APPENDICES.

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 41, Issue 5, 20 November 1930, Page 335

APPENDICES.

A.—Responses to Treatment in Experiments north of Ashley River. (Map Section 1.)

COMMENTS ON TABLE 2.

Waiau District. Lime plus super gave outstanding results. Where rve-grass was in abundance nitrogen gave good results, especially on plots receiving lime plus super. Potash had an influence mainly on clovergrowth in two experiments. Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4 are on downs

Each experiment is represented by a numbered dot

country, the soil being a loam. Experiment 5 is on river-flat country, the soil being of a silty nature. Most of the pastures have run out badly except on the best plots. The use of lime plus super should pay well in this district providing it is applied to good pastures.

Culverden District. Lime plus super has proved a very satisfactory combination, and on Experiment 10 nitrogen gave very good results on the lime and- super plots. In Experiments 6, 8, 9, and 10 lime plus super plus nitrogen were the best plots. Stock showed marked preference for lime plus super in most cases. Lime plus super should pay well in this district, particularly if used at time of sowing pasture.

Cheviot District. With the exception of Experiment 17, lime is of outstanding effect in this district. Super alone gave slight to fair results, which are considerably enhanced when super is used on limed ground. It is not a question of whether lime plus super pays in this district. They are both absolutely essential to the production of pasture. Potash had no visible effect except on Experiment 15, and then only on limed ground. Most of the experiments are on downs country. It is now six years since Experiment 14 was laid down. The effect of lime was still very marked in the spring of 1929 (see Fig. 4). '

W aipara-Omihi District. — In these experiments a good lime response is—indicated.- Generally speaking, lime ' plus super is- ‘Better’"than’ either lime or super alone, and the best plot.is lime plus super plus nitrogen in all cases. Potash gave fair results in Experiment 20, ’this being first noticed in the autumn of 1930. In Experiment 21 the response to lime plus super is very good, but the' -pasture is.-a tussock-danthonia one, and suckling clover has been responsible for the chief- response, which is not likely .to be payable. . r , '■ - • Xf ;?* / : .

1 Scar District;— were riot y' standing, although lime plus super gave" good results in. both experiments. Response from potash was not noticeable in Experiment,. 24 until March, 1930, and then its'effect was on red clover growth. ... ''

■ W'aikari-Hawarden District. —Super, and lime plus super gave satisfactory response in three trials only. '’ Nitrogen was' effective only when a reasonable amount of rye-grass • was present. Experiments 27, 28, and 30 have been ploughed up on account of ' the’ pasture having run out. Experiments 28 and 30 are on soil which, has a-reputably small phosphate-response on any crop. . -. - -,. ., : -- . ■ - T -.- -

, Amberley District.- The almost ' entire absence of response in Experiment 31 is largely due to the very inferior pasture. No outstanding response occurred from lime except in Experiment 37. Results from super'are not striking except in : Experiment 33. Lime plus super was generally ' superior to lime or super alone. - • The relatively poor nitrogen response ' is no doubt due to a comparatively poor type of pasture in some cases. Experiments 31 and 34 have been ploughed up.' . '■ - - ■■ ■

Summary of Experiments North of Ashley River.

Lime.— Only three out of the thirty-seven experiments failed to give a noticeable response from lime. In one of the three (No. 31) lime plus super gave a slight effect. The most striking responses occurred in the Cheviot district, although good responses also occurred in the Omihi Valley.

Superphosphate. — Only two cases are recorded where super did not show a benefit at some stage or other. Most districts gave fair to good responses, except in the Cheviot and Omihi Valley districts, where responses were generally slight to fair. ■ ■

/.Lime plus. Superphosphate. — With one exception, the lime plus super combination was superior to lime alone or super alone. In a large number of experiments a marked superiority in palatability as evidenced by closer grazing was apparent.

Potash. — Six experiments out of the thirty-seven' showed slight to fair responses to potash. These results indicate that potash is not. a serious limiting factor so far as production of volume of. herbage is concerned.

■ Nitrogen. Nitrogen caused increased growth at some .period . in all trials. The results can be considered good only where a good percentage of rye-grass is present in the sward. In nearly all the experiments the best results with nitrogen were obtained on ground treated with lime , plus super.

B.— Responses to Treatments in Experiments between Ashley and Rakaia Rivers. (Map Section 2.)

COMMENTS ON TABLE 3.

ernside-Waikuku District. — Both lime and super gave consistent, though relatively small, results in general. Lime plus super was invariably better than either lime or super alone. Nitrogen responses were the best where rye-grass was fairly abundant. In Experiment, i lime alone showed no visible effect, but lime plus super was better than super.

Kaiapoi-Ohoka-M District. — Super alone gave striking results in this district (Fig. 6). Lime plus super, with the exception of Experiment 7, was better than super. Nitrogen responses occurred where fair amounts of grass were present. Experiment io has been ploughed up, as the pasture was badly run out. •

Oust- West Eyreton District. — No outstanding responses. occurred except in Experiment 11, where lime showed itself to be a very important factor. The pasture ran out very quickly and white clover became

•Scale of Miles *3210 4 6 12

dominant on the lime plots. In Experiment 14 the growth was not well controlled and observations were difficult. Experiment 15 is on very light land. Nitrogen had a marked effect on cocksfoot, especially on the lime-plus-super-plus nitrogen plot. ' '

Oxford District .—The responses to lime and super in this district - are outstanding, especially when the two are combined. In Experiment 18 potash had an influence in the second season. Nitrogen responses were generally good, but, in common with the majority of trials, the growth on the nitrogen plots was neglected. .. No doubt this was due to the growth being too long when the areas were stocked.

