OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 GIF~T OK 
 
 Class 
 

 
 b^ 
 
 SEED 
 
 WHEAT 
 
 . . BY 
 
 N. A. eBB 
 
 Published by Authority of the 
 
 GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES. 
 
 SYDNEY, 1903. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 1. List of Plants found Growing Wild within 30 miles 
 
 of Amherst. 
 51 pages in Atlas of Hampshire County, Mass., 1887. 
 
 2. List of Plants. 
 
 Separate edition, S. E. Bridgeman & Co., North- 
 hampton, Mass., 1887. 
 
 3. Beitrage zur Anatomie und Ontogonie der Nema- 
 
 toden. 
 
 36 pages, with 32 original illustrations on 3 litho- 
 graphic plates Jenaischen Zeitschrift ftlr Natur- 
 wissenschaft, XXIII Bd., N.F. XVI, 1888. 
 
 4. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangen der Dok- 
 
 torwurde- 
 Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1888. Same as the above. 
 
 5. The Differentiator. 
 
 Sydney, 1889. Reprint in American Naturalist, Phila- 
 delphia, 1889. 
 
 6. Report on Occupation of the Table of the British 
 
 Association at the Naples Zoological Station. 
 Report of the British Association, London, 1889. 
 
 7. Neue parasitische Nematoden. 
 
 3 pages, with 9 original illustrations on one plate. 
 Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 1889. 
 
 8. Two new Instruments for Biologists. 
 
 11 pages, with 5 original figures on one lithographic 
 plate. Proceedings of the Linneean Society of New 
 South Wales, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 9. Oxyuris larvae hatched in the human stomach 
 
 under normal conditions. 
 
 18 pages, with 5 original figures on one lithographic 
 plate. Proceedings of the Linnsean Society of 
 New South Wales, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 10. A Nematode Formula. 
 
 5 pages, with description of Oncholaimus indejs. 
 Agricultural Gazette, 1890. 
 
 11. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 12. Contributions to an Economic Knowledge of the 
 
 Australian Rusts (Uredinese). 
 
 In course of publication. So far issued, 154 pages, 
 with 303 original illustrations in the text, and 1 
 plate. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1890-94. 
 
 13. Arabian Nematodes. 
 
 20 pages. Proceedings of the Linnsean Society of 
 New South Wales, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 14. Tylenchus and Root-gall. 
 
 30 pages, with 21 original illustrations in the text, and 
 1 plate with 9 illustrations after Neal. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 15. Anticoma : A genus of free-living nematodes. 
 
 10 pages, with 12 original illustrations in the text. 
 Proceedings of the Linnsean Society of New South 
 Wales, Sydney, 1890. 
 
 16. Notes on Diseases of Plants. 
 
 3 pages. Diseases of the vine, pear tree, strawberry 
 
 Slant, and hollyhock. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 391 
 
 17. Pathological Notes. 
 
 2 pages, with 4 original illustrations in the text. 
 Disease of lucerne. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 1891. 
 
 18. Rust in Wheat : Report to Sydney Conference on. 
 
 7 pages. In " Rust in Wheat" (Report of Conference 
 on), Legislative Assembly, New South Wales, 2nd 
 Session, 1891. 
 
 19. Dialogue concerning the manner in which a 
 
 poisonous spray does its work in preventing 
 or checking blight. 
 
 8 pages, with 8 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 20. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 21. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 Diseases of apple, strawberry, and wheat. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 2. Onyx and Dipeltis : New nematode genera, with 
 
 a note on Dorylaimus. 
 
 16 pages, with 17 original illustrations in the text. 
 Proceedings of the Linnsean Society of New South 
 Wales, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 23. Maize for the table. 
 
 11 pages. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 24. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 Diseases of the apple and vine. Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1891. 
 
 25. Smut. 
 
 6 pages, with 9 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 26. Smuts. 
 
 Separate and enlarged with more illustrations. 
 Department Agriculture, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 27. Hair-worm. 
 
 2 pages. Agricultural Gazette, 1891. 
 
 28. Notes on Diseases of Plants. 
 
 Diseases of horse-radish and apples. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 29. Insect-larva eating Rust on Wheat and Flax. 
 
 4 pages, with 4 original illustrations in the text. 
 Conjoint paper. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 | 30. The same. 
 
 L Reprint in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 
 
 London, 1891. 
 
 31. Pathological Notes. 
 
 Diseases of maize and the apple. Agricultural Gazette. 
 Sydney, 1891. 
 
 i 32. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 Diseases of the apple, pear, peach, and flax. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 33. Strawberry Bunch. 
 
 11 pages, with 4 original illustrations in the text and 1 
 plate with 9 illustrations, after Rizema Bos. 
 A disease of the strawberry plant. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 34. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 35. Parasites in the stomach of a cow. 
 
 2 pages, with 2 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 36. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 9 pages, with 8 illustrations (mostly original) in the 
 text, and one plate with 2 illustrations. Diseases 
 of the potato, onion, tobacco. Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1891. 
 
 37. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 38. Devastating Eel-worm. 
 
 5 pages, with 7 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1891. > 
 
 39. Devastating Eel-worm. 
 
 The above with 2 additional illustrations. 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1891. 
 
 40. Plant Diseases, and How to Prevent them. 
 
 28 pages, with 30 original figures in the text, and 7 
 figures on 4 plates. Diseases of the apple, pear, 
 apricot, grape, rose, strawberry, pumpkin, cabbage, 
 and turnip. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1892. 
 
 41. Miscellaneous Publication, No. 12, 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1893, is a reprint 
 
 of the above. 
 
 42. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 2 pages. Disease of the orange. Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1892. 
 
 43. Plant Diseases, and How to Prevent them. 
 
 14 pages, with 25 original illustrations in the text, and 
 2 original illustrations on one plate. The diseases 
 " Take-all," and " Dry Blight." Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1892. 
 
 44. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 MOST OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS CAN BE HAD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SYDNEY, 
 
 New SOUTH WALES, EITHER FREE ON APPLICATION, OR AT PRICES FROM SIXPENCE UPWARDS. 
 They are also obtainable at the following Rook-dealers : 
 
PROM' AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE OF N. S. WALES. 
 
 TilTAV^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 /fciiVERSlTY 
 
 OF 
 
 Miscellaneous Publication, No. 625. 
 
 Seed Wheat: 
 
 AN INVESTIGATION AND DISCUSSION or THE RELATIVE 
 VALUE AS SEED OF LARGE PLUMP AND SMALL 
 SHRIVELLED GRAINS.* 
 
 BY N. A. COBB. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 ALL the remedies we devise for the alleviation of crop diseases are 
 but so many acknowledgments of the existence of disease. 
 
 Our greatest hope is for the production of disease-resistant 
 varieties. These will be resistant through certain constitutional 
 characteristics. 
 
 Next in importance to such constitutional characteristics is the 
 maintenance throughout the life of the plant of vigorous growth. This 
 involves health and strength from the very start. The seed must be 
 good, and the seedling strong, if the best results are to be secured. 
 
 Manifestly one of the main elements in the production of a strong 
 seedling is a strong sound seed. In all annual crops, such as wheat, 
 this question of strong sound seed is an ever recurring one, and one 
 that requires careful attention. Nevertheless, it is frequently neglected . 
 It is so much neglected that I am of the opinion that the losses 
 caused by the diseases from which such crops suffer would be very 
 materially lessened if we could bring the average of our seed up to the 
 point actually found profitable by, say, the best fourth of our farmers. 
 
 The following pages present the results of an inquiry into the state 
 of our seed wheat, with the object of defining the extent to which it 
 is practicable to add to the vitality of our wheat crops through more 
 careful attention to the seed. 
 
 The quality of our seed wheat is looked at here only in the 
 light of a single test, namely, the relative amount of small and 
 
 \^JS 
 
 Fig. 1. Four grains of wheat showing varying condition A, plump ; B, slightly shrivelled : 
 C, shrivelled ; D, much shrivelled ; enlarged four diameters. 
 
 shrivelled seed and useless or deleterious matter to be found in the 
 sample tested. Needless to say a better test would have given more 
 
 * This investigation was suggested by the Interstate Wheat-rust Conference. Two 
 related investigations are reported in the published proceedings of the Conference. The 
 present report differs from previous ones in being the result of several years' field work 
 on an extended scale, with the object of arriving at average figures that might be made 
 the basis of definite rules for practice. 
 
 12517 A 
 
 134927 
 
.Seed Wheat. 
 
 valuable results. The test applied has the merit of having a proved 
 relation* to the amount of the resulting crop, as well as that of being 
 easily applied. 
 
 I cannot help feeling that a number of people will, at first glance, 
 regard any effort to prove the lower value of small grains as seed to be 
 rather in the nature of an effort to kill a dead horse. Still I find it 
 impossible to disclaim the necessity of harping on this subject so long 
 as there exist among us advocates of the use of such seed, and, above 
 all, so long as it can be shown that our practice is as far below what 
 it ought to be as it is at present. 
 
 So long as it can be shown in the manner here adopted that the 
 bulk of our wheat growers are using seed of a quality no higher than 
 that disclosed by these examinations, there will exist the disagreeable 
 necessity on the part of our leading lights to keep on pointing out the 
 
 325 
 
 3-00 
 
 275 
 
 Fig. 2. Three sieves with meshes of three different widths, from 3'25 millimetres to 275 millimetres; 
 shown about one-tenth natural size. 
 
 fact. It seems to me that our agricultural officers of all kinds, and 
 especially the teachers in the agricultural schools, should keep the facts 
 of the case prominently before growers and intending growers. 
 
 This can be done at the schools and colleges through passages in 
 lectures, and even more forcibly by ocular demonstration year by 
 year through the growth side by side of plants derived from small, 
 medium-sized, and large seed. Object lessons of this kind have an 
 exceedingly high value if used in the right way far higher than is 
 generally realised. Both students and visitors will, from such con- 
 tinuous annual demonstrations, be more strongly impressed than 
 through almost any other means. 
 
 For several years demonstration plots of this nature were grown at 
 the Wagga Farm, and they were inspected, first and last, by thousands 
 of people. Side by side were to be seen rows of plants grown from 
 large, medium-sized, and small grains. In each season these were to 
 be seen growing on varying soil, and exemplified in the most diverse 
 
 * The proof is presented in the second part of this report. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 3 
 
 varieties of wheat. They were indeed eloquent and convincing, 
 though silent, arguments against the use of anything but large and 
 plump seed. 
 
 To this day growers of a conservative type have not ceased to tell 
 me that these little demonstration plots were the means of opening 
 their eyes to the fact that the extra number of seeds in a bushel of 
 pinched wheat was not all that had to be taken into consideration in 
 connection with the comparison of large and small grain for seed pur- 
 poses, and that further trials have convinced them of the advisability 
 of using the large grains for seed. 
 
 This is not to be wondered at, for no one could fail to see, if he 
 examined the demonstration plots with care, that the plants from large 
 and plump need were not only larger but healthier and more resistant 
 
 2-50 
 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 Fig. 3. Three sieves of varying mesh from 2'50 millimetres to 2*00 millimetres ; shown 
 about one-tenth natural size. 
 
 Figures 2 and 3 show the kind of sieves used in testing the quality of seed-wheat for this report. The sieves are 
 made from " half-round " brass wire, placed with the flat side down. They were specially made with accuracy. 
 
 to all adverse conditions. They suffered less from disease if disease 
 appeared, and they more readily surmounted the difficulties placed in 
 their way by bad patches of soil or by scanty rainfall. 
 
 Rev. E. E. Hale, consoling with one too sensitive about unfavour- 
 able comments in the public prints, remarked that of all the people 
 who saw the print not half would see the item in question ; and of 
 those who saw it, half would not read it ; and of the half that read it, 
 half would not understand it ; and of the half that understood it, half 
 would forget ; and that under such a haphazard process the ones that 
 remembered probably would not amount to much any way. 
 
 It is some such thought as this that leads me to emphasise the 
 advisability of demonstration plots at our colleges and farms and 
 wherever else we can present them. I fear that experts are terribly 
 prone to over-estimate the number of people that read their lucubrations, 
 and if these be sifted according to Dr. Hale's keen-witted method it 
 will be seen that our printed teachings stand in need of all the 
 reinforcement possible. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 I. Our Seed Wheat. 
 
 The differences in yield arising from the use of seeds of different sizes,* and the conse- 
 quent gain to farmers through the proper grading of seed wheat so as to secure for 
 seed only that which is best, led to a desire to ascertain the precise quality of the 
 seed wheat being used in this State. Accordingly arrangements were made for collecting 
 samples in various parts of the State at sowing time, the samples to be as far as possible 
 the ones actually being sown. 
 
 The task of collecting these samples was entrusted to Mr. E. D. Butler, and it was 
 carried out carefully and systematically several hundred samples being collected, to 
 each of which was attached a statement showing the locality in which it was being 
 sown, by whom it was being sown, and the name of the variety. Each sample consisted 
 of about five pounds of grain, though in some cases there was somewhat less, and in a 
 few cases more. 
 
 These samples were graded in the same manner as the samples that were used as the 
 basis of the article entitled " The Grading of Wheat, ' published in the Agricultural 
 Gazette, Vol. VIII, p. 855, that is to say the December number, 1897. The same sieves 
 were again used, and the sizes of the grain were the same as then secured, and similar 
 illustrations were again prepared as the result of these siftings. It is, therefore, 
 sufficient to allude to the methods then used ; and to reproduce here some of the 
 illustrations prepared in explanation of that article. See Figs. 2, 3, and 4 to 10. I was 
 careful to use as far as possible the same methods as before, in particular because it 
 was from similar gradings that various sized seeds were obtained for the experiments 
 made to ascertain precisely what are the relative yields from large and small seed 
 growing under similar conditions for a series of years ; experiments whose results are 
 presented in the second part of this article. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 275 
 
 2-50 
 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 Tailings. 
 
 Fig. 4. 
 
 Fig. 5. 
 
 Fig. 6. 
 
 Fig. 7. 
 
 Fig. 8. 
 
 Fig. 9. 
 
 Fig. 10. 
 
 Figures showing the actual size of the grains belonging to each grade yielded by the sieves shown m 
 Figures 2 and 3. The proper grade numbers are placed above each illustration. 
 
 An attempt is made in the above illustrations to show the sizes of the grains 
 that result from the grading done with the sieves shown in Figures 2 and 3, but these 
 illustrations are somewhat deceptive because of the nature of the wheat grain. If the 
 reader will examine a shrivelled grain, such as is figured at C, D, Fig. 1, he will at once 
 remark the fact that its outline is large in proportion to its actual weight. This is owing 
 to the shape and structure of the wheat grain, a shape that prevents it from being SQ 
 placed with reference to the observer that its contour will adequately represent the loss 
 of substance due to shrivelling. The actual differences in size are also obscured by the 
 assemblage of the grains. If the reader will bear these facts in mind in looking at the 
 above seven illustrations, he will derive a more correct impression. Grains of these seven 
 sizes are also shown in Figs. 14, 20, 21 and 22. The actual variation in the size of the 
 grains derived from a single ear of wheat is well and accurately illustrated in the 
 woodcut, Fig. 11, which was prepared with great care to illustrate this point. 
 
 Of course the sizes of the meshes here used in the sieving are purely arbitrary, but 
 they are the result of considerable study of the question of the range of variation in 
 the grain of wheat, and, in the absence of any recognised standard, have served the 
 purpose of the present and other investigations. 
 
 Method of Examination. 
 
 After the samples collected by Mr. Butler were graded, the weight of each of the seven 
 resulting grades was taken, and, with a calculating machine, reduced to its percentage 
 of the whole sample from which it was taken. Each sample, therefore, gave a result 
 like the following : 
 
 % 
 
 . 3-25 
 
 % 
 3'00 
 
 % 
 2T5 
 
 2-50 
 
 <y 
 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 o/ 
 
 Mixture. 
 
 Contamination. 
 
 I'l 
 
 7-6 
 
 20-7 
 
 28-4 
 
 35-6 
 
 5'5 
 
 5-9 
 
 Slightly mixed 
 
 Oats and white-heads. 
 
 * See the second part of this report 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 5 
 
 by which is meant that I'l % of the sample was 
 composed of grains of the size shown in Fig. 4, 
 7 '6 % of the sample was composed of grains of 
 the size shown in Fig. 5, and so on down through 
 the seven grades. Thus, the series of seven figures 
 gives a kind of picture of the sample. Looking at 
 the first of the seven figures, we can see at once 
 what proportion of the grains are large ; looking 
 at the other end of the series, we can see at once 
 what proportion of the grains are small. 
 
 The sample on being compared with first-class 
 samples of the same variety could be classed 
 as good, bad, or medium ; and it is needless to 
 say that this classification was the main object of 
 the examination. The results enable us to pass 
 judgment with some certainty on the quality of 
 the seed being used, and to discuss on a sounder 
 basis than heretofore the question whether we are 
 using seed as good as we ought to use, and, if 
 not, what amount of money farmers could afford 
 to expend in grading with a certainty of increas- 
 ing the profits of wheat-growing. 
 
 In 1898, at the instance of the Hon. Sydney 
 Smith, the then Minister for Agriculture in this 
 State, the late Mr. Thompson collected data as to 
 the proportion of the various varieties of wheat 
 in actual use in the State. The record of his 
 results, which appears in the Annual Report of 
 this Department for 1899, shows that the 
 varieties then in favour were as follows, and in 
 the following order : First, Stein wedel, Purple 
 Straw, and Allora Spring ; second, White Lammas 
 and Australian Talavera. 
 
 Mr. Thompson had unequalled opportunities 
 for collecting this information, travelling, as he 
 was, among the farmers in all parts of the State 
 as lecturer on agricultural subjects, and the infor- 
 mation should be very reliable. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the samples 
 gathered for the purposes of the present inquiry 
 give as the favourite varieties the following, and 
 in the following order : Purple Straw, 52% ; 
 White Lammas, 27% ; Steinwedel, 14% ; Red 
 Wheat, 3% ; Golden Drop, 2% ; Blount's Lam- 
 brigg, 1% ; Velvet, 1%. 
 
 From this it will be seen that, at the time of col- 
 lecting these samples, 93% of the wheat being sown 
 consisted of Purple Straw, Lammas, and Stein- 
 wedel, with a large preponderance of Purple Straw. 
 
 Now the farmers must use these varieties either 
 because they prefer them or because they can get 
 no others, unless, indeed, they give the matter no 
 thought, and simply sow whatever comes handy. 
 I think we may unhesitatingly dismiss this latter 
 contingency from the discussion, as experience 
 shows that farmers have decided opinions, and are 
 no more likely than others to neglect to think 
 about the means they employ to make a living. 
 
 Of the remaining two alternatives, namely, 
 whether they use these varieties because they 
 prefer them, or because they can get no others, 
 it seems to me we must choose the former. Other 
 sorts are available, and at prices within the reach 
 of all. If a farmer does not use some other 
 variety, it is not because he cannot get it, nor 
 because he cannot afford it. This seems to me 
 the inevitable conclusion. 
 
 It seems equally clear that the farmers must 
 prefer these varieties because they consider them 
 to be the most profitable ones to grow. 
 
 Fig. 11. An ear of 
 
 Defiance wheat, 
 with the grains 
 arranged as ex- 
 tracted from one 
 side of the ear. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 Against this opinion on the part of farmers, we must place that of the numerous 
 experts and specialists in this country, among them the writer, that these varieties are 
 not absolutely the best wheats. 
 
 No name was known for 6*5 per cent, of the samples collected. To this figure may be 
 added the number that were submitted under wrong names, and though there is no 
 evidence to show precisely what this latter number is, there can be no doubt that it 
 reaches a considerable magnitude. I consider it to be quite safe to say that the samples 
 unnamed or incorrectly named would constitute 20 per cent, of all the samples collected. 
 This evidence that 20 per cent, of our farmers are sowing " wheat " shows that we have 
 yet a great deal to do in spreading elementary knowledge concerning one of our most 
 important agricultural industries. 
 
 The samples that were manifestly mixed or slightly mixed constitute 45 per cent, of 
 the whole number collected. This mixture of different varieties in our seed wheat is a 
 serious obstacle to progress. How will it ever be possible to judge of the relative merits 
 of varieties under such conditions ? If we have no means, or imperfect means, of judging 
 the relative value of varieties, how are we to make satisfactory progress in the intro- 
 duction of better varieties ? 
 
 The percentage of bunted samples was seven. This shows that the various methods 
 of combating this, the second most important of our wheat diseases, are probably made 
 use of widely and with good effect. There is no reason why, if farmers would 
 systematically make use of the means now at their command, this disease should not be 
 practically eradicated. The. production of seed wheat by the methods advocated by the 
 officers of the Department and practised at the experiment farms, together with the 
 use of the various fungicidal treatments that experience has shown to be efficient would 
 practically annihilate this disease in the State in five years time. 
 
 The best samples were handed in under the names White Lammas and Steinwedel. 
 This is in accord with the results of the three years' tests formerly made on the 
 principal varieties grown in the State, both these varieties standing high in that series 
 of tests. Incidentally, this gives corroboration to the names under which the samples 
 were handed in, and is one of several points that have given me sufficient confidence in 
 the nomenclature of these samples to base certain reasoning upon it. 
 
 SAMPLES OF NEW "SOUTH WALES SEED WHEAT, GRADED TO SHOW 
 
 QUALITY, 1897-8. 
 
 NOTE. The higher the figures in the left-hand columns the better the sample. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 7 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 2-75 
 
 2-50 
 
 7 
 2"25 
 
 2-00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 Canowindra 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 
 3-8 
 
 24-6 
 
 23-1 
 
 37-3 
 
 8'5 
 
 1-4 
 
 1-4 
 
 Nyngan 
 
 " 
 
 Mixed 
 
 17-4 
 
 41'7 
 
 31-3 
 
 8-7 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 Near Dubbo 
 
 
 Mixed Oats . 
 
 10-0 22-4 
 
 337 
 
 297 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Dubbo 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 6-9 
 
 24'8 
 
 32-2 
 
 27-9 
 
 7-2 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 Near Dubbo 
 
 " 
 
 Mixed Oats Split 
 
 9-2 
 
 25-6 
 
 27-5 
 
 23-8 
 
 10-4 
 
 2-1 
 
 1-4 
 
 Dubbo . . . . . . 
 
 
 Mixed Oats . 
 
 12-6 
 
 28-7 
 
 27-4 
 
 24-9 
 
 4-1 
 
 1-1 
 
 1-4 
 
 
 
 
 15-3 
 
 35-5 
 
 25-7 
 
 15-5 
 
 6-0 
 
 1-6 
 
 9 
 
 Geurie 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 13-3 
 
 33-0 
 
 28-8 
 
 17-5 
 
 5'3 
 
 1-0 
 
 1-3 
 
 Narramine 
 
 
 
 6-7 
 
 26-5 
 
 26-3 
 
 26-0 
 
 12-1 
 
 1-8 
 
 4 
 
 Near Dubbo . . . . . . 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 5-6 
 
 26-0 
 
 33-2 
 
 27-4 
 
 4'8 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 Near Wellington 
 Wellington . . 
 
 p" st .:: 
 
 
 8'6 
 7-9 
 15-5 
 
 14-7 
 
 31-8 
 14-7 
 
 25-0 
 28-8 
 27-2 
 
 33-4 
 20-7 
 32-3 
 
 12-1 
 7'3 
 5-9 
 
 3-7 
 1-8 
 1-5 
 
 2-4 
 1-5 
 3-0 
 
 Mixed Oats' ' Bunt 
 
 ,, 
 
 " 
 
 Oats Bunt 
 
 5-2 
 
 24-0 
 
 28-1 
 
 31-0 
 
 83 
 
 2-1 
 
 1-3 
 
 Near'Wellington 
 Wellington . . 
 
 ." 
 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 4-7 
 6-5 
 1-3 
 
 28-5 
 26-8 
 10-4 
 
 287 
 28 2 
 27-2 
 
 25-4 
 24-8 
 34-3 
 
 9-4 
 10-0 
 20-9 
 
 2-1 
 2-2 
 4'6 
 
 1-3 
 1-4 
 1-4 
 
 " ' 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 62 
 
 19-8 
 
 25'2 
 
 33-2 
 
 11-6 
 
 2-6 
 
 11 
 
 ' 
 
 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 2-3 
 
 13'6 
 
 24-8 
 
 40-5 
 
 15'4 
 
 2 '5 
 
 1-1 
 
 " 
 
 
 Oats Bunt 
 
 5-0 
 
 24-7 
 
 30-1 
 
 286 
 
 8'2 
 
 2-1 
 
 1-3 
 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 2-0 
 
 14-9 
 
 22-5 
 
 38-3 
 
 18-1 
 
 2-9 
 
 1-3 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 62 
 
 231 
 
 25-5 
 
 30-8 
 
 101 
 
 3'0 
 
 1-4 
 
 " 
 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 
 30 
 
 18-3 
 
 23-1 
 
 33-7 
 
 17-9 
 
 3-3 
 
 7 
 
 " 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 6'9 
 
 23-7 
 
 28-8 
 
 24-2 
 
 9'5 
 
 3-0 
 
 3'8 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 " 
 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 8-3 
 
 26-8 
 
 32-2 
 
 21-0 
 
 7-4 
 
 1-6 
 
 2'7 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 5-3 
 
 12-9 
 
 24-0 
 
 43-3 
 
 11-7 
 
 1-6 
 
 1-2 
 
 Near Wellington 
 Wellington 
 
 Wh L . 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Oats 
 
 3'4 
 
 8-6 
 
 14-4 
 34-5 
 
 25-2 
 18-2 
 
 39-0 
 16-2 
 
 14'4 
 97 
 
 2-4 
 3-1 
 
 1-2 
 9-5 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 9-3 
 
 297 
 
 28-6 
 
 20-4 
 
 9-4 
 
 1-4 
 
 1-4 
 
 Mitchell's Creek 
 
 p"st. ' 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 20-6 
 
 12-2 
 
 24-4 
 
 28-7 
 
 10-7 
 
 1-6 
 
 1-8 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 11-7 
 
 27-9 
 
 31-4 
 
 20-3 
 
 4'4 
 
 9 
 
 3'6 
 
 Maryvale 
 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 
 6 
 
 8-2 
 
 4'5 
 
 27-7 
 
 13-2 
 31-5 
 
 34-7 
 22-0 
 
 31-0 
 66 
 
 11-0 
 15 
 
 5-0 
 2'6 
 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 " 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 SAMPLES of New South Wales Seed Wheat, Graded to show Quality, 
 1897-8 continued. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 275 
 
 % 
 250 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 s, 
 
 x.S 
 
 1 
 
 Maryvalo . . 
 Deniliquin 
 
 Wh. T.. 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 3-7 
 7 '4 
 
 9-5 
 19-4 
 
 25-2 
 22-3 
 
 41-8 
 
 28'9 
 
 18-6 
 15'5 
 
 6 
 4-6 
 
 7 
 1-7 
 
 
 
 
 2-0 
 
 11-9 
 
 21-2 
 
 33-2 
 
 25'2 
 
 5*2 
 
 1*7 
 
 Finley 
 
 ':: 
 
 Mixed 
 Mixed 
 Mixed 
 
 1-8 
 2-3 
 3-5 
 3-9 
 
 13-6 
 106 
 20-3 
 15-5 
 
 31-0 
 22-3 
 33-1 
 
 26'4 
 
 36-2 
 40-6 
 34-6 
 39'0 
 
 12-2 
 16-1 
 7-0 
 12'9 
 
 1-9 
 5-7 
 8 
 1'6 
 
 3-2 
 2'3 
 
 8 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 Mixed . . . . Bunt 
 
 12-9 
 23 
 
 29-7 
 43'5 
 
 35-0 
 20'9 
 
 19-8 
 9-1 
 
 2'6 
 
 2 '8 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 '4 
 
 Berrigan 
 
 p'.'st. ! '. 
 
 Oats . . 
 Mixed 
 Mixed . . . . 
 
 3-2 
 2-8 
 6'5 
 2'0 
 
 15-8 
 19-1 
 29-8 
 16'0 
 
 25-8 
 33-0 
 29-3 
 34 7 
 
 31-6 
 36-5 
 29-8 
 39-5 
 
 14-6 
 
 7'8 
 3-8 
 7-3 
 
 4-6 
 8 
 5 
 '2 
 
 4-4 
 4 
 '2 
 j 
 
 Coolamon 
 Banksdale 
 
 R. SL. . . 
 
 
 9 
 
 40 
 7'5 
 
 18-0 
 26'8 
 
 36-1 
 40 '0 
 
 34-0 
 22 '2 
 
 6-2 
 2 '2 
 
 1-7 
 
 5 
 
 Wagga Wagga 
 Coolamon 
 Fairfield (Coolamon) 
 Coolamon 
 
 P. St. . . 
 R. St. . . 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 
 Oats Smut 
 
 31 
 
 1-8 
 8 
 1-9 
 1-4 
 
 15-6 
 
 10-0 
 
 4-5 
 10-3 
 S-6 
 
 30-5 
 282 
 14-6 
 24-6 
 21-6 
 
 33-4 
 41-1 
 41-0 
 31'7 
 40-? 
 
 15-2 
 16-4 
 31-0 
 14-1 
 fll-8 
 
 1-4 
 2-2 
 7'3 
 2-8 
 3-2 
 
 7 
 7 
 8 
 14-7 
 3'2 
 
 Currawana 
 
 ;; ;; 
 
 Mixed "".'." 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 2-9 
 6 
 2-4 
 3'6 
 
 18-4 
 6'7 
 15-2 
 15-4 
 
 31'8 
 14-6 
 27-2 
 32'3 
 
 327 
 35-8 
 36-4 
 37'5 
 
 10-2 
 353 
 15-2 
 9 '4 
 
 1-5 
 5-9 
 
 27 
 1-5 
 
 2-3 
 
 1-2 
 1-1 
 
 4 
 
 Coolamon 
 North Berry Jerry 
 Coolamon 
 
 R?St. '. '. 
 R. Tu.. 
 R. Wh.. 
 
 Mixed Oats . . 
 Mixed 
 
 Mixed ""'.'"!! 
 
 3-2 
 2-0 
 3-8 
 6 
 2-0 
 
 15-9 
 20-0 
 15-3 
 13-3 
 
 8'7 
 
 25-0 
 37-0 
 29-1 
 219 
 16'9 
 
 40-2 
 380 
 40-6 
 40-3 
 
 44'8 
 
 12-7 
 2-3 
 
 9-8 
 21-8 
 26-1 
 
 1-9 
 4 
 1-0 
 1-4 
 
 1'8 
 
 1-3 
 
 4 
 4 
 6 
 
 '7 
 
 
 
 Stnw . . 
 
 
 2-2 
 7-0 
 
 17-3 
 32-8 
 
 24-1 
 32'3 
 
 35-5 
 16'0 
 
 16-1 
 9-8 
 
 3-6 
 1'3 
 
 1-3 
 
 '7 
 
 Berry Jerry 
 Ganmain 
 
 p'.'st. 
 
 
 6-6 
 2'1 
 
 22-3 
 16'8 
 
 30'3 
 34'3 
 
 26-2 
 35'6 
 
 11-6 
 9-2 
 
 2-2 
 1-3 
 
 1-2 
 
 - 7 
 
 Old Junee 
 
 Stnw . . 
 BL L. 
 
 Mixed""!!" '!! 
 
 3-0 
 6-4 
 2-3 
 I'O 
 
 20-6 
 22-4 
 197 
 2-9 
 
 35-6 
 27-1 
 30-1 
 6'3 
 
 33-3 
 26-9 
 30-6 
 39-5 
 
 5-6 
 13-9, 
 13-1 
 41-2 
 
 7 
 2-4 
 2-8 
 6'7 
 
 1-2 
 9 
 1-5 
 2*4 
 
 
 Wh. H. 
 
 R. St. 
 
 
 8'8 
 2-9 
 
 18'8 
 14-1 
 
 32-8 
 30-1 
 
 35-9 
 36 '0 
 
 3'5 
 
 14'6 
 
 1 
 1'8 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 Junee 
 
 Rt. T.. 
 
 Stnw 
 
 Mixed 
 
 3-5 
 12'9 
 
 8-8 
 32-5 
 
 29-9 
 25'4 
 
 44-0 
 19'6 
 
 12-2 
 6 '9 
 
 1-7 
 1*4 
 
 1'4 
 
 Temora 
 
 NearTemora 
 Temora 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Oats Bunt 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 .. Oats'!! 
 
