loOcT.. 1912. J 'r lie I'sc of /.inw III Victorian ]'i/ie yards. 635 



III ihis part of thf State lime is almost ever\ where present in almndance. 

 Occasional exceptions, such as No. ig A and B, where the potash exceeds 

 th'e lime, are rare, and in a general wav the soils of the Mallee and 

 Wimmera cfintain enormous quantities of lime. They are in this respect 

 similar to the hulk of P^uropean vine sods. Table C is given for the 

 purpose of showing, hv comparison, how verv deficient in lime ar-' the 

 soils of table A, and that it is essentially logical to expect that the 

 correction of this defect by liberal lime dressings cannot fail to have 

 \ery beneficial results.* 



South of the Dividing Range but few samples of soils have been sub- 

 mitted for analysis by the writer. Some of these re\eal lime deficiency 

 similar to that shown in table A. At Geelong, in many parts of the 

 south-western district, and of Gippsland calcareous formations occur. 1t 

 is scarcely necessary to point out the value of .soil analysis in this 

 conne-xion. 



Lime and Magnesia. 



The arguments so far adduced in favour of the application of bme 

 are based on the natural deficiency of this t'lement in the soil. The 

 analyses quoted above reveal another rea.son why such application should 

 prove beneficial, viz., on account of the large quantity of magnesia manv 

 of our soils contain. Authorities on soils are agreed that it is desirable 

 for lime to be present in greater quantity than magnesia. Hilgard is 

 •emphatic on the point — ■ 



" Soils containing large proportions of magnesia generally are found 

 to h^ unthrifty, the lands so constituted being frequently designated as 

 ' barrens.' Lowe finds that certain proportions of lime to magnesia must 

 be preserved if production is to l>e satisfactory, the proportion varying 

 with different plants, some of which {e.g., oats) will do well when the 

 proportion of lime to magnesia is as i to i. while others require that 

 that ratio should be as 2 or 3 is to i, to secure best results. In general 

 it IS best that lime should exceed magnesia in amount.'" And again — 



■' In the case of soils containing much magnesia the proper proportion 

 between it and lime may easily be disturbed by the greater ea.se with 

 which lime carbonate is carried awav by carbonated water into the sub- 

 soil, thus leaving the magnesia in undesiraljle excess in the surface 

 soil. Hence the great advantage of having in a soil, from the outset, 

 an ample proportion of lime. From this point of \iew alone, then, the 

 analytical determination of lime and magnesia in soils is of high practical 

 value. ' ' 



On reference to table A it will be seen that the .soils of the low lime 

 region contain, very generally, from two to three times as much magnesia 

 as lime. The correction of this defect by applications of lime appears 

 to be most desirable. 



Lime as a Potash Liberator. 



The Avhole of the analyses quoted above show that our vine soils 

 usually contain a satisfactory proportion of potash. Some are exceed- 

 ingly rich in this element, which, in view of the considerable quantities 

 removed annually, in the shape of cream of tartar, is of great importance 

 in viticulture. 



* In the viticultural districts of France where lime is deficient e.xcellent results follow its 

 application to the soil. According to Guillon. for instance. " Granitic soils are nearly always rich in 

 potash, but the majority, excepting those with calcic feldspar, are almost completely devoid of lime, 

 anl only become fertile if thi^ elem^at is brought to them in the course of soil improvement 

 ■an\^i\Amer^ls)." J. M. Guillon. Etude G6n6rale de la Vigne, p. 349. 



