V/S • * ■,# ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY New York State Colleges OF Agriculture and Home Economics AT Cornell University Cornell University Library HD 9049.W5A86 First progress report, together with min 3 1924 013 914 555 V. Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013914555 [No. 27. 'SOUTH AUSTRALIA. FIE8T PEOGEE88 EEPOET OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION THE WHEAT SCHEME and RURAL INDUSTRIES; TOGETHBK WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND APPENDICES. Ordered hy the House of As'semhly to he printed, July 25th, 1918. [Estimated cost of printing (560), £72 12s. Od.] R. E. E. ROGEKS, GOVERNMENT PRINTER. NORTH TERRACE. 1918. a-No. 27. /u/ 352599 COMMISSION. SoTiTH AtrsTRALiA, / ^is EXCELLENCY Sir Henry Lionel Gal way, Lieutenant-Colonel on the Eetiied List, to wit, ' \ Knigtt Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint H. L. Galwat, { George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Governor in and over the I'L.S.J ^ State of South Australia and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia : To the Honorable Thomas Pascoe, M.L.C. ; the Honorable William Humphrey Harvey, M.L.C., the Honorable David John Gordon, M.L.C. ; the Honorable Andrew Alexander Kirkpatrick, M.P. ; William Angus, Esquire, M.P. ; John Edward Pick, Esquire, M.P. ; Edward Alfred Anstey, Esquire, M.P. ; and Eichard Layton Butler, Esquire, M.P. — Greeting : I, the said Governor, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said State, do hereby appoint you to be Commissioners to inquire into and report upon the Handling of Wheat and the Working of the Wheat Pool in the said State, as well as to investigate and report upon the Pastoral, Agricultural, and Dairying Industries in the said State : And I direct that your final report on the said matters be presented on or before the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen. Given under my hand and the public seal of South Australia, at Adelaide, this twenty-second day of November, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. By command, RICHAKD BUTLER, for Chief Secretary. Recorded in the Register of Commissions, Letters Patent, &c.. Vol. X. H. BLINMAN, Under Secretary. C.Sec, 1020/17. Note. — The Hon. D. J. Gordon, M.L.C, resigned from the Commission on December 20th, 1917. — J. SiNOOCK, Secretary; FIRST PROGRESS REPORT. To His Excellency Sir Henhy Lionel Galway, Lieutenant-Colonel on the Retired List, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Governor in and over the State of South Australia and its Dependencies in the Conmionwealth of Australia. May it please Your Excellpncy : In conformity with the commission dated November 22nd, 1917, authorising us to inquire into and report upon the handling of wheat and the working of the Wheat Pool in South Australia, as well as to investigate and report upon the pastoral, agricultural, and dairying industries of the State, we have the honor to present the first progress report, which is confined, to the wheat industry^and deals particularly with the damage done and likely to be done by weevil and suggested measures for combating the pest. EXTENT OF THE INQUIRY. 1. We commenced our investigation by visiting the wheat stacks at Port Adelaide, Port Pirie, Wallaroo, and Port Augusta, and a number of the stacks at country stations in the neighborhood of those ports. The condition of some of the stacks and the presence of weevil in a great part of the 1915-1916 and 1916-1917 wheat convinced us that the weevil question demanded immediate attention and prompt action. Prior to the war, which is responsible for the lack of shipping, the weevil pest was practically unknown in South Australia owing to the wheat being shipped in a dry condition within 12 months of harvesting. Local experience of weevil is therefore very limited, but we have exhausted all the available avenues of infor- mation, and have considered all suggested expedients for dealing with the trouble. We have examined the Minister Controlling the Wheat Scheme (the Hon. Sir Richard Butler), the Manager (Mr. G. G. NichoUs), the Director of Agriculture (Professor Perkins), the Director of the Department of Chemistry (Dr. W. A. Hargreaves), the Agricultural Experimentalist of the Department of Agriculture (Mr. W. J. SpafEord), the Entomologist of the South Australian Museum (Mr. A. M. Lea), representatives of wheat merchants and millers, inventors of machinery for dealing with weevilly wheat, and others. We have also been supplied with valuable information by Professor H. Maxwell-Lefroy, M.A., F.B.S., F.Z.8. (Imperial Entomologist), who is at present in Australia, and Mr. E. F. Carter (Chief Engineer of the John S. Metcalf Co., Ltd.). This information is published as appendices to this report. MAGNITUDE OF THE INTERESTS AT STAKE. 2. Owing to the dearth of shipping there is an accumulation in South Australia at present of about 63,342,000bush. of wheat The wheat yields, according to the official statistics, for the last three years and the quantities handled by the pool are as follows : — Wheat Yield. Handled by Pool. DifEerence. 1915-16 Bags. 11,378,000 15,248,000 ^,887,000* Bags. 9,800,000 13,741,000 8,537,000 Bags. 1.578.000 1916-17 1917-18 1,507,000 350,000 35,513,000 32,078,000 3,435,000 * Official estimate. The difierence between the figures of the Statistical Department and the quantity handled by the Pool is presumably accounted for by the quantities retained by farmers for seeding purposes and home con- sumption. The wheat yield for 1 917-18 is possibly under-estimated. 3. The No. 27, IV. Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. 3. The quantities disposed of up to March 27th, 1918, by shipment oversea and to Tasmania, either as wheat or flour, and by sales for local consumption and export, and the stocks held by millers and shipping agents on account of the Pool are shown below : — Season. Handled by Pool. Disposed of. Held by Millers. Held by Shipping Agents. Total on Hand. 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 Bags. 9,800,000 13,741,000 8,537,000 Bags. 8,570,000 2,394,000 Nil Bags. Nil 487,000 354,000 Bags. 1,230,000 10,860,000 8,183,000 Bags. 1,230,000 11,347,000 8,537,000 32,078,000 10,964,000 841,000 20,273,000 21,114,000 Or in bushels 96,234,000 32,892,000 2,523,000 60,819,000 63,342,000 4. By an agreement, dated London, December 4th, 1916, the Imperial Government purchased 3,000,000 tons, or 112,000,000bush., of Australian 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat at 38s. per quarter of 4801bs. f.o.b. in bags, or at the rate of 4s. 9d. per bushel. The South Australian share of this contract still unshipped is approximately 23,000,000bush., the balance being made up by New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. The terms of the contract provide for the shipment of the wheat by the Imperial Government not later than December 31st, 1917, and that, failing shipment by that date of 2,000,000 tons (which has not been shipped), they will pay a charge of f d. per bushel per month or part of a month. The agreement further provides that after December 31st, 1917, all risks of deterioration from natural causes affecting the quality, and any loss due to weevil shall be borne by the purchasers. In March, 1918, the Australian Wheat Board sold 24,000 tons of wheat to America at 5s. 9d., f.o.b., and we have been given to understand that about half of it, say, 448,000bush., will be sent from South Australia. When this comparatively small quantity and the 23,000,000bush. held for the Imperial Government have been shipped the South Aus- tralian Wheat Pool will still have a balance from the three years' harvests of about 40,000,000bush. to dispose of. 5. We have not yet investigated the financial operations of the Pool, but we have made a rough calculation of what charges have been made and are likely to be made against the wheat on hand in order to obtain some, idea of the amount that may be safely spent in the treatment and storage of the wheat against weevil. The wheatgrowers have been paid 3s. per bushel and three advances of 6d. each per bushel for the 1915-16 wheat, and 2s. 6d. per bushel and one advance of 6d. per bushel for the 1916-17 wheat. For the 1917-18 and 1918-19 wheat they have been guaranteed by the Government 4s. per bushel f.o.b., of which 38. per bushel is payable on delivery. The total advances and the expenses charged are shown as follows, in a statement issued by the secretary of the Wheat Scheme on March 27th : — Season. Quantity- Handled. Advances to Growers, less Charges and Dockages. Expenses Charged, Advances and Expenses. Total. Per Bush. Total. Per Bush. Total. Per Bush. 1915-16 1916-17 Bush. 29,400,000 41,223,000 25,611,000 £ 5,989,400 6,168,378 2,984,315 s. d. 4 0-893 2 11-912 2 3-962 £ 1,015,730 1,168,834 319,676 d. 8-288 6-805 2-995 £ 7,005,130 7,337,212 3,303,991 s. d. 4 9-181 3 6-717 1917-18 2 6-957 Totak 96,234,000 15,142,093 3 1-763 2,504,240 6-245 17,646,333 3 8-008 Note. — ^The figures for 1917-18 are incomplete inasmuch as certificates have not yet been issued for the total quantity handled, and many of the certificates which have been issued have not been presented for payment. The average advance on the wheat which has been paid for is practically 3s. per bushel. In the same way the expenses charged do not include the total cost of railage to the seaboard, as more than half the 1917-18 wheat is still at inland stations. it Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. v. "If the average of the total advances and expenses charged for each season is applied to the wheat on hand and credit is given for the quantity sold and held for England and America, the net cost of the Pool's wheat may be shown as follows : — Bushels. 1915-16 wheat 3,690,000 at 4s. 9-181d £879,158 1916-17 wheat 34,041,000 at 3s. 6-717d 6,059,289 1917-18 wheat 25,611,000 at 28. 6-957d 3,303,499 Totals 63,342,000 £10,241,946 Less held for the Imperial Bushels. Government 23,000,000 at 4s. 9d £5,462,500 Less sold to America 448,000 at 5s. 9d 128,800 23,448,000 5,591,500 Balance 39,894,000 • £4,650,646 To this must be added Is. per bushel not yet paid but guaranteed for the 1917-18 wheat, the cost of trans- porting about 2,000,000bush. of 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat still at inland stations, the value of unissued and unpresented certificates for the 1917-18 crop, the cost of placing the wheat sold to the Imperial Govern- ment and America f.o.b., and other incidental expenses. All these items will probably raise the debit against the South Australian wheat on hand (39,894,000bu8h.) in stack at the seaboard to over £7,000,000, or approximately 3s. per bushel. In this calculation, not being able to obtain a balance-sheet at a moment's notice, we have necessarily had to assume that the operations of the Pool to date have resulted in the receipts balancing the expenditure. If there had been a loss the amount would have to be added to the £7,000,000 mentioned above. As a matter of fact it has been announced that there is a slight balance to credit on the 1915-16 wheat, and so far as the 1916-17 crop has been disposed of there should be a profit either for division amongst the growers or to meet any possible loss on the balance of that year's wheat. It may reasonably be concluded, therefore, that the Pool will have to realise £7,000,000 for the wheat on hand to meet the advances and expenses which will have been incurred with respect to it, and the magnitude of this liability, together with the loss of interest thereon, has only to be stated for your Excellency to realise the urgent need of shipping the wheat to an oversea market with as little delay as possible or the responsibility of storing it safely until such time as shipping is available. When shipping can be obtained there will be, including the wheat sold to and held for England and America, a total of 63,342,000bush. to be shipped. If it could be exported within twelve months it would mean the dispatch of 339 ships, or more than 28 per month, each carrying 5,000 tons, and in less than twelve months there will be another crop to be marketed. THE WEEVIL PEST. 6. In March, 1916, the Secretary of the Wheat Harvest Board asked the Government agents at ail receiving centres to notify him immediately of the appearance of weevil in any of the stacks held on the board's account, and about three months later, or about six months after the wheat had been harvested, reports came to hand that weevil had been discovered in the stacks at Port Wakefield and Port Germein. EVom that time on similar reports were received from many other centres, but chiefly from shipping ports. At the present time weevil exist to a greater or less extent in most of the stacks of the 1915-16 and 1918-17 wheat. On July 18th, 1917 , the Wheat Advisory Committee passed a resolution recommending the Chairman of the Wheat Harvest Board to appoint a special committee to go thoroughly into the question of determining whether some practicable solution could not be found for the extermination of the weevil by chemical process or other means. The Committee appointed consisted of Dr. W. A. Hargreaves, Director of Chemistry (Chairman) ; Mr. A. M. Lea, Entomologist of the Adelaide Museum ; Mr. W. J. SpafEord, Government Experimentalist in the Department of Agriculture ; Mr. H. Jackett, miller ; Mr. E. A. Badcock, manager of the South Australian Farmers Co-operative Union ; and Mr. G. G. NichoUs, manager of the South Australian Wheat Scheme. On August 14th, 1917, this Committee informed the Minister of Agriculture that in its opinion the only permanent protection against weevil was by means of sUos, any other means that could be adopted being of a temporary nature — removing the weevil for the time being, but leaving the wheat subject to further contamination. The Committee doubted whether silos could be provided for the wheat then in stacks, and resolved to make further inquiries as to what temporary expedients could be resorted to to mitigate the losses that were expected in the coming summer On December 3rd, 1917, the Committee reiterated its decision with respect to silos, and expressed the opinion that in the absence of silos and until heat treatment had been further tested, the most practical way of dealing with weevilly wheat was by mechanical treatment, and for this purpose it was necessary to combine three processes, viz., separation, aspiration, and scouring. The Committee recommended the establishment of treatment plants properly housed No. 27. VI. Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. housed at as many suitable centres as possible, and that the wheat under treatment should be stacked or stored in weevil-free bags at a safe distance from the weevilly wheat. On December 18th, 1917, Mr. G. G. NichoUs, manager of the Wheat Scheme, in a minute to the Minister controlling the scheme, drew attention to the " stupendous problem " of protecting the 1917-18 wheat from attack by weevil, and suggested that it be placed in underground silos at an estimated cost for construction of 2-3d. per bushel. On January 22nd, 1918, the Weevil Committee recommended that sound wheat should not be stacked in close proximity to weevilly wheat, and that the latter should be screened or otherwise treated to remove or destroy the insects. Professor Perkins, the Director of Agriculture, on .January 24th, 1918, at the request of the Minister Controlling the Wheat Scheme, reported on the weevil question, and said--'" I am of the opinion that nothing short of the erection of a sufficiency of silos will save the stored wheat, and in view of the fact that bulk handling is certain to be adopted here sooner or later, it seems reasonable that silos should be erected io harmony with this general scheme." CONDITION OF THE STACKS. 7. It was at this stage, the end of January, that the Commission inspected the principal wheat stacks in the State. These are situated at Port Adelaide, the Outer Harbor, Port Pirie, Wallaroo, and Port Augusta, and the following information supplied by the secretary of the South Australian Wheat Scheme shows the number of bags of each season's wheat at those ports as well as at other places in the State on April 22nd, 1918 :— Port Adelaide Wallaroo Port Pirie .... Port Augusta . Port Lincoln . Thevenard . . . Outports Inland stations Total 1915-16. 395,620 641,004 501,938 11,619 52,245 18,486 12,236 1,633,148 1916-17. Bags. 5,146,002 2,259,181 1,729,933 576,487 380,425 117,537 120,187 597,187 10,926,939 1917-18. Bags. 1,542,055 842,869 540,324 213,246 137,294 980,729 4,075,644 Total. 8,332,161 Bags. 7.083,677 3,743,054 2,772,195 801,352 569,964 117,537 1,119,402 4,685,067 20,892,248 8. It will be noticed that out of over 12,000,000 bags of 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat only 600,000 are stacked at inland stations. The policy of the Board has been to convey the wheat to the seaboard, where it will be available for shipping and milling, and where the work of re-conditioning the weevilly wheat can be concentrated on large quantities. So far as this season's crop is concerned nearly half of it is still in the country, and, owing to the presence of weevil at the ports, we strongly urge that it should be kept there, and be properly stacked and protected at convenient centres. At Port Adelaide, Port Pirie, Wallaroo and Port Augusta care is being taken to stack this season's wheat as far away as possible from the weevilly wheat of the two previous seasons, but, as the evidence shows that weevil fly, especially at night, it is more than probable that the precautions which have been taken will not save the new wheat from attack. 9. On the whole the stacks which the Commission inspected, but for the presence of weevil in the 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat, were found to be in a very creditable condition. Every care seems to have been taken in the matter of stacking, dunnage, and covering to preserve the grain from the elements, with the exception perhaps of some of the old stacks at Port Augusta. The new sheds which are being con- structed at many inland towns are also very satisfactory, but they will need to be more strongly stayed in order that they may afford greater resistance to the wind when empty. These sheds have been made mice- proof and are well roofed with ruberoid, but instances have been brought under our notice of carelessness on the part of those in charge of the stacks in not protecting the mice barriers from damage by wagons, and in allowing planks, ladders, &c., to remain against the stacks in such a manner as to permit mice to obtain access to the stacks over the barriers. 10. So far weevil have not appeared in the 1917-18 wheat, which, having been harvested in dry weather, is probably more immune from attack than the 1916-17 crop, which was reaped in a wet season. Weevil were found in many of the 1915-16 and 1916-17 stacks, and although some of the stacks of those years are still clean it seems to us only a matter of time for them all to become afiected. It is difficult to explain why some of the stacks of the same season's wheat should be more affected by weevil than others. Indeed some of the 1915-16 wheat that was being shipped at Port Pirie was in a much better condition than some of the 1916-17 wheat at that port. At the time of the Commission's visit the weevil had apparently done Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. —First Progress Report. vii. done more damage at Wallaroo than at any of the other ports, and it is not clear why this should be so. The liability to attack is apparently greater with respect to wheat harvested near the coast than it is with wheat grown in dry inland districts. Some of the stacks at Wallaroo were in a very bad condition, and the havoc being wrought by the insects at all the ports will increase month by month. It has been found by experiments {vide Appendix C) that weevil under suitable conditions multiply themselves 60 times in three months, and we fear that unless drastic measures are taken to preserve the wheat or ship it (of which there seems to be no immediate prospect) the value of the stacks will have been greatly reduced in 12 months' time. SUGGESTED PKECAUTIONS AND METHODS OF TREATMENT. 11. Having fully appreciated the seriousness of the danger threatening millions of pounds worth of wheat we gave full consideration to the many proposals which have been made with the object of averting the evil. These may be briefly summarised as follows : — Care in Stacking. 12. The evidence goes to show that two essentials for the development of weevil are moisture and warmth, but there is a difference of opinion as to the moisture contents of grain in which weevil will exist. Experiments in India indicate that Weevil will not live in wheat containing 7*2 per cent, of moisture and under, but Dr. Hargreaves, the Director of the Chemistry Department, found that the insects will flourish in South Australian f.a.q. wheat containing only 6-7 per cent, of moisture. Samples of wheat taken by him in January and February of this year from typical stacks on the seaboard and inland show that the moisture in the wheat ranges from 7-70 per to lO-S per cent. Mr. C. H. T. Connor, Manager of the Adelaide Milling Company, who has had a long experience in the wheat trade, expressed the opinion that wheat is more liable to attack from weevil since the harvester displaced the stripper. With the stripper the wheat was reaped in as dry a condition as possible, but with the harvester it is not necessary to have absolutely dry weather conditions, and the result is that a proportion of the wheat is bagged in a green or damp state. Although it has been stated in evidence that weevil have been discovered in wheat in the field, and been seen in the winnower, the bulk of the evidence goes to show that the grain is infected by weevil when in the stack. If wheat were stacked in a dry state in one of the sheds now being erected by the Government it should be free from weevil for a long time if certain precautions are taken, that is, assuming, as the evidence proves to be the case, that there are no weevil eggs in the wheat when it is stacked. The eggs are deposited either by weevil that fly or weevil that crawl. If the sheds are well covered and made mouse- proof by a galvanized iron barricade, and the wheat is stacked on ample dunnage and the sides protected by hessian fastened from the roof to the top of the galvanized iron barrier and to two intermediate light rails, so that when wet it will not flap against the bags, the wheat should be comparatively safe from the weather and excessive moisture (though it wiU take up a certain amount of moisture from the atmosphere to some extent) and also from weevil which fly. Dry sand heaped against the iron barricade would be a protection against weevils that crawl. This method has been adopted at some of the stacks at the principal shipping ports where ridges of sand have been placed around the wheat. The weevil are unable to climb these sandy slopes and millions of dead weevil killed by the rays of the sun were seen in the grooves between the sand ridges. Of course, when the sand is wet the weevil would easily climb over the sand ridges and the galvanized iron and find their way into the stack, and possibly weevil that fly would make their way into the stacks through the hessian. Early in January, Professor H. Maxwell-Lefroy supplied the Minister of Agriculture with a memorandum on methods of stacking to prevent weevil infection, and a copy of this, which has been supplied to the Commission, is printed as an appendix to this report. Mixing Wheat with Sand. 13. Experiments have shown that weevil will not live after a certain time in vessels from which the air is completely excluded. Dr. Hargreaves suggested that the mixture of dry sand with the wheat would, to a great extent, prevent the development of weevil, as the sand would fill the interstices between the grains, thus making it impossible for the weevil to move about in the wheat, and at the same time depriving them of air. Interesting experiments on these lines showed that most of the weevils placed in a mixture of sand and wheat died, and those that came through the top layer of sand made no further attempt to reach the wheat and died of starvation. In the opinion of the Commission, however, the cost of the application of this method to millions of bushels of wheat is prohibitive. Dr. Hargreaves and the Engineer-in-Chief (Mr. Graham Stewart), at the request of the Commission, conferred as to the cost of a scheme in which the wheat mixed with sand would be stored in sheds, the sides of which would be boarded and provided with a sand barrier. If the wheat were stored in bulk, the provision of an elevator and conveyors would be necessary, and if in bags it would have to be immune from weevil when stored. The estimate of the Bngineerv in-Chief was £1,829 for a building to contain 140,000bush. of wheat and sand mixed, and £2,040 for the necessary machinery to handle the mixture. The machinery would be portable and could be used for each and all silos. This cost works out at about 3d. per bushel if the wheat mixed with the sand occupied no No. 27. viii. Wheat Scheme and Eural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. no greater space than wheat not mixed with sand. No estimate of the handling costs has been prepared. Dr. Hargreaves has also made experiments with sand heated to such a temperature as would destroy the weevil without injuring the wheat, but the cost of such a scheme on a commercial basis would probably be prohibitive. Treatment py Heat. 14. Heat has been found to be one of the most successful agents for killing weevil, and experiments have shown that it can be applied at a temperature which will not injure the quality of the wheat or appreciably affect its milling value. For instance, weevil placed on a pavement heated by the sun's rays will quickly die. In Sydney, experiments have shown that it is possible by the application of heat to destroy every egg, larva, pupa, and adult weevil of all the species found in Australian wheat, and the treated wheat has been tested and baked, and Dr. Guthrie, the chemist of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, has reported that the bread is slightly better than that made from ordinary f.a.q. wheat. In experiments conducted by Dr. Hargreaves, 97 per cent, of the wheat germinated after going through a heater showing a temperature of 130°, so that it may be concluded that the application of heat will destroy weevil without seriously affecting the milling or germinating qualities of the wheat. A number of machines have been invented for treating wheat in this way. The first in South Australia was invented by Mr. W. Heithersay, and an improved machine has now been put on the market by Messrs. J. L. Campbell, McMahon, and Heithersay. The principle is to apply heat to a large tube placed in a sloping position and to pass the wheat down a revolving tube inside of it. Provision is made for agitating or turning the wheat as it passes through the tube. We have inspected the machine manufactured by Messrs. Campbell & Co., and are satisfied that it should be practicable to perfect it so as to treat wheat successfully and economically in this way ; but in order to do the work expeditiously it will be necessary to have a plant of larger capacity and to handle the wheat by means of elevators. One of the difficulties that has not yet been completely overcome is the regulation of the temperature. To meet this difficulty with regard to the temperature Dr. Hargreaves had a machine constructed in which the heating is done by steam. In this case the wheat is passed through a number of heated perpendicular tubes and whilst going through this process it is turned so that the heat affects every part of the gi'ain. ' The machine which we saw in operation did its work satisfactorily, but it was only capable of dealing with 65bush. per hour. In the opinion of the Commission, Messrs. Campbell, McMahon, and Heithersay's machine being portable can be more easily adapted to deal with large quantities of wheat expeditiously, and it will probably be found to be successful if the temperature through which the wheat is passed can be kept under control. Mr. E. F. Carter submitted plans of a dryer which is attached to some of the bulk handling plants in America for the treatment of wet wheat. The drying apparatus is installed in a building 54ft. high. The wheat is elevated to the top of the building and is passed down in trays through a temperature which is regulated to a degree by means of steam coUs. A building and plant capable of treating 750bush, of wet wheat an hour were estimated some time ago to cost £4,000, but in a letter to the Manager of the Wheat Scheme Mr. Carter stated that if the South Australian weevUy grain is comparatively dry when coioing ior treatment, containing not more than 13 per cent, or 14 per cent, moisture by weight, such an apparatus would be able to heat three or four times 750bush. per hour to the required temperature, namely, 130° to 150°. Assuming that the maximum quantity mentioned, namely, 3,000bush. can be treated per hour in this waj', it would take 14 days of 24 hours to deal with l,000,000bush., or 224 days for the 16,000,000bush. of 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat now stacked at Port Adelaide and the Outer Harbor. It, would require only 21 days to deal with the 1917-13 wheat at those places. The whole of the three season's wheat at Wallaroo could be treated by one of these dryers in 154 days and that at Port Pirie in a little over 115 days. This American method appears to us to ofier the most expeditious means of eradicating weevil, and we strongly urge the desirability of erecting one of these dryers at Port Adelaide, and that it be employed in connection with the system of storage recommended by us later in this report. The charge for passing wheat through a dryer in America is Jd. per bushel, including taking the wheat from the bin in the elevator plant, conveying it in bulk to the dryer, and returning it to the bin, and this charge wouJd cover the operating costs, the ewnf t's profits, and interest and depreciation. STOEAGE OF THE WHEAT. 15. The most difficult problem to solve is that of the storage of the wheat after treatment, because the elimination of the weevil by heat does not render the wheat immune from further infection. Overhead Silos. 16. It is generally agreed that the storage of wheat in silos is the best method of preserving wheat from attack by weevil, mice, or any other pests. The erection of overhead silos is bound up with the question of the bulk handling of wheat. New South Wales and Victoria have adopted the bulk handling system, and contracts have been let in the former State for the erection of terminal and country silos, the latter having a capacity of ll,000,000bush. These are to be erected within 12 months, and the cost, including the elevating machinery, Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. ix. • machinery, comes to lid. per bushel. In the bulk handling scheme designed for South Australia by John S. Metcalf, Co., Ltd., whose report was presented to Parliament on December 17th, 1915 (P.P. 114/1915), provision was made for terminal and country silos of a capacity of 8,630, OOObush., including one of l,000,000bush. at the Outer Harbor, one of. 750,000bush. each at Wallaroo and Port Pirie, and one of 550,000bush. at Port Lincoln. These would hold only one -fifth of the 40,000,000bush. now in the State, not including the 23,000,000bush. held for the Imperial Government. Professor Perkins, Mr. Spafford, and others expressed the opinion that bulk handling is bound to be adopted sooner or later, but even the complete scheme of Messrs. Metcalf & Co. would not meet the present emergency. Overhead silos, however, ofier the greatest advantage in economical handling. The evidence points to the fact also that wheat in overhead silos would be immune from attack by weevil whether the silos were hermetically sealed or not. because the generation of carbon-dioxide in the stored wheat would destroy all insect life. Undeburound SilOp. 17. Failing any other satisfactory method of storage the suggestion has been made that recourse should be had to the Egyptian and Indian custom of placing the wheat in pits or underground silos. A scheme has been proposed by which long pits or channels should be excavated by machinery in suitable localities where there is no danger of underground moisture, and that these should be lined with cement. Mr. Graham Stewart, the Engineer-in-Chief, submitted plans of an underground silo to contain l,000,000bush. Each silo would be 1,011ft. long, 50ft. wide at the bottom, and 80ft. wide at the top. It would be lined with 4in. of cement concrete, and after the wheat had been put in would be covered with 3ft. of earth consolidated and 4in. of lime concrete, with a layer of bituminous paper between the earth and the wheat. The depth to the ground level would be 15ft., and there would be 4ft. of wheat above that to give a pitch to the roof. Such a sUo would contain l,000,000bush. in bags, or considerably more in bulk. Facility in handling was said to be an advantage in favor of putting the wheat in in bags. The estimate of the cost of one of these silos was £15,000, or approximately 4d. per bushel in bags. This estimate does not take into account any handling charges and the carriage of the wheat to the location of the sUo. One risk to be taken in connection with underground silos is the possible cracking of the cement concrete, thus permitting the entrance of water or moisture from the soil. Provision has been made in the plans for the drainage of the underground sUos to a sump, and if a little moisture did enter through the cracks that occurred after the silos had been fiUed, the only result would be that a portion of the wheat would become mouldy and useless. There would be little possibility of the development of weevil in such circumstances, because of the generation of carbon dioxide in the silo. It appears from the evidence that underground silos constructed in suitable localities, notwithstanding the possibility of cracks occurring in the cement concrete lining, ofEer an expe- ditious means of dealing with the wheat in the present emergency. The principal drawback is that the underground sUos would be useless when the wheat trade resumes its normal state, whereas overhead silos could be incorporated into a bulk-handling system. It is a question of 4d. a bushel for underground sUos as against lid. a bushel for overhead sUos fitted with elevating machinery. In the matter of handling costs, both into and out of the silos, the advantage would largely be with overhead sUos. In considering the relative costs of the two schemes attention has to be given to the fact that the nature of the soil at Port Adelaide, the Outer Harbor, and Poit Pirie does not lend itself to the successful construction of underground sUos, whereas overhead silos at those ports would fit in with a bulk-handling scheme. The cost of the transport of the wheat from those places to underground silos in suitable localities would therefore have to be considered. The position with respect to the two methods may be summarised as follows : — Overhead Sihs.—Cost, including machinery, lid. per bushel ; absolute safety of storage ; minimum cost of handling ; no great expense in transport ; subsequent use of sUos for bulk handling. Against this system is the expense of rebagging as soon as ships become available. Underground Silos. — Cost of construction only, 4d. per bushel ; some risk of damage by cracks in cement concrete lining ; expense of transport of the bulk of the wheat to suitable sites ; loss of the use of the bags wiile the wheat is in the sUos ; difficulty of inspecting the wheat while in storage ; the uselessness of silos after the resumption of normal trade. 18. It is impossible to state definitely the respective costs per bushel of the two systems, but if it is calculated roughly that it will cost Is. 3d. per bushel to house the wheat in overhead silos, take it out, rebag it, and place it on board ship, it may be estimated that the underground silos will incur a charge of about lOd. a bushel against the wheat before it is shipped. These figures make no allowance for the fact that the overhead sUos will remain as an asset to the State. 19. The terminal elevators suggested in Messrs. Metcalf & Co.'s report for Port Adelaide, Port Pirie, Wallaroo, and Port Lincoln would only have a storage capacity of about 3,000,000bush., so that provision would have to be made in various parts of the State for the keeping of 37,000,000bush. in underground silos if the country silos suggested in Messrs. Metcalf & Co.'s report were not erected. As has been poiuted out, the complete adoption of Messrs. Metcalf & Co.'s scheme would only provide storage for 8,630,000bush.. leaving over 30,000,000bush. to be placed in underground silos. We have taken no evidence to enable us X. Wheat Scheme and Rural Industries Commission. — First t'rogress Report. us to make a pronouncement on the question of bulk handling versus the present system, but in view of the fact that New South Wales and Victoria have adopted the scheme, that the officers of the Agricultural Department predict its adoption in this State, and because in this event ultimate economy can be effected by the erection of overhead silos now as storage depots, we have agreed to recommend that a beginning should be made by erecting overhead silos at Port Adelaide and Port Pirie, and an underground silo at Wallaroo. The rough calculation we have made shows that overhead silos can be provided now at a greater cost than underground silos of only 5d. a bushel. WHAT EXPENDITURE MAY BE INCURRED. 20. In considering the expenditure to be incurred in preserving the 40,000,000bush. which the Govern- ment have on hand for the three seasons, regard must be paid to the amount which the wheat will realise when it is ultimately shipped. It has already been shown that the payments made to and guaranteed to the wheat growers and the expenses akeady charged have raised a liability of 3s. per bushel against the wheat on hand. Further charges against this wheat are the reconditioning expenses, tht loss through the mice plague, administrative and other expenses, handling and the cost of placing the wheat f.o.b. This may amount to 3d. a bushel, and if the cost of storage and the loss already incurred through weevil should amount to Is. per bushel, it will be seen that the wheat must be sold at 4s. 3d. a bushel to pay expenses. This does not take into account any further payment which may be made to the wheatgrowers out of the proceeds of the sale of the wheat on hand. The question of the best means of storing the wheat is dependent just as much on what expenditure the wheat will stand as on the practicability of the various methods which have been suggested of dealing with it. No one is at present able to say what the wheat is likely to realise ; but in the meantime every effort should be made to preserve the wheat until such time as a market is available. THE GRISTING OF THE WHEAT. 21. Under an agreement with the millers the Government are making commendable efforts to turn as much of the wheat as possible into floar, and at the present time, according to the evidence of the Manager of the Wheat Scheme, 212,000 bags are being converted into flour each month. This represents 2,544,000 bags or 7,632,d00bush. of wheat per annum ; but a proportion of the wheat that is being gristed is that which has been purchased by the Imperial Gorernment. Mr. F. Condon, Secretary of the Mill Employees' Union, supplied the Commission with valuable evidence respecting the possibility of increasing the output of the mills. He stated that there are 48 mills in the State, of which 14 are working full time, nine two shifts and 20 one shift, and five not at ali ; and he submitted figures of the capacities of these mills which go to show that if they could all be worked full time the additional output of flour per day would be over 242 tons, which for 313 working days per annum is equivalent to 96,717 tons or 3,610,768bush. of wheat. According to the evidence of Mr. NichoUs, the Manager of the Wheat Scheme, the wheat is now being converted into flour at the rate of 7,632,000bush. per annum, so that on Mr. Condon's figures it should be possible to increase the milling output by nearly 50 per cent. In the opinion of the Commission every effort should be made to induce the owners of these mills to work three shifts, and if this cannot be arranged the Government should take over the mills and work them. Mr. Condon assured the Commission that there would be no serious difficulty in obtaining the necessary number of hands. RECOMMENDATIONS. 