores of 
‘the smut.” = 
It would appear from the experiments of Jensen and Kellermann that, for 
dressing oats, a + per cent. solution of sulphate of copper (1 lb. to about 20 
gallons of water) may be used with success, but, as oats are only attacked by a 
loose smut, it is not likely that dressing the seed will to any great extent be 
resorted to ; 
By far the most effective treatment both for barley and oats appears to be 
obtained by Jensen’s hot-water method, which consists in steeping the seed in 
water heated to a temperature of 130 degrées to 184 degrees I’. for five 
T 
