THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LIII, Issue 5532, 27 September 1929, Page 4

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

We have no intention to associate ourselves in any way with the exaggerated and somieiwhat blustering attaick that has been made on the Department of Agriculture, or to be perhaps more exact, on the DirectorGeneral of this Department. We halve had occasion l in the past to criticise its omissions and commissßons, but have never failed to give credit where credit was due, nor have we' indulged ini the wholesale cond'emnation of a public service which undoubtedly has done excellent work for the primary producers of this country.. To say anything else would' be a direct and senseless contradiction of the wonderful progress made and success achieved by an industry that can point to a record today . which stand's unsurpasssed by any other country in the world. The New Zealand Department of Agriculture has grown up with the industry, an industry that developed rapidly and, at times somewhat spasmodically. Those associated and in close touch with l this development ire fully aware l that the Agricultural Department has 1 not always given the lead iit should have done to the industry, and, for-this reason, it has come in for some very severe criticism. It was too readily forgotten, however, that for many years past this important Department of State was sadly handicapped, being neglected and starved 1 in many ways, and looked' upon as the Cinderella of the Pu'blilc Services. It is only during recent years that the 1 Government and' the people of the Dominion haive been waking up to the important part primary production is playing in our economic system; but even toi-day it i's a most difficult matter to secure a service or innovation that is not self-supporting or entails the slightest drain on the country's revenue. We are inclined to think that this severe handicap has been entirely overlooked by those critics who condemned the administration and administrator of this Department so whole-heatedly. Moreover, there is just a suspicion, in the minds cf many producers that the motives by which some of these critics' were actuated were not as disinterested' as they ny'ght appear to the uninitiated, and that the .main reason of the attack might be found in the attitude taken up by the Department in connection: with matters more or less unrelated to the subject

I of complaint. In its varied. activities the Department of Agn-1 culture; comes up against many branches of private enterprise, and; the stand' taken' in this connection has not always been as firm and as helpful as one had' every reason to expect. The ramifications of veterinary medical manufacturers and distributors of veterinary medicines is, in a country such as New Zealand, naturally of great importance. Of equally great importance is the Department's attitude; towards many of these proprietary lines. In the past its policy has been to entirely ignore proprietary medical preparations, except in cases which an opinion was forcibly extracted. Even then, the Department very often resorted to evasion and equivocation instead of giving a straight-out answer. The Department should be in a position to say whether a veterinary preparation is good, bad, or indifferent, nor should' it be afraid to say so. There are many products of veterinary medicines on the market that embody the! scientific development of to-day, inasmuch as they represent an accurate blending of compatible ingredients for tke disease on which they are known to have merit. On the other hand, there are disreputable manufacturers who pour out a s'tream of spurious products' through their so-called laboratories, fofeting upon the credulous farmer valueless nostrums almost entirely devoid of therepeutic value and activity, and with no reference to compatibility of formulae. Here, then, is a wide and important field where the New Zealand Departrront of Agriculture can render a ' national service to the industry, the same as is being done: in America, Denmark, iGermany, and many other countries. The' primary producers have a right to look to the Department for unbiased and' impartial advice, and' while: it should not hesitate to denounce the unscrupulous manufacturer of spurious veterinary preparations, it' should 1 encourage the honest manufacturer who makes an honest product turned! to honourable ends. For reasons (best known to themselves, the Department has ! sadly failed 1 in this direction. A .certain aloofness 1 bordering on indifference has characterised its policy in the past, resulting in a I complete lack of that personal conl tact so essential: to beneficial coI operation. An instance, supporting I this contention, comes to our mind , when a settler in the Te Puke dis- ! tri'ct, finding hi 9 country subject to bush sickness, discovered, after a great number of years of experimenting, what 1 he termed to be an ab>solute' prevention for this trouble. In the interest of those who have suffered losses through the same scourge he approached such people as the Minister of Agriculture and the Chief Agricultural: Chemist. A letter written by the latter, and dated 27th February, 1929, stated that one of the Department's senior members would (be 1 sent to visit the property in order to investigate the settler's claim, but up. to the present no ons from the Department has been near the. property, nor has any further word been received. Incidents of ai si'milar nature could easily be multiplied, and an early awakening as to the Department's responsibilities! toward® ,the primary industries is called for, and. would be greatly appreciated by the producers of this country.—J"N.Z. Dairyman."