22. It will be noticed that in our calculations as to the capacity of treatment plants and the amount of storage required we have figured on dealing with 40,000,000bush. of wheat now in the hands of the Govern- ment. It is probable that a small proportion of this will have been shipped and a larger quantity gristed by the time the treatment plants can be constructed and storages erected, so that when the .next harvest is due, say nine months hence, there may be only 30,000,000bush. of the past three seasons' wheat to be dealt with. Against this, however, it is possible that the Imperial Government will endeavor to make arrangements with the South Australian Government for the storage or treatment of its wheat, approxi- mately 23,000,000bush. We have also assumed in our calcidations that the whole of the 40,000,000bush. will have to be protected from or treated for weevil, notwithstanding that a large proportion of it, especially the 1917-18 wheat, is still clean, and may remain so for some months. The Commission have to consider all probable developments, and it is reasonable to suppose, Judging by the progress which the pest has already made, and bearing in mind that it may be years before the wheat can be shipped, that the whole of it will be affected by weevil before the heat treatment can be applied and the necessary storages provided. In, this preliminary report we have therefore simply submitted suggestions for making a beginning with the weevilly wheat. We cannot say at present how far or in what direction the scheme we have proposed should be extended. We have made arrangements for monthly reports to be furnished by the Manager of the Wheat Scheme showing, so far, as the inspectors can ascertain, the number of bags that are badlv affected, Wheat Scheme aud Rural Industries Commission. — First Progress Report. xi. * . ■ affected, slightly affected, and not affected ; and we shall be guided in any future recommendations we may make largely by this information as to the progress of the weevil. In the meantime we respectfully submit the following recommendations : — (1) That the 1917-18 wheat now in the country be not transported to the seaboard, but be stacked at convenient centres under dry conditions in large well-covered mice-proof sheds with a hessian protection at the sides. (2) That as far as possible all the mills in the State be worked three shifts per day in the gristing of wheat already attacked by weevil, and that if necessary the Government take possession of and work the mills for this purpose. (3) That the Government erect overhead silos of a capacity of l,000,000bush. at Port Adelaide, and of a capacity of 750,000bush. at Port Pirie for the storage of wheat in bulk. (4) That the Government construct one underground silo of a capacity of l,000,000bush. at Wallaroo for the storage of wheat in bags. (5) That an American dryer be attached to the overhead silos at Port Adelaide for the treatment of weevilly wheat by heat. (6) That for the treatment of weevilly wheat at other places the Government purchase a number of heating machines, preferably machines of large capacity, and that the wheat be cleaned before it is treated. We have the honor to be, .Sir, Your Excellency's obedient servants, WILLIAM ANGUS, Chairman. W. H. HARVEY, A. A: KIRKPATRICK. T. PASCOE. E. A. ANSTEY. R. LAYTON BUTLER. J. E. PICK. J.; SINCOCK, Secretary, Parliament House, Adelaide, April 23rd, 1918. No. 27. INDEX TO WITNESSES. Name. Alford, W. M Butler, Sir R Campbell, J. L Carter, E. F Condon, F Connor, C. H. T. . . , Deland, E. C , Hargreaves, W. W. Heithersay, W. Lea, A. M McMahon, J. B. . . , Nicholls, G. G Perkins, A. J Rogers, J , SpafEord, W. J Stewart, G Stone, E. G Occupation. Grain manager Treasurer of South Australia Machinist Engineer Secretary Federated Millers' and Mills Employes' Association. Manager Adelaide Milling Company MiUer Director of Chemistry Retired farmer Entomologist Cork merchant Manager South Australian Wheat Scheme Director of Agriculture Clerk of Works Agriculturalist ExperimentaUst Engineer-in-Chief Consulting engineer Residence. Swaine Avenue, Rose Park. Northcote Ter., Medindie . . Roebuck St., Mile End Melbourne New Street, Queenstown . . Barnard Street, N. Adelaide Blyth Giles Street, Toorak Fullarton Road, FuUarton . Young Street, Unley Commercial Travellers' Club, Adelaide Henley Beach Lefevre Terrace, N. Adelaide Mary Street, TJnley Kirkcaldy Road, Grange . Northcote Ter., Medindie . Farrell Street, Glenelg Page. 23 28 33 33 38 41 39 16,30 32 26 31 1,7 13,43 37 21 27 42 INDEX TO APPENDICES. Page. A — Experiments by Mr. W. J. Spafford, of the Agricultural Department 45 B — ^1 reatment of Weevily Wheat — ^Report by Professor H. Maxwell-Lefroy 47 C — Weevil and Remedies — Mr. Frederick Noel-Paton's Report, &c 48 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Tvesday, January 8th, 1918, at 10-30 a.m. [At Parliament House, Adelaide.] Present — Mr, W. Angus, M.P., Chairman. Hon. W. H. Harvey, M.L.C. Hon. T. Pascoe, M.L.C. Hon. A. A. Kirlq)atrick, M.P. Mr. E. A. Anstey, M.P. Mr. E. L. Butler, M.P. Mr. J. E. Pick, M.P. George Godwin NichoUs, Manager, Soutli Australian Wheat Scheme, Adelaide, called and examined : 1. By the Chairman — When were you appointed manager of "the pool ? — I was appointed secretary at the commence- ment. I was appointed manager during recent months, when the title was changed from secretary to manager. It was .simply a change of title. It was in September or October. 2. Previous to that you had been secretary ? — Yes, from its inception. 3. As secretary to the pool, had you equal opportunities of knowing just all you know now as manager of the pool ? — Precisely the same. The change really was that although I was carrying the title of secretary I was virtually manager right through — that is so soon as the thing developed. 4. Have you been conversant with the whole of the operations since its inception ? — I have been conversant with the whole of the major operations of the pool in South Australia and the minor details so far as it is possible for one man to be in touch with them. 5. Are you a member of the Central Board ? — ^No. 6. Do you attend the meetings of the Central Board ? — I almost invariably attend the meetings which are con- ferences of Ministers. 7. Are you conversant with the work that is carried on there ? — Yes. 8. Would you be justified, as an employee of the board, in giving evidence as to what transpired at these meetings ? — I was there helping the Minister. 9. In your position as secretary to the Minister of the pool, would you be in a position to give evidence on your own behalf as regards matters affecting the Central Board ? — No. I think that is a matter that the Minister should do. 10. If the Commission thought fit to ask questions in regard to the wheat pool, I would like you to consider the matter, and, if necessary, get the necessary authority in regard to giving evidence on that point ? — ^Yes. 11. I think you have a statement that you are prepared to make to the Commission ? — No. I have copies of the agreements and a certain amount of data that may serve me in answering questions that I anticipated you might ask from time to time. 12. We want you to give the statistics of the two pools ? — Yes. I have certain statistics here and there are others which I can secure very rapidly. We supply the Minister and members of the board with a statement showing the wheat position and the financial position, and a copy of the last weekly statement of the position will give you all you desire. 13. What is the total yield of the South Australian G. G. NichoUs. 1915-16 scheme ? — The total wheat in South Australia handled under the 1915-16 scheme was 9,800,477 bags. 14. That is not the exportable wheat from this State ? — No. It includes that handled by the shippers and millers. 15. And also the quantity of wheat required for the State's need, so far as gristing is concerned ? — Not quite entirely, because some millers had secured wheat direct from the farmers before the wheat pool came into operation — to the extent of 2,000,000bush. approximately. The millers had acquired that previous to the operations of the pool. 16. Have you the exportable surplus after the require- ments of the State were satisfied ? — I have not that with me, and I think it would be rather difficult to get that, because you wUl be aware that a great deal of this is exported in the form of flour, and that would have to be taken into account. 17. That would have to include the quantity of wheat gristed for exportation ? — ^Yes. 18. It is necessary for the Commission to know the exact amount you are handUng for export purposes in the shape of wheat and flour ? — I have a list showing the wheat that has been exported and the wheat sold locally. That will probably include the wheat turned into flour and shipped. Then I have the stocks held by the shippers and millers. If we haVe the total wheat shipped and stocks stiU held we have the shipable surplus except such proportion of wheat locally held by millers, and I can get that. 19. The point I am anxious to get at is the total of the wheat in charge of the pool that has been and wiU have to be exported in the shape of wheat and flour ? — The wheat that is in the care of the pool and still to be shipped in the form of wheat of the 1915-16 yield is 2,262,654 bags less the quantity that is being consumed and has been consumed by weevil. 20. We are not dealing with that, but I want the quantity you have received ? — I can ascertain the quantity shipped and used for local requirements. Any flour we hold we hold for the British Government on their own accoimt. We hold it at their expense and their risk. 21. You must know what flour is available for export purposes ? — Yes ; but I have not the figures with me. 22. You in.ust know that from the fact that flour for local purposes has a special, price ? — ^Yes. No flour is exported without a permit from the pool. 23. Perhaps you will give us a definite statement of the amount of wheat you received from the producers of the State for export, purposes either as wheat or flour ? — When the farmers deliver wheat to the pool there is no stipula- tion whether it is for export or local purposes. 24. What I want to know is what the pool received and what they have exported either as wheat or flour up to date, and the rest will be wheat in stack or wheat destroyed ? — I can tell you how much of the wheat sold locaUy has been exported as flour, and that, together with the information you have, will be all that you reqiiire. 25. In regard to the quantity of wheat in stack of the 1915-16 crop, can you give us any idea of how it is disposed. Has it aU been rehandled ? — No ; some of it is stiU stacked where it was stacked a few months after it was reaped. It is in the original bag in first-class condition. Almost aU A— No. 27. Minutes of Evidence — G. Gr. Nicholls. of it is separate from tlie other stacks. 1 do not know any case wliere 1916-17 wheat has been mixed up with 191"!-16 wheat. 26. By Mr. Anstey — Has any of the wheat that has just been reaped been stacked on the same ground as the old wheat ? — In many parts of the State it has been stacked on the same sites as were occupied by the wheat last year, and under present conditions it is almost impossible to do otherwise. 27. Is there any truth in the rumor that the old stacking grounds have not been thoroughly cleaned up before the new wheat has been stacked ? — I am not aware of any. Every efiort has been made to ensure that aU stacks and dunnage have been cleansed. 28. Have any reports reached you to the contrary ? — ]So. At Port Germein there were under 2,000 bags stacked in old sheds, but we now have a new stacking ground there. 29. By the Chairman — Has the board sent out instructions to agents that the ground should be thoroughly cleansed before new wheat is put upon it ?- — That notice has been sent to every principal agent. 30. Has the board taken any means to see that these instructions have been carried out ? — Yes ; they have appointed and dispatched inspectors, and in some cases where supervisors were appointed they have thrown the onus upon the supervisor of seeing that it is done. 31. Can you as Manager of the Wheat Pool say that no report has been received that the cleansing has not been thoroughly done on the stacking grounds ? — Well, one reads the newspapers and sees all sorts of reports. Mr. Pascoe reminded me of Port Germein, where one of our inspectors went and condemned the stacking in the old shed because of weevil, and we arranged for a new stacking ground and blocks. The sheds themselves were alive with weevil. That case occurred some time ago. 32. Was the agent responsible in that case for placing the wheat on the old ground without cleansing it ? — I do not know that the agent could be blamed in that particular case. At an early period of the year it was hoped that we would be able to remove the wheat from that shed in suJB&cient time to clear it from weevil, but the scarcity of shipping made that impossible, and when the new wheat arrived there was still a quantity of old wheat there. The advent of hot weather also showed that it was impossible to use that shed because of the Weevil. If there was any error of judgment it was on the part of a member of the board and myself, because we hoped to clear the shed before the new wheat arrived. 33. Have you given instructions to each agent receiving wheat on behalf of the pool that the stacMng grounds shall be thoroughly cleansed from weevil ? — Yes ; general instructions have been given that the stacking grounds and dunnage must be cleaned. That is done by using disinfectants and also by fire. The work is not done by our inspectors themselves, but the inspector follows the work and satisfies himself that it has been done properly. 34. By Mr. Anstey — In the particular case of Port Ger- mein, where I understand 2,000 bags of wheat were stored where some of the old wheat remained, do you throw any responsibility on the agent in a case of that kind ? — -In any case in which it can be shown that the agent has neglected to carry out our instructions he will be called upon to make good any loss to the pool caused by that neglect. 35. By the Chairman — -In the case of an agent who receives instructions that the stacking grounds shall be cleaned before new wheat is put in, and he neglects to carry out those instructions he is responsible for the consequences ? — Yes. We should use the powers of the agreement. Under the agreement the agent is responsible for all risks except certain risks that are specified. Weevil is one of them, but only if he has carried out his duties and instructions. 36. By Mr. Anstey— Bo far as you are aware the case at Port Germein is the only instance where wheat has been stacked on old grounds that have been proved subse- quently to be weevily ? — So far as I know that is the case ; but my knowledge of the wheat business tells me that it must necessarily follow that if wheat is stacked in a town which has had wheat in it for two years some of it will be put in the vicinity of land or dunnage that has been affected by weevil. It is a human impossibility to prevent that. 37. By the ChairmanSo far as you are aware every precaution has been taken to see that this season's wheat is stacked on ground and dunnage that is clear of weevil ? — That is so. Certain sheds have been used, however, that have been cleansed ; but I know there must be weevil there, even if only one or two. 38. Coming back to the stacking grounds. There have been open stacking grounds where the wheat of the last two years has accumulated in some cases to a depth of from 6in. up to 2ft. Have those places been dealt with in such a way that wheat being stacked on such grounds will not be contaminated with weevil from the old wheat ? — So far as my knowledge goes there is very little evidence indeed of weevil in such open stacks. Every effort has been made to ensure that the ground has been properly cleaned and sweetened, not only to rid it of the weevil, but to make it sanitary. In some cases we have had fires burning, and the grounds are cleaner than ever they were before. 38a. Is it possible for your officers, after instructions have been given for the cleaning, to examine the stacking grounds within reasonable time to see that the instructions have been carried out ? — Yes. 39. Have they examined and reported on many old stacking grounds in the State ? — Yes. 40. And ypu find the reports invariably satisfactory ? — Yes ; so far as outside stacks are concerned. 41. Would you be surprised to find that a stacking ground has not been cleaned properly ? — -To-day yes, but six weeks ago no. 42. Would you be surprised to find to-day that wheat is being stacked on a stacking ground that has not been properly cleaned ? — I should not be surprised to find that at some remote place at which the inspectors may not yet have arrived. 43. Would you be surprised to find that it applies to a centre where they take in 170,000 bags of wheat ? — Yes. If I learned to-day that wheat is being stacked on a site not properly cleansed I should endeavor to find who is the responsible officer, in order that he might be dealt with. It would show a great lack of duty on the part of some inspector. 44. By Mr. Anstey — I take it that all the agents are working under contract ? — -Do you mean that they have all signed agreements to handle the wheat ? 45. Is it contract work they are doing ? — -We only know the principal agents, we do not know the sub-agents. The principal agents are under an agreement to do certain work for a lump sum of money. 46. By the Chairman — -And the principal agents are responsible for the work of the sub-agents ?— Yes. 47. Would you communicate with the principal agent or the sub-agent in regard to stacking grounds which your inspector found unsatisfactory ? — -We would commu- nicate with both. The inspector would instruct the sub-agent in writing on the ground, and a copy of those instructions are forwarded to the principal agent. 48. Do you know the terms on which the sub-agents are working ? — I believe most of them are getting Id. per bushel. 49. By Mr. Butler— The terms vary a great deal, do they not ? — I do not know that they vary very much. 50. By the Chairman — Can you state the quantity of wheat in the 1915-16 pool that is now in the original stacks 1 — I do not think there is any. When I referred previously to " original " stacks I meant the original stacks at the terminals ; but that wheat may have been previously stacked in the country, so they would hardly be " original " stacks. 51. I thought you meant the original stacks in the country ? — No, there is none there ; the 1915-16 wheat Minutes of Evidence — G. G. Nicholls. liae ehiher been shipped or brought down and rebagged, or reconditioned and restacked. 52. Having handled the 1915-16 pool, you ought now to be in a position to say exactly what wheat has been exported, what milled, used for local purposes, and what quantity is still in the stacks. Did you say there were 2,264,000 bags still to be shipped ? — Yes ; that is on paper. 53. Are you getting reports from day to day as to the condition of the wheat in the various stacks ? — Not from day to day, but we get periodical reports ; the stacks are all under the closest observation. 54. Can you state that generally the condition of those stacks is satisfactory ? — Do you refer to the condition of the 1915-16 pool in regard to weevil or damage ? For exaniple, in regard to weevil I have data in the office from which I can inform you of the number of bags of the 1915-16 wheat in stacks which are showing no sign of weevil, the number slightly afiected, and the number which from the outside appearance are badly affected. I want, however, to point out that the external appearance of a stack is no reliable guide as to the condition of the stack if opened. We have recently shipped from centres such as Port Ade- laide, WaUaroo, Port Pirie, and Port Lincoln, and in each case the experience has been that the weevil damage was practically confined to the outside bags, and that the inside wheat was of good shipping quality. 55. Can you give us the approximate loss from all causes in regard to the wheat in the 1915-16 pool ? — I am afraid I cannot. 56. When will you be in a position to do so ? — It will take several weeks yet to finish checking the claims which have been made by agents for reconditioning the 1915-16 wheat. When those claims have been checked and the Minister decides which shall be paid we will be able to estimate the loss. 57. By the Hon. I. Pascoe — But that loss will not include the loss through weevil ? — No ; the loss from weevil will be outside that calculation. If I had ships and could ship the whole of the wheat to-morrow, there would be very little loss, indeed, from weevil ; but if we do not get ships for six months it is impossible to foretell what will be the loss. However, the British Government are taking over their portion of the wheat very shortly, and from then the loss from weevil will be borne by the British Govern- ment. 58. By the Chairman — If you have a difficulty in assessing what the loss from weevil is or is likely to be, how are you going to hand over the wheat to the British Government as undamaged ? What system of adjustment will you adopt ? — ^Until the representative of the British Government arrives it is impossible to say definitely ; but our view is that he will accept any stacks of wheat which from the outside appear to be undamaged by weevil. 59. You said a good many of the stacks were obviously damaged ? — I do not think I said that. I said no one could estimate the damage done by weevil. In an average 1915-16 stack you see weevil to a certain extent. I referred to stacks which we had been shipping, which were weevilly on the outside but not on the inside. We take the view that because there are a few crawling weevils on the out- side of the stack, if the grain is not damaged, it does not necessarily foUow that the British Government will decline to take it over. We think they will take it over. 60. You leave it in the hands of the agent who has discretionary power ? — We have a contract, and it is a question whether they are not in our hands, but we wish to give them a fair deal. 61. By Mr. Butler — -They want wheat in a fair condition ? — Yes ; their contract was to take it over from the first of January. 62. By the Chairman — The original contract was the first of July ? — I am not aware of that. 63. By Mr. Anstey— Should, there be any loss it will be borne by the pool ? — In any stacks not taken over by the British Government the loss will be borne by the pool. 64. By the Chairman — You are not in a position to say approximately what wiU be the loss on the 1915-16 wheat until you have handled tha whole stock ? — Certainly not from weevil, no living man can. 65. Are you shipping 1915-16 wheat ahead of 1916-17 wheat ? — Yes. 66. In all cases you are sending away where possible 1915-16 wheat as against 1916-17 wheat ?■ — ^Yes ; and we have done so where possible from the commencement. 67. By Mr. Butler— Is. it not possible shortly to clear out the 1915-16 wheat ? — We have 2| million bags. It would take about 72 sailing ships of the size of which we are getting a few now and then to clear out the balance of the 1915-16 wheat. 68. What proportion of the balance of the 1915-16 wheat is the British Government likely to take ? — It is hard to say. I am afraid I cannot hazard a guess. 69. By Mr. Pick — At the present rate of shipping, how long do you estimate it would take to get rid of the balance, say, at the rate you have been shipping during the last six months ?• — I would like to look into the figures of what we have been shipping before answering the question. But if we were to ship all our wheat of both years together at the rate at which it was shipped in the normal season of 1913, it would take three years to ship the wheat we have and that which is now being stacked, taking the present crop at 25 million bushels. 70. By the Chairman — Another difficulty arises. The British Government have bought so much wheat from the pool. They are controlling the whole of the freight avail- able. Consequently the available freight is for lifting their own wheat, not of the remaining exportable surplus ?- — To a very large degree that is probably so ; but inquiries I have had recently would lead one to think that there might be some possibility of trade y?ith other countries than Great Britain. 71. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — We have been dealing with losses by weevil, and probably it would be as well to inform us if the Wheat Board are doing anything else to reduce, so far as possible, this loss by weevil in the way of turning the wheat into flour V — Since the weevil has made its appear- ance we have been grinding wheat into flour as quickly as possible' to reduce the loss from weevil to a minimum. In the first instance we arranged a gristing contract with a large firm of millers, and later on as the quantity of weevilly wheat coming in exceeded the quantity that could be handled by that firm we directed that weevilly wheat only should be directed into all the millg of the State, the only exception being places such as Marrabel and Blumberg, where it would not pay to cart it. We are turning wheat into flour at the rate of 637,555bush. per month. 72. By Mr. Anstey — How much of that is required for home consumption ? — The total for home consumption is 181,550bush., and for oversea shipment 456,000bush. per month. 73. Can you obtain the necessary freight ? — By arrange- ment with the British Government that is being gristed for them as being their wheat, but we are getting hardly any freight, and it is being held at the risk and cost of the British Government from the time that it is gristed here. The quantity of flour held on account of the Imperia) Government is 51,000 tons, or a wheat equivalent of 66,215 tons. 74. Is any of that attacked by the flour weevil ? — There are many kinds of weevil. There is the null bug, or mill clock as it is known in the trade, and it is to be found on some of the bags of flour. I am not aware of any of the flour held in the stacks held by the pool damaged by any insect life at present. Of course eventually the Mediter- ranean moth will get into the flour if it is not shipped. 75. By Mr. Butler — How long is it possible to hold flour without it deteriorating ? — It depends upon many things — where it is made and stored and the proximity to the mills or other places where the Mediterranean moth may be found^-but for general purposes it is considered you can safely hold flour for six or eight months without it deteriorating. Minutes of Evidence — G. G. Nicholle. 76. Is there any responsibility on the part of the pool if this floui should deteriorate ?— So far as I can understand the position there is not. My information comes from Melbourne, but I have not seen the contract. It is held entirely at the risk of the Imperial Government, and they are paying for the construction of sheds to hold it. 77. You say the capacity for converting wheat into flour is 212,000 bags a month ?— That is the quantity of wheat converted now. 78. In 12 months that would mean approximately 2,600,000 bags ?— Or 7,650,000bush. 79. You say that 51,000 tons of flour is equivalent to 66,000 tons of wheat— that is equal to 800,000 bags of wheat ? — That wheat equivalent does not mean the number of tons of wheat turned into flour. Instead of giving them 66,000 tons of wheat we are giving them 51,000 tons of flour. If you desired to know the quantity of wheat to make that quantity of flour you must multiply the number of tons of flour by, roughly, 50. 80. Then there are 2| million bushels of wheat that you have converted into flour and have not stacked ? — Yes ; plus a good deal that was shipped in the early months when vessels were available. 81. Suppose the British Government took over then- wheat as they intend, the Wheat Board, so soon as the Imperial Government take their wheat, will immediately start to convert the residue of the two years' crop into flour ? — There is no intention to stop gristing. 82. What are you going to grist ? — We have contracts ruiming now, some to the end of June on account of the British Government, and they may insist that the wheat they take over as from January 1st shall be used under these gristing contracts. On the other hand it may be possible for us to deliver to them the quantity of wheat they require undamaged by weevil, and go on gristing the pool stocks, and really this reduces the quantity of sound grain we have to hand over to them. The Minister has authorised me to try to arrange to hand a part of it over to them in the form of flour. 83. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — You are grinding a certain amount now. How does that compare with the capacity of the mills in South Australia ? I understand there are two mills grinding now?— I think we may say that all large mills are working three shifts full time. The smaller country mills are not, but some of the larger country mills are, and some of them have a large capacity. The only thing that stops them is the necessity of putting in new machinery or stopping for cleaning or repairs. We figure that Harrison's mill is working 46 weeks uninterruptedly. 84. By Mr. Anstey — ^What process do the mills adopt to eliminate the weevil from the grain ? — The mill cleaning machinery of to-day is very wonderful, and it completely and effectively removes the weevil, and the wheat berry is perfectly clean when it reaches the rollers to be converted into flour. 85. By the Chairman — ^Coming to the 1916-17 crop, what was the total yield of the State ? — 13,740,922 bags. 86. What was the exportable surplus ? — We hold of that 11,852,529 bags and have shipped 1,208,490 bags, and then 679,434 bags have been sold locally to millers. 87. Is that f.a.q. wheat ? — It may have been attacked and badly cut about by mice. The quantity taken by the merchants in town and sold at 3s., 4s., and 5s. a bag would be included. 88. Can you give us the quantity of 1916-17 wheat which has been reconditioned, that is, reconditioned and restacked at the various centres ? — That information will take a Uttle time to prepare, but I will supply it. 89. By Mr. Butler — Can you tell us what proportion of the 1916-17 wheat has been gristed ?— Some 679,000 bags, sold locally, have been gristed. There are some mills so situated that it would not pay to send old wheat to them ; and in other cases — for example, I made a deal with the Adelaide Milling Company when it was found that mice were damaging certain stacks held by them, that they should take over all the stacks and grind the wheat. That turned out a very profitable transaction for the board. There are cases where, owing to the ravages of mice, it was considered to be advisable to have the 1916-17 wheat gristed ; but the general policy has been, if possible, to grist the 1915-16 wheat. Practically all that has been sold locally has been gristed— that is, roughly, 2,000,000 bags of the 1915-16 wheat, and 600,000 bags of the 1916-17. 90. By the CJiairman — When did it first become evident to you that very great damage was Ukely to take place in the wheat stacks through the mice plague ? — It is difficult to give the exact date ; but the minutes of a meeting of the Wheat Harvest Board held on March 13th, 1917, contain the following : — It was admitted that a plague of mice existed, and that compensation would have to be allowed to Govern- ment agents in terms of agreement. The secretary reported "that wheat was being removed as speedily as possible from places most bS,dly affected by mice, and more particularly from sidings without resident staff. Some discussion took place regarding means of combating the mice plague, but members considered that as the mice were in the stacks before the building of same had been completed, it was practically im- possible to deal with them by other means than by moving the wheat. 91. You were aware of the fact that the mice plague was existent some time in March, 1917 ? — Yes. 92. When did it become evident to you that weevil were in the wheat ?— The first appearance of weevil of any importance was in about November, 1916, at the commence- ment of our first gristing contract. 93. Did your board have any difficulty in deahng with the wheat from a protective point of view from the fact that it was in the hands of Government agents ? — In the first season, yes ; in the second season the same situation existed, but owing to different reasons. In the first season the agreement with the Government agents simply boimd them to take the wheat in and redehver it in good order and condition, and we had no right to tell them that they should put a roof or a curtain on a stack. In the second year those difficulties were remedied ; but the trouble in that year in getting an agent to do what we wanted him to do was that the task was larger than he could handle owing to the restricted train service, the mice plague, the abundant harvest, and the sudden cessation of shipping. 94. Did any of the Government agents hold back the reconditioning or removal of the wheat in order that the responsibihty might be removed from their shoulders ? — I am not in a position to say that they did. 95. Did they, or did they not ? — I do not know, because the task they had in handhng the wheat was very much larger than any task they previously had of the same kind, and certain matters had necessarily to be left to their discretion. I am not in a position to say whether any of them betrayed their trust or not. 96. Did you find any difficulty in dealing with the men ? — I found the utmost difficulty in getting the wheat mcjVed when I said it was to be moved. 97. By Mr. Butler— Does that apply to the merchants ? — Yes ; but when the wheat was in a condition in which it could have been moved there was a restricted train service, and when the service was restored it was so cut about by mice that it could not be lifted promptly. 98. By the Chairman — You are referring now to the 1916-17 pool ?— Yes. 99. Did you find the same conditions in regard to the agents in respect to the wheat in the 1915-16 pool ?— Speaking generally, they carried out their duties fairly well in the first year, but the fact remains that we had" no power to insist on their hanging a curtain on the side of a stack, and we were told, in the first year, that it was not our business, but when the time came to take over that wheat or make some arrangement consequent on the Minutes, of Evidence — Gr. G. NichoUs. -dgteemeut being terminated by effluxion of time, we had the opportunity of condemning certain stacks, so I do not think the loss to the pool was serious. 100. As regards the 1915-16 crop, the agents would allow no interference on the part of the board in regard to their stacks ? — -I do not say that was general, but cases did arise where our interference was resented. 101. By Mr. Butler — In regard to the reconditioning of the 1915-16 crop, what proportion of the' loss was borne by the merchants and what by the pool ? — -Seeing that some •of the 1915-16 wheat was still in the country when the mice plague descended upon it, I cannot answer that question fully until we get full information in regard to the recon- ditioning, but the expense of any reconditioning that had to be done subsequent to the time we took over the responsi- bility for that work in respect to the 1915-16 wheat was reduced very considerably by a levy of Is. a bag on 3 per ■cent, of the wheat that was in the State at that time, that levy being borne by the merchants. 102. Is that what the merchant bore in respect to the 1915-16 crop ? — It is what he paid to us on the balance in the State which had yet to be reconditioned. 103. That was not in the agreement ? — No ; it was in the addendum to the first agreement. It was a com- promise due to the lack of shipping and the fact that the wheat was still here. Eecently I took the trouble to look up the records and they show that everyone expected that the wheat would be shipped by the end of November. It was not contemplated that it would be held for more than one year. 104. By ike Chairman — -That necessitated you taking the wheat over to the following year's pool. It was taken over by Act of Parliament from the first year to the second year's pool ? — I think not. 105. I think you will find that is so. It does not exist as a definite, separate part of the 1915-16 pool ? — My con- ception of the position is that the 1915-16 wheat and the 1916-17 wheat are on all points distinct and separate. 106. By Mr. Butler — ^But it is governed by the new agreement ? — The 1915-16 wheat has been handled up to October, 1917, under the old agreement, and the 1916-17 wheat to the end of December under the new agreement. 107. By Mr. Anstey — What are the difierences between the new and the old agreements ? — The essential difEerences are as regards increasing the powers of the Minister, and an arrangement for an arbitration board. 108. More in the interests of the pool than of the mer- chants ?— Certainly, we gained by experience. 109. By Mr. Butler — -The new agreement relieves the merchant of a certain loss as regards the mice plague and weevil ? — Yes ; but that was in the addendum to the first agreement. 110. You say the first crop was covered by the first agreement 1 — That is so. The first of these two years' agreements expired as on October 31st, 1917, and the second as on December 31st, and we are taking wheat oVer under a short agreement which wiU stiU hold the agent responsible for the quality of the wheat that he took in. 111. By Mr. Pick — You referred to some stacks that were condemned because the merchants did not look after it properly. Do you know the number of bags in those stacks ? — No, they were put in good order and condition at the expense of the merchants and were taken oVer again by us. We would not take them over until they were put in good order and reconditioned at the expense of the merchants. That was the reason they were condemned. 112. By the Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrich — Do you know that an agreement was entered into between the Federal Govern- ment and the farmers in the first place in reference to taking wheat ? — No, I do not think there has ever been an agree- ment with the Federal Government and the farmers. 113. Was there an agreement made between any parties in connection with the purchase ?— There was an agreement with the Commonwealth and the State Governments and the Banks in regard to the financing and guarantees for No. 27. the repayment of the amount advanced. Personally, I am not aware of any other agreements. 114. Do you know the terms of the agreement ? — Roughly, yes. It was that certain banks having advanced certain sums of money would receive interest at the rate of 5 per cent., and repayments made to them as sales were realised in London. 115. Is it stipulated where the responsibility to the purchaser or seller should lie ? — No. 116. Is it not stated where the responsibility of the British Government comes in ? — That is all expressed in the contract between the British Government and the Australian Wheat Board. 117. Have you seen a copy of that contract I- — Yes, I have a copy of that in my office. 118. Does that relieve the British Government from any responsibility in regard to those losses that have taken place, or are they intending that we should be responsible ? — The responsibility remained with AustraUa to hold the wheat until the 31st December, 1917, after which deteriora- tion from natural causes is for the account of the buyers. 119. Up to that time the loss must be sustained by the local authorities — that is the State ? — Yes. 120. By Mr. Anstey — Would the ravages of weevil and mice be regarded as natural causes ? — ^Yes. 121. By the Chairman — If the wheat pool had stacked exactly the quantity of wheat bought by the British Govern- ment in one particular spot, would the South Australian pool have been responsible for the ravages of weevil and mice up to December 31st, according to that contract ? — Yes. The contract was to dehver f.o.b. or ci.f., and any other proposition that might be put would be out of court. 122. You say if you undertook to supply wheat f.a.q, f.o.b., that would be delivering wheat in a sound condition ? — Yes. There was no wee.vil evident in the standard of the State, and that is the standard. 123. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — When there was a difficulty of getting railways to deal with, the wheat, did the board consider the advisabihty at that time of reconditioning this wheat and restacking it in the railway yards in mice- proof stacks, as originally stacked in the other yards ? — I cannot remember the date, but early in those days I discussed with the whole of the shippers the advisability of making mice-proof yards and putting the wheat into them, and their advice was that it was preferable to endeavor to move the wheat, particularly as the British Government had expressed their intention to lift it all by the end of June. 124. By the Chairman — Did they make that stipulation ? — Not in the contract. 