 " Oats'!.' 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats 
 Oats .. 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed Oats 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 2'3 
 5-1 
 2-4 
 3-2 
 6-4 
 3'9 
 3'1 
 2'2 
 4-1 
 7 
 2-5 
 6 
 1-5 
 67 
 4-2 
 
 13-9 
 15-7 
 6-3 
 15-1 
 307 
 17-2 
 19-0 
 15-7 
 15-4 
 4-6 
 20-4 
 4-8 
 9'1 
 19-6 
 13-4 
 
 19-3 
 27-3 
 25-3 
 20-7 
 34-4 
 27-5 
 26-7 
 27-5 
 20-1 
 14-8 
 277 
 17-3 
 23-6 
 231 
 30-4 
 
 32-0 
 32-8 
 36-7 
 36-5 
 20-5 
 36-3 
 37-2 
 35-2 
 37-3 
 34-8 
 31-3 
 37-7 
 39-5 
 33-0 
 33-9 
 
 21-8 
 14-2 
 22-6 
 16-1 
 6-1 
 13-2 
 11-4 
 13-6 
 18-9 
 33-0 
 13-9 
 32-6 
 21-1 
 15-4 
 9-3 
 
 5-7 
 2'2 
 3-2 
 3'7 
 1-1 
 1-4 
 1-5 
 2'4 
 3-4 
 8'3 
 2-2 
 4-5 
 3'6 
 1-9 
 1-7 
 
 4-9 
 27 
 3-5 
 4'9 
 8 
 5 
 1-1 
 3-1 
 8 
 3'9 
 2-2 
 2'5 
 1-6 
 6 
 4 
 
 
 Stnw . . 
 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 Mixed 
 
 Mixed '"!!""!! 
 
 9 
 1-9 
 1-1 
 4-2 
 8-6 
 1-1 
 
 7-7 
 11-2 
 5'6 
 18-0 
 26-8 
 8'5 
 
 22-4 
 24-8 
 17"2 
 350 
 30-1 
 19-7 
 
 45-9 
 37'0 
 43-8 
 34-4 
 22-9 
 4V? 
 
 191 
 16-5 
 25-4 
 57 
 9-6 
 ?5-4 
 
 1-9 
 3'7 
 5-3 
 8 
 1-5 
 3'1 
 
 2-1 
 4'9 
 1-5 
 1-6 
 5 
 8 
 
 Junee Road, Temora 
 Temora 
 Mimosa 
 
 Barmedman 
 Junee Road, Temora 
 Stockinbingal 
 Marengo 
 Grenfell Road 
 Grenfell 
 Garangula 
 Barwang 
 Bethungra 
 
 Impl. . . 
 P. St. . . 
 
 R'.'st. '. '. 
 P. St. . . 
 
 R.'TU" 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Wh. T.'. 
 Tusc. . . 
 R.Wh.. 
 
 Oats Bunt 
 Mixed 
 
 Mixed "!!""!! 
 Oats .. 
 
 .. Oats"! 
 Mixed 
 Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 
 Mixed '"!!""!! 
 
 4-9 
 2'0 
 2-9 
 1-4 
 1-6 
 1-5 
 1-0 
 1-7 
 14-0 
 14-6 
 1-9 
 6-6 
 6 
 2-6 
 
 31-4 
 13-8 
 10-5 
 6-9 
 7'6 
 11-9 
 9-8 
 10-2 
 34-7 
 40-2 
 12-4 
 22-5 
 5'7 
 9'8 
 
 29-5 
 30-0 
 
 21-8 
 22-4 
 22-S 
 25-8 
 23-8 
 19-7 
 34-3 
 27-0 
 29-0 
 35-8 
 20-7 
 277 
 
 25-2 
 41-3 
 41-8 
 38-8 
 39-2 
 41-4 
 42-6 
 37-4 
 13-8 
 14-9 
 32-9 
 29-4 
 48-9 
 31-4 
 
 6-9 
 11-2 
 18-3 
 24-7 
 21-8 
 16-5 
 18-8 
 25-6 
 27 
 2-6 
 17-4 
 4-1 
 21-8 
 15-9 
 
 1-6 
 1-2 
 3-0 
 3'8 
 3'8 
 2-2 
 2-8 
 3-1 
 2 
 4 
 3'9 
 3 
 1-8 
 4-1 
 
 3 
 6 
 1-9 
 1-9 
 3'3 
 8 
 1-2 
 21 
 3 
 3 
 2-2 
 12 
 6 
 8-6 
 
8 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 SAMPLES of New South Wales Seed Wheat, Graded to show Quality, 
 1 897-8 continued. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 y 
 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 275 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 *J 
 I 
 
 Murrumburrah 
 
 P. St. '. . 
 R Tu 
 
 
 6'4 
 9-5 
 
 18-4 
 407 
 
 34-0 
 29 -2 
 
 30-9 
 16'8 
 
 6-3 
 2-1 
 
 17 
 
 5 
 
 2-1 
 
 Young 
 
 Bowning 
 Illabo . . 
 
 N.Rd.. 
 
 p!'st. .' ! 
 
 Stnw .' ! 
 Wh. L.. 
 P. St. . . 
 Wh. L 
 
 Mixed 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed Oats 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats ., 
 Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 1-6 
 1-6 
 139 
 16-3 
 14-0 
 17-0 
 7-0 
 12-2 
 3'3 
 1'4 
 
 7'9 
 7'9 
 47-1 
 38-8 
 417 
 41-2 
 22-1 
 237 
 17-5 
 6 '9 
 
 10-0 
 10-0 
 
 24-2 
 28-0 
 29-5 
 27-0 
 30-8 
 25-5 
 24-2 
 19 '4 
 
 44-5 
 44-5 
 11-9 
 12'9 
 127 
 12-3 
 28-4 
 234 
 35-1 
 49 '8 
 
 27-5 
 27-5 
 2'4 
 2-8 
 17 
 17 
 8-4 
 77 
 13-6 
 207 
 
 3-8 
 3'8 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 1-8 
 27 
 4-3 
 17 
 
 4'6 
 4-6 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 4 
 1-5 
 5-0 
 2-1 
 
 Yass 
 Grabben Gullen 
 Yass .. 
 
 Wh L.. 
 
 Mixed 
 Oats Bunt 
 
 20'0 
 7'4 
 40 '8 
 
 37-2 
 29-4 
 47 '2 
 
 28-6 
 34-6 
 10'5 
 
 12-0 
 23-8 
 1'5 
 
 1-9 
 3-0 
 
 2 
 6 
 
 2 
 1-3 
 
 
 R.Wh.. 
 Rd. L.. 
 
 
 6'5 
 11-4 
 
 18-1 
 30-0 
 
 25-1 
 37'5 
 
 33-4 
 197 
 
 14-0 
 1*3 
 
 2-5 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Harden 
 Near Cowra 
 Cowra . . 
 
 Stnw . . 
 Stnw 
 
 Mixed 
 
 9'5 
 3-5 
 
 2'5 
 
 29-9 
 10-9 
 21 '4 
 
 27-1 
 22-3 
 24 '2 
 
 22-9 
 397 
 32 '0 
 
 5-8 
 157 
 12 '8 
 
 1-6 
 5-2 
 3 '3 
 
 3-2 
 2-4 
 37 
 
 
 
 . . ' Oats 
 
 2'6 
 5-1 
 
 12-4 
 17'2 
 
 30-2 
 26'3 
 
 34-3 
 31'6 
 
 15-8 
 15-8 
 
 2-6 
 3'2 
 
 2-1 
 
 '8 
 
 West Ville . 
 Back Creek 
 Morongla Creek 
 Cowra 
 
 Mol'ong 
 Canowindra 
 
 Wh. L.. 
 
 Y.Tu.. 
 
 p"st. ! '. 
 
 Wh. w! 
 
 P St 
 
 "bats"! 
 Mixed 
 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 Mixed Oats Bunt 
 
 4'2 
 8 
 1-9 
 8 
 2 
 1-8 
 2'2 
 3-0 
 
 10'4 
 9-8 
 5-6 
 6-9 
 2-9 
 14-1 
 87 
 16 '4 
 
 24-5 
 21-3 
 14-9 
 18-3 
 11-2 
 19-4 
 17-0 
 30 '9 
 
 50-0 
 39-4 
 44-0 
 44'2 
 397 
 37-6 
 30-3 
 35 '8 
 
 9-3 
 23-6 
 257 
 25-5 
 37-0 
 20-5 
 30-5 
 11 '6 
 
 8 
 4-3 
 3-8 
 3-3 
 57 
 5-8 
 9-2 
 1*6 
 
 8 
 9 
 4-2 
 9 
 3'2 
 8 
 2-2 
 7 
 
 Blayney 
 Barry 
 Blayney 
 Avondale 
 Near Orange 
 Forest Reefs 
 Raglan 
 
 Wh. L.'. 
 
 p'.'st. .' ! 
 
 Wh. L.. 
 Wh. H. 
 
 Mixed "'bats'!! 
 Mixed 
 Oats . . 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Bunt 
 
 3-1 
 
 15-9 
 4-2 
 17-1 
 4-9 
 9-1 
 13-9 
 5 
 
 24'9 
 44-8 
 117 
 43-5 
 14-4 
 43-6 
 52-1 
 9-9 
 
 317 
 26-0 
 257 
 25-6 
 23-8 
 327 
 23-8 
 16*6 
 
 24-5 
 10-3 
 35-5 
 10-6 
 197 
 7-8 
 7-1 
 42'4 
 
 8-9 
 1-9 
 18-6 
 1-4 
 32-8 
 1-9 
 2-3 
 24 '9 
 
 1-6 
 
 8 
 2-6 
 1-1 
 2-6 
 2-6 
 6 
 3 '6 
 
 5-4 
 3 
 1-5 
 7 
 17 
 2-1 
 1 
 2 '6 
 
 Perth . . ! ! " '.'. 
 
 Wh.'L. 
 
 Oats .. 
 Mixed 
 
 4 
 3-3 
 
 4 '8 
 
 6'5 
 14-9 
 14'3 
 
 187 
 31-5 
 20 '3 
 
 42-1 
 30-3 
 36 '1 
 
 25-6 
 16-6 
 
 18'8 
 
 4-1 
 2'4 
 39 
 
 2-6 
 
 ro 
 
 1'8 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 24-1 
 
 52-4 
 
 flflff 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 White Rock 
 Broula 
 
 P." St. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 5-0 
 1'6 
 
 13-3 
 14'5 
 
 20-5 
 27'3 
 
 38-6 
 41-5 
 
 16-6 
 12'5 
 
 4'4 
 1'9 
 
 1-5 
 
 '8 
 
 White Rock 
 George's Plains 
 Millthorpe 
 W. Orange 
 
 Wh. L.. 
 Wh. T.. 
 Bl. L. . . 
 
 Mixed 
 Oats .. 
 
 5-4 
 7-9 
 3-9 
 
 10-2 
 
 15-4 
 33-8 
 12-9 
 38 '2 
 
 21-3 
 29-5 
 26-6 
 24 '6 
 
 33-4 
 21-2 
 40-2 
 16'5 
 
 20-3 
 4'8 
 12-1 
 6*4 
 
 27 
 1-2 
 2'9 
 1'6 
 
 1-5 
 1-6 
 1-3 
 2 '6 
 
 Shaw 
 Near Orange 
 Millthorpe . . 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 F Fr 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 Oats .. 
 
 1-8 
 11-5 
 31 "5 
 
 6-1 
 18-3 
 43'2 
 
 14-3 
 27-4 
 157 
 
 33-4 
 33-8 
 5-9 
 
 277 
 67 
 '8 
 
 9-9 
 1-2 
 I'l 
 
 67 
 
 1-2 
 
 7 
 
 Spring Hill 
 
 Near Orange 
 Burrowa River 
 Wattamondarra 
 
 P. St. . . 
 Wh. H. 
 P. St. . . 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 P St 
 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 Mixed ""!!""!! 
 
 12-1 
 16-0 
 17-3 
 2'4 
 1'6 
 
 467 
 497 
 39-0 
 14-2 
 4 '4 
 
 28-6 
 24-0 
 20-2 
 28-8 
 16-3 
 
 8'3 
 5-8 
 107 
 44-2 
 37'5 
 
 17 
 1-5 
 3-4 
 9-4 
 
 287 
 
 1-2 
 
 2-0 
 2'4 
 
 7 
 8'8 
 
 1-3 
 11 
 
 7-1 
 3 
 
 27 
 
 Neville 
 Evans' Plains 
 
 Wh L 
 
 
 207 
 6'1 
 
 377 
 15 ! 
 
 21-3 
 23 '6 
 
 13-2 
 34'1 
 
 3-8 
 16 
 
 1-3 
 3'1 
 
 20 
 1'3 
 
 Brewongle 
 Barwang 
 Kialla 
 Garangula 
 Evans' Plains 
 Lucknow 
 Jerrawa 
 Demondrille 
 Wattamandarra 
 
 Tal. . 
 Wh. W. 
 Wh. L.. 
 
 R.'whV. 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Mixed 
 Mixed .. .. 
 
 Mixed'"!!" '!! 
 
 Mixed 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 6-3 
 3-4 
 8-6 
 2-9 
 47 
 13-4 
 1-4 
 5-9 
 2 '8 
 
 147 
 77 
 19-8 
 9'4 
 16-4 
 417 
 8'4 
 40-5 
 167 
 
 19-6 
 12-6 
 43-6 
 31-4 
 20-6 
 24-5 
 17-8 
 24-3 
 27 '9 
 
 38-1 
 51-4 
 21-9 
 44-5 
 32-2 
 13-0 
 39-5 
 19-3 
 317 
 
 17-2 
 22-4 
 
 47 
 8-0 
 18-1 
 3-8 
 26-4 
 7-5 
 
 m 
 
 2-5 
 17 
 9 
 1-4 
 3-6 
 
 H 
 
 17 
 
 47 
 
 T6 
 9 
 6 
 2-4 
 1'4 
 2-5 
 1-5 
 7 
 2'8 
 
 Currawang 
 
 P. St 
 
 
 47 
 
 21-8 
 
 39-3 
 
 27'2 
 
 5-2 
 
 8 
 
 1-0 
 
 Jeir 
 
 Wh. L.. 
 
 
 137 
 91 -3 
 
 32-8 
 437 
 
 40-8 
 33-9 
 
 12-3 
 V? 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 Adelong Crossing 
 
 South Gundagai 
 Near Gundagai 
 
 Rd. L... 
 Wh. L.. 
 P. St. . . 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 Mixed ""!""!! 
 Mixed Oats .. 
 
 11-4 
 6'] 
 
 8'9 
 8 
 7-5 
 
 26-9 
 29-2 
 26-9 
 7-4 
 
 20-2 
 
 46-1 
 357 
 357 
 217 
 25-0 
 
 15-4 
 247 
 19-3 
 497 
 27-5 
 
 1 
 37 
 7'6 
 19-3 
 16-9 
 
 "2 
 1-1 
 1-2 
 2'4 
 
 4 
 7 
 
 8 
 7 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 9 
 
 SAMPLES of New South Wales Seed Wheat, Graded to show Quality, 
 1897-8 continued. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 325 
 
 3-00 
 
 A 
 
 2'50 
 
 A 
 
 2-00 
 
 oi 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gundagai 
 
 .... 
 
 Mixed Oats . 
 
 47 
 
 15-2 
 
 27-9 
 
 34-0 
 
 14-8 
 
 2-5 
 
 9 
 
 Tamworth 
 
 
 
 13-1 
 
 306 
 
 291 
 
 189 
 
 5-8 
 
 1-0 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 p. st! . . 
 
 
 20 '0 
 
 32'6 
 
 18'3 
 
 167 
 
 7 '6 
 
 2-4 
 
 2'4 
 
 Moor Creek 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Oats .. 
 
 18-6 
 
 34-4 
 
 227 
 
 13-6 
 
 7'3 
 
 27 
 
 7 
 
 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 4 '9 
 
 J0'6 
 
 257 
 
 37 '5 
 
 18'0 
 
 2*0 
 
 
 Near Tamworth 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Mixed ! ! 
 
 11-2 
 
 337 
 
 33-1 
 
 19-1 
 
 2-2 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Moonbi 
 
 R. Pr.. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 2'5 
 
 12-9 
 
 20-8 
 
 42-2 
 
 16-9 
 
 2'4 
 
 2-4 
 
 ,, 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 oats .. 
 
 176 
 
 36-9 
 
 24-0 
 
 16-6 
 
 2-9 
 
 6 
 
 1-5 
 
 ,, 
 
 F. Gl. .. 
 
 Oats .. 
 
 39-8 
 
 37-8 
 
 9-9 
 
 5'4 
 
 1-3 
 
 1-6 
 
 4'2 
 
 Bective 
 
 Bl. V. .. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 37-0 
 
 28-8 
 
 15-1 
 
 11-6 
 
 3'3 
 
 2-1 
 
 2-0 
 
 
 Stnw 
 
 
 51 '5 
 
 29 '8 
 
 9 '6 
 
 6'0 
 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 " '.'. '.'. 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 
 29-5 
 
 43-4 
 
 147 
 
 7'6 
 
 3-0 
 
 I'l 
 
 7 
 
 Quirindi 
 
 G. Dr.. 
 
 Mixed ' ' ' '6ats' ! ! 
 
 4'8 
 
 10-9 
 
 26-5 
 
 42-2 
 
 12-2 
 
 1-9 
 
 1-5 
 
 Manilla !! '.'. '.'. '.'. 
 
 P. St. . . 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 10-8 
 20-5 
 
 17-5 
 
 27-9 
 
 28-5 
 17-0 
 
 28-2 
 13-4 
 
 11-9 
 
 10-1 
 
 1-5 
 6'4 
 
 1-6 
 
 4-8 
 
 Upper Manilla 
 
 Aust. .. 
 
 
 207 
 
 24-8 
 
 30'0 
 
 16-3 
 
 3-9 
 
 2-2 
 
 2-2 
 
 ,, 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 Mixed'""..""!! Bunt 
 
 25-6 
 
 36-8 
 
 18-6 
 
 10-8 
 
 3'8 
 
 17 
 
 2-6 
 
 Glenmore 
 
 >> 
 
 
 1-5 
 
 97 
 
 21-0 
 
 37-5 
 
 23-6 
 
 4-9 
 
 17 
 
 Wallabadah 
 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 4-1 
 
 15-5 
 
 32-6 
 
 37-8 
 
 9-2 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 Nundle 
 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 10-1 
 
 25-0 
 
 37-5 
 
 22-9 
 
 37 
 
 *5 
 
 4 
 
 Duri 
 
 Wh L.. 
 
 
 6-4 
 
 20-4 
 
 30-5 
 
 33-8 
 
 8-2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 Nemingha 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 Oats 
 
 53-2 
 
 28-0 
 
 87 
 
 5-8 
 
 3-8 
 
 9 
 
 1-6 
 
 Castle Mountain 
 
 G. Dr. 
 
 Oats 
 
 10-5 
 
 19-8 
 
 267 
 
 32-5 
 
 87 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 8-4 
 
 22-2 
 
 32-8 
 
 287 
 
 4*1 
 
 1-8 
 
 2-0 
 
 Brooman 
 
 P. St. . . 
 
 
 
 11-4 
 
 19-5 
 
 36-2 
 
 25-1 
 
 4'5 
 
 1-5 
 
 Glen Innes . . 
 
 Sp.W.. 
 
 Oats .! 
 
 21-8 
 
 40-1 
 
 24-5 
 
 9-8 
 
 27 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 Vlvt. .. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 26-4 
 
 41*1 
 
 24-0 
 
 6-1 
 
 1-5 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 Begginbeggin 
 Morongla Creek 
 
 R. Tu . . 
 Wh. T.. 
 
 
 3'9 
 1-6 
 
 14-8 
 86 
 
 345 
 16-2 
 
 377 
 37-5 
 
 7'3 
 
 257 
 
 8 
 7'5 
 
 8 
 2-9 
 
 [?] 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 1-1 
 
 7'6 
 
 207 
 
 23-4 
 
 35-6 
 
 5'5 
 
 5-9 
 
 Berthong 
 
 G! Dr.. 
 
 Mixed . . . . Bunt 
 
 3-8 
 
 12-5 
 
 3G-4 
 
 39-2 
 
 10-4 
 
 1-4 
 
 2-4 
 
 Begginbeggin 
 
 Npr. .. 
 
 Mixed 
 
 51 
 
 18-2 
 
 34-1 
 
 28'6 
 
 8'6 
 
 1-2 
 
 4-1 
 
 Limestone Creek 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 
 18 '3 
 
 38 '6 
 
 22 - 6 
 
 117 
 
 5-3 
 
 
 
 Water Vale 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 1-5 
 
 10-0 
 
 24-8 
 
 27-5 
 
 27'5 
 
 5'4 
 
 3'4 
 
 Warrangong 
 
 Wh. L. 
 
 Oats .. 
 
 5'6 
 
 24-5 
 
 6-6 
 
 54-0 
 
 57 
 
 1-4 
 
 2'3 
 
 Ashburton 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 10-8 
 
 33-9 
 
 31-0 
 
 187 
 
 2'6 
 
 1-0 
 
 2-0 
 
 Quong Dong. . 
 
 p. st. ! ! 
 
 
 9 
 
 77 
 
 24-4 
 
 46-5 
 
 18-6 
 
 1-9 
 
 9 
 
 ,, 
 
 Stnw. .. 
 
 
 9 
 
 9-6 
 
 25-3 
 
 37-5 
 
 16-3 
 
 5-9; 
 
 4'4 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 10-8 
 
 37-4 
 
 37-0 
 
 7'6 
 
 3'6 
 
 [?J 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 
 
 
 
 58-0 
 
 42-0 ! 
 
 
 ra 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 4-3 
 
 18-2 
 
 35 -1 
 
 35-3 
 
 4-9 
 
 6 
 
 1"4 
 
 Water Vale 
 
 P.' St. . . 
 
 Mixed Oats . . 
 
 2-3 
 
 18-3 
 
 28-2 
 
 317 
 
 13-4 
 
 37 
 
 1-9 
 
 Newry 
 
 >! 
 
 Mixed 
 
 2-4 
 
 12-9 
 
 26-9 
 
 40-9 
 
 13-0 
 
 1-6 
 
 2 '2 
 
 Springfield 
 Clear Hills 
 
 
 
 Mixed 
 
 3-4 
 4-9 
 
 19-5 
 30-1 
 
 33'0 
 32-4 
 
 30-3 
 
 277 
 
 10-9 
 4-0 
 
 1-6 ! 
 
 5 
 
 1-3 
 4 
 
 North Berry Jerry 
 
 
 
 Mixed Oats 
 
 8 
 
 9-6 
 
 26-1 
 
 487 
 
 13-3 
 
 1-2 
 
 "2 
 
 Bomory Villa 
 
 ,, 
 
 Oats .. 
 
 37 
 
 20-9 
 
 28-5 
 
 29-4 
 
 87 
 
 2-6 
 
 6'2 
 
 Coree 
 
 " 
 
 
 2-3 
 
 9-8 
 
 18-8 
 
 37-6 
 
 24-2 
 
 5-5 
 
 17 
 
 Analysis of the foregoing Table. 
 
 The table of the gradings shows a number of interesting features, according to the 
 way in which it is analysed. If we separate the varieties we observe that Steinwedel 
 yields the best results on the average : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 / 
 275 
 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 2 -00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 Steinwedel 
 
 107 
 
 24-8 
 
 25-3 
 
 243 
 
 10-5 
 
 2-4 
 
 1-9 
 
 The miscellaneous samples are, however, nearly as good, giving practically the same 
 grade figures. 
 
 Next these, but considerably poorer, come Purple Straw and White Lammas, of which 
 the latter is a trifle the better. The unnamed samples are the poorest, some of them 
 being extremely rubbishy. See the following table. 
 
10 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 TABLE of Averages. 
 
 Name of the Variety. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 2-75 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 2 00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 Steinwedel, 31 samples . . 
 
 1075 
 
 24-8 
 
 25-3 
 
 24-3 
 
 10-5 
 
 2'4 
 
 1-9 
 
 Miscellaneous, 15 
 
 10-2 
 
 18-6 
 
 24-5 
 
 30-2 
 
 12-0 
 
 2-3 
 
 2-4 
 
 White Lammas, 36 
 
 6-2 
 
 24-0 
 
 25-3 
 
 30-4 
 
 11-2 
 
 1-9 
 
 1-1 
 
 Purple Straw, 113 
 
 6-6 
 
 20-3 
 
 26"2 
 
 30-4 
 
 12-4 
 
 2'4 
 
 1-7 
 
 White Tuscan, 21 
 
 4-4 
 
 17-0 
 
 26-4 
 
 34-7 
 
 13-9 
 
 2-0 
 
 1-5 
 
 Without name, 15 
 
 3-8 
 
 14-2 
 
 22-1 
 
 30-1 
 
 21-1 
 
 6"2 
 
 2'3 
 
 From this average table it is possible to derive the average of all the samples, the 
 average for the State, as we may term it : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 y 
 
 2-75 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 y 
 
 2-25 
 
 2 '00 
 
 Tailings. 
 
 State average 
 
 6'9 
 
 19-8 
 
 24-9 
 
 30-0 
 
 13-5 
 
 2-9 
 
 1-8 
 
 The State average may be more conveniently stated by giving approximate figures, 
 as follows : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 3 '00 
 
 % 
 2-75 
 
 % 
 
 2-50 
 
 225 
 
 2 -bo 
 
 % 
 
 Tailings. 
 
 State average 
 
 T 
 
 20' 
 
 25" 
 
 30' 
 
 13' 
 
 3' 
 
 2" 
 
 These figures can easily be carried in the mind during the following discussions and 
 comparisons, all the more easily after studying Figures 12 and 20. Of course it is not 
 meant to imply by the term- State average that the above figures are exactly the average 
 that would have been obtained, if, say, ten thousand samples had been examined in the 
 same manner as this smaller number of samples. Nevertheless, it is extremely doubtful 
 if a larger number of examinations would have materially changed the figures, and this 
 justifies us in using the term, thus qualified. 
 
 It will be noted that the various samples are described in the text as very good, good, 
 medium, poor, bad, and very bad. These words refer mainly to the size of the grains 
 composing the samples. 
 
 Average Quality of First-class Sample. 
 
 In order to make clearer the precise meaning to be attached to these words let us for 
 a moment consider what are the qualities of a first-class sample of wheat so far as 
 relates to the size of its grains. As the Purple Straws are largely grown let us take as 
 an example a sample of ordinary Purple Straw grain of first quality. Such a sample 
 grades up as follows : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 3^25 
 
 3 -00 
 
 2 % 75 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 200 
 
 y 
 Tailings. 
 
 Farmer's Friend 
 
 46-96 
 
 39-63 
 
 8-01 
 
 3-79 
 
 1-09 
 
 29 
 
 23 
 
 These figures are the result of grading three first-class samples grown in three 
 successive years, as described in the article on the grading of wheats already cited. It 
 will be observed that 86 per cent, of the grains belong to the two largest grades. 
 Experience has shown that the yield from the last four grades is less from equal numbers 
 of seeds, and that the crop is of inferior quality. Consequently any sample that graded 
 up so as to throw the bulk of its grain into these grades would be of inferior quality. 
 The sample given above may be taken as somewhere near perfection, as the plants from 
 which it was derived were picked plants. It is, however, quite safe to say that any 
 good sample of Purple Straw should throw three-fourths cf its grain into the first three 
 grades. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 & 
 
 || 
 
 I I 
 
 -III 
 
 *, 
 S3 a-g 
 
 o 5 *^ 
 
 Illl 
 
 ull 
 
 ill 
 
 
 '- ^ T 
 
 B| 
 
 1^0 
 
 
 i? 
 
 <=Va 
 CO 01 --^ 
 
 liil 
 
 -_ -+J C 1 -^ 
 O SJ 0) ^ 
 
 e should Aim at. 
 
 It will be found on reference to 
 the source of the figures relating to 
 the sample of Farmer's Friend, 
 that they represent a high grade 
 of grain, in fact something like the 
 perfection of growth under nor- 
 mal conditions in one of the 
 principal wheat-growing districts 
 of the State. It is well to bear this 
 fact in mind, and not lay too much 
 stress on comparisons between 
 this well-nigh perfect growth and 
 the averages derived from these 
 present examinations of our ordi- 
 nary seed wheat. There is, I think, 
 no mistake more commonly made 
 by experts and enthusiasts than 
 that of over-estimating the rate at 
 which we may reasonably expect 
 to approach the perfect standard 
 which they can so easily picture to 
 themselves from their vantage 
 ground of superior knowledge and 
 foresight. While it is advisable, 
 therefore, to always present the 
 ultimate goal toward which all 
 are striving, it is often more use- 
 ful to make comparisons with a 
 standard more easily within reach. 
 
 Particular attention is therefore 
 invited to the comparisons made 
 between the seed-wheat of the 
 better farmers of the State and 
 that of the remaining three -fourths 
 or four-fifths. 
 
 There is no doubt, as will be 
 seen when we come to the later 
 pages of this report, that the 
 stamina of our wheat crops would 
 be, very much improved if the 
 example set by our better growers 
 could be widely imitated, and it is 
 equally beyond doubt that their 
 example could be profitably followed 
 at once. There is no difficulty in 
 the way. 
 
 Such bad seasons as the present 
 would be fraught with much less 
 loss from disease and poor growth 
 if our wheat crops had the addi- 
 tional stamina derived from the 
 use of plump graded seed. 
 
 The Illustrations. 
 
 It is desirable that the percent- 
 
 Z figures used in these pages 
 uld convey a definite idea to 
 the reader's mind. Accordingly, 
 100 ounces of particular samples 
 have been divided up and placed 
 in piles according to the percent- 
 age figures. See illustrations 
 12, 13, etc. , 
 
 While this method of grading 
 the wheat and placing it in piles 
 is in its way very effective in 
 
12 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 3-25 
 
 showing the nature of a, given sample of seed it has some drawbacks. 
 In the first place the illustration does not show the striking difference 
 in the sizes of the grains composing the various piles. Again the 
 method of piling is not the most effective way of showing the precise 
 relative amounts of the different grades. However those accustomed to 
 wheat are so used to seeing it in piles that this method has been adopted 
 as one that will appeal to the senses through the ordinary channels. 
 
 A better method is that adopted in Fig. 14, on this page, in which 
 every grain is shown, and in its natural size, as is explained in the small 
 paragraph relating to the illustration. 
 
 3-50 
 
 How to Judge the Tabulated 
 All the grains of the lower grades in any sample will 
 lower its quality as seed wheat, the very lowest grades 
 of course being a greater defect than those immediately 
 higher. In harmony with this criterion the samples in the 
 tables may be classed as good or bad according as a majority 
 of their grains are found in the upper or lower grades. 
 Thus a sample that graded : 
 
 Purple \ 
 Straw. J 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 275 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 3-1 
 
 19-0 
 
 267 
 
 37-2 
 
 11-4 
 
 1-5 
 
 1-1 
 
 would be classed as medium, while one that graded as 
 follows : 
 
 Purple \ 
 Straw. J 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 2-75 
 
 y 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 X 
 Tailings. 
 
 7 
 
 4-6 
 
 14-8 
 
 34-8 
 
 33-0 
 
 8'3 
 
 3-9 
 
 would be called poor or bad. One grading into the lowest 
 grades, as follows : 
 
 
 <y 
 325 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 275 
 
 / 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 Purple "1 
 Straw. J 
 
 o-o 
 
 3-6 
 
 10-8 
 
 37-4 
 
 37-0 
 
 7'6 
 
 3'6 
 
 would be called very bad, especially if it contained, as would 
 probably be the case, dirty rubbish and split grains. 
 
 2-75 
 
 Fig. 14. A well-nigh perfect sample of a Purple Straw 
 wheat, Farmer's Friend, graded and photographed 
 natural size. None of the small grains have been 
 removed from this sample. It will be noted what 
 a large proportion of the grainsT>elong to the two 
 highest grades. This is the same 
 sample that produced illustration 
 2'50 number 13, but in the present instance 
 
 it is possible to show the actual size of 
 the grains belonging to the various 
 grades a point not brought out in 
 Fig. 13. 
 
 2-25 
 
 Tailings. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 3 
 
 It will be observed that some 
 of the farmer's samples grade 
 up better than the perfect sample 
 tabulated on page 10. This is ex- 
 plained by the fact that the per- 
 fect sample was the entire pro- 
 duct of the plants, large grains 
 and small, the harvesting having 
 been conducted with special re- 
 ference to securing every single 
 gram. On the other hand, the 
 small grains had been already re- 
 moved from some of the samples 
 collected from farmers as they 
 were being sown. It will be 
 seen, therefore, that it is impos- 
 sible to compare such samples 
 with those graded from the three 
 years' experiment cited from 
 Vol. VIII, with any other object 
 than that of securing a rough 
 result. 
 
 About fifty of the samples 
 tabulated on pages 6 to 9, show- 
 evidence of having been more or 
 less graded preparatory to use as 
 seed-wheat. The others are as 
 they came from the stripper and 
 cleaner, or thresher and cleaner. 
 In other words about three- 
 fourths of our farmers use wheat 
 for seed without removing the 
 small grains and the inferior and 
 useless portions. 
 
 Much as this is to be regretted, 
 something of the kind must have 
 been predicted by anyone who 
 has observed the customs of our 
 wheat-growers, especially if he 
 had also discovered how com- 
 monly the fallacy about the good 
 properties of small and shrivelled 
 
 f rains is upheld in this country, 
 t is however useful to have these 
 tabulated figures, derived from 
 adequate and careful examina- 
 tion, as a weapon to combat this 
 error. It is probably too much 
 to expect of ordinary human 
 nature that the advocates of this 
 fallacy will retract their utter- 
 ances ; a few facts such as are 
 recorded on later pages may, 
 however, silence them and cause 
 them to turn their love for para- 
 doxical statements into some 
 other channel. 
 
