ful to the crops than chloride or sulphate. In accordance with the varying harmfulness of these different salts, different standards of different maximum quantities have been allowed as permissible by the best authorities. 16. BY Mr PADBURY: Whom do you consider the best authority?—Hilgard, in America, is recognised all over the world as the principal authority. In California, where he held a high position, the salt problem has been very troublesome and prominent. Hilgard states that from •05 to •1 per cent. is the maximum of sodium carbonate which can be tolerated. For the chloride •25 per cent., and sulphate about •45 to •5 per cent. These figures have generally been adopted, but a few other authorities allow even more, particularly of the chloride and sulphate. The carbonate is admitted by everybody to be extremely deadly. 17. By the CHAIRMAN: What is Mr Mann's standard, and how do you view it?—I have read Mr Mann's report carefully, and also the tables of analyses upon which the report is based. Mr Mann adopts a standard of •05 per cent., which is the lower limit allowed for carbonate. Mr Mann, however, has not estimated carbonate but chloride, so that it appears he has estimated one kind of salt, and taken another kind for his standard. Mr Mann, it should be stated, does not, I think, accept •05 with much assurance, but rather tentatively. He states that •05 is used in some of the Eastern States. In Victoria they have used no standards. In New South Wales, if they had used the •05 standard, it was for sodium carbonate and not for the chloride. Mr Guthrie, who is chemist to the Department of Agriculture in New South Wales, and is highly competent, states that "common salt is hardly ever met with in our soils."—I am reading from one of his articles in the Farmer's Hand Book—"Most farm crops" he adds, "will stand as much as from •1 to •2 per cent of common salt in the soil, but if the amount exceeds this quantity crops are likely to be affected. Salt troubles indeed in New South Wales appear to have been confined practically to the carbonate form; this carbonate being associated with the use of bore water." If the •05 standard has been used there it was for carbonate, and not chloride as Mr Mann appears to have done. The Commission will see, therefore, that this •05 standard which Mr Mann has adopted is inapplicable to chlorides; it is intended for carbonated, which were not determined in the Esperance soil. 18 Then you do not consider the condemnation of Esperance soils on account of salt to be justified?—We see that for common salt some maximum considerably higher than •05 is permissible. Then Mr Mann's report says 170 soils were examined for salt. If we adopted the inapplicable •05 standard, then no less than 73 per cent. of those soils have too much salt. That is stated in his report. If, however, we adopt a •1 standard, then only 48 per cent. of them have too much, and if we adopt the •2 standard, only 27 per cent. would have too much. If we adopt the •25 standard for common salt, which is mentioned by Hilgard, then only 15 per cent. of those soils have too much common salt. Guthrie, in New South Wales says, 1 to 2 per cent. is all right, so that Mr Guthrie would not worry about it, and only 27 per cent. of those soils would give Mr Guthrie in New South Wales any concern, and even those 27 per cent. might be suitable for crops. That is to say, although 27 per cent. do not fall below the 2 per cent. limit, still some of those also might be fit for crop as far as salt is concerned. Here is a statement which I have compiled.

Common salt in Esperance soils, as calculated from Tables of Analyses in Mr Mann's report. Statement showing the effect of adopting different maximum limits for salt:— ______________________________________________________________________________

                                                         In first          In second       In third 128          In all

Using standard:— 30 soils 12 subsoils soils, etc. 170

                                                       (Table I.)       (Table II.)       (Table III.)             soils.

______________________________________________________________________________ •5% or over •• 18 11 96 125 •1% or over •• •• 11 9 61 81 •2% or over •• •• 5 6 35 46 •25% or over •• 3 3 20 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ The first line of figures is taken from the Report; the others are calculated from the Tables. The following shows what percentage of the total soils come above the several standards:— Degree of Salt. Percentage of soils. •05% or over •• •• •• 73 •1% or over •• •• •• 48 •2% or over •• •• •• 27 •25% or over •• •• •• 15

19. Does anything in Mr Mann's report suggest that a higher percentage of salt then •05 is permissible?—In Mr Mann's report I do not see any reference to success or otherwise of crops on land from which the samples were taken. In Table 1, however, attached to Mr O'Brien's report, there are some significant figures. For example, sample 183, 18 tons of hay were taken from 20 acres without fertiliser, and yet this soil contained •125 per cent. of salt on the surface, 6 inches, and •165 between 6 inches and 18 inches. Again, the land from which sample 191 was taken yielded 1½ tons per acre of hay, and 12 bushels of wheat without fallow, although this particular soil on analysis showed •221 per cent. of salt on the surface, and •275 per cent. from 6 inches to 18 inches, and •228 per cent. from 18 inches to 36 inches. Again, the soil of sample 201 yielded only 15cwts. of hay per acre, yet this soil had only •01 per cent. of salt at the surface and •132 per cent. between 6 inches and 18 inches. So that you see we have here good crops from lands, which, according to the analytical figures, are heavily charged with salt, while in another case we have a poorer crop on land comparatively free from salt. 20. BY the CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us anything about experiences with salt in other parts of this State outside the Esperance district?—In Table 1 of the report referred to there are several instances of good crops on land which contained far more common salt than •05 per cent. Thus the soil of sample 206 contained •135 per cent. of salt on the surface, 6 inches, and no less than •884 per cent. between 6 inches and 18 inches. This soil is in the Baandee district, and is reported to have grown crops regularly and successfully. Other examples of salt tolerance could be given; indeed common salt id by no means uncommon in Western Australia. Thus out of 250 samples of soil taken from all parts of the State for analysis for general purposes and not specifically connected with salt, it appears that more than •05 per cent. of common salt was found in 83 of them. We see, therefore, that almost exactly