125. Did they give the board to understand that they would do so ? — I do not know that they did. The way it came to me was that George Wills & Co., who were repre- senting the British Government in the matter of loading steamers on the f.o.b. arrangement came to me and asked me the maximum number of steamers I could load at each port, and I told them. Ships were coming diffing these early months just as rapidly as we could load them. 126. That is quite a different statement from what you made a minute ago that the British Government had stated that they would move it by the end of June ? — I was informed from Melbourne; but it is not in the contract, and I have never seen it in writing. 127. I would like to know what instructions you had or what led you to believe, and the board and the Minister to believe, that the British Government were going to move that wheat by the end of June ? — I do not know whether you will be calling the general secretary of the Australian Wheat Board, of Melbourne, but he can answer that question. I cannot answer it myself. 128. My point is, what information had the South Aus- tralian Wheat Board which led them and the manager to think that the British Government were going to move the wheat they had bought by June 30th ? — The fact that we were asked how many ships we could load, and, if my Minutes of Evidence — G. G. Nicholls. recollection serves me, a verbal intimation from Mr. Harold Darling, that it was the intention of the British Government to lift the wheat by the end of June. He is a representa- tive of the wheat pool in Melbourne and London. I remember he expressed a doubt as to whether the British Government could send ships quickly enough to do it ; but that was intended, and it was so certainly considered to be a factor worthy of account that provision was made in the agreement for certain rebates in the commission. if the wheat should be shipped by a certain date ; but I cannot indicate any contract to you, and I cannot definitely put you on to any written statements. 129. By Mr. Anttey — ^What effect, if any, had it upon the operations of the board as regards restacking ? — It meant that all our operations were carried out under the thought that the bulk of the wheat would be lifted from Australia within that calendar year. That had an influence on all our plans, and especially in regard to provision of space at terminal points, and the purchase of dunnage, galvanized iron, and general things. 130. Although you had no authentic information that it would be done ? — Yes ; I think authentic information, but I have not seen any contract. 131. By the Chairman — ^Did you have authentic informa- tion ? Did you have any official information ? — Yes. I was advised from Melbourne to try. to get that rebate on the commission for that reason ; but the authority of the people who instructed me I know nothing about. 132. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — That problem had some efiect in regard to the policy of the board in the recon- ditioning of stacks that were injured in the country. Was it not a fact that early in the year they were urging yoTl to get the wheat to the seaboard as early as possible ? — Yes. 133. Later on, when the shipping failed you and you were left stranded, having done nothing to the country stacks, and when you expected to ship to the seaboard, you could not, and winter came on and you were blocked ? — Yes ; but another calamity more than the cessation of shipping was that with the cessation of shipping it took practically twice as long to unload the trucks and resfcack the wheat as to unload them and sling the wheat so that the failure to supply ships hit quite as hard as being misled in thinking that they were going to be supplied. 134. You think the information about the British Government had an influence upon the policy of the board with regard to the rapidity with which they went about reconditioning the stacks at the country railway stations ? — ^It quite framed the policy. When the seriousness of the mice plague began to be apparent we decided upon the policy of shipping, direct into the vessels, the wheat of the 1916-17 crop from the worst mouse-affected district rather than to disturb the 1915-16 stacks, because that was thought to be the quickest way of getting the wheat away. 135. By the Chmrman — Then the board was alive to the wheat going by the end of June in framing the poUcy. In framing the pohcy they were relying upon the wheat being moved by the end of June, and therefore took no extra- ordinary precautions in regard to the appearance of the plague of mice 1 — By the time the roice plague appeared it must be remembered that the bulk of the stacks in the country were half built. Then a move was made in the shape of moving wheat rapidly from the mouse-afiected areas, but the ships and railways failed us. From the 30th November to the 12th February — the month of January is a great lifting month — there was a definite restricted railway service owing to the coal strike. 136. By Mr. Butler — But you were not attempting to shift it during that time ? — We always attempt to shift it so soon as it is delivered from the fanners' wagon. At that time the wheat is in its best condition to be moved by the railway if we can get trucks. 137. By Mr. Anstey — Was that prior to the outbreak of the mouse plague ? — ^Not prior to our suspicion that we might have it. 138. By Mr. Butler— Yon said you were removing wheat from the mice-affected districts ?— We started to remove it, but we had a restricted railway service at a favorable time for removal. 139. Do you think you had a co-ordination between the department in getting the wheat shipped from the mice-affected districts ?— I think so. I interviewed the Eailways Commissioner, and he told me that his instruc- tions were — I think they came from the nuUtary authorities. — that the trucks were first to be used for minerals, second for super., and as I told the Minister, wheat came a bad third all the way along. 140. Was there any long delay in shifting wheat on the North- Western system, where the niice were bad, because trucks were taken to the West Coast ?— Very few were taken to the West Coast. 141. Could they not have been better used on the North- Westem system ? — No. The trucks on the Eyre's Penin- sula railway were not sufficient to cope with the nuce plague. I am not prepared to say it was wo'-se on Eyre's Peninsula than on the North- Western system, but it was Very bad above Port Lincoln — quite as bad as anjnvhere in the State. 142. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — When you started recondi- tioning the old stacks did you haVe any difficulty in getting the Railway Department to take the wheat away as quickly as you reconditioned it ? — No. The nvice plague seemed, so far as its results were concerned, to descend like an avalanche. Up to a certain date it was apparent that mice were working in the stacks, but from the external appearance of the stacks it was thought it might be possible to get the wheat away ; but in the space of a few weeks the stacks collapsed very quickly, and then the wheat was not in a condition to be removed. 143. Did you experience any labor difficulties in regard to the reconditioning ? — Prior to the time that we arranged for undivided control at the stations I am afraid that very many of the laborers did as httle work as they could, and did their best to make the job last as long as possible. 144. Was not that the fault of the agent 1 — Yes ; but it was more the fault of the system than the individual. When there are six men in one yard competing for labor, and the supply of labor is such that eVery man who comes along is sure of a job, trouble is bound to ensue. 145. By Mr. Anstey — Did the conditions you indicated apply generally ? — Yes ; though I know there were many fine men employed, but generally speaking their best efforts were not put forth while we had divided control. 146. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Was the board influenced to some extent in the policy by the British Government faiUng to provide the ships ? Did not that fact delay somewhat the reconditioning of the stacks at country stations ? — The expectation of ships largely determined the poUcy to run the wheat to the seaboard. 147. The point I want to get is whether the expectation that the British Government would take away the wheat quickly did not influence the policy of the board and cause delay in reconditioning the wheat. The criticism levelled largely at the board's administration was that it delayed reconditioning the wheat, and that if the board had re- conditioned the wheat and put in mouse-proof yards at the country stations it would have meant that the work would have been done quicier and thus saved the loss additional to the damage caused by the mice through the stacks collapsing and the rain getting in. The policy of the board was to shift the wheat to the seaboard, but when the British Government did not take it away it went on with that policy, whereas'by making mouse-proof yards in the country in the vicinity of the stacks and restacking the wheat more wheat could have been saved. Is not that possible ? — Yes. 148. For instance, wheat was carted from various places to the seaboard, would it not have been simpler to have mouse-proof yards in the same yards in which it was origin- ally stacked and restack it ? — I do not think in practice Minutes of Evidence — G. G. Nicholls. 7 that would have worked, because as it was where we had Monday, February llth, 1918, at 8 f.m. mouse-proof barriers we found that either through wicked [^t Parliament House, Adelaide.] malice or carelessness people were always leaving ladders p^ . or boards lying so that the mice could run into the stacks, ^^ ^^- ^ngus^M J'-. Chairman. and of course you could not supervise that at a number ^^^ ^, ^ ^^rxev. M.L.C. of places as well as you could at terminals with responsible nj^ u * a -^ \^ -o of n- -, ^-L ^ ^ ■ ^ ^ i Mr. E. A. Anstev, Al.r. omcers. We removed the wheat m almost every case to m-DTDiinrTi J-.-. ,-, ^ ,, rfix Mr. K. T/. Butler, Al.r. districts which were not ravaged by mice. Take, for H A A X' Irnatrirk M P instance, the quantity that was brought to Port' Adelaide. ,, T F P" k M P ' ^ ' " We had some trouble at Port Picie and Wallaroo, but that - . . . , * . . was caused through mice having been brought down in the George God%vin Nicholls, Manager, South Austrahan trucks and was promptly dealt with. Wheat Scheme, Adelaide, recalled and further 149. But the intimatiou that the British Governmeiit examined : were going to ship the wheat bv the eud of June delayed 159. By the Chairman— '^'e understand you have some action by the board as regards reconditioning the wheat ?— statements to bring forward in regard to previous evidence No ; it afiected our policy in not building mouse-proof yards given by you ?— Yes ; I have one or two details I wish to all over the countrv. add. You asked me to give the date of my appointment 150. If it affected the policv of the board in that you from the position of secretary to manager. That was on did not move the affected wheat into mouse-proof yards, the 7th September, 1917. You asked for a statistical surely that delayed action by the board in reconditioning return of the stocks of wheat in 1915 and in 1916-17 the wheat ?— I do not think it had any efiect on the date of separately, showing the quantities shipped as wheat and reconditioning. *3 flour. The partictdars are as follows : — 151. Supposing you had not known that the British Statisticai. Rbturs of Sales and Stocks. Government intended to ship by the end of June, would Season I915-1916. your policy in regard to handling the wheat affected by mice Bags. Bags. be the same 1 — Personally, mv policy would not have been l- Wheat shipped overseas 5,529,128 ., J . r J o ^vheat shipped to Tasmania 82,521 xne same. ,r t. 3. Wheat sold for private export as flour 166,311 152. By Mr. Bvtler—W ould you have done as Jlr. Tascoe ^ Wheat shipped as flour (pool con- has suggested ? — -I think I would have had mouse-proof tracts) 667,767 enclosures for it in the first instance. — 6.445,727 153. By the Hon. T. Posco^That being so, did not the ■^- Wheat sold for local consumption .. 1,092,091 1,092,091 . " , , -r, • ■ -• m .-ii-- *>. otocKs On hand — mtunation that the British trovernment were gomg to smp ^ ^ ^^^^ of Ao^r 549,334 the wheat delay action by the board ? You say personally B In form of wheat 1,713!325 you would have "removed it into mouse-proof yards 1 — 2,262,659 I would have placed it there m the first instance^from the ^^^^^ ^^^^,^^ 9,800,477 farmers wagons. I was afraid of the mice trouble m the ^ "" first instance, but the argument was that the British €ro- ,„,„,„,.. -1 i-ii -i J -J. ii. 1,4. ii,„4. 4.1, Season 1916-1917. vemment were gomg to uft it, and it was thought that the .quickest way of dealing with the wheat was to take it to ^ ^::ngp^ ^T^ania " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! '''IS the seaboard. 9. wheat sold for private export as flour 31,468 154. If the British Government had not promised to lO. Wheat shipped as flour (pool con- take away the wheat by the end of June what do you, as tracts) 184,538 executive officer of the board, think the board should have ,, ,„,„. , . . , , .. ,„„„„ ^'tf^'n^ o4vo>yu.u».c vru4.v-i- ,.,,,111 , ^ 1 n 11- Wheat sold for local consumption .. 457,929 457,929 done ? — I should think they should have exhausted all ^g. Stocks on hand- means to satisfy themselves whether it was or was not A In form of flour 274,666 desirable to build mouse-proof enclosures. ^ In to"™ of wheat 11,578,332 155. Did the board do that ?— The executive officer 11,852,998 discussed the matter fully with the agents who are the Total bags handled by pool 13,740,922 board's chief advisers. ,^, , ^ , . ■ , ^ Adelaide. January 4th, 1918. 156. By Mr. Anstey — \\ as the board m possession of me same information regarding the anticipated mice plague You asked how long it would take to lift the balance of as you were ? — The board was in possession of the same t^e 1915-16 wheat S shipped at the rate of the prevailing information as I had as to the damage that had been caused gjx months. The answer is approximately six months, by mice. You asked for copies of the Imperial Government con- 157. By the Hon. T. Pascoe—lt has been reported that at tract, which were handed to you on the 15th ult. You one of the centres, Gulnare, the wheat was burned without asked whether it was competent for me to give evidence any attempt at reconditioning or removal. Is there any i^ regard to the business that transpired at the meetings truth in that report ?— There is absolutely no truth in it. of the Australian Wheat Board in Melbourne. I sub- There were consider ible heaps of absolutely useless wheat mitted that to my Minister, and he replied that as I only there which it would have cost many hundreds of pounds attended the meetings as the secretary to the Minister, and to cart away ; instead it was burned, and I think I am safe not as a member, and as many questions are dealt with in saying that £1,000 was saved to the pool by burning it. which could not be made public, the Royal Commission I personally gave instructions that it should be burned. should get the information they require from him, leaving 158. By the CAoirrooM— Did you Uke a sample of that it to his judgment as to publishing. The only other thing wheat ?— No ; it was black and useless. I wish to deal with now is to ask permission to draw atten- The witness withdrew. tion to an answer which I gave to questions 78 and 79. It The Commission adjourned. was as to whether certain quantities of flour shown as the wheat equivalent meant the exact equivalent quantity of wheat, and I said "no." I then proceeded to give you a basis for the calculation, which showed that I should have said " yes." I was confused by the fact that the wheat was shown in long tons and the flour in short tons. It was a self-contradictory answer. This explanation should make my previous answer, therefore, quite intelligible. No. 27 8 Minutes of Evidence — G. G. NichoUs. 160. Another question I asked was as to prices ?■ — That has not been lost sight of, but v.e cannot get it from Mel- bourne. I am not quite sure whence we shall get it. The Secretary to the Commission wrote to me on February 6th, intimating the desire of the Commission to get some information on certain points. I have a statement in reply as follows : — The Wheat Harvest Acts are committed to the Honorable the Treasurer for administration. No board is mentioned in the Act, but the Minister is empowered to appoint such persons he may see fit to carry out the intentions of the Act. The Wheat Advisory Board has been appointed by the Minister under these Acts. — (1) To advise him; (2) to hold regular meetings ; (3) to keep themselves acquainted with the working of the scheme so far as practicable ; (4) to make recommendations on any phase of the work that in their opinion warrants their attention ; (5) to advise on any matters that the' Minister may refer to them, and, in the case of matters of detail, to give guidance to the Manager as may be required. It is competent, therefore, for the board to make any suggestions or recommendations to the Minister that they see fit on any phase whatever of the operations of the scheme. They are enabled to travel and in- spect, and afforded every facility required to keep sufficiently in touch to exercise a general oversight. From meeting to meeting questions are submitted by the Minister, or matters of detail by the Manager, for the advice of the board as may be required The board consists of Hon. L. O'Loughlin, Hon. W. Han- naford, Hon. T. Pascoe, T. Gill,' I.S.O., G. J. Smith (Goods Superintendent), Mr. E. A. Badcock, and Mr. W. M. Alford. In reply to the question contained in your Secretary's letter of the 6th instant, I cannot see that there is any relation between the State and the Commonwealth Wheat Board. The Commonwealth Wheat Board consists of the Prime Minister (represent- ing the Commonwealth Government), the Minister in charge of the administration of the wheat scheme in each of the four States concerned—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia^ — and Mr. C. Giles, the growers' representative. (In the Prime Minister's absence Senator Russell acts as his deputy). This board (1) dictates the general policy to be pursued in the handling and marketing of wheat ; (2) it decides the amounts to be advanced to growers ; (3) it makes the financial arrangements ; (4) it makes all overseas sales of wheat ; (5) it fixes prices at which sales are made to millers, both for local consumption and for export ; (6) it charters (through the charter- ing agents) freight, for overseas contracts, and it apportions shipping among States upon a definite basis ; (7) it arranges terms of conversion of wheat purchases into flour purchases. The Executive con- sists of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agri- culture of Victoria. (In the Prime Minister's absence Senator Russell acts as his deputy) . Its functions are to determine any matters of emergency which may arise, and in regard to which there is no time or, per- haps, necessity, to call the board together for delibera- tion. As a rule these matters involve questions of Government policy, which in any case must be decided by Ministers alone. The Advisory Board consists of Mr. G. T. Bell (Jas. Bell & Co.), Mr. H. G. Darling (John Darling & Son), Mr. G. C. Boehme (Dalgety and Co., Ltd.), and Mr. M. J. Lasry (Louis Dreyfus & Co.). These are in charge of all the technical details of such portion of the scheme as is under the jurisdiction of the Australian Wheat Board. They are the expert advisers of the Wheat Board. All sales' are made through them, except such sales as are made direct to allied Govern- ments, in which case the contracts are prepared and carried through by them. The London representa- tives of these firm s constitute the London selling agency . Sales are all reported to Melbourne for confirmation. The Manager (Mr. H. A. Pitt) attends the deliberations of the Advisory Board, and any sales are made with his cognisance. It is also his duty to see that the de- fined policy of the Wheat Board is observed. London Wheat Committee.— The Australian Wheat Board is represented in London by the High Commissioner of the Commonwealth and the Agents-General of the four States. Acting with these officials are the London representatives of the four Australian wheat shippers previously referred to. These representatives conduct negotiations for overseas sales and arrange requisite details. Arrangements with States. — In order that growers may participate equitably in overseas realisa- tions, it has been arranged that the Australian Wheat Board will in the allotment of freight distribute ton- nage amongst the States in proportion to the export- able surplus of each. In order to equalize the net pro- ceeds of overseas sales the Australian Wheat Board directs periodical adjustments between the States so that each may receive the average net return of the whole of the Commonwealth shipments. Thus, growers in any one State receive as favorable treatment in regard to overseas shipments as those in any other State. The first State Board in South Australia was appointed by Cabinet on the 17th November, 1915, consisting of the Commissioner of Crown Lands (Hon. C. Goode), Chairman ; Professor A. J. Perkins, Director of Agriculture ; Mr. T. Gill, I.S.O., Under Treasurer ; and Mr. W. L. Summers, Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. The first meeting was held at Parliament House on the 24th November, 1915. At that meeting Professor Perkins was appointed deputy chairman, and Mr. G. G. NichoUs was appointed secretary. At the end of May, 1917, an Advisory Committee was appointed consisting of Messrs. F. A. Verco (chairman), Mr. G. J. Smith, Mr. W. M. Alford, Mr. E. A. Badcock, and Mr. G. G. NichoUs. In the course of a few weeks we secured Mr. G. H. K. Vardon as secretary of the committee. This committee was appointed by mutual consent of the shipping agents and the Minister, sup- ported by the Wheat Harvest Board, to take out of the hands of the wheat agents the work of reconditioning in the country and removal of the wheat from mouse- infested places to terminals or stacking centres, and very wide powers were given to the committee to enable it to carry out this colossal task. The original Wheat Harvest Board remained operative until September 7th, at which time the Minister formed a new board with some members from the original Wheat Harvest Board and some from the Wheat Advisory Committee. This board was identical with the present one, excepting that for the first few ^eeks Mr. F. A. Verco was chairman. Owing to pressure of duties as Special MiUtary Commissioner, Mr. Verco resigned, and the Honorable T. Pascoe was appointed to the board as a member in his place, and the Honor- able L. O'Loughlin was made chairman. Apart from the Wheat Advisory Committee already referred to, the only committee of importance that has been appointed is that to investigate the weevil question^ In July, 1917, following on discussions by the committee which impressed me with the serious prospect of very great weevil damage, I moved for the appointment of a body of men who could devote the necessary time, and who had the necessary qualifications, to investigate the subject with a view to the discovery of means adequate and practicable for coping with the weevil pest. The Advisory Committee, and the then Wheat Harvest Board supported the recommendation, which was approved by the Minister, the Honorable George Ritchie, and the committee, with the following gentle- men as members, was appointed : — Dr. Hargreaves, Director of Chemistry (chairman) ; Mr. A. M. Lee Entomologist of the Museum ; Mr. W. J. SpafFord Minutes of Evidence— (j. G. Nicholls. « Experimentalist, Agriculture Department ; Mr. H. Jackett, miller ; Mr. E. A. Badcock, Manager S.A.F.C; and Mr. G. G. Nicholls, ex ojp.-io. That deals with the various points raised in your secretary's letter, except in regard to weevil. As to that, the first appearance of weevil reported was at Port Wakefield and Port Germein about June, 1916 ; and after that date re- ports from inspectors showed that the pest was appearing as under : — Tumby Bay, Hart, Kybunga, Laura. Wallaroo — indications in November, 1916 ; Wynarka, Streaky Bay, Venus Bay, Mondoora, Saddleworth, Port Victoria — January to March, 1917 ; Georgetown, Murat Bay, Port Rickaby, Port Broughton, Snowtown — ^in April, 1917 ; Gulnare — ^August, 1917 ; Lincoln — ^December, 1917 In November, 1916, weevilly wheat started to come to hand in crafts, and to be in evidence much more generally, but we were able to satisfactorily deal with all weeviJly wheat coming in at Thomas's and Harrison's mills until well into 1917, when, in August of that year, it was found neces- sary to put weevilly wheat into other mills, until eventually all mills were working on practically nothing else. We have not recently sent badly affected weevilly wheat into the country owing to the danger of spreading the pest from the railway trucks. I submit herewith copies of circulars sent out from the commencem^ent of the scheme, together with copies of resolutions. The first circular went out in March, 1916, and another in August of that year : — A. CircidaT No. 10. Wheat Harvest Board, Adelaide, March, 1916. Dear Sirs — Government agents, whether shippers or millers, are hereby requested to notify me imme- diately of the appearance of weevil in the stocks of wheat held on the board's account. It is requested that you will take necessary steps of advising your sub-agents so that effect may be given to the board's wishes. Yours f aithfidly, Geo. G. Nicholls, Secretary, Wheat Harvest Board. B. Forwarded to all MiUers and Shippers. August 28th, 1916. Dear Sir — ^As weevil has now been reported in a number of the stacks of wheat held by agents of the board, and with the approach of the warmer weather the trouble is likely to increase, I shall be glad if you wiU advise me very promptly of the appearance of weevil in any of the board's wheat which is in your care. Tour attention is directed to circular No. 10 forwarded to you some considerable time ago. Yours faithfully, Geo. G. Nic (TOLLS, Secretary, Wheat Harvest Board. C. Resolution Passed by Wheat Advisory Committee on Jvly ISth, 1917. Desteuctiok of Weevil. Decided to recommend the Chairman of the Wheat Harvest Board to appoint a special committee con- sisting of the Director of Chemistry, a representative of the Faculty of Science of the University, an agricul- turist experimentalist, a miller or milling engineer, and a member of the Wheat Advisory Committee, to go thoroughly into the question of determining whether some practicable solution could be found for the extermination of weevil by a chemical process or other means. D. Adelaide, July 20th, 1917. Dear Sir — The Wheat Advisory Committee beg to draw your attention to the fact that unless there is an inmiediate rush of tonnage for the removal of wheat from this State serious trouble must be expected from weevil in the warm months approaching. The committee believe that experiments in other parts of the world have demonstrated that wheat can be freed from weevil by means of chemical and mechanical appliances and by the application of heat. They, therefore, respectfully urge that a committee be appointed immediately by the Government for the purpose of ascertaining the best method of coping with the weevil pest in order that necessary plant and appliances may be ready for operation in the course of a few weeks, consisting of the Director of Chemistry, an agricultural experimentalist, the Ento- mologist of the Museum of South Australia, a miller or a milling engineer, and a member of the Wheat Advisory Committee. For the Minister's information it may be stated that wefevily wheat actually in sight can be dealt with by the miUs, but the extent to which the pest may be working imperceived in the centres of large stacks is entirely unknown. In view of the above the board urge the Minister to arrange for this matter to be dealt with with all pos- sible speed. Yours faithfully, G. Vabdoji, Secretary, Wheat Advisory Committee. The Chairman, Wheat Harvest Board, Adelaide. .Adelaide, December 18th, 1917. Memo to the Hon. Sir Richard Butler, the Minister Controlling the Wheat Scheme. Protectiwt 1917-i8 Wheat from Weeioii. In the absence of any knowledge of the prospects of disposing and shipping of the crop now being har- vested in this State, and the obvious necessity for taking such precautions as may be practicable for the protection of the grain from the ravages of weevil and similar pests, I respectfully beg to surest that con- sideration be given to the feasibility of certain pro- posals explained herein. A review of the present position is first necessary. The Hon. the Minister is fully alive to the distressing, not to say appalling, condition of the stacks at Wallaroo, and to a lesser degree at other places, owing to the ravages of weevil. Even though we may assume for the moment that it will be possible to indicate to the representatives of the British Government on January Ist next some 8,000,000 bags of wheat at present apparently free from weevil, as being the stocks held in trust for them,, we must consider that the balance of the 1916-17 wheat, viz., some 1 2,000 ,000bush. is either now, or will be in the course of a few weeks, more or less touched with weevil. The capacity of South Australian miUs working as at present, that is to say, three shilts at the metropolitan and larger country mills and one shift at some of the very small mills, is such that it woidd take over two years to grist the unsold portion of the 1916-17 wheat," acd the balance of the 1915-16 wheat which is not yet shipped. Although a certain proportion of wheat may be free from weevil, and for a longer or shor*«r period be secured from the ravages of the pest by mechanical treatment, and possibly by heat treatment, unless tonnage is forthcoming in the near future on a large scale the combined efforts of the mills and such B— No. 27. 10 Minutes of Evidence — Or. Q. NichoUs. treatment plants as may be erected, will prove totally inadequate to cope with the pest so unassailable and widespread. In face of these facts, and w ith sheds in the country all more or less contaminated with weevil, and vast stacks at the seaboard more or less afierted, knowing as we do that two of the three most formioable wheat- eating beetles are flying insects, the protection of the crop now being harvested must be regaijded as a stupendous problem. Protection of the Wheat. The ^^'eevil Investigation Committee appointed some months ago have advised the Hon. the Minister that in their opinion the only permanent protection of wheat from the effects of weevil is by means of silos, and I believe that with the intimate personal know- ledge you have of the condition of stocks in this State to-day you will agree that grain stacked in bags cannot be held free from the pest for much longer than 12 months, and certainly not for a period of two years. While the system of overground silos might possibly be constructed so as to form part of a bulk-handling equipment for use in normal times, this would only represent a storage capacity of, say, 10,000 ,000bush., or one-third of a large harvest for this State. The cost of these sUos would probably not be less than Is. 3d. per bushel, and the construction of same would be a lengthy process, especially at such places as Ports Adelaide and Pirie, where the nature of the ground would necessitate the piling of the foundations. We are compelled, therefore, to consider some large scheme for the protection of the wheat, or resign our- selves to watching it being reduced to powder, unless we know that tonnage will be forthcoming. I believe the Director of Agriculture has stated that weevil cannot live in sUos that are made completely airtight, and I understand from the Entomologist of the Museum that he is in accord with this view. Some experiments which have been conducted by Mr. W. J. Spafiord (of the Weevil Investigation Com- mittee) point to the same conclusion, and therefore it would appear that if the excavation of a number of underground sUos could be economically accomplished the weevil trouble may, to a very large extent, be overcome so far as concerns the 1917-18 harvest. If I am correctly informed, in certain parts of the world such underground silos are excavated in soils of such a nature as to render unnecessary any lining with concrete or cement ; but even if such lining were necessary a rough estimate of the cost, kindly prepared by Mr. Holland (Consulting Engineer of the Wheat Scheme), shows that suitable trenches could be exca- vated and lined with Sin. of concrete, the whole costing approximately 2-3d. per bushel. Such receptacles, filled with wheat and then covered with timber, on which soil could be heaped 2ft. or 3ft. high, would, in my opinion as a layman, be effective in keeping the wheat away from the air, and thus preventing the ravages of weevil. The suggestion is put forward purely as that of a layman so far as silos are concerned. May I be permitted respectfully to suggest that a meeting be called with the Director of Agriculture, the Engineer-in -Chief, the Entomologist of the South Australian Museum, and myself to confer with the Hon. Minister, so that consideration may be given to the question as to whether the scheme laid dovs n, or any modification thereof, is feasible and worthy of further thought. Gr. C. NtCHOLLS, Manager S.A. Wheat Scheme. F. Department of Chemistry. Adelaide. August 14tb, 1917.' Sir— I have the honor to convey to you the following resolution which was passed at a meeting of the com- mittee appointed in connection with the question of the extermination of weevils in wheat, on Monday, ]3th instant : — The Honorable the Minister of Agriculture to be respectfully informed that in the opinion of the technical members of this committee and Mr. Jackett, the only permanent protection of wheat against weevils is by means of silos, any other means that can be adopted being of a temporary nature, removing the weevil for the time being, but leaving the wheat subject to further contamination. The committee, how- ever, recognises that it is doubtful whether silos can be provided for the present wheat in stacks, and will do what is possible to ascertain the nature of the temporary expedients referred to above to prevent or mitigate the losses that are expected in the coming summer. I have, &c. W. A. Hargreaves, Chairman of Committee. The Honorable the Minister of Agriculture, Adelaide. Department of Chemistry, Adelaide, December 3rd, 1917. Sir — I have the honor to convey to you the follow- ing resolution which was passed at a meeting of the committee appointed in connection with the question of the extermination of weevils in wheat, on Tuesday. 27th ultimo : — In the opinion of this committee the only permanent protection of wheat against weevils is by means of silos, any other means that can be adopted being of a temporary nature, removing the weevil for the time being, but leaving the wheat subject to further contamination. In the absence of silos, and until heat treatment has been further tested, this committee is of opinion that the most practicable way of dealing with weevilly wheat is by mechanical treatment. For this purpose it is necessary to combine the three following processes :— Separation, aspira- tion, and scouring. Any one of the processes alone is not satisfactory. The use of winnowers, graders, or aspirators is not sufficient unless followed by thorough scouring treatment. This treatment cannot be obtained in a portable plant. The committee therefore recommends the establishment of treatment plants properly housed at as many suitable centres as possible to which the wheat is to be brought for treatment, and afterwards removed therefrom in weevil-free bags and stacked or stored at a safe distance from weevilly wheat. The committee suggests that suitable centres are Port Adelaide, Port Pirie, and Wallaroo. To make certain of killing or removing all the weevil. It may be necessary to follow up the mechanical treatment in the rase of wheat intended 1or prolonged storage by either submitting the wheat to heat treatment, mixing it with lime, or other treatment, but this committee is not yet in a position to make a recommendation with respect to after-treatment. Experiments are now being proceeded with to investigate the question 01 after-treatment. Minutes of Evidence — G. Gr. Nicholls. 11 f A copy of this resolution to be forwarded to the Honorable the Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme, respectfully recommending that action be taken accordingly. 1 have, &c., W. A. Hargeeaves, Chairman Wheat Weevil Committee. The Honorable the Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme, Adelaide. H. South Australia. Department of Chemistry, Victoria Square West, Adelaide, January 22Qd, 1918. Sir — At the last meeting of the committee appointed to inquire into the question of weevil in wheat, the following resolution was carried : — In the opinion of this committee it is desirable that, pending the establishment of complete wheat-cleaning plants, all wheat on which grain- destroying insects have commenced to work shall be removed from close proximity to sound wheat, and be ^t the same time screened or otherwise treated to remove or destroy the insects. Yours faithfully, W. A. Haegeeaves, Chairman Wheat Weevil Committee. The Manager, South Australian Wheat Scheme, Adelaide. 161. By Mr. Anstey — Are we to understand that no clean wheat has been sent to the mills for milling purposes ? — Not entirely ; because sometimes a sample is so badly damaged by weevil that it is necessary to put a better class of wheat into it. That is, in effect, to average it up. Speaking generally it is all more or less affected. 161a. To the Chairman : The document marked " C " and put in is almost unnecessary as it is covered by " D " in the papers I have submitted. The document marked " D " is simply a confirmation of the statement I have already made regarding the recommendation that a special committee should be appointed to investigate the weevil question. Following that, on August 3rd, 1917, the Advisory Committee wrote to the then Minister warning . him that it was probable, almost inevitable, that there would be very severe losses from weevil, and suggested that this fact should be borne in mind when consideration was given to the question of further advances on wheat certificates. On September 15th a change had taken place in the Government, and a new Minister was in control of the Wheat Scheme, the new Minister's attention was drawn to the memorandum by the Advisory Committee. The letter of July 20th, 1917, was in regard to the appoint- ment of the committee. You have not a copy of the letter of August 3rd, but I have referred to it so that it may appear in the evidence. 