The results obtained by the analyses of the above described soils are 

 as follows: 



No. 



Percent, of 



Field 



Sample. 



Fine earth, 



(Method I.) 



Percentage of Soil sifted through 

 1 mm. Sieve. 



Percentage of Soil sifted 

 through mm. Sieve. 



Phos- 

 Nitrogen. Lime. Potash. phoric 



The results of the chemical analyses of the first nine soils are far 

 from promising : taking them as a whole, the soils just escape an all-round 

 poverty in plant-food by the fact that potash is present in fair amount. 

 Nitrogen, lime and phosphates are all alike lacking. 



No. 10 is very poor in potash and phosphoric oxide, and its lime- 

 content leaves much to be desired. There is obviously nothing in its 

 composition to show that it overlies the limestones of the Campbell Rand 

 formation ; on the contrary, in respect of plant-food it resembles many a 

 Table Mountain sandstone soil, and is similarly made up of disintegrated 

 quartzites or sandstones, which, in this case, would probably be 

 derived from the quarzitic rocks of the Black Reef series.* A partial 

 mechanical analysis of this soil is given under the head of " Physical com- 

 position of soils." 



No. 11 is poor in very respect, and No. 16 is deficient in lime. Nos. 

 12 to 15 indicate soils rich in lime, and No. 12 also shows a fair amount 

 of phosphoric oxide, but all these soils are Kelow normal as regards potash. 

 Of the last six soils in the above table, it will be noticed that the two 

 samples (Nos. 11 and 16) taken two and three feet below the surfa/ce, con- 

 tain very much less lime in an available condition, at all events than 

 the three surface soils, Nos. 12, 13, and 14, but even these latter do not 

 contain one half as much a* No. 15, which was taken twelve inches below 

 die surface. No. 11, it will also be observed, is the most gravelly of the 

 six. 



See 10th Ann. Kept. Geol. Commsision, 1905, p. 245. 