 
 Practice oj our Best Growers. 
 
 The evidence of previous grad- 
 ing and cleaning is apparent in 
 the table on pages 6 to 9 in 
 those cases where the three final 
 figures are all very low, thus show- 
 ing that the smallest grains have 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Poor. 
 
 Very poor. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 m 
 
 ift 
 
 2^ 
 .3 
 
 ll 
 
 ll! 
 
 ii 
 
 S4S 1 
 
 
 6 " & 
 
 
 been removed, 
 stances : ., 
 
 Here are three such in- 
 
 Grades. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 275 
 
 2-50 
 
 2^25 
 
 /oo 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 Steinwedel 
 
 53-2 28-0 
 
 8'7 
 
 5'8 
 
 1-8 
 
 9 
 
 1-6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Purple Straw .. 12'9 
 
 29-7 
 
 35-0 
 
 19-8 
 
 2-6 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 White Lammas.. |2l-3 
 
 43-7 
 
 33-9 
 
 1-2 
 
 
 
 
 It will be observed that in the White 
 Lammas the small stuff had been com- 
 pletely removed. In the case of the 
 Steinwedel the small grains had been 
 removed, but the " White Heads " and 
 coarse dirt remained to make T6 per 
 cent, of the weight. In the grading 
 of the samples all such matters were 
 taken from -the various grades and 
 relegated to the tailings, and it is 
 necessary to keep this in mind in esti- 
 mating from the tables which samples 
 had been previously graded for seed 
 purposes 
 
 I take it as unmistakable evidence 
 of grading for seed purposes when all 
 three percentages of the lower grades 
 in the table are very low, as, for 
 instance, in the following case : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 2-75 
 
 2-50 
 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 *f 
 
 J urple Straw . . 
 
 17-4 
 
 41-7 
 
 31-3 
 
 8-7 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 A Purple Straw that gave such low 
 percentages of tailings and of grades 
 2-00, 2-25, and 2'50, must have been 
 sifted in order to remove the small 
 seeds, and so make it better for seed 
 purposes. 
 
 There are a good number of such 
 instances in the table. If the samples 
 of this type be selected from the table 
 it will be seen that their number is 
 about thirty. I think, however, that 
 about twenty other samples show that 
 something had been done to make them 
 better for seed purposes by the use of 
 the cleaning machine, thus making in 
 all some fifty instances in which there 
 is evidence of an effort on the part of 
 the farmer to improve his seed-wheat 
 by cleaning it or grading it, by which 
 is meant running it several times 
 through a cleaning machine or winnow- 
 ing machine;. 
 
 *li 
 
 O- 
 
 3 3 
 
 tefc 
 
 I 
 
 l a : 
 
 t> o 0) 
 
 till 
 
 
 I S 6 
 
 - 
 
 lisa 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 15 
 
 It is of interest to see what effect these efforts at grading have had on the seed wheat. 
 I have, therefore, taken fifty-seven cases that show evidence of grading, and I find on 
 averaging them (see p. 18) that they give the following interesting figures, which are 
 graphically illustrated in Figs. 18 and 21 : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 % 
 
 3-25 
 
 % 
 3-00 
 
 % 
 2-75 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 2 / '00 
 
 % 
 Ta lings. 
 
 Fifty-seven best 
 Samples 
 
 15'8 
 
 32-4 
 
 277 
 
 18'8 
 
 3'8 
 
 ' '**> 
 
 7 
 
 2.50 
 
 Fig. 20. Showing the 
 average condition in 
 which New South 
 Wales wheat is sown. 
 Compare this illus- 
 tration with that on 
 page 16, showing the 
 condition in which the 
 best of our growers sow 
 their seed. Compare 
 also with the nearly 
 perfect sample of Pur- 
 ple Straw wheat, shown 
 on p 12.. 
 
 It will be seen that even these graded samples on the average fall very much short 
 of the normal product of perfectly-grown Purple Straw wheat. If, however, we take 
 the best of the samples shown in the table, we find that they considerably excel the 
 most perfect normal sample that could be grown. 
 
16 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 To What Extent should Farmers Grade their Seed Wheat? 
 
 These figures just quoted, as the result of averaging fifty-seven samples of manifestly- 
 graded samples of seed-wheat as they came from the farmers' hands at sowing-time, 
 show the extent to which our best farmers consider it advisable to re-clean their seed- 
 wheat with a view to improving its qualities. It would, of course, be easy to go on clean- 
 ing the seed until it was well nigh impossible to further improve its quality as seed, but 
 the question of expense comes in, and at a certain point the cleaning ceases to be pro- 
 fitable. At what point does additional cleaning become a losing operation ? That 
 
 Fig. 21.-Companion illustration 
 to Fig. 22. This should be 
 compared, also, with the 
 illustrations on pag-e 11. 
 Fig. 21 shows in a striking 
 manner the practice of our 
 best wheat-growers. A use- 
 ful comparison may be made 
 with Fig. 14, showing a 
 nearly perfect example of 
 Purple Straw wheat, which 
 is in its natural condition. 
 
 is the critical question. The answer that our best farmers give is this, as derived from 
 eur tables : An ordinary sample of wheat of the varieties most grown in the State may 
 profitably be cleaned until it reaches the condition represented by the figures last quoted, 
 in other words until it reaches the condition shown in Fig. 21 on this page. 
 
 In order that this answer may be made as clear as possible, photographs have been 
 made from a sample so cleaned, and the pictures are presented in a variety of ways, so 
 as to give as accurate an idea as possible of the opinion of our best wheat-growers. 
 See illustrations on this and the succeeding pages. The number of these growers, as I 
 have already pointed out, is from one-fi|th to one-fourth of our total number. Would 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 17 
 
 it not be wise for the remaining three-fourtlis to give the most careful heed to this opinion 
 of their confreres, backed up as it is by their practice, as proved from an impartial 
 examination of their seed taken at the time it was being sown ? 
 
 A great deal of our wheat is grown under conditions ordinarily called precarious. Our 
 seasons are less reliable than those of many parts of the world where wheat is grown. 
 Hence, on account of this uncertainty of our climate, the vicissitudes that probably confront 
 our wheat crop at the outset of any season, are exceptionally great. Now, we know 
 
 2-50 
 
 Fig. 22. To show the con- 
 dition in which the 
 great majority of New 
 South Wales wheat- 
 growers sow their seed. 
 It will be seen that 
 fully half this seed 
 belongs to the grades 
 shown by the experi- 
 ments described on 
 subsequent pages to be 
 decidedly inferior in 
 quality. 
 
 that in tiding over the untoward circumstances of climate small and weak seed stand 
 a poorer chance than large plump seed, a much poorer chance than under favourable 
 climatic conditions. That is the great and special reason why in such a climate as ours 
 we should give particular attention to the quality of our seed. Under our conditions this 
 attention is likely to yield a maximum of profit. The same amount of attention to the 
 same point in a country where the climate is more uniform and reliable would not be 
 likely to be attended with an equal amount of profit. 
 
18 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 Our Usual Practice. 
 
 As opposed to the samples that show evidence of preparation for seed purposes by 
 extra winnowing or sifting, or both, we may examine the remaining three-fourths that 
 do not show such evidences. The average of these samples will show the condition in 
 which three-fourths of our seed wheat is put into the ground. We find this average, 
 graphically illustrated in Fig. 22 on the previous page, to be : 
 
 Grades. 
 
 % 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 2?5 
 
 % 
 2-50 
 
 % 
 2-25 
 
 % 
 2-00 
 
 % 
 Tailings. 
 
 Condition in which three- 
 fourths of our seed wheat 
 is sown . . 
 
 4-0 
 
 16-8 
 
 24-7 
 
 337 
 
 15-7 
 
 31 
 
 2- 
 
 It will be seen that one-fifth is of the 2 -25 grade, or smaller, and that half of it is of the 
 2'50 grade, or smaller. This is a poor showing in comparison with the practice of our 
 best farmers, and a still poorer showing in comparison with the commercial possibilities 
 of the situation, for it must be borne in mind that the average shown even by the best 
 portion of New South Wales samples contains too large a proportion of easily and cheaply 
 removable small and low-profit seed. 
 
 THE fifty best samples of Seed Wheat submitted. 
 
 No. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 275 
 
 2'50 
 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 Tall- 
 ings. 
 
 Address. 
 
 13 
 
 23-0 
 
 43-5 
 
 20-9 
 
 91 
 
 2-8 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 A. Sleeman . . . . Jerilderie. 
 
 26 
 
 25-6 
 
 36-8 
 
 18-6 
 
 10-8 
 
 3-8 
 
 17 
 
 2-6 
 
 Edw. Bowman . . Upper Manilla. 
 
 20 
 
 17-0 
 
 41-2 
 
 27-0 
 
 12-3 
 
 17 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 J. Cockle . . ' . . Young. 
 
 25 
 
 14-6 
 
 40-2 
 
 27-0 
 
 14-9 
 
 2'6 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 A. Taylor . . . . Grenfell-road. 
 
 34 
 
 12-9 
 
 297 
 
 35-0 
 
 19-8 
 
 2-6 1 
 
 i 
 
 John Westerdale .. Finley. 
 
 6 
 
 31-5 
 
 43-2 
 
 157 
 
 5-9 
 
 8 j 11 
 
 17 
 
 Reuben Ezzy.. .. Millthorpe. 
 
 21 
 
 14-0 
 
 417 
 
 29-5 
 
 127 
 
 17 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 J. C. Watson . . . . Young. 
 
 44 
 
 6'9 
 
 24-8 
 
 32-2 
 
 27-9 
 
 7-2 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 Jno. Warren . . . . Dubbo. 
 
 24 
 
 14-0 
 
 347 
 
 34-3 
 
 13-8 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Patrick Kerin . . Marengo. 
 
 28 
 
 207 
 
 377 
 
 21-3 
 
 13-2 
 
 3-8 
 
 1-3 
 
 2-0 
 
 Mr. French . . . . Neville. 
 
 12 
 
 12-1 
 
 467 
 
 28-6 
 
 8'3 
 
 17 
 
 1-2 
 
 1-3 
 
 J. D. Baker . . . . Spring Hill. 
 
 23 
 
 16-3 
 
 38-8 
 
 28-0 
 
 12-9 
 
 2-8 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 S. Caldwell . . . . Young. 
 
 14 
 
 137 
 
 32-8 
 
 40'8 
 
 12-3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 James Cornell . . Jeir. 
 
 43 
 
 6'5 
 
 29-8 
 
 29-3 
 
 29-8 
 
 3'8 
 
 5 
 
 "2 
 
 R. Graham . . . . Berrigan. 
 
 17 
 
 17-1 
 
 43-5 
 
 25-6 
 
 10-6 
 
 1-4 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 W. M. Masters . . Blayney. 
 
 42 
 
 10-0 
 
 22-4 
 
 337 
 
 297 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 T. Dugan . . . . Near Dubbo. 
 
 10 
 
 29-5 
 
 43-4 
 
 147 
 
 7'6 
 
 3-0 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 G. Simmonds.. .. Bective. 
 
 33 
 
 
 337 
 
 33-1 
 
 191 
 
 2-2 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Richard Brown . . Near Tamworth. 
 
 11 
 
 39-8 
 
 37-8 
 
 9-9 
 
 5'4 
 
 1-3 
 
 1-6 
 
 4-2 
 
 Chaffey Bros. . . . . Moonbi Railway Station. 
 
 19 
 
 13-9 
 
 47-1 
 
 24-2 
 
 11-9 
 
 . 2'4 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 E. Taylor . . . . Young. 
 
 6 (a) 
 
 17-4 
 
 417 
 
 31-3 
 
 87 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 Jno. Jones, senior . . Nyngan. 
 
 45 
 
 2-0 
 
 20-0 
 
 37-0 
 
 38-0 
 
 2-3 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 John Robbins. . . . Near Berry Jerry. 
 
 48 
 
 4-0 
 
 18'0 
 
 361 
 
 34-0 
 
 6'2 
 
 17 
 
 
 C. J. Turner . . . . Coolamon. 
 
 2 
 
 21-3 
 
 437 
 
 33-9 
 
 1-2 
 
 
 
 
 James Cornell . . Jeir. 
 
 22 
 
 11-4 
 
 26-9 
 
 46-1 
 
 15-4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 James Cornell . . Jeir. 
 
 31 
 
 11-4 
 
 30-0 
 
 37-5 
 
 197 
 
 1-3 
 
 "l 
 
 
 Henry Boswell . . Yass. 
 
 15 
 38 
 
 15-9 
 8-6 
 
 44-8 
 19-8 
 
 26-0 
 43-6 
 
 10-3 
 21-9 
 
 1-9 
 
 47 
 
 8 
 9 
 
 '3 
 6 
 
 T. Quigley . . . . Blayney. 
 Patrick Kennedy . . Kialla. 
 
 9 
 
 16-0 
 
 497 
 
 24-0 
 
 5'8 
 
 1-5 
 
 2-0 
 
 11 
 
 Thomas Martin . . Spring Hill. 
 
 8 
 
 13-9 
 
 52-1 
 
 23-8 
 
 71 
 
 2'3 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 P. McGlynn . . . . Forest Reefs. 
 
 49 
 
 6'4 
 
 20'4 
 
 30-5 
 
 33'8 
 
 8-2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 P. H. Osborne . . Duri. 
 
 41 
 
 6-1 
 
 29-2 
 
 357 
 
 47 
 
 37 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 James Turner . . Adelong Crossing. 
 
 18 
 
 20-0 
 
 37-2 
 
 28-6 
 
 12-0 
 
 1-9 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 D. Murray . . . . Yass. 
 
 3 
 
 40-8 
 
 47-2 
 
 10-5 
 
 1-5 
 
 
 
 
 Henry Boswell . Yass. 
 
 1 
 
 24-1 
 
 52-4 
 
 22-6 
 
 1-0 
 
 "l 
 
 
 
 W. Hirst . . . . Perth. 
 
 29 
 32 
 
 13-4 
 17-6 
 
 417 
 36-9 
 
 24-5 
 24-0 
 
 13-0 
 16-6 
 
 3-8 
 2'9 
 
 1-2 
 6 
 
 2-5 
 15 
 
 Peter Floyd . . . . Lucknow. 
 Chaffey Bros Moonbi Railway Station. 
 
 5 
 
 51-5 
 
 29'8 
 
 9-6 
 
 6'0 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 G. Simmonds . . . . Bective. 
 
 7 
 
 53-2 
 
 28-0 
 
 87 
 
 5'8 
 
 1-8 
 
 9 
 
 1-6 
 
 W. A. Chaffey . . Nemingha House. 
 
 35 
 
 18-6 
 
 34-4 
 
 227 
 
 13-6 
 
 7'3 
 
 27 
 
 7 
 
 Thos. Pullman . . Moore Creek. 
 
 30 
 
 9-5 
 
 407 
 
 29-2 
 
 16-8 
 
 21 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 James Gordon . . Murrumburrah. 
 
 37 
 
 10-1 
 
 25-0 
 
 375 
 
 22-9 
 
 37 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 A. Crowley . . . . Nundle. 
 
 39 
 
 7'9 
 
 33-8 
 
 29-5 
 
 21-2 
 
 4-8 
 
 1-2 
 
 
 H. Pearce . . . . George Plains. 
 
 4 
 
 26-4 
 
 41-1 
 
 24-0 
 
 61 
 
 1-5 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 Mr. Fultz . . . . Glen Innes. 
 
 46 
 
 10-5 
 
 19-8 
 
 267 
 
 32-5 
 
 87 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 John Foot . . . . Castle Mountain. 
 
 16 
 
 21-8 
 
 40'1 
 
 24-5 
 
 9'8 
 
 27 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 Mr. Fultz . . . . Glen Innes. 
 
 27 
 
 37-0 
 
 28-8 
 
 151 
 
 11-6 
 
 3-3 
 
 21 
 
 2-0 
 
 G. Simmonds . . . . Bective. 
 
 36 
 
 207 
 
 24-8 
 
 30-0 
 
 16-3 
 
 3'9 
 
 2-2 
 
 2-2 
 
 Edward Bowman . . Upper Manilla. 
 
 47 
 
 4-3 
 
 18-2 
 
 351 
 
 35-3 
 
 4-9 
 
 6 
 
 1-4 
 
 R. W. McGill 
 
 40 
 
 7-4 
 
 29-4 
 
 34-6 
 
 23-8 
 
 3-0 
 
 6 
 
 1-3 
 
 John Kelleher . . Grabben Gullen. 
 
.Seed Wheat. 19 
 
 Relative Foddet Value of Large and Small Grains of Wheat. 
 
 The relative fodder-value of large and small grains of wheat has been a subject of 
 attention on my part for some years. The amount of decisive evidence one way or the 
 other has, however, been unsatisfactory. From such evidence as was known to me, 
 and from reasoning based on this evidence and by reasoning from analogy, I had come to 
 regard small grains as, weight for weight, of somewhat less feeding value than large 
 grains. The following notes on the subject are of a more definite character than anything 
 I have hitherto been able to formulate from my own observations. They serve to render 
 it probable that the difference is not a large one. 
 
 If these conclusions are correct, it is well to keep in mind that they justify to some 
 extent the breeding of wheat- varieties for prolificness regardless of the size of their 
 grains. 
 
 Similarly it is well to consider in cleaning and grading wheat for seed that what is 
 removed in the shape of small but otherwise sound grain has a feeding- value about equal 
 to that of large plump grain. 
 
 It is well known that some of the most prolific varieties of wheat have spikelets carry- 
 ing four to five grains, of which the upper ones are quite small. If these small grains 
 had, weight for weight, a smaller food -value than the others, it would become a question 
 how far it is advisable to encourage the prolificness of the plant along these lines. If, 
 on the contrary, the fodder-value of these smaller grains is greater than that of the large 
 grains, or equal to it, then there need be little fear in encouraging the production of such 
 small grains. 
 
 As a concrete illustration of the principle under discussion, we may take a wheat of 
 the Defiance type. The illustration on page 5 is of such a wheat. The grains are shown 
 as having been removed from one side of the ear, and they are arranged in the order in 
 which they were taken from the various spikelets. It will be seen how much smaller 
 are the upper grains of the more prolific spikelets than the lower ones. 
 
 In order to ascertain the relative value of the two sorts of grain, comparisons were 
 instituted between the large and small grains of the same ears and of the same spikelets. 
 It did not seem worth while to compare the small grains of one ear or plant with the 
 large ones of another ear or plant. 
 
 Hence, in order to secure material for a just comparison, a large grain and a small 
 grain were taken from each of seven different spikelets. This gave charges of unequal 
 weight, the seven small grains weighing much less than the seven large grains. The 
 disparity was made up by taking three more small grains from the same spikelets. It 
 was not considered best to collect from other spikelets. In a word, the comparison was 
 made between the large and small grains of the same spikelets derived from near the 
 middle of a single ear. This method seemed to throw out, as far as possible, any factors 
 that would nullify the value of such a comparison. 
 
 The selected grains were in all cases plump, and of the best quality of their respective 
 sizes, as the accompanying photographs will witness. The illustrations show the two 
 samples examined, the photographs being taken natural-size just before weighing. (See 
 Figs. 23 and 24 on the next page. ) 
 
 RELATIVE value of the large and small grains of a Defiance Wheat. 
 
 Large grains. Small grains. 
 
 *Bran and embryo (dry) 12'7 per cent. 1 2 "0 per cent. 
 
 Bran, dry 10'4 9'8 
 
 Embryo (by difference) 2'3 2"2 
 
 These figures represent weights after a rigid microscopic cleansing from all traces of 
 starch and gluten and other possible contents of the flour cells. This leaves the starch, 
 gluten, water, and water-solubles at 88 per cent, for the small grains, and 87 '3 per cent, 
 for the large grains, a slight difference in favour of the small grains, providing the 
 amount of water is proportional in the two cases, and also providing the relative 
 proportions of starch and gluten are the same, and are equally digestible and nutritious. 
 These qualifications are too numerous to be altogether satisfactory. It may, however, 
 be said with some certainty that the amount of flour present in the two cases is, for equal 
 
 * The term bran is here used to include all layers down to and including the aletiron layer. 
 
20 Seed Wheat. 
 
 weight of grain, very nearly the same. If there were no milling difficulty in extracting 
 the flour, the weights derived by theoretically perfect milling ought to be about the same. 
 
 Fig. 23. Natural size photograph of seven Fig. 24. Natural size photograph of the ten 
 
 large plump Defiance wheat-grains, used small plump Defiance wheat-grains, used 
 
 in the biological analysis described in in the biological analysis described in 
 
 the text. These were compared in the text. These were compared in 
 
 "fodder value" with the ten small "fodder value" with the seven large 
 
 grains removed from the same spikelets, grains removed from the same spikelets, 
 
 and shown in Fig. 24. and shown in Fig. 23. 
 
 It seemed to me probable that the areas of the bran would present differences in the 
 two cases, and accordingly the areas were measured, with the following results : 
 Area of the bran of seven large grains used in the foregoing 
 
 examination, and weighing '261 gram. ... ... ... 465'1 sq. mm. 
 
 Area of the bran of ten small "grains, used in the foregoing 
 
 examination, and weighing '205 gram. ... ... ... 415 '6 sq. mm. 
 
 The figures ISO'S and 228' represent, approximately at least, the relative flour content 
 of the two samples. 
 
 If the bran areas on large and small grains are proportional to the flour content, then 
 we ought to have 
 
 180-5 : 228 - 415'6 : 465'1, 
 
 but this proportion is not true, the last term requiring to be 523 '6 to preserve the 
 equality, an increase of 12*6 per cent. 
 
 From this it will be seen that the area of the bran is greater in proportion on the 
 small grains. As a small amount of flour is left attached to the bran after milling, it 
 may be surmised that the additional area of bran in the case of small grains is a 
 disadvantage, as carrying away with it to be sold as bran an additional amount of flour, 
 all the more as the bran of the small grains, being a little thinner, will, other things 
 being equal, be less perfectly freed of its flour. 
 
 An experiment on similar lines was carried out with a Purple Straw Wheat. Eight 
 small grains, weighing '318 gram., were compared with seven large grains, weighing 
 '447 gram. 
 
 RELATIVE value of large and small grains of a Purple Straw Wheat. 
 
 Large grains. Small grains. 
 
 Bran and embryo (dry) ... ... ... 13 '2 per cent. 12 '3 per cent. 
 
 Gluten(dry) " ... 8'28 7'9 
 
 Starch (dry) Lost. 67'6 ,, 
 
 In a general way this evidence is corroborative of that derived from the Defiance 
 wheat. The two samples were obtained in the same way, except that the number of 
 grains in the latter two charges is more equal in number. Not much value is attached 
 to the determinations of starch in this case. 
 
 As in the Defiance wheat, so again here, it was found on measuring the areas of the 
 grains that the large grains have less area of bran in proportion to the amount of their 
 contents than do the small grains. To keep the proportion the bran area of the large 
 grains would have to be increased 10 '9 per cent. As before the bran of the smaller grains 
 was the thinner. 
 
 It is perhaps needless to again call attention to the fact that the grains used for this 
 examination were derived from single ears of wheat, and that therefore the comparison 
 has been made between the large and small grains produced by one and the same 
 plant. Whether the result of comparing the large grains and the small grains taken at 
 random would give the same result is another matter, though it seems to me probable 
 that large grains from one plant, when compared with small grains from another of the 
 same variety, grown under similar conditions, would give results corresponding with 
 those presented above. 
 
 As the bulk of our wheat is of varieties that produce large and small grains in the 
 same ear, it would seem that the results here given may be applied with safety in 
 discussing questions relating to our wheat crops and their conversion into food products. 
 
Seed Wheat. 21 
 
 Some evidence exists that the flour actually produced from large plump grains is of a 
 better quality than that from small plump grains derived from the same plants, for one 
 thing, the gluten content of the flour from the large grains being higher. 
 
 Fig. 25. Natural size photograph of seven Fig. 26. Natural size photograph of eight 
 large plump grains of a Purple Straw small plump grains of a Purple Straw 
 wheat, used in the comparative exami- . wheat, used in the comparative exami- 
 nation described in the text. These nation described in the text. These 
 were compared in " fodder value" with were compared in " fodder value" with 
 the eight small grains removed ft om the the seven large grains removed from the 
 same spikelets, and shown in Fig. 26. same spikelets, and shown in Fig. 25. 
 
 We may supplement these observations on the relative fodder value of large plump grains 
 and small plump grains by saying that shrivelled wheat has a fodder value as chick-feed 
 about equal to that of plump wheat, the fodder value of the shrivelled wheat being reported 
 as the better in some instances. If now we add to this scientific evidence of the good 
 fodder value of shrivelled grains and of small plump grains the well-known fact that the 
 market price of "chick-wheat" is often only a little lower than that of good milling 
 wheat, we see how little ground there is for using wheat tailings as seed on the score of 
 so-called "economy." 
 
 II. Large and Plump versus Small and Shrivelled Seed. 
 
 The Row System. 
 
 THE tendency of agriculture is such that it must lead to the wider and wider adoption 
 of the row system of experiment. The keynote of agricultural progress is the lessening 
 of the cost of production by a wider and wider use of machines. These machines 
 work in straight lines, at least theoretically, from which it follows that the drill-coulter 
 and its product, i.e. a row of plants, conies to represent the unit of agriculture. Each 
 crop is simply so many rows of plants. The row represents the crop reduced to its 
 lowest terms. All the properties of the crop exist in the single row, broadly speaking, 
 and, of course, with exceptions. The exceptions are, however, so few as to exert no 
 great influence on the general statement. 
 
 Most experiments are an inquiry into the properties of a small but representative crop, 
 and owing to the costliness of the work the size is reduced as much as is compatible with 
 the end sought. This leads always to a search for the element of which the ordinary 
 crop is simply a multiple. What is this element ? We answer " To-day for the best 
 agriculture it is the single row ; and what is true to-day of the best agriculture will in 
 the course of time be true of all agriculture. The wider and wider adoption of 
 machinery appears to make this inevitable." 
 
 Though one may not easily find this idea expressed in so many words there is plenty of 
 evidence, in recent agricultural experiment work, of a more extended use of the row system. 
 In the United States it is coming into general use. I speak from personal observation at 
 nearly half the experiment stations in the United States. One needs, however, only to 
 look over the representative views given in the account of these stations as published for 
 the recent Paris Exposition, to see how generally it is adopted. Certain trials that have 
 been going on for many years are being continued on the plot system because they were 
 so begun, but otherwise than this there is^a strong tendency, and in my opinion a most 
 laudable tendency, to reduce field experiments as nearly as possible to single rows, and 
 to confine the comparisons to those that can be made between adjacent rows or adjacent 
 long and narrow plots, and to eschew other comparisons. This tendency and that towards 
 the wider introduction of pot" experiment work are, I should think, among the most 
 striking tendencies of recent agricultural experiment work. 
 
 These remarks are in explanation of the methods adopted in the trials here reported, 
 with reference to the relative value as seed of large, small, and ?nedium-sized wheat 
 grains. 
 
 It will be noted that in the tables the reader is directed to make comparisons only 
 between certain rows, these being in all cases rows that were' adjacent, and distant from 
 each other two -links or about sixteen inches. It may be asked, why not compare other 
 cases? What is the objection to making comparisons between rows two spaces, i.e., four 
 links apart? To these questions I should reply that it is in my opinion unsafe to make 
 such comparisons, because the conditions of growth are so variable. As a single instance 
 
22 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 gj 
 
 Tig. 27. To show method of testing the qualities of large, medium-sized, and small grains of 
 wheat. Row 1 is from large seed, 2 is from medium-sized seed, 3 is from tailings, 
 while 4 is from extra large and plump seed. The differences in growth are due solely 
 to the varying size of the seed, so far as it was found possible to control the field condi- 
 tions ; and it was found possible to control them to a large extent, as described in the text. 
 The trial here shown is Battling Jack, 1896. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 23 
 
 of this variability of conditions one may cite the difference in the supply of natural water 
 due to various causes. The rain may not fall evenly. Eminent meteorologists assure us that 
 rainfall is very capricious. The rainfall at places only a few feet apart may be quite 
 appreciably different, and under certain conditions of dryness this variation in the fall 
 probably exerts a considerable influence in causing variations in plant growth. Apart 
 from this, it needs no great experience to cause one to question, even when the rain falls 
 evenly, whether it becomes evenly distributed in the soil. Suppose the case of a short 
 shower, in which the precipitation is sharp for a few minutes ; such showers as are not at 
 all uncommon. How is it possible to know that the unavoidable variations in the surface 
 of the soil and variations in the underground condition of the soil do not cause an uneven 
 distribution of this water to the plants of a crop ? Let anyone watch the surface 
 distribution of water during a short shower, as the author has often taken the trouble to 
 do, on ordinary cultivated ground, and he will soon see, if the rainfall becomes sharp, how 
 unevenly the small surface currents distribute the water that afterwards soaks more or 
 less completely into the ground. Thought and observation of this kind have led me to 
 be rather cautious about making comparisons among plants and crops grown under field 
 conditions. 
 
 It seems to me that the history of crop experiment work shows a multitude of 
 instances where caution of this kind has remained profoundly unthought of, or else has 
 been thrown to the winds, and I cannot help thinking that much of the admittedly 
 unsatisfactory nature of field experiment work reported is due to this lack of thoughtful 
 caution, combined with a readiness to report the results of a single year's experiments 
 in terms that do not point clearly to the low value that often attaches to an isolated 
 field experiment. 
 
 The late Sir John Laws once said to the author, in a conversation on the underlying 
 principles of agricultural experiment work, that he early formed the habit of thinking 
 long over an agricultural theory or experiment before expressing an opinion. One sees 
 in that remark a grain of the wisdom that lias made Rothamstead so great a landmark 
 in the history of agriculture. No doubt it was this " long thought " that led to the 
 absence of rash expressions of opinion connected with Rothamstead work. 
 
 Most of us might take a leaf from Sir John's book in this respect. To think long and 
 to say little, to repeat experiments again and again so as to be able to compare and verify 
 over and over, and yet say little ; to make endless excursions among the logical pitfalls 
 that are the special danger of the interpreter of field experiments, and yet to say little ; 
 or, as Sir John Laws put it, " to think long" before expressing a definite opinion on an 
 agricultural experiment or theory, this must certainly be the best possible course to adopt. 
 
 Reasoning thus I have been led to abstain from calling attention to any comparisons 
 other than those it is possible to make between the adjacent rows of the seed-wheat 
 experiments now to be described. 
 
 Seed Wheat: Large Plump versus Small Shrivelled Seed. 
 
 The first of the systematic trials to ascertain the relative seed value of large plump 
 grains and small and shrivelled grains were undertaken in 1894. The results of these 
 trials are given in the following table : 
 
 FIRST TRIAL LARGE PLUMP VERSUS SMALL SHRIVELLED SEED. 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 (Approxi- 
 mate) 
 Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of 
 Row. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. Harvested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bu. to 
 Acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 Acre. 
 
 
 Zealand. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 May 4 .. 
 
 300 1 1-21 ch. 
 
 200 1 
 
 91 
 106 
 
 2-41 
 2-09 
 
 .... 1 16-60 
 .... I 14-40 
 
 i Comp. No. 2. 
 .... 1 Comp. No. 1. 
 
 
 Zealand. 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 May 4 .. 
 
 Plump 
 Shrivelled . 
 
 1-21 ch. 
 
 
 2-22 
 2-13 
 
 15-30 
 14-68 
 
 
 Comp. No. 4. 
 Comp. No. 3. 
 
 3 
 
 May 4 .. 
 
 Plump 
 
 1-21 ch. 
 
 
 2-22 
 
 15-30 
 
 
 Comp. No. 4. 
 
 4 
 
 
 Shrivelled . 
 
 
 
 
 2-13 
 
 14-68 
 
 
 Comp. No. 3. 
 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 5 
 
 May 6 .. 
 
 300 
 
 1-26 ch. 
 
 Ill 
 
 4-72 
 
 .... 
 
 31-22 
 
 I Comp. No. 6. 
 
 6 
 
 
 do. Shriv. 
 
 
 107 
 
 3-72 
 
 
 24-60 
 
 I Comp. No. 5. 
 
 
 Rattling Jack. 
 
 7 
 
 May 10.. 
 
 300 
 
 0-95 
 
 65 
 
 2-44 
 
 
 21-40 
 
 
 Comp. No. 8. 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 Shrivelled . 
 
 075 
 
 75 
 
 2-81 
 
 
 24-65 
 
 
 Comp. No. 7. 
 
 
 White Velvet. 
 
 9 
 
 May 19.. 300 
 
 1-lOch. 
 
 97 
 
 1-69 
 
 
 12-80 
 
 
 Comp. No. 10. 
 
 10 
 
 
 Shrivelled . 
 
 
 80 
 
 1-34 
 
 
 10-15 
 
 
 Comp. No. 9. 
 