162. By the Chairman — I take it that nothing further was done by the Advisory Committee than to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that there was likely to be trouble with weevil. Did the Minister communicate with the committee in reply ? — I am not aware that he did, nor am I aware that he suggested ■ that any action should be taken. You will remember that a committee had been appointed to go into the question, and in the meantime weevilly wheat was handled to the best advantage at the mills. In due course recommendations were forth- coming from the Weevil Committee, which you have and which are marked " F," " G," and " H." The first is an expression of opinion to the effect that weevil can be con- trolled only by means of silos. The coming crops could be stored in silos if they were available, and I believe that was in the minds of the members of the committee. When you have evidence from the gentlemen on that committee No. 27. I think it will be shown that wheat can be permanently protected from weevil if airtight silos are available. The committee thought the Government should be informed of that opinion, and in the meantime made investigations in other directions to see what could be done. That was on August 14th, 1917. The recommendation of the com- mittee was included in a docket which was sent to me about the end of November, among other papers by the then Minister, asking me to bring under his notice any matters of importance contained in the docket. On December 3rd 1 wrote to him as follows : — The Hon. Minister has probably received an interim report from the Chairman of the Weevil Investigation Committee, indicating that mechanical methods of weevil destruction are the only means that, in the opinion of the committee, are practicable under present conditions and in the absence of sUos. The ravages of the pest can certainly be checked for a period, longer or shorter, according to the condition of the wheat treated, by special mill-cleaning plant, and I am still hopeful that treatment by the applica- tion of heat may be practicable. Regarding that matter a separate report will be laid before you. Whatever may come of heat treatment and mechanical processes the very serious damage which is being wrought by weevil — and which must become increas- ingly widespread if shipping is not forthcoming- demands that full consideration be given to the possibilities of weevil control by means of sUos. Even though it may be quite impracticable to construct sufficient silos to contain the greater proportion of the wheat, a limited number of airtight sUos for the treatment of wheat and subsequent rebagging of same in a clean area would appear to be a pressing necessity. I understand that the Director of Agriculture has personal knowledge of the subject gained by him when in Northern Africa and in Southern Europe, and I respectfully urge that his opinion and advice be sought on the matter. I think that information should go in as evidence to show that action was taken, otherwise why appoint a Weevil Committee ? That recommendation was made by me as Manager of the Wheat Scheme on December 3rd. It was sent to the Minister controlling the Wheat Scheme, and the Minister forwarded it to the Director of Agriculture on December 4th for report. Professor Perkins was away on holidays at that time, and his reply did not reach the Minister until January 24th. The Director's report was as follows : — In response to request of the Hon. Minister in charge of the Wheat Scheme I have the honor to report as follows :— From time immemorial it has been the practice, both north and south of the Mediterranean, to store grain in air-tight silos as a provision against drought. And amongst the Arabs the practice is, I believe, still in vogue at the present time. Experience shows that in such circumstances grain — wheat, oats, or barley — will keep almost indefinitely, providing— 1. That the grain is sufficiently dry at the time of storing; not more than 12 per cent, to 13 per cent, of moisture, I believe. 2. That the silos themselves are perfectly water- proof. 3. That the silos are closed down hermetically. To shut down wheat in an air-tight silo is to protect it indefinitely against weevil. Why this should be so may, I think, be explained as follows :— All living organisms — ^plants or animals — breathe, i.e., take in free oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. Whenthe wheat is first stored, there will be a supply of atmospheric oxygen between individual grains. 12 Minutes of Evidence — G. G. Nicholls. This oxygen w ill be gradually used up by the grain in the respiration process, and its place will be taken by carbon dioxide. The weevil is quite unable to live in an atmosphere of carbon dioxide, hence its early death if present in the silo. I am of the opinion that nothing short of the erection of a sufficiency of silos will save the stored wheat, and in view of the fact that bulk-handling is certain to be adopted here sooner or later, it seems reasonable that silos should be erected in harmony n-ith this general scheme. The Minister minuted the docket on February 6th, and I received it to-night. I propose returning it to him to- morrow, suggesting that the matter has now reached a stage when it should be placed before Cabinet. 163. To Mr. A-nstey : Professor Perkins made his recom- mendation before he knew that I had made a suggestion to the Minister that consideration should be given to the question of underground silos. My recommendation of December 18th is marked " E " and has been placed before the Commission. Local experiments in glass jars only have been carried out very exhaustively and to a proper conclusion by Mr. SpafEord, of the Deparlament of Agricul- ture, and the results are conclusive. A small experimental underground silo is being tried at Wallaroo, where a pit 10ft. deep has been sunk, as recommended when the Com- mission visited that port. Following on my recommenda- tion the Minister consulted the Director of Agriculture arid Mr. Graham Stewart regarding underground silos and the estimate of the Engineer -in-Chief was lower than that submitted by me. The Minister asked Mr. Stewart to go further into the question with a view of submitting the matter to Cabinet for consideration. At that time the Minister seemed disposed to put down a trial silo of con- siderable size. Nothing definite has been done apart from what I have stated. The approsfimate cost of con- structing and handling wheat in and out of an underground silo would be between 3d. and id. per bushel. It is estimated that it would cost about 2 '6 pence per bushel to excavate and line the silo, and Id. per bushel to handle the grain in and out ; that, of course, is only a rough estimate. Such a proposition would only be undertaken if we felt tolerably sure that sufficient ships would not be available for lifting the wheat in good time. 164. By the Chairman — The whole of these suggestions deal with future wheat ? — Not entirely so. I would urge the immediate construction of silos to deal with the worst wheat. We have wheat to-day that has been ravaged by weevil, and if that were shot into pits, according to expe- rience here and elsewhere, the weevil would immediately cease to exist. If it is impracticable to construct them in time to be of service in connection with the present stacks, they should be ready for the 1917-18 crop, if neces- saiy. 16f). By Mr. Anstey — ^In making these recommenda- tions, were you speaking on behalf of the board, or were they your own opinions ? — I met Mr. A. M. Lee in Jackett's mill, and he said, " Cannot you use your influence with the G-overnment in regard to silos ; it is the only thing." The underground silo was my own thought, and I recom- mended accordingly, not as coming from the board, but as manager of the Wheat Scheme. The principle was put forward by the board in the first instance, but I do not think they ever considered underground silos. I have quoted the board as the author of the suggestion in my report. I would like to deal with two other recommenda- tions of the Wheat Weevil Committee. Eecommemdation '• Gr " is that in the absence of silos, and until heat treat- ment has been further tested, the Committee is of the opinion that the most practical way of dealing with weevily wheat is by mechanical treatment. Acting on that sugges- tion a contract has been entered into with Jackett Bros to erect a plant at Wallaroo ior treating wheat by mechanical means to produce a sample suitable for milUng or shipment. 166. To Mr. Pick: The machine should be ready in three or four weeks. Speaking from memory, it is expected to treat 18,000 bags per week. 167. To Mr. Anstey : Broadly, the process mcludes separation (that is, screening), aspiration, and scouring. The work is somewhat of a technical nature, and a miller could give better information on the matter than I can. It is not guaranteed to destroy the germ. We have entered into a contract with Messrs. Jackett Bros, to erect a machine and do the work at the rate of 6d. per bag. We find the shed. No guarantee is given that the wheat will keep free from weevil unless it is immediately sent to the mill to be ground. 168. To the Chairman : We could grind 18,000 bags per week, but it would necessitate long transportation to the mills and the exclusion of other wheat which might possibly just as well be ground. 169. To Mr. Anstey: It would mean rebagging and re- stacking the wheat after the treatment, with the possibility of it being attacked in the future by weevil. 170. To the Chairman : Portion of the wheat treated could be sent to the mill immediately. 171. To the Hon. W. H. Harvey : We are free to send any wheat we choose to that plant. 172. To the Chairman : The plant is to be erected at Wallaroo, and it is intended to deal with the stacks there. The third recommendation of the Wheat Weevil Committee, dated January 22nd, 1918, has been handed in and is marked " H. ' That, of course, has been done, so far as practicable, since the first appearance of weevil, but it was quite a proper recommendation to make. Action is being taken to protect clean wheat from weevil from infected grain in that we isolate the sound wheat from the old so far as practicable. For example, at Wallaroo the new season's wheat is being stacked quite remote from the old wheat. Some of it is not a great distance from the old stacks, but that is accoimted for by the fact that the local wheat brought in by teams had to be taken off somewhere where there was a road. In such cases we are removing any weevilly wheat which is in close proximity to the sound grain as soon as practicable, and we are surrounding the stacks with loose sand, which we find, when heaped up as a barrier, prevents the weevil from crawling to the new wheat. Then t« still further improve the position wheat is now being stacked at Tailem Bend, and next week it will be stacked at Dry Creek to reduce the quantities going to the Outer Harbor, where there is old wheat that is weevil infected. In addition to that, no coastal wheat or wheat from outports is being stacked with inland wheat, as we find that the coastal wheat is much more prone to develop weevil than is the grain from inland districts. 173. To the Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick : I do not say that sand prevents all the weevil from reaching the stacks, but it prevents a tremendous proportion of them. They are caught in the sand trap and Mlled in myriads by the heat of the sun. 174. To Mr. Anstey : I beheve the Wheat Advisory Board considered the contract with Messrs. Jackett Bros, and recommended it to the Minister, who approved it. I have to speak from memory. That would be the ordinary course, and I believe that was done. 175. To Mr. Harvey : It was not only necessary to have one plant at Wallaroo ; it is more a question of what is possible than what is necessary. The machinery is exceed- ingly difficult to secure. At other centres the difficulty is not so great as at Wallaroo. At Port Adelaide we have large mills which help us very materially. At Port Pirie the weevil are not so much in evidence. At Port Augusta we have a very large mill, which will help out the position, but at Wallaroo there is only one small miU adjacent. • 176. To the Chairman : In the main we have been successful in saving the 1917-18 wheat from infection by the means we have adopted. This wheat is all right to-day, and there is very little evidence of any quantity of weevil reaching any of those stacks anywhere. Minutes of Kvidenee — G. Gr. Nicholls. A. J. Perkins. hi 1T7. By the Chairman — I notice that no sand and no tar has been used at Wallaroo to lay out the sand channel such as we saw at the Outer Harbor to-day. Is it intended to proceed with that around the new stacfe at Wallaroo ? — I think it will be remembered that one lot of sand was put there and blown away. I was there last week. A fresh lot has been put there, and it is working quite well. It has not been protected by timber, but is a single sand barrier. 178. Have you discovered any other means of preventing infection ? — We have had a proposal put before us by some men from Mesopotamia to pickle all the wheat in a patent solution which they claim renders it immune from the ravages of weevil. Apart from silos, and keeping the weevil away from the wheat by means of sand barriers, I have no knowledge of means of keeping them back. 179. By Mr. Anstey — When you send wheat that has not been treated direct to the miller for miUing purposes what is the extra cost to the board ? — It is in the form of an allowance to the miller for supplying him with an article that is not all good wheat. In other words a dock is allowed him representing the difference in value between that sample and f.a.q. wheat. This may range from a few pence to shillings per bushel, according to the state of the wheat. 180. In your opinion and in the opinion of the board, I take it it is preferable to enter into a contract at 6d. per bag to treat the wheat before sending it to the miller ? — Yes. In tendering much damaged wheat to a miller it is ■difficult to gauge the proper allowance that should be made to him. 181. When treated the wheat is regarded as f.a.q. ? — Yes ; or practically so. 182. To the Gha/irman : Referring to the hot air plants, the chairman of the Wheat Weevil Committee ^Dr. Hargreaves) and his assistants have produced one machine which the members of the Commission have seen to-day. That it is effective I think is undoubted. Its capacity as a unit in relation to the problem before us is small. The Minister has agreed to pay the cost of a machine, should it be effective, that is being manufactured by Mr. W. Heithersay and others. It is of a different type from that of Dr. Hargreaves, and one in which the heat is applied direct instead of by means of steam. Further, the Minister is having a machine manufactured by an Adelaide firm to the design of the consulting engineers (Messrs. Le Plaistre & Co., of Sydney), who have been here supervising the construction of the mechanical conveyors on behalf of the board. 183. To Mr. Anstey : Their process is by direct heat. So we have at present one steam machine, and the Minister has ordered two more through Dr. Hargreaves, while we have two direct heat machines also in course of being manufactured. The capacity of these machines will be 500 bags per hour as an outside figure. The steam machine does about 70 bags as a maximum, and the others are expected to do about 120 bags. The witness withdrew. The Commission adjourned. Tuesday, Febrvary 12th. 1918, at 10-30 a.m. [At Parliament House, Adelaide.] Present — Mr. W. Anojus, M.P., Chairman. Hon. W. U. Harvey, M.L.C. Hon. A. A. Kii'kpatrick, M.P. Hon. T. Pascoe, M.L.C. Mr. E. A. Anstey, M.P. Mr. R. L. Butler, M.P. Mr. J. E. Pick, M.P. Arthur .Tames Perkins, Director of Agriculture, Ade- laide, called and examined ; J84. By the Chairman — We desire to get certain informa- tion from you with reference to the treatment of weevil- affected wheat. How long have you been associated with the growing and handling of wheat ? — About 25 years ; portion of that time in North Africa, and the remainder in Sotith Australia. In North Africa I had particular opportu- nities of observing the action of weevil on wheat and the treatment of weevilly wheat. Generally speaking the wheat there, although they have not the bulk-handling system as modernly known, is always handled in bulk in the sense that it is bagged and when it goes into the merchants' hands it is bulked. Sometimes it is simply thrown on the ground in the store, but where it is intended to keep the wheat for any length of time it is put in an underground silo. I have never known of weeviUy wheat in underground silos which are closed down, and I have known wheat to be kept in them for years. 185. Have you ever known wheat affected by weevil to be put in underground silos ?— I have never looked at it particularly, but in a country where this thing has been going on for years they know that there is no danger, and I am positive that they put weevilly wheat into the silos as well as wheat that is not afiected. The wheat all around the Mediterranean coast is subject to the action of weevil, and it is recognised that if wheat is kept for a long time unless put into silos it wiU be attacked by weevil. 186. You are of the opinion that wheat under the con- ditions here if put in underground silos would be safe from the ravages of weevil ? — I am positive of that. The only difficulty I foresee is that the wheat if taken off with the harvester in a rather green state would be too moist to be put at once into the silo. I think the proportion of moisture should be less than 12 per cent, and not more ; but if the wheat taken off by the harvester is too green, that difficulty can be overcome by exposing it to the sun as is done with stripped wheat. 187. Suppose the harvested wheat were to stand in the bags for a month or two ? — I question whether that would dry it sufficiently if the bags were placed in a stack. I am afraid that after harvesting the wheat it would be necessary to throw it into heaps and expose it to the sun before placing it in the silo. 188. You have seen the silos in North Africa ? — Yes. There are various kinds. In, countries where it is dry and. the silo is not exposed to the damp I have seen snaall, unlined holes in the ground with wheat in them. That ig the simple way adopted by the poorer natives, but it would be difficult to recommend that in a general way. The hole is excavated, the wheat poured in, and the hole covered in v;ith earth. The usual silo is a hole in the ground, lined generally with lime and mortar. These are generally covered by a fiat stone with a plaster of Paris coating around the edges to keep it airtight. Those silos have been used from the time of the Romans along the Mediterranean coast. 1 89 . Could this cheap , rough-and-ready method of digging a hole be put into operation here as an expedient ? — I should be chary about recommending it. I would not mind seeing it tested in suitable localities on a small scale, but I would not care to entrust the bulk of the wheat to it. 190. You are aware of the condition of the wheat in South Australia ? — Yes. I have seen the stacks, but I have not been to Wallaroo since the weevil was bad there. No. 27. 14 Minutes of Evidence — A. J. Perkins. 191. Do you think it safe to leave the 1916-17 wheat in the present condition ? — No ; I certainly do not. We are simply breeding the weevil for the new wheat. Unfortu- nately in any method of destroying it we will only get rid of a large percentage of the weevil for a time, and it will come again. Unless you put the wheat that has been treated absolutely away beyond the risk of reinfection it will be a waste of time. 192. Have you seen the experimental machinery at Port Adelaide ? — No ; but I have heard about it. It will take a long time to treat the wheat. I have not considered the point whether it would be wise for the Wheat Pool to pro- ceed w ith the manufacture of these machines. It is a matter of calculation. If we go to the expense of making the machines we should put the wheat beyond the risk of reinfection, because if you treat the wheat now and find 12 months hence that it is as bad as ever, it will be of no value. 193. You know that the Imperial Government will take over the residue of the 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat — a total of about 15,000,000bush. ?— Yes. I should think that the Wheat Pool carries a moral responsibility to the Imperial Government to do what they can for the wheat. On the other hand the residue of the old wheat is going to be a serious menace to the new wheat. I view it in this way, that whatever method is adopted will be a temporary expedient, and I think thjat something likely to be definite and perma- nent is of far greater importance. 194. What would be your recommendation to this Com- mission in regard to the residue of the wheat I — If the wheat is weevilly it must be treated, and if it is treated and cannot be used for a long time, I should say that a proportion of silos should be erected. As the wheat is treated it should be put into the silos, otherwise the whole of the money will be wasted. 195. What form of silo would you recommend, keeping in view the fact that sooner or later we will have to intro- duce bulk handling in Australia ? — It seems to me that bulk handling has got to come, and as a scheme for these silos exists, it seems to me to be the wisest plan, and the least expensive, to put down silos where they are intended to be put permanently. 196. You were speaking of underground silos, now you are speaking of abovegroimd silos. Can weevil ly-afEected wheat be effectively dealt with in aboveground silos ? — I should say that there was not the slightest doubt, provided that they were hermetically sealed at the top. 197. Do you think they could be as readily hermetically sealed above as below ground ? — Yes ; with either method we should be able to get them practically airtight. If we are going to construct silos that will be useless to us later on it seems a waste of money, but if they can be of a nature that they may be turned to advantage at some future period they will be a reasonable proposition. Fifteen million bushels is the amoimt of sUo space that would be probably required under the scheme, and you could put the wheat straight into the silo provided you could render it airtight. The only point is that a lot of this wheat would have to be cleaned. 198. Your recommendation to us would be that in view of the fact that the bulk-handling system must be intro- duced here sooner or later you recommend that this wheat that is to be stored for any considerable time should be put into over or imder ground sUos ? — Yes. There is one point that has occurred to me. Supposing the scheme were adopted, and we found we had to put up a greater proportion of silos than might ever be required ? From time to time there have been suggestions that we should make provision in the matter of conserving stores of forage and hay to meet conditions of drought when it comes along. We all know that to put up haystacks is not any satisfaction, because what with mice and other damage it deteriorates, and it may be simply a manure heap when it comes to be handled. If there is a surplus of silos put down then afterwards, when conditions are normal and we have more than, required, we might use those surplus silos by filhng them with green ensilage. They could be filled in times of plenty for use in periods of drought. 199. You said, "and underground silos." I want to be sure what you recommend. I asked you this, " Believing as you do that the bulk-handling system will be ultimately introduced to South Australia, your recommendation would be to us that overground silos be erected ? "-I wiU put it this way. I say let us build overhead silos to the extent reasonable for the bulk-handling system. If we need more let us build underground silos. 200. Have you estimated the cost per bushel of preparing underground silos 1— No. The overhead, I understand, would run us into over a shilHng. The others would be cheaper ; but that is an engineering question, and I have not looked into it. 201. Would you be prepared to accept the statement that it would cost under id. per bushel ? — It seems very little, but if it cost 6d. a bushel I should be quite prepared to recommend it. 202. Knowing the condition of our wheat would you recommend that we proceed at once with underground silos first or overground silos ? — I think I should have a thorough inquiry to find out what proportion of silos we will need to handle the wheat. It is only the dangerous wheat which need go into them. Then we should consider whether we shall need more silo space than it is intended to provide overhead. Then I should certainly start on the other portion underground ; but one would need to have a very clear scheme of the whole position. 203. Now, as to our immediate concern — that is, the 15,000,000bush. Do you think that that quantity on hand of these two seasons' wheat would justify our putting down an underground silo of that capacity or anything approaching it ? — You must reckon on this season's wheat. 204. The one is afiected and the other is not ? — But it will be sooner or later. 205. Yes ; but we should do everything in om* power to protect as much of that 15,000,000bush. as possible. What would you recommend ?-~ I should start straight away on the overhead bulk-handling silos. That would not be spending money uselessly ; and as fast as they are built fin them up. 206. And how would you deal with the afiected wheat ? Would you continue the treatment by the mechanical means ? — You want to know whether to put down quickly an underground silo or go on with the other. It comes back to the same thing. If we feel we have to put down underground silos in addition to the others I should start on whichever is most expeditious, but we must consider first whether we can tackle both. 207. Do you think the position so serious as to justify the Government in setting aside certain men to deal with it straight away ?— Undoubtedly. It is not a difficult thing, but it wants very thorough attention. 208. Would you be prepared to say what type of men should be put on that right away ?— I hardly care to do that. As a Government servant I do not think I should do so. 209. If the Commission thought your evidence carried such weight as to justify them in putting that confidence m you would you be prepared at some future date to answer that question after consultation with your Minister ? —Yes, of course, after consulting my Minister, seeing that it might involve Government action. 210. By Mr. Anstey~Ga.u you tell us anything about the origm of the weevil ?-I think you will have to ask an entomologist on that. 211 You have said that the wheat could be treated and then put into the silos and hermetically sealed. Subse- quently you said it would perhaps save expense to put it m without the previous treatment if the silos were ready, and that either course would be effective ? Yes. If it is to be put into a hermetically sealed silo it would" not be necessary to put it through the heating process so far as the weevil is concerned, but it would have to be winnowed out and cleaned. Minutes of Evidence — A. J. Perkins. 15 212. You said the whole scheme should be planned ■out — that is, the overhead and underground silos — ^before starting operations ? — The chief point is to form a definite opinion as to the capacity of silo that you will need, and if that capacity is in excess of your overhead silos you will have to provide for a certain proportion of underground, and then it is immaterial to me which ever you start on first ; but if it is done piecemeal a lot of money is wasted in trying this and that, whereas if we have a general scheme we will know where we are. 213. By the Hon. W. H. Harvey — This would be a new schema altogether in dealing with our wheat — that is, bulk handhng ? — I am assuming that bulk handhng will come sooner or later. Most people agree on that, and this will be anticipating it to a certain extent, because we cannot help ourselves. 214. You feel it is absolutely necessary that some action should be taken to conserve the wheat we have at present ' — Exactly. I am afraid that supposing you find this heating process effective in destroying the weevil you will be going to a certain amount of expense, and then in 12 months* time you will have to repeat it ; and it will go on indefinitely unless you send the wheat away. 215. By Mr. Butler- -You drew attention to the danger of putting wheat in silos in a damp condition. Do you know if the wheat in Northern Africa would be more moist than is the case here ? — No. Their methods are very primitive, and the effect of their process of harvesting is that the wheat is reaUy very dry as a rule. 216. If the wheat has been stacked for a year or two at our seaports ? — Then it would absorb a certain amount of ' moisture. I am afraid some sort of drying process would have to be instituted. 217. Would it be possible to obtain the machinery for aerating for some time to come ? — I do not know. 218. What leads you to think we shall have bulk handling ? — It is coming into use practically all over the world. It is simply prejudice against it in most cases. I do not think it will prove a more expensive system to the farmers, and it will certaiuly be a more rational way of handhng and disposing of our wheat. In one regard alone it saves such a lot of time in handling. 219. You would not like to say then the egg is laid by the weevil 1 — No ; an entomologist will tell you that. It is his business, and I put absolute faith in what he tells you. Perhaps you are hinting at spontaneous generation, but the weevil does not come that way. Everything from the egg ; that is the old statement. 220. To the Chairman : I noticed a statement in the press or some other publication that weevil was never found in wheat fresh from the field ; but I could give an experience of my own which is quite contradictory. I have seen weevil come out of the tail of the thrasher. I asked Mr. Spafford, the Superintendent of Experimental Work in the Depart- ment of Agriculture, if he had ever seen weevil in the field, and he informed me that he had seen the parasite on the ears of the corn in a damp year. To say that weevil cannot be introduced into a new stack is incorrect. It may not be general, but I have seen weevil pouring into the bags. If you desire to have the views of an entomologist on this matter, Mr. Lee would be able to give you some very useful information. 221. To Mr. Anstey : The egg of the weevil is either laid when the wheat is in the field or when it is in the stack. If the weevil does not show up until the wheat is stacked, it shows that weevil must have been put into the stack with wheat, otherwise the egg could not be laid. 222. To the Chairman : A good stack can be infected from the immediate environment. Clean wheat may be placed on a stacking ground that is infected. I have seen weevil in the earth where wheat has been stacked. I have known of new wheat to be infected by placing it on old stacking ground on the farms. 223. To Mr. Butler : The bulk of the wheat comes from the farms in a fairly clean pondition. Half a dozen infected bags in a stack of 10,000 would result in the whole stack being affected in the course of time. It would be possible to locate the egg of the weevil by a slight magnification ; a 10 diameter glass would show it well. If you asked Mr. Lee to bring samples of the egg he would be able to do so. 224. To the Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick : If grain is placed in hermetically-sealed silos the weevil cannot live. If a silo is filled with dry grain the grain may appear more or less dead, but it is not, because it breathes the same as we do, only slowly. In breathing, the grain absorbs all the oxygen in the silo, with the result that an inert poisonous gas remains in which insect life cannot possibly live. That can be proved by experimenting with an hermetically-sealed glass jar. 225. To Mr. Butler : After being hermetically sealed for some time the grain practically dies. I have seen it after having been sealed in that way for three or four years, and although it is of no use for seed it is suitable for imlling purposes. 226. To Mr. Anstey : I have not heard of any attempt to produce a weevil-resisting wheat. I do not think it would be worth while, because the weevil is not always a source of trouble, and in producing a weevil-resisting grain we might have one that is of no economic value. The inside of the concrete silo would have a smooth surface. 227. To the Chairman : Mr. Hargreaves mentioned to me the matter of depositing weevily wheat in sand and re- winnowing it. I understand that the thought is practicable to heat the sand to a certain temperature, and that the heat would spread and kill the germ. Such a method would also help to dry the wheat, and might prove beneficial if it were found that the costs were not prohibitive. The matter is well worth looking into, and might be of advantage, particularly near the seaboard where there is so much moisture. Under ordinary conditions, of cours6, the weevil evil would not be anything like so pronounced as it is to-day. When wheat is shipped in, say, six months, we have not any trouble. In some country barns where it is stored for some time weevil frequently appears. 228. To Mr. An.itey : In my opinion overhead silos should be constructed, as they could be used if bulk handling is adopted. If we construct sdos solely for storing wheat, they would be of no further use when weevil was not present unless they were utihsed for the purposes of storing ensilage. I can quite understand the objection to silos, as it seems a waste of money ; but if they would entail a charge of only 6d. per bushel it would not matter if they were put to any subsequent use or not, because the loss by weevil would cost more than 6d. per bushel if the wheat was not protected in some such way. Heating would have to be done every 12 months to be effective. 229. To Mr. Butler : Although some of the 1915 wheat may be found to be in a dry state, and yet contain weevil, the whole stack would have to be inspected to see if damp did exist, because weevil must have moisture. 230. To Mr. Anstey : It is quite possible that in places the outside tiers were affected, and that in others the inside bags had been attacked. It is hard to say where it starts ; it may have been blown from infested stacks, or caused by infected bags being placed in the stack. 231. To the Chairman : I understand the rice weevil fly, so apparently the insect now attacking our wheat also does. I never remember seeing any around the Medi- terranean that flew. 232. To Mr. Butler : Almost any wheat-growing country is infested with weevil, but particularly in warm climates such as India. 233. To Mr. Anstey : The statement that weevil cannot live in an hermetically sealed receptacle is definite and emphatic. Mr. Spafford made a number of tests by filling glass jars with varying quantities, and found that the weevil died according to the quantity of oxygen in the vessels. When a jar was fiUed it was found that the weevil were destroyed within three days, and the eggs in a somewhat longer period. The danger of putting damp wheat into No. 27. 16 Minutes of Evidence— A. J. Perkins. W. A. Hargreaves. silos is that life is too active and the wheat is spoiled. The wheat must be dry. We have a sun that is sufficiently powerful to dry it without having to employ mechanical means. 234. By the Chairman — On November 17th the first State board was appointed by Cabinet and you were a member. How long did you continue as such ? — Until about last August. 235. We also notice that the presence of weevil was reported from about June, 1916, in several districts. Were these reports submitted to the board when you were a member ? — So far as I recollect, yes. We did not worry much about it, because we were under the impression that the British Government would shift all the wheat by July. Consequently we reckoned that the weevil would not have time to develop. W^e assumed that the Imperial Govern- ment would at any rate have shifted the wheat before the next harvest, and we did not trouble, because we knew the weevil would not have time to develop before the hot season arrived. 236. What made you assume that ?— We were told so, I fancy, by the Central Board in Melbourne. 237. That governed your whole policy in regard to weevil ? — ^Yes ; mice and everything. It was before the submariniag started. 238. Does any responsibility rest on the British Govern- ment ? — I do not think so. They intended to shift the wheat. We have to bear our share. 239. The British Government not having shifted the wheat you did not take the necessary precautions ? — We did not feel it necessary. 240. And the farmers have suffered ?- — I suppose they have to a certain extent. 241. If action had been taken then, could a lot of the loss have been avoided ? — It is very difficult to say. We should probably have acted differently. 242. By Mr. Amtey — Do you think the supposed infor- mation you had to some extent exonerates the board for not taking action '!—! do not want to sit in judgment on myseli. If we had thought the wheat would not be re- moved we would probably have taken other steps. I have in view particularly the mice plague, but it is doubtful whether we would have taken action in time, because we had no idea of the proportions it would assume. We would have taken action sooner if we had felt that the wheat would not be shifted as arranged. 243. To the Chairman : We did not realise that the boats would be cut down to the extent they were. We realised that weevil might infect any wheat left over at any time. It then seemed faicly certain that bulk handling would be adopted locally? and that we should then have had some means of dealing with a limited proportion of it. How- ever, I admit that the question did not come up very much. When stacks were afiected by weevil they were at once handed over to the millers. That is as far as we went. 244. By the Chairman — It is apparent that up to July, 1917, all the infected wheat could be dealt with in South ^.ustralia by the millers, but since eight months ago nothing of a tangible form appears to have been done to protect the wheat in the hands of the pool ? — I suppose they have been groping about for some efficient means. I have been asked to report, and I suggested silos. That is compara- tively recently. 245. Can you inform us as to the nature of that report ? — I will consult the Minister, and if he says my report may go in as evidence I will forward it to the secretary. 246. To Mr. Bvtler : The Wheat Weevil Committee has been experimenting for some months and has reported to the Minister. 247. By the Chairman — If the committee were sure in August last that weevU-infected wheat could be treated successfully by mechanical means has it not taken them a long time to put that into operation ?— I do not know what their position is. I assume they are still considering what would be the best thing to do. v I suppose it was for the Wheat Board to take action if they agreed with the opinion of the committee. 248. By Mr. Anstey — The recommendation from you to the Minister for silos was in response to a request from the Minister ?— Yes. I had nothing more to do with it. This particular question cropped up, and they knew that I had seen silos in Northern ' Africa. I think my reply was given about December or January. It was delayed owing to my absence from Adelaide. 249. By the Chairman— Do you not think your experience would have been of great service to the special com- mittee ? — I think so. I was asked to suggest someone in the department. I know Mr. Spaflord to be a careful man, and he sees me from time to time about the matter.. I knew he could do good work and I suggested him. It was a question of time. I am concerned in quite a number of other things. The witness withdrew. WiUiam Arthur Hargreaves, Director of the Depart- ment of Chemistry, called and examined : 250. By the Chairman — Following on what we saw yester- day, we desire to put a few questions in regard to the special work you have in hand at present as a member of the expert committee deahng with the weevil in wheat. Had you done any work previous to becoming a member of this committee — research work in the treatment of wheat for weevil ? — No ; I had had no experience whatever. I had never studied the question at all. 251.. You were appointed on the 8th August last year. Had you any definite instructions given you by the Minister, or by the Wheat Board, or by the Government ? — No ; except so far as that I was appointed chairman of the com- mittee to investigate the weevil problem with a view to making suggestions to the Minister. I will supply the exact terms of my appointment and the work that was expected of the committee. 252. You have made certain experiments in regard to- the treatment of weevil-infected wheat ? — Yes ; I was told verbally that it was expected that the Department of Chemistry would take the matter up as a research, and that the work of the committee woidd be practically to overhaul any results we might get before finally making any recommendation. 253. What researches were made by you in regard to wee\il in wheat 1 — First of all I read the matter up as far as was obtainable in print, and as a result of my reading I mapped out the work. We set ourselves first to investigate the treatment of wheat that had already become weeviUy ;. secondly to study what means could be used to protect good wheat from attack from without ; thirdly, to go into the question of stacking sites ; fourthly, of sheds ; fifthly, the treatment of bags ; and sixthly, the treatment of dunnage. Of course, there are other points besides which we have not touched — the question of railway trucks and stacking sites in the country, &c. I considered that our first problem was to know how to deal with wheat that had become weevilly, and to put it back into good condition. First, we looked into the question of poisonous gases. That is always an alluring subject. If we could get something by which to fumigate a whole stack in situ, that, of course, would be a most satisfactory arrangement. The gases in question were hydrocyanic acid, carbon bisulphide, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. We found early in the investigation that the idea of disinfecting the stacks that way was a dream that could not be materiahsed. First, in order to utilise gases you must have the wheat in a confined space. It must be gastight, other- wise the expense would be enormous. Hydrocyanic acid, although used for fumigating orange trees out in the open, can be used on a limited scale for wheat stacks, but the experience in America was that this gas is very quickly condensed, and has not very much penetrating power. It has been found that, except for the treatment of certain mills, it must be considered almost impossible for such Minutes of Evidence — W. A. Hargreaves. 