Talk:Corn smut

message: Anybody know what the status is for legal for import/legal for sale in the US? I.e. are there FDA regulations about corn smut?
You can buy the fungi can in the US, it may also be imported for use as a food, although it does not seem to be readily available to the public in this form. Some US farm agencies are looking at growing smut on purpose since the fungi is quite valuable.--nixie 00:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now has links to some projects growing corn smut for sale locally.  it can also be bought canned.  It can be bought at some farmers markets.  i don't know about the legality of ity. I assume there's no law or FDA regulation against it but I'll double check by searching.  it probably isn't wise to try and grow it deliberately anywhere near other corn crops.LiPollis 17:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it's valuable in Mexico but a loss for farmers in the U.S., has there been any attempt to recover infested ears for canning and export? 68.46.84.245 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality? 

message: In this edit, I removed several external links.  Here’s my reasoning:
* Tansley review in New Phytologist – links to a generic Wiley page, not an article about corn smut; the actual article could be appropriate.  However, if it’s an article about corn smut, it’s better as an inline citation due to WP:ELNO criteria 1.  The EL section is not a holding area for sources.
* Corn Smut Recipes – this is a list of recipes, and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual.  As an encyclopedia, it should contain information about corn smut, not how to prepare it.  Wikihow may be a good candidate for this information, but Wikipedia is not.  Since the link is not encyclopaedic, this would be a violation of WP:ELNO #4 – promotion.  I also don't see it meeting the criteria of what to link.
* Smuts on the Internet – this is an extremely short page with no referencing.  It’s from a university host, and Tom Volk may be a professor of botany, and that makes it suitable as a source perhaps.  But not as an external link – again, ELNO#1.  This adds little information and it could easily be integrated into the article if needed.
* Photographs of canned cuitlacoche - This is a comedy page.  It’s funny.  I love his characterization of fermented soybeans as little snotballs.  I loved it when I first saw it on Ilovebackon and re-read it last night. But it’s not a source, it’s not informative, it’s portrayal as a source of pictures of corn smut is redundant to the commons link, the page is about smut, not canned smut, it’s got advertising, it’s self promotion, and again it’s a humour page, so not encyclopaedic.  It’s got several ELNO strikes against it an no ‘what to links’ in its favour.  
* GourmetSleuth huitlacoche page – this is a blog.  ELNO # 11 specifically bars blogs.  Also per the above, it’s recipes and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and it’s got minimal information so its got ELNO#1 against it.  Plus advertising.  Could perhaps be a source if there’s evidence he’s an expert.  
The other two links remaining makes sense.  Per Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember, a small number of links is not a reason to add more.  WLU (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I'd suggest that the introductory paragraph state the culinary uses of corn smut.  This topic is of interest from both an botanical and culinary perspective, and given the increased attention to huitlacoche as a food product, I think it would be reasonable to address its food aspects earlier in the article.  As the article stands, it presents corn smut/goiters in a more negative light, which might not balance with the greater public's interest in the upsides of this fungus.
MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Also, isn't it also cooked in egg and rice dishes? Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Making culinary use more prominent

message: Since the fungus is described as edible, it would be helpful to describe how it behaves in the organism
that ingests it.  A link to a USDA web site, or something similar, might suffice. Wikip rhyre (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, since it is mentioned that it has medicinal effects (similar to ergot), this aspect should be developed as well. Since ergot can be a very dangerous poison, it should be explained why huitlacoche is not poisonous. Badagnani (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's the new location of that page: Why Care about Amphibians?.  They seem to be primarily talking about the related fungus that causes Sugarcane Smut which would make perfect sense since this is an article talking about soil balance in Australia where Amphibians and Sugar Cane cultivation come into contact.  They just call it Ustilago as if that's the right organisim but they DO mean Sugarcane smut. I believe the writer is simply confused because they claim that the same fungi causes Corn Smut in North America  and Cane Smut in Australia.  That is NOT the case.  the Fungus responisble for Sugarcane Smut is  Sporisorium scitamineum.  While that have similar damaging effects on domsticated grass crops.  Yes, corn and sugarcane are both grasses. LiPollis (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health impacts of ingestion 

message: It would be a major improvement to this article to mention the estimated economic impact of this plant pathogen. This would include lost crop yield due to disposal of the fungus, as well as the cost of spraying the rest of the field with antifungal agents, as is standard procedure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.202.128 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic Impact 

