in the course of its short life, the results of storage has been that the weevil is now right throughout the country. In connection with the contributory causes, I would say that the main sources of infection have been second-hand bags, weevil-infested trucks, temporary stacking of wheat on dirty sites at railway sidings, and some weevil-infested farms. The farmers keep wheat for seed and often keep a little too much, thus having wheat stacked on their farms for long periods. This often gets weevil affected. The mills in gristing weevily wheat, have to a greater or less extent sent out products that are liable to have weevil on the bags, which ultimately find its way to the farms. Farmers in delivering wheat to the Pool have, therefore to be very careful to see that the bags for use are clean and that any old wheat which may have been left over is delivered entirely separate from the new seasons's wheat. A few bags of weevilled wheat delivered, perhaps unwittingly, by a farmer with a load of good wheat may pass into the stack unnoticed and cause untold damage. As a matter of fact this has happened this year at a number of the 1917/18 stacks at sidings throughout the country districts. Of Course as soon as the weevilled bags are noticed they should be sent to the mills for gristing with the 1916-17 weevilly wheat. Some trucks, however, containing weevilled bags find their way into some of the main depots where they are promptly rejected. It is quite conceivable, however, that is spite of close inspection, some weevilly bags may have got into the stacks at the depots. It will readily be seen that the damage likely to accrue where such bags are put in the middle of the stack particularly in view of the long storage awaiting shipment would be hard to calculate. All farmers must, I think, be hard to calculate. All farmers must, I think, be therefore given the opportunity of realizing the almost criminal effect likely to result from willful neglect or indifference and carelessness in mixing up weevilly bags with good wheat. Sub-agents, employees, inspectors, railway officials, depot managers, in fact all handling the wheat must be made by stringent instructions if necessary, to be aware of this pest being mixed with the newly received good wheat. It is not too much to ask farmers delivering wheat to draw the agents attention to any weevily bags so that they may be set apart for special treatment and incidentally receive rightful dock . If we had more of such co-operation, the Pool—which after all is the farmer in the aggregate—would greatly benefit. The stacking of wheat on dirty sites at railway sidings has to a great extent been overcome by the decision of the Scheme to have main wheat depots at country centers. This arrangement will be continued in connection with the 1918-19 crop. The dealing with weevil infested trucks is a matter that has occasioned the scheme grave concern and in spite of numerous experiments , no practical and efficient method has yet been discovered. The danger with repeat to weevil infested second-hand bags has in a measure been overcome by the decision that no new wheat is to be delivered in other than new cornsacks. As I have indicated climate conditions are a great factor in the history of the weevil. Weevil do not like cold weather—they work best in a warm humid climate such as prevails around our coastal areas. For this reason weevil are more likely to extend at places like Fremantle and Geraldton than at a dry spot in the interior. Professor Lefroy has stated that weevil require a certain amount of moisture before they will work in wheat. This applies only to Calandra oryzae. Unfortunately the Rhizopertha dominica prefers the wheat rather on the dry side. The calandra oryzae requires 7 per cent to 8 per cent of moisture to be in the wheat before it can make headway. Unfortunately, Australian wheat when harvested contains about 12 per cent moisture so it is therefore always in a favorable condition for weevil attack. Tests were recently conducted by Mr. Mann, the Government Analyst, to ascertain the moisture contents of various lots of wheat . The method adopted was the Brown-Devel system. The wheat supplied was wheat that had been stacked in the sheds in January last and had remained entirely free from contact with moisture although it may have picked up a little in the form of vapor. These tests showed that—

Geraldton Depot wheat Contained 11.6 per cent moisture. Midland Junction wheat Contained 11.7 per cent moisture. Spencer's Brook wheat Contained 11.8 per cent moisture. Tambellup wheat Contained 12.6 per cent moisture. Narrogin wheat Contained 12.7 per cent moisture.

It is hard to say at what degree of moisture in the wheat the calandra Oryzac will work best , but experience of grain merchants ha shown that wheat that has come into contact with moisture is liable to become weevilled before wheat that has only taken up moisture under natural conditions. In my opinion a warm humid atmosphere is a more important factor to extensive damage than the natural moisture contents of the wheat; for instance, wheat might contain 15 to 18 per cent of moisture but if stored in a cold dry climate, it is not so likely to become weevilled as wheat containing only 12 per cent of moisture in a warm humid atmosphere. Again, wheat containing, say, 15 per cent moisture is more likely to be attacked by Calandra oryzac than wheat containing 12 per cent moisture under similar conditions. The life of the wheat is undoubtedly shortening through having to be stacked for lengthy periods and on more or less affected sites. Take as an illustration of this the Fremantle wheat. The 1915-16 crop stored there remained free from weevil for over 12 months; that part of the 1916-17 crop that was stacked on previously used stacking sites at Fremantle was weevilly before 12 months the life of the wheat of the second crop being fully three months shorter than the previous year. The same thing applies in the country centers although, of course the life of the wheat in the country is longer than that stored at Fremantle. The rapid increase of the weevil at Fremantle was one of the main factors influencing the Scheme in storing the 1917-18 crop away from the Port on entirely new stacking grounds as far as possible at inland centers. It is very hard to estimate what the actual loss in weight has been caused by the ravages of weevil. Recently attack at Fremantle was being loaded up for consignment to mills for gristing. A dozen unbroken bags of sound wheat with the original marked weighed on an average 1¼ lbs over the marked weights. This wheat was stacked at Fremantle during January-February-March, 1917 and the test was made on 26th July, 1918. The highest gain in weight of any one bag was 3 lbs and two bags had actually lost 1lb. Twelve bags that contained slightly weevilled wheat were then weighed and the total loss on the marked weights was 25lbs. or an average of 2 1/12lbs per bag. Of course added to the loss on the marked weights there is also the loss through the wheat not having increased as it probably would have done had it not been attacked by weevil . Eight bags were then weighed a portion of these bags being badly weevilled—that is, either one side or one end of each bag was badly weevilled, whilst the remainder of the wheat in the bag was fairly good. The loss in weight on these eight bags was 76lbs or an average of 9½lbs per bag. The greatest loss in weight in any one bag was 13 lbs. Two bags were then weighed that were badly weevilled throughout. One bag had lost 18 lbs., and the other 20lbs. In regard to the very badly weevilled wheat it was impossible on account of the floury condition of the bags to see the original marked weights therefore we were only able to weigh two bags of this class of wheat. It is estimated that on the particular stack being removed the loss in weight would be about 2 per cent. This 2 per cent is not the total loss, however. Included in the weight of the weevil-infested bags there is a percentage of dust composed of flour and other matter. Further the 2 per cent loss in the weight is composed entirely of flour. The weevil does not eat the skin of the wheat which in the process of milling is converted into bran and pollard. It is practically impossible to estimate in £ s. d. the damage done by weevil . The loss on any particular stack could after great trouble, be ascertained fairly correctly but as the extent of weevil damage varies on every bag and therefore on every stack the loss on a certain stack would only be of statistical value. It would be useless as a comparison to form a basis for even as approximate calculation as to the loss on the total quantity of wheat stored. In my earlier remarks I endeavored to show that, notwithstanding Professor Lefroy's opinion to the contrary , it is not possible under present conditions to keep our wheat free from weevil, because we cannot get it into our sheds uncontaminated. In their search in the Punjab to arrive at the best means of keeping seed wheat free from weevil. Messrs. Barnes & Grove, the other authorities that I have referred to, came to the conclusion that special cleaning of wheat should be effected. It must be borne in mind, however, that they were dealing with only small quanti-