Aylesbury-Halkett-Kirwee District.— The soils in this district are, generally speaking, very light, and pasture runs out rapidly. Experiment 25 has been ploughed up. Lime plus super proved superior to lime and super

alone, but, with the exception of Experiment 23, no outstanding responses were obtained. Nitrogen did well where good grasses were present. Where good grasses were absent hair-grass responded freely to nitrogen.

Lincoln-Springston District- —In the first three experiments lime and super gave slight to good results. Lime plus super has pro ved; superior to either lime or super alone. Experiments 31 and 32 were on poor, runout pasture, "consisting mainly of hair-grass and goose-grass Both have been ploughed up. Nitrogen response- was more or less proportionate to the amount of rye-grass and cocksfoot present. ’ .

Motukarara District.— Responses here were small. The marked feature of this experiment was the big improvement in the enclosed area, notably in cocksfoot, which resulted from good rotational grazing.

Springfield - Russell’s Flat District.- Lime and super were consistent, with good to excellent results when used together. Lime and phosphate are essential to good pasture-production in this district, and their- use must be highly paying on good pasture. In Experiment: 37 potash gave good results when used with lime and super. Nitrogen, thickened up the sward considerably when used .with lime plus super. On Mr. Duncan’s farm a very good result was obtained from the use of 5 cwt. of ground limestone in conjunction with phosphate in a trial carried out by him.

Sheffield-Annat District. — Here . again lime plus super is essential to successful pasture growth. In . Experiment 41 potash showed, up slightly in the. second season. The plots receiving lime and super plus nitrogen were invariably the best. Experiment 42 has been ploughed up.

Hor or ata District. — Experiments . 44 and 45 are on the clay downs of this district.. In Nos. 44 and 45 lime plus super gave good results. Experiment 46 is on the lighter land along the road to Lake Coleridge. The results in : this experiment were remarkable. All treatments showed responses. 1 ... ’ ' ' ' ■ ’

Te Pirita - Mead Settlement - Bankside District.— Lime and super gave consistent results. Experiments 48 and 49 were on very light country, and the application of manures could not be payable. These plots were abandoned. . Experiment 51 gave good results from all treatments in the first’season. .. The pasture has how run out’.

Summary of Experiments between Ashley and Rakaia Rivers.

Lime.— Of the fifty-one experiments recorded only six failed to show a response to lime. In the remaining forty-five lime alone showed a definite response, or - (in seven experiments) lime plus super was definitely better than super. The responses were most outstanding in the Cheviot, Spring-field-Russell’s Flat, and Sheffield - Annat districts. Superphosphate.— Benefits ■ from the use of super were apparent in fortyeight of the fifty-one experiments. In two of these the effect could be noticed, only in superiority of lime plus super over lime. The best responses occurred in' the ' Kaiapoi-Ohaka-Mandeville, ' Oxford,’ SheffieldAnnat,' and Springfield-Russell’s Flat districts. ’ : Lime plus Superphosphate. Responses . to lime plus super were observed in forty-eight of . the experiments, and in all of these except- four the lime-plus-super combination was superior to super or lime alone. The most marked results were obtained where the lime response was greatest. Potash.— Responses ' to : potash occurred in eight experiments. • In two others ■a doubtful response was recorded. The response areas • are not confined to particular 'districts. The most noticeable results occurred in Experiments ’ 46 and 51, both of which were on land of alluvial formation. Experiment 46 was on light stony land., Nitrogen.— -Nitrogen affected growth in all the experiments but one. In.the absence of rye-grass, cocksfoot, of dogstail the response was usually small. When applied to'ground treated' with lime plus super the results were invariably most effective, and, except in a few cases,- clovers were not suppressed on plots ’ receiving lime, super, and. nitrogen. > Usually nitrogen-treated plots showed neglected growth. This may be attributed to delaying stocking until growth was too far advanced.

C.— Responses to Treatments in Experiments between Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers. (Map Section 3.)

COMMENTS ON TABLE 4. Rakaia-Somerton-Hatfield District. — Both lime and super benefited .growth, particularly of clovers, with better results in each case where used together. Potash had no effect. Nitrogen stimulated grass-growth where present, but tended to suppress clovers, though not seriously when used with lime plus super. The pastures in Experiments 1 and 2 have become ■depleted of rye-grass, which is being replaced by grass. Sherwood-Lauriston-Winchmore District. — The effect of lime and lime plus super was outstanding in Experiments 4 to 7. Marked preference

