programme questioned

Press, 2 May 1985, Page 3

programme questioned

PA Wellington The Ministry of Agriculture said yesterday that 't did not initiate the "Fair Go” television programme on Tuesday evening on the liquid fertiliser. Maxicrop, and said it had reservations about the way the issue was canvas'-? >d. On the programme a departmental scientist challenged the effc"t.'V‘’no--s of liquid fertilisers, including Maxicrop, on New Zealand pastures. The programme said it had been approached by the Ministry to broadcast its research findings os it had found it difficult to publish the issue elsewhere The Ministry's director of agricultural research, Dr John Hutton, said yesterday that he did not feel the issue had been dealt with fairly. The Ministry had not approached television to broadcast its findings, he said. It was the other way

round. Dr Bert Quinn, a chief scientist al Ruakura Research Centre, had asked three times that the material nut be presented as a confrontation. He said Dr Quinn had an assurance from a programme reporter that it would be presented as a documentary. Mr Mark’ Bell-Booth, managing director of the company which owns the New' Zealand franchise of Maxicrop, said the programme had come in the middle of a three-year trial programme which began in September. 1983. Mr Bell-Booth said the Ministry had wanted full cooperation for the trials but had not advised his company of the “Fair Go” show. "Fair Go” had called him on April 12. He said the actions of the Ministry had brought into a public forum some searching questions about the activities of “certain people" in agricultural

research. Asked why he thought the Ministry had taken the action. Mr Bell-Booth said it “genuinely, obviously believes the product is no good — in the face of thousands of users.” “We were given fair treatment by ’Fair Go.’ I have no complaint,” said Mr Bell-Booth. “We were kept informed and given the right of reply, which was fair in the context of the debate,” he said. Maxicrop has a ?2-million market in New’ Zealand and has been on sale for 25 years. Mr Bell-Booth said the product contained a “group of growth stimulants” which occurred naturally in seaweed. They were tightly bound but were broken down and made available by the Maxicrop process. Maxicrop was foliage-ap-plied — a stimulant taken through the leaf rather than

the roots — and that was why it was not a fertiliser, said Mr Bell-Booth. It must be used in conjunction with fertiliser. The company had never said it could be used alone, he said.

The registrar of agricultural chemicals, Mr Brian Watt, has notified the company that Maxicrop has to be registered as it contains more than 3 per cent of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus (NPK). Mr Bell-Booth said that if his company had been selling fertiliser and had not' met the critieria, it would be clearly out of line, “but we did not sell it as fertiliser.” He said, however, that the area of fertiliser registration had “holes in it,” particularly in relation to NPK rating.

He was keen to clarify the matter with the Ministry but he had not yet seen any documentation or discussed the matter with his solicitor.