24 Seed Wheat. 
 
 This set of experiments is interesting chiefly as the initial set of the whole series, and 
 as the one that gave direction to all the following sets. The difficulty of securing 
 anything like exactness in the grading of the samples planted gave rise to the adoption 
 of the sieves with accurately constructed millimetre meshes,* and to the methods of 
 
 Fig. 28. Diagram to represent the method of planting the rows. The first three rows, 2 links 
 apart with plants 1 link apart in the rows, are of the 3 '25 grade. The third row is incomplete 
 because of insufficient seed, and hence only the portion a to 6 could be compared with the 
 corresponding portion of the first row of the 3 '00 grade plants. Most of the fractional rows 
 reported in the tables arose in this manner. 
 
 grading described below. The present samples of seed were hand-picked, and the grade 
 numbers inserted in the table are only approximate, as they were derived afterwards 
 by comparison with graded samples. The land was newly cleared and very patchy, and 
 in this respect not in very good condition for wheat, or for experiment purposes. The 
 season was one of the best ever experienced on the Wagga Farm. The spring rains at 
 the time of sowing were abundant, and throughout the season the conditions were 
 favourable to the growth of wheat. The crops of the district were unusually good. It 
 was the year of the flood of the Murrumbidgee River. 
 
 The object of the experiments was to try good plump grains alongside rust-shrivelled 
 ones, the latter, of course, being at the same time smaller than the former. In the 
 four cases where the smaller seeds are marked shrivelled, they were so from the effects 
 of rust, having been selected for the purpose of these trials from rusty plants the 
 previous season. 
 
 Summing up, we may say that the plump seed gave the best return of grain in four 
 cases out of five, and that the average excess was 18 '52 per cent, taking the lower yield 
 as the basis of computation, while in the single case in which the shrivelled seed 
 exceeded the yield of the plump, the excess was 15'19 per cent. The straw was not 
 weighed : had it been weighed it probably would have been shown, as in subsequent 
 years, that the total marketable product was greatest from the large and plump seeds in 
 practically all cases. This opinion was formed when it was too late to examine the 
 straw, and this was what led to weighing the straw in subsequent years. 
 
 The number of trials was too small to be completely satisfactory. 
 
 How the various sizes of seed were prepared for the second and subsequent trials. 
 
 The method adopted to obtain seed for the comparative tests gave seven grades, each 
 grade being composed of seeds very much alike in size, and, consequently, also in weight. 
 These are the seven grades so frequently mentioned in the first part of this report, and 
 illustrated in Figs. 4 to 10. The seeds might have been selected by weight instead of 
 by size, or they might have been selected by a process taking account of both size and 
 weight. The method adopted that of sieving is, however, nearly the same as that by 
 means of which seed-wheat should be prepared on the large scale, and this fact was 
 what decided the method of selection. 
 
 The following three points are worthy of note in connection with the process of selec- 
 tion by means of the sieves here used. They have a definite bearing on the subject, and 
 should be studied carefully by the reader who wishes to understand the details of the 
 investigation. 
 
 (1.) As the various transverse diameters of wheat grains are unequal, the grains will stop, 
 or not stop, on a mesh of a certain size, according as they happen to present one or the other 
 diameter towards the mesh. This would lead to unequal grading if a sample of grain were 
 simply passed once through the sieve. In order to get gradings that are as nearly as 
 possible comparative, it is, therefore, necessary to continue passing the sample through the 
 
 * These sieves are shown and explained in Figs. 2 and 3. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 sieve until all the grains will invariably pass through. These repeated sievings give each 
 grain a chance to present its largest transverse diameter to the mesh, and so ultimately 
 to remain in the sieve and be saved in that grade if possible. This repeated sieving will, 
 however, introduce a very serious error if the meshes of the sieves be not quite accurate. 
 If, for instance, there is one mesh in a sieve that is a little larger than the others one 
 might keep on sieving until all the grains had had a chance to pass through this particular 
 mesh, in which case it is evident that the whole sample would become wrongly graded. 
 The repeated sieving is very tedious, and to really reach a stage at which no grain will 
 fail to pass, requires a very long time. It has, therefore, been the writer's practice to 
 have the samples passed through each grade sieve a certain number of times according to 
 the exactness required. Thus, in a certain instance where moderate accuracy would 
 suffice, the samples would be passed five times through. In other instances they would 
 be passed ten times through, and so on. Of course, in a given experiment all samples 
 would be treated alike. As to the size of the meshes and their accuracy, in the absence 
 of any standard an arbitrary one based on metric measures was adopted, as explained 
 elsewhere ; and to ensure accuracy the author himself made and adjusted the meshes of 
 the sieves employed, and periodically inspected them in order to ensure regularity in the 
 gradings. See pages 2 and 3, and Figs. 2 and 3. 
 
 (2. ) A shrivelled grain is always smaller than it would have been if it had grown 
 properly, so that in the process of grading here employed such grains fall into lower 
 grades than they would have fallen into had they grown properly. From this it happens 
 that in all the comparisons here presented we have to a greater or less extent, yet often 
 to a small and insignificant extent, trials between plump and shrivelled grains, that is 
 provided there were any shrivelled grains in the samples being tested, as was usually, in 
 fact almost invariably, the case. Of course this refers to grains shrivelled from 
 whatever cause. In certain cases specially noted the cause of the shrivelled condition 
 was known, and the observations were directed specially towards the behaviour of such 
 cases. It is believed that in most cases the shrivelled condition of the grains was due to 
 a variety of causes, including all of the common causes of shrivelling. 
 
 (3.) All varieties of wheat, and especially some of them, present grains that in com- 
 parison with their fellows are flat, and such grains pass on in the method of grading 
 here employed to lower grades than their real weight and size would entitle them to 
 occupy. On the other hand the same varieties also present roundish grains that stop in 
 higher grades than they should by strict right occupy. I think these two opposite 
 qualities may just about neutralise each other in all the grades except the highest and 
 lowest ; in these, however, it seems probable than an appreciable difference in yield is 
 caused, namely, the yield of the highest will be relatively lowered and the yield of the 
 lowest will be relatively raised. These remarks apply to normal seeds. Where the seeds 
 are much shrivelled they often pass on to the tailings, and there present themselves as 
 grains, apparently much larger than the average of the tailings on account of their 
 tendency to present to the eye their largest rather than their narrowest contour. Such 
 grains, of course, were laid out for large-sized ones, but for some reason they have failed 
 to fill out, though they may sometimes contain a good-sized embryo. I have no doubt 
 that this fact will explain to some extent the results of the comparisons between the 
 tailings and the 200 grade, in which comparisons there appears a smaller superiority of 
 the 200 than would be naturally expected, considering the results of the other comparisons. 
 
 Shrivelled Grain. 
 
 It is impossible to give a perfectly accurate definition of the term " shrivelled seed.' r 
 It is, nevertheless, necessary in a discussion of this subject, to make it clear what degree 
 of imperfect growth is meant by the term as used in various connections. 
 
 What is meant by saying that shrivelled seed is poor seed or the reverse ? Probably 
 the cause of the whole discussion on the value of shrivelled wheat-seed has been the fact 
 that extremely inferior-looking seed will actually germinate and, to a certain extent, 
 grow and bear a crop. To one who does not understand the physiology of plant growth, 
 this phenomenon may seem wonderful, but to the initiated it is in no degree remarkable. 
 The fact that seed " as light as chaff " has been sown and has produced a crop of grain 
 has, nevertheless, given rise to considerable surprise, a good deal of discussion, and,, 
 unfortunately, much wrong practice. 
 
 From this it follows that the term " shrivelled seed," as sometimes used in this con- 
 nection, means seeds that are much shrivelled, so shrivelled as to be easily blown away 
 by the wind. I .do not, however, confine the term in this manner. By shrivelled seed, I 
 mean seed that is in any marked degree shrivelled ; >and in order to give the discussion, 
 more definiteness, drawings of seeds variously shrivelled are inserted (see p. 1), and 
 these are referred to in the text in such a manner as to render mistake .unlikely. 
 
26 Seed Wheat. 
 
 SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 The second set of trials in connection with the relative seed value of large, medium 
 sized, and small grains of wheat was undertaken in 1895. The tabulated results of these 
 trials are given below. (See page 27.) 
 
 It will be seen that the experiments include 117 trial rows containing twenty-three 
 varieties of wheat, representative of all the types that are largely grown in the State. 
 The trials cover about seventy different comparisons between equal numbers of seeds of 
 varying grades or sizes, the comparison being between the yields of grain and straw from 
 larger grains on the one side and smaller grains on the other. 
 
 The season was an average season, and the land was typical River ina wheat land with 
 perhaps a tendency to vary more than usual towards freshly-decomposed granite. The 
 rows were placed side by side, and occupied, with the other rows among which they were 
 distributed, a space 2 chains wide and 3 chains long. The land sloped gently toward 
 the west, and improved in quality from top to bottom. The "small-seed" rows were in 
 all cases on the down-hill side, so that whatever difference in fertility there was from 
 the gradual change for the better at the lower end of the plot was in favour of the small 
 seeds. This small balance in favour of the small seeds would be trifling in amount, as 
 the rows compared were never more than 2 links apart, and I have, therefore, disregarded 
 it. There is no way of satisfactorily estimating its amount, and it is, accordingly, 
 necessary to content oneself with the general statement of its existence and the 
 insignificance of its amount. 
 
 It must be borne in mind, however, that the various pairs of rows were, as a rule, not 
 adjacent to each other, so that the reader must guard against the impression that in the 
 case of any variety he is reading the records of a succession of rows. In the table the 
 various rows are numbered in succession for convenience of reference ; but the actual 
 growth was in a different order. There is no chance of error in reading if the reader 
 simply notes what comparisons are to be made, and, as before pointed out, this is only 
 permissible in the case of two rows growing next each other. Sometimes the middle row 
 of three is compared with each of the two adjacent rows. 
 
 The rows were cared for by hand during the entire season. There was no cultivation 
 beyond that necessary to keep down the weeds ; but this was an amount that must be 
 taken into consideration in interpreting the results. The weeds were pulled by hand, or 
 were cut out with a hand hoe. There was no desire to cultivate, but simply a desire to 
 give the trial rows, as nearly as possible, identical conditions. If the weeds would have 
 grown uniformly, they would have been allowed to grow. As they would not grow 
 uniformly, but would grow more in one place than another, and thus rob one row 
 more than another, it was thought best to keep them down with as little disturbance to 
 the soil as possible. 
 
 This removal of the weeds is, it seems to me, decidedly in favour of the smallest seeds, 
 as the trials show that nearly if not quite all adverse conditions are more severe on the 
 smallest seeds. Hence relieving the smallest seeds from the competition of weeds was a 
 greater favour to them than to the largest seeds. I do not consider that this matter 
 was of much importance in comparisons of adjacent rows from seed above the 250 grade 
 or thereabouts, but I think that the tailings and the 200 grade benefited considerably by 
 this treatment as compared with the larger grades. 
 
 If there be objection to assuming that the method adopted would really favour the 
 smaller seed, there can hardly be any objection to assuming that at least there was no 
 favour shown the large seed, unless, indeed, it be assumed that culture favours large 
 seed more than it does small seed, an assumption so far removed from probability that 
 I think it may be safely disregarded. 
 
 If the method followed was neutral so far as relative yield is concerned, then in 
 calculating how much a farmer can afford to spend in improving his seed we have a 
 simple proportion. If, for instance, the yields here given are twice those the farmer is 
 accustomed to get. then the extra yield here shown to be due to the use of large plump seed 
 has only to be divided by two to give the figures upon which the farmer may proceed. 
 
 An examination of the tables will at once show that under the conditions of the trials 
 there was inferior germination and growth of the smallest seeds, or perhaps it would be 
 better to confine the statement to that part which relates to growth. The table pretends 
 to show nothing as to the precise amount of germination that took place, the statistics 
 being confined to the number of plants that actually grew and presented themselves at 
 harvest-time in a condition in which it was possible to cut and weigh them. It may be 
 as well to state, however, that the plants missing at harvest-time were almost wholly 
 instances of failure to properly germinate, at any rate in the cases of the smallest grains. 
 If these lost plants appeared above ground, they were weak seedlings that could not 
 compete with ordinary conditions, and so succumbed. The care exercised was such that 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 27 
 
 it was very rare indeed for a plant to be injured by the method adopted to keep down 
 the weeds. Where a plant disappeared it may be taken for granted that it was from 
 * ' natural " causes. 
 
 How the yields were compared. 
 
 In the following tables, generally speaking, the comparisons are made between the 
 yield of plants grown from seed of one grade and the yield from seed of the grade next 
 below ; but this is not always the case. In some instances the yield from the largest 
 seed (Fig. 4) is compared with the yield from the smallest seed (Fig. 10), but such instances 
 are exceptional. Grade 200 was necessarily always compared with the tailings ; so 
 also 225 could be compared only with the grade immediately below or with that two steps 
 below. As we progress to higher and higher grades there is an ever-increasing chance 
 that the comparison may be between widely-different .grades ; but, as before remarked, 
 the aim in this statement of trials was to compare, as far as convenient, each grade with 
 that one or two steps below it, and this result was, in general, secured, as will be seen 
 on examining the tables in detail. A rather different and simpler system was adopted in 
 the third and subsequent trials. 
 
 Perhaps, the best general statement of the results may be made by saying that the 
 325 grade proved itself better in capacity to grow and to yield both grain and straw 
 than the 300 grade ; that in a similar manner the 300 grade proved itself superior to the 
 275 grade, which in turn proved superior to 250 grade, and so on to the bottom of the list. 
 We have to make an exception in the case of the 225 grade, where, in fact, the number 
 of trials is too small to be decisive. 
 
 However, even this statement of the superiority of each grade over those immediately 
 below it, and by implication and in fact, over all below it, is not a statement that needs no 
 explanation or qualification, for it will be observed that the relative superiority of the 200 
 grade while it is decisive for the season in question is not so great as that of other grades. 
 This is due to two facts first, the comparison was always with the grade immediately 
 below, while in the other grades, in some instances, the comparisons were extended to 
 grades two and three steps below ; second, the tailings with which the 200 was always 
 compared is a miscellaneous lot of seed that passes the two-millimetre mesh, but may, 
 nevertheless, contain some really rather large seed, owing to the fact that some seeds in 
 every lot are so flat that they pass on to the grades lower than their real size would 
 warrant. Now, while this fact operates throughout the system of seeding obtained by 
 the process of grading adopted, I am inclined to think that it operates most strongly in 
 the case of the tailings where there is no further attempt to grade, and where, therefore, 
 these extra flat seeds collect that should pass on to lower grades, if such existed. 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Second Trial.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of 
 Row, 
 in 
 Links. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. Harvested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bu. to 
 Acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 Acre. 
 
 Algerian. 
 
 1 
 
 May .. 
 
 325 
 
 192 
 
 182 
 
 4-09 
 
 7-13 
 
 1772 
 
 18-54 
 
 Comp. No. 2. 
 
 2 
 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 164 
 
 3-52 
 
 6-50 
 
 15-25 
 
 16-90 
 
 ,. Nos. 1 and 3. 
 
 3 
 
 ,, . . 
 
 250 
 
 192 
 
 149 
 
 4-47 
 
 7-00 
 
 19-37 
 
 18-20 No. 2. 
 
 Allora Spring. 
 
 4 
 
 6 May .. 
 
 250 
 
 192-5 
 
 172 
 
 6-46 
 
 7-00 
 
 27-99 
 
 18-20 
 
 Comp. No. 5. 
 
 5 
 
 5 June . . 
 
 200 
 
 192-5 
 
 162 
 
 6-11 
 
 6-63 
 
 26-48 
 
 17-24 
 
 ,, Nos. 4 and 6. 
 
 6 
 
 5 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 
 141 
 
 6-06 
 
 5-00 
 
 26-26 
 
 13-00 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Allora Spring 2nd. 
 
 7 
 
 5 June . . 1 250 
 
 192-5 
 
 179 
 
 6-10 
 
 6-06 
 
 26-43 
 
 15-76 
 
 Comp. No. 8. 
 
 8 
 
 5 ,, 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 
 157 
 
 5-44 
 
 3-81 
 
 23-57 
 
 9-91 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Australian Talavera. 
 
 9 
 
 May .. 
 
 300 
 
 192 
 
 169 
 
 6-06 
 
 7-88 
 
 26-26 
 
 20-49 
 
 Comp. No. 11. 
 
 10 
 
 
 250 
 
 192 
 
 169 
 
 774 
 
 9-00 
 
 33-54 
 
 23-40 
 
 No. 11. 
 
 11 
 
 . . 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 161 
 
 6-19 
 
 7-56 
 
 26-82 
 
 19-66 
 
 Nos. 9 and 10. 
 
 Bearded Quartzlee. 
 
 12 
 
 5 June . . 
 
 275 
 
 192-5 
 
 179 
 
 6-02 
 
 4-88 
 
 26-09 
 
 12-69 
 
 Comp. No. 13. 
 
 18 
 
 5 .. 
 
 250 
 
 192-5 
 
 177 
 
 6-07 
 
 5-75 
 
 26-30 
 
 14-95 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 14 
 
 5 . 
 
 250 
 
 99 
 
 95 
 
 3-60 
 
 3-19 
 
 30-31 
 
 16-11 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 L5 
 
 5 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 99 
 
 90 
 
 3-59 
 
 2-75 
 
 30-23 
 
 13-89 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 16 
 
 4 ,, .- 
 
 275 
 
 192-5 
 
 178 
 
 6-00 
 
 5-50 
 
 26-00 
 
 14-30 
 
 No. 17. 
 
 17 
 
 4 .. 
 
 250 
 
 192-5 
 
 174 
 
 5-95 
 
 5-38 
 
 2578 
 
 13-99 
 
 No. 16. 
 
 18 
 
 4 .. 
 
 250 
 
 192-5 
 
 180 
 
 6-78 
 
 6'06 
 
 29-38 
 
 1576 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 19 
 
 4 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 
 166 
 
 5-90 
 
 5-00 
 
 24-58 
 
 13-00 
 
 No. 18. 
 
28 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Second Trial) continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of 
 Row, 
 in 
 Links. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. Harvested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bu. to 
 Acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 Acce. 
 
 Blount's Lambrigg, Hay. 
 
 20 
 
 1 June . . 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 
 
 5-19* 
 
 
 13-49 
 
 Hay, comp. No. 21. 
 
 21 
 
 1 .. 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 
 .... 
 
 7-88 
 
 
 20-49 
 
 Nos. 20 & 22, 
 
 22 
 
 1 .. 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 
 
 7-63* 
 
 
 19-84 
 
 No. 21. 
 
 Canning Downs. 
 
 23 
 
 6 June . . 
 
 325 
 
 102 94 
 
 4-66 
 
 2-25 i 38-07 
 
 11-08 Comp. No. 24. 
 
 24 
 
 6 .. 
 
 300 
 
 102 91 
 
 3-57 
 
 1-63 ; 29-17 
 
 7-99 
 
 No. 23. 
 
 25 
 
 6 .. 
 
 275 
 
 192-5 175 
 
 6-50 
 
 3-38 ' 28-17 
 
 8-79 
 
 No. 26. 
 
 26 
 
 6 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 159 
 
 6-38 
 
 2-56 i 27-65 
 
 6-66 
 
 No. 25. 
 
 27 
 
 6 .. 
 
 300 192-5 119 
 
 6-15 
 
 3-31 i 26-65 
 
 8-61 
 
 No. 28. 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 275 192-5 ; 174 
 
 6-69 
 
 3-63 28-99 
 
 9-44 
 
 No. 27. 
 
 29 
 
 6 .. 
 
 250 192-5 
 
 175 
 
 7-56 
 
 4-00 32-76 
 
 10-40 
 
 No. 30. 
 
 30 
 
 6 .. 
 
 Tls. 1 192-5 
 
 149 
 
 7-60 
 
 3-31 32-93 
 
 9-44 
 
 No. 29. 
 
 31 
 
 6 .. 
 
 300 192-5 
 
 163 
 
 7-99 
 
 4-19 34-62 
 
 10-89 
 
 No. 32. 
 
 
 6 ,, .. 
 
 275 192-5 
 
 169 
 
 7-23 
 
 4-94 i 31-33 
 
 12-85 
 
 No. 31. 
 
 Early Baart. 
 
 33 
 
 May .. 
 
 325 
 
 75 
 
 64 
 
 3-76 
 
 3-25 
 
 41-74 
 
 21-65 
 
 Comp. No. 34. 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 75 
 
 68 
 
 2-94 
 
 2-50 
 
 32-63 
 
 16-65 
 
 No. 33. 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 192-5 
 
 169 
 
 6-96 
 
 6-56 
 
 30-16 
 
 17-06 
 
 No. 36. 
 
 36 
 
 > 
 
 275 
 
 192-5 
 
 164 
 
 6-74 
 
 6-38 
 
 29-21 
 
 16-59 
 
 Nos. 35 and 37. 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 225 
 
 192-5 
 
 175 
 
 6-69 
 
 6-31 
 
 28-99 
 
 16-41 
 
 ,, Nos. 36 and 38, 
 
 38 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 192-5 165 
 
 7-72 
 
 6-38 
 
 33-45 
 
 16-59 
 
 No. 37. 
 
 Early Para. 
 
 39 
 
 May .. 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 166 
 
 6-61 
 
 6-06 28-64 
 
 15-76 
 
 Comp. No. 40. 
 
 40 
 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 156 
 
 5-32 
 
 5-00 23-05 
 
 13-00 
 
 ,, No. 39. 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 152 
 
 6-24 
 
 5-69 
 
 27-04 
 
 14-79 
 
 No. 42. 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192 
 
 137 
 
 4-85 
 
 4-25 
 
 21-02 
 
 11-15 
 
 No. 41. 
 
 Golden Drop. 
 
 43 
 
 5 June . . 
 
 300 
 
 102 
 
 2-83 
 
 3-00 
 
 23-12 
 
 14-70 
 
 Comp. No. 44. 
 
 44 
 
 5 .. 
 
 275 
 
 102 
 
 85 
 
 2-90 
 
 3-06 
 
 23-69 
 
 14-99 
 
 ,, No. 43. 
 
 45 
 
 5 ,, .. 
 
 275 
 
 192-5 
 
 177 
 
 6-77 
 
 6-63 
 
 29-34 
 
 17-24 
 
 No. 46. 
 
 46 
 
 5 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 
 148 
 
 5-92 5-63 
 
 25-65 
 
 14-64 
 
 ,, No. 45. 
 
 Gross's Prolific. 
 
 47 
 
 May .. 
 
 300 
 
 192 
 
 177 
 
 6-11 
 
 6-88 
 
 26-48 
 
 17.89 
 
 Comp. No. 48. 
 
 48 
 
 > 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 176 
 
 6-18 
 
 6-69 
 
 26-78 
 
 17-39 
 
 No. 47. 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 179 
 
 6-29 
 
 6-25 
 
 27-26 
 
 16-25 
 
 No. 50. 
 
 50 
 
 j 
 ' 
 
 250 
 
 192 
 
 182 
 
 6-08 
 
 6-13 
 
 26-35 
 
 15-94 
 
 ,, No. 49. 
 
 51 
 
 
 250 
 
 192 
 
 175 
 
 5-87 
 
 6-25 
 
 25-44 
 
 16-25 
 
 No. 52. 
 
 52 
 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 176 
 
 5-37 
 
 5-63 
 
 23-27 
 
 14-64 
 
 No. 51. 
 
 53 
 
 '.'. 200 
 
 192 
 
 168 
 
 5-62 
 
 5-44 
 
 24-35 
 
 14-14 
 
 ,, No. 54. 
 
 54 
 
 , . . Tls. 
 
 192 
 
 174 
 
 6-56 
 
 5-63 
 
 28-43 
 
 14-64 
 
 No. 53. 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 55 
 
 May . 
 
 300 
 
 123 
 
 117 
 
 5-62 
 
 5-69 
 
 38-10 
 
 23-13 
 
 Comp. No. 56. 
 
 56 
 
 >, 
 
 200 
 
 123 
 
 104 
 
 4-36 
 
 4-88 
 
 29-56 
 
 19-84 
 
 ,, No. 55. 
 
 57 
 
 > 
 
 200 
 
 123 
 
 98 
 
 4-80 
 
 4-38 
 
 32-54 
 
 17-80 
 
 No. 58. 
 
 58 
 
 >. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 123 
 
 85 
 
 4-87 
 
 5-25 
 
 33-02 
 
 21-34 
 
 No. 57. 
 
 King's Jubilee. 
 
 59 
 
 6 June . . 
 
 325 I 63 
 
 51 
 
 2-60 
 
 1-69 
 
 34.40 
 
 13-42 
 
 Comp. No. 60. 
 
 60 
 
 6 ,, .. 
 
 300 63 
 
 61 
 
 2-14 
 
 1-56 
 
 28-31 
 
 12-39 
 
 No. 59. 
 
 61 
 
 6 . . 
 
 300 192-5 
 
 170 
 
 6-57 
 
 4-63 
 
 28-47 
 
 12-04 
 
 No. 62. 
 
 62 
 
 6 .. 
 
 275 192-5 
 
 154 
 
 6-18 
 
 5-31 
 
 26-78 
 
 13-81 
 
 No. 61. 
 
 63 
 
 6 .. 
 
 275 177 
 
 170 
 
 6-97 
 
 4-44 
 
 32-83 
 
 12-54 
 
 ,, No. 64. 
 
 64 
 
 6 .. 
 
 250 
 
 177 
 
 157 
 
 6-29 
 
 4-75 
 
 29-63 
 
 13-42 
 
 ,, No. 63. 
 
 65 
 
 6 ,, .. 
 
 250 
 
 107 
 
 91 
 
 4-15 
 
 3-25 
 
 32-33 
 
 15-19 
 
 No. 66. 
 
 66 
 
 6 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 107 
 
 82 
 
 3-96 
 
 2-63 
 
 30-85 
 
 12"29 
 
 No. 65. 
 
 Marshall's No. 3. 
 
 67 
 
 3 June . . 
 
 , 200 
 
 192-5 
 
 171 
 
 5-66 
 
 4-81 
 
 24-53 
 
 12-51 
 
 Comp. Nos. 68 and 69, 
 
 68 
 
 3 .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 
 156 
 
 5-28 
 
 3-41 
 
 .22-88 
 
 8-87 
 
 No. 67. 
 
 69 
 
 3 .. 
 
 300 
 
 192-5 178 
 
 6-52 
 
 5-56 
 
 28-25 
 
 14-46 
 
 No. 67. 
 
 70 
 
 3 .. 
 
 300 
 
 192-5 186 
 
 6-55 
 
 5-56 
 
 28-38 
 
 14-46 
 
 ,, No. 71. 
 
 71 
 
 3 .. 
 
 200 
 
 192-5 175 
 
 5-85 
 
 4-38 
 
 25-35 
 
 11-39 
 
 Nos. 70 and 72. 
 
 72 
 
 3 ,, .. 
 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 177 
 
 6-19 
 
 4-69 
 
 26-82 
 
 12-19 
 
 No. 71. 
 
 Marshall's No. 8. 
 
 73 May .. 
 
 300 
 
 192 
 
 180 
 
 6-28 
 
 7-75 
 
 27-21 
 
 20-15 
 
 Comp. No. 74. 
 
 74 . . 
 
 275 
 
 192 
 
 176 
 
 5-78 
 
 7'63 
 
 25-05 
 
 19-84 
 
 Nos. 73 and 75.. 
 
 75 ,, .. 
 
 225 
 
 192 
 
 175 
 
 5-68 
 
 7-19 
 
 24-61 
 
 18-69 
 
 ,, Nos. 74 and 76. 
 
 76 ,, .'. 
 
 200 
 
 192 
 
 171 
 
 6-08 
 
 7-69 
 
 26-35 
 
 19-99 
 
 Nos. 75 and 77. 
 
 77 ... 
 
 Tls. 
 
 79 
 
 61 
 
 2-35 
 
 331 
 
 24-79 
 
 20-96 
 
 No. 76. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 29 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Second Trial) continued. 
 
 
 
 
 Length 
 of 
 
 No. of 
 
 Lb. Hai 
 
 vested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Row, 
 in 
 Links. 
 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bu. to 
 
 Acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 Acre. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 87 
 
 90 
 
 01 
 
 94 
 
 100 
 101 
 
 102 
 103 
 104 
 
 105 
 106 
 107 
 108 
 109 
 110 
 
 111 
 112 
 113 
 114 
 115 
 
 4 June 
 4 
 4 
 
 1 June 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 ,, 
 1 , 
 
 May 
 
 3 June 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 May 
 
 3 June 
 3 ,, 
 3 
 
 May 
 
 May 
 
 Red Straw. 
 
 275 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 300 
 275 
 275 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 300 
 
 Pigmy 
 250 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 275 
 225 
 
 275 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 275 
 275 
 200 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 325 
 300 
 275 
 200 
 Tls. 
 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 192-5 
 
 176 
 166 
 157 
 
 6-85 
 6-65 
 7-04 
 
 5-31 
 
 5-50 28-82 
 
 5-06 30-51 
 
 Talavera de Belle vue. 
 
 170 
 129 
 173 
 156 
 122 
 
 2-41 
 2-53 
 2-22 
 1-83 
 1-88 
 
 2-38 
 2-75 
 2-69 
 2-06 
 
 Velvet Pearl. 
 
 7-11 
 55-6 
 5-92 
 5-79 
 
 4-88 
 3-50 
 4-44 
 4-13 
 
 5-37 ! 3-56 
 White Lammas. 
 
 20-70 
 22-75 
 24-64 
 20-31 
 
 20-87 
 
 30-81 
 25-09 
 25-65 
 25-09 
 23-27 
 
 13-81 
 14-30 
 13-16 
 
 12-27 
 14-18 
 17-94 
 13-73 
 11-27 
 
 9-10 
 11-54 
 
 10-74 
 9-26 
 
 Comp. No. 79. 
 
 Nos. 78 and 80. 
 No. 79. 
 
 Comp. No. 82. 
 
 No. 81. 
 
 No. 84. 
 
 Nos. 83 and 85. 
 
 No. 84. 
 
 Comp. No. 87. 
 
 No. 86. 
 
 No. 89. 
 
 Nos. 88 and 90. 
 
 No. 89. 
 
 325 
 
 192-5 
 
 187 
 
 6-14 
 
 906 
 
 26-61 
 
 23-55 
 
 Comp. No. 92. 
 
 300 
 
 192-5 
 
 179 
 
 5-44 
 
 8-31 
 
 23-57 
 
 21-61 
 
 No. 91. 
 
 300 
 
 110 
 
 101 
 
 3-13 
 
 4-38 
 
 2371 
 
 19-91 
 
 No. 94. 
 
 275 
 
 110 
 
 102 
 
 2-79 
 
 3-81 
 
 21-14 
 
 17-32 
 
 No. 93. 
 
 275 
 
 127 
 
 118 
 
 3-59 
 
 4-75 
 
 23-55 
 
 1870 
 
 No. 96. 
 
 225 
 
 127 
 
 121 
 
 4-25 
 
 5-44 
 
 27-88 
 
 21-42 
 
 No. 95. 
 
 300 
 
 158 
 
 139 
 
 5-23 
 
 6-44 
 
 27-56 
 
 20-38 
 
 No. 98. 
 
 200 
 
 158 
 
 146 
 
 4-34 
 
 5-31 
 
 22-87 
 
 16-81 
 
 Nos. 97 and 
 
 Tls. 
 
 158 
 
 137 
 
 5-34 
 
 5-63 
 
 28-14 
 
 17-82 
 
 No. 98. 
 
 145 
 145 
 145 
 
 192 
 192 
 192 
 192 
 192 
 192 
 
 192 
 192 
 
 182 
 182 
 182 
 
 White Naples. 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 2-51 
 
 2-88 
 
 21-56 
 
 14-85 
 
 Comp. 
 
 No. 
 
 101 
 
 
 86 
 
 2-54 
 
 275 
 
 21-82 
 
 14-18 
 
 ,, 
 
 No. 
 
 100. 
 
 
 White Tuscan. 
 
 
 
 
 141 4-67 
 
 5-31 
 
 26-84 
 
 18-31 
 
 Comp. 
 
 No. 
 
 103. 
 
 
 137 
 
 4-31 
 
 4-75 
 
 24-77 
 
 16-38 
 
 |f 
 
 Nos. 102 & 
 
 104 
 
 131 
 
 5-51 
 
 4-69 
 
 31-67 
 
 16-17 
 
 
 
 No. 
 
 103. 
 
 
 White Velvet. 
 
 
 
 
 168 
 
 8-75 
 
 6-63 
 
 37-92 
 
 17-24 
 
 Comp. 
 
 No. 
 
 106. 
 
 
 176 
 
 8-25 
 
 5-75 
 
 35-75 
 
 14-95 
 
 
 No. 
 
 105. 
 
 
 176 
 
 7-44 
 
 5-63 
 
 32-24 
 
 14-64 
 
 
 No. 
 
 108. 
 
 
 181 
 
 6-26 
 
 4-63 
 
 27-13 
 
 12-04 
 
 || 
 
 No. 
 
 107. 
 
 
 177 
 
 6-60 
 
 4-75 
 
 28-60 
 
 12-35 
 
 tt 
 
 No. 
 
 110. 
 