for the lime-plus-super plots was shown by stock. Potash had no effect on yield -or stock-grazing. Nitrogen stimulated grasses, but tended to suppress clover-growth. This suppression of clover was least noticeable where the nitrogen was applied •' to plots treated with lime plus super. The sward was invariably best, bn-the.lime-plus-super-plus-nitrogen plots. Lime is a very important factor in the: Sherwood-Lauriston district, and farmers cannot afford to neglect the use of lime on grassland as a ' foundation' for the use of the other manures. (Fig.. 8.) Experiment 4 is of . particular interest in that. clover is now much stronger and thicker on the plot receiving lime plus nitrogen than on the lime alone plot. Lime plus super plus .nitrogen is not so good, however, in clover content as lime plus super, although the clover content of the former is quite good. ' .'||| Mount Hutt - Methven - Upper Winchmore District. — All ■ trials, in this group were laid down July, 1929.. The combination of lime plus super gave decided results in three experiments, and it is probable that the effect will be intensified in the present season.. Experiment 10 has had to be abandoned on account of grass-grub attack in the.pasture.

Springburn-Staveley District. This area receives a heavier rainfall than most of Canterbury, the average fall being between 40 in. and 50 in. Lime plus super was outstanding in effect in five of the six trials. Stock showed a marked preference for these plots. (Figs. . 9 and 10.) In Experiment .13.. super caused no visible difference, but-lime plus super -was superior to super. On the -heavier type of soil (d), nitrogen stimulated ’ grass-growth without appreciably affecting clovers.- : Potash did not have any apparent- effect in any experiment. - ? \. y ' “■ '■ r

Mount Somers District.— -With the exception of' Experiment 19, the responses to lime plus super were very good, and plots receiving this treatment and nitrogen in addition have been markedly better grazed by stock. The nitrogen response was .good where reasonable quantities of the better grasses were present. Potash had no apparent effect.

Mayfeld-Lismore-Ruapuna District.- —The combination of lime plussuper was consistently good to excellent, and superior to either lime or super alone. ' Potash had a slight effect on limed ground in Experiment 23.. Nitrogen was consistently fair to good in its effect on grass-growth, without serious reduction of clovers on ground treated with lime plus super. Theland in the main is light and the pastures contain much sweet vernal, ryegrass going out rapidly, due no doubt to a large extent to the strain of rye-grass used. The rainfall in this district is about 35 in.

i Carew-Ealing District. Responses to lime and super occurred in all. these experiments, the combination of the two being decidedly superior to either alone. The lower rainfall of this district as compared with the previous one detracted somewhat from the degree of response. Potash had no effect. Nitrogen was invariably effective, but as the pasturescontain relatively little cocksfoot and rye-grass the effect was on browntop, fog, and sweet vernal. Generally t speaking, clovers were suppressed by the nitrogen, although to a least extent on the lime-plus-super-plus-nitrogen plots, which invariably have the best sward.

; Hinds District.— same remarks apply as in the case of the CarewEaling District.

Eiffelton-Maronan-Laghmor District. — Three distinct soil-types are here represented. In all cases lime plus super proved a good combination. The nitrogen response was least on the most fertile soil.

■ Seaview-Riverside-W' akanui-N ewlands-Seafteld-Pendarves-Dromore District. Experiment 47 was abandoned after the first season, as the pasturewas badly affected as a result of “ getting away.” Experiment 54 wasabandoned after eight months on account of its being almost pure danthonia, which got badly out of control. The remaining experiments were on soils varying in type. Type of soil did not appear to materially affect the response to treatments, and lime and super gave from good to excellent responses, except in Experiment 49, in which the response was fair only. Potash had no visible effect in any trial. As usual nitrogen was effective in stimulating grass-growth. The degree of suppression of clovers varied on the different experiments, but, generally speaking, the lime plus super plus nitrogen, has produced the best sward ■ ;

Summary of Experiments between Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers

J Lime. —Of a total of fifty-nine experiments in this area all showed definite responses to lime, except two which are recorded as doubtful. Most of the trials gave fair to good responses, the most outstanding resultsoccurring in the Sherwood-Lauriston district. All districts, except Mount Hutt-Methven (in which the trials have been down for one year only), have a fair proportion of areas where good responses are recorded.

i Superphosphate. All experiments, except two which are in the doubtful, class, showed responses to super, the best results having occurred in the districts nearer the Alpine ranges', where rainfall is usually higher. It is extremely doubtful whether the top-dressing of established pasture with super is profitable on some of the lighter and drier soils, such as those in the Seafield and Hinds districts. Reference was made to these soils in the general discussion.

\ Lime plus Super. — every . experiment except three the combination of lime plus super gave better results than either , lime or . super alone. As a rule the . lime plus super plots were the most palatable to stock.

Potash. — Only one slight and two doubtful responses to potash are recorded.

Nitrogen.— The use of nitrogen resulted in responses in all cases. Usually the nitrogen had only sweet vernal, hair-grass, and brown-top on which to act after the pastures, were one to two years old. Suppression of clover was common, but on the lime-plus-super-plus-nitrogen plots the sward as a whole was usually the best of all plots. More persistent strains of perennial rye-grass should assist materially in pasture-production after the first season in the life of the pastures in this district.

D.— Responses to Treatments in Experiments situated between Rangitata and Waitaki Rivers. (Map Section 4.)

COMMENTS ON TABLE 5.

