CALIFORNIAN THISTLE.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8488, 20 May 1893, Page 6

CALIFORNIAN THISTLE.

In a previous issue there appeared a letter on the Calefornian thistle from a "Northern Farmer," which the Agricultural and Pastoral Association deemed of such importance as to send it to Wellington for the information of the Government. Our correspondent, it may be remembered, stated that possibly fifty tons of clover seed had been threshed in his neighbourhood from land infested with Californian thistlej we now propose to devote a little attention to the subject, and also to some of the remaiks which the letter in question elicited.

Mr. Stavelby's fear that the Association was attaching undue weight to the statements of an anonymous correspondent was entirely groundless, as the writer is a well-known farmer, whose statements may be relied upon. We are more concerned, however, with Mr. Henderson's theory that the seed being smaller than clover seed would be taken out by the riddles of the shelling machine. In theory this, no doubt, is true; in practice, we fear, it is not. If any of our readers will put a bag of oats carefully through a winnowiug machine they will be astonished at the amount of rubbish that will be extracted, and this residue will consist very largely of seeds all very much smaller than oats. In default of a winnower let them examine the seed box of a drill through which has passed say fifty bushels of seed grain, and they will find nob only Bmall seeds of every description, but a considerable quantity of dust. If then, the ordinary combine does not separate articles differing so widely in size and weight as grains of corn do from atoms of dust, we fear that the theory of a shell er separating clover seeds from smaller ones will be found untenable in practice. Indeed we remember publishing analyses of clover seeds made at Lincoln College, in some of which the seeds we are concerned with was present. It is true, of course, that machinery has been imported that will and has separated the thistle seed from the seed proper, and farmers when purchasing should always stipulate for machine-dressed seed only. Admitting, however, that the seeds are separated in the manner suggested by Mr Henderson, what then ? What becomes of the rubbish ? Most of it no doubt goes out with the chaff, but a certain proportion will remain in the machine, to be shaken out as the sheller jolts down roads and across paddocks, or to find a final lodgment in the chaff heaps on neighbouring farms* Indeed the threshing .machine is responsible for the dissemination of noxious weeds to a greater extent than many people are aware. Anyone who has taken to pieces and cleaned out a combine or sheller after a season's work will, we are confident, uphold us in this. Clearly, then, it is in the last degree inadvisable that seeds of noxious weeds should be passed through any form of threshing machine, and legislation should interfere as far as is practicable. If an Adulteration of Manures Act is wanted, surely it should be preceded by an enactment dealing with the adulteration of seeds. The former deals with a purely nega- j tive, the latter with a positive, evil. If a farmer pays £7 for a ton of sand,' and drills it in with his roots, his firs t ; is his only loss; the sand will do no harm. But the amount of loss entailed by sowing deleterious seeds has passed into the proverb which tells us j that one year's seeding makes seven years' weeding. Merely, then, as an initial effort, and largely by way of provoking discussion, we venture to append a few suggestions which are the outcome, we may say, of closo acquaintance with the habits of the pestilent plant in question.

It is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the CaUfornian thistle that legislation demanding its eradication would be hopelessly drastic. Save in small patches the peat cannot be exterminated except by incessant ploughing or other working of the land daring the spring, summer, and

autumn of at least two successive year 3, and ia the case of tenants or even of many freeholders to enforce any demand involving such expense as this would be arbitrary in the extreme. But while the thistle ia so difficult to kill it may easily be kept from spreading by the simple expedient of cutting it down when in flower; as this need only be done twice in the year, and as the labour and expense entailed is but trifling, the obligation of doing so ia one which we may fairly impose upon ourselves. As tho groundwork of au enactment tending in this direction we would suggest the subdivision of a province into districts, whose boundaries might very well be those ot the existing road districts. In each such district we have no doubt that plenty of farmers whose land is clean, or who are endeavouring to make it so, would be only too glad to act as supervisors. Every farmer whose land is infested would be compelled to report the fact; a list of infested farms would be forwarded to the supervisors; they would notify that under pain of prescribed penalties no thistles must be found iv flower after a date which their localkuowledge would suggest as appropriate; they would take steps to see that this regulation is complied with, and the thing is done so far as preventing the spread of seed is concerned. Little or no expense need attach to the administration of such an enactment. In all infested distriots it will always, wo imagine, be easy to find men who will bo only too glad to act as supervisors in their own defence, and their acceptance of the office would be a guarantee that the duties appertaining thereto would be efficiently discharged ; in any case, we are wholly disinclined to hand over such responsibilities to the local Road Board clerk or poundkeeper. At all events, we can safely say that if no one is forthcoming, that fact can be accepted as evidence that no supervision is wanted or desired. In conclusion, wo may be allowed to congratulate the Association upon the step it has taken, and to express a hope tbac the Government will move iv the matter. -