 
 159 
 
 6-35 
 
 4-06 
 
 27-52 
 
 10-56 
 
 ,, 
 
 No. 
 
 109. 
 
 
 Zeafand. 
 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 7-75 10-00 
 
 33-58 
 
 26-00 
 
 Comp. 
 
 No. 
 
 112. 
 
 
 164 
 
 6-10 
 
 8-00 
 
 26-43 
 
 20-80 
 
 '' 
 
 No. 
 
 111. 
 
 
 171 
 
 6-29 
 
 7-06 
 
 28-81 
 
 19-49 
 
 " 
 
 No. 
 
 114. 
 
 
 137 
 
 4-37 
 
 5-75 
 
 20-01 
 
 15-81 
 
 
 Nos 
 
 113 & 
 
 llf. 
 
 138 
 
 5-27 
 
 6-50 
 
 24-13 
 
 17-86 
 
 ,, 
 
 No. 
 
 114. 
 
 
 Marshall's No. 8. 
 
 116 
 
 May .. 200 
 
 192 
 
 175 
 
 5-13 
 
 7-50 
 
 22-23 
 
 19-50 
 
 Comp. No. 117 
 
 117 
 
 ,, ... Tls. 
 
 192 
 
 175 
 
 510 
 
 6-88 
 
 22-10 
 
 17-89 
 
 No. 116. 
 
 S.UMMARY or GROWTH. (Second Trial. ) 
 The rate of germination and growth is shown by the fact that 
 
 Out of 816 grains of the 325 grade 91'3 per cent. grew. 
 
 3,032 
 4,376 
 2,495 
 608 
 3,494 
 3,848 
 
 300 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 
 200 
 
 90-4 
 90-5 
 90-1 
 91-6 
 
 87-1 
 
 Tailings 80 '3 
 
 By this is meant that this percentage of the grains produced plants that could be cut 
 and weighed, though the plants did not in all cases mature seed. The harvesting was 
 
30 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 1 
 
 done with a sickel, the plants being cut close to the ground and as evenly as possible. If 
 the plant had died when a seedling, and before it had produced a stalk, it would not 
 
 enter in to the calculation. Mere 
 dead blades of young seedlings 
 were not counted, and no at- 
 tempt was made to weigh such. 
 There were very few such cases. 
 The counting was done at har- 
 vest time. Uncertain cases were 
 of very rare occurrence. If a 
 plant survived the first few 
 weeks it nearly always reached 
 a growth that was harvested, 
 and if there was no grain on 
 the plant the straw was cut 
 and weighed just the same. 
 
 Few notes were taken on the 
 germination, for the reason 
 that they would have been of 
 rather uncertain value. If no 
 plant appeared at the place 
 where a seed had been sown, 
 that would be no proof that 
 the seed had not germinated, 
 though it would be evidence 
 tending to show that it had 
 not germinated. The plantlet 
 might have been killed b 
 disease or by some insect, 
 considerable number of exami- 
 nations convinced me that most 
 of the cases of this sort were 
 really cases of failure to ger- 
 minate ; but it will be at once 
 seen that any attempt to settle 
 definitely in such a case whether 
 the seed failed to germinate or 
 was killed off by disease would 
 have involved considerable diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 Nevertheless, some attention 
 was given to this feature of 
 the experiment, with the re- 
 sult of showing that so far as 
 observation in the spring could 
 be reasonably carried, it appa- 
 rently showed a lower germina- 
 tion on the part of the smaller 
 seeds certainly a lower plant- 
 producing power. I am in- 
 clined to believe that these 
 observations (see the table 
 on page 31) prove the ger- 
 minating power of the small 
 and shrivelled seeds to be less 
 than that of others ; but I 
 hesitate somewhat in the mat- 
 ter, because of results already 
 published by others tending 
 to show that the germina- 
 ting power of rust-shrivelled 
 seed is actually greater than 
 that of plump seed. As 
 before remarked, these counts 
 of the plants as they ap- 
 peared above ground are not 
 thoroughly reliable evidence as 
 
 Fig. 29. Photograph of three rows of experiment wheat after 
 harvest. The rows from large, medium-sized, and small grain 
 are lettered respectively L, M, and S. The picture shows the 
 relative amounts of straw from the various rows, and the 
 greater proportion of "misses" of the smaller seed. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 31 
 
 to the germinating power of the seed, and for several reasons. In the first place, one 
 cannot be certain that plants may not yet appear after the count is made ; some good 
 seeds even are very slow in germinating. Then, again, the plantlet may have been 
 good and yet have failed to reach the surface because it was nipped by some under- 
 ground insect. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the number of plants that appeared above ground in 
 these experiments was probably greater than would occur in ordinary field practice 
 because of the extra care bestowed upon the planting and culture, this care being neces- 
 sary in order to remove as far as possible all disturbing factors that might cause inequalities 
 in the conditions under which the various seeds were grown. It is also right to again 
 call attention to the fact, or at least what seems to me to be the fact, that these 
 conditions were such as to favour the small seeds more than the large seeds. All this i& 
 a separate matter from the inferiorities of ordinary tailings due to the accumulation in 
 them of diseased seed. All the grains used in these trials were derived from selected 
 healthy plants. This is more fully explained elsewhere. With these few remarks, we 
 may now examine the following table of apparent germination : 
 
 APPARENT Germination of Large, Medium-sized, and Small Grains, as shown by the 
 appearance above ground of Plants three weeks after Sowing, 1896. The figures- 
 represent the number of failures in 200 seeds planted. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Large. 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Small. 
 
 Variety. 
 
 Large. 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Small. 
 
 Algerian 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 45 
 
 Steinwedel 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 23 
 
 Marshall's No. 3 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 35 
 
 Australian Talavera . . 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 Golden Drop 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 51 
 
 Quartzlee (Beardless).. 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 Canning Downs 
 
 7 
 
 19 
 
 44 
 
 Early Para 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 White Tuscan 
 
 14 
 
 13 
 
 38 
 
 Farmer's Friend 
 
 23 
 
 37 
 
 54 
 
 King's Jubilee 
 
 10 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 White Velvet . 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 65 
 
 Blount's Lambrigg 
 
 21 
 
 25 
 
 55 
 
 Hudson's E.P. Straw 
 
 13 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 Allora Spring 
 
 21 
 
 22 44 
 
 Tardent's Blue 
 
 20 
 
 33 
 
 41 
 
 White Lammas 
 
 7 
 
 11 17 
 
 Red Straw 
 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 Early Baart 
 
 10 
 
 13 46 
 
 Marshall's No. 3 
 
 11 
 
 17 
 
 21 
 
 White Lammas (Young) 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 22 
 
 Grosse's Prolific 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 30 
 
 Velvet Pearl 
 
 11 
 
 22 
 
 44 
 
 Marshall's No. 3 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 White Naples 
 
 62 
 
 60 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bearded Quartzlee 
 Talavera de Bellevue . 
 
 11 
 13 
 
 15 
 22 
 
 45 
 30 
 
 Total 
 
 363 
 
 540 
 
 988 
 
 Budd's Early 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 24 
 
 7 
 
 Average 
 
 12-5 
 
 18-6 
 
 341 
 
 These figures may be easily converted to percentages of failure by dividing by two. 
 It will be noted that nearly three times as many small grains failed as large ones, and that 
 the actual failure of the small grains amounted in this case to about one-sixth. 
 
 A considerable number of weaklings appeared, especially among the plants from small 
 and shrivelled seeds, and these, after languishing for a few weeks, died. The soil was- 
 rather patchy, and in a considerable number of instances plants were rendered sterile by 
 diseases due to unfavourable soil conditions. There was almost no loss through loose 
 smut and bunt. 
 
 So far as comparisons of yield were concerned, the soil losses just spoken of were 
 largely rendered nugatory by the row system. The other losses, such as accidents, smut, 
 and bunt, fell irregularly, and were allowed for, if possible, but these losses were of too 
 trifling an amount to cause any anxiety as to the reliability and usefulness of the 
 calculations. The plots were in careful hands all the time, and I never saw experiments 
 carried out under any better field conditions, if the patchiness be excepted. The experi- 
 ment seed was prepared by myself, and its sowing was under my personal supervision, 
 and all the notes were made by myself from frequent observation. The harvesting and 
 so forth was done under my personal supervision, and I attended personally to all the 
 weighings and calculations. The plots were under the competent supervision of the late 
 Mr. JohnColeman, who took great pains to preserve the plots from the least interference, 
 and when I was absent kept me informed as to progress of the growth. The grains were 
 sown in rows two links apart, and the grains were in all cases sown one link apart in the 
 rows in the manner described in my pamphlet on "Agricultural Experiment Work." 
 There were buffer plants at the ends of the rows in this lot of trials as in all others. 
 
 SUMMARY of Comparisons. (Second Trial.) 
 
 If we take as the yield of each trial the sum of the weights of the grain and of the 
 straw, we find that in all cases the various grades have excelled in their production the 
 smaller grades with which they have been compared, if we except grade 225, and even this. 
 
32 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 exceptional result seems due beyond doubt to the small number of trials only two, both 
 cases giving a substantial excess to the lower grade. If we class the trials according to 
 the size of the larger of the grades used in the comparison, we may make the following 
 general statement : 
 
 325 excelled in 100 per cent, of trials. 
 
 300 78-6 
 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 200 
 
 75 
 100 
 none 
 53-8 
 
 This statement, however, does not tell the whole story, for we find that, as in most 
 unequal contests, the victories of the better contestant are the more decisive. Thus 
 325 when excelling did so by 21 ! per cent, excess, and was never excelled. 
 300 when excelling did so by 12'5 per cent, excess ; when excelled it was only by 5 
 
 per cent. 
 
 275 when excelling did so by 14'7 ,, ,, ,, ,, only 12'3 per cent. 
 
 250 ,, 13-8 
 
 225 7'7 
 
 200 ,, 14-5 ,, ,, ,, ,, 11-6 
 
 From this 1 conclude that the yield of wheat-plants under the conditions of these parti- 
 cular experiments, as well as the power to grow to a harvestable size, is a function of the 
 size of the seed, and varies directly with the size of the seed. 
 
 If, instead of taking the sum of the weights of the grain and straw as the criterion of 
 yield, we take the grain alone, we arrive at the following : 
 
 The 325 grade excelled in 100 per cent, of the trials. 
 300 69 
 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 
 200 
 
 72-2 
 
 87'5 
 none 
 42-9 
 
 As these general statements, however, fail to give a perfectly correct idea of the extent 
 of the superiority of the large seeds, we may add 
 
 325 when excelling did so by 22 '7 per cent., and was never excelled. 
 
 300 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 200 
 
 13'8 ,, when excelled it was only by 3 '9 per cent. 
 11-8 ,, ,, ,, 12-5 
 
 7-0 ' ,, ,, -5 
 
 H-2 
 
 8-2 , 13-0 
 
 If, instead of taking the sum of the weights of the grain and straw as the criterion of 
 yield, we take the straw alone, we arrive at the following : 
 
 The 325 grade excelled in 100 per cent, of the trials. 
 300 69 
 
 275 
 250 
 225 
 200 
 
 75 
 
 100-0 
 none 
 
 71-4 
 
 As these general statements do not give a perfectly correct idea of the extent of the 
 superiority of the large seeds, we may add that 
 
 325 when excelling did so by 20 '0 per cent. 
 
 300 ,, ,, 14'6 ,, when excelled it was only by 10 '0 per cent. 
 
 275 ,, 16-2 1T6 
 
 250 ,, 20-6 
 
 225 ,, 4-0 
 
 200 ,, 20-2 ,, 9-9 
 
 I have referred to the losses due to little understood and inexplicable soil conditions, 
 and have said that they were rendered nugatory by the row system. By this, I mean that 
 when a patch of such varying soil appeared, it invaded in about equal degrees the various 
 experiment rows, and thus caused about equal losses to the adjacent rows being compared. 
 In a few instances, where it was apparent that this invasion was not of an equal character, 
 
Seed Wheat. 33 
 
 the length of the rows was reduced at harvest time by cutting out the doubtful parts. 
 There were but few cases where this discretion had to be exercised ; it was exercised as 
 sparingly as possible. The case had to be one of the most manifest injustice to one or 
 the other of the contestants before I ordered any interference. It Will be seen from the 
 measurements of the rows (the normal length was about 192 '5 links), this discretion was 
 not often exercised. It should be added that in most of the cases where the row harvested 
 is less than 192 '5 links long, it is because there was insufficient seed of one of the con- 
 testants to fill a whole row. This will be better understood by reference to the diagram 
 illustrative of the arrangement of the experiments. (Fig. 28, p. 24.) The fragments of 
 rows were due to the fact that the supply of seed did not fill exactly a number of full 
 rows, and the seed was too valuable to be wasted, its production having cost a considerable 
 amount of expert labour. 
 
 It will be seen that the results given in the tabulated weighings of grain and straw 
 relate solely to the plants that grew, this being probably the test that most nearly meets 
 the requirements of practice. I have recorded the number of plants that grew in each 
 case, but have concluded, for the present at any rate, to make no attempt to interpret 
 the figures. 
 
 The conditions of the trials were field conditions, modified to meet the requirements 
 of exact experiment. That the yields exceed those of actual agricultural practice of the 
 region where they were conducted is due to careful planting in measured drills and to 
 the attention already described as having been given to the prevention of weeds. 
 
 Returning now to the percentages of growth, it will be seen that from the 325 grade 
 down there is a regular diminution in the power of the seed to produce plants under field 
 conditions. The number of plants is so great, running as it does into thousands, and the 
 number of varieties is so great, reaching as it does above twenty widely different sorts, and 
 the dates of sowing are so various and the soil conditions are so varied, including as they 
 do patchiness and a general variation from one end of the area to the other in the manner 
 described elsewhere, that this variation in the power to produce plants appears to be 
 proved to be a function of the size of the seed. So far as one season's work can go, I do 
 not see how it is possible to reach any other conclusion than that the inherent power in a 
 grain of wheat to produce a yield of grain or straw is some direct function of the size of 
 the grain, and that the larger the grain the better the resulting plant will be, independent 
 of any conditions that appeared during the particular season under discussion. The 
 number of trials of the 325 and 225 grades is rather too few to be quite satisfactory ; and 
 I am inclined to think that a larger number of trials of these grades might have slightly 
 modified the percentages of growth of these grades as given. 
 
 At this point, I would like to once more call attention to the fact that the conditions 
 of the experiment were such as make me believe that the small, and therefore weak seeds, 
 and the shrivelled and therefore weak seeds, were decidedly favoured. The careful 
 planting and the keeping down of the weeds would, it seems to me, give relatively greater 
 benefit to the weaklings than to the others. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that 
 under ordinary field conditions, as, for instance, when the grain is broadcast and the 
 weeds are given full swing, the percentages of growth would be lower still for the 
 smaller grades than here recorded, lower in reality and lower in proportion. 
 
 I must remark, for the benefit of those who have never had an opportunity to observe 
 the behaviour of wheat plants growing in drills, that the interpretation of the numbers 
 given in the tables needs to make allowance for a certain extra growth due to lack of 
 competition when a plant fails anywhere in the drill. In such case, the two plants next 
 the vacant space are given more soil room and are freed from the efforts of a competitor 
 on one side, and they consequently often grow a little better. This is an observation easily 
 made, and the fact is well known no doubt to many, but it might be overlooked by others 
 if no mention was made of it. This factor may have helped the rows with the greater 
 number of " misses " more than it helped the other rows. It certainly would do so in 
 some instances. 
 
 Thus, when it is said that one grade yielded 178 plants and the adjacent grade yielded 
 
 nly 163 plants, it must not be assumed that the yields would tend to become as 178 to 
 
 163, for this is so only to a certain extent, owing to the fact that the plants in the 
 
 mailer lot profited considerably more by the death of their companions in the same row. 
 
 Doubtless, also, this same influence extended from one row to another, but it was only 
 to a very limited extent. It was, in fact, so small and so uncertain a factor that I had 
 to abandon all attempts to settle its value. It was most certainly very small too small 
 to exert an influence that would be more than barely appreciable. It is, in fact, quite 
 remarkable how little influence even powerful factors exert beyond the distance of a few 
 inches in most seasons in the soil used for these experiments. For instance, a heavily- 
 manured row will fail to have more than a very faint effect on a check row two links 
 away and without manure. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 Fig. 30. All the straw from the large, medium, and small sized seed experiments of 1896-7, 
 arranged, not on the ground on which it was grown, which was impossible, but assembled 
 on another experiment area where it could be effectively displayed. The left-hand row of 
 stocks came from the large seeds, and weighs 180 lb., the middle row from medium-sized 
 seeds, and weighs 151 lb., while the right-hand row came from small seeds, and weighs- 
 118 lb. This is an assemblage of straw from more than twenty different varieties. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 35 
 
 THIRD TRIAL. 
 
 The third and most satisfactory and symmetrical set of trials as to the relative value 
 as seed of large, medium-sized, and small grains of wheat was begun in 1896. The 
 tabulated results are given below. 
 
 The conditions under which this set of trials was conducted were in most respects very 
 similar to those of the sets already discussed. The soil, though poorer, was of the same 
 general nature, i.e., was patchy, and varied also in a gradual manner from part to part of 
 the plot. In this case, however, there was no uniformity in the gradual changes such as 
 were mentioned in the second case. It will be remembered that in the former cases the 
 soil improved in quality from one end of the plot to the other in such a manner as to 
 slightly favour in all cases the smaller grades, though the amount of this trifling advantage 
 to the smaller grades could not be measured. In the present instance, the gradual 
 variations in the soil would sometimes favour the larger grades, and sometimes the 
 smaller. As before, these differences were quite impossible to estimate, beyond the 
 general statement that they were so small as to be quite safely neglected, considering the 
 extent of the trials. 
 
 In this third set of quantitive trials th_ amount of seed available was greater, and, in 
 consequence, the size of the trial rows was increased, and the length in all cases, exclusive 
 of the buffer plants at the ends, was two chains. 
 
 Only four grades of seed were used, extra large, i.e., grade 325 ; large, i.e., grade 300 ; 
 medium, i.e., grade 250 ; and small, i.e., the tailings. These were in all instances planted 
 in the order named in three or four successive rows, at the ends of the corresponding 
 "stud plots" devoted to the production of seed wheat. This was a more satisfactory 
 arrangement than that of the previous year. It can hardly be said, however, that this 
 arrangement introduced any new element as compared with the first two trials, except 
 that of omitting the use of the intermediate grades 275, 225, and 200. 
 
 The season was regarded as an average one ; not so good as the previous season. 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Third Trial. ) 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of row 
 in links. 
 
 No. of 
 plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. harvested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bushels 
 to acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 acre. 
 
 Algerian. 
 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 181 
 
 1-80 
 
 3-08 
 
 7-50 
 
 7-70 
 
 Compare No. 2. 
 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 174 
 
 1-43 
 
 2-32 
 
 5-96 
 
 5-88 
 
 ,, Nos. 1 and 3. 
 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 155 
 
 1-06 
 
 1-80 4-42 
 
 4-50 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Allora Spring. 
 
 4 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 163 
 
 1-91 
 
 2-20 
 
 7-96 
 
 5-50 
 
 Compare No. 5. 
 
 5 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 160 
 
 1'54 
 
 1-72 
 
 6-42 
 
 4-30 
 
 ,, Nos. 4 and 6. 
 
 6 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 I 130 
 
 1-11 
 
 1-22 
 
 4-63 
 
 3-05 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Australian Talavera. 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 
 Very large 
 Large 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 185 
 193 
 
 2-04 
 1-88 
 
 2-68 
 2-92 
 
 8-50 
 7-83 
 
 4-70 
 7-30 
 
 Compare No. 8. 
 Nos. 7 and 9. 
 
 9 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 187 
 
 1-65 
 
 2-50 
 
 6-88 
 
 6-25 
 
 Nos. 8 and 10. 
 
 10 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 177 
 
 1-20 
 
 1-75 
 
 5-00 
 
 4'38 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 Bearded Quartzlee. 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 184 
 
 4-90 
 
 6-15 
 
 20-42 
 
 12-88 
 
 Compare No. 12. 
 
 12 
 
 
 Medium . 
 
 200 
 
 175 
 
 4-08 
 
 4-85 
 
 17-00 
 
 12-43 
 
 Nos. 11 and 13. 
 
 18 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 146 
 
 2-77 
 
 3-10 
 
 11-54 
 
 7-75 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 Beardless Quartzlee. 
 
 14 
 
 if, 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 179 
 183 
 
 1-90 
 1-70 
 
 2-22 
 1-92 
 
 7-92 
 7-08 
 
 5-55 
 4-80 
 
 Compare No. 15. 
 Nos. 14 and 16. 
 
 K; 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 162 
 
 1-20 
 
 1-27 
 
 5-00 
 
 3-17 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 Blount's Lambrigg. 
 
 17 
 L8 
 
 
 Medium '.'. 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 176 
 164 
 
 2-04 
 1-73 
 
 270 
 2-18 
 
 8-50 
 7*21 
 
 6-75 
 5-45 
 
 Compare No. 18. 
 Nos. 17 and 19. 
 
 1!) 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 131 
 
 1-30 
 
 1-82 
 
 5-42 
 
 4-55 
 
 No. 18. 
 
 Budd's Early. 
 
 20 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 187 I 1-60 
 
 1-86 
 
 6-67 
 
 4-45 
 
 Compare No. 21. 
 
 21 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 175 -80 
 
 i-oo 
 
 3-33 
 
 2-50 
 
 Nos. 20 and 22. 
 
 22 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 153 -52 
 
 60 
 
 2-17 
 
 1-50 
 
 No. 21. 
 
36 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Third Trial) continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of row 
 in links. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. harvested. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Bushels 
 to acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 acre. 
 
 Canning Downs. 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium .. 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 177 
 159 
 
 1-43 
 99 
 
 96 
 65 
 
 5-96 
 4-13 
 
 2-60 
 1-63 
 
 Compare No. 24. 
 , , Nos. 23 arid 25. 
 
 25 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 139 
 
 53 
 
 40 
 
 2-21 
 
 1-00 
 
 Nn 9.4. 
 
 
 
 Early Baart. 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 181 
 
 2-77 
 
 3-42 
 
 11-54 
 
 8-55 
 
 Compare No. 27. 
 
 27 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 186 
 
 3-39 
 
 410 
 
 14-13 
 
 10-25 
 
 Nos. 26 and 28. 
 
 28 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 186 
 
 2-89 
 
 3-48 
 
 12-04 
 
 8-70 
 
 Nos. 27 and 29. 
 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 146 
 
 1-90 
 
 2-28 
 
 7'92 
 
 5-70 
 
 No. 28. 
 
 
 
 
 Early Para. 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 188 ] 3-05 
 
 3-46 
 
 12-71 
 
 8-45 
 
 Compare No. 31. 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 187 1-95 
 
 212 
 
 8-13 
 
 5-30 
 
 Nos. 30 and 32. 
 
 32 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 172 \ 2-10 
 
 212 
 
 8-75 
 
 5-30 
 
 No. 31. 
 
 Farmer's Friend. 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 169 
 
 3-70 
 
 4-75 
 
 15-42 
 
 11-88 
 
 Compare No. 34. 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 148 
 
 2-90 
 
 3-57 
 
 12-08 
 
 8-93 
 
 Nos. 33 and 35. 
 
 35 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 132 
 
 2-30 
 
 2-74 
 
 9-58 
 
 6-85 
 
 No. 34. 
 
 
 Golden Drop. 
 
 36 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 193 
 
 2-20 
 
 2-48 
 
 917 
 
 6-20 
 
 Compare No. 37. 
 
 37 
 
 
 Medium 
 
 200 
 
 184 
 
 1*75 
 
 1'82 
 
 7-29 
 
 4'55 
 
 ,, Nos. 36 and 38. 
 
 8 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 150 
 
 T10 
 
 1-48 
 
 4-58 
 
 4-70 
 
 No. 37. 
 
 
 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 
 39 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 183 
 
 3-34 
 
 3'82 
 
 13-92 | 9-55 
 
 Compare No. 40. 
 
 40 
 41 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium .. 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 187 
 174 
 
 3-54 
 
 2-78 
 
 419 
 2-99 
 
 14-75 
 11-58 
 
 10-48 
 7-48 
 
 Nos. 39 and 41. 
 Nos. 40 and 42. 
 
 42 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 165 
 
 2-30 
 
 2-51 
 
 9-58 
 
 fi-28 
 
 No. 41. 
 
 
 
 
 King's Jubilee. 
 
 
 43 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 188 
 
 3-38 
 
 3-53 
 
 1408 
 
 8-83 
 
 Compare No. 44. 
 
 44 
 
 
 Medium .. 
 
 200 
 
 174 
 
 3-09 
 
 3-23 
 
 12-88 
 
 8-08 
 
 ,, Nos. 43 and 45. 
 
 45 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 158 
 
 2-18 
 
 2-37 
 
 9 'OS 
 
 5-93 
 
 No. 44. 
 
 Marshall's No. 3. 
 
 46 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 183 
 
 2-12 
 
 2-18 1 8-83 
 
 5-45 
 
 Compare No. 47. 
 
 47 
 48 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 181 
 175 
 
 2-17 
 1-70 
 
 2-28 9-04 
 1-76 7-08 
 
 5-70 
 4-40 
 
 Nos. 46 and 48. 
 ,, Nos. 47 and 49. 
 
 49 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 179 
 
 1-62 
 
 1-70 6-75 
 
 4-25 
 
 No. 48. 
 
 Marshall's No. 3, W.S. 
 
 50 
 51 
 
 
 Very large 
 Large 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 190 
 179 
 
 2-14 
 1-95 
 
 2-30 
 2-07 
 
 8'92 
 813 
 
 5-75 
 5-18 
 
 Compare No. 51. 
 Nos. 50 and 52. 
 
 52 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 177 
 
 1-98 
 
 2-90 
 
 8-25 
 
 7-25 
 
 Nos. 51 and 53. 
 
 53 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 157 
 
 1-30 
 
 1-34 j 5-42 
 
 3-35 
 
 No. 52. 
 
 Marshall's No. 8. 
 
 54 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 1 186 
 
 2-24 
 
 2-68 
 
 9-33 
 
 6-70 
 
 Compare No. 55. 
 
 55 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 186 
 
 2-27 
 
 1-88 
 
 9-46 
 
 4-55 
 
 Nos. 54 and 56. 
 
 56 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 177 
 
 1-27 
 
 1-53 
 
 5-29 
 
 3-83 
 
 Nos. 55 and 57. 
 
 57 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 172 
 
 1-30 
 
 1-50 
 
 5-42 
 
 3-75 No. 56. 
 
 Rattling Jack. 
 
 58 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 182 
 
 2-31 
 
 2-52 
 
 9-63 
 
 6-30 
 
 Compare No. 59. 
 
 59 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 166 
 
 110 
 
 116 
 
 4-58 
 
 2-88 
 
 No. 60. 
 
 60 
 
 
 Medium .. 
 
 200 
 
 185 
 
 1-08 
 
 110 
 
 4-50 
 
 2-75 
 
 Nos. 59 and 61. 
 
 61 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 194 
 
 1-87 
 
 2-00 
 
 7-79 
 
 5-00 
 
 Nos. 58 and 60. 
 
 Red Straw. 
 
 62 
 63 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 183 
 175 
 
 2-85 
 2-64 
 
 2-98 
 2'79 
 
 11-88 
 11-00 
 
 7-45 
 6-98 
 
 Compare No. 63. 
 Nos. 62 and 64. 
 
 64 
 
 
 Small . . 
 
 200 
 
 170 
 
 2-30 
 
 2-31 
 
 9-58 
 
 5-78 
 
 No. 63. 
 
 Steinwedel. 
 
 65 
 66 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 185 
 
 188 
 
 2-58 
 2-40 
 
 3-10 
 
 2-70 
 
 10-75 7'75 
 10-00 ' 6-75 
 
 Compare No. 66. 
 Nos. 65 and 67 
 
 67 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 165 
 
 1-69 
 
 1-25 
 
 7-04 
 
 3-13 
 
 No. 66. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 37 
 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain and Straw. (Third Trial) continued. 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 | 
 Length 
 Grade. of row 
 in links. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. harvested. 
 
 Bushels 
 to acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 acre. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Talavera de Bellevue. 
 
 69 
 70 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium .. 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 185 
 170 
 
 3-07 
 2-83 
 
 4-68 
 4-40 
 
 1279 
 11-79 
 
 11-70 
 11-00 
 
 Nos. 68 and 70. 
 Nos. 69 and 71. 
 
 71 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 164 
 
 1-99 
 
 3-10 
 
 8-29 
 
 775 
 
 No. 70. 
 
 Tardent's Blue. 
 
 72 
 73 
 
 
 Medium '.'. 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 182 
 164 
 
 2-77 
 2-67 
 
 4-93 
 4-83 
 
 11-54 
 1113 
 
 12-33 
 12-08 
 
 Compare No. 73. 
 Nos. 72 and 74. 
 
 74 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 154 
 
 1-88 
 
 3-90 
 
 7-83 
 
 9-75 
 
 No. 73. 
 
 Velvet Pearl. 
 
 75 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 182 
 
 3-75 
 
 4-25 
 
 15-63 
 
 10-63 
 
 Compare No. 76. 
 
 76 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 167 
 
 3-50 
 
 3-85 
 
 14-58 
 
 9-63 
 
 Nos. 75 and 77. 
 
 77 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 144 
 
 2-30 
 
 2-45 
 
 9-58 
 
 6-13 
 
 No. 76. 
 
 White Essex. 
 
 78 
 79 
 
 
 Very large 
 Large 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 188 
 194 
 
 1-70 
 1'40 
 
 2-12 
 1'73 
 
 7-08 
 5 "83 
 
 5-30 
 4'33 
 
 Compare No. 79. 
 
 No 8. 78 and 80 
 
 80 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 186 
 
 1'40 
 
 1-88 
 
 5'83 
 
 4*70 
 
 Nos. 79 and 81. 
 
 81 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 177 
 
 1'20 
 
 
 5'00 
 
 3*95 
 
 No. '80. 
 
 
 
 
 
 White Lammas. 
 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 189 
 
 2-48 
 
 3-20 
 
 10-33 ] 8'00 
 
 Compare No. 83. 
 
 83 
 84 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 196 
 186 
 
 2-38 
 1-63 
 
 317 
 
 210 
 
 992 
 6 '79 
 
 7-93. 
 5*25 
 
 Nos. 82 and 84. 
 Nos 83 and 85 
 
 85 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 172 
 
 1-65 
 
 2-05 
 
 6-88 
 
 513 
 
 " No. 84. 
 
 White Naples. 
 
 86 
 87 
 
 
 Very larjje 
 Large 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 148 
 135 
 
 2-60 
 2-30 
 
 3-84 
 3-50 
 
 10-83 
 9-58 
 
 9-60 
 8-75 
 
 Compare No. 87. 
 Nos. 86 and 88. 
 
 88 
 
 
 Medinm . . 
 
 200 
 
 138 
 
 2-20 
 
 3-37 
 
 917 
 
 8-43 
 
 Nos. 87 and 89. 
 
 89 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 119 1-50 
 
 2-35 
 
 6-25 
 
 5-88 
 
 No. 88. 
 
 White Tuscan. 
 
 90 
 91 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 181 
 
 183 
 
 2-28 
 1-88 
 
 2-47 
 
 2-28 
 
 9-50 
 7-83 
 
 6-48 
 5-70 
 
 Compare No. 91. 
 Nos. 90 and 92. 
 
 92 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 155 
 
 1-35 
 
 1-60 
 
 5-63 
 
 4-00 
 
 No. 91. 
 
 White Velvet. 
 
 93 
 94 
 
 
 Large 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 166 
 157 
 
 2-50 
 2-81 
 
 2-80 
 3-06 
 
 10-42 
 11-71 
 
 7-00 
 7-65 
 
 Compare No. 94. 
 Nos. 93 and 95. 
 
 95 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 116 
 
 1-60 
 
 1-80 
 
 6-67 
 
 4-50 
 
 No. 94. 
 
 Zealand. 
 
 96 
 
 
 Very large 
 
 200 
 
 184 
 
 1-09 
 
 1-92 
 
 4-54 4-80 
 
 Compare No. 97. 
 
 97 
 
 
 Large 
 
 200 
 
 195 
 
 110 
 
 1-40 
 
 4-58 
 
 3-50 
 
 Nos. 96 and 98. 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 200 
 
 191 
 
 1-02 
 
 1-34 
 
 4-25 
 
 3-35 
 
 Nos. 97 and 99. 
 
 99 
 
 
 Small 
 
 200 
 
 187 
 
 92 
 
 1-23 
 
 3'83 3-08 
 
 No. 98. 
 