Geraldine-Hilton District. — Effect from lime was apparent on all trials, although on five of the eight the results were slight to fair only. Super effect is recorded on all experiments, and was outstanding on five. Lime plus super proved superior to. lime alone or super alone in all except

Experiment 4. The responses to potash were not marked, and were most in evidence where., potash application crossed limed ground.. . Nitrogen effect was most marked in spring growth, and thickened the grass sward considerably on ■ the lime - plus - super - plus - nitrogen plots. . Cocksfoot responded to it to a marked extent in Experiment 7. Fairlie District. Lime plus super was outstanding in this district. Lime alone and super alone each gave fair to very good responses. The potash response was high in Experiment 11, but not noticeable in other experiments. Nitrogen, as usual, gave good results on the grasses. Albury District.— Experiment 13 is on pasture consisting mainly of brown-top. - Experiments 14 . and 15 were laid down in 1929, so that it is rather early to comment on the lime response in Experiment 14, although it is already very, distinct in Experiment 15. • . • g

Pleasant Point - Sutherlands District.— Lime.plus’ super was outstanding in effect. In Experiment 16 the nitrogen is keeping rye-grass in, whereas brown-top is the dominant grass in the other treatments. ' Cav e-Cannington District.— only outstanding response from lime, super, and lime plus super has been in Experiment 21. Experiment 20 was on old brown-top pasture.' Responses in Experiment 19 did not how up until the second season. W aitohi District’.— Experiment 22 was outstanding in the response to lime. (A photograph of the plots will appear as Fig. 17, in Part IV.) . Otherwise responses were not outstanding, except.'in the case ■ of nitrogen in Experiment 25. • ‘ ‘ . . ■

Milford-Clandeboye Experiments 26 and 30 were laid down in 1929, so that it is rather early to draw conclusions. Experiments 27 and 28 were the most outstanding so far as responses to lime plus super are concerned. Nitrogen was consistently effective in promoting grassgrowth. Seadown-Levels District. Experiments 31 and 33 were laid down' in 1929. Experiment 31 is already showing a fair response to lime, but in Experiment 32 there are indications only. Experiments 32 and 34 showed very high responses to lime-plus-super combinations. Nitrogen effect was best on ground treated with lime plus super. Claremont-Fairview-Salisbury District.— Lime alone was outstanding in Experiment 35. Lime plus super was superior to lime or super alone in all cases. Indications, of a potash response were shown on limed ground in Experiment 35. Pareora District.— Experiments 39 and 40 were laid down in 1929. The indications to date are that lime is a very important factor. Experiment 38 has been abandoned owing to the pasture running out. Otaio District. — In Experiment 41 the grass was badly attacked by grass-grub, from which it failed to recover. On two of the experiments super gave good results, more particularly on limed ground. Potash failed to show any effect. Makikihi-Hunter-Hook District.— Experiments 45, 46, 47, and 48 were laid down in 1929. It is therefore difficult to draw definite conclusions regarding the lime responses, although responses are definite in Experiments 45 and 48. In Experiment 49 the potash response was doubtful. The nitrogen invariably affected the growth of grasses. Waihao-Forks District.— Lime plus super proved superior to super or lime in both experiments. Potash shows some indication of being effectivein Experiment 50. aimate-Glenavy District. — The combination of lime plus super again proved effective, particularly in Experiment 54. The effect of potash was indefinite in Experiment 53.

Summary of Experiments between Rangitata and Waitaki Rivers.

Lime. — fourteen experiments the response to lime alone was good to very good ; in thirty-two a slight to fair response is recorded, and in seven others, which have been down about a year at the time of writing this report, there are good indications of a response. Only one experiment is recorded in which lime shows no indication of a response. Superphosphate.— Response to super alone was good to very good in twenty trials, and slight to fair in twenty-five, in five no response could be detected, while three were indefinite. - Lime plus Superphosphate.— Forty-six of the fifty-four trials showed a decided superiority of lime plus super over super or lime alone. There is no doubt that the use of lime plus super is justified on the majority of good swards of young grass in South Canterbury. The effect of lime and super was almost always accompanied by an increase in clover - growth and a much closer grazing of the sward on these treatments. Potash. — Only one case is recorded where potash gave good results ; in three experiments the responses were slight to fair, and in eight there were indications of benefit. The effect in the latter cases was so slight as to be open to doubt. Nitrogen. No case is recorded where nitrogen failed to affect the growth of grass on limed and phosphated plots, especially in the spring, and in some cases the application in the autumn had an effect on the earliness of spring grass. Most of the pastures were too poor to justify the use of nitrogen.

*See haying trial report in this Journal for April, 1927.

* Haying trial —Part IV.

* Haying Trial—Part IV.

I Reference No. on Map. 2 Farmer. 3 Lime Response. 4 Super Response. 5 ■ Lime plus Super Response. . 6 . Potash Response. 7 . . Nitrogen - Re- ■’ sponse. 8 ■ Soil-type.'; Waiau District. I A. Baker .... 2 3 4 o 3 e. 2 J. Belton . . . . 2 ' 2 ' ■. < 4 • I 3 e. 3 G. White .. . 2 ,3 . 4 . 2 ' 4 .. e., ' e.. 4 , MacDougall Bros. ... ... 2 ■ i ' i 3 . 3 o o ' 3 3 ' e. e. 5 . J. Brown -. . " '' ''..\ 2 .4 - 4 55 ? ? 4 4 ■ .. ' -c. • c.