17 uses generally. It wiU kill the weevil all right, but, further- particularly from Indian sources, that if the grain were more, its use is fraught with danger to human hfe, and the kept dry the weevil would not thrive. It has been said that quantity required would be very great. So we said that if the wheat contains under 7 per cent, of moisture it will that acid is not practicable. Carbon bisulphide is a highly not be affected by weevil. Our experiments showed that efficient gas for MlUng weevil, the best of all we tried ; weevil were flourishing in grain containing 6-7 per cent, but there again you must have a confined space. It is a moisture. We have since been conducting tests for moisture very inflammable gas. Its use is fraught with a good deal on different wheats as they come in. The following state- of danger, and the amount necessary to fumigate is much ment shows the moisture content of various samples : — too big a problem altogether. So we reluctantly put that 1917-1918 Wheat— Outer Haeboe. on one side. Carbon dioxide is a gas that can be obtained „ , , , , t oo j n m o fairly cheaply. The question of using that was investigated Samples taken from trucks on January 22nd, 1918. by the Commonwealth Advisory Council of Science and _ ^\^ni ' Industry. . I do not agree with the conclusions they arrived Lameroo — • at as a result of our work, because, although they say it w 1* .' — Q-Q was the most efficient gas, we say it is the least efficient. Wasleys . . . '. — In connection with its use here a curious phenomenon Samples taken from trucks on January 29th, 1918. occurs. The weevil fall over as though dead, but if taken Per cent. out in the fresh air they quickly recover ; and even after Saddleworth = 8-05 exposure to the gas for 24 hours they will recover. Of Burra = 8-85 course, if you could get them into the dioxide for a long Hanson . = 7'7 time the chances are that they would really die ; but that Yarcowie = 8-3 cost would be too great, since a short exposure to it is unsatis- Kapunda = 8-4 factory. Carbon monoxide is the same in its effects. In Hampton = 9-6 this investigation I had the assistance of Mr. Saunders, of Truro = 8*0 Clutterbuck Bros, They treated weevilly wheat with gas Owen = 8-9 from one of their gas producers that contained about 23 Long Plains = 9-4: per cent, of carbon monoxide and 6 per cent, of carbon dioxide. It was exposed for 16 hours, and the weevil were Samples taken from trucks on February 4th, 1918. all apparently dead, but when taken out and exposed to Per cent. the air they came to life again. We abandoned the use of Robertstown = 8-5 poisonous gas as impracticable. The next method proposed Finniss = 8-8 was that of treatment with Ume. This was suggested by Brennan Siding = 7-8 Mr. Barrett, the maltster who had already brought it under Tarlee = 8*3 the notice of the Commonwealth Advisory Council of Stockwell = 8-7 Science and Industry. The bulletin issued by that council Kooringa = 9-1 is divided into two parts, one of which deals with damaged Loxton = 8-1 grain and the other with insect pests. The portion relating Hansborough = 8*5 to damaged grain is an investigation of Mr. Barrett's pro- Mercunda.' = 9-0 posal of treating wheat with lime by mixing a small propor- tion (1 per cent.) of hot, freshly-burnt " nascent " quickUme 1916-1917 Wheat— Outer Harbor. with the graia. The investigations carried out, in my Taken from stacks on February 6th, 1918. opinion, failed, because they did not make any experiments Pej. cent. with hot, freshly-burnt "nascent" quick lime. In one of the Stack 150 = 9-2 tests freshly-burnt lime was used, but they could not see Stack 146 = 9-6 their way clear to conduct experiments with hot quickUme. Stack 217 = 9-8 Hot quicklime may be all right one day, but the next day Stack 220 = 9-1 it would probably have to be reburnt. We endeavored to Stack 210 = 9-7 use partly air-slacked hme by mixing 1 per cent, to 1-8 Stack 216 = 9-4 per cent, with the grain. Without going into the details of a very large number of tests I may summarise them by 1917-1918 Wheat— Outee Harbor. sayins; that the tests in our laboratory were not conclusive. „i, ,-.,0 They appeared to show that weevil did not mind the Ume Taken from stacks on February 6th, 1918. at aU. We have a bottle Ughtly covered with musUn _ in*'^"*' to admit air in which there is weevil-iufected grain with af''^\ S4-R — in 1 per cent, of Ume, and although the grain has been under ^t^'^t 347 Z so that treatment since August 16th, the insects seem to be St^^V 345 Z rq thriving. To enable further tests to be conducted we made af^\ ^fS7 Z t't 10 stacks at the Wheat Harvest Board depot at the canal **^°^ ^^' — "" ' at Port Adelaide. In one case we put five bags mixed with We have not as yet taken samples Of wheat from the 1 per cent, of Ume alongside five bags of untreated wheat. West Coast, and those referred to in the statement are In another stack we put 10 bags of untreated wheat, but samples from consignments coming per rail to the Outer covered the whole of the bags with Ume, particularly along Harbor. I wiU test the West Coast wheat at the first the seams and at the mouth. In the next stack we placed opportunity. The 1916-17 crop in stacks averaged five bags mixed with 1 per cent, of Ume and five bags between 9-1 per cent, and 9-8 per cent, moisture, and untreated, but with Ume placed between the bags. In the the 1917-18 crop between 8-2 per cent, and 10-5 per cent, next the grain was similarly treated, with the exception It appeared to me that it was not a practical sugges- that the bags were laid on a bed of Ume. In another stack tion to keep weevil out of bagged wheat by drying we placed eight bags with 1-2 per cent, of Ume, and ia the grain. However dry it ismade on one day it will another eight bags of tmtreated wheat. The grain used naturaUy take up moisture again. Unless wheat is exces- in the six tests just mentioned was f.a.q. In tests 7, 8, 9, sively wet it is not worth while drying it. Consideration and 10 weevily wheat was used. ' In all the stacks there is was next given to treatment by heat. I have read a good weevil in flourishing condition. We used ordinary commer- deal on the subject and found that practically all authorities cial Ume and not the hot, freshly-burnt Ume recommended are agreed on the point that weevil is very sensitive to heat, by Mr. Barrett. The next investigation was to ascertain the As far back as 1867 Dr. Vergier, of France, received a bronze truth, as far as possible, of the statement repeatedly made, medal for designing a machine for destroying weevil by C— No. 27. 18 Minutes of Evidence — W. A. Hargreaves. steam. It was not quite the same machine as ours, but it was a good one. Ours was designed before I saw the design of that of Dr. Vergier. Many of the American mills use steam for disinfecting purposes. Once a year steam is supplied throughout the buildings, by means of pipes, at a high pressure, and the mill is closed down from Saturday until Monday, with the result that a constant supply of heated air at a temperature of 130° destroys all the weevil in the building with the exception of those secreted under the boot of the elevator, for instance. Before I studied this question I had been consulted by Mr. Heithersayand Lieutenant McMahon, and at that time I had nothing before me but the report of the Commonwealth Advisory Council, in which carbon dioxide was recommended. When 1 looked into the question I found that whilst the heat could be applied directly or by means of heated aii% it would be more advantageous to utilise water, as by that means the temperature can be better regulated. I do not think it necessary to go into the details of the experiments made, but I may say it was some months before the design of our heating machine was satisfpctorily completed. Mr. Winterbottom designed an apparatus for turning over the wheat in the tubes as they come down, and this device will mean a saving of much timt:. Mr. Sexton designed a con- trolling apparatus for working the material through the tubes. The machine which you have seen and which has given satisfaction, consists of 229 vertical tubes 2in. in diameter, passing through a tank which is filled with steam. It has a capacity of 65 bags per hour when working on weevily wheat. If the wheat were clean we could put it through much faster, because we would not have so much useless material to heat up, and the grain would run more freely. For clean wheat the capacity is about 70 bags, and we can double that at slight expense by putting another tank on top of the one we have there, which would make the tubes 12ft. long instead of 6ft. Owing to the present high price of galvanized iron the tank and tubes alone cost us about £88. Heavy gauge iron is used. We could not put a double tank in that particular building in which the machine is at present, because we are already up to the roof. The cost of treatment in that tank cannot easily be ascertained until the machine is in full working, but working it as members of the Commission saw it yesterday, I think the cost of the heat treatment is about a penny per bushel. I have worked that out having regard to the fact that we had six men employed. On a trial run we put through 200 bags. Owing to various delays we had to hold steam in the boiler all day long, and we used altogether 4cwts. of coal. The next system we investigated was mill treatment. It was thought that possibly some mechanical treatment was all that was required. We tried various machines at Harrison's mill, at Jackett's mill, and at the Sturt Milling Company's works at Hyde Park, and with a Bagshaw winnower at the Farmer's Union depot at Port Adelaide. We also made numergus experiments in the department, and came to the conclusion that any mill treatment to be effective at all must include separation (that is, sieving), aspiration (that is, sucking of the light grain), and scouring (that is, breaking up the punctured grain). Any one of those operations alone was found inefficient, as there were plenty of live weevil left in the wheat ; but where all three operations were combined you practically got rid of all the adult weevils, and a good many in the larval and pupal stages were destroyed by the scouring action. Any wheat, however, kept for three months afterwards begins to show signs of weevil again, so the eggs are not destroyed. Nevertheless, that sort of treatment is extremely useful. 254. Btj thf Chairmav — That would be effective for ship- ment either by steamer or sailer to the Old Country ? — Yes. The scouring machine contains a perforated metal sieve with comparatively sharp edges, against which the wheat is knocked by means of beaters. These beaters hit the wheat with considerable force. The dust falls outside the screen, and any grains which are at all weak or have had holes punctured in them give way and are broken up, any enclosed weevils being liberated and separated by the screen. The matter of mill treatment was brought before the Wheat Weevil Committee, which made a recom- mendation to the Minister, dated December 3rd, 1917. (See Exhibit " G.") Following upon this an arrangement was entered into with Jackett Bros, to erect and work a plant of this description at Wallaroo at so much per bag. The next matter was the question of shortening this mill treatment, if possible, by getting a machine not quite so elaborate, but useful. We took the matter up with Mr. Tom Bagshaw, who was interested in perfecting one of his firm's machines. I had many conferences with Mr. Bagshaw and we made suggestions so far as our knowledge went as to what were the requirements of such a machine. The result of Mr. Bagshaw's experiments you saw yesterday. That was the machine evolved by him to satisfy the con- ditions we laid down. He does not entirely satisfy those conditions, because the machine has not a scouring action. It has a brushing action instead, which is not so drastic. It does not break up the punctured grains and liberate any weevil that might be inside ; but with that exception it cleans the wheat very well and produces a sample which is suitable for heating prior to long storage. 255. By Mr. Brdler — Is it desirable to have an elaborate machine ? — I do not think an ordinary winnower is good enough. It does not sufficiently free the grain from weevil. It is quite possible, Mr. Bagshaw assures me, to alter any Bagshaw winnower at comparatively small cost to this machine. With a winnower the weevils are left alive and spread all over the place, but with the machine in question I have never known any live weevils to come out. The weevils sieved from the wheat are mostly blown to pieces or destroyed by the heat of the exhaust from the motor. Of course, the wheat itself is not sterilised. That is, in short, a synopsis of the work we have done. So far as we have gone we are on a sure footing. I am prepared to recommend that heat treatment, such as we have in our machines, is quite safe for use with wheat, and that it will be efficient if carried out in accordance with our directions. I would like to add that if you can do without heat treat- ment so much the better. I do not pretend to say that the wheat, after heat treatment, is exactly the same as before. Wheat is a very complex substance. In its composition are enzymes and various other compounds of which we know very little, but they have some sort of life history, and the heating of these materials tends to destroy them. If the heat is too great or too prolonged you wiU destroy these enzymes, and in some way affect the gluten of the wheat. The damage I am speaking of is not obvious to the eye. It can be determined by chemical investigation and by the baker when he mixes in his yeast. We obtained a 97 per cent, germination from wheat treated by heat by our method. I do not think a miller would notice any practical difference in wheat after being heated in our machine. I do not think the baker would notice it. We had one trial in which a baker was given a sample. He did not notice any difference, but when the treated and the untreated were placed before him he said he noticed a difference, and then I think I saw a difference. I think the treated grain was not so good in gluten, but if I had not seen the two flours made from the heated and not heated grain side by side I would not have noticed any difference. 256. By Mr. Anstey—Voi all practical purposes, con- sidering the saving of the wheat, it is worth while treating the wheat?— I think so. I am strongly of the opinion that rather than lose this wheat by weevil we should take the risk of treating it. I am not specially advocating the use of the machine evolved by the department, because there may be others as good, and possibly better, but the principle of treatment by controlled heat is a good one. You must not have the heat excessive. If you start with a high heat you must tone it down before it gets to the wheat. I would not dogmatize whether it is hot water or Minutes of Evidence — W. A. Hargreaves. 19 air,*but my idea is that you will not be able to control the heat unless you use steam or hot water. If you start with hot air you will be up against the great difficulty of bringing the temperature down and keeping it at the proper level before it touches the wheat. 257. What is the effect of the treatment on wheat if it is stacked for nine or twelve months ? — I cannot say. We have had it for six months. Although the heater at Port Adelaide has just been finished we have had a small one in the laboratory for six months, and some wheat put through six months ago is still in good order. 258. By the Chairman — It would not be immune from effects from outside ? — No. At the trial we put through over 200 bags, and so far as anyone could see we killed all the live weevil, but in two weeks there were plenty in it. It is impossible to say whether we killed all the eggs, but we do know that plenty of weevils came in from the outside because the outsides of the bags were swarming with weevil the next day. 259. Are you prepared to recommend your heated steam treatment as effective without any mechanical treatment ? — Yes ; it will keep the wheat. 260. Is it desirable that the process should be confined to your treatment ? — No. I would prefer to see the wheat cleaned up before it is stacked for a long period. I do not like the idea of stacking wheat with dead weevU in it. It may be quite safe, but I do not like the idea. 262. Have you considered any machine for treatment afterwards ? — The result of our work is a machine similar to Bagshaw's, which is the best idea failing a milling cleaning plant such as Messrs. Jackett Bros, are preparing at Wallaroo. This latter plant is rather difficult to get and it is expensive. There are not many of them available. 263. By Mr Anstey — Would you suggest cleaning before or after ? — I am not prepared to make a recom- mendation, because there are advantages both ways. I prefer cleaning the wheat before it is heated. One great difficulty, from a practical point of view, with the heater is the blocking of the machine with straw. We have an arrangement to overcome that ; but prevention is better than cure, and we prefer to have the wheat cleaned. It enables us to increase our output and the wheat runs through more evenly, and if the wheat is clean we do not have to heat up so much waste stuff, and thus we save that amount of heat. On the other hand, if you use the heat first you settle all the weevil and prevent any risk of it being scattered about like it may be from a cleaner. If you put in uncleaned wheat the weevils inside the grains soon feel the heat and come out of the grains, and are therefore removed in the subsequent cleaning process ; but taking everything into consideration I prefer cleaning the wheat before it is heated and using the heater to destroy the eggs and immature insects. 264. Have you made any experiments with the eggs ? — I have never actually seen an egg. I have left that branch to the entomologist. I am not in a position to say that the eggs are destroyed, but we know that the eggs hatch out to full grown insects in 30 days, and we have kept wheat quite six times 30 days and have not seen a sign of a live weevil, so that is evidence that the eggs have been destroyed. Information from America is that they have had the same experience. They have kept the mills free of weevil for 12 months, so that it can be taken for granted that the eggs, larvse, and pupse are sufficiently destroyed providing that the heat is operating sufi&ciently high. 265. By the Chairman — Are you prepared to recommend the use right away of a machine similar to the one you have made for the treatment of weevil-affected wheat ? — -Yes. 266. By itself ?— Yes. 267. Are you at the same time prepared to recommend the treatment of the wheat jointly by a cleaner and a cooker ? — Yes ; I prefer that. [ prefer cleaning first and heating afterwards. 268. By the Hon. W. H. Ha/rvey — ^You think this treat- ment would be preferable to treatment by silos ? — I am coming to that matter directly. We have made certain experiments, but they are not complete, and I am not prepared to make recommendations respecting them. But as the matter is so important and urgent, I venture to put before you our opinions based upon these experi- ments. As I said before, we are now coming on to specula- tive matters. I have not anything in the way of reaUy sohd evidence to give you here. This is the big problem with which we are faced. It is all very well to get the weevil out of the wheat ; the thing is to keep them out when once you have removed them. From all our researches so far we have arrived at this conclusion, and I might say also that it was the unanimous opinion of the Wheat Weevil Committee, that the only permanent way to keep weevil out of wheat is to store the wheat in enclosed silos. Then, of course, comes the question of silos, which may be of temporary or permanent construction. So far as the permanently constructed silos are concerned, this appealed to us as the best method that may be suggested. It seems evident from various experiments made — and they are borne out by other evidence — that if you keep wheat closed in a silo, airtight, aU the Ufe will ultimately die out, and the wheat can be permanently kept. Such silos are not available at present, and the question is what to do with the wheat we have got. That leads to the discussion whether temporary silos could- not be constructed. The question of digging trenches or pits in the groimd was considered, and I beheve that is already being carried out in other directions by another committee, so we have not followed that line of research. I imderstand that there is a committee consisting of the Engineer-in-Chief, Professor Perkins, and one or two others. So we have not taken that into consideration so far as the department is con- cerned and so far as the Wheat Weevil Committee is con- cerned. But we have taken up the other line, that is, the question of building up bag silos. By that I do not mean bags filled with wheat, but bags filled with sand. One of my officers (Mr. Winterbottom) made a suggestion that we should carry out a series of experiments with sand — ^fine, dry, sea sand ; and after that was discussed in committee it was decided to go ahead with some experiments. We found by experiment in the department that when weevily wheat is mixed with dry, fine sand the weevil is killed by starvation. It is not killed by exhaustion of the air because the sand is not airtight. There is about 36 per cent, of voids in sand, and the air gets through with a certain amount of freedom. But the weevil is killed — by starva- tion, we presume — because it dies in the time it takes to starve a weevil, three or four days. The first fact that was noticed when we mixed weevily wheat and sand together in the proportion of about equal parts by weight, was that the weevils would make a desperate effort to get out. They worked their way upwards through the sand until they came on top, and when we had the mixture enclosed in a glass beaker, with a layer of sand on top so that no wheat showed on top, the weevils that were strong enough came up through the sand and went round on the top until they died of starvation. They made no attempt to crawl back through the sand to the wheat again. When we took the mixture and sifted out the sand and separated the weevils from the mixture we found that a large quantity of the weevils down below were dead, but that a few were aUve. We mixed the live weevils back again with the wheat and sand and put them back for a further three days, at the end of which time the weevils were sifted out again and we counted as many dead ones as there were previomly live ones ; but there were more live ones. This led us to the conclusion that those which had been alive at that time were now dead, and that there was a fresh crop of weevils hatched out and now alive. Removing the dead weevils and counting back the live weevils, at the end of another three days we counted out as many dead as were alive before. Apparently they had all died of starvation ; but again a fresh crop of weevils had been hatched out. This went on for about a month, apparently indicating that as the weevils were hatched they lived for a little time and then died of starvation. That suggested to us that if the wheat 20 Minutes of Evidence — W. A. Hargreaves. was mixed with sand in that proportion it would be only a question of time when all would dje out and no fresh weevils would find their way in, and that practically one month would be necessary for the test to allow aU the eggs to be hatched out. It takes about a month from the time an egg is laid until the mature insect produced from that egg is ready to lay more eggs. Full-grown weevils wiU last for about 120 days under normal conditions, and sometimes still longer ; they have the power of lying dormant. And they can do a great deal of damage in that time. The egg is laid inside the grain, and the grub works throughout the whole of this stage inside the grain, eating all the time. The pupa stage is only about a week, in which it does not feed at all, and then the immature msect stays in the grain until strong enough to get out. For 17 to 20 days it is feeding aU the while inside the grain. The difficulty with the weevil is that he is feeding practically all the time from the moment of his being hatched until he dies ; that is through aU stages except the pupa stage. The experiments in the laboratory indicated that this was a practical method of coping with weevily wheat, and also of protecting good wheat. We have laid down at the Outer Harbor a series of experiments. We have made four stacks there. We have mixed about 40 bags of wheat with sand and placed that in a bag sUo. The bag sUo is made in this way : A number of wheat bags are fUled with dry sand and formed into a little low wall all around a compound of the required dimensions. Then the mixture is built in and allowed to come to the angle of rest of sand, about 38^. Over the top of this mixture we have laid several inches of dry sand only, and over the top of that there is a galvanized iron roof to keep the whole sUo watertight. The bed is laid of about 6in. of sand and underneath the sand there is some malthoid, to keep the damp from risiag. It should stay dry there indefinitely. We shall be able to tell in about a month whether the scheme is efEective or not. We have put down both good and weevilly wheat under those conditions. In addition it has been suggested that the wheat already in bags might be buried in sand, but experiments so far have shown that if the wheat is weevilly before it is buried, the weevil can go on feeding all right, and it does not kill them. But if the wheat is not infested and there are no eggs or anything to come to life, the weevil cannot get into it from outside. So that is a sure protection. This suggested to us that possibly the wheat stacks, say at the Outer Harbor, might be protected wherever the wheat is in good order and condition and does not contain eggs or larvae or live insects ; that it might be protected by a curtain of sand. The suggestion is made now that if the existing sheds are boarded in with fairly stout boarding down the sides, with a halved joint set so that the sand will not run out, and then between the boarding and the stacks is filled with sand, the weevil will not travel through the boarding and the sand to get at the wheat inside. Assuming that the wheat that is already there is immune it will stay so. We calculate that it will take about 1 ton of sand to every foot run of shed. One of the things that we have found necessary in connec- tion with sand storage is that the sand should be dry and free from salt. If the salt content is high it wiU take up moisture in damp weather. We have tested several samples from the seashore and have found that where it is taken from the sandhills, back from the water level, the quantity of salt there is very low. It is as low as 0-024 per cent., and even lower. We are making experiments now to see whether such sand wiU absorb moisture from a moist atmosphere. These experiments are not yet completed. There is plenty of sand with less salt than that which I have indicated, and that certainly will not take up moisture from the air owing to the presence of salt. The sand is also very fine, and that is an essential, because unless the sand is fine enough it will increase the difficulty of separating the sand ultimately from the wheat. All the millers I have consulted have said there will be no difficulty about separating the sand from the wheat. Another point about the sand is that it must be kept dry. Sand does not require very much water to make it wet, and does not take very much drying to make it dry. Wet sand will not have more than 2 per cent, of water, and damp sand wiU not have more than 1^ per cent. ; so the problem of drying the sand is not great. On the other hand it is essential that the stacks should be kept very dry, because it does not take much water to get them damp again. The theory which seems to interpret the results we have obtained is that wheat in the ordinary course of stack- ing, or when it is in bags, has about 36 per cent, of voids ; that is, a httle over one-third of the whole bulk of bags is full of air. And these voids are fairly large in proportion to the size of the weevil. A weevil can walk about in a bag of wheat just as we can down a mine. If the mine aUeyways were filled with cannon balls or rocks, we would not be able to get through, even although there might stiU remain many spaces. What that would be to us the sand is to the weevil. The grains are small in proportion to the size of the weevil, and if you fill the voids with sand you still have a large percentage of air, but the aUeyways are too small to get through. The weevil cannot get through to feed, and dies of starvation. The advantages of treatment with sand in that way are that you protect the wheat from the weevil, and also from mice and rats. The mice cannot live in the wheat and sand, they would get smothered. There is no dunnage required. The bags that bring the wheat could be used over again, because there would not be time for them to deteriorate ; and bags are worth 3d. a bushel ; so you may possibly pay for the whole cost of the making of the sand and wheat silo by the saving in the value of the bags. Weevil-free sites will not be necessary. You wiE simply have to smother up the sites with sand. The manual labor of stacking wiU be avoided. In place of that you will be able to put the wheat into the temporary silos by the elevators, and the sand also. The roofing of it is a simple proposition. If bags filled with sand or with sand mixed with wheat are put down and attached to the roof by means of wire they wiU keep the wind from blowing the roof off. The disadvantages of the sand treatment are as follows : — If the sand gets wet it is disastrous. Then there is the cost of obtaining and' drying the sand, the cost of mixing the sand and wheat, the cost of removing the sand later on, and the cost of rmbagging and rebagging. Another disadvantage is that you must go to the site where you have to get the sand, because it would cost too much to move the sand any great distance. We followed up those tests with another experiment. I refer to the hot sand treatment. Sand has a specific heat about the same as that of wheat, and about half the specific heat of water. If we mix sand at 250° F. with an equal weight of wheat, the hot sand heats that wheat, and the mixture has a temperature of 130° F., which is sufficient to kiU all weevil. The average temperature is quickly arrived at, and the wheat is not damaged. So we have an alternative scheme for treating weevilly wheat as well as for protecting it after it is sterilised. We have not actually worked out the process yet, but I think there would be no difficulty in getting apparatus to heat sand, because it is done frequently in other businesses. The temperature actually required (222° F.) is very httle above that of boiUng water. If we raise the temperature of the sand to 250° F. we leave a little margin for coohng before the treatment takes place. The plant required would be a steam shovel for getting the sand, rails and trucks or a travelling band to carry the sand to a heater, a revolving heater internally fired, a bin for holding the hot sand, another bin for the wheat, a mixer, and an elevator and conveyor for forming the stack. It is not easy to work out what the probable cost would be, but the figures I will supply may be taken for the purpose of preliminary inquiry. Without giving the details for the various stages I have arrived at an estimate of somewhere about 8s. 8d. per ton for deahng with the wheat. That is practically the same cost as that of bags. This estimate will need revision when the details of the operations required are better known. 269. By Mr. Aru«tey ~H.a.we. you worked out the increased storage capacity required to contain sand as well as wheat Y —I have only one calculation, as this subject is still quite new. A silo 264ft. long by 50ft. wide, 241t. at the highest Minutes of Evidence — W. A. Hargreaves. W. J. SpaiFord. 21 poidt, and 61t. at tte sides and ends would hold about 135,000bush. Worked out on tte same cost as the sheds being erected at the Outer Harbor, the cost of the shed alone would be about £840. The actual bulk of sand and wheat mixed would be very little larger than that of wheat alone. Forty-five pounds of sand will fill the interstices in a bushel of wheat, but I suggest that there should be 601bs. of sand to 601bs. of wheat. We have been in the habit of bringing our wheat to the coast, and at practically all our principal centres there is plenty of sand. If it is found by subsequent experiment that coast sand proves ■efEective this system will have that advantage. There is already a railway siding at the site of the Pilicate Brickworks, between Largs Bay and the Outer Harbor, -and sand pits have been opened up. Even at the Outer Harbor itself there is plenty of sand that only requires to be roughly screened. 270. By Mr. Butler — How would the cost compare with the temporary or permanent silo ? — I have no means of judging what the cost of a permanent silo would be. It would be costly at Port Adelaide or Port Pirie, owinsi to the expensive foundations. 271. By the Chairman — Will you find it convenient before next Monday to consult with the Engineer-in- Chief, so as to be able to put before us something definite about the relative costs compared with open silos '! — I will en- deavor to meet the Commission's wish in that matter. There is one method I have not mentioned. Where you know that the wheat in the bags is perfectly sound you can build the bags up into a stack of the shape I have just been referring to and submerge the whole in sand. We have also made experiments showing how easy it is to destroy weevil on hot pieces of wood. That suggests to ns that the open sites might be sterilised by thoroughly clearing away all dunnage, dirt, stones, old wheat, bags, twigs, &c., and everything that would provide harbor and shelter to weevil. Then on a really hot day the tempera- ture of the sun would probably kill off all the weevil that remained. 272. You would not recommend stacking new grain on a site containing 6in. of old wheat ?— No. It should be as bare as a school playground. Instead of relying on the temperature of the sun alone, if the site was covered with a Bin. layer oi fine and dry sand, the weevil, according to our experiments, would come to the top and be scorched by the sun. The weevil which did not come to the surface would di"? of starvation. 273. To Mr. Anstey : The weevil will travel up at least 3in., but we have not determined the greatest distance. During our experiments we found more of them on the top each morning than there were the night before. We have never seen them go down through the sand. 274. To the Chairman . The sterilisation of sheds is more difficult than sterilising open sites. We suggest that the sheds be first of all thoroughly cleared of all dunnage, and that where possible the floors be removed. All the old wheat, bags, cobwebs, &c., should be taken away, and then the shed should be hosed down with boiling water. We tried steam. We made an experiment at Harrison's mill with steam at 150lbs. pressure, and although steam issued from the nozzle with a tremendous noige, and it looked as if nothing could live in it, yet when we tried with our hands if was quite cold a few feet away from the nozzle. We went up and down the walls, and all we did was to disturb the weevils which came out to see what was happening. Hot water kills them quickly. Experiments have been made in the laboratory with the temperature of water, and it has been found that a temperature of 130 degrees will kill the weevil quickly, and a lesser temperature will also do so if prolonged. Water at 120 degrees wiU do it the use is prolonged. That suggests that the best way to sterilise the sheds is by hot water. Sheep dip and other poisons will kill weevil that they touch, but they do not penetrate into the crevices. Hot water will, however, and it remains sufficiently hot long enough to get rid of them. 275. By Mr. Butler — Would throwing the dunnage into the sea kill the weevil ? — It might if the dunnage was left in the sea long enough. Weevil can stand immersion in water at ordinary temperatures for long periods. Another suggestion is that the whole floor when cleaned should be covered with fine dry sand and the interstices filled with sand. 276. By the Chairman — Have these suggestions been made by you to the Wheat Board ? — No ; they are now made for the first time. Some of the experiments are in progress, but I took it that the matter was of sufiicient importance and urgency that you should have it before you so that you could call other evidence on it. Then there is the question of the sterilisation of bags. We have tried the bags in a bag cleaner. That takes off a lot of weevil, and possibly disturbs some of the eggs. These cleaners are largely used in the mills. They clean the bags but they do not sterilise them. If they are used again they may carry the weevil, but if they can be heated up to 150 degrees I think that would settle the insect. That temperature would not injure the bag. It is a compara- tively low temperature. Another way is to immerse the bags in boiling water and dry them. Whether that would be practical on a large scale would depend upon the machinery for putting them on the line to dry. I think the first suggestion could be carried out more easily, because you could have a chain band with hooks to take the bags through a heated chamber. In reference to sterilisation the same principle would be used. The dunnage could be immersed in troughs of boiling water or possibly it would be sufficient if the dunnage were buried in dry sand for a lengthy period. 277. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Suppose the dunnage was stacked on the floor and covered with dry sand, would that be sufficient ? —I think so. The weevil would work their way through but the eggs would he left. The dunnage could be packed loosely so that the sand could fall through ; but the best way would be to have alternate layers of dunnage and sand. The witness withdrew. Walter John SpafEord, Agriculturalist Experimentalist, Department of Agriculture, Adelaide, called and examined : 278. By the Chairman — We understand that you have been interesting yourself in connection with the treatment of wheat affected by weevil. Have you any statement to make ? — I have no statement to make, but I have a record of my experiments. 279. Can you tell us what you have been doing, what results you have got, and what recommendations you are prepared to make ? — In the first place, the reason I took this matter up was because a majority of people in the wheat trade had the idea that weevil generated spon- taneously or developed from a germ in the flower of the wheat. I started ■ my experiments with the idea of dis- proving that, so that the members of the Wheat Board could have the results. I started my experiments to prove that weevil wiU not develop if sealed away from the air, and also that iE sealed they will die, even if present in the wheat. I started the tests in August, and I gave Mr. NichoUs a report of them on December 17th. The proofs are conclusive that if a receptacle be filled with weevilly wheat and it is then made airtight all insect life wUl become dormant, or will be dead within a fortnight, and the same thing applies to a receptacle three-quarters filled. I had four sets of experiments, and three out of the four jars were half or quarter full, and all active life ceased in them in a period of from a fortnight to six weeks. In two of the jars this did not happen, and the only thing that struck me was that they were not properly sealed, although they seemed to be. I re-sealed them, and within a week all life had ceased. In some cases I made the moisture up to 12 per cent, and 15 per cent. If there is a little more air space the life lasts a little longer. I increased the moisture because some people thought the weevil developed with moisture. My experiments were conclusive, and the jars 22 Minutes of Evidence — W. J. SpafFord. can be examined. I took wkeat from six stacks soon after the stacks were built in July. In one, one of the ofial- eating insects developed. There was no weevil ; and on the same date (December 17th) I re-sealed this jar. They are all dead now. It appears that once they are sealed there is no hope of insect life of any sort developing in them. The size of the jars I am using is 10-oz. and 30-oz, jars. 280. By the Chairman — The results that you got from those small jars would be got under conditions in which the beaker's quantity is increased by any multiple you like ? — Certainly, if you can still seal as I have sealed. There is that difficulty, if we have very large receptacles, namely, of sealing perfectly. In these experiments I have had half under ordinary temperatures and the other half in a germination chamber. I have duplicates in each case, and the results are most positive. 