48 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Juxy, 1902. 
Mr. W. Arxtyson (Danderoo) : Would the trustees refuse a grant of money 
to a person having freehold security to offer, but who was not going to improve 
his property ? 
The Hon. D. H. Datrymere: Yes; they would refuse the application. 
The main condition on which an advance will be made is, that it will be spent 
on additionalimprovements. In the first place, this increases the wealth of the 
community, and in the second it will increase the value of the security. 
Mr. Arxinson (Danderoo) : The man might want the money to buy fresh 
property with. 
The Hon. D. H. Datrympre: The trustees cannot advance money for 
that purpose. 
Mr. C. P. Mav (Mackay): With respect to the remarks made on the 
subject of inspection, I must say that we shall have to be very particular in the 
matter of appointing inspectors, and see that they are men who know something 
about farming. If you get*men who know nothing about the industry you will 
hamper the measure. The Chairman, in his remarks, implied that the Act as it 
now stands contains the objects of the fathers of the measure, but those who 
asked for the Act know very well that we did not get what we asked for by a 
very long way. Mr. Chataway sent the draft Bill to the Pioneer River Farmers’ 
Association, and we suggested several amendments, and I must say that it was 
very unfortunate Mr. Chataway was taken away before the Bill finally went 
through. I do not advocate that a man who is involved should be relieved of 
his financial difficulties, no matter what he owes. My contention is that if his 
security is as good as another man’s, he is just as much entitled to a loan. 
Owing to the want of time, Mr. Qurynetn did not read his paper on 
“The Injurious Effect of Sorghum on Stock,” but gave a very interesting 
address on the subject of it. In afuture issue of the Jowrnal the full text will 
be published. The following contains, however, the gist of the paper:— 
The object of this paper was to show as clearly as possible, and with scientific 
exactitude, certain physiological facts and well-defined pathological characters that 
went to prove the mystery of death from sorghum feeding was due to derangement of 
the digestive apparatus—resulting from errors in feeding—and not to any toxic 
influence. He then dealt in detail with the various circumstances and conditions 
under which sorghum was believed to become poisonous. The many theories 
published, however, proved that little was yet known with regard to the “ pathogeny”’ 
or generation of the malady. Mr. Quinnell then went on to a botanical description 
of sorghum; and then drew attention to the pubescent growth on the sorghum— 
viz., downy, with short soft hairs. Having failed to find a reference to these 
pubescent growths, he was obliged to assume that it was now recorded for the first 
time. Their presence may provide a physiological factor in the causation of the 
malady by mechanical irritation, similar to the very fine hairs on young 
bamboo shoots. An extract was read of the cftects of these bamboo hairs in 
bamboo shoots, which were very fatal to humanity. All plants contained, often 
in large proportions, cellulose or vegetable fibre familiar as cotton wool and paper. 
When very young it may be digested, but with growth it becomes woody and is not 
only itself indigestible, but hindered the digestion of other substances. Herbivorous 
animals required to supplement their vegetable diet by the use of common salt. - 
Therefore, salt is absolutely necessary for stock at all times, and in all places; either 
separately or in their food. They required it especially in the spring, according to 
Willard, for then, he says, there is less saline matter in the pastures than at other 
times. Scarcely any single green fodder was suited for forming the single food for 
stock. Even good green fodder may bring on an attack of “ hoven” or other gastric 
trouble—in any case where animals, ail have fasted for a long time, are supplied 
with alarge amount. An artificial mode of existence forced on animals’ predilections 
which in a state of nature are not observed. In*nature they are essentially 
moderate in their desires, but under domestication would eat what they would ina 
state of nature avoid, and never appear to be satisfied. Stock would sometimes kill 
themselves by over-feeding when food is continually placed before them, but that is 
only when they are, from their surrounding circumstances, relieved from travelling 
for food and water. Mr. Quinnell then proceeded to trace, with the aid of maps, the 
process of digestion in ruminants. After showing the distinct operations in the four 
gastric compartments, Mr. Quinnell went on to show that rumination did not, as a 
