THE WEEVIL PEST IN WHEAT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 102, 23 January 1918, Page 6

THE WEEVIL PEST IN WHEAT

A SCIENTIST'S VIEW. An announcement of vital importance to tho wheat-growing industry of Australia was made recently by Pro-fes-or H. M. Lefroy, the scientific office.- of the British Wheat Commission, who was recently sent to Australia primarily to deaf with the weevil pest. Ho stated that future loss from weevil in the wheat stacked in Australia need not he feared. The stacks of wheat in tile various States wero badly attacked with weevils, and tho authorities had not been able to grapple with the situation. "Tho 1916-17 wheat talon over on behalf of the British Wheat Commission was in such a condition, owing to weevil," he said, "that if the shipping had been available tho wheat could not have been shipped. That wheat has got_ to be kept here until ships are provided. "So far as weevil goes," the professor continued, "I have reached very (Infinite conclusions. In the first pla«, a system of stacking has been devised which eliminates weevil as a factor in the future. The talk about

■restiictiriK wheat cultivation in favjur ■"■'■' stock-raising is wrong. It is mt n?o'ssary to discourage wheat .-rowing if we can keep the wheat free fr.in iiife;;tation. The British Wheat Commission has paid so much per bushel for the wheat, and we know tint it will realise much more if we can keep it. It would be a suicidal policy for Australia to restrict wheat cultivation in view of the new situation. Wo have now a practical sysieii whereby woovil-infested wheat can bo put in thoroughly good condition, and we have demonstrated that all further loss from this source will bo sto;> pod. The infested old wheat will all lu'/c to be treated, and, once treated, it will be absolutely free of all insect life. It can then he shipped or stacked indefinitely. . The cost of treatment is something like osd. or Id. per bushel, which is infinitesimal. The treated wheat is not liable to reinfestation. Then, again, in stacking the wheai under the system wo havo devised, the liability to Tciiifestation would not occur. I would not have any fear in restocking the treated wh-yit with the new wheat. Those facts having been definitely established,'' added Professor Lefroy, "and the, position being now well in hand, it, Kcoiiif: to mo that the best policy for Australia is not to restrict wheat cultivation, more especially in view of the situation in Europe."