281. By Mr. Anstey — Did you try some nearly full, as well as half and two-thirds full ? — I have them a quarter, half, and three-quarters full, and as full as I could get them, and those in the filled ones died very quickly— in a matter of a few days. I have the whole series mapped out, and I hand them in as an appendix to my evidence 282. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Have you tried any experi- ments with unsealed in regard to the various stages of moistuje contents ? — You could not keep unsealed wheat at a given moisture content. 283. If you put away wheat in a jar with 15 per cent, moisture content you put it in with as low a moisture content as possible, and could see how much quicker they would generate weevil under a higher moisture content. It has been stated to the Commission that wheat from wet areas, such "as the West Coast, or moist wheat, would be much more liable to weevil than that f rom^ the dry middle north ? — If you started level and kept all under the same conditions they would make equal moisture, dependent, that is, upon the variety of wheat. 284. Fifteen per cent, is a very high percentage. Any wheat that ever had 15 per cent, moisture content would develop weevil quicker than if kept comparatively dry ? — With respect to that point I have check jars now unsealed. 285. By Mr. Butler — We found that the wheat from the 1915 stacks is in a better condition than the 1917 wheat. That is the wheat reaped in the wet harvest, thus giving us some kind of proof that the damp wheat would germinate more quickly than the wheat that had not been damp ? — That is certainly so from my experience, particularly of the wheat in the Port Lincoln yard. 286. By Mr. Anstey — From your experiments, have you formed the opinion that the most effective way of exter- minating the weevil is by placing wheat in a sealed vessel ? — I do not know about the most effective way. The quickest and most effective way is to use heat, but as far as I can see the only way to handle the wheat we have is to close it up somewhere. Our system of attempting to stack in bags for a number of years is absolutely wrong. We have no hope of stacking it safely, and the only way to keep it free from weevil is to close it up somewhere. 287. If you exterminate the weevil by some hot-air process and then re-stack, it is liable to contamination again ? — Very possibly in a few weeks. 288. But in a sealed silo it is absolutely safe ? — Yes, if it is sealed it is safe. That is not only my own experience, but there are numbers of places in the world where it is done. 289. By the Chairman— Tha.t is from the effective point of view only ? — -Yes, and from the economic viewpoint also. To me it appears that handUng in any other way, which means so much handling, is really terribly expensive. 290. You have in view the fact that we shall probably have to retain the wheat in the State for a number of years ? — -Exactly. If it were only one year I do not think it would be worth worrying over, but it is under the exceptional conditions that I am referring to the subject now. I think overhead silos are quite out of the question, other than that they have got to come some day and will be very useful. But we cannot build silos for all the wheat we are likely to have. At a guess I should not say we could hold more than one-tenth of our production of the next few years. My suggestion is to put it underground, the same as in other countries, and there does not seem to be any doubt about it being effective. In India and North Africa it is put underground in a proper manner, and it remains for years quite safe. 291. What system would you adopt for sealing the underground silo ? — I do not think it would be necessary to use anything but earth. In clay I believe you could seal with 4in. In other stufi you might have to use 4ft., but since there would be an enormous amount of earth to excavate, this question of the quantity necessary for sealing would not greatly count. It would not matter how much you put over it. I think, however, it would require a lot of experiments in the different classes of soil likely to- be used for such sealing, 292. In view of the fact that bidk handling will some day be here, would you suggest silos overhead and the balance underground ? — Certainly. 293. By Mr. Butler — At what percentage of moisture would it be safe to put wheat in underground silos ? — If we are going to put it in earth holes we must find out how much moisture the wheat would absorb. If we put down underground places and lined them with cement, I do not think they would absorb much ; and you could safely have it up to 10 per cent. ; it will stand 15 per cent. 294. Would not the wheat deteriorate ? — It will, but it would not deteriorate nearly as much as the weevil would make it do. It would not even at 12 per cent., because Port Adelaide wheat is 12 per cent. And, after all, the moisture would not go far into the stack. 295. By Mr. Anstey — You would not recommend under- ground silos unless lined with cement ? — Certainly ; if we could get silos constructed in soil of very heavy texture and with no danger of water coursing through such soil I think they would be safe just cut out. If we have to hold the wheat five years, however, it would certainly pay to line it. 296. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Do you know of any place on our railways where you could get this character of soil 1 — I do not think there would be much trouble with respect to that in the north, judging from the holes and wells I have seen, say from the Burra up. That would apply to any heavy soil, either silty or clayey. Of course, if it ever came about there would be a lot to find out. But even if all the wheat around the edges were damaged, it would be nothing to what the weevil would do. Most certainly it would be safer to line the silos with cement. If the cost were high, 1 should say put it in clay silos without cementing, because it would quite possibly take more than the value of the spoiled wheat to pay for the cement. 297. By the Chairman — What would you recommend the Wheat Board to do so as to preserve the 15,000,000bush. ? — 1 would say " Kill the weevil in it, either by heat or very severe cleaning with milling apparatus, and put it under- ground." 298. Have you considered what the cost would be relative to the value of the wheat ? — To make a wild guess, it should not cost more than 8d. or 9d. per bushel, and that 9d. is very quickly lost by weevU. It would soon cost 9d. a bushel to deal with the wheat above ground. It would mean cleaning at least twice in a season, and that could not be done under 5d. or 6d 299. By Mr. Anstey— li the silos could be got ready in a short time, would you advocate heat treatment as well ? —Yes. The longer bad-smelling wheat is left underground the worse it will become. 300. By the Hon. T. Pascoe~Ji the heat treatment kills all the weevil and the eggs too, that wheat is equal, after treatnient, to new grain ?— Yes, if it is kept under conditions in which weevil cannot live. Once the weevil comes in contact with it, the whole will quickly become afiected. 301. To the Chairman : In order to protect the wheat on hand and the new wheat coroing in I support the scheme of Mr. NichoUs, that is, to make long trenches instead of square or rectangular pits, and to put this season's wheat Minutes of Evidence— W. J. Spafford. W. M. Alford. 23 straight into them. Then clean all the residue from the other harvests that is affected by weevil and put that wheat into these pits. 302. By the Hon. T. Pasooe— That recommendation is contingent upon the cost not being too great ? — It is con- tingent upon the cost not being greater that the value of the wheat ; otherwise you will lose the lot. 303. By Mr. Anstey — Would it strengthen your view if you knew that the approximate cost of underground silos is under 4d. per bushel ?— Most certainly. If it is lovs so much the better. 304. By the Chairman — Being satisfied that bulk handling has to come, would you still recommend the Wheat Board to consign all this year's wheat to underground silos ? — Certainly. It appears that we would have very little done in 12 months' time if we started on overhead silos. 305. If it is possible within a reasonable time to erect some of the terminal silos required under the bulk-handling system, do you think that should be gone on with at once, and at the same time the rest of the wheat should be stored in underground silos ?— Yes. I would get on with the underground silos straight away, and also start on some of the overhead silos in order to have something in which we can properly clean the wheat. 306. You are assuming that all the wheat will be afiected ? — Weevil will spread more quickly this year than last. 307. If we could assume that most of the 1917-18 wheat will not be affected until seven or nine months have elapsed, would you recommend overhead silos ? — No. For the first 18 months the silos could only be used for cleaning wheat. 308. All wheat likely to be affected in a short time you would put underground ? — I would put it all underground, because it is likely to be here for some years. 309. To Mr. Butler : We will have to adopt bulk handling in order to keep abreast with the times. 310. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Silos, such as woiild be constructed for the purpose of bulk handling, would not be built, under ordinary conditions, in such a manner as to be hermetically sealed, which would be necessary for dealing with weevil ? — I do not think I said I would use overhead silos for storing wheat for four or five years, but I think they could be used to help us kill the weevilly wheat. 311. By Mr. Anstey — They could be used for that purpose ?— Yes, and there would not be much trouble in sealing them. 312. By the Chairman — We can take it from your evidence that in order to preserve the residue of the last two years' wheat and the wheat this year from weevil you strongly recommend that a considerable quantity, if not all, should be placed in underground silos ? — Emphatically. 313. By Mr. Anstey — As the matter of bulk handling will be one of policy, you would not mind, as a wheat expert, whether the silos were underground or overhead, so long as they were hermetically sealed ? — Not a scrap, so long as they are provided in the near future. 314. By the Hon. W. H. Harvey — You consider that that is the only method by which the wheat can be saved ? — Yes. Silos underground seem to me to be the only way. 315. By the Chairman — Have you been interested in the experiments of Dr. Hargreaves ? — Yes, I am a member of the Committee. 316. He has told us that he has got results from the treatment of wheat in sand ? — Yes. I have heard of it, and it seems to me to be fairly reasonable, but it depends upon the cost, whether it is cheaper to put it through a heater, or a mill,or to use clean sand. In some places it might be costly to use sand, and in other places the sand could be used after the wheat had been treated. It is not only a matter of cost. It is a matter of safety, and the sand treatment is not so safe as the underground silo. 317. By Mr. Anstey — Would you be satisfied to take the wheat straight from the farms into the silos ? — I think so, if it was free from vermin. 318.Have you noticed anything in the wheat as it comes from the farm ? — I know in one instance we got weevil_ straight from the thresher. I would be satisfied to take the wheat straight from the farm to the sand silo, because if there is anything in Dr. Hargreaves 's experiments they will kOl the weevil. If I had a choice I would choose the underground silo. 319. Supposing Dr. Hargreaves could convince the special committee that the process of sand treatment was effective, it would be a question which was the more economical process ? — Yes, but against that I do not think that he could prove it to me in less than 12 months. It would take that time to prove whether water and vermin could be kept out of it. 320. He proposes to roof and drain it ? — Then the danger from vermin would not be so great. 321. By Mr. Anstey — Would you be satisfied with one experiment, or would you prefer them in two or three places ? — I would prefer two or three places, but if there was to be only one place I would seek the driest place. There is one other thing. The question of pickling has been raised. One firm brought in some wheat which had been pickled and which they said was weevil proof, but the weevil was in it the next week. The witness withdrew. William Mathew ALford, grain manager for L. Dreyfus and Co., Adelaide, called and examined : 322. By the Chairman — We understand that you are a member of the State Wheat Board ? — I was a member of the late Advisory Committee, but I am not a member of the Weevil Committee. I was not on the original board, but I was a member of the Wheat Advisory Committee. I was on that until it was disbanded. Then I was on the Wheat Harvest Board, and I am now a member of the Wheat Harvest Board. The Hon. L. O'Loughlin is its chairman. 323. I take it that you are conversant with the whole of the work of the board and its ofiScers in regard to the attempts they are making to deal with weevil in wheat ? — Yes. 324. Have you had experience in dealing with weevil in wheat previous to what you are having now ? — I have had long practical experience of handling wheat, and have had to contend with the weevil question, but we cannot compare normal times with present conditions. I have never had to contend with such a condition of afiairs as exists to-day. In normal times the weevil question never worried us much. We always had plenty of tonnage available, and we would handle weevilly stacks first. We would ship what we could, and what was not fit for shipment we would put into the mills. 325. We have it on record that the Wheat Board was aware of the fact that weevil had shown itself in various parts of the State as far back as July, 1916. We have it also recorded in evidence to-day that the pohcy of the board in regard to the weevil had been influenced to a most considerable extent by the fact that the board thought the 1916-17 crop would be removed by the British Govern- ment somewhere in the middle of the year. Do you confirm that ? — Yes. 326. Your want of action had been brought about by the fact that you thought the wheat would be away by at least July or August last year ? — I can confirm that. There is no doubt we have been badly misled over the tonnage position. We were assured that the 1916-17 crop would be removed by June — I think it was. At the time, we were finalising the shippers' agreement with the Government, and the Minister asked us to take a lower rate of commission in view of the fact that the wheat would be shipped by June. We did agree to take a reduction, providing the wheat was shipped by the end of August ; so that shows what we thought of our chances of shipping the wheat by June. When I refer to the Minister here, it was either Mr, Goode or Mr. Nicholls, which would be the same thing, of course. Mr. Nicholls was secretary then. That assurance would come from the Central Wheat Board in Melbourne. I No. 27. 24 Minutes of Evidence — W. M. Alford. know that it came from the central office in Melbourne to this State, but they would obtain their information from the Imperial authorities. 327. Are you satisfied that the Imperial authorities intended taking away the wheat at that 'time ? — I am satisfied that that was their intention. But it would have been an utter impossibility, even if they had supplied the ships. It would have taken us until the end of the year to have lifted the 1916-17 crop. That was due to the inade- quacy of railway facilities and shortage of labor at the ports ; and even under the most favorable conditions we could not have lifted that crop before the end of the year. 328. By Mr. Butler — Did you inform the board to that efiect, or was that your own private conclusion ? — It was my own opinion, and I am quite safe in sapng that all the practical men in the trade were of the same view ; but I do not think that we advised the Government to that efEect. It was not policy for us to do so. I did not communicate that to the Harvest Board. I was not a member of the Harvest Board then. The Advisory Committee was not in existence at that period. It did not come into existence until, I think, April, of 1917. 329. By the Chairman — Did you know that in December, 1916 ?— Yes. 330. So you made that reservation, with respect to a lower rate of commission, in full knowledge of the fact that it could not be done ? — Yes. 331. By Mr. BwiZer— Did you not tell the Minister ?— I have no recollection. I am sure we did not tell him. It would not have been policy to have told him. 332. By Mr. Anstey — To some extent I suppose that influenced you in the reduction of commission required in the matter of the extension until August instead of in June, as asked for ? — Yes, it did. 333. By the Chairman — You made the reservation that you would take that commission provided the wheat was all removed by the end of August ? — I do not think I quite put it that way. We agreed to a certain rate of commission. We also agreed to rebate some of that commission, pro- viding the wheat was shipped by August. 334. As a member of that board, do you think the board has taken every means possible to protect the wheat from the attacks of weevil and mice since it came under its charge ? — Yes, I do. I consider they have done all that is humanly possible under the circumstances. 335. Even though you were alive to the fact that wheat could not be shipped and that it was being attacked by weevil, and that the weevil would very rapidly spread ? Do you still think that the means, or want of means, that the board took in dealing with the weevil pest was justified ? —Yes. 336. By the Hon. W. H. Harvey — The policy of the board was just the same, whether the wheat was shipped or not ? —Yes. 337. By Mr. Anstey — You advised the board on the 20th July on the necessity for taking into consideration the seriousness of the weevil pest, pointing out that while the nulls could deal with the wheat afiected actually in sight, you could not say how much was working unperceived inside the stacks, and calling attention to the seriousness of that position. What reply did you receive to that, and what action was taken by the board ? You are a member of the Advisory Committee ? — At that time I was a member of the Advisory Committee. I recollect that matter. 338. It proves that the Advisory Committee were at this time aHve to the seriousness of the position ? — Yes, and we were always — at least, the practical members of the committee — alive to the seriousness of the situation. 339. By the Chairman — Yet you thought nothing more could have been done than you did ? — I do not think anything more could have been done. 340. By Mr. Anstey— What were your powers ? — We were appointed for the purpose of re-conditioning the wheat and carrying out any duties incidental to the mice plague. The committee was appointed as a result of a tour of inspection of our northern areas by some of the members, of the Wheat Board, together with the shippers. We took a special train through the north. We were so alarmed at the condition of some of the stacks that it was decided to have a chat about the matter before returning to Adelaide. Mr. Hannaford was chairman, and in outlining the serious- ness of the position he called for the views and suggestions' of all the practical men present. It happened to be myself who suggested the formation of this Advisory Committee. There were sometimes six or eight agents at one centre fighting for truck supplies and for labor. My object was to control this matter as far as possible by the appointment of a committee representative of the difierent interests concerned — the board, the shippers, and a representative of the railways, seeing that most of our troubles hinged on truck supplies. Another reason was that by taking control of each of the yards and appointing one representative in charge of each, that representative would take control of the whole of the labor. Thus, instead of having six or eight stacks exposed to the weather simultaneously we would be working ofi one stack at a time. There is no doubt but that as a result of our labors we have saved the pool and the farmers thousands upon thousands of pounds. 341. By the Chairman — Then there is no truth in the statement often heard in the country that this committee was formed in order to take the responsibility off the shoulders of the wheat agents and their sub-agents ?— No. The agents still had to bear their responsibility. 342. Are you satisfied that everything possible has been done to minimise the effects of weevil in the wheat on hand ? — All that was humanly possible. The late Advisory Committee recommended the appointment of the Weevil Committee, which, I understand, has achieved very good results. I have doubt as to whether the application of heat or any other mechanical system will prove successful,, because I am afraid we cannot work these machines on a sufficiently large scale to be of much practical use. In my opinion the only practical solution is to grist the grain as quickly as possible. I understand these machines can kill the germ, but the wheat can be re-infected. 343. By Mr. Butler — Is not gristing almost as slow as the heating process ? — Unfortunately we cannot grist it fast enough. 344. By the Chairman — What about storage ? — I under- stand some of the technical men say that wheat put into- air-tight silos would be quite safe. Personally, I doubt it. I have put wheat into bottles, and the samples have become weevilly within six weeks. I am of the opinion that, in air-tight silos, climatic changes outside would set up con- densation and moisture inside, and that would be detri- mental. Of course, I would not think of backing my opinion against that of technical men. 345. To Mr. Butler: The bottles I experimented with were tightly corked, but not sealed. 346. To the Chairman : In view of our unfortunate experiences we might adopt certain precautionary measures that would help us materially in dealing with future crops. From practical experience and close observation I have long been forced to the conclusion that damp is the main factor conducive to the breeding of weevil. Moisture creates heat, and heat germinates the weevil. I recom- mend that all stacks be built on the highest and best- drained sites available, situated as far as possible from previous season's grain or infected areas. The dunnage should be clean and laid with the object of ensuring good ventilation. Sheds are preferable, but where they are not available every care must be taken to see that the roofs, are watertight with slope and overlap sufficient to throw the water and splashes clear of the bags. Care must be taken to see that the grain or bags goes inibo the stack dry and in good condition. Damp bags or immature grain must on no account go into the ordinary stacks. We know what happens, but how to stop it is a question. The farmers are largely to blame. To place damp bags in the Minutes of Evidence— W. M. Alford. A. M. Lea. 25 staokfis to court disaster. Agents tave the rigtt to refuse it, but they would think twice about refusing wheat from big farmers. That may be the fault of the present system of competition. West Coast wheat, which contains a high percentage of moisture and is more susceptible to weevil, should be stacked separately and as far away as possible from inland wheat. I am convinced that much of the trouble is brought about by stacking promiscuously. We always have had trouble with the West Coast wheat. 347. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — We understand that you condemn the Government and the board for using the various methods to deal with the trouble. It is no use saying that all these methods should be thrown aside. Do you think the policy of the board should be to do every- thing possible ? — I recognise the seriousness of the problem, and we must use every means to combat the evil, and the only thing is to try everything. I only express my doubts about the success of the methods. We should trust largely to experiments and take precautionary measures. 348. By the Hon. W. H. Harvey — Do you think we should take some risk in trying to save the wheat ? — I am in favor of tr)ring all the experiments within reason. The witness withdrew. The Commission adjourned. Monday 'February 18th, 1918, at 10'30 a.m. [At Parliament House, Adelaide.] Present — Mr. W. Angus, M.P., Chairman Hon. W. H. Harvey, M.L.C. Hon. T. Pascoe, M.L.C. Mr. E. A. Anstey, M.P. Mr. R. L. Butler, M.P. Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick, M.P. Arthur Mills Lea, Entomologist at the South Australian Museum, Consulting Entomologist to the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and Lecturer in Entomology at the University of Adelaide, called and examined : 349. To the Chairman : I have resided in South Australia permanently for a little over six years. In Western Aus- tralia, years ago, I did a good deal of work in connection with weevils and other insects attacking grains and meals. In New South Wales I was assistant to the late Govern- ment Entomologist (Mr. OUifi). In speaking of weevils, I understand the Commission to include in that general term all the insects that attack wheat. Of the weevils principally attacking wheat in South Australia the main one in the so-called rice weevil (Galandra oryzae). That insect does more damage in this State than all the others put together. Then the next most important is the so- called grain weevil (Galandra granaria), which does a large amount of damage to stored wheat. Statements have been made that the grain weevils attack grain growing in the field, but I have examined a considerable quantity of wheat in the field and I have never yet seen grains so attacked. I know that weevils will attack maize in the field, because I have seen that happen in Queensland and New South Wales. I believe that stored wheat in any part of Australia would be liable to attack. For instance, on the Elder Expedition that went to Central Australia and Western Australia, weevils were found. Similarly the expedition from the South Australian Museum that visited Central Australia the year before last brought back weevils. Captain White, on his various trips to the interior of Aus- tralia, has also collected weevils. 350. By the Hon. T. Pascoe— Where wheat is emptied on damp ground and left for a while it probably would develop weevil ?— Yes. . 351. By the Ohairman—Whexe did Captain White find these weevils ?— He brought them back from his trip. I have the localities at which he obtained them. They were probably in grain brought into store for food for stock. T)—i treat the grain by machinery in or clean it for milling. I think the Wlieat Board has dc best and cannot do more than it is doing The rain F— Xo. 2- 42 Minutes of Evidence— C. H. T. Connor. E. G. Stone. got into the stacks last year largely accounted for tlie weevil. 571. To Mr. AiiMey : There is no flour weevil that I am aware of. There is a mill bug which gets on the bag and into the flour, but it does not belong to the flour. I have seen a flour maggot an inch long, but rarely have I noticed the beetle that develops from it. 572. To the Chairman : Flour from the 1916-17 wheat could be kept a year or longer. South Australian flour when properly made will never go bad like other flour. It may develop insects and require redressing, but it will never go sour or lumpy. It requires to be protected more from dampness than from insects. I have kept flour in Natal, South Africa, for a year and nine months. The right thing is being done in grinding as much of the wheat as possible. It would be advisable to have three shifts working at all mills, because the sooner the wheat is turned into flour the better it will be for all concerned. Unless all the objectionable matter was removed from the wheat by proper machinery the quality of the flour and its keeping properties will be affected. I cannot say whether all the mills have the necessary machinery to clean badly affected grain. 573. To the Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick : If given the necessary encouragement, my company would be prepared to start the mill at Port Pirie within a month. 574. To Mr. Anstey : On the whole our experience with the present scheme has been satisfactory. I would not favor a change from the present arrangements. I think we would be agreeable to a milling rate of 25s. 6d. with a commission on sales of the mill's production. There is some wheat that I would not agree to grind and put the name of the Adelaide Milling Company on the flour. 575. To the Chairman : The majority of our country mills have cleaning plants, but I am not prepared to say whether they are capable of dealing with wheat of the quality we have at the seaboard. I believe some of the country mills have very good cleaning plants. If the Government took over the grinding of wheat and we had the superintendence of it I would be prepared to put our own name on the flour. We should have to have a say in regard to the selection of the wheat. Given 601bs. of weevilly wheat you can calculate pretty well what you would get, but with a measured bushel of weevilly wheat, which weighs very much lighter, you have to be careful in your calculations. 576. To Mr. Anstey : One could not get as much flour out of 601bs. of weevilly wheat as out of the same weight of good wheat, because there would be a greater proportion of offal in the former. 577. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — The wheat you find fault with is not f .a.q., but reconditioned wheat ? — Yes ; from the miller's point of view the reconditioned wheat is very dangerous wheat to handle, because they have, mixed up the wheat that has been wet with the other ; no machinery can separate that, and a few grains of mouldy wheat would spoil the flour. 578. Is there any such thing as the same mill making first-class and second-class flour ? — That would not affect the quality of it at all ; it is only a matter of shifting the silks. There is no such thing in the trade known as second- class flour made out of damaged wheat ; the ordinary second grade has simply more poUard in it. 579. By the Chairman — Have you any difficulty in getting men ? — No. I do not anticipate any difficulty in that respect when we are in a position to start our Port Pirie mill. We keep our men constantly at work, and they seldom leave us. If it' were not for the present high price of offal we could not make both ends meet at the prices for flour and wheat. 580. By Mr. Butler — ^Can you explain why offal is so scarce ? — I cannot ; the demand has been most extra- ordinary, not only here, but also in the other States. We are sending pollard to North Queensland, and Melbourne wants to buy here, but we have not enough. I cannot keep up our ordinary stocks, becaus". as fast as it comes from the mill it goes out. 581. By the Chairman— We have it in evidence that some of the country millers are finding it difficult to run their mills on account of the price they get for the flour and the price they have to pay for wheat ? — That would be the condition all round if it were not for the unexpected rise in the price of offal. In buying wheat at the price fixed by the Wheat Board, 4s. 9d. per bushel at Port Ade- laide, and getting £10 18s. 6d. per ton for the flour, no one could make it pay if it were not for the rise in the price of the offal. The witness withdrew. The Commission adjourned Monday, March 18th, at 10-30 a.m. [At Parliament House, Adelaide.] Present — Mr. W. Angus, Chairman. Hon. W. H. Harvey. Hon. A. A. Barkpatrick. Hon. T. Pascoe. Mr. E. A. Anstey. Edward Giles Stone, consulting engineer of the firm of Stone & Siddeley, Ltd., Glenelg, called and examined : 582. To the Chairman : Under ordinary circumstances it would take about nine months to erect a terminal silo to hold a million bushels of wheat. It would need 35 bins of 24ft. diameter and about 80ft. high. Once the founda- tions were constructed, I could undertake to put up four bins per month, barring wet weather in which the men could not work. An ordinary silo, apart from a terminal silo, would cost between 9d. and lOd. per bushel. A million-bushel silo, including machinery, would run up to about Is. 6d. per bushel. Country elevators erected in New South Wales cost 9-4d. per bushel, without machinery. I think that is cheaper than the cost in America. The average price, so far as I can discover, in America is lOd. per bushel, without machinery. Including machinery it goes up as high as a dollar. A solid silo erected here would, I think, cost close on Is. per bushel without machinery. 583 To the Hon. T. Pascoe : Our silo is designed so that one part shall be as strong as any other. We have tried every type of pressure on the .silos we have built, and there has been no movement at the joints. Water has been tried, and the joints have proved watertight. They are also as airtight as concrete can be. One of the difficulties, I imagine, would be to find suitable sand for concrete in the country. Under our system the slabs could be made at a central place and shipped to any part of the country. If you want to kill the weevil quickly, a silo constructed on our principle could be put together temporarily and filled with wheat. Then, if you were not satisfied with the site, you could take it to pieces and erect it elsewhere. 584. By Mr. Anstey — You have had a long experience in cement concrete work ? — Yes. I have not had experience in building underground silos. I should have thought that the cost of handling the stuff in underground silos would have knocked that out. 585 Can you give the Commission some idea whether underground silos constructed over 1,000ft. long would stand ? Looking at a plan supplied by Mr. Graham Stewart in connection with underground silos, will you give us your opinion whether ordinary concerte work — the sides and bottom lined with 6in. concrete, and 3ft. of solid filling on top, would stand in our alternating climate ? — Would you place your concrete straight on the earth ? 586. That is the suggestion here ? — If you will give me the full particulars I shall supply the information at a later stage. 587. As an engineer will you give your opinion whether that class of work will stand, whether the earth pressure, or the inside pressure, or the atmospheric variations will Minutes of Evidence— E. G. Stone. A. J. Perkins. ^he concrete so that it may crack and be ineffective neans of protecting the wheat ? — I will do so. i. In the estimates which you are giving the Com- )n it would be well if you were to estimate for the work as well as the slab work ?— Of course, as to that, uld depend upon the site. The price depends to the 3st extent upon the diameter of the bins ; so that if ire going to call for tenders on the designs, say, of df & Co., then I should see those plans to say what ost of those would be here. If you ask me to tendei le two — and the matter of stability is unquestioned, my own experience — then I know which would be beaper of the two. I. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Taking your estiniate in ng country elevators, the fact of your having one il manufacturing depot, and of being able to send vhole by rail, would mean that it would be rather )er than carting the material, sand, &c., to the various ? — Yes ; and having to face the risk of getting an erent quality of sand. The freight would be slightly r with the central scheme, but there would be no troubles at this centre, or less risk of them at any than in country places. Working at our own depot, r our own conditions, with our own full plant, the tion would be altogether better. As to the trucking i slabs, when first I started in practice as a consulting eer I was engaged in connection with reinforced silos isilage, and we sent quite a number of those concrete to the northern rivers of New South Wales by rail, very little damage in transit. The witness withdrew. Che Commission adjourned. DBNDUM (March 27th, 191 S) — As requested, I have ined the drawings supplied me, showing a proposed :ground storage bin. A.s I cannot return in time for ersonal inquiry, I trust you will be able to receive this accept same. The questions you asked were as re : — (1) What would be an approximate cost for 1) underground bin of the dimensions shown, taking uantities as given on the drawing as being correct ? re the bins, as shown, sufficiently strong to prevent )se ? (.3) Does the concrete lining require to be irced with steel to give necessary strength ? (4) Will rails crack and allow seepage, or will seepage occur • any circumstance ? My replies are as follows :— he cost will vary with the positions, but should not d £17,600 (seventeen thousand six hundred pounds) le amount of work given in the quantities, if carried 1 accordance with the plans. (2) The strength of the nust be determined, I take it, in an empty condition. ■ could be but little fear of collapse full. When empty lability would entirely depend upon the nature of the The slope selected "by the Bngineer-in-Chief is the Eiry slope for excavation, viz., 1 to 1. Cuttings, even )se material, will usually stand at this slope, if not cted to erosion from rain or water in some form, or 1 the ease of sand to heavy dry winds ; but, in most such a slope is safe. If, therefore, suitably lined concrete, such walls should not, under ordinary con- s, collapse. We have, however to allow for every tion, and I think that if such walls were subjected to pressure by the soil becoming surcharged with same, under such circumst.inces I doubt the stability, for ning in concrete seems to be only Un. thick, and is I directly on the soil. It is probable that, although 10 wn, the Engineer-in-Chief has allowed for draining [ich water from behind any of the walls, or again his knowledge of the suggested places of construction ;ell him that such a condition will not exist. As far bility only is concerned, therefore, there is not much rry about, for even if not carried out as shown but extra expense need be added to ensure stability, sinforcing with some meshed reinforcement would ve the strength of the concrete, without adding much, •er, to the stability. If such bins are to be constructed, I would recommend some reinforcement to bind th Crete. (1) This, in my mind, is the most imp question, and should, I respectfully submit, be ca: considered by your Commission. There is hardl; doubt that cracking will take place, due to both s and changes of temperature. Such cracking might result in extensive damage to the contents of the for even if suitable drains are introduced outside thi there may be danger of seepage unless the construct such drains was elaborate and expensive. Sul reinforcement could not be placed in such thin wall to prevent cracking, and I again repeat that I do nc for, nor would I recommend, this construction, fo particular reason, with any feeling of certainty. Ii elusion, I should state that there are other points of wes concerning which you have not asked for my opinioi which need not be dealt with, as the above (4) is important. As you have probably looked into the qu of expense in handling the wheat under this method o struction, I will not touch on this que.'^tion. — E. G. S Friday, April 5th, 1918, at 11 a.m. [At Parliament House, Adelaide.] Present — Mr. W., Angus, Chairman. Hon. W. H. Harvey. Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick Hon. T. Pascoe. Mr. E. A. Anstey. Mr. J. E. Pick. Arthur J. Perkins, Director of Agriculture, re and further examined : 590. By the Chairman — You desire to hand in a n randum you have prepared for the Commission ?