166 EXPERIMENTAL FARMS. 
63 VICTORIA, A. 1900 
it eats its way through the stalk and escapes. The straw bends or breaks at this 
place, leaving the straw as if fowls had pulled it down. One man told me his wheat 
would not be more than half a crop owing to the work of this insect. Would you kind- 
ly let me know what it is? It was not noticed until cutting commenced’.—R. W. 
Neiwu, M.D. 
‘Pilot Mound, Man.—A considerable quantity of the wheat is breaking down 
badiy at the second joint. I was attributing the cause to the straw being weak, owing 
to rust and showery weather making it softer than usual. I have examined some of the 
broken straws and found one containing a chrysalis, which I enclose. I hope the west- 
ern wheat fields are not going to be troubled with weevil or any kindred pest. The 
wheat crop in this district is practically all in stook. Several were thinking that it is 
always better to begin on the green side as a very severe wind storm seemed to have 
broken the straw down.’—D. A. STEWART. 
‘Portage la Prairie, Man.—As to the extent of the damage by the Hessian Fly, it 
is very uncertain, some districts were more seriously affected than others. We had 
several light hailstorms here and there, and many farmers thought they were slightly 
damaged, but I now think that the damage was caused by the Hessian Fly. I find that 
the yield is not up to the expectations of the farmers, more especially in the older districts, 
and I am convinced that it was the Hessian Fly that reduced the yield. But we have 
been blessed with the most uniform good crop I have ever seen in the province, and 
hence the slight damage done is not seriously felt. The weather has been, and is yet, 
simply grand. I found in gathering these specimens I send, that they were more 
vlentiful in late grain than in earlier, also the last heads to come out were the most 
affected.’ CHARLES BRAITHWAITE. 
As stated above, last season is the first in which the Hessian Fly is known to have 
done harm to crops in Manitoba, and many farmers did not recognize the insect until 
the matter was brought before them by discussion in the daily journals and agricultural 
press. With a view to gathering as much information as possible about the occurrence 
and extent of injury, a series of questions was submitted by the Farmer’s Advocate 
to its readers, and answers were received from many of them. Some of these answers 
were published in the issue of December 5, from which it would appear that the loss, 
according to locality, was from 5 to 25 per cent of the crop, and that the attack was 
general, irrespective of the nature and condition of the soil, or the time of seeding. 
Nevertheless farmers in different localities held strong opinions that there were decided 
differences, some stating that early sown grain was exempt from attack, while others 
thought the opposite. Mr. W. R. Graham, Superintendent of the Stony Mountain 
Penitentiary farm, Manitoba, stated to me on October 4, 1899, that the Hessian 
Fly did not attack his early sown wheat at all, and he thought this was general through- 
out his neighbourhood, that in 1899 early sown wheat was much less attacked than that 
which was sown late and held back by the late season. 
In answer tg the questions in the Farmer's Advocate, Mr. R. W. Greig, of Otter- 
burn, reports that late-growing grain suffered most, although, in some cases, that which 
was sown very early was injured more than some of that which was put in late. Mr. 
H. O. Ayearst, St. Paul’s municipality, reports wheat on new land as ‘ badly damaged, 
at least 25 per cent of the crop ; no injury on old land, new land only being injured.” 
On the other hand, Mr. 8. R. Henderson, of Kildonan, reports it to have been ‘ worst 
on old land that had been summer-fallowed, with surface cultivation in the spring, and 
sown early.’ Mr. Robert Fisher, of Springfield, says: ‘I could see no difference on 
old Jand or new, fallow or stubble, fall or spring ploughing, or in early or late sowing, 
though none of our sowing was very early. My own crop was seriously injured by the 
fly, 8 to 18 per cent of the whole crop being destroyed.’ 
The extent of injury was doubtless due to the condition of the wheat plant at the 
time the females were laying their eggs. The injury by the maggots of the summer 
brood is, as a rule, at the lowest joints of the stems, and, as upon hatching the young 
maggots work their way down to the base of the leaf upon which the eggs were laid, it 
would indicate that the plants which showed injury were those of which the stems were 
just shooting up at the time the eggs were laid. At the same time, it must be remem- 
