CROP LOSSES. 
solution of the vital emergency problems. The methods adopted were 
as follows:—The United States was divided into six districts, and a 
Commission appointed to represent each, together with one from 
Canada and one from the United States Department of Agriculture. 
These representatives (8) constituted the War Emergency Board, 
which held meetings and arranged plans and a general system of pro- 
jects, which were then submitted to representative meetings at each 
of the six centres. 
All pathologists, botanists, experiment stations and agricultural 
representatives interested in plant pathology were invited. The 
problems of the district were fully discussed, the major projects 
formulated, and united action arranged. The attendance at these dis- 
trict conferences ranged from thirty to over fifty, and took three 
months to carry out. The War Board then held its third meeting to 
“take stock” of the progress, to digest and co-ordinate the results, 
and to perfect the programme of action for the rest of the year. ~ 
The National Research Council, recognising the importance of the 
Board’s work, provided considerable support, which largely helped in 
the successful prosecution of the work. ; 
One of the first projects carried out was the preparation of crop 
loss estimates. Even in the United States of America, with a well- 
developed Federal Agricultural Department and extensive State Ex- 
periment Stations, and University Agricultural Colleges in every State, 
the data for this work were lacking. Consideration of the results at 
once brings to the mind some conception of the enormous loss and waste 
that take place annually, practically unknown to the majority of the 
people, who have, on account of these losses, to pay higher prices for 
their food. No doubt there are serious losses and much preventable 
waste in other directions, but many have a way of asserting themselves 
that is not possible in crop production. Should a single sheep or a 
cow die, one becomes conscious of the fact if the animal be allowed to 
remain a few days where it died. But if a field of wheat be wiped out 
by rust, if acres of potatoes be blighted, and thousands of bushels of 
beans be destroyed by anthracnose, is the result heralded abroad with 
as much publicity as the death of one animal? If we had for our plant 
industry the same carefully prepared statistics as for our animal 
industry, and if the same relative attention were given to the investiga- 
tion and control of plant diseases, much of this unrecorded, unheralded, 
and unrecognised loss could be prevented, with great advantage to the 
community. Let us turn to some of the statistics for support of these 
statements. The year 1917 was not one generally favorable for the 
development of fungous diseases. In the United States of America 
some of the losses were approximately as follows :— 
Corn, loss 175,000,000 bushels (at 4s. a bushel)  . . £35,000,000 
Oats, loss 154,000,000 bushels (at 8s. a bushel) .. £23,000,000 
Wheat, loss 64,440,000 bushels (at 5s. a bushel) .. £16,000,000 
Potatoes, loss 117,000,000 bushels (at 2s. 6d. abushel) £15,000,000 
Barley, loss 12,000,000 bushels (at 3s. 6d. a bushel)..  £2,000,000 
Loss on above crops for year 1917... ~—.._~—-£91,000,000 
C1278 - ESCs 
