INDEX. 



59 



PAGE. 



Perforated metal for sieves . . . . . . . . 51 



Pinched seed, not justifiable to use . . . . . . 44 



Plants, from large plump seed, vigour of . . . . 3, 56 



from small seed shorter . . . . . . . . 44 



in rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 30 



Plump and shrivelled wheat, illustration of . . . . 1 



Plump grains versus rust-shrivelled . . . . . . 23, 24 



Poor sample 12, 13 



Pot experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 



Plump large seed, superiority of . . . . 47, 55, 56 



Poor quality seed-wheat, illustration . . . . . . 13 



Practice of the best growers . . 14, 16 



Practice of the great majority of our farmers, illus- 

 trated 14, 17 



Preferred varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 



Present practice compared with possibilities . . 11, 18 



Profit, maximum to be had from grading . . . . 55 



Prolific-ness, breeding for 19 



Purple Straw, cleaned and graded sample . . . . 14 



first-class sample . . . . . . . . . . 10 



leading position of . . . . . . . . . . 5 



perfect sample . . . . . . . . . . 1 i , 12 



quality of 9, 10 



Purple Straw seed, medium . . . . . . . . 13 



poor 13 



medium and poor qualities, illustrated . . . . 13 



very poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 



Purple Straw wheat, biological analysis of .. .. 20 



Quality of a first-class sample .. .. .. .. 10 



of grain from small and large seed . . . . 40 



of most of our seed 17, 18 



Rainfall, not uniform . . . . . . . . . . 23 



Rattling Jack 22, 23, 36 



Reaper and binder at a disadvantage . . . . . . 44 



Red straw 27, 36 



Rows, care of 26 



fragments of, second trial . . . . . . . . 33 



of plants compared with each other . . . . 21 



of wheat illustrated 22, 24, 30 



Row system 21, 31 



illustrated . . 22, 24, 3u 



of agricultural experiment, increase of . . 21 



of experiment, illustrated . . . . . . 2?, 24, 30 



Row, the element of the crop . . . . . . . . 21 



Rust 43 



of wh^at, Conference on . . . . . . . . 1 



Rust, shrivelled grains . . . . . . . . . 24 



seed . . 43 



Samples 6 



first class . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 



best 6 



of seed, how to judge . . . . . . . . 12 



Seasons, varying character of during the trials . . 46 



Second trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 



table of 27 



results of 33 



Seed, and disease . . . , . . . . . . . . 1 



five years old, stiti good 47 



from afar . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 



mixture of, at mills . . . . . . . . . . 53 



setting apart the best portion of crop for . . 48 



storing of 47, 48 



to ripen fully . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 



quality of, how tested . . . . . . . . 1 



uncleaned, proportion of farmers that use . . 13 



Seed-wheat as sown by the majority of New South 



Wales growers, illustrated . . . . . . 17 



average for the State . . . . . . 10, 11, 15 



practice in New South Wales, usual . . . . 17, 18 



of the better farmers 11, 14, 16 



of the poorer farmers 11 



Sheet metal for sieves . . . . 51 



Shrivelled seed as chick wheat . . . . . . 21 



Shrivelled grain, definition of . . . . . . . . 25 



fodder value . . 21 



illustrations of . . . . . . . . . . 1 



in sieving . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 



growth of . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 



advocates of . . . . . . 13, 44 



use of not justifiable 44 



PAGE. 



Sieves 24,51 



of perforated metal, best . . . . . . . . 51 



used in the investigation, illustration of . . 2, 3 



Sieving as related to flat and round grains . . . . 25 



method of . . . . . . . , . . . . 25 



no standard for . . . . . . . . . . 25 



repeated . . " . . . . 25 



Size of the grains in a perfect sample . . . . . . 12 



Small grains produced by most of our varieties . . 19 

 Small seed, advocates of .. .. .. .. ..13,44 



and favourable seasons . . . . . . . 45 



excess of misses in . . . . . . . . . . 30 



failure of .. .. .. .. .. .. '/& 



fodder value . . . . . . . . . . . 19 



gives less yield per plant . . . . . . . . 47, 55 



gives more small grains . . . . . . . . 41 



give poorer quality of grain . . . . . . 40 



more of them per bushel . . . . . . . . 45 



not justifiable to sow . . * . . . . . 44 



relative cost of . . . . . . . . . . 45 



favoured . . . . . . . . 26, 31, 33, 43, 54 



lower plant producing power . . . . . . 30, 55 



poor chance of, in bad season . . . . . . 17 



Soil, limited influence of powerful factors in. . . . 33 



'- conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 



mysteries of . . . . . . . . . . 32, 45, 46 



unsuitable to wheat. . .. .... .. 46 



used for experiments typical . . . . . 46 



Sowing of small seed not justifiable . . . . . . 44 



Stamina of plump seed . . . . . . . . . . 11 



Stand from ungraded seed .. . . . . . . 43, 44 



Starch 19 



State average . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 17 



of seed-wheat graded and piled . . . . . . 11 



Steinwedel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 36 



amount used in the State . . . . . . . . 5 



average quality of . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10 



cleaned and graded sample . . . . . . 14 



Storage of seed . . . . . . 48 



Straw 30, 34, 37, 55 



from large, small, and medium-sized seed . . 34 



from rows of experiment wheats . . . . . 30 



yield of, second trial . . . . . . . 3'J 



,, third ,, 38 



weight of . . . . 24, 37 



Stripping irregular growth . . . . . . . . 44 



Summary of comparisons . . . . . . . . 38 



second trial . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 



Summary of growth, second trial . . . . . . 29 



third trial 37 



Superiority of crops from large seed . . . . . . 42 



Superiority of large plump grain . . . . . . 47 



Tables- 

 Average of State . 10 



Excelling powers large seed . . . . 32, 38, 54 



Explanatory . . . . . . . . . . . 4 



Fanner's Friend . . . . 10 



Fifty best samples of New South Wales seed . . 15, 18 



First-class sample ... . . . . . . . . 10 



First trial 23 



Fourth trial 39 



Germination . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 



Graded seed 14 



Grain, quality of, from various seed . . . . 42 



Large plump versus medium and small seed 27, 35, 39 



plump versus small plump 23 



seed, excelling powers 32,38 



small, and medium seed, germination of . . 31 



Medium sample of seed . . . . . . . . 12 



New South Wales seed-wheat . . . . : 6 



Percentages, how derived . .- 4 



Poor sample of seed . . . . 12 



Purple Straw, first-class samples . . . . . . 10, 12 



graded 11 



Quality of different varieties 10 



Quality of grain, from large seed . . . . . . 42 



from medium seed . . . . . . . . 42 



from small seed . . . . 42 



Second trial . . . . . . 27 



Seed-wheat, fifty best samples of . . . . . 15, 18 



Seed, graded . . . . 14 



medium sample .. .. 12 



poor sample of 12 



very poor . . . . . . . . . . 12 



