0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

364 > Image 364 of Annual report. 1918

Part of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station

I 1 1 24 Circular N0. .9,2 ~ _ i , 1 l A infected than any- ordinary seed wheat. and one of tl1e results N i- . of the tests is a very complete C()I1lll'11lLltlt>Jl/(if the claims gen- E _ - erally made for the effectiveness of formalin as a remedy for - _ , bunt. The same weight of seed wheat was used in both treated and untreated lots, and all were sown October 11, 1917, and i_ harvested June 22, 1918. After treatment, en_ough seed was re- _ 1 1 served, in each ease, for a germination test in the seed germ- l inator, the rest being planted out-of-doors in drilled rows, with , a cheek row of untreated seeds for eaeh test, the cheeks being _ placed by themselves and ata little distance from the others. { I I Discussion and Conclusions. ' l I Some damage to the treated lots by sparrows renders the - _ relative yields uncertain as the result of treatment, yet results A of the germination tests point in the same direction as the yields, _ A showing, as they do, a reduetion in the viability of the treated seed, which could very well be the cause, in part, of the smaller _ L V . number of heads secured from some treated seeds as compared ; . with their cheeks. A repetition of the tests, however, will show A A , more certainly whether or not the treatments reduced the tinal I yield of wheat, as some of these tests imply] _ 1 The average germination of all the cheeks is 95 per cent., which, considering the number of these tests, certainly gives the . germination value of the untreated seeds. ` The germination is generally lower than this i11 the treand ~ seeds; in some of the tests so low that there can he little question , that it resulted from the injurious elteet of the formalin. The . ll average of all treated lots is 88.6 per cent., and in only one_ , . I ease (No. 15) was a treated lot.higluer in germination than thc i average of the cheeks. t . It will be noted at onee that the number of heads of wheat i l harvested was generally less in treated than in untreated lots. while the number of bunt-infested heads was in every case inueh l greater in the untreated wheat. ln fact. treatment prevented _ , A almost entirely the development of bunt. so that the only ques- _ _ tion remaining, so far as the tests are concerned. as to the praeti- * A i I l cal value of treatment with formalin results from dill'erenees A 1 l