9033. Suppose Northam loam should be discovered at Ongerup, it would be a sufficient definition for the map simply to show, "Northam loam"? - Yes. When the soil is first classified, there are full descriptions given. If afterwards that soil cropped up elsewhere it would be stated that it was similar to such and such another soil. The same notes might, however, be embodied again for the information of the local settler who might not wish to go to the expense of purchasing all the other books and maps relating to districts other than his own. The experience gained from, say, a Northam survey, would be made use of in connection with the Ongerup survey. The experience gained is utilised in the direction of modifying any conclusions which might have been drawn in connection with an earlier survey.

9034. What instances can you give us of the advantages of a soil survey? - Agriculture is an experimental science. It is not a complete science in itself, and all scientific conclusions with regard to it have to be brought to trial by experience. Data have to be got together by which the soil in any particular area can be judged. These data must be largely based on experience, because there are so many sets of conditions, such as drainage, rainfall, climate, physical characteristics, and other factors which must be taken into consideration which might modify any conclusions that might have been arrived at.

In a country like this in the first instance, when asked to advise the farmer, one has to advise him according to the general principles of agriculture which might be applicable all over the world, but these have to be put forward rather tentatively in order to ascertain how far they suit the local conditions, and one's advice would be modified as time goes on and local experience grows. The same thing applies to soil survey, and before definite conclusions can be drawn one needs the experience as well as the scientific data. The best plan is to start a survey in a settled district, and then bring the scientific aspect of the matter into comparison with the facts which are brought out by the experience of those who have been working in the district. From this one can gradually extend into areas about which less is known. One builds up one's experience and one's scientific facts, and brings them together and make them bear fruit for the benefit of the farmers.

The financial aspect of the question must also be borne in mind, as well as the danger of advocating the growing of a certain product for which there would not be sufficient market. One's methods and opinions have to be enlarged or changed as one goes on. A soil survey discloses certain fundamental things at once, and certain dangers. Take the question of salt. The question of examination of salts dissolved in the soil is an important part of the American soil survey. If it is discovered that a certain area of land is salty, it at once affords a warning that it should not be settled until the proper precautions have been taken to counteract the salt. A soil survey will also show whether soil has a good reserve of plant foods in it or not.

There may be some soils which will give good returns for a few years, but where, at the same time, it might be advisable to begin building them up from the very first. There may also be soils where there is a good reserve of plant foods which may be drawn on for indefinite periods. There may be plant foods available, but because some kind of plant food is deficient the other foods which are there in abundance cannot be made use of. Avery important constituent in the soil may be depleted, whereas by keeping it gradually built up one may be largely increasing the general yield. A soil survey and the facts which are disclosed therefrom are of immense value in checking a theory. It is a mistake for anybody to tackle agriculture from the theoretical point of view only.

The chemist and the farmer should be brought more closely into touch with one another. The principles of agriculture are the same everywhere, but they are modified by local conditions. Unless a chemist has a knowledge of the local conditions so that he can apply these general principles he may make egregious errors for want of field knowledge. On the other hand, the farmer is inclined to be loth to introduce any advanced scientific theory into his work because he is not prepared to take the risk and is looking at the financial result. The Government experimental farms are the places where these two things ought to be reconciled. They should be the agricultural chemist's practical laboratories. Any scientific experiments which are to be carried out should be done there. It is there that scientific theories should be tested and reduced to a commercial basis. The farmer would then be able to take advantage of them. A lot of the work must of necessity be valueless, but here and there results would be obtained which would be really useful and which could be proved to the farmer to be commercially sound, and which he would be prepared to accept because of the definite example before him.

9035. Have any surveys been made of the various State farms? - No.

9036. And we do not know anything of the soils upon them? - Samples have been taken here and there, but the work has not been done systematically.

9037. What definite results have followed the making of soil surveys in America? - There have been various notable instances in which great benefit has been derived. Some years ago a difficulty was experienced in growing the finer kinds of tobacco leaf for the manufacture of cigars. The soil surveyors set to work and examined the soils in which these leaves were grown in Cuba. Then they searched throughout the United States until they found similar soils and similar conditions, and they started to grow these varieties of tobacco, and inside of five years a trade of over three million pounds sterling per annum was built up. I daresay I can find other instances of a similar nature.

The report of the Secretary for Agriculture, published every year, gives remarkable figures showing the increase in prosperity amongst American farmers. This tremendous increase in the wealth of these men is largely due to the application of science to their industries, and a very close reciprocity between the farmers and the scientific department. The Department of Agriculture should be more technical than practical in its organisation. It would then be of greater value by giving technical advice for the development of the scientific side of the industry. There are plenty of people to bring practical experience to bear, but it seems to me that where the advance is wanted is to give the farmer an appreciation of the underlying scientific principles of agriculture. That can only be done by a technically directed policy, and there must be a highly trained and able staff to carry that out. It has been alleged that agricultural chemistry is of no value, and that the analysis of soils is of no value, and that you cannot form standards for soils.