\\'I1K.\T .SOILS OK Till'; .\i.i:.\.\M)ki.\ i)i\i.sio.\. 217 



Pinsuxr- l\i:nriRK.\ii-:NTs or Whk.xt Soils. 

 Comparing- the results of the foregoiu,^ mechanical analyses 

 of the Alexandria soils with what is known regardinj^ the hest 

 wheat areas and the physical composition of soils investigated 

 in the United States, one cannc^t rej^ard the former as in all 

 respects ideal for wheat cultivation. Thex- do not contain the 

 proportions of clay and humus usually regarded as indisi^ensahle 

 for wheat soils, and incline more to the light and sandy nature 

 which is less suited for the pur])ose.* It is true that soils a])- 

 jjroximating in composition e\en to the coarser .Alexandria soils 

 are used for wheat cultivation ; and that soils of the type of 

 Nos. 5. 7, 9 and 17 may he placed alongside even lighter soils 

 satisfactorily used for wheat in .\merica. Thus No. 7 is some- 

 what heavier (i.e., is physically of finer grain ) than the Clyde 

 sand, in the State of Michigan, descrihed hy the United States 

 Soil Survev. as mav be seen from the following: — 



Yet the Clyde sand is saidt to produce good crops of maize, 

 w'heat, oats and rye. The Clyde sand, however, contains much 

 organic matter. 



Nos. 5. 9 and 17 are of lighter, looser texture, and, judged 

 merely by their physical condition, one would expect them to 

 be, cheiiiicaHy. amongst the poorest soils of the entire series: 

 such, indeed, the subsequent chemical analysis proved them to be. 



A convenient method of classifying the cultivated Alexandria 

 soils examined according to their mechanical analysis is the 

 following": — 



* See Ingle: '•Elementary .\gricultural Chemistr\ (1913). i^' 

 t United States Soil Snrvey Field Book (1906), 156. 



