FIREBLIGHT MENACE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 80, 15 October 1928, Page 15

FIREBLIGHT MENACE

.yW^^M^ • *- ' CRO^IiRsJ RESPOI^SIBILITV ABSIS^ft^HE DEPARtMEJN? 'There is;lid-disease more dreaded by the6*chardi*fe>tnaH fifeblight, and the Agflcaltural: l)6partinotit is asking for ihb ed>6peratißliti.o£%U fruit growers, large and sinallj tn.au endeavour to prevent its spread, aitd if possible, accomplish its eradication in New Zealand/ IPireblight has made its appearance during recent year* in several places in the North Island, and nreblight areas have been gazetted, dud all haWthorn (which is a host £dt the di« sease) and affected trees being ordered to be cut down. This itfedelure was necessary,- says the ,"Msinawatti Daily Times," in view-of the disastrous effects aeglect btt the part of any fruit grower might have with respect to. the ! Whole district. There is a tendency to look to the Department to Mstiine responsibility for the suppression of an outbreak, and in gome' measure blame the officials for any failure to suppress, ■ whereas tti6 blame could more equity ably be laid oil the careless orchardist. Individual effort"/of growers is the keynote of control;, and;; recent: legislation enables them to, apply co-operative effort more fully, .than was,possible in the paSti .;■>;;:'■ v . .:// ' '•%■ regard- to firebiight; each sea-s---on. .may., be deemed to commence with the! blossoming petiodl of. fruit trees, -arid any hold-over eaiiker discovered at tills time regarded as a canker from the previous! season".'\ While the cutting- out of,. infections, that occurred, during the blossoming 'time and later is ; highlyv desirable, and should be attended' to as thoroughly as " circumstances 'permit, the damage arising from ■ such infections is. largely confined to the ' orchard in which they exist. ' -■'." •',' " ■ ■■'■.. , Diaeaso during this period is to a lafge extent spread by insects which, although they may carry the disease to a nearby orchard, largely operate and spread the dideise within the orchard where it originally,existed. This fact; does not mean that reasonable work in cutting out infection should not be carried on, particularly in view of the moral effect that neglect in this regard might have in the'locality. Consequently, the right to insist on this work being dond, within reason, is not to be foregone. Where it is npt being carried out satisfactorily, recourse may be had to prosecution, but in the main compulsion in the form of prosecution will be deferred till later, growers being given to understand, that the Control of firebiight is their responsibility, while Government officials operate ; more as inspectora to ascertain, h'6#. thoroughly this is being done, andwhen the necessity arises to take action. Apart from what might be insisted iipon by the Department in cutting-out and checking disease during the .summer and early autumn, a definite date should bo fixed after which tho finding. of hold-over cankers in an_ orchard would mean prosecution. This date is fixed at 31st July. By this date brchardists will have carried out tho major portion of their.pruning, which opera* tion affords an excellent opportunity for the-search and removal of cankers. It is physically impoilßitJlo for Departmental officer? to blako a personal inspection of every tree and practically oVcry limb pi tree in the locality. The only means bf. keeping a district free of firebiight is the hope that growers Will make this individual tree inspection and do the cutting out of cankers. By means of general inspection visits by Departmental officials, and more particular inspection Where it is suspected that the grower has, not been quite thorough, the efforts of the careful orehardists will be safeguarded.