WHEAT SOILS OK T H !•: Al.KX A XDK I A DIXISIOX. 2l*J 



In the United States Department of Agriculture. Division 

 of Soils, Bulletin No. 5, it is also laid down* that 



The l)cst Nvlieat lands contain from 20 to 30 or .^5 ])vr cvul- of cl;iy. 

 and maintain aliout 12 or 15 per cent, of water. 



It would not he wise, on the hasis of the above results alone, 

 to condemn the Alexandria soils as unsuitable for wheat cul- 

 tivation, but it would be very sound policy to follow uj) a clear 

 prima facie case for fuller investigation of the problem, and of 

 others therewith associated, in a country where the climatic 

 conditions which prevail are. in their way. as characteristic as 

 thev are in Southern Maryland. 



With regard to Dr. Wiley's views on the suitability of light 

 soils fQr wheat cultivation, two points must not be overlooked. 

 Dr. Wiley said that the soils to which he referred represent 



the lightest texture upon whicli wlicat can he econoniically prodiu-cl 

 under the climatic conditions which there frevail. 



So it does not follow that the limit of profitable wheat production 

 in Southern Maryland will operate in identically the same way 

 ill Alexandria. 



It is not unreasonable to sup])(ise that in the Cape Province 

 wheat may be economically grown on lighter soils than Mary- 

 land conditions permit, and ])oints such as these we sliould set 

 ourselves to find out. 



And then due weight must be given to another word em- 

 I)]oved by Dr. Wilev — '' for the profitable production of whe'it " 

 is the phrase used by him. 



Wheat may, indeed, have l)een produced in the past on 

 certain soils which can no longer produce it, but the question is. 

 was it ever produced there profitably? 



From the moment you take your first cro]j out of a soil 

 v.diich you never manure, you begin to iiu]>o\erish that soil, and 

 it is only if you incur the expense necessary to replenish this 

 lost soil fertility as you go along, and to keep the .soil in ,s;ood 

 physical condition, that you can gauge whether production is 

 profitable or not. The mere fact that in any given year I spent 

 no money on my lands — except the cost of the seed — and received 

 Xioo for the harvest, does not entitle me to say that my profit 

 for the year was £100, less the cost of the seed. The debt to the 

 soil must be reckoned in — the debt incurred by removing a certain 

 part of the soil's plant-food C(jnstituents and not replacing them. 



A business that inv(jlves a constant drain upon ca])ital i-> by 

 no means jirofitable. 



l^NGLisii Wheat Soh.s. 



Ju.st here 1 may interpose some remarks from i lall and 

 Kussell's '' Report on the Agriculture and Soils of Kent, Surrey 

 and Sussex." On page 142 the authors give the mechanical 



*P. II. 