I Reference No. on Map. 2 Farmer. 3 Lime Reponse. 4 Super Reponse. 5 ■ Lime pins Super Reponse. 6 Potash ] Response. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 Soil-type. Culver den District. 6 6 i 7 E. Roberts . . • • • J . Black . . • • I I 3 4 4 5 0 0 2 Not . used a (stony). a (stony). 8 H. A. Ingram • • I 3 - 4 0 1 c. 9 J. V. Harrison (1) . . I I 3 0 3 Cb. IO ' J. V. Harrison (2) . . . 3 3 5 0 4 a. . ' Cheviot. District. ii Mrs. Thomson, Spotswood .. ■2 2 4 0 3 e. 12 A. G. Harrison, Spotswood .-. 3 3 5 ■ Not used e. 13 D. Milne, Phcebe . . - 3 -. ■ 1 ■ 3 0 . 2 e. - 14 A. McGiffert, Mina* • •• 3 1 ... 5 Not used e. 15 G. W. Forbes " ’ .. - • • 4 ; .2 5 2 2 e. 16 J. Paton, Domett . . 3 I ; 5 0 4 e. . . 17 E. Ayrton, Domett* 0 0 1 Not used. e. 18 H. Geeson, Domett. . ... ' 3 2 4 0 3 . Waipara-Omihi District. d. 19 d. 20 H. B. Inch ' . • ' E. Foster . . 3 3 2 1 . 4 4 0 2 3 2 d. ' d. d. 21 W. McAlpine ■ . • • d. 19 20 H. B. Inch E. Foster . . 3 3 2 I 4 4 0 2 3 2 21 3 W. McAlpine 2 3 4 2 0 4 2 0 d. 2 d. 22 W. Baxter, Spye I I 2 0 3 d. 22 W. Baxter, Spye 1 I 2 0 3 .23 ( C. Harris . . ..' I ■ 2 2 0 2 d. Scargill District. 24 G. W. Pannett 2 2 3 2 3 c. b. 25 H. V. Murray L I . 2 . 3 0 2 Waikari-Hawarden District. 26 H. Fincham. I 3 4 0 2 . e. 27 H. Heasley, Hawarden I 3 4 0 4 a (stony). 28 /• 28 H. D. Burt. Hawarden H. D. Burt. Hawarden 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 I I ./■ 29 W. E. Johnston, Woodgrove I 3 4 0 3 e. 30 W. T. Earl, Woodgrove I 1 2 0 2 i e. A mberley-Leithfield-Sefton District. 31 D. McLean, Amberlev 1 0 0 1 1 0 I e. 32 T. F. Croft, Amberley I 2 3 1 0 2 e. 1 2 e. 33 S. H. Gardiner, Amberley I 5 5 0 3 e. 34 McLean Bros., Amberley I I 2 0 1 e. 35 J. S. Russell, Leithfield J. S. Russell, Leithfield I I I 1 2 2 I I 1 I 1 e. 1 e. 36 F. J. Douds, Amberley 2 2 3 0 2 e. 1 2 e. f. ' 37 C. King, Loburn (formerly H. 3 3 4 0 3 Barker) ■ —

Table 2.

1 Reference No. on ' Map. 2 ... Farmer. 3 Lime Response. 4 ' Super Response. . 5 Lime plus Super Re- ' sponse. 6 Potash Re- . sponse. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 . Soil-type. - ' r Rangiova-Fernside-Waikuku District. • - District. I Stoker Bros., Waikuku ■ l + 2 - 3 .- 1 • O '2. ■ c. L; 2 C. Leech, Rangiora I 2 3 0 3 d. 3 W. Stalker, Rangiora* I 2 .3 Not Not d. used used 4 J. F. Dawson, Fernside 3 3 4 0 3 a (stony). 5 Doak Bros., Rangiora 2 3 4 0 ' 3 d (peaty). 6 W. Power, Fernside - 1 1 2 ' 0 -2 a (stony). Kaiapoi-Ohoka-Mandeville District. 7 J. Thacker (formerly E. Fear), 0 4 4 Not Not c. Kaiapoi* ■ -. used used 8 J. D. McMullan, Kaiapoi 2 3 4 0 . 0 * d. .: 9 ’ M. Williams (i), Ohoka 1 + 4 5 0 3 ■ < 'd.:: IO . ■' M. Williams (2), Mandeville .. 1 + 2 3 ' 0 2 a. ■■, ... Oust - West Eyreton District. ii S. Smith, Cust (1) . . ■ 3 1 4 0. 2. . . . c. 12 S. Smith, Cust (2) . . . Growth too rank for. . d observation . (swampy). 13 . R. L. Anderson, Bennett’s Jun. 1 1 . 2 .0 1 . b (stony),. 14 F. Sheat, Horreville 0 0 0 .:. 0 . 2 • - c. 15 J. E. Burns, Horreville .. 1 1 3 0 3 a (stony). 16 W. S. Busch I 1 3 ■ 0 2 a (stony).

