WORM CONTROL’ IN STOCK

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25739, 26 February 1949, Page 5

WORM CONTROL’ IN STOCK

Mr Trotter’s System REPLY TO CRITICISM BY MR MCLEAN In reply to the comments of Mr J. W. McLean, veterinarian at Lincoln College, on Mr W. B. Trotter’s experiences with worm control. Mr Trotter writes: The position is this. I made my findings on the worm problem public entirely for the good of the sheep industry in New Zealand and though I must expect criticism I do object to destructive criticism—which I am afraid Mr McLean’s comments are. This mineral approach to the worm problem is -entirely new. Mr McLean then, as a technical expert, has little or no knowledge of this angle of the problem. Yet he has written to your paper on the subject. I went into the experimental business with one object in view—to enrich the blood of my sheep so that they would respond to drenching. Much to my pleasure, I found that when the blood was enriched the drenching became unnecessary. Having obtained this result I invited five other sheep farmers who were in trouble with unthrifty sheep to try this system. All had the same excellent results and are prepared to make known the facts as they know them. The “findings” which I made public then were the results of six properties, not from my own farm only, as Mr McLean inferred, and consequently are all the more valuable. Mr McLean has warned farmers, ‘Test thev be misled into believing that they can easily get the same results.” I think he should have encouraged them to run trials under supervision. That is the way to prove this system, not to cry hands off. May I correct also, Mr McLean, when he says that the results were obtained by the provision of copper either as a lick or by topdressing. In the lick form the combination of copper and iron is important. (I think it will eventually be proved that where the supply of copper is weak, the intake of iron by plants is disappointing.) Mr McLean has made much of what he terms the “copper status.” His writings tally exactly with Bulletin No. 238, written by Dr. I. J. Cunningham, of Wallaceville. This is an excellent work and I do not wish to pass derogatory comments, only to use this booklet to prove that, though the copper experimental work has been going on for 10 years, progress has not been very rapid. Efficacy of Licks For instance, Dr. Cunningham writes: “No direct evidence has been obtained in New Zealand of the efficacy of licks for sheep.” Also according to the booklet there is no half-way nouse in copper supply. Either there is a deficiency of copper or not. I think the half-way house in copper supply will prove most important as regards the worm problem. The normal copper count is placed at 500 parts in a million in sheep livers. The deficiency count is placed at 23 parts in a million. What I wish to bring about is a table of copper counts connected with the incidence of worm in flocks. Take the following as an approximate table:—Copper count, 600 parts in a million, buoyant supply, no serious worm infestation; 500 parts, normal supply, very slight infestation; 400 parts, good supply, slight infestation; 300 parts, moderate supply, moderate infestation; 200 parts, weakening supply, serious infestation; 100 parts, short supply, very serious infestation; under 50 parts, deficiency supply, ataxia likely, impossible to keep stock on property without provision of copper in one form or another. Let us then waive the technical objections and get down to the job of finding out if the copper count really does indicate the incidence of worm or, if not, just why six sheepfarmers have obtained such excellent results by using my system. If it does indicate the incidence of worms and control them, then the flockmasters of New Zealand can wave good-bye to worm infestation by raising the copper count in their flocks to that buoyant level, within safety limits, which I have tentatively placed at 600 parts in a million. If Mr McLean cares to reply to this, would he start off by answering the following questions. Considering that he has stated that no worm counts were done on my sheep, whose job would he consider that to have been, nine or the Veterinary Department? Vlr McLean talks of uninformed heorising. Have I, then, in my theorising made any statement which le can definitely state to be wrong? Is it true to say that a few years ago Mr McLean came to Cricklewood to his father’s farm to deal with lambs which were dying freely? Having taken worm counts, he drenched them adequately; but did not stop them dying. Four kvere killed for examination. Would Mr McLean please publish the copper count in the livers of those sheep? Results Discussed

Mr McLean was on my Fairlie property on January 8, 1949. We had a long discussion tin the results of my trials. His technical mind would not accept the facts without much more proof than I could supply, such as worm counts, blood counts, etc. However, had he lived here during the last 10 years he would not have needed worm counts to prove worm troubles. Finally I showed Mr McLean a line of 400 wether hoggets. These had been drafted out of my line of 2700 in September as culls. Would Mr McLean report on these sheep. Were they healthy and had they made good growth? Mr McLean will, I think, also admit that the results which he has seen here justify an optimistic view of further trials which must be carried out. Actually the technical experts .have in their hands most of the proof necessary from the results obtained by the application of copper to the copper deficient peat lands. Let them examine closely the results of these applications on stock health in those areas. Has the copper count reached buoyant levels? If so, what has been the result on stock health? Do the farmers on these lands still have to drench the sheep regularly for worm control?

These questions and answers mean much to flockmasters in New Zealand and again I would say, drop the red tape and get down to work.

RAM AND EWE FAIR DATES The following is a list of Canterbury ram and ewe fair dates for this season:— February 28. —Amberley ewe (southern section). March I.—Ashburton County Breeders ewe. March I.—Fairlie wether and ewe lamb. March 3.—Hawarden ewe. March 4 —Rakaia ewe. March 4.—Tekapo sale. March 7.—Amberley ewe (northern section). March 7.—Pleasant Point ewe. March B.—Little River ewe. March 8. —Waihao Valley sheep. March 9.—Ashburton ram. March 10.—Culverden ewe. March 11.—Methven ewe. March 11.—Albury ewe. March 14.—Tinwald Open ewe. March 15.—Sheffield ewe. March 15. —Fairlie ewe. March 16.—Studholme ewe. March 17 and 18.—Canterbury Flock ram. March 17. —Holme Station ewe. March 18.—Waimate ram. March 18.—Geraldine ewe. March 21.—Oxford ewe. March 22.—Coalgate ewe. March 24 and 25.—Timaru ram. BENEFIT OF FALLOW A rather unexpected contrast in the yiejd of two halves of a small paddock of wheat, one sown on a fallow and the other after peas has been seen on a farm in the Darfield district this season. The part sown after fallow yielded reasonably well, but that after peas was a poor crop indeed. The explanation seems to be that the part following peas was very weedy, and that the weeds robbed the wheat of moisture at a critical period of development. Few farmers would have expected the very marked inferiority of the area following the peas.