 SUMMARY of Growth. (Third Trial.) 
 The rate of germination and growth is shown by the fact that : 
 
 Out of 2,400 grains of the extra large or 325 grade 90 '0 per cent. grew. 
 5,800 ,, large or 300 ,, 90'9 
 
 5,800 ,, medium or 250 ,, 87 '0 ,, 
 
 ,, 5,800 ,, small or tailings 77 '8 ,, 
 
 by which is meant that this percentage of the grains produced plants that could be cut 
 and weighed, though the plants did not in all cases produce seed. The harvesting was 
 done as in the previous set. As before, the straw was tied up and weighed in the field, 
 where it rested on the ground. It is therefore necessary to call attention to the fact 
 that the straw may not have been in precisely the same condition of dryness in the two 
 years, and that therefore this fact should be borne in mind in any attempt to compare 
 the results of the one year with the other. I have full confidence that any difference 
 due to this cause may be safely neglected, but there is no experimental or other proof of 
 this. In both cases the weighings were made during a spell of dry weather. In both 
 
38 Seed Wheat. 
 
 cases all the weighings of straw were made and checked during the middle part of one 
 and the same day so as to eliminate any chance of error due to the hygroscopic qualities 
 of the straw. 
 
 In the weighings and in the previous care of these trials I had the highly valued aid 
 of my assistant, Mr. E. M. Grosse, as well as that of Mr. R. Hirst who, under the train- 
 ing of the farm management, had become a very useful workman. 
 
 The plots were under the general charge of Mr. George Valder, whose devoted interest 
 was of great value, not only in securing accurate supervision, but also in spreading an 
 interest in the work by calling the particular attention of many hundreds of visitors to 
 the facts ocularly demonstrated by the trials. 
 
 SUMMARY of Comparisons. (Third Trial.) 
 
 If we take as the yield of each trial the sum of the weights of the grain and of the 
 straw, we find that in general the various grades have exceeded in their productive- 
 ness the smaller grades with which they have been compared, so that if we class the trials 
 according to the larger of the grades used in the comparison, we may make the following 
 general statement : 
 
 The very large or 325 grade excelled in 66 '7 per cent, of the trials. 
 ,, large or 300 ,, in 89'7 
 
 ,, medium or 250 ,, in 93'1 ,, ,, 
 
 This statement, however, fails as in the previous trials to tell the whole story, for the 
 reason that the excess of yield in the majority cases is much greater than in the 
 minority cases. Thus, 
 
 The very large or 325 grade when excelling did so by 14 '7 per cent. ; if excelled it 
 
 was by only 8 '5 per cent. 
 The large or 300 grade when excelling did so by 30 '4 per cent. ; if excelled it was 
 
 by only 12 '3 per cent. 
 The medium or 250 grade when excelling did so by 44*5 per cent. ; if excelled it 
 
 was only by 3 '5 per cent. 
 
 In these statements the basis of the percentage calculation is the weight of the yield 
 of the lower of the two contestants. 
 
 If instead of taking the sum of the weights of the grain and straw as the criterion of 
 yield, we take the weight of the grain alone, we arrive at the following : 
 
 The very large or 325 grade excelled in 58 '3 per cent, of the trials. 
 ,, large or 300 in 93'1 ,, ,, 
 
 ,, medium or 250 ,, in 86'2 ,, ,, 
 
 As before, we find, however, that the victories of the large seed are more decisive than 
 those of the small seed, and this must be taken into account in estimating the superiority 
 of the larger grades. We find that : 
 
 The 325 grade when excelling did so by 12 '9 per cent.; when excelled it was only 
 
 by 6 '6 per cent. 
 The 300 grade when excelling did so by 26 '5 per cent. ; when excelled it was only 
 
 by 7' per cent. 
 The 250 grade when excelling did so by 40 '5 per cent.; when excelled it was only 
 
 by 3*3 per cent. 
 
 If instead of taking the sum of the weights of the grain and straw as the criterion of 
 yield, we take the weight of the straw alone, we arrive at the following : 
 The very large or 325 grade excelled in 66 '7 per cent, of the trials. 
 ,, large or 300 ,, in 89'7 
 
 ,, medium or 250 ,, in 93'1 ,, ,, 
 
 But here, again, we find that the victories of the large grades are much more decisive 
 than those of the small grades, and this must not be forgotten in estimating the superiority 
 of the large grades. Examination of the tables proves that : 
 
 325 grade when excelling did so by 19'2 per cent.; when excelled it was only by 
 
 10*8 per cent. 
 300 grade when excelling did so by 29'6 per cent.; when excelled it was only by 
 
 19*4 per cent. 
 250 grade when excelling did so by 40 '7 per cent.; when excelled it was only by 
 
 4'5 per cent. 
 
 The land on which the trials were carried out was newly cleared land that had never 
 before been cropped. It had been ploughed up some little time before sowing, but it 
 was not in first-class condition for wheat-growing. It was too green and it was too 
 patchy. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 39 
 
 A higher yield might have 
 ld have r 
 
 There was no attempt made to secure any particular yield. 
 
 been obtained by placing the drills nearer together, but this would have greatly 
 increased the labour of attending to the weeds, as a workman would be too cramped 
 among rows so near together, and would have had to work more slowly, and there would 
 have been a larger number of accidents. 
 
 FOURTH TRIAL. 
 TABLE of Yields of Grain. (Fourth Trial.-) 
 
 No. 
 
 Sown. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Length 
 of row 
 in links. 
 
 No. of 
 Plants 
 that 
 grew. 
 
 Lb. harvested. 
 
 Bushels 
 to acre. 
 
 Cwt. to 
 acre. 
 
 Remarks. 
 
 Grain. 
 
 Straw. 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 June . . Large 
 ,, . . Medium . . 
 
 400 
 400 
 
 
 4-96 
 4-16 
 
 ...i. 
 
 10-33 
 8-67 
 
 
 Compare No. 2. 
 Nosi 1 and 3. 
 
 8 
 
 .. Small 
 
 400 
 
 
 3-32 
 
 
 6-92 
 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Allora Spring, 
 
 4 
 
 June 
 
 Large 
 
 400 
 
 
 3-60 
 
 
 7-50 
 
 
 Compare No. 5. 
 
 6 
 
 . 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 400 
 
 
 3-52 
 
 .... 
 
 7-33 
 
 
 ,, Nos. 4 and 6. 
 
 6 
 
 ,. 
 
 Small 
 
 400 
 
 
 2-06 
 
 
 4-29 
 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 White Velvet. 
 
 1 
 
 June 
 
 Large 
 
 400 
 
 
 3-98 
 
 
 8-29 
 
 
 Compare No. 8. 
 
 .8 
 
 *> 
 
 Medium . . 
 
 400 
 
 
 4-45 
 
 
 9-27 
 
 
 Nos. 7 and 9. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Small 
 
 400 
 
 
 3-17 
 
 
 6-60 
 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 DISCUSSION OF THE VARIOUS TRIALS. 
 
 In these experiments the trial was always made between equal numbers of seeds. 
 This is of course a different matter from trials between equal bulks of seed, or between 
 equal weights of seed. As stated elsewhere, the reason for adopting the present method 
 was that the method usually practised in improving wheat for seed is that of grading by 
 means of sieves, and the grades thus secured are, as nearly as practice allows, simply 
 seeds of so many different sizes. It seemed, therefore, that it was the relative value as 
 seed of equal numbers of these sizes that it would be most useful to know. 
 
 In order to give data by means of which it will be possible to, in some measure, 
 reason from one system of comparison to another, I have graded some samples of wheat 
 and counted the grains in equal bulks, and also weighed equal numbers of seeds. These 
 comparisons have given the following results : 
 
 NUMBER of Grains contained in equal weights of Purple Straw Seed-wheat of various 
 
 Grades. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 2-75 
 
 2-50 
 
 2-25 ' 
 
 2-00 
 
 *Tailings. 
 
 No. of grains 
 
 348 
 
 369 
 
 402 
 
 463 
 
 579 
 
 715 
 
 1,000 
 
 NUMBER of Grains contained in equal volumes of Seed- wheat of various Grades. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 3-25 
 
 3-00 
 
 2*75 
 
 2-50 
 
 2-25 
 
 2-00 
 
 *Tailings. 
 
 Variety Name. 
 
 No. of grains 
 
 381 
 303 
 
 2*4 
 
 408 
 313 
 bll 
 
 459 
 355 
 372 
 
 550 
 441 
 463 
 
 684 
 587 
 585 
 
 793 
 736 
 731 
 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 1,000 
 
 Purple Straw. 
 Allora Spring. 
 Hudson's E. P. Str. 
 
 From these figures we may derive the following approximate statements, which are 
 easily carried in the mind : 
 
 1. The 2*50 grade that is, the medium grade contains half as many grains in a given 
 volume as the tailings. 
 
 2. The 3 '25 grade that is, the largest grade contains one-third as many grains in a 
 given volume as the tailings. 
 
 * These tailings contained no split grains, " white-heads," or dirt. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 3-00 
 
 Poor Quality of Crops from Small and Shrivelled Seed. 
 
 Bearing these facts in mind, we have now to consider a question of some importance, 
 and that is the relative value of the grain crops from large and small grains, irrespective 
 of the weights or sizes of the crops. Are the crops obtained from small seeds as good in 
 quality as those from large seeds ? It appears that this question is one that has been 
 seldom thought of, and it is one that has not been satisfactorily tested, so far as I am aware. 
 It will be seen from the tests conducted with reference to the absolute value of large 
 and small grains from the same ear of wheat that there is some ground for considering the 
 two of about equal fodder value. This is a different matter 
 from the comparison of large and small grains from different 
 plants, and it differs still more widely from the comparison 
 of large and small grains that are from 
 different plants which are different in size 
 and in the size of their grains, because of their 
 having sprung from large and small seed 
 respectively. It may not be wholly profitless, 
 however, to discuss this question even on this 
 somewhat remoteexperimental basis, especially 
 as it will be seen that the structure of the 
 grains of small size, as connected with their 
 value as fodder, is such in the comparison 
 
 Fig. 31. Quality of the grain raised 
 from large seed ; companion to Fig. 
 32. To show the superior quality of 
 the crop derived from large seed. 
 Not only is the yield from the large 
 seed greater, it is also of better quality. 
 The crop from the large seed contains 
 nearly twice as much of the largest 
 grade, and nearly 20 per cent, more 
 of the next largest grade : while, when 
 we turn to the smallest grade, we find 
 that it contains only half as much tail- 
 ings, and only two-thirds as much of 
 the next smallest grade, and fully 20 
 per cent, less of the second smallest ; 
 or. to put the case in popular language, 
 the larger the seed you sow the larger 
 the seed you will reap, to say nothing 
 of reaping more. This 
 2-25 illustration and its 
 
 companion piece on 
 the opposite page are 
 typical illustrations, 
 and are derived from 
 Hudson's Early Pur- 
 ple Straw, 1896-7. 
 These figures illus- 
 trate only the differ- 
 ence in quality, not 
 the difference in yield. 
 
 cited that it seems reasonable to suppose the same structure would enter into small grains 
 of any sort ; I refer to the thinness of the bran, and the relative proportion of flour, &c. 
 
 If this be so, then the absolute feeding value of crops of grain from large and from 
 small seed would be about equal, weight for weight. 
 
 As to the market value, however, the case stands differently, for if the crop of grain from 
 small seed is smaller in size than from large seeds, its market value will be smaller for two 
 reasons. First, the small size of the grains will lower the market value irrespective of the 
 use to which it is to be put, the buyer (really representing the miller) always preferring 
 the sample that presents the better appearance. Again, though this is admittedly but 
 another phase of the same idea, the miller gives to small grains an inferior milling value, 
 and this leads to a lower price in proportion to the number of small grains in the sample, 
 said small grains putting the miller to the expense of their removal and separate disposal. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 275 
 
 How do the crops from large and small grains compare with each other with reference 
 to the size of the grains ? Are the grains in the crop from large seed, larger or smaller 
 than in the crop from small seed ? I am able to answer that the crops from the smaller seeds 
 do not grade up so well as those from the larger seeds, but I am sorry not to be able to 
 go further than this. The men at work upon this problem were removed from the work, 
 and the full results were never obtained. This serious loss I am only able to counteract 
 by the statement that, from " general observation" and a few trials, I feel sure that the 
 crops from the smaller seeds are nearly always, if not always, from a market point of 
 
 view, inferior to those from the larger seeds. 
 Let anyone look at the illustration on page 
 148, which is entirely typical of the results 
 of these trials, and he will not be surprised to 
 hear the opinion expressed that 
 the plants in the row planted 
 with small seeds yielded not 
 only less grain, but that the 
 grain yielded was of smaller size, 
 and hence of lower market value. 
 The best I can do in this con- 
 nection is to apologise, and 
 express regret that such an 
 
 Fig. 32. Quality of the grain raised 
 from small seed ; companion to Fig. 
 31. To show the inferiority of grain 
 arising from the use of small seed, 
 proving, by comparison with figure 
 31, that, apart from the lower yield 
 arising from the use of small seed, 
 the grain itself is of decidedly 
 poorer quality. It will be seen that 
 the crop from the larger seed has 
 the larger proportion of large grain, 
 and that, conversely, the crop 
 from the smaller seed contains the 
 larger proportion of 
 small grains ; or, to 
 put the case in 
 popular language, 
 the smaller seed you 
 sow the smaller seed 
 you will reap, to say 
 nothing of reaping 
 less. These figures 
 (31 and 32) illustrate 
 only the difference 
 in quality, without 
 reference to yield. 
 
 obvious question, and one whose answer was actually in hand, should have been allowed 
 to go partially unanswered. 
 
 In spite of this I am glad to be able to say I have evidence that the grain yielded from 
 plants grown from small and shrivelled seed is almost invariably inferior from a grading 
 point of view, and that the difference is a very perceptible one one such as to lower the 
 market value of the grain. It will be seen from the adjacent figures and illustrations 
 that the evidence assembled is of an unmistakable character, in spite of the fact that I am 
 unable at the present time to give averages for several years such as alone can establish a 
 perfectly satisfactory basis for practice. (See Figs. 31 and 32.) The examples cited are 
 typical ones, but I cannot be certain how near they are to being average cases. The 
 grading and the illustrations prove that there is a pronounced difference in the quality of 
 the grain-crops from large and small seeds, the balance being in favour of the large grain. 
 The illustrations represent equal quantities of grain ; that is, there is the same bulk of 
 
42 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 grain shown in Fig. 31 as in Fig. 32. The quality of the grain shown in Fig. 31 is 
 manifestly the better. 
 
 The figures and illustrations do not tell the whole story, however, for apart from the 
 manner in which the samples grade up there is the difference in the appearance of the 
 samples. The sieves separate the grains according to size alone, taking no account of 
 plumpness. As a matter of fact, when two samples, one grown from small seed and the 
 other from large seed, are placed side by side, it is usually possible to see that the 
 sample derived from the large seed is the plumper and better sample. The difference is 
 a rather small one, but is usually distinctly perceptible, and is one that would not be 
 overlooked by an experienced buyer of wheat. 
 
 This defect in plumpness has to be added to that of size shown in the illustrations to 
 fully appreciate the inferior market quality of the grain derived from small seed. 
 
 Hence we have in a grain-crop derived from small seed not only a lower yield of grain, 
 but a decided inferiority in quality. 
 
 I 
 
 As might be expected from all this, the weight per bushel of the grain crop from small 
 seed is less than that from large seed. As derived from numerous tests made during 
 these experiments the difference is a small one, but it is very constantly in favour of the 
 crop derived from the large grain, which is found to weigh from a small fraction of a 
 pound up to a pound a bushel more than that derived from the small grain. 
 
 TABLE SHOWING SUPERIORITY OF CROPS OF GRAII* FROM PLANTS FR.OM LARGE SEED. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 White Velvet. 
 
 Allora Spring. 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 Large. 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Small. 
 
 Large. 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Small. 
 
 Large. 
 
 Medium. 
 
 Smail. 
 
 3-25 
 3-00 
 
 18-6 
 34-4 
 
 | 
 
 13-9 12-4 
 
 387 277 
 
 11-2 
 32-1 
 
 6-6 
 
 27-5 
 
 9-1 
 267 
 
 17-4 
 40-1 
 
 11 -9 
 
 387 
 
 12-3 
 
 387 
 
 275 
 
 32-2 
 
 31-6 38-1 
 
 39-3 
 
 47-5 45-0 
 
 27-8 
 
 31-0 
 
 304 
 
 2-50 
 
 127 
 
 12-6 
 
 17-0 
 
 15-2 
 
 157 17-0 
 
 11 "9 
 
 13-6 
 
 137 
 
 2-25 
 
 1-5 
 
 2-3 
 
 37 
 
 17 
 
 1-9 
 
 1-5 
 
 21 
 
 3'8 
 
 3'4 
 
 2-00 
 
 3 
 
 '6 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 Tailings. 
 
 2 
 
 '2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 In this table the three crops of grain are arranged under the variety name in three 
 columns the crop from the large seed in the first column, the crop from the medium-sized 
 seed in the second column, the crop from the small seed in the third column. Thus, under 
 the name White Velvet, we find three columns, entitled large, medium, small. In the 
 first column, opposite each grade number, will be found the percentage by weight of 
 that grade in the sample of grain yielded from the planting of large seed. Similar 
 results are found in the second and third columns for the crops from the plantings of 
 medium-sized and small seeds. Reading horizontally in the three columns, it will be 
 seen that the sample yielded from the planting of large seed contained 18*6 per cent, of 
 the 3'25 grade ; while the sample from the medium seed contained only 13'9 per cent.; 
 and the sample from the small seed only 12 '4 per cent. Similar figures are tabulated 
 for the other varieties, i.e., Allora Spring and Hudson's Early Purple Straw. 
 
 These figures, showing the greater proportion of large grains in the crops raised from 
 large seed, are indicative of a higher market value for those crops. It is not necessary 
 to grade the samples in order to detect this difference, as it can be easily seen at a glance. 
 The grading, however, enables us to measure the difference -and show that just in 
 proportion as the seed is large and plump so will be the predominance of large seed in 
 the progeny. 
 
Seed Wheat. 43 
 
 Tailings Used in the Trials Better than Ordirvary Tailings. 
 
 In making comparisons between the results recorded in these pages and the results to 
 be obtained from the practice of -sowing tailings, or in other words, sowing small and 
 shrivelled seed, it is necessary to keep in mind that the seed here experimented with was 
 in all cases whole seed, none of it was cracked or split or unhealthy. On the other 
 hand, the samples of small and shrivelled seed that have been used and lauded, or at least 
 excused in practice, usually contain a considerable proportion of split, diseased, and 
 useless material. This is due to the fact that the wide use of the stripper leaves in our 
 wheat a considerable proportion of split grains, and these accumulate in the tailings. 
 Examinations I have made lead me to the conclusion that 10 to 20 per cent, of the 
 tailings, such as are not unfrequently kept and used for seed purposes, is composed of 
 split grains that are valueless as seed. Such split grains, together with other diseased, 
 useless, and more or less foreign matter, occasionally compose 30 to 40 per cent, of the 
 >bulk of the tailings from ordinary cleaning machinery. 
 
 These observations, which are based on actual counts of measured quantities of tailings, 
 throw considerable light upon the contention frequently heard from those who advocate 
 or condone the use of poor quality seed-wheat, the contention, namely, that although 
 the seeds are smaller in these tailings there are so many more of them that their small 
 size is made up for by this increase in numbers, for it must be remembered that the 
 -apparent increase in the number of seeds in ordinary tailings, due to the smaller size of 
 the seeds, has to be diminished by the bulk of this worthless and foreign matter before 
 we arrive at the true number of seeds, and that this diminution amounts in different 
 samples to from 5 to 40 per cent. From my observations and measurements I should be 
 inclined to set the average at somewhere between 10 per cent, and 20 per cent. 
 
 This allowance has to be made before beginning to compare the results of these experi- 
 ments with the arguments advanced for using tailings as seed, for the small and shrivelled 
 ;seed in all these trials was freed from such split and foreign matter. Every seed sown 
 was a perfect seed of the size set down in the photographs of tailings (Figs. 10, 14, 21, 
 22, 31 and 32), and had the advantage in all cases of being derived from healthy plants. 
 None of the small and shrivelled seed used in these trials could have been derived from 
 plants diseased in any manner except from attacks of rust. In certain instances, seed 
 was purposely selected from plants that had suffered from rust, but such cases do not 
 compose more than a small percentage of the trials. It is almost impossible to secure 
 plants absolutely free from rust ; so that in nearly all cases the plants furnishing the 
 seed bore a very small quantity of rust, but it was a very small quantity indeed in the 
 great majority of cases. The healthiness of the tailings used in these trials comes about 
 from the fact that the seed for the experiments was derived from the plants selected out 
 of a large number as being the best for seed purposes. The selection was made by 
 examining each plant most carefully, diseased and imperfect plants being rigidly 
 excluded, except in the cases mentioned. 
 
 It will therefore be seen that it is impossible to attribute the results of the trials 
 recorded in the tables to diseased seed. If any suggestion can be entertained in this 
 connection it is that the germination and growth here recorded is higher than would be 
 the case with ordinary seed-wheat. I cannot help believing that here again the con- 
 ditions of the trials favour the small seeds as compared with ordinary practice, because 
 I have come to the conclusion that the diseased seeds that are not unfrequent in ordinary 
 seed-wheat accumulate in ever increasing number in the smaller grades, so that, for 
 instance, if an ordinary sample of wheat be cleaned and graded, its diseased seed will 
 .appear in greater percentage in the smaller grades, simply for the reason that such 
 diseased seeds are of smaller size than their healthy companions. This conclusion is one 
 that I have formed from the examination of a large number of examples of seed-wheat, 
 and I think, inasmuch as the seed of small size used in these trials was almost invariably 
 derived from most carefully selected healthy plants, that the germination and growth 
 displayed by them is in excess of what would be found in ordinary practice. 
 
 The weight per bushel of the small grains of a given sample is less than that of the 
 large grains from the same sample. 
 
 These facts furnish the basis for instructive comparisons with the relative yields given 
 in the tables of trials of large and small grains. 
 
 Irregularity of Stand from Ungraded Seed. 
 
 If the reader will turn to page 22 and examine the illustration there given of the 
 difference in size of the plants that grow from large, small, and medium-sized seed, he 
 will, I am sure, be struck by the contrasts. The plants from the small seeds are a large 
 fraction of a foot shorter than those from large seeds. This is part of their general 
 inferiority. If such plants derived from large and from small seeds were mixed together 
 
44 Seed Wheat. 
 
 in a common crop, and this is precisely what occurs in the great majority of our wheat crops, 
 it is very easy to see that the harvest operations would be more difficult and less success- 
 ful than they would be if the crop was more uniform in height ; for if the low-growing 
 heads are to be reached with the stripper, then the tall plants must be taken at a dis- 
 advantage, because so much straw has to be taken with them ; and if the stripper i& 
 worked for the high-growing heads, then some of the lowest are missed. If the reaper 
 and binder is being used, there is still a difficulty, which does not cease until after 
 the sheaves are put through the thresher. I am inclined to think that the difficulties 
 and losses resulting from irregularity in the growth of a crop are under-estimated, and 
 looked upon as unavoidable. The use of graded seed will tend to reduce irregular growth, 
 and thus help to avoid these difficulties. 
 
 All this is quite separate from the fact of inferior yield from ungraded seed, and con- 
 stitutes an additional argument for the use of graded seed. 
 
 Are Gigantic Grains Defective ? 
 
 I have sometimes heard it said that the very largest seeds are not the best to sow. 
 Whether this is part and parcel of the belief sometimes expressed in the good qualities of 
 small seeds, I cannot say. I have sometimes come across gigantic grains, whose size was 
 due to a fungus disease, and this has led me to think that there might possibly be some- 
 thing in the idea that monstrously large seed in the case of wheat, that is might be of poor 
 quality. In the present series of trials there is nothing to countenance this idea. So far 
 as I can see, the larger the seed the larger the yield, though the advantage grows 
 relatively less as we go up the scale of grades, and as the cost of securing sufficient of the 
 larger grades increases with the increase in the size of the seed, the profitableness of 
 using only the very largest seeds is thus diminished. 
 
 It should be borne in mind that the author gives room here to little opinion as to the 
 absolute value of the crops raised from large seed. He has concerned himself mainly with 
 the market value. It may be that the use of the very largest seed, and the consequent 
 striving always after size, will lead to a lower absolute quality in the product. This is 
 a matter that it would be very interesting to inquire into carefully, not only with regard 
 to wheat, but also with regard to crops of every nature, the question being, " Does the 
 constant striving after large size and fine appearance tend to bring us towards a limit 
 beyond which there is an absolute loss of product, loss of quality, loss in absolute value " ? 
 This question is certainly one that may be asked with a show of reason, and one that it 
 would be well to have answered, but is one that will give the wheat producer of the 
 present very little trouble. Be has his living to make, and the market value is his 
 touchstone, no matter how absurd the basis of that value may be. 
 
 There are, so far as I can see, no circumstances in which it is advisable in this State to sow 
 small seed-wheat on land suitable for wheat-growing if it is reasonably possible to secure 
 large, plump seed. The most that can be said is that if we knew beforehand that the season 
 was to be of a certain favourable character, the prospective loss of yield from the use of 
 pinched and small seed would not be so great as it would otherwise be. As, however, we 
 never know what the season is going to be, I fail to see how we can advise the use of small 
 and shrivelled seed, even if it entailed under such favourable circumstances a gain instead 
 of a loss, simply because we cannot predict the seasons. Are we to use small and pinched 
 seed season after season on the off chance that if a good season comes along we shall not 
 lose quite as much as usual ? That is really the absurdity into which the argument about 
 the good qualities of small seed seems to resolve itself. 
 
 I take it /or granted that a given piece of land will bear to the best advantage at one time 
 only a certain number of plants, and that it should ahvays be the object of the farmer to have 
 the land bear that number of plants, and to have the plants as thrifty and productive as 
 possible, and if these suppositions are true, I cannot see that it will be anything but a loss to 
 supply these plants by sowing small, shrivelled, and, therefore, inferior seed. 
 
 Those who defend the sowing of small seed have a stock argument in the saying that 
 there are so many more grains in every bushel of small seed that the resultant crop will 
 be just as good some even go so far as to say better. The argument that a bushel of 
 small seed contains more grains breaks down at a number of points. In the first place, 
 the argument seems to assume that the cost of the seed is a factor of the highest import- 
 ance in the question. This is not so. The cost of small and inferior seed, although it is 
 less, is not very much less. The difference is too small to be any great argument against 
 large seed. As before pointed out, there is some reason to suppose that the actual fodder - 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 value of a bushel of small grain is about as great as that of a bushel of large grain. This 
 from experimental grounds. If we turn to market values, we find chick-wheat often quoted 
 only a fraction lower than good milling wheat. 
 
 The argument for small seed, based on the extra number of seeds per bushel, is capable 
 of reversal. Suppose we say that although the bushel of large wheat contains a smaller 
 number of grains, still the grains are larger, and will produce better plants. As a bare 
 statement, that is just as strong as the one of which it is a reversal. 
 
 It may be asked in respect to the assertion that the bushel of small seed produces 
 more plants, if the object is to secure more plants, what is the objection to securing 
 this number by the use of a larger amount of good seed, thus covering the ground with 
 the necessary number of plants, which in this case \vill be of the very best character 
 instead of the starvelings due to the use of small seed ? 
 
 The grading of seed is almost wholly neglected by farmers in some of the newer of the great 
 agricultural countries, and this very fact is one that is sometimes pointed out in defence of 
 not grading the seed. I have heard it said, in substance, by a well-known teacher of 
 agriculture a man whose word is respectfully listened to by thousands of farmers that 
 there could not be much in using graded seed, or farmers would not so generally neglect 
 the matter. Add to this that one may find, in almost any farmers' meeting of any size, 
 advocates of small and pinched seed, and we have, indeed, a strange state of affairs. 
 One might pertinently ask this teacher of agriculture how, if a practice is to be its own 
 sufficient defence, any improvement is ever to take place, and inquire of the advocates 
 of pinched seed why Dame Nature does not provide all her plants with pinched and puny 
 seed, if they are so much better. 
 
 The truth is that, other things being equal, plump seed is much better than shrivelled 
 seed, and that where the results obtained from shrivelled seed are better than those 
 obtained from plump seed, the result is due to other factors than the quality of the seed. A 
 farmer some day sows some badly-pinched seed and reaps from it a good crop, and, possibly, 
 concludes that pinched seed is as good as any, either unaware or forgetting to note that 
 the conditions have been such that almost anything would have grown well. He may 
 
 3'25 3-00 2'75 2'50 2'25 2'00 Tailing's. 
 
 ;*">. ?'^!UO| n , 4 
 
 .* ) ..+* % ",* ^/ *# a te 
 
 Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40. Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Fig. 43. 
 
 Figures showing the size of the grains belonging to each grade yielded by the sieves shown in 
 Figures 23 to 28. The proper grade numbers are placed above each illustration. 
 
 even sow plump seed in the same season, and get a poorer harvest from it than from the 
 shrivelled seed, and in this case feel highly fortified in his good opinion of pinched seed. 
 The mistake he makes is in attributing his result to the one obvious difference of seed, 
 entirely forgetting a score of other things that would help to account for the difference 
 in result. Anyone who will take a sample of seed and grade it, as shown in the illustration 
 above, and sow the same in drills side by side, can easily convince himself that the produce of 
 a wheat plant depends in a marked degree upon the size of the seed from which it springs. 
 The plants from grade 200, for example, will be much inferior to those from grade 325. 
 
 It may be asked if the yield from large plump seed is always greater than from small 
 and shrivelled seed, how the contrary idea ever came to have any circulation whatever, 
 but we have to remember that any paradoxical sounding statement may be easily put 
 into circulation if it be gravely and plausibly made. Newspapers and other publications 
 furnish abundant examples of this fact ; and it is unnecessary to go into reasons for the 
 fact. 
 
 It sometimes happens that a good crop is secured from poor seed. In such cases 
 good seed would have given a still better crop, but this fact is overlooked. Sometimes 
 these good crops from poor seed are alongside crops from good seed, and the latter are not 
 
46 Seed Wheat. 
 
 so good as the former. Some people are cheerfully willing under such circumstances to 
 make comparisons, regardless of the difference in soil, cultivation, rainfall, &c., and may 
 come to the wrong conclusion that the poor seed is responsible for the superiority of the 
 better crop. 
 
 If a wheat-grower reaps a paying crop from small seed he has in the course of ordinary 
 farming no means of knowing how much better the crop would have been if the seed 
 had been larger ; and on the other hand, if he reaps only a poor crop from good large 
 plump seed, he again has no means of knowing how much poorer the crop would have 
 been if the seed had been poor and small. In the absence of this knowledge, he is not 
 unlikely to come to a wrong conclusion as to the relative values of large plump and 
 small shrivelled seed. There are two ways in which this baleful uncertainty may be 
 dissipated either through faith in the experience and advice of those who have studied 
 the matter long and carefully, or by arriving at the truth through individual experiment. 
 The second course is one that I would unhesitatingly recommend, if there exists the 
 slightest doubt under the first head. The cost of the experiment is so trifling, and the 
 result so convincing, that I venture to think that after three or four years of experiment, 
 there will no longer be room for doubt as to the truth. Let any doubter who is inclined 
 to the use of small or shrivelled seed, repeat each year a singfe experiment of the sort 
 pictured in Fig. 27, p. 148, selecting the seed by hand, according to the sizes shown in 
 Fig. 31, or anyone of the other similar figures in this report. The experiment need not 
 cost him more than a few shillings each year. One hundred to two hundred seeds of 
 each size is sufficient. At an entire cost of 30s. to 40s., spread over several years, he 
 may acquire that faith in the good qualities of large plump grains as seed that will have 
 a permanent value to him a hundredfold greater than the cost of the experiment. 
 
 On some soils naturally unsuitable to wheat the growth is too rank for the production 
 of good crops of grain. Under such circumstances, the yield of grain from the stunted 
 plants derived from shrivelled seed may be greater than that from larger and better seed ; 
 but this applies to grain alone, and not to the actual marketable yield of product. In 
 such cases, even, it must not be forgotten that very thin sowing of good seed gives as 
 good results as any plan if proper methods of culture are followed. 
 
 It may be that field trials of large and small seed sown side by side in the most careful 
 manner will give results favouring the poor seed. Such puzzling instances may be seen 
 among the tables of comparisons presented in the foregoing pages. These results only 
 serve to show how little we know of the actual conditions of our soils. Instead of the extra 
 yield from the poor seed being due to the seed, it is due to other factors in the experiment, 
 as is most conclusively proved by the repetition of the experiment year after year, 
 when it will be found that, in the vast majority of cases, the larger and plumper the seed, 
 the better the yield. 
 
 These various considerations seem to me to account for whatever vogue has been 
 secured by this tale of the good qualities of small and pinched seed. 
 
 It has been before remarked, but may be here repeated, that the trials upon which we 
 base the present discussion were carried out on lands similar in character to large areas 
 of this State where wheat is grown, and though one should be cautious in making such 
 statements, I think it safe to say that the results here set down would have been similar 
 if carried out on typical wheat land almost anywhere in the Riverina, or in those parts 
 of the west where wheat is successfully grown. I feel all the more sure of this because 
 the trials were continued through five years of widely varying character, varying from 
 that of 1894-5, one of the best ever known in the Wagga district, to that of 1897-8, one of 
 the worst ever experienced on the Wagga Farm, the drought being so bad that year that 
 some of the gum trees on the Sister Hills died from dryness an almost unprecedented 
 occurrence. Again, the trials were carried out on newly cleared land ; on land that had 
 been cleared one, two, or three years ; on* "green " land ; on fallowed land ; on land in 
 rotation. The land, too, though coming under the general descriptive terms, typical 
 Riverina wheat land, was of a somewhat varying character, being in some of the trials 
 composed of more decomposed granite than in others. 
 
