1 Jury, 1898.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 29 
not a particularly old man, but still remembered the time when it was asserted. 
that the Darling Downs would never be a wheat country; but he thought they 
had succeeded in proving the contrary, and that wheat could be made to pay 
providing there was a reduction in the railway rates they had heard so much 
about. Like, Mr. Deacon, he thought the sooner Queensland became a wheat 
exporting country the better for the growers and the colony. 
Mr. McLeay, in reply to a question, stated that he had seen at Barcaldine, 
near to Mr. Campbell’s place, artesian water applied to a garden within 30 feet 
of the mouth of the bore, and with the most beneficial results. 
Mr. A. H. Benson, after remarking that he was practicaliy a new chum 
in Central Queensland, stated that they doubtless knew the Agricultural 
Department was starting an experiment station close to Emerald. From what 
he had seen of the country about there he believed it had great possibilities for 
wheat culture. ‘They had plenty of good land that was admirably adapted for 
the cereal, but, in his opinion, the question of the successful growth of wheat 
depended there more upon the thorough cultivation of the land than upon any- 
thing else. Deep working, constant working, and the growing of the right 
wheats would probably ensure the success of wheat cultivation in the district 
mentioned in three seasons out of four. The Department had only just started 
at Emerald, but as soon as the place was in full working order it was hoped 
that they would be able to produce wheat, and wheat of a high grade of quality. 
He agreed with Mr. Deacon when that gentleman said it was a disgrace a 
colony like Queensland should only be producing just one-third of the wheat 
that was required for the bread of their own people. Wheat was the staff 
of life, and they should be able to produce enough for their own consumption, 
and in order to do that they would have to develop the wheatgrowing lands of the 
colony. He had not had any personal experience of the country as far out as 
Barcaldine, and he had unfortunately not been present during the reading. of 
Mr. Campbell’s paper, but he could endorse what Mr. McLean had said about 
the value of certain artesian waters for agricultural purposes. He was one of 
the first that took up the working of artesian water at the Pera Bore, in New 
South Wales. The district around this bore was a dry arid district, but 
through the medium of the artesian water they were able to grow good crops 
of vegetables, cereals, fodder plants, &c. Irrigation, however, to be profitably 
carried out, required a man to use his brains. ‘To be of any practical use, 
water put on to land should be put on properly. Ashe stated at Gatton 
last year, he (Mr. Benson) said the secret of success in irrigation in hot 
districts was to apply the water at the right time, and when it was on the soil 
it should be kept there by cultivation. In that way crops could be grown that 
could not be raised otherwise. The most important question in connection 
with irrigation, however, was the actual cost of the application of 
the water as' compared with the returns from the irrigated land. There was 
not the slightest doubt but that irrigation would produce crops, and good 
ones, but the question was whether it paid. He hoped it would, 
but it would be well not to be over-sanguine. In California his experience 
had been that the irrigation of wheats by water had not paid. Irrigation 
only paid where the crop grown was of high intrinsic value. The cost 
of getting the water on to the land in the case of many crops, such as 
wheat, militated against successful results. They were able to grow the wheat, 
but when the balance-sheet was made up, it was against the farmer. 
He stated this simply to show that to use irrigation it should be used 
systematically. It should be employed as an adjunct to their natural water 
supplies and to thorough cultivation of the soil. By a combination of all three, 
wheat could perhaps be grown profitably. With regard to the question put 
by Mr. Noakes, the speaker stated certain wheats would give from 40 to 43 1b. 
of flour to the bushel of wheat. Others, again, were heavier in the bran, and 
would not give anything like that return: 70 lb. of flour to the 100 lb. 
of wheat meant a good milling wheat. A wheat that went below that was not 
considered a good milling sample. 
