5401. Once they were in the silo they would still be doing damage?—Yes, but the weevil could be treated when in the silo. It is impossible to properly fumigate a large stack, though it can be done by covering small stacks with tarpaulin. I have seen some stacks in Williamstown half a mile long, and the cost of covering these for fumigation purposes would be out of all reason.

5402. In your opinion, wooden silos would be but little improvement upon open bag storage?—I would not put it that way. I would prefer concrete silos. Wooden silos must have cracks and crevices in them no matter how much care is exercised in their construction. These cracks and crevices give every opportunity for weevils to gain a foothold. With concrete silos it is possible to clean them out quite easily because they have smooth sides, and contain no holding place for the weevil. Furthermore, such silos are there for all time.

5403. By the CHAIRMAN: But there are weevils in silos?—I understand that the weevil does get into silos, but there is a chance of getting at it.

5404. By Mr. BROWN: Would the fumigation have any injurious effect on the wheat?—Not if carbon bi-sulphide were used; that is an approved weevil destroyer, and its effect upon flour is nil. Where you use the fumes of sulphur the glutinous nature of the flour is spoiled.

5405. By the CHAIRMAN: I noticed when we were in Geraldton a large number of small winged insects around the weevils?—That is the internal parasite of the weevil; it kills enormous quantities of weevil. It is a small black insect. If it were not for that, goodness knows what would happen to the wheat. It lays its eggs into the larvae of the weevil, which is in the grain, and instead of the weevil producing weevil is produces one or more of these little wasps.

5406. Would the parasite multiply to such an extent as to eventually exterminate the weevil?—No; there is not instance of a parasite having ever exterminated its own host.

5407. You think then that the only way by which the weevil can be dealt with is to build silos?—Yes.

5408. But the weevil will work in the silo as in the bag?—Yes, if the conditions are suitable, but there is a greater chance of treating the weevil in a silo. You can also keep the wheat dry in a silo.

5409. The Advisory Council of Science and Industry in Bulletin No. 5, point out as you do that if wheat is taken to silos in a dry condition and kept dry, there is a possibility of coping with it; that is the theory?—It is a fact.

5410. It is much easier said than done in regard to keeping trucks clean?—The only thing to do would be to keep trucks specially for bringing in the harvest. I have thought of that, but I do not suppose it would be feasible because the railways would not be able to do it. The question is the loss to the railways through the haulage of empty trucks one way or the ultimate loss through weevil.

5411. Then to prevent weevil spreading it will be necessary to deal with it in silos?—Yes, as far as possible.

5412. I would like a more definite answer than as far as possible?—I do not know enough about silos to give a very definite opinion.

5413. Suppose silo storage were provided for a third of the wheat and the remaining two-thirds were stored under conditions similar to those existing now, would it be possible to get rid of the weevil?—The weevil trouble would be there but it would be in a lesser degree.

5414. Your reason for advocating the construction of concrete silos is that the surface of such silos would be smooth?—Yes, and from the point of view of the length of the life of the silo.

5415. Would gases penetrate the crevices in wood?—Many of the insects which are in the grain have the capacity to bore into wood. The borer, which has been found at Fremantle, has bored into jarrah plankings there. The insect will bore through boards, horse collars, can chairs, and all soft woods, and if it gets into a wooden silo it will find its way into the timber and the gases will not be able to get at it.

5416. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: If it penetrates the grain you cannot get at it?—Yes you can, because the grain is only a small particle. When it gets into wood it covers up its tracks and in that way fumes cannot reach it.

5417. By the CHAIRMAN: Have you any idea how it came here?—It may have come here three years ago when we had occasion to import a large quantity of maize and wheat from Argentine and India.

5418. You found it first on the South Wharf, although the grain in question was on the North Wharf?—Yes, but some of it, I understand, came from the North Wharf.

5419. Have you found it inland?—No.

5420. Have the Wheat Board asked you to investigate the stacks?—I have had nothing to do with the stacks. I have not been asked to make any investigations, and what I have done has been of my own volition. Mr. Keys has had reports from me.

5421. When the insect was found in the first place, there was a possibility of preventing its spread?—I took steps immediately; I did not wait to be asked. My department deluged the shed nearest the railway bridge, and disinfected it with Kerrol.

5422. Did you find this particular insect before the Pool was started?—No, afterwards.

5423. And you have not been asked to make investigations around the stacks:—No.

5424. You consider this a serious matter so far as the State is concerned?—I consider it is very serious. If it gets inland, the conditions we are trying to avoid, moisture, will not matter to this insect; it will work just as well at Spencer's Brook as at Fremantle, and is likely to become a field pest.

5425. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Have they found it in the Eastern States?—I think it is recorded in New South Wales. I saw where Professor Lefroy referred to it there.

5426. By the CHAIRMAN: The wheat I showed you just now came from the stack where Professor Lefroy's advice is being carried out. What is your opinion about his recommendations?—His recommendations are all based on common knowledge, and if carried out must have beneficial results. They are not new scientific facts.

5427. When he recommended that it was conditional that every care should be taken as to what wheat should be put in the stack?—Exactly. Any common sense man known that if you put wheat into a stack which keeps the roof up, when there is any moisture, the roof will press the stack down. The stack should be built in a substantial manner and there should be proper foundation to the stacks. They should be built away from where they could be flooded with water.

5428. This stack has been built in accordance with the recommendations?—And yet it is weevily. I say I think Professor Lefroy has made unguarded statements, and has staked his reputation on dangerous ground.

5429. There is no guarantee that the wheat was not weevily when it was put there?—That is where the experiment fails. If you are going to carry out experiments you must know, from taking the wheat from the grower and placing it in the stack, that there is no weevil in it, otherwise the experiment is no good.

5430. If you were to make an experiment of this kind, you would like to see the wheat go into the stack?—Yes, otherwise there is no experiment.

5431. In this stack only three or four bags on the tops were found with weevil, otherwise all the bags were good?—I may say that, when in Melbourne, the napthaline and lime dressing was reported to me to have caused a deterioration in the wheat in two or three layers and spoilt the flavour of the flour. The advice to build the stack high from the ground and have plenty of aeration, is wise advice; to floor with boards and cover the floor with hessian to prevent the wheat from the bursting bags going to the ground, is good advice, but it is not new. It is advice that everyone knows ought to have been done long ago.

5432. Mr. Pearse says there is a difficulty in getting napthaline here?—You cannot get it.

5433. Do you think if lime was used it would do good?—Lime is more or less a deterrent but not a preventative, the same as sulphur.

5434. It would be beneficial?—There is no question at all about that.

(The witness retired.)