115 



Report of Examiners on Agriculture. 



The second question was in no case well answered. 



The questions in Section B were fairly well answered. The know- 

 ledge shown was, however, rather general ; for example, candidates 

 had but a very hazy idea of the quantities of manures to be applied. 



Candidates failed to show a very intimate acquaintance with 

 the structure of the common plough. Still less was known of the 

 ^ disc' plough, most candidates avoiding that part of the question. 



The two candidates who took the question on cotton in Section 

 D, gave good answers. The operations in connection with cane 

 planting were not well explained. 



In Section E, all candidates took question 10 in relation to to- 

 bacco. In two cases, a fairly accurate knowledge of the require- 

 ments was shown. The remaining candidates avoided details. 



The papers of Sharp and Lindo were, on the whole, good, and 

 these two candidates exhibited a good all-round knowledge of the 

 subject. Nethersole's paper is fairly good. Martinez, Goode and 

 Hewitt are weaker. 



J. P. DEALBUQUERQUE, M.A., F.I.C., F.C.S. 

 Island Professor of Chemistry and Agricultural Science. 



W. R. BUTTENSHAW, M.A., B.Sc, 

 Technical Assistant, Imperial Department of Agriculture. 

 13th Feb., 1905. 



Report of Examiners on Chemistry of Agriculture. 



The answers in Section A — Theoretical Chemistry — were gen- 

 erally very good indeed, and all the questions were attempted by 

 one or other of the candidates. 



In Section B — Elementary Organic Chemistry — the answers of 

 Goode were especially satisfactary ; those of the other candidates 

 were good to fair. No candidate knew the answer to the last part 

 of Question 5. One candidate attempted question 6, but failed to 

 give an accurate account either of the properties or formula of 

 acetic aldehyde. 



In Section C — ^Agricultural Chemistry — each of the questions 

 was well done by one or other of the candidates. The answers to 

 question 10 were generally the least complete, and with the ex- 

 ception of two candidates, the statements of the composition of 

 farmyard manure were wide of the mark. 



On the whole, a generally high standard of answers was main- 

 tained in this paper. Goode was throughout very satisfactory; 

 his answers were brief, accurate and to the point : Lindo and 

 Sharp were also good ; the answers of the other three candidates 

 were, on the whole, fair. 



J. P. DEALBUQUERQUE, M.A., F.I.C., F.C.S., 

 Island Professor of Chemistry and Agricultural Science. 



W. R. BUTTENSHAW, M.A., B.SC, 

 Technical Assistant, Imperial Department of Agriculture. 

 13th Feb., 1905. 



