TREATMENT OF SEED WHEAT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1832, 17 April 1907, Page 47

TREATMENT OF SEED WHEAT

(By Geo. L. Sutton, Wheat* Experimentalist, in the “Agricultural Gazette” of New South Wales.)

Preparations are now in order for the planting which is to take place during the coming season. Not the least important)-matter in • connection withithesej isvthe treatment; of the seed , wheat) for tho> prevention of stinking smut: or hunt. . Tins smut, which can 1m prevented,, should not. bo confused with loose or flying smut, which,, as far as is at present known, cannot bo prevented by. any method of treating the seed. It is therefore unwise and unsafe-to; use for seed the grain from a crop in which loose smut was seen. For the prevention of stinking smut the- bluestone method still meets with' most favour in this-State. It is very affective, butt when used : alone, and not in; conjunction, with; lime; it unnecessarily destroYS'tke- vitality of: a very large quantity of the grain treat* cd.l TKe lpsa. place is unnecessary because- it can; be almost, entirely- prevented; by; supplementing, the; bluestone- treatment with one of lime in some forms or- other; TSUe loss throughout the resulting; from treating seed; with, bluestone without liine must be enormous. From experiments conducted this year at Gowra, itfe was. found-that, for every 100 bushels of seed wheat treated with hlue&tone, about-181-, bushels did not produce plants; and,, in. addition to this loss, the plants produced, by the -treated seeds were less vigorous than those resulting' from untreated- seed; It is oply ; reasonable:'t<y. suppose that, the yield from the less vigorous plants, will, not be as great as that from the others; ? ' Such a supposition is borne out by the actual, yields which were obtained, from-small plots, planted., with treated and with untreated seed, and which confirm the results obtained in larger* fields- carried, out, by Mr Wyatt: De Little, of Temora station, in 1905. The details very kindly supplied to me by that gentleman, are ae; follows: From 40 acres of Marshall’s No. 3 (the seed of which was bluestoned), 160 bags were; obtained,/ qr t at the, rate/ofi ,%P; of : the same wheat* (Which was not bluestoned), planted- in the same, paddock, the yiiftid' wi» 60 &kgs> or five bags per, ncua