- It is as follows : — In view of the uncertainty as to when the ac( lating wheat of our successive harvests is likely shipped overseas, and the certainty that if ha and stored on pre-war lines, it will undergo g] deterioration, it seems inevitable that some fo silo storage must eventually be resorted to. Tht objection to this solution to a difficult problem seem to be the relative costliness of an under! the usefulness of which would apparently disa with the return of normal times. Hence if, as I bi the general adoption of bulk handling of wheat thi out Australia is only a matter of time, it would wise to proceed immediately to the erection ( regular storage silos which form part and par such a scheme, concerning which carefuUy-prj plans are already in existence. I recognise, hoi that the immediate erection of all the bulk-ha: storage silos provided for under the complete si would offer but slight reUef to .the present poi At the outside this scheme cannot afford roo: much more than 15,000,000bush., whilst it probable that we shall have on our hands for s years the proceeds of several harvests. Her complementary scheme is clearly indispensable it is of the utmost urgence that it should be elab( without further delay. In this connection i occurred to me that a suitable scheme might be ad combining the following advantages, (a) offering i solution to the weevil problem ; (6) avoidini unnecessary expenditure of money over purelv porary difficulties ; and (c) opening the way desirable advance in local farming practice. Commission is investigating the condition of our industries as well as the operations of the Wheat hence I venture to submit for your consideratic following proposals : — The Government to of! No. 27. 44 Minutes of Evidence— A. J. Perkins. erect overhead reinforced concrete silos on individual farms, the cost of these silos to be repayable by farmers on easy terms, say in seven years' time, on the instal- ment principle. Let us take an extreme example, namely, that of a farmer averaging a harvest of 3,000 bags, or 9,000bush. In the case before us 9,000bush. would occupy approximately 11,500 cub. ft. Again 11,500 cub. ft. would represent storage capacity for between 180 to 200 tons of chaiied ensilage. I respect- fully submit that this storage capacity would be below the actual ensilage requirements of a farm averaging 3,000 bags of wheat, and adequately stocked up with livestock. At the Roseworthy Agricultural College we have approximately the above storage capacity for ensilage, and although milking only from 20 to 25 cows, we never had surplus ensilage for other forms of livestock. I indicate below what would roughly be the storage requirements for single harvests on farms ot various sizes : — Average Harvest Yields. Corresponding Silo Capacity. Corresponding Ensilage. 9.000. Bush. Cub. Ft. 11, .=500 7,600 3,S00 1,900 Tons. 190 to 200 6,000 3,000 125 to 130 60 to 70 1,500 30 to 35 After the mice plague I need hardly dwell on the importance of silos for storing away gTeen forage in a form that can be affected neither by weather nor by vermin. If ensilage be properly made it will keep almost indefinitely. Although of special advantage to dairy stock, it can be fed profitably to almost any tyP^ of livestock, including horses. Moreover, should the farmer find no present use for ensilage, his silos could be filled in times of plenty, and would be available in times of drought, since unlike hay it does not dete- riorate, nor can it be sold readih^ under the temptation of abnormal prices. Notwithstanding these obvious advantages, South Australian farmers have in the past made but little use of ensilage ; and this partly because of lack of capital necessary for erection of silos, and partly because they have not realised the extent to whicji ensilage would raise the stock-carrying capacity of their farms. Hence it appears to me that our present difficulties offer an excellent opportunity to push forward a much needed reform in farm practice. The adoption of ensilage on a large scale will have the effect of increasing very largely the livestock of the State. I must admit, of course, that at the present moment the cost of building material is undesirably high ; nevertheless, in view of the advantages to be reaped, I do not look upon it as prohibitive. From some results we secured on the Mount Eemarkable Training Farm, I estimate that reinforced concrete silos could probably be erected at a cost of about 20s. to 30s. per corresponding ton of ensilage. By this I mean that a silo capable of lodging 9,000bu8h. of wheat, or 200 tons of ensilage, should cost between £200 and £300. I feel confident that the cost would be less if a large number were to be contracted for. I suggest that the foUov.-ing procedure could be adopted. The Wheat Pool would rent the silo from the farmer at the rate of Id. per bushel per annum (or at such rate as may be agreed upon), i.e., in the case of 9,000bush. silo, costing from £200 to £300, at the rate of £37 10s. per annum. This sum should not be paid to the farmer, but to Government until complete hquidation of all moneys advanced tow ards the erection of the silo. In order to avoid the danger of storing damp wheat, farmers would Lave to conform to certain regulations prior to filling theii' silos. Probably the wheat should be subject to inspection in the field. The wheat, once placed in the farmer's silo, would become the property of the pool, whose officers would naturally take neces- sary precautions against fraudulent practices and other losses. Advances could be made against this wheat in the usual way, excepting that the cost of carting to the nearest railway or port would be reserved until such time as the wheat was removed, when, if the farmer did the work, the money could be refunded to him. To what extent would the State be committed by such a scheme ? I calculate that tow ards the erection of silos on farms capable of taking 20,000,000 bushels the State would probably be called upon to advance between £450,000 and £650,000. Of this total the State should recover in the first year over £83,000 from the Wheat Pool in the way of storage rent, and I may add that in my opinion the average farmer will be able to store two harvests on his farm without burdening himself unduly with silo capacity. The details given have been hurriedly put together, and are perhaps somewhat crude. I feel, however, that the scheme itself, when taken in conjunction with the bulk-handUng storage sUos, offers a simple means of adequately protecting our wheat, whilst at the same time opening the way to an admitted advance in local farming practice. 591. To the Chairman : If the silos could be erected for £1 per ton of ensilage contents the cost per bushel of wheat would-be 5|^d., and if the cost per ton was £1 10s., the cost per bushel of wheat would be 8d. Of course I am not an expert in building matters, and my figures would require to be verified. 592. By the Hon. T. Pascoe — Supposing the silo were erected partly by an expert and partly by the farmer, the cost would be lessened ? — Yes ; but the farmer's wages must be reckoned. 593. By Mr. Anstey — If the cost were cheapened to the individual farmer, he would get the benefit of that ? — Yes. 594. By the Chairman — ^Your suggestion is to overcome the congestion likely to arise at the terminal silos and other points ? — Even if peace were declared to-morrow we could not get the wheat away. Whatever else we may do the wheat will fall away in quality ; but in silos it could stand for 10 3'ears. Independent of wheat storage, the scheme I have outlined would be an advantage. There could be one large silo or small ones, according to each farmer's choice. 595. To Mr. Anstey : There could be sufficient storage capacity for two wheat harvests, if necessary. If so, that would not be too much for the ensilage that could be used per annum on a farm. 596. By the Hon. A. A. Kirkpatrick— Would it pay the farmers in the mallee country, say along the Pinnaroo line, to erect silos for ensilage ? — Yes ; they could grow hay for ensilage. 597. To Mr. Anstey: I have assumed that the storage silos under the bulk-handling system would be put down as well. Neither alone would be sufficient. The reinforce- ment now costs about £15, whereas it would previously have cost about £6. The silo which we erected at Mount Remarkable was cylindrical in shape and 2flt. high, 4ft. being in the ground. In order to make it airtight the top could be closed, and the joints between the slabs, closing the side opening through which the ensilage is delivered, could be filled in with plaster of paris by the farmers. The witness withdrew. The Commission adjourned. APPEXDICE8 APPENDIX A. EXPERIIIEXTS BY MR. W. J. SP AFFORD, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Copy of Lettek sest to Wheat Harvest Board. December 19th, 1917. Dear Sir — A few months ago I laid down experiments dealing with the qnestion of weevil in wheat, and as some of the results obtained are of a positive natmre, I take this opportmiity, when the activities of this pest are reaching their maximum, of providing you with this progress report. The main objects of the tests were to discover (1) if weevil developed in wheat from no matter where it was produced, and (2) if storing wheat in air-tight silos controlled the weevil pest. With these objects, the following series of trials wei« commenced : — .S'en'ea (a). — Testing wheat from various localities to see if weevils develop in it. This series was laid down mainly with the idea of convincing those men interested in wheat who have the notion that the weevils develop by spontaneous generation, or that the so-called "germ " of weevil found its way into the wheat grain during the flowering stage of the wheat or soon after, that they are wrong. Series (6). — Testing the effects of storing weevilly wheat in air-tight silos, and to see if the amount of air present in the silo makes any difference to the control of the pest. As it is held by many investigators that the amount of moisture present in wheat plays a very important part in the control of weevil, the moisture content of the samples used was varied in both the above series. Series " A." — Testisg Wheat feom Various Localities to see js Wbbvbls Develop rs it. Wheats for this test were forwarded to me by the agent in the employ of the Wheat Harvest Board during July, 1917, from the following stacking yards, in every case being wheat from 1916 harvest : — Wallaroo, Loxton, Pinnaroo, Port Pirie, Bordertown, Hawker; one jar from each yard being sealed and labelled by the agent. Moisture in Original Samples. Before dividing up the wheats into their various lots the moisture content of each sample was taken, with the results set out below : — Wallaroo 10-70 per cent. Bordertown 9-77 per cent. Pinnaroo 9-5.5 per cent. Port Pirie 9-31 per cent. Hawker 8-76 per cent. Loxton 8-13 per cent. Plan of Experiment. The sample from each of the six (6) stations was divided up as follows : — (1) Full jar sealed by Wheat Harvest Board agent July 9th to 12th, 1917 ; kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. (2) Half-filled jar, sealed August 6th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperature. (3) Half-filled jar, sealed August 6th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. (4) Half-filled jar with moisture content made up to 12 per cent., then sealed September 4th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperatures. (5) Half-filled jar with moisture content made up to 12 per cent., then sealed, September 4th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. (6) Hatf-filled jar with moisture content made up to 15 per cent., then sealed, September 4th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperatures. (7) Half-filled jar with moisture content made up to 15 per cent., then sealed, September 4th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. (8) Ha5-filled jar, not sealed, and kept at ordinary temperature. (9) Half-filled jar, not sealed, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. Results to December I7ih, 1917. A thorough inspection was made on December 17th, 1917, and shows no development of weevils in any one of the above 54 samples of wheat, but the sample of wheat from Bordertown, and sealed there by Mr. R. G. Thomson on July 9th, 1917, showed some Laemophlaev^ferrugineus (one of the grain-offal-eating beetles). Indeed, this is the only jar of wheat in the above series showing any signs of insect life, and as this may be due to insufficient sealing, the jar was re-waxed over the old sealing on December 17th, 1917. To date the above experiments have shown a negative result in so far as the development of weevil in wheat from various sources is concerned ; but the duration of the experiment has been much too short for finaUty to have been reached, and is being continued. Series '" B." — Testing the effects of Storisg Weevilly Wheat m Aie-tight Silos, and whether the amotjkt of Air present has aijy effect on the Development and Multiplication of the Pest. The wheat used for this experiment was a weevilly sample of 1915. Wheat obtained from a stack at Port Adelaide affected by the rice weevil (Calandra Oryzae). Moisture in Original Sample. The moisture content of this sample of wheat was determined before any subdivision of it was made, and it was found to be 12-85 per cent. Plan of Experiment. The wheat was divided into various lots, in each case including live weevils, on the following arrangement : — (1) Jar filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperatures. (2) Jar three-quarter filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperatures. (3) Jar half filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept at orduiary temperatures. (4) Jar one-quarter filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept at ordinary temperatures. (5) Jar filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. No. 27. 46 Appendix A. (6) Jar three-quarter filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. (7) Jar half filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. (8) Jar one-quarter filled and sealed August 7th, 1917, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 4th, 1917. (9) Jar filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept at ordinary temperatures. (10) Jar three-quarter filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept at ordinary- temperatures. (U) Jar half filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept at ordinary tempera- tures. (12) Jar one-quarter filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept at ordinary temperatures. (13) Jar filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. (14) Jar three-quarter filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917, sealed and kept m germi- nation chamber at 70° to 80° F. (15) Jar one-quarter filled, moisture made up to 15 per cent, on September 4th, 1917', sealed and kept in germi- nation chamber at 70° to 80° F. (17) Jar half filled, not sealed, and kept in germination chamber at 70° to 80° F. from September 5th, 1917. ffesulls to December llih, 1917. The following table, setting out the dates on which it was found that all insect life has ceased (where this happened) and the condition of the wheat on December 17th, 1917, will clearly show the effect of sealing wheat in jars where live and active weevil are present : — Treatment. AH Insects Dead or Dormant. Inspection December 17th, 1917. 1. Full, sealed August 7th, 1917, at ordinary temperature 2. Three-quarters full, sealed August 7th, 1917, at ordinary temperature 3. Half full, sealed August 7th, 1917, at ordinary temperature 4. Quarter full, sealed August 7th, 1917, at ordinary temperature 5. Full, sealed August 7th, 1917, germination chamber from September 4th, 1917 6. Three-quarters fuU, sealed August 7th, 1917, germination chamber from September 4th, 1917 7. Half full, sealed August 7th, 1917, germination chamber from September 4th, 1917 8. Quarter fuU, sealed August 7th, 1917, germination chamber from Septem- ber 9th, 1917 9. Full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed ordinary temperature 10. Three-quarters full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed ordinary temperature 11. Half full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed ordinary temperature 12. Quarter fuU, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed ordinary temperature 13. Full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed germination chamber 14. Three-quarters full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed germination chamber 15. Half fuU, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed germination chamber 16. Quarter full, moisture to 15 per cent. September 4th, 1917, sealed germination chamber 17. Half full, not sealed, ordinary temperature 18. Half full, not sealed, germination chamber 1917. Sept. 21 Aug. 30 2 Aug. 21 Aug. 30 Sept. 4 Oct. 17 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Oct. 17 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 Sept. 18 No signs of life No signs of life Weevil active Weevil active No signs of life No signs of life No signs of Ufe No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life No signs of life Weevil plentiful and active With activities of weevils and moisture of chamber this sample is just a wet mouldy mass The above results go to show — 1. That if a receptacle be filled with weevilly wheat, and be then made air-tight, all insect life will be dormant or dead within one fortnight from sealing. 2. The same applies to receptacles three-quarters filled and sealed. 3. In three cases out of four trials in receptacles half filled and sealed, and in those quarter filled and sealed, all active life had ceased in from one fortnight to six weeks. At present no explanation of why the weevil are still alive and active in two of the receptacles (one half filled and other quarter filled) is forthcoming, but on the chance that the jars are not properly sealed a second coating of wax was applied on December 17th 191'- W. J. SPAFFORD, Superintendent Experimental Work. The Alanager, Wheat Harvest Board, South Australia. COPY OF LETTER TO WHEAT HARVEST BOARD. December 24th, 1917. Will you please attach this to the progress report on weevil experiments that I forwarded to you on December 12th, 1917. In the last clause of the above-mentioned report I put forward as a possible explanation of why the weevil did not die in jars 3 and 4b that the jars were not properly sealed. A second coating of wax was applied on December 17th, 1917, and this proved my supposition to be correct, for on inspecting the jars to-day (December 24th, 1917) I find that all weevils are dead, or at least dormant, in both jars. ^y j gpAFFORD, Superintendent Experimental Work. Manager, Wheat Harvest Board, Adelaide. Appendices A aud B. 47 AthorongU inspection of the above jars of wheat made on February 12th, 1918, showed that the jar of wheat from Bordertowu, which developed the oSal-eating beetle {Lcemophlcetis femiginevs) and which was re-waxed on December 17tb, 1 917, is now free from insect life, as all oi the beetles are now dead. The inspection also showed the presence of two weevils (one alive and the other dead) in the wheat received from Pinnaroo and kept in an unsealed jar at ordinary temperatures. APPEXDIX B. TREATMENT OF WEE^■ILLY WHEAT Sydney, February 13th, 1918. Dear Sir — In continuation of the telegram, we are herewith enclosing the statement on weevil treatment. Yours faithfully. The Secretary, Royal Commission on Wheat, Adelaide. H. MAX^\'ELL-LEFROT. WEEVIL IX WHEAT. The question of dealing with weevil in wheat has been closely investigated. A minute examination of cargoes arriving in England of wheat from stacks in Australia, of screenings from mills in AustraUa, has shown what are the prevalent species of insects. This has covered New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia ; and an examination of farms, stacks, and depots in Xew South Wales has been made with a view to understanding the local conditions. In America the weevil problem occurs, and a month has been spent there ascertaining exactly what is done, how the problem is handled, what methods are used. The problem is a more serious one in India, and 10 years' experience there as Imperial Entomologist has helped me in dealing with the Australian problem. With this experience as a basis ^he question of dealing with the situation here is very shortly summarised. A more detailed account will be available later, but it is impossible now to discuss all the points that arise. A memorandum on methods of stacking was sent to the ilinister of Agriculture early in January. There is little to add to this memorandum, which, I assume, is available to the Royal Commission (see below). One point has been questioned and that is the nature of the insecticide to be placed below the stack. Xaphthalin finely ground in lime, slag, or any other mineral is recommended. Failing naphthalin, water gas tar contains up to 10 per cent, of naphthalin ; failing that, ordinary coal tar oil, the higher boiling point portions especially, are available and satisfactory used at the same percentage. These have been tested, and test.1 can esisily be made of any other powder, or of any powder it is proposed to use. With regard to treating wheat containing weevils, an examination has been made of every method in use or that can be suggested. These methods resolve themselves into (a) mechanical, (6) heat, (c) chemical, {d) electrical, (e) natural enemies. (a) Xo mechanical method is known that will hill the egg and larva of weevil in the grain ; ordinary cleaning machines will eliminate adult weevils, but this does not free the wheat completely. (6) A heat treatment has been worked out which destroys every ^g, larva, pupa, and adult of all the species found in Australian wheat. Treated wheat has been tested and baked, and I^. Guthrie reports that it is slightly better than ordinary {.a.q. wheat, ilachines for this purpose can be imported, and are also being made. (c) Chemical treatment, such as carbon bisulphide, has been very minutely inquired into, and there are available the results of some very detailed and complete experiments made in England during 1915-1917 which have not been published ; but chemicals are not available in Australia as they are in England ; and apparently no chemical substance is available in Australia which is safe, e6Fective, and not tainting to wheat. Pr. Guthrie has kindly tested some, but the best taint the wheat ; and while carbon bisulphide is available, its use under present circumstances is practically impossible. Had it been possible to use naphthalin or similar chemicals with the wheat the problem would have been solved, but this is impossible. {d) Electrical methods are under trial. They offer little promise and it is not wise to delay the progress of other methods nntil this method has been cleared up. (e) Xatural enemies. — There are two parasites of the weevil, but it is not ascertained whether the parasites are efective checks. Prolonged scientific investigation is required in this matter. Meanwhile the wheat is being destroyed, and while the scientific inquiry should be going on it cannot solve the immediate problem. The outcome of inquiry up to date is that a heat treatment is effective, does not injure the wheat, and is practicable. Machines are available in America which treat 300bush. to oOObnsh. per hour per unit. Machines are available in England which will do about the same. Three of these are available in Australia aud more can be made. Other machines are under erection at Sydney and will be available shortly. Practically speaking the weevil problem is solved by the adoption of heat treatment, and it is purely a matter of money andengineeringtotreatthe whole of the infected wheat crop. Trials have still to bemside of experimental types of machines but two types of machines are past the experimental stage and can be adopted. This treated wheat has been tested in every possible way. It is free of insects, all weevil eggs and larva are deeul, it is in such a condition that, unless actually wetted, weevil will not develop in it even it put in, and it is only a question of enough machines to treat the whole infected wheat. This sums up the position as far as inquiries are being made for the Royal Commission on Food Supplies. The value of electrical treatment will be ascertained shortly. Detailed scientific inquiry into parasites and other problems will be discussed with the Advisory Council of Science and Industry. This will not solve the immediate problem. Any further information will be wiven to the Roval Commission if specific points can be mentioned. H. MAXWELL-LEFROY. MEMORAXDIXM OX METHODS OF STACKING. (Referred to above.) Examination of wheat stacks has shown that if further loss from insects is to be avoided, certain precautions must be taken, both in stacking new wheat of the 1917-18 crop and in dealing with old crop wheat. It is essential that the following precautions be taken with the new crop : — (1) It must be stacked apart from infected old crop. The least distance safe is 10()yds. if old wheat is stacked in the same locality. This applies to depots only. (2) There is a constant breeding of weevil and other insects in the base of the stack. This is mainly due to wheat trickling down from burst bags or bags punctured by triers. The best system of stacking provides for — (a) Air space under the stack. This can be provided for by laying sleepers in one direction, IJft. to 2ft. apart ; over them, sleepers at right angl^, IJft. to 2ft. apart ; over them, sleepers at right angles, ipt. to 2ft. apart ; over them, boards and hessian or other cloth so that if wheat trickles it does not reach the ground ;, the wheat bags are then stacked. The roof over should be carried on uprights and be clear of the bags, then, if a subsidence of the bags takes place, the roof wiU remain intact and not be affected. (6) The ground under the stack must be made unsuitable for weevil and other insects to breed in. This is best done by applying a 2in. layer of naphthalin with lime or other powdered material containing from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, of naphthalin. If naphthalin is not available then tar oil is the next best. There is oijy a certain amount of naphthalin available, but this or tar oil made up into powder is available in Sydney. I^ve sample* have been tested and found suitable. (e.) The ba"S must be intact as far as possible. The system of puncturing bags with triers is a bad one, as wheat leate out, and it is important to keep the wheat in whole bags. Xo. 27 48 Appendices B and C. (3) Old wheat stacks infected with insects need to be cleaned up. A system of clearing weevil out of this wheat is in trial and will shortly be perfected ; but if old wheat is being moved it is essential that the site be really cleared of insects. Infection readily occurs from old stacks if these are cleared up and the immense accumulation of insects in the spilled wheat is left untreated. When a, stack is cleared the ground under should be liberally treated either with the napthalin-Hine mixture, or with some other insecticidal powder such as tar oil and lime, or tar oil and ground slag, if not, these insects will migrate to other stacks. (4) Damage to wheat is put down to weevil ; but this term really covers at least six different insects, of which three pass stages of their life inside the grain, and it is essential to realise that there is not only one insect involved, but several, with different habits and Ufe history. (5) Assuming that all new wheat is stacked remote from the old, on a properly aerated base, with insecticidal powder on the ground, with board and hessian floor, with a roof carried independently and not liable to collapse, there should be no further damage from weevil and insects if the sides of the stack are protected against rain and moisture, and if the wheat is reasonably dry to start with. (6) The removal of infected wheat to mUls or elsewhere must be properly done. As soon as details of the treatment of infected wheat are available, they will be circulated ; but it is essential that infected wheat stacks be not moved unless proper precautions are taken to deal with the sites and prevent infection of new grain stacks. (7) It is impossible to visit all areas at once ; but it is possible to advise as to any action being taken and to assist vidtb the problem if those handling wheat will refer questions here. Samples of infected wheat can also be exainined and reported on and much loss will probably be avoided if advice is taken as to the effect of any action proposed on weevil and its breeding. It is clear that the proper handling of wheat to avoid insect attack has not been considered adequately. Action has been taken which has assisted weevil attack, and it is now possible to refer Questions of this kind and obtain advice. So far as possible this must be dealt with by correspondence. 8. A great part of the available wheat is to be shipped and it cannot be shipped if infected with weevil, as the insect develops so strongly during the voyage. A very mild infection of insects, which to grain handlers appears immaterial, will make the wheat unsuitable for shipment. Infected wheat may not show an abundance of insects sufBoient to be noticed by the ordinary man, but this wheat may still be too infected to be shipped. For this reason a system of treating grain that will absolutely destroy all insect life in it is being worked out, and as soon as possible details wUl be circulated. APPENDIX C. WEEVIL AND REMEDIES. [Extract from " Indian Wheat and Grain Elevators " by Frederick Noel-Paton.] XXIII.— CLEANING AND DRYING. 187. Cleaning and drying form an integral part of the functions of the modem elevator. Particulars of the charges for such services have been given in Appendix I. 188. It has now been established that cleaning and drying are probably the best means towards preventing damage, either by weevil or by heating. Some specie,! aspects of the drying question are discussed later on in coimeotion with weevil damage. It is recognised that a single untimely storm in India sometimes destroys grain and seeds to the value of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Such produce woiild not be wet if it were in an elevator ; and even if it were wet in the field much of it could be saved if access could be quickly had to a drying plant installed in the local elevator. XXIV.— WEEVIL AlSfD REMEDIES. 190. The chief source ot injury to wheat stocks in India is weevil ; and the use of properly constructed bins or sUos renders possible the destruction of that pest. 191. Without the employment of some active measures to destroy weevil storage of wheat in bins might conceivably aggravate the mischief. Howard and Howard, in their book on Indian wheat, question whether it would be possible in most of India to hold large quantities of wheat in bulk without its being attacked by weevil. But the results obtained by Mr. Fletcher and Dr. Leather, as regards the inhibitory effect of dryness, tend to weaken the doubts insipred by the undoubted authority of Mr. and Mrs. Soward. The insect is ubiquitous throughout India, and works great injury to wheat when garnered. Wheat in the field is free from the true wheat weevil (Galandra ory-.ae., Linn.), and the contamination takes place when the grain is brought on to threshing floors or into storehouses already infested ; but such contamination occurs quickly and the insects multiply with great rapidity. 192. There is little exact knowledge of the life history of this weevil. The only published work on the subject appears to be a paper by Mr. E. C. Cotes, in vol. 1 of the Indian Museum notes. His study seems to have been confined to the weevil ■ found in Calcutta ; but Mr. Lefroy, the Imperial Entomologist in India, believes that there are in this country other varieties that attack wheat. 193. A paper on the " Bionomics of Grain Weevils," by F. .1. Cole, B.So , will be found in the Journal of Economic Biology for March, 1906. His investigations showed that the grain weevil is to an extraordinary degree independent of oxygen, but that it thrives in the presence of moisture and warmth. Indeed it would appear from his results that the first desideratum of weevil is moisture ; for while, in its presence, a low temperature merely induced torpor, dryness was fatal at all temperatures, and increasingly so as the temperature rose. DESTRUCTION OF GRAIN. 195. In April, 1907, Mr. David Hooper, Curator of the Indian Museum, Calcutta, kindly consented to investigate the rate at which weevil breed and destroy wheat. His report will be found in an appendix to this note, together with certain other relevant matter. In it he showed that wheat uncontaminated with weevil before the experiment had lost 26 per cent, of its weight in three months after the first introduction of the insects, while 65 per cent, of the kernels were at the end of of that time found to be weeviUed. The rate of multiplication was enormous, so much so that in order to limit it and to keep tale of it at all, it was thought necessary to remove large numbers of weevil from the wheat on two occasions. If, in spite of this measure, it was found at the end of three months that the weevil had multiplied their numbers 60 times, it is clear that without such interference the increase would have been more rapid even if it had not been exceeded. It is not to be contended that these percentages are ever met within the export trade ; but the facts are striking, even when all allowances are made for difference between the conditions governing trade experience on the one hand and laboratory experiment on the other. They strongly suggest that the real loss from weevil in Indian wheat has been greatly understated, one of the reasons being that the true milling loss from hollow and broken grain is left out of account in the shipper's calculations. All that the shipper is directly concerned with is the extent to which the weight of all grain, excluding the dust, is diminished during the time when the goods are his property. He admits generally that the price paid for Infian wheat, both by the buyer to him and by him to the cultivator or dealer, is ultimately governed by the price that the miller is willing to give for fair average quality of Indian shipment. He recognises also that if the miller were satisfied that he would get a wheat free from weevil and from damaged grain a better price would be paid. He further concedes that it would probably be to the ultimate advantage of his trade in the other markets of the world if the reputation of Indian wheat in this respect could be improved. But he points out that it would take time to establish such a reputation, and that at first the gain to be derived by him from disinfection would be problematical. Indeed, in some cases it is contended that in practice the increase of price would go to the cultivator. The plain fact ot the matter is this : Admitting that the country would gain by saving such percentage of wheat as is now destoyed by weevil, and that this percentage is great, the shipper is concerned only with that part of the crop which is exported, and with that part only during the interval of time bet:iveen his receiving it from Appendix C. 49 . the seller and his delivering it to the buyer. Many shippers are nnder the impression that the damage by wee-ril is greatest in the early stages. This is an obvious misconception, and Mr. Hooper's experiments establish its fallacy. A new generation of weevil appears about every 28 daj-s, and the destruction progresses at an increasing rate until no further scope for destruc- tion remains. Mr. Hooper, however, found an abatement of virility after 50 to 60 per cent, of the grains had been weevilled. 196. In order to gauge the economic importance of the elimination of weevil from wheat to be exported we may take the percentages of loss found by Mr. Hooper and apply them to the average value of the Indian wheat exports, say, for 1911-12^ 5 per cent on Rs.l33,4S4,o80 (iLS,898,972) ... Rs.6,674,229 (£444,949.) 10 •' " " " ... Rs.13,348,458 (£889,898.) 20 " ■' " " ... Es.34,705,991 (£2,313,733.) If any of these rates of loss or damage be applied to the whole crop the sum involved is roughly eight times as great as that stated above. To so apply a rate like 26 per cent, would be inadmissible. A considerable quantity of wheat is exported without showing any signs of weevil, and more might be so shipped if it were stored in places, such as elevators, which are free from weevil. For, as we have said, the infection is not acquired in the fields as is sometimes supposed. 197. One of the largest and most experienced shippers of Indian wheat has estimated the average loss from ^ eevil at 2J per cent. ; but this percentage is calculated on the basis already described, and takes no account of the general abatement of value on account of the bad reputation of Indian wheat in this respect. Even so, it represents more than £1,000,000 on the whole crop, and this without consideration of the havoc wrought by the same insect in the rice crop. The value of the average crop of 8,390,180 tons at average internal prices is Rs. 704,775,120, and 2^ per cent, on this amounts to Ils.l7, 619,378, or £1,174,625. Whether this is an adequate estimate may be doubted, seeing that the damage done by rats to the grain crops of the United Kingdom itseU was in 1908 estimated at £15,000,000 per annum. REMEDIES. 198. Various remedies have been proposed ; but, in dealing with the great quantities in which wheat is now handled in India, the only one of these means that has so far been used to any considerable extent is that of burying in pits, dry, approximately airtight, and uncontaminated by weevil. This is largely done in many districts in India, and it is known that the wheat in such pits keeps fairly well. (See paragraph 5.) There is reason to believe that it does so because it develops carbonic acid gas (csirbon dioxide) largely ; and there are well authenticated cases in which persons entering or approaching such pits when first opened have been snfiocated. In Appendix P will be found a paper relating to the use of carbon dioxide as an insecticide. The process there described is capable of application to small as well as great quantities, and, it is conceivable that it might afford a solution of the problem of grain storage in countries that fear isolation from their food supplies in time of war. It has been suggested that a toxic gas, such as carbon monoxide, might be more efficacious. But in view of the facts demonstrated by Messrs. Fletcher and Leather, the probability is that the elevators will have the effect desired, not through employing gas of any kind, but throngh the operation of their drying apphances. 199. A systematic inquiry regarding the influence of moisture upon weevil in wheat was kindly undertaken in 1909 by Mr. Maxwell-Lefroy, the Imperial Entomologist, at Pusa, in collaboration with I>r. Leather, the Agricultural demist of the same institute. In Xovember of that yeeir a note of the results so taLi obtained was furnished by Mr. Lefroy, and it is reproduced as Appendix to this work. Experiments were made with samples of a uniform description of wheat, originally free from weevil, into which a uniform number of weevil were introduced, the only diference between one sample and another being in the diverse degrees of humidity imparted. The results of the inquiry, as given in the last sentences of Mr. Lefroys note, were to the effect that a sample of wheat containing only 6-7 per cent, of moisture (which w£is the percentage present in one lot at the time of threshing) does not support weevil " From the practical point of view it would seem that wheat stored in an elevator in April-May and not allowed to absorb moisture for six weeks (or less, probably) would be weevil- free, even if at the onset of the monsoon the moisture conditions of the wheat became favorable to weevil, if no fresh weevil could get access to it from without." 200. A further inquiry regarding the influence of moisture upon weevfl in wheat was undertaken by Mr. T. Bainbridg& Fletcher, the Officiating Imperial Entomologist at Pusa, in collaboration with Dr. Leather. The following is a summary of the conclusions arrived at : — (1) Wheat, when threshed, contains about 8 per cent, of moisture. (2) By exposure to the sun in April-May, this may be rednced to about 4 per cent. (3) Whilst containing less than 8 per cent., stored wheat is immune from attack by weevil, and any weevil which may obtain access to it are soon killed off. (4) If stored in insect- proof receptacles wheat which is already free from weevil will be preserved from attack. The results were published in the October, 1911, issue of the Agricultural Journal of India (Vol. VI., Part IV.), and discussed in an article in the Indian Trade Journal of November 23rd, 1911. 