 The results of the trials have left no room for doubt as to the superiority of large, plump 
 seed under all these conditions. If the small and shrivelled seed have, in a few instances, 
 yielded more than the larger seed, it has always been evident that it would be the height 
 of folly to attribute the fact to the small or shrivelled character of the seed. The superior 
 yield of the small seed in these exceptional cases was due to unknown factors in the soil, 
 and I have no doubt this would also account for most, if not all, of the alleged successes 
 of small and shrivelled seed. 
 
Seed Wheat. 47 
 
 In making a comparison between the results of these trials and the arguments of 
 the advocates of the use of tailings for seed it is necessary to keep the following various- 
 factors in mind : 
 
 1 . That the small seed used in these trials was from specially selected healthy plants, 
 
 and was, therefore, of the best quality, and free from disease. 
 
 2. That the conditions of culture under which these trials were made were probably 
 
 such as favour the small seeds more than the larger seeds. 
 
 3. That the trials were between equal numbers of seeds. 
 
 4. That every particle of the tailings here used was genuine seed there was no- 
 
 chaff, diseased or split seed, or foreign matter. 
 
 5. That the trials were made with accurately graded seed five years in succession, 
 
 under conditions representative of the bulk of our wheat areas. 
 
 Or, to put the matter from the other side, 
 
 1. Ordinary tailings contain a considerable proportion, amounting sometimes to- 
 
 50 per cent. , of chaff, split grain, diseased grain, and worthless foreign matter. 
 
 2. That the conditions of ordinary culture would probably be proportionally less- 
 
 favourable to the small seeds. 
 
 3. That, apart from the chaff, &c., in ordinary tailings, there is present considerable- 
 
 diseased grain, owing to the fact that in any given sample there is a tendency 
 during the cleaning for such diseased matter to collect among the smaller grades. 
 
 Finally, it should be borne constantly in mind that in making any comparison as 
 to yield we should take into account not only the grain, but also the straw, and remember 
 that the quality of the crops from large seed is always markedly superior, regardless of 
 amount. 
 
 A brief examination of the figures given in the tables will guard the reader against the 
 conclusion that the lower yield of the plants from small seed is due wholly to the fact 
 that the small seeds produce a smaller number of plants. 
 
 It will be found that where the number of plants from small seed is, say, 85 per cent, 
 of the number from large seed, the yield is only 70 per cent. Evidence of this sort is to- 
 be seen throughout the tables, and is a conclusive proof that plants from small seeds are 
 smaller and less productive than plants from large seeds. This fact has an important 
 bearing on the contention that in order to get good crops from small seed, it is only 
 necessary to sow more of such seed per acre. It may be admitted that if it is unfor- 
 tunately necessary to sow small seed, it is best to sow a large quantity in order to make 
 up for its inferior quality ; but it must be remembered that it is in no case possible to 
 get from small seeds as good a quality of crop, whether of grain or straw, as from 
 large plump seeds under the same circumstances. 
 
 Age of Seed Experiment. 
 
 In vol. ix, at p. 186, the writer made the following statement as to the rate at which 
 seed wheat deteriorates in quality through keeping from year to year : 
 
 " These experiments arose from the fact that I could get no satisfactory evidence 
 of the rate at which wheat deteriorates in value as seed. Opinion varies all the way from 
 belief in the vitality of seed found in Egyptian mummies to doubt as to the value of 
 seed grown year before last. As I have saved seed each year for some years, I deter- 
 mined the vitality of the samples by the row system. My seed having been kept in an 
 uniform manner, was eminently suitable material for this experiment. Of course this 
 year's work only constitutes a beginning. I may say, however, that the results of thi 
 season alone show that if seed-wheat be kept in a warm dry place, it deteriorates in 
 seed value very little in five years. This suggests the feasibility of keeping good seed 
 over from season to season, so as to have a supply on hand against a season when all the 
 wheat, being ill-grown, is inferior for seed. The cost of storing and the interest on the 
 value of the stored seed would be less than the additional value of extra good seed in a 
 season when all other seed is inferior, at least within certain limits. I may adduce as an. 
 illustration of this, that it would have been advantageous if seed at Wagga, 1894-5, had 
 been reserved for 1895-6-7. If in reply it be asked, ' Why not procure seed from another 
 district ?' My answer would be that I now have fairly satisfactory evidence that seed 
 from another district is not likely to be advantageous on a well-conducted farm, unless, 
 in addition to the seed being very well-grown, the district be also similar in soil and 
 climate, and that these facts increase the difficulty and cost of getting such seed. " 
 
48 Seed Wheat. 
 
 Conserving seed for future use. 
 
 The relative advantages of conserving seed from extra good years, and of procuring it 
 from a distance may be compared as follows. The cost of conserving includes : 
 
 1. Vermin-proof receptacle (cost, interest on outlay, deterioration, insurance). 
 
 2. Interest and insurance on the conserved seed, and deterioration, if any. 
 The cost of securing from another district includes : 
 
 1. Freight and hauling. 
 
 2. Extra on the price i.e., profit to the seller. 
 
 3. To which must be added risks difficult to enumerate or valuate. 
 
 As a vermin-proof bin to hold 250 bushels can be constructed for under 5, upon which 
 the annual charges need not exceed 5s. for deterioration, repairs, insurance, and interest, 
 and as the interest, insurance, and deterioration on 250 bushels of wheat produced on the 
 spot, and valued at 2s. per bushel, need not exceed 1 per annum, it will be seen that 
 the expenses on the storage side of the question are such as to compare favourably with 
 those on the other side. Probably, in most cases, if the object was to provide against 
 one bad season in four or five, the balance would be in favour of the system of conserving 
 one's own seed. I should, however, hesitate to recommend this conservation of seed 
 wheat to careless unobservant growers, though I think there would be money in it for 
 the wide-awake wheat growers. 
 
 Cost and utility of Graded Seed. 
 
 Apart from the advantage to be gained from the use of graded seed of uniform size, 
 there is the advantage gained from the fact that uniform seed can be sown more evenly 
 from the drill in case that method of sowing is adopted, as it undoubtedly should be. 
 
 No farmer should allow himself to forget that all the various items of cost in connection 
 with grading and selecting seed are much reduced by selecting from his crop, before it 's 
 harvested, certain good portions to be taken off specially for seed purposes. Such portions 
 should be allowed to ripen fully before cutting, and be kept separate, to be cleaned 
 and graded for seed purposes. This precaution of setting aside some of the best parts of 
 the standing crop for seed will reduce the cost of first-class seed by a large percentage, 
 and the resulting seed will be better than could be obtained by any other method what- 
 ever. Considering its value, it is marvellous how often this precaution is neglected. 
 
 Where the elevator system is in use there are facilities for the preparation of seed- 
 wheat at a minimum cost. The grading machines in use in the elevators are of large 
 size, and their capacity, and the fact that they are run by experts, places their product 
 beyond competition as to price. As to quality, however, there are some drawbacks, 
 principally in the direction of the purity of the sample, there being a great risk that seed 
 from the elevators will be mixed, and more or less diseased, from the fact that none of 
 these machines are treated for fungus diseases at least, so far as I know, and I have 
 made particular inquiries. 
 
 Apart from these considerations, for which remedies may be applied, the use of elevators 
 leads to improvement in the quality of seed- wheat, as anyone may observe in regions 
 where elevators are in use. The smaller country elevators, where they are supplied with 
 cleaning machines, do a considerable business in returning seed-wheat to farmers. The 
 cleaner most in vogue in the United States appeared to me to be that of the Silver Creek 
 Grain -clean ing Company, of Silver Creek, New York. These cleaners are, however, 
 designed especially for rapid work on a large scale, the object being to meet the 
 commercial demands of the elevator owners, and it cannot be claimed for them that they 
 turn out a sample equal to the types with a slower action especially designed for seed 
 grain. Nevertheless, in a region characterised by careless farming, the good effects of 
 elevator seed are manifest. 
 
 We have been considering this question of the relative seed-values of large and small 
 grains hitherto wholly from a narrow and strictly and directly utilitarian point of view. 
 There is another and higher point of view that should not be lost sight of, and that is the 
 effect on the wheat industry of the constant effort to secure larger crops through the use 
 of graded seed. Small plants will not produce large seeds, at any rate in the same propor- 
 tion as large plants, and from this it follows that the constant breeding from the progeny 
 of large and hence healthy plants, that follows on the practice of grading, must be in the 
 long run of great benefit. Though it may be too small to be worth the consideration 
 of the grower, this benefit accumulating by minute and imperceptible increments must 
 be the main foundation for the hope of improvement in the wheat plant. It is needless 
 to point out that all improvements in the quality of the wheat plant it hardly matter's 
 how small they are will be of vast benefit to the human race as a whole. Leaders in 
 agricultural progress should, and no doubt do, receive from this thought great stimulus, 
 and working as they do on the borderland of economic science where they are shut off from a 
 full appreciation of their efforts and where from the nature of the case they are occasionally 
 grievously misunderstood, they occasionally stand in need of some stimulus of this kind. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 III. The Grading of Seed-wheat. 
 
 As to the method that should be followed in improving an ordinary sample of wheat for 
 seed purposes, opinions may well vary, there are so many methods that may be adopted. 
 The grower may perform the operation himself, or employ a miller to do it for him ; and 
 whether he does it himself or hires it done, there is a great variety of machines adapted 
 to the purpose, all having their various applications and degrees of merit. The cost of 
 
 Fig. 33. If crank where hand-power is 
 applied; 2, hopper; 3, fan; 4, box 
 to receive coarse material removed 
 by sieve actuated by cams Lear 5 ; 5, 
 aperture through which dust and 
 chaff are blown; 6, pipe or channel 
 which leads the grain to the large 
 revolving cylinder; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
 apertures from which the graded 
 grain is delivered, 7 delivering the 
 smallest grade. The brush for keep- 
 ing the meshes of the cylinder clean 
 is not shown. It will be noticed that 
 the cylinder shows three screens ; 
 . these are of different size in the 
 niesh, and they are easily removable 
 and may be adjusted to widely dif- 
 ferent seeds. 
 
 labour, the distance from nearest flour mill, the price of wheat, and other factors enter 
 into the problem, and render it impossible to suggest a course of action suitable to all 
 cases. It may however be well to call attention to certain points that are of general 
 application. 
 
 It is a well established principle that at a certain point in the cleaning of wheat, a 
 change is desirable in the nature of the machinery employed. Up to the stage at 
 which most of the wheat leaves the farmer's hands for the market it is necessary to 
 use machines having both a blowing and a sifting action, as exemplified in the ordinary 
 winnowing machine. There comes a point soon after this stage, however, beyond which 
 
50 
 
 ' Seed Wheat. 
 
 any further use of air currents in the ordinary way is of little value ; hence the operations 
 must be largely confined to sieving. Here is where the New South Wales methods seem 
 to me to be capable of much improvement. We are, in my opinion, too slow in adopting 
 on our farms sifting machinery of the best type, and even fail to appreciate that which 
 we already have available. 
 
 Grading Machinery. 
 
 I recently had an opportunity to examine machinery of this class ^in operation, in all 
 the leading grain-growing countries of the Northern Hemisphere, as well as an extended 
 opportunity to examine the collection of competitive exhibits of this class at the Paris 
 Exposition, an exhibit that was most completely representative of all the European 
 countries, notably those of Middle Europe, where these machines have reached a high 
 degree of perfection. As the result of thoroughgoing observation and trial that must 
 
 Fig. 34. 1, hopped; 2, fan; 3, revolving 
 screen for the removal of coarse ma- 
 terial ; +, wind-shoot through which 
 dust and chaff is blown; 5, 6, spouts 
 connected with 3 : 7, 8, 9, 10, spouts 
 from which various grades of grain are 
 delivered. A revolving bristle brtish 
 is shown acting on the cylindrical 
 screen, which, as in the case of Fig. 33, 
 is in three parts, each easily replace- 
 able by a screen of any desired mesh. 
 The screens are sheets of perforated 
 metal, which lie flat when not in use 
 on the machine, and hence take up 
 very little room. 
 
 have covered between forty and fifty different makes of grading machines, the impression 
 left was a strong one that the machinery of this class in use in this State is very much 
 below the best modern type, whether we take for comparison the machinery to be found 
 on our wheat farms or that found in our flour mills, though in this latter respect the 
 comparison is much more in our favour than in the former, from the fact that many of 
 our mills are very well equipped. 
 
Seed Wheat. 51 
 
 I think our merchants would do well to make inquiry among the manufacturers of 
 grading machinery in Hungaria, France, Germany, and America, and stick less closely to 
 English models. If they will do this with an eye solely to merit and cost, I feel sure 
 that they will be able to introduce a better grade of this class of machinery than has ever 
 been sold here, and one that should command sales among farmers because of its efficiency 
 and moderate price. 
 
 Sieves and their Meshes. 
 
 A mechanical difficulty of considerable importance connected with wheat grading 
 machinery is that of keeping the meshes clear. The grains tend to pass through as small 
 a mesh as possible and this tendency causes them to bind in the meshes that are a 
 fraction too small for them, and they thus accumulate in the meshes of the machine and 
 clog its action. The best machines are provided with some mechanical means for meeting 
 this difficulty without breaking the grain, and no machine can now-a-days be considered 
 efficient without some such device. 
 
 The meshes of the screens now in use for grain sieves are made of woven wire, of metal 
 rods, or of perforated sheet metal. 
 
 The wheat mesh that finds most favour is an elongated mesh made from sheet metal 
 by means of perforating machines. The sieves made in this manner are very accurate 
 and uniform, durable, and not likely to get out of order. They are easy to repair, and 
 have a high degree of efficiency, and are withal as low in price as any other equally good 
 form. 
 
 Woven wire meshes have the disadvantage that they are difficult to manufacture in a 
 form sufficiently accurate for the work of grading, and if so made are liable to get out of 
 order unless used with great care. As soon as the wire composing the meshes gets bent 
 of broken, accurate work becomes impossible. 
 
 Sieves having meshes made by placing at stated distances metal rods or plates may be 
 made very accurate in the mesh if the rods or plates are supplied with bearings at short 
 distances so as to prevent the possibility of bending. Their disadvantages are the thick- 
 ness of the mesh, if one may so speak of it that is to say, the distance the grain has to go 
 in passing through the mesh. If this distance is a sixteenth of an inch or more, there is 
 greater liability that the meshes will clog in use. A second disadvantage is the amount 
 of metal required by the method of construction, which leads to increased cost and makes 
 the machine heavy to handle and harder to run. 
 
 The sieves made of thin perforated metal have the most accurate meshes and the 
 thinnest meshes, and do the most accurate work. Since the perfecting of the modern 
 perforating machines, and the adoption of perforated metal plates for a multitude of 
 different purposes, the cost of this class of sieve has been reduced until it now ranks as one 
 of the lowest in price. These perforation sieves are not liable to get out of order. This 
 combination of accuracy, low price, and durability is a powerful one and has led in recent 
 years to a very wide use of this class of sieve. The meshes are thin and as little likely 
 to clog as any that can be constructed. These sieves have the disadvantage of a slightly 
 slower action on account of the fact that the area occupied by the meshes is propor- 
 tionally smaller than in screens made either of woven wire or metal rods. 
 
 Taking it all round, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at the present time the 
 perforated metal sieve is the most satisfactory and accurate form for use on the farm. 
 
 There is another class of grader in wide use in flour mills that has sometimes been 
 offered to the farming community as a farm implement, and may, therefore, deserve a 
 little notice. It consists of a hollow cylinder, the inner surface of which is studded with 
 pits of such a character as to receive only grain of a certain size. A further sorting 
 mechanism separates these grains from the others, and thus the grading is accomplished. 
 These machines are highly specialised and expensive. They are almost indispensable for 
 certain work necessary in milling and malting, but have not, for the reasons stated, come 
 much into use as a farmer's machine. 
 
 The grading accomplished by these machines is very perfect, and it is often by the,- 
 and other very special machines that the grading will be done for the farmer if he takes 
 his grain to a miller to be graded. These remarks are inserted here lest any novice in 
 the subject should infer that grain can be graded only with the aid of the class of 
 machine specially described in these pages. 
 
 Grading Machines of Various Types. 
 
 In order to illustrate the principles laid down in the foregoing paragraphs, the adjacent 
 illustrations of a grading machine made in Kalk, near Cologne, may be consulted. (Figs. 
 33 and 34.) It is of a type manufactured in several countries, and is selected because it is 
 one of the best of its kind. It is a hand or power machine, of a size suitable for farmers, 
 and may be had with or without the blower attachment. It is constructed entirely in 
 metal, and is compact and solid. The weight is from 300 K>. to 600 lb., according to size. 
 
52 
 
 Seed Wheat. 
 
 The capacity is from 5 to 20 bushels per hour, according to size and manner of use ; 
 the machine, shown in Fig. 34, is 6 feet long, 6 feet high, and 3 feet wide, has a capacity of 
 20 bushels per hour, and is advertised at about 25. The smallest size has a capacity 
 of 2 to 5 bushels per hour, and costs 12. The smaller sizes are not always supplied 
 with the revolving brushes for keeping the meshes clear of grains caught and held by 
 friction. As before remarked, some such device as this for keeping the meshes clear is 
 a great addition to this class of machine. 
 
 These hand machines are capable of cleaning or grading in a very effective manner from 
 3 to 6 bushels per hour, employing one man. This means, in this country, a cost of 2d. 
 to 4d. per bushel for labour. At the rate of 1 bushel of seed-wheat per acre, this means 
 the expenditure of from 2d. to 4d. per acre. This is a small expenditure in comparison 
 with the increased yield that may be expected from the improved quality of the seed. 
 In order for the return to repay the labour, it would only be necessary for the yield to 
 be increased by one-twelfth to one-sixth of a bushel per acre of wheat, when the price 
 of wheat was 2s. per bushel All increase of yield above this additional fraction of a 
 peck per acre would be surplus on the labour expended. 
 
 Pig. 35. An Australian form of seed- wheat screen, or grader, suitable for use by farmers. The 
 screen is a cylinder of perforated sheet metal, actuated by the crank, E. A brush, A A, is 
 held against the screen by the springs, B B. The feed from the hopper, D, is regulated by 
 the handle, C. The seed-wheat is caught at the further end of the screen, while the tailings 
 fall on to the floor beneath. The capacity of the machine ranges up to 50 bushels per 
 hour, but of course the qualify of the work is not so good at 50 bushels per hour as at 20 
 bushels per hour ; the slower the grading is done, the better it is done. The brush, A A, 
 is an important factor in machines of this class. When, as in this case, only one size of 
 mesh is supplied with the machine, a variety of grading can still be done by working the 
 samples through several times. In this manner three quite distinct grades may be prepared 
 with this machine, at the expense, however, of extra labour. For Australian wheat the 
 mesh should not be less than 2'75 millimetres. 
 
 The prices of these machines of moderate capacity vary from 10 or less to 20, and 
 they are so solidly constructed that, with good usage, they will easily last ten to twenty 
 years on an ordinary farm. If we allow 1 or 2 per annum for interest and wear, 
 according to the size of the machine, we have a cost of Id. to 2d. per acre on a farm of 
 200 acres. This sum must be added to the actual cost of the labour of grading the grain 
 in order to arrive at the total cost of grading. 
 
Seed Wheat. 
 
 53 
 
 It is a common experience of the farmers who take the lead in this direction, that such 
 machines can be made to pay their way in fees from other farmers who require to have 
 their seed graded, but have not the facilities for doing the work themselves. The 
 machines can often be hired out at a remunerative rate. 
 
 Fig. 36. An English grader in which the meshes are made of wire in such a way as to 
 be adjustable in width, without removal. The machine gives four grades of grain 
 and does very good work. At the back near the top is the brush for keeping the 
 meshes clear. This machine may be had with or without a fan. 
 
 The price at which wheat can be graded for seed by a miller varies according to the 
 sample to be cleaned, the machinery at hand, and the skill with which it is used. Some 
 foreign seeds are more difficult to remove than others ; some samples clean nlore slowly 
 than others, owing to the relatively larger proportion of small grain, &c., &c. While 
 some samples can be cleaned for a penny a bushel so as to be fair seed, others will cost 
 two to three times that amount, or even more. To this the miller's profit has to be 
 added. Three pence per bushel would be an average price, 2d. would be low, and few 
 samples would require 4d. These latter prices are the prices to the farmer, and include 
 all costs, even rebagging. The prices assume that the miller has the facilities for the 
 business and the inclination to go into it. If the miller considers grading for seed to be 
 too much of an interference with the regular work of the mill, his price may be higher 
 than those given above. The relative cost of cleaning a small quantity will always be 
 greater than for a large quantity. Millers should always be required to exercise care 
 sufficient to prevent mixing of seed. This is a matter that needs special attention. As 
 a rule the modern machinery designed to handle large quantities of wheat is responsible 
 for a large proportion of the mixing of varieties that is now-a-days so prevalent. The 
 cleaning machinery in use by millers is no exception to the rule, but rather a striking 
 example of it. 
 
 The farmer who raises his own seed has it in his power to reduce the cost of his seed- 
 wheat very materially by selecting and harvesting separately the best portions of his 
 crop for seed purposes. 
 
 Though we have paused here and there in these pages to examine the flimsy tissue of 
 words that has done service as an argument or excuse for the use of small and shrivelled 
 seed -wheat, it must not be forgotten that the main object, as stated at the outset, is to 
 arrive by experiment at average figures that may be made the basis of definite rules for 
 practice. With this object in view we endeavoured to tabulate and picture the best, 
 worst, and average seed-wheat practice of the State. This furnished a clue as to the 
 answer our best growers would give to the question, " How far is it best to go in 
 improving an ordinary sample of wheat before using it for seed ?" The nature of that 
 answer has been clearly indicated, and it is such that if it is to be taken as a guide we 
 must set out to improve our seed by much more care in sieving ; but in doing this we 
 naturally wish to know how far we may go before we pass the limits that will bring in a 
 profit, and at what point the profit reaches a maximum. May we spend up to Is. per 
 bushel with no fear of incurring a loss, or may we go as far as 2s. per bushel with safety, 
 or as far as 5s. ? How far may we go with safety ? That is a leading question, but there 
 is another that to the ordinary grower is more fundamental, namely, " At what point 
 does the profit reach a maximum ? " For it is evident that as we approach closely to the 
 limit of what we can afford to spend in sieving, the prospective profit begins to decrease, 
 and at the limit ceases altogether. 
 
54 Seed Wheat. 
 
 How much can the Grower afford to spend in Grading Seed-wheat ? 
 
 As before remarked, we have recorded on an earlier page the answer given by our best 
 wheat-growers to the question, " To what extent is it profitable to clean wheat for seed 
 purposes?" Their answer, as represented in their practice, might, I think, reasonably 
 have been expected to be a conservative and very cautious one one that erred if at all 
 on the side of small expenditure. Let us now seek an answer to this critical question 
 among the tables of growth from large, medium, and small seed. Such a long series of 
 carefully made trials may be trusted to throw considerable light upon this radical problem. 
 
 From the evidence given in the first section of this report it is evident that we must 
 take one of the medium grades as representing the average quality of our seed- wheat. 
 In Fig 20, showing the quality of our average seed wheat, it is the 2 '50 grade that pre- 
 dominates, though the actual average lies between 2*50 and 2 '75. Now this grade is 
 about the same as that denominated " medium " in the various tests as to the relative 
 value as seed of large, medium, and small grains. It follows that what we have to con- 
 sider is the advantage, if any, of bringing our seed up to the average represented by the 
 large seed used in the trials, namely, the 3 '00 grade. 
 
 To the question, "Is it possible to bring our seed up to this grade ?" we must answer 
 at once, "Yes, easily." A perfectly grown sample of wheat of our commonest variety, 
 grown on ordinary soil, without manure, but with good culture, actually averages better 
 than 3'00. This is shown in our illustration, Fig. 14. A considerable number of 
 the samples of seed-wheat obtained from farmers and reported in our table of the fifty 
 best samples average better than 3 '00. With the grading machines described in this 
 report farmers can secure such seed from good average samples of wheat at a cost seldom, 
 if ever, exceeding 6d. per bushel for the labour of sieving. Millers stand ready to grade 
 wheat at a lower price still if they can have it in quantity sufficient to justify the use of 
 their machinery for that purpose. This fact established, we wish to know what addi- 
 tional yield may be expected in return for this extra expenditure of a few pence pet- 
 bushel on the seed. It is evident that what we have to ask from our tables is, what 
 extra yield may be expected over that given by medium-sized seed, or 2'50 grade, if 
 instead of that grade we sow 3 '00 grade. 
 
 In the third set of trials the 3 '00 grade excelled the 2 '50 in about 90 per cent, of the 
 cases, the extra yield of grain being 30 per cent. 
 
 In the second set of trials the 3'00 grade excelled in 69 percent, of the trials, and the 
 extra yield of grain was about 14 per cent. In this set of trials, however, the 3'00 was 
 almost invariably compared with 2'75 instead of 2'50. This would no doubt account for 
 the fact that the excess figures are lower than in the case of the third trial. 
 
 In the fourth trial, in two cases out of three, the 3'00 grade excelled the 2 '50 grade in 
 yield of grain by about 11 per cent. 
 
 In the first or preliminary trial the 3'00 grade excelled the lower grades in four cases 
 out of five, the extra yield of grain being about 18 per cent. In this case the seed with 
 which the 3'00 was compared was not in all instances smaller ; in a number of the cases 
 the seed with which it was compared was of about the same size but was shrivelled. It will 
 be remembered that this first trial was made before the introduction of accurate grading. 
 
 To this excess of yield on the part of large seed we have to add the fact that there is 
 also an extra yield of straw, and that the quality of the grain from the large seed is 
 considerably better from a market point of view. Furthermore, so far as I am able to 
 see, the nature of the trials was such as to probably favour the smaller grade, as 
 explained elsewhere. 
 
 Leaving these latter points out of account, we have an average excess of grain, from the 
 3'00 grade, equal to about 20 per cent., taking the yield of the lower contestant, or 2 '50 
 grade, as the basis of calculation. These figures represent the average of a succession of 
 seasons, including a very good season, a very bad season, and an average season. 
 
 Notwithstanding the very definite results from this series of trials, I think it would 
 be best, in basing practice upon them, to allow a good factor of safety, and we maj r 
 easily allow this factor of safety to be 50 per cent, without bringing into question the 
 strong advisability of using plump, graded seed of large size. This lands us at the 
 conclusion that we may count with certainty on an extra crop value of 10 per cent, from 
 the use of large, plump, graded seed. If a farmer has an average yield of 10 bushels 
 per acre from the use of the average quality of seed now in use in this State, he may 
 increase his yield from 1 1 to 12 bushels by the use of seed of the grade shown so frequently 
 in this report under the figures 3 '00, a grade of seed that is within his reach at an 
 expenditure of seldom more than 6d. per bushel for the labour of sieving, and with good 
 practice, including the setting aside of the best portions of his crop for seed, often an 
 expenditure of not more than 3d. per bushel for such labour. To this expense has to be 
 added the interest, insurance, and depreciation connected with the grading machinery. 
 This expense is discussed elsewhere. 
 
Seed Wheat. 55 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 1. Under field conditions, small and shrivelled wheat-grains do not 
 appear to germinate so abundantly or so strongly as large and plump 
 grains. This defect of small and shrivelled grains appears to be 
 inherent in the grains themselves, and is independent of the season. 
 
 2. Under field conditions the plant-producing power of small and 
 shrivelled grains is much below that of large and plump grains. This 
 property is displayed independently of the season. 
 
 3. No matter what the nature of the season, the yield from large 
 and plump seed is always greater than that from equal numbers of 
 smaller and shrivelled seed, if the two crops be grown under similar 
 conditions. This applies to the yield of both grain and straw. 
 
 4. Apart from the weight of the crop yielded, which is always in 
 favour of the large seeds, the quality of the yield is decidedly better 
 in the case of the plants grown from large and plump seeds, that is to 
 say, the grain yielded from large seed is larger and plumper, and the 
 weight per bushel is greater, and this difference is such as to decidedly 
 affect the market value. 
 
 5. The superior yield from large and plump grain is sufficiently pro- 
 nounced to justify the cost of first-class cleaning of ordinary wheat for 
 seed purposes, and the amount so expended may, without loss to the 
 grower, go in all ordinary cases as high as 10 per cent, of the value of 
 his yield per acre. Allowing his average yield per acre to be ten 
 bushels, and the average value of his wheat to be 2s. 6d. per bushel, and 
 his average quantity of seed per acre to be one bushel, the grower may 
 safely spend 2s. 6d. per bushel in grading his wheat for seed. It 
 seems probable that the maximum of profit will result from that 
 amount of grading that can be done with good machinery for about 
 6d. per bushel. While the yield per acre will be increased by all the 
 additional grading and cleaning up to a cost of 2s. 6d. per bushel, the 
 profit will not be in proportion, and may cease altogether at the grade 
 of seed produced by the expenditure of 2s. 6d. per bushel. 
 
 This conclusion is drawn up on the basis of the yield of grain alone, 
 for the reason that the basis of previous discussions on the subject 
 have been the yield of grain. If the value of the straw be added to 
 that of the grain then the amount of money that can profitably be 
 spent in grading seed-wheat is somewhat increased. Grading for hay 
 is just as profitable as for grain. 
 
 6. Allowing the liberal sum of 20 as the price of a seed grader 
 suitable for farm use, and allowing the life of the machine to be 
 twenty years, and allowing 10 per cent, for insurance, interest, and 
 repairs, the regular cultivation of 50 acres of wheat will justify the 
 purchase of such a grader. 
 
 7. If the grower does not care to encumber himself with grading 
 machinery, the money that would be thus invested may be profitably 
 spent in having his seed wheat prepared by any miller who has 
 suitable machinery, the cost of such cleaning or preparation usually 
 costing not more than 6d. per bushel at the mill, and very often 
 much less. 
 
56 Seed Wheat. 
 
 8. Considering the healthy and exceptionally good condition of the 
 tailings and smaller grades of seed used in these trials it seems impos- 
 sible to avoid the conclusion that the inferiority here shown to exist in 
 them is not so great as that actually existing in ordinary tailings, the 
 use of which as seed has been advocated. 
 
 9. The foregoing conclusions apply to such land as that used for 
 wheat in the Riverina district, and other important wheat areas of a 
 similar character in various parts of Australia. 
 
 10. Thft advantages of large, plump, graded seed are that 
 
 It is likely to be healthier seed, and therefore more likely to pro- 
 duce healthy plants. 
 
 It can be sown more evenly because of its uniform size. 
 
 There is a larger percentage of growth, and fewer failures. 
 
 The plants from such seeds are larger and thriftier and more 
 resistant to disease, drought, and starvation. 
 
 The crops from such seed have a more even growth, and are more 
 economical to harvest and thresh. 
 
 The yield per plant, both of grain and straw, is greater from such seed. 
 
 The crop of grain grown from such seed has a higher market 
 value because^ (a) It contains more large grains and fewer 
 small grains, (b) It is plumper and better looking, (c) It 
 weighs more per bushel. 
 
 The continuous use of such seed tends towards a general improve- 
 ment in the quality of wheat. 
 
 The above list of conclusions are not the only deductions that may 
 be made from the experiment tables. For example, the column of 
 observations headed " Number of Plants that Grew " has been left as 
 a bare statement of facts. It is obvious that a lengthy series of 
 calculations can be made with the object of showing the relation of 
 this column to the yield columns. From the general percentages of 
 growth it would be possible to derive a factor which, when applied to 
 the " Plants that Grew " column, would enable us to formulate a 
 correction for the yield column that would tend to eliminate the 
 accident element that exists in the yield column. As, however, through 
 the very cordial co-operation of all the officers concerned, the experi- 
 ments were under the most careful protection, and, furthermore, were 
 blessed with good fortune in the field, there was very little accident 
 of an obvious nature. The " soil mysteries " also were so' evenly 
 distributed as to give very little uneasiness. For these reasons it has 
 not seemed to me worth while at present to make these corrections, it 
 being rather an unnecessary refinement in this case. 
 
 It will be noted that as one goes up the scale of grades the increase 
 in yield is a diminishing function. This fact might be presented in 
 the form of a curve a sort of " curve of profit " from grading but 
 I have not made the necessary calculations. 
 