I Reference No. on Map. - Farmer. 3 Lime Response. 4 Super Response. 5 Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Response. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 Soil-type. Oxford District. . 17 W. J. Skurr, Carlton ' 3 0 4 0 1 3 , a (stony). 18 J. J. Skurr 3 3 5 2 3 d. '■ 19 A. Baxter 3 3 • 5 . . O . ! ■ 3 1 c. 20 . H. G. Cross (2) 3 3 ■ 5 O I 3 ■ a (stony). 21 H. G. Cross (1) . . . . 3 4 5 O 3 1 b (stony). 22 A. A. Fantham 3 3 5 1 O 1 e. Aylesbury-Halkett-Kirwee District. 23 J. D. Henderson, Halkett ■ 2 4 5 O 4 b. 24 R. Henderson, Halkett ■ . . 1 ■ 1 . 3 O 3 . c.:. '. 25 M. V. Davis, Aylesbury 1 + 1 + . 1 O 2 a (stony). 26 A. Manson, Kirwee 1 1 2 O . 4 . a. 27 J. D. Penny, Kirwee ... 2 1 ' 3 0 3 a. Lincoln-Springston District. 28 Pearson Bros., Lincoln 2 I 3 ? 3 c. 29 P. V. Bailey, Springston 1 2 3 3 0 O 2 2 c. c. 30 C. N. P. Powell, Springston . . 1 + 3 5 0 ■ 3 c. 31 J. W. Kime (1), Springston :. 0 0 0 O 1 a (stony). 32 J. W. Kime (2) 0 0 0 0 1 a (stony). — .. Motukarara District. - : . Motukarara District. • 33 H. Nutt, McQueen’s Valley . . I 1 + 2 . 1 3 . d. . Springfield - Russell’s Flat District. 34 R. M. Johnston, Mount Tori esse . 2 2 3 ? 3 d. 35 E. P. Rushton, Springfield . . 3 3 5 0 3 c (stony). 3 6 W. Mcllwraith, Russell’s Flat 4 2 5 0 2 c. . 37 D. Doody, Russell’s Flat 3 2 5 3 3 c. 38 S. H. Amyes, Springfield I 1 2 0 0 2 2 d. d. Sheffield-Annat District. District. 39 L. T. Wright, Annat . . 2 ■4 5' 0 ■ 3 ■ c (stony). 40 J. H. Jebson, Sheffield 3 2 5 0 2 c. 4 1 D. J. Hawke, Sheffield 3 2 5 I 4 c. 42 R. J. Cullen, Sheffield 2 4 5 0 3 c (stony). Hororata District. 43 F. N. Wright 0 1 1 . 0 2 b (stony). 44 W. R. Oliver . . I 2 3 0 3 e. 45 J. Ballagh . . . . ■ 1 + 1 3 I 3 e. 46 Bruce Bros., Coleridge Road. . 2 4 5 3 3 a (stony). Te Pirita- Mead Settlement - Bank side District. 47 A Craig, Te Pirita . . '. . l + 3 4 0 3 a (stony). 48 E. Duncan (1), Te Pirita I 2 3 0 2 a (stony). 49 E. Duncan (2), Te Pirita 0 1 1 0 1 ■ a (stony). 50 J. Kelso, Bankside . . 2 2 3 1 3 a. (stony). 5i. W. Shellock, Mead. . 3 3 5 3 3 c.

Table 3.

■ I Reference No. on Map. 2 Farmer. 3 Lime Response. " 4 Super • Response. 5 ’ Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Response. "7 ’ Nitrogen Response. a Soil-type . Rakaia-Somerton-Hatfield District. ' I J. Stewart; Rakaia - . . .2 . 2 4. O 3 ’ C. 2 J. F. Langley, Somerton . . ; 2 2 3 o 3 b. 3 W. Boag, Hatfield . . . . 3 2 4 o 4 b. Sherwood-Laurist District. 3 on-Wi' 2 nchmoi 4 o 'e District4 b. ' 4 W. Goodwin (now J. .Cretney), .3 i ' '3 5'. O . - 3 . a. Lauriston 3 3 5 °. 3 a. 5 F. Amos (now V. W. Boag), Lauriston 3 "3 5 o ' 2 a

