LUCERNE.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17134, 2 May 1921, Page 3

LUCERNE.

A PROVINCIAL CAMPAIGN. ' Productivity" was the predominant note in addresses given at the Chamber of Commerce on Saturday night at a public meeting convened by the Canterbury Provincial Lucerne Campaign Committee. The taeeting, which wtrs attended by about 60 business people and others, was presided over by Mr H. D. Acland. .The chairman said that all recognised the necessity for greater production, but the question was, How could this be brought about? Lucerne growing .in-.Denmark had proved a great success. The area of Denmark was similar in size to that of Canterbury, vet the exportable products were as big as those of New Zealand,, a fact veiy largely due to the culture »f lucerne. There should bo lio reason why it should not be as equally successful in New Zealand. Mr A. Macplierson, manager of show exhibits for tho Agricultural Department; ' prefaced an interesting address by giving a brief explanation of the lucerne plant. Ho pointed out how by the plant's deep roots it contained fertilising properties as well as giving prolific, growth, which in some cases would allow for six cuttings in a year. He had never linown lucerne to fail, but he had often heard of farmers who failed to grow lucerne, because they did not use proper methods. In 1908 the Government offered to assist farmers in growing lucerne, but they could not bo induced.to cultivate the plant, but now the potentialities of lucerne were beginning to be realised. Within the last few years several reseryes along the railway lines in Canterbury > had been, put down in lucerne, with the main objeot of giving a lesson to farmers travelling through. Mi- Macplierson gave detailed accounts of the' yields of several crops grown in/Canterbury, of which samples were shown. The Paparua. prison farm was a 1 good illustration of the benefit of lucernegrowing. On a piece of shingle land near the Waimaltariri river the land in its natural state had a. carrying capacity of one sheep to five acres, and was valued at £3 per acre. After being eonverffed into a lucerne and grass pasture the carrying capacity of the laiid was demonstrated to be 4.48 sheep per acre. Mr Macplierson referred to the successful campaigns conducted in Canada : for encouraging the growth of the plant, and the object was to adopt a similar policy here. He exhibited some of the Department's show exhibits, demonstrating : the phenomenal growth of lucerne at licomlcy and Sumner, the/total growth in a year being 15ft and 16ft respectively. These exhibit's were a source of surprise to the, ! audience.

.. Mr G. T. Booth said that he did not profess to be an authority on lucerne; Mr Macpherson Was the authority_ in Canterbury on that. At a meeting twenty years ago he had said that Can,terl>ury farmers had no more than scratched the surface of the land, but, the figures given in the Lucerne Committee's pamphlet gave him something of a shock. Since 1905 there had beeti a reduction, of half a million in the number of sheep carried in tlje province, and the cultivated areas had •fallen, off by about 33 per cent., but it should be recognised that there had been considerable exportation of stock, and the figures should BcaifCely be taken at their face value. The soil_ itself was not tho all-important factor in primary development, important ■ a& the quality of- the soil was, and the cliinatio conditions also. , Whatmainly . made the laiid valuable, was tne culture put ihto it. There was no doubt that our flocks were falling: off, and also the cultivation. Something mUst be done to increase the productiveness of the soil of Canterbury if the province was to hold her own. The only ■possible way to get "out of the present financial difficulty was to increase the Exports, and /so he . welcomed the m6ve■'merit '% encourage tho gtowth of In-' cerne.- The object of the committee was to excite interest' in-helping to further the ftrOgresß of Canterbury. He thought that there' were too many associations in C&uterfcury pursuing sectional aims, and he suggested, that the committee should link up with the Canterbury Progress League. ■ Mr A; W. Beaven followed with an address, and said he welcomed the- institution of .& lUcerne-growiUg campaign. Mr Beaven produced some samples of lucerne meal, and dealt with the future of the nlant from that viewpoint. Mr J. Longton moved: "That this meeting heartily supports the Lucerne Campaign Committee in approaching the citizens of Christchurch and surrounding districts to provide funds for lucerne-growing competitions, with a view of developing the growing of the. valuable plant over large areas of our province." Mr Longton said everyone would agree from tho 'remarks passed that, night that more production was desirable. The information given by Mr Macphersdn had shown that the production from the fal-ms could be considerably increased. Oh® of the reasons why Canterbury had not increased in its carrying capacity was that it was not necessary for farmers to extend cultivation, but we had now got to the stage when more intensive farmiiig was required, and with that Canterbury would again become the leading producing province of the Dominion. The lu-cerne-growing competition would be restricted to. 10-acre plots, and he was quite sure that as a result of the competition much good would comiei to Canterbury*.'.; ' . ' ; ' . Mr P: Trolore, . wlio liad experience of the- giftwing of. lucerne _in vSnw*borough, seconded the motion, which was carried .unanimously.