 There is room, too, for deductions as to the effect of different seasons 
 on the behaviour of various grades of seed, and for a number of other 
 deductions, but for the present these are left to the ingenuity of the 
 .studious reader. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Absolute value of wheat . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 
 Addresses of fifty farmers submitting best samples 18 
 Advantage of large seed relatively less as we ascend 
 
 the scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 
 Advocates ot use of shrivelled seed . . . . . . 2, 44 
 
 Aim in improving seed wheat . . . . - . . . 11 
 
 Algerian 27, 35 
 
 Allora Spring 27, 35, 3fl 
 
 Agricultural Schools, demonstration plots at . . 2 
 
 Analysis, biological, of large and small grains . . 19, 20 
 
 Australian grading machine . . . . . . . . 52 
 
 Australian Talavera 27, 35 
 
 Average N.S.W. seed wheat graded and piled . . 11 
 
 of the fifty best samples . . . . . . . . 15 
 
 of fifty best samples compared with Perfection 15 
 
 practice of farmers of N.S.W . . 18 
 
 quality of first-class sample . . . . . . 10 
 
 sample of New South Wales seed wheat, illus- 
 
 tration of 11, 15 
 
 sample of seed . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 Bearded Quartzlee 27,35 
 
 Beardless Quartzlee 35 
 
 Bective seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
 
 Berthoud (see Zealand). 
 
 Best farmers' answer as to grading . . . . . 16 
 
 Best farmers' practice, illustrated . . . . . . 14 
 
 Best growers, practice of .. .. .. .. 13 
 
 Best samples collected 13 
 
 Bins, vermin-proof . . . . . . . . . . 48 
 
 Biological analysis of large and small grains . . 19, 20 
 
 Blount's Lambrigg . . . . . . . . . . 28, 35 
 
 Bran . . . . 19 
 
 thinner on small grains . . . . . . . . 20 
 
 larger area of on small grains . . . . . . 20 
 
 Breeding for prolificness . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 
 Budd's Early 35 
 
 Bunt 6 
 
 Canning Downs . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 36 
 
 Canowindra seed . . . . . . . . . . . 8 
 
 Chick wheat, price of 21, 45 
 
 Classification of samples of seed . . . . . . 12 
 
 Cleaning of seed wheat, amount advisable . . . . 53, 54 
 
 Cleaning, point at which to stop . . . . . . 13, 16 
 
 Cleaned samples collected 14 
 
 Climate, precarious, seed wheat practice in . . . . 17 
 
 small seed in . . . . 17 
 
 special reason for use of large plump seed . 17 
 
 Collection of seed wheat samples . . . . . 4 
 
 Comparisons <<t yield, how made . . . . . 27 
 
 Comparisons, summary of, second trial . . 31 
 
 , ,, ,, third ,, . 38 
 
 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
 
 Condition of our seed 18 
 
 Conserving seed for future use . . . . . . 48 
 
 "'oolamon seed . . . . . . 7 
 
 otamundra seed . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 o-jst of experiments . . . . . . . . . 46 
 
 Cowra seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g 
 
 Crop experiments, lack of caution in . . . . 23 
 
 Crops, better from plump seed in bad seasons . . 11 
 
 good from small seed . . . . . . . . 45, 46 
 
 poor from plump large seed . . . . . . 45, 46 
 
 Crop yields, ordinary, as compared with those of 
 
 experiment . . . . . . . . . 26 
 
 E 
 
 Defects possible through excessive size 
 Defiance wheat 
 
 illustration 
 
 Demonstration plots at Agricultural Schools 
 
 Deterioration of seed through age 
 
 Discussion of the various trials 
 
 Diseased grains in tailings 
 
 Difficulty, lack of, in improving our seed wheat 
 
 Drainage, uneven 
 
 Dubbo, seed wheat from 
 
 Early Baart 
 
 Para 
 
 Ear of wheat, arrangement of grains in 
 Education through demonstration plots 
 Elevators and seed wheat 
 Experiment yields and those of farmers 
 Expert opinion as to the favourite varieties . . 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 44 
 19 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 4? 
 
 . . 28, 36 
 
 . . 28, 36 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 48 
 26 
 
 Factor of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 
 
 Farmer's Friend . . . 10, 11, 12, 36 
 
 Failures, effect on adjacent plants . . . . . . 33 
 
 Farmers, proportion that use uncleaned seed . . 13 
 
 samples, some of them graded . . . . . . 13 
 
 Farmer to be his own experimenter . . . . . 46 
 
 Favourable seasons and small seed . . . . . . 45 
 
 Farmer's yields and those of experiments . . . . 26 
 
 Favourite varieties, expert opinion on . . . . 6 
 
 Fifty best samples. . . . 13, 16, 18 
 
 illustrated 14, 15, 16 
 
 average of . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
 
 Finley, seed wheat from . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 
 First trial, large v. small grains . . . . . . 23 
 
 Flour cells 19 
 
 Fodder value of large seed . . . . . . . . 19 
 
 small seed . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 
 Fourth trial , large . small grains . . . . . . 39 
 
 Fractional rows . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 
 
 Germination . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
 
 comparative of large, small, and medium grains 31 
 
 inferior of small seed 26 
 
 notes on , . . . . . . . . . . . 30 
 
 of rust shrivelled seed 30 
 
 uncertainty of notes on . . . . . . . . 30 
 
 Gigantic grains" 44 
 
 Gluten . ..19,20 
 
 Golden Drop 28, 36 
 
 Good opinion of small seed, origin of . . . . . . 45 
 
 Graded sample, how to tell . . . . . . . . 14 
 
 seed reduces irregularity of stand . . . . 43, 44 
 Grader, Australian make . . . . . . . . . . 52 
 
 English make 53 
 
 German make 49, 50 
 
 Grades, illustration of 
 
 of grain, difficulty of illustrating. . . . . . 4 
 
 Grading machines, English . . . . . . . . 53 
 
 capacity of 52 
 
 cost of 52, 55 
 
 durability of . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 55 
 
 expense of maintaining . . . . . . . . 55 
 
 of foreign make . . . . . . . . . . 51 
 
 Grading, amount advisable .. .. .. .. 16 
 
 cost of 52 
 
 done by millers . . . . . . . . . . 53 
 
 maximum profits . . . . . . . . . . 53, 55 
 
58 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Grading, method of 4 
 
 neglected by farmers . . . . . . . 45 
 
 of a first-class sample . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 poidt at which it becomes a losing operation . . 16 
 
 profit from 52 
 
 seed wheat, how far is it best to go . . . . 53 
 
 too much . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Grain and straw, summary of, second trial . . - 12 
 
 ,, third .. 38 
 
 from small seed more shrivelled . . . . . . 42 
 
 Grains, as arranged in the ear of wheat . . . 5, 19 
 
 flat 25 
 
 round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 
 
 large and small, how arranged in the ear . . 5 
 
 numbers of, in equal volumes of wheat. . . . 39 
 
 numbers of, in equal weights of wheat . . . . 39 
 
 unequal diameters of . . . . . . . . 24 
 
 size of, in first-class sample . . . . . . 32 
 
 small, how arranged in. ear . . . . . . 5 
 
 Grain, yield of second trial . . . . . . . 27 
 
 " third 35 
 
 Gross's Prolific 28 
 
 Growth, a function of the size of the seed . . . . 32, 33 
 
 summary of, second trial . . . . . . . . 29 
 
 third 37 
 
 third trial, of straw, weighing of .. .. .. 38 
 
 Gundagai seed 8, 9 
 
 Handwork on experiments . 
 Harvesting the trial rows . 
 
 Hudson's Early Purple Straw 
 
 . . 26 
 
 . . 30 
 
 28, 36, 39, 31 
 
 Illustrations- 
 Analysis of large and small grains 
 Australian grading machine 
 Average sample of N.S.W. seed . . 
 Best farmers, seed wheat of 
 Comparison, method of 
 Defiance grains as analysed 
 Defiance wheat 
 Ear of Defiance wheat 
 English grading machine 
 Experiment plot 
 Failures 
 
 Farmer's Friend, perfect sample . . 
 Farmers' grading machine 
 Fractional rows 
 German grading machine 
 Grades 
 
 Grading machine 
 Gram from large seed, quality of 
 Grains as arranged in the ear of wheat 
 Grains of different grades 
 Growth of large, medium, and small seed 
 Growth, relative, of plants from large, medium, 
 
 and small seeds 
 Harvesting, method of 
 Large and small Defiance grains 
 Large and small grains of Purple Straw wheat . . 
 Large grains as arranged in the ear 
 Large seed, quality of grain from 
 Medium sample of seed wheat 
 Method of comparison 
 
 harvesting 
 
 planting .... 
 
 testing seed 
 
 New South Wales medium and poor seed 
 
 seed wheat, average sample . . 
 
 seed wheat, perfect sample 
 
 Perfect sample of seed wheat 
 
 Planting, method of . . 
 
 Plants from large, medium, and small seeds . . 
 
 Plump and shrivelled grain 
 
 Plot of experiments 
 
 Poor sample of seed wheat 
 
 Purple Straw grains, as analysed . . 
 
 medium and poor samples of 
 
 perfect sample 
 
 Quality of grain, from large seed. . 
 
 from small seed 
 
 Rows of wheat 
 
 Row system 
 
 Seed of the majority of N.S.W. farmers 
 
 . . 20, 21 
 52 
 
 . . 11, 15 
 . . 14, 16 
 24 
 20 
 5 
 5 
 
 53 
 22, 30, 34 
 
 30 
 
 . . 11, 12 
 49, 50, 52, 53 
 .. ' 24 
 . . 49, 50 
 . . 4, 45 
 49, 50, 52, 53 
 .. 40,41 
 5 
 4 
 22, 30 
 
 22 
 30 
 20 
 21 
 5 
 
 40, 41 
 13 
 24 
 30 
 24 
 22 
 13 
 
 . 11, 15 
 . 11. 12 
 . 11, 12 
 24 
 22 
 1 
 
 22, 30, 34 
 13 
 21 
 13 
 
 . 11, 12 
 40 
 41 
 24 
 
 22, 30, 34 
 17 
 
 PAGE. 
 Illustrations 
 
 Seed wheat, medium N S.W. sample .. .. 13 
 
 of the best N.S.W. farmers 14, 16 
 
 Seed wheat, very pour sample . . . . . 13 
 
 poor sample . . . . 13 
 
 Shrivelled trains 1 
 
 Sieves . . " 2, 3, 51 
 
 Small grains as arranged in ear . . . . . . 5 
 
 Straw from large, medium, and small seeds . . 30, 34 
 
 Very poor sample of seed wheat . . . . . . 13 
 
 White Lammas, medium and poor samples of . . 13 
 
 Insects and apparent germination . . . . . . 31 
 
 Irregular stand from ungraded seed . . . . . . 43, 44 
 
 Jeir seed 
 Junee beed 
 
 King's Jubilee 28, 36 
 
 Land, first trial 24 
 
 second trial 26 
 
 third trial 35, 38 
 
 Large and small grains from same spikelets com- 
 parison of in fodder value 19, 20 
 
 illustrated 20,21 
 
 Large grains, fodder value of . 19, 20, 21 
 
 more productive 
 
 fewer per bushel but better 45 
 
 give taller plants . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 
 superiority of crops from . . 
 
 superior quality of . . . . . . . . . 27 
 
 use of, tends to improvements . . . . . 48 
 
 yield large grains . . ..... 40 
 
 Large, medium, and small seeds in grades . . . 35 
 
 plump grain, superiority of . . . . . 47 
 
 seed 17 
 
 seeds, compared with medium . . . . 54 
 
 Loss from poor seed , 
 
 Lower grades, inferior quality of, as seed 
 
 Low profit seed . . . . . . . . . . . - 18 
 
 Manilla seed 9 
 
 Market value, of crops from large seed . . . . 40 
 
 the grower's touchstone . . . . . . 44 
 
 and absolute value . . . . . . . . . - 44 
 
 Marshall's No. 3 28, 36 
 
 White Straw 36 
 
 Marshall's No. 8 . . . . . . . 28, 29, 36 
 
 Maximum profit ...... 17 
 
 Medium quality seed wheat illustrated 
 
 sample . . . . . . . . - 12 
 
 Meshes 51 
 
 to be kept clear . . . . . . . 51 
 
 Metal, perforated, for sieves . . : . . 51 
 
 Miller's machinery for grading . . . . . . . . 53 
 
 Miller's price for grading- Price of grading . . 53 
 
 Milling value of grain 40 
 
 Misses, effect on adjacent plants 33 
 
 Mixture of varieties . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Money, how much should be spent in grading . 54, 55 
 Moonbi seed 
 
 Murrumburra seed 
 
 Mysteries of soil and growth 45, 46 
 
 Nameless samples, poor quality of 10 
 
 Names, incorrect 
 
 lack of, for some samples 
 
 wrong . . . . . . - - . . - 6 
 
 New South Wales seed-wheat table 
 
 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . 6 
 
 Orange seed . . 
 
 Perfection, of seed, graded 
 
 of wheat growth 
 
 Perfect sample of Purple Straw seed 
 
 standard of seed-wheat 
 
 Percentage figures, explanation of 
 
 .. 11,12 
 12 
 
 10, 11, 12 
 .. 11 
 4 
 
INDEX. 
 
 59 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Perforated metal for sieves . . . . . . . . 51 
 
 Pinched seed, not justifiable to use . . . . . . 44 
 
 Plants, from large plump seed, vigour of . . . . 3, 56 
 
 from small seed shorter . . . . . . . . 44 
 
 in rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 30 
 
 Plump and shrivelled wheat, illustration of . . . . 1 
 
 Plump grains versus rust-shrivelled . . . . . . 23, 24 
 
 Poor sample 12, 13 
 
 Pot experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 Plump large seed, superiority of . . . . 47, 55, 56 
 
 Poor quality seed-wheat, illustration . . . . . . 13 
 
 Practice of the best growers . . 14, 16 
 
 Practice of the great majority of our farmers, illus- 
 trated 14, 17 
 
 Preferred varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
 
 Present practice compared with possibilities . . 11, 18 
 
 Profit, maximum to be had from grading . . . . 55 
 
 Prolific-ness, breeding for 19 
 
 Purple Straw, cleaned and graded sample . . . . 14 
 
 first-class sample . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 leading position of . . . . . . . . . . 5 
 
 perfect sample . . . . . . . . . . 1 i , 12 
 
 quality of 9, 10 
 
 Purple Straw seed, medium . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 poor 13 
 
 medium and poor qualities, illustrated . . . . 13 
 
 very poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Purple Straw wheat, biological analysis of .. .. 20 
 
 Quality of a first-class sample .. .. .. .. 10 
 
 of grain from small and large seed . . . . 40 
 
 of most of our seed 17, 18 
 
 Rainfall, not uniform . . . . . . . . . . 23 
 
 Rattling Jack 22, 23, 36 
 
 Reaper and binder at a disadvantage . . . . . . 44 
 
 Red straw 27, 36 
 
 Rows, care of 26 
 
 fragments of, second trial . . . . . . . . 33 
 
 of plants compared with each other . . . . 21 
 
 of wheat illustrated 22, 24, 30 
 
 Row system 21, 31 
 
 illustrated . . 22, 24, 3u 
 
 of agricultural experiment, increase of . . 21 
 
 of experiment, illustrated . . . . . . 2?, 24, 30 
 
 Row, the element of the crop . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 Rust 43 
 
 of wh^at, Conference on . . . . . . . . 1 
 
 Rust, shrivelled grains . . . . . . . . . 24 
 
 seed . . 43 
 
 Samples 6 
 
 first class . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 best 6 
 
 of seed, how to judge . . . . . . . . 12 
 
 Seasons, varying character of during the trials . . 46 
 
 Second trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 
 
 table of 27 
 
 results of 33 
 
 Seed, and disease . . . , . . . . . . . . 1 
 
 five years old, stiti good 47 
 
 from afar . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
 
 mixture of, at mills . . . . . . . . . . 53 
 
 setting apart the best portion of crop for . . 48 
 
 storing of 47, 48 
 
 to ripen fully . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
 
 quality of, how tested . . . . . . . . 1 
 
 uncleaned, proportion of farmers that use . . 13 
 
 Seed-wheat as sown by the majority of New South 
 
 Wales growers, illustrated . . . . . . 17 
 
 average for the State . . . . . . 10, 11, 15 
 
 practice in New South Wales, usual . . . . 17, 18 
 
 of the better farmers 11, 14, 16 
 
 of the poorer farmers 11 
 
 Sheet metal for sieves . . . . 51 
 
 Shrivelled seed as chick wheat . . . . . . 21 
 
 Shrivelled grain, definition of . . . . . . . . 25 
 
 fodder value . . 21 
 
 illustrations of . . . . . . . . . . 1 
 
 in sieving . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 
 
 growth of . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 
 
 advocates of . . . . . . 13, 44 
 
 use of not justifiable 44 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Sieves 24,51 
 
 of perforated metal, best . . . . . . . . 51 
 
 used in the investigation, illustration of . . 2, 3 
 
 Sieving as related to flat and round grains . . . . 25 
 
 method of . . . . . . . , . . . . 25 
 
 no standard for . . . . . . . . . . 25 
 
 repeated . . " . . . . 25 
 
 Size of the grains in a perfect sample . . . . . . 12 
 
 Small grains produced by most of our varieties . . 19 
 Small seed, advocates of .. .. .. .. ..13,44 
 
 and favourable seasons . . . . . . . 45 
 
 excess of misses in . . . . . . . . . . 30 
 
 failure of .. .. .. .. .. .. '/& 
 
 fodder value . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 
 gives less yield per plant . . . . . . . . 47, 55 
 
 gives more small grains . . . . . . . . 41 
 
 give poorer quality of grain . . . . . . 40 
 
 more of them per bushel . . . . . . . . 45 
 
 not justifiable to sow . . * . . . . . 44 
 
 relative cost of . . . . . . . . . . 45 
 
 favoured . . . . . . . . 26, 31, 33, 43, 54 
 
 lower plant producing power . . . . . . 30, 55 
 
 poor chance of, in bad season . . . . . . 17 
 
 Soil, limited influence of powerful factors in. . . . 33 
 
 '- conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
 
 mysteries of . . . . . . . . . . 32, 45, 46 
 
 unsuitable to wheat. . .. .... .. 46 
 
 used for experiments typical . . . . . 46 
 
 Sowing of small seed not justifiable . . . . . . 44 
 
 Stamina of plump seed . . . . . . . . . . 11 
 
 Stand from ungraded seed .. . . . . . . 43, 44 
 
 Starch 19 
 
 State average . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 17 
 
 of seed-wheat graded and piled . . . . . . 11 
 
 Steinwedel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 36 
 
 amount used in the State . . . . . . . . 5 
 
 average quality of . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10 
 
 cleaned and graded sample . . . . . . 14 
 
 Storage of seed . . . . . . 48 
 
 Straw 30, 34, 37, 55 
 
 from large, small, and medium-sized seed . . 34 
 
 from rows of experiment wheats . . . . . 30 
 
 yield of, second trial . . . . . . . 3'J 
 
 ,, third ,, 38 
 
 weight of . . . . 24, 37 
 
 Stripping irregular growth . . . . . . . . 44 
 
 Summary of comparisons . . . . . . . . 38 
 
 second trial . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
 
 Summary of growth, second trial . . . . . . 29 
 
 third trial 37 
 
 Superiority of crops from large seed . . . . . . 42 
 
 Superiority of large plump grain . . . . . . 47 
 
 Tables- 
 Average of State . 10 
 
 Excelling powers large seed . . . . 32, 38, 54 
 
 Explanatory . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
 
 Fanner's Friend . . . . 10 
 
 Fifty best samples of New South Wales seed . . 15, 18 
 
 First-class sample ... . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 First trial 23 
 
 Fourth trial 39 
 
 Germination . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
 
 Graded seed 14 
 
 Grain, quality of, from various seed . . . . 42 
 
 Large plump versus medium and small seed 27, 35, 39 
 
 plump versus small plump 23 
 
 seed, excelling powers 32,38 
 
 small, and medium seed, germination of . . 31 
 
 Medium sample of seed . . . . . . . . 12 
 
 New South Wales seed-wheat . . . . : 6 
 
 Percentages, how derived . .- 4 
 
 Poor sample of seed . . . . 12 
 
 Purple Straw, first-class samples . . . . . . 10, 12 
 
 graded 11 
 
 Quality of different varieties 10 
 
 Quality of grain, from large seed . . . . . . 42 
 
 from medium seed . . . . . . . . 42 
 
 from small seed . . . . 42 
 
 Second trial . . . . . . 27 
 
 Seed-wheat, fifty best samples of . . . . . 15, 18 
 
 Seed, graded . . . . 14 
 
 medium sample .. .. 12 
 
 poor sample of 12 
 
 very poor . . . . . . . . . . 12 
 
60 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Tables - 
 
 Seed-wheat, New South Wales 
 
 State average 
 
 Steinwedel, graded 
 
 Summary of growth . . 
 
 Varieties, quality of . . 
 
 Very poor seed 
 
 White Lammas, graded 
 Tabulation, method of 
 Tailings, fodder value of . . 
 
 here used of superior quality 
 
 split grains in 
 
 percentage of useless material in 
 
 unhealthy grains in . . 
 
 useless material in . . 
 
 Talavera de Bellevue 
 Tamworth seed 
 
 Tardent's Blue 
 
 Temora seed 
 Third trial 
 
 Varieties, breeding them for prolificness 
 
 giving the best sample 
 
 introduction of new. . 
 
 of wheat in the State 
 
 preferred . . 
 
 table of the average quality of 
 
 the profitable 
 
 Velvet Pearl 
 
 Very poor quality seed-wheat, illustrated 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Very poor sample 
 
 6 
 
 Vitality of seed 
 
 10 
 
 
 14 
 
 * 
 
 29. 35, 37 
 .. ' 10 
 12 
 
 Weeds among experiment rows 
 Weight per bushel less from small seeds 
 of the small grains of a sample . . 
 
 14 
 
 Wellington, seed-wheat from .. 
 
 4 
 19, 20, 21 
 . . 42, 56 
 
 Wheat, leading varieties of 
 Wheat plant, improvement of . . 
 Wheat rust 
 
 -. . 43 
 
 Conference 
 
 43 
 
 White Essex 
 
 43 
 
 White Lammas 
 
 43 
 
 amount used in State 
 
 . . 29, 37 
 
 cleaned sample 
 
 9 
 37 
 
 qualitv of 
 White Naples 
 
 8 
 
 W 7 hite Tuscan 
 
 35 
 
 White Velvet 
 
 
 Winnowing, limits of 
 
 
 Wire meshes for sieves . 
 
 19 
 
 
 6 
 
 Yass seed 
 
 
 Yield from experiments 
 
 K 
 
 Yield of small plants 
 
 10 
 
 Young, seed from . . 
 
 5 
 
 
 . . 29, 37 
 
 
 13 
 
 Zealand 
 
 PAGE. 
 12 
 47 
 
 . . 26, 33 
 
 42 
 
 43 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 . . 48, 56 
 43 
 1 
 
 87 
 . . 6, 29, 37 
 
 5 
 
 14 
 9 
 29 
 
 . . 29, 37 
 23, 29, 37, 39 
 50 
 51 
 
 23, 29, 
 
 Sydney : William Applegate Gullick, Government Printer. 1903. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 45. Cold storage of Apples, from the Vegetable 
 
 Pathplogist's point of view. 
 5 pages. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1892. 
 
 46. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1892. 
 
 47. Bust in Wheat : Report to Adelaide Conference on. 
 
 7 pages, with 21- original illustrations in the text. 
 C. E. Bristow, Adelaide, 1892. 
 
 48. Plant Diseases, and How to Prevent them. 
 
 4 pages, and 5 illustrations, mostly original, in the 
 text. Diseases of the vine-root, bean, and apple- 
 tree. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1892. 
 
 49. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1892. 
 
 50. Gumming of Sugar-cane ; Preliminary Report. 
 Annual Eeport of the Department of Mines and 
 
 Agriculture, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 51. BuHetin of the Royal Gardens, Kew, 1894. 
 Contains a reprint of the above. 
 
 52. Revue Agricole et Journal de la Chambre 
 
 d' Agriculture, Maurice, 1894. 
 Also contains a reprint of the above. 
 
 53. Nematodes, mostly Australian and Fijian. 
 
 59 pages, with 24 original illustrations in the text, 
 and 125 original figures on seven lithographic plates. 
 Macleay Memorial Volume, Linnaean Society of 
 New South Wales, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 54. Host and Habitat Index of the Australian Fungi. 
 44 pages. Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 55. New Australian Fungi. 
 
 12 original illustrations in the text Cyathus dimor- 
 phus, Tolyposporium anthistirice. Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1893. 
 
 56. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 57. Tricoma and other new Nematode Genera. 
 
 33 pages, with 50 original illustrations in the text. 
 Linnsean Society of New South Wales, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 58. Plant Diseases and their Remedies : Diseases of 
 
 the Sugar-cane. 
 
 56 pages, with over 70 original illustrations in the 
 text. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1893. 
 
 59. Reprint of the above. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1893. 
 'Revue Agricole, Maurice, 1894. 
 
 60. Diseases of the Sugar-cane. 
 
 .Special edition for the Queensland Department of 
 Agriculture. Department of Agriculture, Brisbane, 
 1893. 
 
 61. Nematodes, mostly Australian and Fijian. 
 
 59 .pages, with 24 original illustrations in the text, 
 and 125 original figures on seven lithographic 
 plates, as reprinted by Agricultural Department, 
 Sydney, 1893. 
 
 62. A new Australian Fungus. 
 
 Single page, with 2 original illustrations. Peziza 
 lyonsicB, Agricultural Gazette, 1894. 
 
 63. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1894. 
 
 64. Notes on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 11 pages, with 14 original illustrations in the text. 
 Diseases of the bean, tomato, peach, and mango. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1894. 
 
 65. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1894. 
 
 66. Improving Wheats by Selection. 
 
 18 pages, 5 illustrations. Department of Agriculture, 
 Sydney, 1894. 
 
 67. The^Cause of Gumming in Sugar-cane. 
 
 7 pages, with 2 illustrations in the text. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1895. 
 
 68. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1895. 
 
 69. Notes on the Form and Size of the Grains in 
 
 Different Varieties of Wheat. 
 
 7 pages. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1895. 
 
 70. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1895. 
 
 71. The Hot-air Treatment of Bunt or Stinking 
 
 Smut. 
 2 pages. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 72. Diseases of Plants and their Remedies. 
 
 10 pages, with 13 illustrations in the text. Diseases 
 of the squash, lemon, apple, coffee-plant. Agricul- 
 tural Gazette, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 73. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 74. Notes on the Threshing of Wheat. 
 
 5 pages, no illustrations. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 
 87. 
 
 91. 
 
 92 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 The Hardness of the Grain ir the principal 
 
 varieties of Wheat. 
 22 pages, with 28 illustrations. Agricultural Gazette, 
 
 Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 The relative Hardness of Australian and American 
 Fife Wheats. 
 
 8 pages, and 2S original illustrations in the text. Agri- 
 cultural Gazette, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Notes on the colour of the Grain in different 
 Varieties of Wheat. 
 
 4 pages, no illustrations. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 1896. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 The Common Crow. 
 
 14 pages, with 1 'original illustration in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Experiment Work in Agriculture. 
 
 25 pages, with 49 original illustrations in the text 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1896. 
 
 Cause of an important Apple Disease. 
 
 2 pages, with one original figure in the text, and one 
 original plate. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Some useful Observations on Germinating Wheat. 
 
 3 pages, with one original coloured plate. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 A Method of Using the Microscope. 
 
 5 pages, with three original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Letters on the Diseases of Plants. 
 
 54 pages, with nearly 100 original illustrations in the 
 text, and one original plate. Disease of wheat, 
 maize, plum, apple, potato, citrus fruits, peach, nec- 
 tarine, grape, onion, timber, with an account of root- 
 gall, and an improved method of preparing Bordeaux 
 mixture. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 Abandoned Orchards of Cumberland County. 
 
 7 pages, with about 40 original illustrations. Agricul- 
 tural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 MOST OF THE ABOVE PUBLICATIONS CAN BE HAD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SYDNEY 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES, EITHER FREE ON APPLICATION, OR AT PRICES FROM SIXPENCE UPWARDS. 
 They arc also obtainable at the following Book-dealers: 
 
 John Wheldon Queen-street, London I Friedlander & Son . , 11 Karl Strasse, Berlin 
 
 H. Welter Rue Bernard Palissv, Paris I Prof. Erieson Tuft's College, Boston 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 94. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1897. 
 
 95. The Sheep-fluke. 
 
 40 pages, with 1 plate and about 30 original illustrations 
 in the text. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 96. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 97. The Grading of Wheats. 
 
 8 pages, with about 50 illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 98. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 99. The Brush of Wheat-grains. 
 
 4 pages, with 20 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1897. 
 
 100. Motes on Pests and Crops. 
 
 5 pages with 3 original illustrations in the text, and 
 one plate. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1898. 
 
 101. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture. Sydney, 1898, 
 
 102. Some Tools useful in Crop Experiment Work. 
 
 2 pages, with 7 original illustrations ia the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1898. 
 
 103. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agri< ulture, Sydney, 1898. 
 
 104. Extract from MS. Report on the Parasites of 
 
 Stock. 
 
 62 pages, with about 250 original illustrations in the 
 text. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1898. 
 
 105. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1898. 
 
 106. Weight per Bushel of Australian Wheats. 
 
 6 pages and 1 illustration. Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1898. 
 
 107. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1898 
 
 108. Rattling Ja k Wheat. 
 
 2 pages and 1 coloured plate. .Agricultural Gazette, 
 Sydney, 1898. 
 
 109. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1898 
 
 110. Grain Elevators. 
 
 8 pages and 28 illustrations on 3 plates. Agnculhtral 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1900. 
 
 111. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1900. 
 
 112. Grain Elevators. 
 
 46 pages, with over 50 illustrations, mostly in the 
 text. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1901. 
 
 113. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1900. 
 
 114. Woodinessofthe Passion Fruit. 
 
 12 pages, with 18 illustrations in the test, and one 
 plate. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1S>01. 
 
 115. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, 1901. 
 
 116. A Method of Using the Microscope. 
 
 Journal of the Eoyal Microscopical Society, London, 
 1897. 
 
 117. Australian Free-living Marine Nematodes. 
 
 24 pages, no illustrations. Proclamations, Limucaii 
 Society of N.S.W. Sydney, 1898. 
 
 118. Reprint of the same. 
 
 P. Cunninghame & Co., Sydney, 1898. 
 
 119. The Californian Wheat Industry. 
 
 32 pages, with 46 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1901. 
 
 120. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1901. 
 
 121. New Eel-worm infesting the Roots of Passion 
 
 Vine. 
 
 3 pages, with 1 original illustration in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 1901. 
 
 122. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1901. 
 
 123. Foliage Areas of different varieties of Wheat. 
 
 1 page, no illustrations. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 1901. 
 
 124. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1901. 
 
 125. Universal Nomenclature for Wheat. 
 
 42 pages, with 161 original illustrations, including 11 
 plates. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1901 and 1902. 
 
 126. Tomato Blights. 
 
 5 pages, with 3 original illustrations in the text. 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 127. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 128. Comparative observations on the Brush of about 
 
 fifty varieties of Wheat. 
 
 Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1P02. 
 
 129. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 130. Probable occurrence of Taenia ovilla in Aus- 
 
 tralian Sheep. 
 
 1 page, no illustrations. Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 
 1902. 
 
 131. The Nematod* Formula. 
 
 8 pages, with 5 illustrations in the text, .Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 132. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 133. Internal Structure of the Gall-worm. 
 
 3 pages, with 4 original illustrations in the text. 
 .Agricultural Gazette, Sydney, 1902. 
 
 134. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture. 
 
 135. Rattling Tom Wheat. 
 
 1 page, with one original coloured plate. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, Iy02. 
 
 136. Reprint of same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, N.S.W 
 
 137. Seed Wheat : An investigation and discussion of 
 
 the relative value as seed of large plump and 
 small shrivelled grains. 
 
 60 pages, with 32 original illustrations. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1903. 
 
 138. Reprint of the same. 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney. 
 
 139. Effect of En?ine-boiler Steam on the Vitality of 
 
 Seeds and Spores. 
 
 4 pages, with 2 original illustrations. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1903. 
 
 140. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1903. 
 
 141. A Handy Horse-power. 
 
 1 page, with 1 original illustration. Agricultural 
 Gazette, Sydney, 1903. 
 
 142. Reprint of the same. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, Sydney, 1903. 
 
 r 
 
 In preparation. 
 
 The Prevention and Cure of the Blights of Crops. 
 
 With several hundred original illustrations in the 
 text, and numerous coloured plates. 
 
 JJantsites-Qf Sheep and other Domestic Animals (and 
 x-fTT incidentally of the Australian Land-fauna). 
 
 I With seyerM hundred origina 1 illustrations. 
 
 : 7 ."- N ; ; 
 
 MOST OF THE ABOVL PUBLICATIONS CAN BE HAD FROM 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES, FITHER FREE ON AppLicATioN/rj 
 
 ^Ex^ptPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SYDNEY, 
 
 \<*4n PRICES FROM SIXPENCE UPWARDS. 
 
 They are also obtainable at the following Book-dealers : 
 
 John Wheldon Queen-street, London I 
 
 H. Welter Rue Bernard Palissy, Paris 
 
 Friedlander & Son 11 Karl Strasse, Berlin 
 
 Prof. Ericson Tuft's College, Boston 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 JUL 8 
 
 30m-6,'l<