culture.—Journal of Agricultural Research, 28th August, 1916.

Extract from results—

.04 per cent. common salt—decrease in yield 11 per cent.

.09 per cent. common salt—decrease in yield 27.5 per cent.

.16 per cent. common salt—decrease yield in 49 per cent.

Germination prevented by .52 per cent. of chlorides.

General Remarks.—It will be seen from these authorities when summarised that .5 per cent. of common salt is the limit at which effect begins to be manifested upon wheat, while .2 per cent. common salt may be taken as the prohibitive limit for wheat.

In the original report 79 per cent. of the samples examined contained more than .05 per cent. of common salt; 33 per cent. of the samples contained .2 per cent. or over.

Of the samples submitted by Professor Paterson on behalf of the Commission—

93 per cent. contained over .05 per cent. of common salt.

60 per cent. contained over .2 per cent. or over.

In view of the above facts I submit to the Commission that I could not with a proper sense of duty do other than make my original recommendation as contained in the following concluding paragraph of my report:—

I can only express the opinion that in the light of the facts above disclosed . . . . . settlement on this land must be considered as hazardous unless its adaptability for wheat has been fully tested by means of fairly extensive experimental plots grown on various parts of the territory.

It seems to have been lost sight of that there may be ameliorating conditions in the soils which may render the large amount of chlorides present nugatory in their effect upon wheat crops. Chlorides are less deleterious in the presence of much lime, and generally the conditions under which the salts rise and fall in the ground under the influence of rainfall and cultivation, the proportion of magnesia present and other factors all have a bearing upon the question of productiveness.

It was a recognition of these facts which led me to recommend experiment, by which alone a decision could be reached.

To fully discuss all these questions would require an extended treatise, and would be merely repeating many facts already known to the Agricultural Chemist.

It was not my duty to present a scientific essay but to recommend such practical steps as my knowledge of the facts and my general experience suggested were desirable for the administration to take in the public interest.

The statement is complete in itself, and I think it is necessary so that my position in regard to this question should be clearly understood. My position has been much misrepresented, but this statement clearly puts my position before you. Apart from this statement I do not think I am called upon to make any other comments to you except the one I have already made in regard to the figures which have been presented to you through Professor Paterson. In respect to those figures I would like you to clearly understand that those two columns which are headed respectively "Carbonic acid as carbonate of soda" and "Sulphuric anyhdride as sulphate of soda" are columns for which I will take no responsibility. It must be clearly understood that they are not set forward by me as statements of proportions of those salts which are present in the soil, because the samples were sent to me with a request to perform certain operations. That is an unusual procedure to begin with. If it is desired that a soil shall be examined for certain ingredients the chemist is generally asked to do so, and he must exercise his judgment and knowledge as to the best method of doing it; but when the method is prescribed, as in this case, the chemist is put in an entirely wrong position. I want to make that perfectly clear, because I had an interview with Professor Paterson yesterday at your request, and he gave me to understand that he so far disagreed with some of these results that he thought the Commission would find it necessary to have analyses made outside of this State. In such a case I am particularly anxious that it should be clearly understood that I am not responsible for those two columns, because they are capable of a great deal of criticism, and it is not fair that that criticism should be levelled at me. Only yesterday did I become aware that Professor Paterson intended that those figures should be be taken as an index of the amount of carbonate of soda in the soil; therefore, although I felt convinced that they did not correctly represent the carbonate of soda in the soil, I did not have much opportunity before meeting you to-day of really ascertaining how far they were accurate. I have made only a very hurried test since seeing him yesterday, and I feel quite convinced that many of the carbonates there represented as carbonate of soda are not that salt at all, but are carbonate of lime and carbonate of magnesia, with little, if any, carbonate of soda at all. That is due to the method by which he asked me to express the results, and not to any faulty method or misrepresentation on my part. Apart form these comments the statement I have made speaks for itself. I would like particularly to draw attention to two paragraphs. The first is the concluding paragraph on page 1, as follows:—

In view of this fact I pointed out that agriculture on such soil must be considered hazardous unless carefully controlled and scientifically conducted experimental plots were established in various parts of the district to thoroughly test the growing capacity of the soil. I desire to emphasise this point, since it has been alleged that I had comdemned the Esperance lands, whereas my report simply sounded a note of warning as to a certain condition which should not be overlooked.

Again, on page 7 of my typed statement, after detailing the evidence for the standard I had adopted, my statement proceeds—

In view of the above facts, I submit to the Commission that I could not, with a proper sense of duty, do other than make my original recommendation as contained in the following concluding paragraph of my report—

I can only express the opinion that in the light of the facts above disclosed . . . settlement on this land must be considered as hazardous unless its adaptability for wheat has been fully tested by means of fairly extensive experimental plots grown on various parts of the territory.