NASSELLA SHEEP CONTROL

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28920, 13 June 1959, Page 8

NASSELLA SHEEP CONTROL

Regulations to control the and movement of sheep from pro- • i perties heavily infected with' i nassella tussock had been under j ’ consideration for two or three:: years as it had been realised; { for some time that nassella seed; did infest fleece wool of sheep! 1 and could be transferred to other , areas in that way. the fields super-;, intendent of the Department of i Agriculture <Mr A. R. Ding- « wall) said last week. J Power had been provided under ■! the Nassella Tussock Act. 1946, i j for the setting up of regulations;. for such contingencies and regula- > 4 tions to prevent the distribution!, of nassella impurities in grass seed • had already been implemented . The contemplated sheep regula- . tions had a similar purpose but. ‘ naturally, they were a little more ‘ difficult to apply without imposing unnecessarily severe restrictions I, on landowners. Mr Dingwall said. ■' At the present time the proposed j' regulations were before the North •' Canterbury Nassella Tussock i' Board for consideration. The board i! in 1958 had agreed in prinpiple;; that such regulations were neces- • 1 sary and had asked the depart- i; ment to draw up a draft to be] 1 submitted to the board before it; became law. What was needed now was for the board to either aporove of the ' draft as it stood or to point out 1 the items with which it disagreed 1 and to suggest how they could be : imoroved. he said. ‘’The regulations as proposed ! should not impose unnecessary 1 restrictions on landowners as they would only apply to heavily infested properties.” Mr Dingwall said. “There would only be a very small proportion of properties in North Canterbury in- ' volved. [ Under the proposed regulations ; certain areas would be defined by i I gazetting as being infested with] • nassella. and the onus would then ■ :be on the landowners concerned! ;to sell or move sheep from the' . property, excluding those which | were for slaughtering within threeI days of the sale, only with a ! ] permit from an inspector indi- ■ eating their freedom from seed I ;in the fleece. Mr Dingwall said that it had j - been shown conclusively that; •sheep from properties, known to [be heavily infested could be in- ’ spected and not show any seed' lin the fleece. This indicated tha* they had not been grazing on | the actual heavily infested areas. '.during seeding. I While some problems of man-; | agement might be involved, a pro-! | perty owner who wished to sei! j [sheep could plan their grazing so] Lthat they would not be feeding- ; on infested areas during the seed-; png period. An alternative! which: ]also had its problems, would be! |to sell the sheep straight off the {shears, and this seemed about! the only way to sell sheep which : I had been found to have seed in ! I the fleece. i “There is no doubt that a strong [ possibility exists that a number i of infestations in North Canter*;bury. south of the Waimakariri 4 river, are the result of seed caryl ried there in the wool of sheep.” .]Mr Dingwall said.