1 Reference No. on Map. 2 . Farmer. 3 3 1 Lime Response. 4 Super Response. 5 Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Response. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 Soil-type. Sherwood-Lauristbn-Winchmove District — continued. 6 - H. J. Crothers, Sherwood 4 2 I 5 0 4 a. 7 W. Letham, Sherwood 4 3 1 5 0 3 a. 8 | H. Morris, Winchmore 2 1 i 3 0 3 a (stony). Mount Hutt- Methven Upper Winchmore District. " 9 1 D. M. Christie, Mount Hutt . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 b (stony); b (stony). IO D. Campbell, Methven 1 + 1 + ’ 2 0 2 b (stony). 11 J. Watson, Upper Winchmore 1 1 3 0 3 a (stony). 12 R. N. Elliott, Meth I 1 + 2 0 2 b. ' Springburn-Staveley District. Staveley District. 13 a (stony). 13 S. A. Allen, Springburn S. A. Allen, Springburn 3 3 1 + 1 + 4 4 0 0 2 2 a (stony). 14 G. McFarlane, Springburn . . 2 I 3 0 3 a (stony). 15 R. A. Hobbs, Springburn 3 3 5 0 3 b (stony). 16 W. Gundry, Staveley 2 3 5 0 3 d. 17 G. Fittock, Staveley 1 3 4 0 2 d. 18 A. R. Andrews, Staveley 1 1 2 0 2 d. Mount Somers District. 19 T. Rutherford . . • • 1 1 2 0 2 ■ b. 20 J. Thomson 2 2 4 0 3 a (stony) . 21 Stephen Bros. .. 2 2 4 0 3 a (stony) . 22 H. N. Armstrong . . 3 2 4 0 2 a (stony) . Mayfield-Lismore-Ruapuna District. ■ 23 R. Oakley, Mayfield 3 2 5 I 3 b. 24 S. B. McLauchlan, Lismore . . 3 2 5 0 3 a (stony). ' 25 W. J. Imrie, Mayfield -2 3 5 0 2 a (stony). 26 G. W. Ross (2),-Ruapuna 2 2 3 0 3 . a (stony) . 27 G. W. Ross (1), Ruapuna 3 2 4 0 2 a (stony). 28 J. H. Boaler, Ruapuna 3 3 5 0 4 a (stony). Carew-Ealing District. 29 A. Pithie, Carew 3 3 4 0 3 a. 3° J. Cormack, Carew 2 2 3 0 2 a (stony). 3 1 J. Ritchie, Carew . . . . 2 2 3 0 3 a (stony). 32 J. Withell, Ealing . . 2 2 5 0 3 a. - 33 B. Withell, Ealing . . .3 3 5 0 3 a (stony). 34 Reith Bros., Ealing .. 2 < 2 3 0 3 a. Hinds District. 35 W. Frampton 2 2 3 0 4 a (stony) 36 C. Chisnail 3 2 ■ 4 0 3 a (stony) 37 T. Wells . . 3 2 4 0 2 a (stony) 38 • E. M. Watson . . 1 I ■ 2 ' 0 3 a (stony) 39 J. Bagrey - 1 I 3 0 . 2 a (stony) 40 S. Rickards 3 2 4 0 3 | a. Eiffelton-Maronan-Laghmor District. 41 J. Findlay, Eiffelton 1 3 I ! 4 1 0 2 . d (peaty) 42 H. L. Barker, Maronan 1 2 2 ! 3 0 4 a (stony) 43 S. Crossan, Laghmor 1 3 2 4 ! 0 3 c.

I Reference No. on Map. 3 Farmer. 3 Lime Response. 4 Super Response. 5 ' Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Response. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 type. Seaview-Riverside-Wakanui-Newlands-Seafield-Pendarves -Dromore District. • . 44 H. Brown, Seaview. . . . 3 ' 3 5 O 3 C. 45 E. Bonnington, Riverside . . ■ 4 2 5 .0 3 a (stony). 46 A. Bennett, Riverside ■ . 2 I 3 O 2 . b. ■ 47 W. J. Doak, Wakanui . .. . ■ ? ? ' ? ? ? c. 48 A. Amos, Wakanui . . . 1 2 . 3 0 ■ 4 c. 49 H. Bonifant, Wakanui ’ 1 I 2 ■' 0 2 a (stony). 50 J. W. Butterick, Wakaiiui 2 2 3 0 3 a (stony). 5i W. A. Beggs, Newlands 4 2 5 0 4 a (stony). 52 A. Gregory, Seafield 2 4 5 0 4 b. . 53 A. Bennison, Seafield 3 3 5 0 •4 a (stony). 54 G. -Todd, Seafield . . . 1 1 . I 0 2 a. 55 A. P. Bruce, Pendarves 3 2 5 0 4 a (stony). 56 J. W. Watson, Pendarves 2 2 3 0 3 a (stony) . 57 F. Ironside, Pendarves ., • 3 3 4 0 3 b. 58 P. Doig, Pendarves. . . 2 4 0 . 4 b. ' 59 H. J. Wilson, Dromore 3 2 4 0 2 a (stony):

Table 4.