acr6 sown with seed which was not bluestone produced three bags; on an adjacent acre sown with bluestoned seed the yield was 2£;. bags. From these figures it will be seen that the less is , a real one, and from; Mr Ho Uittle’s?. trials it ranges from two to four bushels per acre.. It must not he inferred that it is advisable to neglect treating the seedgrain. It is better, for obvious reasons, to raise a moderate crop free from smut than a heavy one of smutted grain. , Such a performance, however, is hardly possible, as smut invariably reduces the yield. Even if there were no less destructive treatment than that of bluestone without lime, it would be preferable to adopt it rather than run the risk of producing smutted crops. It lias been found that the loss referred to can he almost entirely prevented by using lime in conjunction with bluestone. The necessity, therefore, for using the com-/ bined treatment is at once apparent, and cannot he too strongly emphasised. . From the experiments previously referred to it is found that when treatment with lime supplements the use of bluestone, the heavy loss of 184 per 100 is reduced to the comparatively, light one of 14 bushels, and, in addition to ibis,, the vigour of. the plants is, not- materially interfered with. Such results as-these more than, compensate for the expenditure of the few pence and the little extra labour necessary when the combined method is adopted. For those who use drills, the practice of dusting slaked lime over the bluestoned seed is?, not as suitable as that of dipping it in lime-water, as the addition of the air-slaked lime makes the seed so that it will not run through the drill easily. The lime-water used must bo made by slaking freshly-burnt or quick lime in water. A mixture of air-slaked lime and water is not suitable. By slaking the quick lime as soon as obtained, and keeping, the surface covered with water, the soft putty hydrate of lime can be used in place of the quick lime as required throughout the season. It may be thought that if the seed be dipped in. a mixture made of lime water and bluestone, the same good results will, be obtained as. by dipping it first in the solution of bluestone and afterwards in lime water. Such a plan is to- be avoided, for whilst the. effect of the mixing-is that the caustic action of the bluestone is neutralised, and, in consequence! the vigour of the plants resulting, from seed so treated is not interfered^'with, it is by no means certain that - the mixture will accomplish the purpose desired, i.e., destroy the smut snores on the seed, and prevent srnut in the resulting crop. The use of formalin for the prevention of smut is-very slowly on the increase. There seems to be reasonable grounds for believing that, when sown in dry soil, formalin-treated seed loses itn vitality. On this account, farmers in our dry districts will do well t/o continue the bluestone-]ime method until, moro-evidence on. this matter is forthcoming. In the moisture districts formalin can be used with perfect safety and advantage, provided it is used with care and as directed. It is about as effective, and very much less destructive, than the bluestone (without lime) treatment, and about equal to, and somewhat less troublesome than, the binestoife-lime method. It seems, difficult for farmers who have been accustomed to dealing with a relatively strong solution of bluestone to realise that; a weak solution of formalin and water—-namely, formalin, 1 part; water/ 40.) parts, can be effective, especially, as the resulting mixture in appearance is not appreciably different from the water with which it is mixed! A SUGGESTION. Though the various methods adopted to produce crops free from smut', by treating the- seed grain,, meet with success, they involve a considerable amount; of trouble,, especially where large- areas are planted. By the adoption, of' a plan, whereby the seed for the main crops of the farm is specially raised; under conditions where stringent; precautions are taken to prevent the re-infection of the seed with, smut spores during planting, and the infection of. the grain during, harvest by the use of implements which have harvested smutted crops, and which have not been disinfected, it is, believed that fully 95. per. cent, of the labour and money now- spent for treating the seed-grain can be saved- without increasing the risk of producing smutted! crops. The advantages of. such a. plan as the one indicated appear so great; that it. is suggested that our farmers seriously consider, the- advisability of adopting it. On a farm where, say, 200 acres are cropped each year, it would • mean, iff such a,, plan were in operation, . that, instead of treating, say, 100 bushels of seed-wheat each year. Only 2£ or three bushels would require tp- be,< treated., This suggestion is submitted, for the .consideration of practical men, with confidence that it will receive the /amount; attention the importance

of - the- subject warrants, and- in accordance with the degree of; merit the suggestion itself may possess. x In order to realise that such, a plan has- any merit, it is necessary to recollect that the object of treating seed-wheat , to prevent! smut is to destroy any spores which may be present on it. If seed, can be obtained which lias no smut spores on it, treatment with bulestone or any other fungicide is quite necessary. To givo effect to this suggestion it would be necessary each year to set aside for the purpose of growing seed a plot one-thirtietli or one-fortieth of the area it is intended to plant the following year; that is, wherever 200 acres are to he cropped, the seed-plot would occupy five to seven acres. Such a plot should be situated in the best of. the ground cropped that year; it should receive the best possible cultivation, and, being a comparatively small area, additional attention couhl be given it to keep it from weeds.. If tho seed for this plot he treated in a thorough and efficient manner, and, after its treatment, re-infection be guarded against, tho resulting crop will be free from smut, and, if care be taken to, prevent infection whilst the crop is being harvested, the grain can he used as seed for the main crops without any treatment. There are difficulties in the way of the successful adoption of this plan, but. to the farmer who realises the difficulties and risks to be encountered, they are not serious ones. The most serious is the danger from infection from machinery. This can be guarded against hv thoroughly swabbing the parts with a strong—say, a 10 per cent.- —solution of formalin. An additional advantage which the adoption of such a plan has, is that it affords the farmer a systematic method of regularly renewing his seed, thus, preventing it running out. In addition to any other advantages it may possess, tiho plan of raising, seed as suggested would" he a decided improvement upon the general method now in vogue of taking it indiscriminately from: the main crop.