Public Support For Soil Conservation In America

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28894, 14 May 1959, Page 11

Public Support For Soil Conservation In America

soil conservation techniques had been developed and —asonably demonstrated in the United States, the programme organisers had been able to get behind the politician and show voter that it was good business for the nation, Mr A. D. Campbell, superintendent of soil conservation, told the conference o f the New Zealand Soil Conservators’ Association at Lincoln. So far not much cognisance had teen taken of this technique in o il conservation circles in New Zeeland, he said. In the last presidential election in the United States the manifestos of both candidates showed that they subscribed 100 per cent, to the support of conservation of the land. Some of the responses secured on a small scale to conservation methods in New Zealand he had not seen exceeded anywhere overseas, and where problems were worst there had been some of the most remarkable responses. By now techniques had been developed for the handling of most problem land there was in New Zealand. Somehow now a break-through had to be achieved to secure a balance for soil conservation in New Zealand as had been intended jn the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act. It was almost an insult today to call the act a Soil Conservation Act, he said. That was not the fault of engineers but was the fault of soil conservation workers. Now, however, there was a big enough army to bridge the gap. The fupport of engineers was needed in catchment control schemes. “Changes in administration cannot really stop this programme jn New Zealand.” said Mr Campbell

Progress Reviewed Reviewing progress made in soil conservation in New Zealand in spite cf an imposing list of difficulties. Professor L. W. McCaskill, head of the department of rural education at Canterbury Agricultural College and a former member of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council and the North Canterbury Catchment Board, said that exciting possibilities lay ahead if, among other things, all those engaged in agricultural work accepted the idea that soil conservation was not just their idea of good farming, but a new concept of land use in which managing soils to minimise run-off and soil loss might be incompatible with accepted standards of agricultural use. Deficiencies in members of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council, lack of finance, growing pains associated with a new idea and a new organisation, antagonism of people with axes . to grind, deficiencies of staff, and delays due to the Government’s and Parliament’s indecision, were among difficulties listed by Professor McCaskill since the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council was constituted in 1942. On the credit side there was to* show a much better nationwide understanding of the problem (if still incomplete), there was a staff (trained mainly by experience), as a re-

suit of experimental farms and trials there were techniques which had proved effective, there was a system of assessing land for its proper conservational use on which farm 'conservation plans had been based, soil conservation fencing had been instituted, there was considerable control over fire, there was some control over noxious animals, there was a hydrological survey giving vital information, catchment boards were interested in catchment surveys as a basis of planning, individual farms were in a demonstration scheme, and there were specific schemes such as the Glenmark catchment control scheme in North Canterbury. Professor McCaskill said that exciting possibilities lay ahead if the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee that all New Zealand should be under some form of control came into operation, if the Government recognised that much of New Zealand’s future production must come from the hills and to achieve that there must be catchment control if lives, land and homes on the lower reaches of rivers were to be protected, if there was a tussock grasslands institute or mountain lands institute and its findings were implemented, if a positive enthusiasm could be developed for the whole concept of soil and water conservation as a vital part of catchment control—“the idea must become part of our total culture,” if subsidies were made available for watershed treatments, in at least critical areas, which were as high as those for river control, and if it was realised that catchment control was really a personal and social responsibility involving a partnership of the farmer and society—“it can only succeed through co-operative effort, neighbour with neighbour, community with community. State and local body with the individual.” Opening the meeting the director of the college, Dr. -M. M. Burns, appealed to conservators to support the establishment of a tussock grassland institute, which he said would be ideally located at Lincoln with such organisations as the Crop Research Division and shortly the Botany Division close by.