The Nezperce herald. (Nezperce, Idaho) 1900-1957, 1914-09-24

ent time. Not only is this SO be-
cause it is the season for sowing
winter wheat but the damage caused
by smut during the past season has
been so excessive in some parts of
the country as to cause great deal
of discussion as to ways and means
of preventing the smut and ccnse-
quent losses.
Loss from smut is caused in vari-
Gus ways-1st. BY the actual de-
crease in yield per acre. 2nd-
The smutty grain, especially wheat,
not having as high value as good
clean grain. 3rd-Loss due to fire
or explosion Of the threshing machine
while operating in smutty grain dur
ing dry hot weather. If We can de-
wise some method or methods by
which we can raise grain free from,
smut all the loss will be obviated 50
il would seem best to work towards
that end.
Unfortunately We have no new GER
tain and trustworthy process of
treating the seed grain for smut pre-
vention as the treatment with a solu-
ton Of copper sulphate or blue
xzsfwsn1 5akaS h.~f~ n.-a~ 49, hrrdra1 Il
years, and today that substance
forms one of two popular disinfect-
ants for treating the seed. It is not
necessary to enter into discussion
of all the different kinds of smut as
We are concerned with the success
full treatment of only two, viz-the
sinking smut or 'sbunt'' of wheat
and the ssloose" smut of oats. Both
kinds are caused largely by the in
lection of the seed grain before SOW
ing It's, however, the opinion of
many close observers that the soil in
a field may become so badly infected
with smut spores as to make almost /
any treatment of the seed of less
value than on clean or uninfected i
land The smut of one kind of grain
however, viii not infect any other
kind. As for instance the ssstink-
ing" smut of wheat will not infect
oats, barley or corn and this is so in
all cases therefore any certain kind
of smut must have it's own certain
kind of host plant or grain to grow
upon or in. From this il would seem
as though proper rotation of crops
would almost entirely prevent smut.
In this article we will consider
only two methods Of treating or dis
the seed for preventing the
smut as they are as yet the only
seemingly practical ones. One is
the use of copper sulphate or blue !
vitriol and common salt insolution or
blue vitriol alone in solution and the
other the formaldehyds treatment. I
Both methods have their advocates Z
and both have produced good results i
and ! suppose both at times have !
failed for some unknown reason. I
Disinfecting or treating seed grain is I
rather a particular process. II is I
necessary to measure and weigh the !
Ingredients accurately and then after J
II is prepared treat or disinfect the I
rain so that every seed is treated 7
nd still not too much and then be x
ure that it does not become rein Z
ected before it reaches the seed-bed. Z
t is obvious that to treat the grain z
yer so thoroughly and then place it Z
4 sacks or some other receptacle or I
Implement that is not clean or free Z
rom smut spores would simply tend Z
make the process more or less in Z
HectuaI. a
The blue vitriol or formaldehyde 4
olution should not be made too \
Irong or there is serious danger Of 4
ljuring the viability Of life of the I
rain. The tendency has been how \
yer to strengthen the solutions and I
len SOW somewhat greater quaint. 4
: Of seed to offset that which has 4
zen killed. The latest formula put 4
IT by the Washington State Expert 4
ent Station is as follows: / pound
blue vitriol, pound common salt Z
ssolved in 5 gallons of water. I'M Z
.rse the grain for 10 minutes in (
= solution. Z
II Is considered the best practice