201. Should simple desiccation be reUed upon to destroy weevil, it may perhaps be advisable to use an apparatus differing from the ordinary hot-air drying plants used in flour mills and from the various ammonia-evaporation appliances. Air that approaches saturation while at 90° or 96° F. would have small drying power unless raised to a temperature dangerous to grain or oilseeds. Such a combination of atmospheric heat and moisture, moreover, is a serious obstacle to the conduct of any process in which condensation is relied upon as a means of recovering an evaporated substance Uke ammonia. Vacuum drying of certain forips of produce seems to present difficulties arising from the rarefaction of the air (see Philippine Journal of Science for January 15th, 1906). 202. Mr. Fletcher concluded that if wheat were stored in an elevator in the dry season and were prevented for six weeks or less from absorbing moisture, it would, unless fresh weevil got access to it, thereafter remain free from weevil, even if the moisture conditions in the monsoon became favorable to weevil. There is the strongest presumption that the influence of moisture or of dryness upon weevil remains practically uniform whatever be the description of grain concerned, and the facts ascertained by these investigations have the greatest value in connection with the storage of rice. 203. Having regard to the great extent to which the degree of moisture in wheat a&cts its keeping properties, and to the importance of ascertaining definitely what is the safety point of dryness, it would be most desirable that exporting firms should possess moisture testers and with them ascertain the humidity of the grain received and shipped at various seasons. The data so collected would afford invaluable guidance for the avoidance of damage. . The length of time formeriy involved in the conduct of moisture tests prevented for many years any attempt to deal on the basis of a fixed moisture percentage. This was apparently get over by the oil-bath device described in Bulletin No. 99 (1906) of the United States Bureau of Plant Industry. 204. Circular No. 20, issued by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1909, and entitled " An Electrical Resistance Method for the Rapid Determination of the Moisture Content of Grain," gives, however, a full description of a further improvement. The method developed consists essentially in the measurement of the resistance offered to the passage of an electric current through the grain from one metallic rod or electrode to another. The electrical resistance decreases in a measurable maimer as the moisture content of the grain increases. LOSS OF WEIGHT. 205. But any proposals involving desiccation of wheat, for whatever purpose, bring us face to face with the fact that^ loss of moisture means loss of weight. Unless a seller were paid a premium for dryness or were penalised for moisture or its consequences, he would certainly not sell wheat containing less moisture than was normal. Indeed, if there be ground for allegations sometimes to be heard in the home markets, this is scarcely an adequate statement of the facts. It is no doubt true that the price of wheat declines in proportion as it is found to contain excess of moisture, just as it declines in proportion as it contains excessive dirt or damaged grain. A miller prefers dry wheat, not only because it is comparatively immune from damage, but because he gains weight when he conditions his wheat for the production of flour. And a baker prefers dry flour, because he gains in weight when he adds water for the production of bread. All dirt and damaged grain are absolutely undesirable, and must be eliminated before milling, whereas a certain proportion of moisture is not only proper to wheat, but is requisite for the processes of conversion into flour. Kiln-dried flour commands a better price than flour undried ■ but it is dried after and not before milling. In the American com trade it has long been recognised that the loss of value arising from excessive moisture falls on the shipper, and that he could get for grain that was certified free from G— No. 27. 50 Appendix C. this cause of deterioration, and which could be " conditioned " before use, a price that would more than make good what he had lost in weight. It is held in America that corn or maize containing up to 13 per cent, or 15 per cent, of moisture is safe for shipment so far as heating is concerned. 206. Elevators in America are nowequipped with powerful drying plant, although the trade in that countiy is protected by the low winter temperatures from the weevil pestilence as known in India. Enormous damage is sometim es done to the Indian grain and oilseed crops by untimely rain. Considering the disastrous financial consequences of a single atorm, it seems, probable that holders of wheat and seeds might pay well for the service of a good drying plant, and that special attention should be given to this, not only as a branch of the fixed equipment of elevators, but as an offshoot in the form of ■yhat are called " hospital elevators," or of portable plant whose functions would be to salvage storm-damaged grain. 207. Wheat is always " oonditioneH," that is, brought to a homogeneous and suitable degree of moisture, before milling. Indian wheat is always washed before miUling. These two processes afford ample opportunity for restoring moisture to wheat that has been dried for the destruction or prevention of weevil. There is truth in the contention that even if a shipper offered to supply wheat dry and free from weevil, it would be some time before buyers would believe that he could do so, and would pay him a proportionately better price, though they would doubtless do so when they were satisfied on that point. If a single exporter were acting alone, it would probably be necessary at first to restore a normal quota of moisture to the wheat before it was shipped. This could be done with expedition in a properly equipped elevator ; and the opinions of Messrs. Lefroy and Fletcher show that in many cases it could be done without inducing damage by weevil. Since there would be a saving of railway freight on wheat carried in a dry state, and since it may be accepted that the mixing of Indian wheat for export will continue to be largely done at the ports of shipment, the process of conditioning would presumably be carried out there. If, on the other hand, the trade by concerted action put itself palpably in a position to ship dry wheat consistently, it would unquestionably be paid a proportionately better price, and conditioning would not be required. Some shippers systematically dry the seed before shipment, although the process involves a considerable loss of weight. 208. It is not to be supposed that it would be necessary to subject most of India's export wheat to any process for the destruction of weevil. The wheat that leaves the country in the first rush (and this will always represent a considerable portion of the exports ) is almost free from weevil. But if the production of wheat in India is to be greatly expanded, and if the exports are to be equally increased, the increase will be most marked in the later shipments, and such of the later parcels as may not have been stored in elevators from the beginning will probably be contaminated, and will require treatment. Paeageaph 5 EEFEBRED TO ABOVE (see Paragraph 198). 5. Consequently, quantities of wheat are still stored in pits. These are lined with straw and chaff and sometimes, it is said, with a plaster compounded of mud and cowdung. The wheat is placed in them in bulk, and is covered with straw, earth, and thatch. Protracted storage in such pits results in damage more or less serious. This damage appears in the form of moulds, and results in discoloration and bad smell ; but there is evidence that the ravages of weevil are to some extent inhibited by the conditions set up. This is believed to be due to the generation of carbonic acid gas in the processes of decomposition. It is well understood that it is dangerous to enter such pits when they are first opened : and there is on record at least one authenticated case of a dealer being convicted of a rash and negligent act which occasioned the death of several laborers sent into a pit prematiirely. In Burma, when pits are being prepared for the storage of paddy, a mass of leaves is burned in the pit just before the grain is introduced. This not oiUy dries and to some extent sterilizes the soil, but probably produces a quantity of carbonic acid (jas in situ. The holding of stocks in pits has, on the whole, become less prevalent than formerly, because improvement in communications has enabled holders to sell their wheat for export, and so to avoid the heavy losses that attend the old system. It is asserted that in some places a further deterrent has been constituted by the rise of the level of subsoil water consequent on the presence of irrigation canals. In other places, however, irrigation seems to have had the effect of lowering the subsoil level. But in the absence of any public granaries in which wheat can be safely stored at a moderate charge, pits afford the only means by which storage can be suddenly expanded to accommodate an exceptional surplus of wheat. APPENWX N. DAMAGE BY WHEAT WEEVIL. Mb. Hooper's Repoet. Early in April, 1907, the Director-General of Commercial Intelligence asked me to endeavor to solve two problems in connection with weevil in stored wheat. Thg first question requiring an answer was the period of incubation of the weevil and the interval at which successive generations occur. The second problem was the loss of wheat caused by the ravages of the weevil at different stages of development. On the 12th of the month I instituted a series of experiments in which weighed quantities of sound new season's grain were placed in a number of bottles, and into each a specific number of weevils was introduced. The bottles were covered with muslin to allow access of air, a very desirable precaution, and they were left for periods of one, two, or three months. The wheat and rice weevil (Galandra oryzat, Linn.) was employed in all the experiments. During the monthly examinations, and at other times when necessary, all worms, moths, and other insects were removed ; but these were always few in number, and would not affect the calculations made during the inquiry. During the first month, as the hot, dry weather prevailed in Calcutta, a piece of blotting paper was kept in: each bottle, and was moistened every other day with a few drops of water. It will be unnecessary to give details of all the experiments conducted, as reference wiU only be made to those examples illustrating definite results affecting the two problems under discussion. Of the eight bottles of wheat inoculated on the 12th April, it was found that there was an increase in number in two of the bottles, when the weevil were counted on the 14th May, an interval of 32 days. On the 14th May another series was put on, and an increase was first observed in one of the bottles on the 12th June, an interval of 29 days. About a month therefore elapsed between the first contact of the weevil with the wheat and the appearance of the new generation. The rich brown color of the fresh insects contrasted strongly with the sombre black appearance of the parents. The new insects, as soon as they emerged from the grain, were very industrious in pairing, and the females lost no time in boring into fresh grain and depositing their eggs. No attempt was made to distinguish between the male and female insects, or to undertake the somewhat difficult exercise of determining the proportion of the one to the other. EXTKAORDINAKY REDUPLICATION OF LlEE. An illustration might be given of the history of one of the experiments where an extraordinary reduplication of insect life was noted. On the 12th April 50 weevil were set free in 100 grams of hard wheat, and kept in a bottle (No. 7), the mouth of which was covered with musUn. On May 14th the insects were counted, and there were 41 alive and 40 dead. This shows anincrease of 31 due to the appsarance of the next generation. There is thus evidence, as one would naturally expect, of the two generations overlapping. Thf insocis and wheat were returned to the bottle and kept under further observation. On .Time 10th the weevil had multiplied to such an extent that 600 were removed. This was done to simplify the'counting during third month. The next few days the insects were counted at intervals and were found to be increasing at the rate of 20 and afterwards of 30 per day. On July 1st another batch of 1,300 live insects were removed, and on the 12th, three months after the commencement of the experiment, the contents of the bottle were poisoned, and 1,156 weevil were counted in the wheat. During the last few days they must have been hatching out at the rate of 100 per day. There was therefore in this experiment a yield of 3,056 insects in three months, or, in other words, the weevil had in this time multiplied themselves 60 times. These figures are no exaggeration, since, if the 600 had been left in on the 10th June, there would have been a further increase, and if they had not been disturbed at intervals they would doubtless have propagated more freely. The damage done to the wheat was necessarily extensive. It is clear that each female insect punctured more than one grain of wheat, for, allowing that 3,000 insects emerged from the eggs, contained in 4,760 grains, 63 per cent, of the grain would have been destroyed. An actual counting of an average 100 grains showed that 65 per cent, were weeviUed. Appendix C. 51 * Gkeat Loss of Weight. Then the loss in weight has to be considered. The weight of the weeTilled grain compared with the weight of the same number of sound grains exhibited a depreciation of 40 per cent. It may therefore be calculated that with the presence of 65 per cent, of weevilled grain, which is 40 per cent, lighter than the sound grain, there is a total loss of 26 per cent. As a matter of fact the bottle of 100 grams of wheat, after removing the insects and dust weighed 75 grams, showing a total destruction of one-quarter of the wheat in the course of three months. In commercial practice the loss would be greater, as in milling the light grains would go to bran or be lost altogether in cleaning the wheat. It may be mentioned that the wheat in this experiment was examined at the end of two months, when 35 per cent. of the wheat was weeviDed, and ifc, weight, compared with the weight of the sound grain, showed a depreciation of 31 per cent. The total loss of weight at this sta^ was therefore over 10 per cent. This is an exceptional result compared with most of the other experiments where, from some reason, the development was slow, and a number of deaths occunred among the weevil during the first month. Still, the above -described experiment exemplified the possibilities of the regenerative power of the Galandras and the destructive action in grain under favorable conditions. Another Experiment. One more experiment may be shortly described. On the 14th May 20 weevil were liberated in 50 grams of wheat and secured in a bottle. On June 12th eight weevil were aUve and 12 dead ; June 20th, 27 alive, new generation hatching out ; Jply 11th, 118 weevil alive, 10 dead. They had therefore multiplied themselve? 64 times in nearly two months, and were giving promise of an enormous increase during the next few days. The damage done to the wheat was 13 per cent, weevilled grain with a 40 per cent, loss in weight, or a total calculated loss of 5-2 per cent. The 50 grams of wheat weighed on the 11th July 47-5 gram-s, or an actual loss of 5 per c«it. la the other bottles in this series of experiments the amount of weeviled grain ranged from 8 per cent, to 2 per cent., results which corresponded with the comparative inactivity of the insects due to unfavorable condition of existence. It must be remembered that these figures are the results of laboratory experiments. In the trade dust and hollow grains have no value, and the larvae on good authority are said to be definitely injurious to the system. I have shown in other experiments that if weevil be removed from old stored grain, where the damaged wheat reaches 50 per cent, or 60 per cent., a certain number ot fresh insects emerge from the grain, but they show a loss of virility. About half a pound of such damaged grain obtained from the Calcutta bazaar was freed from weevil and left undisturbed for one month. At the end of this period 49 live insects were counted and removed, and the wheat was left for another month. During this time 42 or more had hatched out, but they were very insictive and appeared to dislike their ruined surroundings. Many of the adults took up their abode in the empty grains and there died. It would seem that the absence of fresh grain terminates the favorable conditions necessary for propagation. It has also been shown that worms and moths secreting a web in the wheat are a source of destruction to the CaUindra^, as they become entangled in the meshes and die in large numbers when these are present. How TO Detect the Loss of Grain. A very simple method of detecting the loss of grain due to the ravages of weevil has been alluded to, and T have frequently appli^ it with success in estimating the loss in the samples submitted during the past three months. A small sample of the grain is taken said the percentage of opened grain ascertained (X) ; 100 grains of the weevilled wheat and 100 grains of the sound wheat are then weighed separately to determine the percent:^ ( Y) in the weevilled grain of loss in weight. By multiplying the two percentages (X and Y) and dividing by 100, the total loss in the grain is found. Calculation from four actual samples of badly-stored bazaar wheat will illustrate the extent of the damage. In Delhi wheat attacked by the " Sursuri " insect 40 per cent, of the wheat was weevilled, and the weevilled wheat compared with the sound grain showed a loss of 60 per cent. ; total loss 24 per cent. In Delhi wheat attacked by " Keri " (CcUaiidra) 10 per cent, of the wheat was , weevilled, and the damaged wheat, compared with the good grain, showed a loss of 28-4 per cent. ; total loss 2-8 per cent. In " Calcutta bazaar wheat. May 7th, 1906," 50 per cent, was weevilled and the weeviDed grain compared with the sound grain, showed a 1(ks of 2-8 per cent. ; total loss 14-14 per cent. In " Calcutta bazaar wheat. May 8th, 1907, season 1905-06," 30 per cent, of the grain was weevilled. Weevilled wheat compared with sound showed a loss of 53-3 per cent. ; total loss 15.9. In an inquiry made in Calcutta in 1888 it was reported that the percentage of loss known to be caused by the weevil in granaries was — Maximum 5, minimum 1, average 2|. The above calculations show the amount of damage to occur to a much larger extent, and illustrate the expediency of using preventive measures for the suppression of the pest. APPENDIX O. WEEVIL AND DRYNESS IN WHEAT. Mr. MaxweU-Lefroy, M.A., F.E.S., F.Z.S. (Imperial Entomologist, Pusa), contributed the following article the Indian to Trade Journal of November 18th, 1909 (p. 174) :— During the past season a series of experiments have been made with weevil in wheat at Pusa in co-operation with the Imperial Agricultural ChemiBt, who prepared the samples of wheat to difierent degrees of dryness, and estimated the moisture piesent in wheats. These experiments were designed to ascertain what relation there is between the amount of moisture in wheat smd the amount of damage done tn that wheat by weevil So far as moisture alone is concerned, how does the weevil behave in wheat ? Weevil is no easy insect to work with. It is extremely difficult to see what is going on or, without opening the wheats up and so altering their moisture content, to ascertain if the weevil is breeding or is alive. Weevil to all appearance dead revive after exposure to fresh air and moisture ; and the mere conditions of working a small bulk of wheat with a small volume of air in an airtight bottle preclude any but simple experiments. The series of experiments made have come to an end with the onset of the colder weather, when weevil wUl not breed ; and certsiin facts have been ascertained which have a bearing on the storage of wheat in India and which may be important. The experiments made were with lib. lots of wheat, taken direct from the thresher and so free of weeviL The wheats were dried to different degrees of moisture and put in a closed bottle ; 40 live weevils in good condition were put in and the bottle at once closed. After the lapse of six weeks the bottle was opened, the wheat poured out and examined ; the weevil was given an opportunity of hatching out from the pupse in the grain or of recovering from a dormant condition if it was in one. Tn eJI cases the original 40 weevils were, of course, to be found. When the experiments were begun it was found that the wheat, just threshed and straight from the field, contained 6-7 per cent, of moisture in one case and 7-2 per cent, in another. The same sample dried normally in the sun for some days contained 4-7 per cent, of moisture. Wheat at both these degrees of moisture was used as well as the same wheat dried to "absolute dryness. The first series of experiments were done with dry wheat, itheat at 4-7 per cent., 6-7 per cent., and 7-2 per cent. The same wheat left open ia the air til! July was found to contaun 14-1 per cent, of moisture ; by drying that we could get moistures of 8 per cent., 10 per cent., and 12 per cent., and by damping, moistures of 16 per cent., 20 per cent., and 25 per cent, were obtained. in the first aeries of (absolutely dry wheat), 4-7 per cent., .and 6-7 per cent., no breeding or attack of the weevil took place at all, though each bottle was triplicated; nor did the dormant weevil awake and breed when opened after six weeks. In the second series, the wheat at 20 per cent, and 25 per cent, mildewed so rapidly that the weevil declined to breed and no results were obtained. There remain the wheats at 8 per cent., 9 per cent., 10 per cent., 12 per cent., 14 per cent., and 16 per cent. In the wheat at 8 per cent, the weevil became inactive in some days ; when the bottle was opened, no live weevil was found ; no weevil awoke, and none emerged. An exposure to the rigors of 8 per cent, dryness apparently kills weevil without breeding within six weeks. In the 9 per cent, wheat the weevil in time became dormant ; but the wheat, after being opened and exposed to fresh air of a greater moisture, produced live weevil ; the original weevil had survived, and had irith "reater moisture become active and bred. The 10 per cent, wheat behaved diflferently. The weevil bred during the No. 27. ^'^ Appendix C first six weeks, but only a very few weevil had actually come out. When left to themselves in fresh moist air in September- October, weevil emerged in great abundance, the second brood in the moist air taking less time for development than the first. The 10 per cent, wheat, then, allows of breeding, but the dryness or the absence of fresh air slows it. The 12 per cent, wheat under the same conditions did nothing at all, nor has any weevil developed since. In the 14 per cent, wheat there has been the same result as in the 10 per cent, in one bottle only — not in all ; and in that bottle not as much breeding as in one of the 10 per cent, bottles. The 16 per cent, wheat is exactly the same as the 14 per cent. In all experiments the same wheats were used ; the weevil was from the same stock, and the conditions were, as far as possible, the same. There were checks— the series was triplicated, and it was a big enough series to allow for variation. The behaviour of the 12 per cent, lot is inexplicable. On opening the bottle some smell was discernible, and it may be that some chemical action had occurred. It must be put down to experimental error. The fact that in all 10 per cent, lots breeding occurs shows that wemay safely work down from that; a wheat containing 10 per cent, moisture is suited to weevil. So also a 9 per cent, wheat : it breeds weevil. In our experiment an 8 per cent, lot did not, but in another experiment it might. In no case did a 7-2 per cent., 6-7 per cent., or lower percentage breed weevil. One concludes that a wheat taken from the field at harvest and shut up so that moisture cannot get access to it will remain weevil-free even if infected ; further, that if that wheat could be sunned, there would be an appreciable margin of dryness. The practical meaning of this is that if wheat can be stored in such a dry condition as above, and kept so, it wiH be immune from weevil. The wheats here dealt with were Behai wheats ; Punjab wheats would presumably be drier as they come from the threshing floor, and would, with a moderate amount of sunning, have a large margin of safety. This applies to wheats stored in small bulk in a bottle with little air, and the curious behaviour of the 12 per cent, wheat shows that the matter is not as dear as it looks to be at first sight. Does wheat alter on being stored ? Does it give off carbon dioxide or any other gas ? Does weevil breed well in a bottle, or does a small alteration of atmosphere affect it in a bottle when it would not affect it in large bulk ? Dealing with weevil is not like dealing with a chemical substance ; and always in dealing with an insect one has to do with a form of life, with complex instincts, likes, and dislikes. So far as laboratory tests can show, to dry wheat thoroughly in the sun and to store it in an airtight place is sufficient to absolutely prevent weevil attacking it and to kill off the weevil after the lapse of a certain time. However well moistened and aerated after, a 6-7 per cent, wheat does not develop weevil ; that is, no weevil are left aUve to breed. From the practical point of view it would seem that wheat stored in an elevator in April-May, and not allowed to absorb moisture for six weeks (or less probably), would be weevil free, even if at the onset of the monsoon the moisture conditions of the wheat became favorable to weevil, if no fresh weevil could get access to it from without. APPENDIX P. CARBON DIOXIDE AS AN INSECTICIDE. In 1898 the writer conducted some preliminary experiments with carbonic acid gas. Weevilled wheat was placed in a stoppered jar and carbonic acid from a steel flask was admitted by means of a tube into the base of the jar until the vessel was full. The weevil died quickly, but it remained to ascertain whether the process affected the pupse, larvse, or eggs. These points have still to be investigated, but there is no good reason to expect that the gas will be found to affect any but the mature insect. If it affects only the mature insect, we arrest the evil only temporarily by submerging the wheat in CO, and we have to contemplate either (o) a revival of the peat as the later generations hatch out ; (6) repeated treatment with CO at such intervals as to destroy the successive generations ; or (c) the submerging of the wheat in CO throughout an entire period of incubation — say 28 days. The experiments were repeated with greater fullness in the Commercial Intelligence Department, in Calcutta, in January, 1907, and the earlier results were confirmed. The results and certain proposals for their industrial application were published in the Indian Trade Journal, the weekly organ of the department, on January 24th, 1907. The process may be applied to any quantity of wheat capable of being stored in an elevator, bin, or pit. The receptacle must be airtight, and this condition might possibly involve the use of a special cement or dressing in silos of ferro-concrete. After the grain had been shot up in the usual way, carbonic acid would be introduced at the base of the silo. It would rise through the interstices of the wheat displacing the air (which is much lighter than carbonic acid), exactly as water does, and suffocating all insects as it ascended. The pressure from a flask of liquefied carbonic acid would be more than sufficient to force the gas into a high bin. The fact of the bins being completely fuU of gas would be indicated by the extinction of a light placed within the upper extremity of the bin. The gas would then be shut off. The gas can be used repeatedly, and can be run or pumped from one bin or silo to another very much like water. To find the cost of the process it was necessary to ascertain what quantity of gas is needed to submerge a given measure of wheat. • An experiment conducted in Calcutta showed that when a vessel of known content was fiUed with sound wheat, two-thirds of that content were displaced. On this basis 14-35 cub. ft. of gas would be required to submerge one ton of wheat. A pound of carbonic acid has a volume of 9 cub. ft. at atmospheric pressure, and would cost about threepence, or 3 annas, if bought in considerable quantities. Therefore the cost of the gas required for destroying the mature weevil in wheat by the process proposed would be 4fd. per ton of wheat if the gas were blown out after one operation, which it would not be. In large sUos containing a heavy head of wheat the interstices to be filled would represent a smaller proportion of the total capacity, and the cost would be proportionally less. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are run to waste in distUleries in India. The yield is something like lOlbs. of gas to every gallon of spirit. This gas could probably be purchased for little more than the cost of collection and compression. It would probably be more economical for a large concern to put in its own plant for producing and purifying gas. Such a plant, capable of producing half a ton of gas per diem, would cost about Rs.20,000 (£1,333), and would turn out pure and dry gas at one penny per pound, this being one-third of the cost estimated above. This cost is to be compared with the estimate of 8d. per ton in using carbon bisulphide (which, moreover, cannot be recovered). DESICCATION AS A REMEDY. It is quite possible that for complete extirpation of weevil from » lot of wheat it might be well to rely as much upon the drying power of carbonic acid as upon its effect in excluding oxygen. Indeed, desiccation may be found to be sufficient in itself, and to have the additional merit of destroying the larvse which actually eat the wheat. Mr. Cole, in his paper already alluded to, writes as follows of the effect of carbonic acid alone : — " I have shown that the weevil flourish exceedingly in a non -ventilated atmosphere, and as carbonic acid gas will accumu- late in such an atmosphere, being given off both by the weevil themselves and also by the grain, whether germinating or not, it is important to test the weevil with this gas, which would naturally be given off in greatest quantities in an incubator. " Ten rice weevil were placed at 10-37 a.m. in a glass vessel containing a pure atmosphere of thoroughly dried CO (i.e., no free oxygen). Temperature 72°F. In halt a. minute all were apparently dead. They were taken out at 11-47 a.m.» and although seemingly dead they soon all recovered. Returned to the jar at 12-30 and removed again at 4 p.m. By 4-30 five were crawling about, and the other five were also living, but very quiet. Returned to the jar at 4-45. The next day (temperature 73°F.) they were removed at 10 a.m. and were all dead. " In another experiment the weevil were placed in an atmosphere of CO and water vapor, but no free oxygen. Ten C. oryzae were put in the mixture at 10-50 a.m. and removed at mid -day. All recovered in a short time. Returned at 12-15 and removed again at 4 p.m. By 4-30 several appeared to be coming to, but without waiting any further they were returned at 4-35 p.m. Removed the next day at 10 a.m ., when all were apparently quite dead. However, at 1 1 a.m . two recovered, at 11-30 a third, at 11-45 three more, at 11-50 a seventh, at 12 an eighth, and by 12-45 all had recovered and were fairly active. " Li subsequent experiments 1 succeeded in keeping weevil alive for several days in a moist atmosphere containing 80 per cent, of CO. Whilst, therefore, pure dried CO is very fatal, acting, judging from my next series of experiments, either as a poison or as a desiccator, or both, and not merely as an oxygen barrier, a mixture of the same gas with water vapor (still without free oxygen) is appreciably less fatal, thus adding one more testimony to the importance of moisture to these animals ; hence, also almost any accumulation of CO in the atmosphere in which the weevil are living may be disregarded as a preventive agent." Appendix C 53 This Uist conclusion of Cole must be taken with some reserve in the light of some Indian experience of storage in pits. But of course the accumulation of CO in the atmosphere is very different from the immersion of the weevil in such dry gas as is sold in cylinders ; for a state of purity and dryness is a condition of its compression to the point of liquefaction. Carbon dioxide has the same ii£5nity for moisture as ordmary air under equal conditions of pressure and temperature. It will be noted that in Cole's experiments with carbon dioxide the weevil were not among grain, but the results un- doubtedly suggest that if the grain were very wet carbon dioxide might fail to destroy weevil, or would do so less rapidly. Accordingly, on January 21st, 1907, a quantity of badly wee villed wheat was placed in a large glass jar. To it was added about one-sixth of its volume of sound wheat which had been immersed in water for a few seccnds and then " whizzed " in a muslin bag to throw off the excess moisture. This was thoroughly mixed into the other wheat, and the mixture was so damp as to cause the dust to adhere to the inside of the jar during agitation. The water vapor therefore exceeded any- thing likely to be encountered in commercial wheat, and the conditions were in this respect excessively favorable to the weevil ; but it was considered desirable that the test should be a crucial one, and the results, so far as they go, fully bear out Mr. Cole's conclusions. It is evident that only when wheat k fairly dry does carbcn dioxide kill weevil quickly. Carbonic acid could be easily dried, after use in the silos, by passing it through calcium chloride driers ; thence through the grain receptacles which could be fitted with traps to allow of the aiddition or withdrawal of grain without loss of gas The dry carbonic acid would absorb any moisture present. In time it would become mixed with air. To recover the carbonic acid gas pure all that would be required would be to pass the mixture through an absorption apparatus before sending it to the drier. EXTERMINATION OF WEEVIL IN WHEAT. fExTEACT rEoM " Gbais Dbalkbs' .JorENAL,'" IIabch ICtit, 1S17.1 The best way to exterminate weevil in elevators has proved to be by the use of carbon bisulphide, although the application of hydrocyanic acid is also recommended. First clesui the elevator thoroughly, sweeping the walls, ceiling, and floors, and removing all refuse. In using carbon bisulphide it is necessary to make the elevator as airtight as possible. The bisulphide of carbon is then poured on top of the wheat in the bin or tank and it evaporates, the heavy gas sinking through the grain and killing the insects. This chemical is very poisonous, and care should be exercised when using it that the user does not get oretcome. When mixed with air it is explosive, and all fires and lights should be kept away from it. After its use the elevator should be thoroughly aired before entering. Use l|^lbs. to each 1,000 cub. ft. of space. Hydrocyanic acid gas is more deadly poison than carbon bisulphide, and extreme care should be exercised in its use. it is generated in crocks containing diluted sulphuric acid, into which lumps of cyanide of potassium are dropped, and will kill all of the insects as well as humans. About three applications, two weeks apart, are necessary to kill all the weeril, as, like all other insects, their eggs are many and they hatch fast. A room 20ft. x 20ft. x lOft. requires 53ozs. of cyanide, SOoES. liquid measure of sulphuric acid, and 120ozs. water. WEEVIL IX GRAIN. [" Americas Elevatoe as"d Geain Tbadz.' JrsE 15th, 1917.] The season has come when weevil are particularly active, and the following directions for fumigation, given by the Department of Entomology of the University of Nebraska, will apply to miU and elevator bins, as well as to those of farmers. Carbon bisulphide is recommended by the department, and its application is directed as follows : — ^When a bin of grain is infested with weevil or other grain-inf^ting insects, the liquid may simply be poured over the surface of the grain, which should then be covered with a canvas or some other article that will assist in retaining the fumes. By working a piece of water or gas pipe, with a removable plug in the end, down into the grain, and then pushing out the plug, the liquid may be poured into the centre of the grain, &om which location the fumes will readily penetrate the whole mass. Temperature as well as tightness of bins is a very important factor in successful fumigation with carbon bisulphide. With a moderately tight bin, at a temperature of 90°, lib. of carbon bisulphide will effectively fumigate 500 cub. ft. of space ; at 80°, 400 cub. ft. ; and at 70°, only 300 cub. ft. At 60° or less the resulte are altogether unsatisfactory. If the bins are not tight, or cannot readily be m2ide so by plugging the cracks, a liberal increase in the amount of carbon bisulphide should be made. The bins should be kept clos^ for 24 hours, or, better, for 48 hours. It may be added that if there have been weevil in the bins, before new wheat is put in, the bins should be cleaned and the cracks and comers dusted with air-slaked lime. Dampness in the bins is conducive to the development of weeviL COPY OF LETTER FROM E. F. CARTER (JOHN S. METCALF, & CO., LTD.) TO MR. G. G. XICHOLLS, DATED NOVEMBER 19th, 1917. I have received your letter of the 16th instant with regard to grain driers. I am sending you herewith three sketehes — 825, 825a, 825b — which illustrate the manner in which a drier could be applied to heating grain from bags for treatment of weeviL This is, of course, diagramatic only, but in any case grain would be dumped from bags into a hopper at the boot of an elevator 1^, raised by this manner to a hopper above the heating chamber, and fed through this heating chamber where it is treated by air which has been blown past coils containing live steam, the grain later dropping into a lower chamber, where the grain will be partially cooled, at the same time raising the temperature of the air drawn through it by the fan, and lastly dropping it into a lower hopper from which it can be rebagged if necessary. 825a shows one type of tray which is used in such drying machines, showing the thin column of grain that is maintained and indicating the even distribution of heating which is obtained by forcing an air blast through. 825b shows a side view of these trays, showing the slotted sUdes and the sloping bottom with the grain lying at an angle of repose, and open to the air between the bottom of one slide and the side of the next. I find, in looking up records, that these driers have been made in many cases to deliver hot air at any temperature from 120° to 185°, and absolute r^ulation of this air temperature is obtained by manipulation of steam valves and by controlling the quantities of air blown past the steam coQs. Machines of the approximate size shown in the blue print will lower the moisture content of wheat Irom 22i per cent, to 17J per cent., guaranteeing this percentage of 750bush. per hour. A boiler of 75 h.p. capacity is usually installed to furnish heat for the coils of a drier of the size shown. The fan required would be in the neighborhood of 20 h. p. to drive it. We, of course, have no knowledge of the efficiency of destruction of weevil and weevil eggs by heat, but there is no trouble delivering air in a drier such as described at temperatures which you desire. It would be possible, should you desire to do something in this line, to have drawings made immediately and the building constructed while the machine is under ' order and being transported from the United States to Adelaide. We know of no other method which can approach this for the rapid and even delivery and close regulation of hot air to columns of grain. If your weevilly grain is comparatively drv when coming for treatment, containing not over 13 per cent, or 14 per cent, moisture by weight, such an apparatus would be able to heat three or four times 750bush. per hour to the temperature which you specify, i.e., 130° to 150°, but we can venture no opinion as to the exact volume that could be put through to thoroughly kill all weeyU and the eggs, as we have no data as to the length of time such heat would have to be maintained on each parcel of grain. Trusting that this information will be of some value to you in your efforts to combat this pest. E. F. CARTER. *H— Xo. 27. iiiiiilii u Ifl