I Reference No. on Map. Farmer. 3 Lime Response. 4 Super Response. 5 Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Re- . sponse. 7 Nitrogen Response. 8 Soil-type Geraldine-Woodbury-Anmdel-Orari-Pleasant Valley-Hilton District: ' I J. Charles, Arundel. . ' 3 3 5 I 3 a (stony) 2 J. Wooding, Woodbury 4 3 5 2 3 ■ e. 3 . K. McKenzie, Geraldine 2 4 5 ■ o 2 c. 4 R. Volckman, Te Moana . . ' 1 I I o 2 f. 5 R. McLeod, Geraldine 2 2 3 o 3 ' b (stony) 6 J. Gresham, Pleasant Valley. . 1 2 3 ? 2 /• 7 F. Charles, Hilton .. 3 3 5 2 3 . /• 8 Muff Bros., Orari . . . . Fairl 2 ie Dis 4 trict. 5 ? 3 c. 9 Armitage' and Jennings, Sherwood Downs 2 ■ 2 4 O 4 fIO A. Campbell, Melville Downs 4 ■ 3 5 ' O 3 fii E. Goodwin, Fairlie* 2 4 5 3 Not r used e. (stony). 12 J. Scarlett, Cattle Valley Albw 3 'y Dis 3 trict. - 4 0 3 /• 13 O. Oakley, “ The Brothers ”. . ? o ? 0 3 . /• 14 R. Irving . . ' . . . . ? 2 2 o 3 /• 15 J. Macauley Pleasant Point2 Suthe 4 r lands 5 . Di str 0 id.. 3 e. 16 W. Talbot, Opuha . . . . 3 2 4 • 0 3 fI 7 C. G. Lyons, Hanging Rock . . 2 2 3 "O 2 . e. 18 R. G. Clelland, Sutherlands . . Cave-Cann 3 ington 3 Distr 5 id. .. o 3 f19 A. E. Gillingham, Cave i 1 2 o 3 e. 20 J. Scott, Cannington I 0 I o 2 d (stony) 21 D. .Priest, Cannington ■ Waito 4 hi Di. 3 ~trict. 5 . o 3 /• 22 D. H. Paterson* . . 4 2 + 5 0 Not used d. 23 L. V. Talbot ? 2 2 . o 2 f. 24 G. A. Davey . . . . 2 l + 3 0 3 e. 25 J. Lyons . . . . 2 . l + 2 0 4 . d.

I Reference No. on Map. . .0 L Farmer. . ' .,3 Lime : Response. . 4. . Super . Re- . sponse. ■ 5 Lime plus Super Response. 6 Potash Response. 7 Nitrogen ... Response. 8 ■ Soil-type. 26” ' Milford-Cla A. Botting, Temuka '' . . ,ndebo* ■ ■? . • ye Dis trict. ? ■p ' trict. ? ; O 0 ' ' 3 ' 3 I' d.' ’ d. 27 G. McFarlane, Winchester ; . . . .2 7. - 5 t 5 ■ ■ ? . 4 d. 28 J Oliver . . . . .. 3 3 4 ? 3 d. 29 S. McCully Estate, Milford . . '• 1 + 1 + 2 O 3 d. SO T. Sheriff, Clandeboye 1 1 I O 3 d. 31 . SeadownM. J. Fitzgerald, Arowhenua I Levels District. .' I' 1 .1 2 Distn 1 0 ct. 2 3 ' O d. 3 - d. . 32 C. L. Orbell, Rosewell ; 4 3 5 O 3 ■ ; f33 W. H. Orbell (2), Levels ? ? ? 0 3 e. 34 W. H. Orbell (1) . . 2 3 4 O 2 . > e. /. Claremont-Fairview-Salisbury District. 35 Claremont-Fairview-Salisbury P. R. Talbot, Claremont . . 1 4 \ 3 Dish 4 5 'ict. 3 4 5- : /. 4 36 A. P. Kelland, Fairview 2 1 3 0 . . 3 . .--•A ' 37 ’ W. J. Black, Salisbury 2 2 3 ■ ■ 0 .. 2 :. .. . f. . 38 Pareo A. S. Elworthy . . ' . . ra Di. 2 trict. 3 ’ .0 3 ■ ' .f- ■■ 39 • A. Stewart Estate . . ■ ' ?. 1 1 0 3 ‘ F 40 G. Sides . . .. . . I 2 3 0 2 f. 4i Otai W. J. Beattie 9 Dist ? vict. 0 ? 0 2 ■ f- '~ 42 J. Stowell.. . . . . . . 3 4 5 0 3' 3 . d. d. 43 . S. Powell . . . ... ,. 2 3 4 0 • • 3 ■ 3 ■ f f 44 J. Hall , . . . 7 .. 1 0 1 . ; O ; . .2 ,■ (ironstone). ' /• 45 Makikihi-Hu ■ H. Miles, Makikihi . . , . I 2' nter-H D ■2 2 ooA D istrict. 2 - 3 istrict. .3 0 O ■ 3 3... /• 46 • J. Armstrong, Hunter .. y ? ? 0 ' , 2 .7 ' e. ■ 47 c (stony) . (. 47 W. Miller, Hunter . . W. Miller, Hunter . . ' . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ■ 2 c (stony). 48 H. Judge, Makikihi . . I I 1 0 3 "e. ■■ ■ ■ 49 H. H. Meyer, Hook ■ .. • I I 2 . ? 3 f- ■ . ' . .Waihao-Forks District. 50 Waihao-Forks ' B. Movie . . . . ' . . . 1 2 Distric 3 3 4 4 ? ■ ? 3 3 ' /• ■ /■ . : 5i ' I. Macdonald .. I 1 + 2 0 ■ 2 . ' '■' /• ' 52 W aimate-Glenavy ■ H. Ruddenklau, Waimate ..I 2 VIenavy District. 2 3 1 4 Disti 3 0 'ict. ■ 4 ' 3 0 d. 3 ' ■ d. 53 ■ A. Grant, Waimate. . 2 > I: 3 ■ ? ’. 3 d. 54 ■ R. K. Ireland 4 2 5 ' 0 4 " a (stony).

Table 5.