message: I have expanded the etymology section quite a bit because the etymology of this word is not clear at all. Furthermore, the derivation of "huitlacoche" as "raven's excrement" seems to be mixing up etymologies. The current citation for this etymology does not give the roots from Nahuatl that justify this, and other sources which give "raven's excrement" as the literal translation justify this by only mentioning the root "cuitla" ("excrement"). But where does "raven" come from? It seems that they are confusing the word "cuitlacoche" for thrasher/raven and then re-extracting "cuitla" from it to get the "excrement" part. But this seems a bit of a stretch, since you're using the same part of the word to conclude two things. The other derivations, which break "huitlacoche" into a compound of two separate roots seem more plausible. Consequently, I'm moving those etymologies first and the "raven's excrement" one later, with a much-needed explanation of the raven part. Naturally, I would really appreciate if some Meso-American linguist had a look at this, but for now the best I can do is cite the most scholarly sources I could find. -Krasnoludek (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, looking into this further, the reading as "raven's excrement" seems extremely unlikely. To get "raven" you would probably use the classical Nahuatl word cuitlacoche. I say "probably" because I haven't found a single source with this translation that actually says where they get the "raven" part from. But then all the sources say the "excrement" part comes from cuitla, which is entirely contained with the root for "raven". Furthermore, according to de Silva (Diccionario breve de Mexicanismos), his entry on the bird "cuitlacoche" (aka "cuicacoche") gives the root as cuicatl ("song") from "cuica" ("to sing"). This is a whole other root than the cuitla ("excrement") root. So unless something very very strange was going on, my limited linguistic background would say this reconstruction is very implausible. The most plausible one seems to be the "sleeping excrement" one, whereas the "corn excrement" one seems unlikely because of the overlap of roots and the implicit linguistic implication that "tlaole" evolved into "tlacoche". Since that one is not even given by a linguist, I'd almost move for its removal, since it may very well be an ad hoc explanation by a non-expert. So, I've moved that one down to the bottom and added a further analysis of the "raven's excrement" reconstruction to the article. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

text: --Mr Fink (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, dandy, but is it in the article? (spending a lot of energy debating a spanish word in an english-language article) Feldercarb (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Is the fungus only from the ears eaten, or is all of it eaten?  Is there a difference in what is eaten between Mexican cuisine and the small ventures in the U. S.? 202.179.22.106 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cook and eat the kernel that you can see in this photo kmath (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is eaten? 

message: Neat to get the Espanol etymology and all, but why is it called 'smut' in English? Just because it's a dirty thing? From the Deutsche 'schmutz' ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:448:C300:6E10:4CE4:C523:DD50:ED46 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "smut" in "cornsmut" or "Zizania smut" means either "to dirty with ashes" (verb) or "be dirtied with ashes" (adjective). Mr Fink (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: What is the currently accepted genus name? Has Mycosarcoma been officially resurrected making this Mycosarcoma maydis? The wikispecies reference in this article is to Mycosarcoma maydis and I have seen it suggested elsewhere that the accepted name is Mycosarcoma maydis.
Cosmicaug (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this study, "(s)ystematic studies showed that U. maydis was not closely related to species of Ustilago (sensu stricto), and was instead recovered as sister to species of Sporisorium and Anthracocystis."  I don't know if it's been contested or not, but, aside from wikispecies, it doesn't look like too many have gotten the memo, otherwise.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: From the "Management" section of the article:
"There are many ways to control and manage corn smut; however, corn smut cannot be controlled by any common fungicide at this time, as Ustilago maydis infects individual corn kernels instead of infecting the entire cob, like head smut.[17]"
I certainly accept the fact that there is no currently available or practical fungicide treatment for corn smut. However, I find the given explanation confusing or incomplete. The reference given seems perfectly fine, but it contains absolutely no mention (positive or negative) of fungicides for common corn smut. (It does recommend fungicidal seed treatment as one way of preventing head smut in corn, but that is caused by a different fungus.)
Why does the fact that U. maydis affects individual kernels make current fungicides impractical or ineffective? Is there a more accurate or detailed reason that they don't work in such a case? (For example, is it because topically-applied fungicides don't penetrate the kernel? The food-safety issue of applying fungicide to the part that will be eaten? Is there a fungicide that does work but is unsafe or uneconomical?) And why is it that the given source, clearly intended as a guide for corn growers in a particular region, does not actually say fungicides don't work? (When facing a fungal infestation, many growers will of course consider using a fungicide.) TooManyFingers (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Management question