CONTROL OF RAGWORT

Matamata Record, Volume XIX, Issue 1787, 30 November 1936, Page 4

CONTROL OF RAGWORT

DEBATE IN COURT i Is Eradication Practicable ? \ Some debate as to the best time for ragwort treatment and the most effective measures for' control took place in the Putaruru Magistrate’s 'Court on Friday, when Roland M. Maunder was prosecuted by the Matamata County Council for failing to maintain his property in the Piarere district free from the pest.

Defendant and his witnesses asserted that chemical treatment in the early spring or earlier was wasteful and not so effective as later measures or control by sheep. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., was on the bench. Mr. A. L. Mason, county solicitor, said the property had caused the council some concern, and Maunder had faced a similar prosecution last year. The farm comprised some 450 acres, only a comparatively small area being in grass. Request From Crown The noxious weeds inspector, Mr. H. T. Brill, stated that the property was generally infested throughout. The prosecution was based on the period May 12 to October 6. In May notice was given that immediate attention was required, but a start was delayed, the position rapidly becoming worse until at a recent inspection an aria of about 50 acres of flat, easily treated country was in a shocking condition. Defendant bad asked for three relief men, but later stated there was no available accommodation. This the inspector denied. During the period small areas haa been treated, but not. effectively. Sheep were used at one end, but were not effectively controlled, and the result was not satisfactory, one end of the farm being allowed to run wild. The flowering and seeding stages were threatening, and the inspector had been asked by the Crown to take immediate measures to safeguard its adjacent land, from infestation.

To defandant, witness said the growth in May was bad. The land was good and the weed grew during the winter. He admitted that during the winter the .farmi house whs destroyed by, fire, and said relief workers supplied complained -i they had no access to the new /building. The men had been transferred When they complained of bad living conditions. The worst area .could , easily have been mown. The grass area was infested, but not badly, and the remainder was in a shocking condition! One end was beyond the com trol of sheep. At least one ton of sodium would be required for a clearance, but no more than 10 cwt had been applied. To Mr. Mason, Mr. Brill said chemical treatment in the early spring would have been effective. With regard to the relief ,workers these were only supplied by the council, which was not responsible for them. In answer to a question from the bench asking why in that case they had complained to the inspector, the latter stated he did supervise to some extent but this was not necessarily his duty. Finest Seed-catchment Area ' . • , : ' i ' ', ’ ! t Richard Maunder, defendant’s nephew, said that aged ewes, which were most suitable for ragwort control, were used at one end, this being all that prevented defendant from having to abandon the farm. The herd reduction caused by the purchase of sheep was a heavy loss. Ragwort grew strongly on the farm in shelter provided by many trees and gullies, and the property was particularly exposed to the depositing of seed by wind from Araprini. It was in an impossible position and the agricultural inspector had described it as the finest catchment area for seed in the Waikato. In the winter the house was burned down, and with no available builders, defendant had to undertake construction work. The ragwort was not then dangerous, and it was not essential to cut-it then; indeed, this would be a waste of time. On the inspector’s suggestion sprays were used in August and September, and both witness and defendant used lime, 9 cwt being applied. There was no habitable accommodation late in the winter, and they lived on another farm, during fivhich time* witness was ill in bed for a, period. Although he thought this ' the wrong time !to spray the weed a 50 per cent, kill on a large area was obtained. The first relief workers were unsatisfactory, but two supplied later <iid good work. These had made no complaint to his knowledge about food, buf had been transferred without notice or < reason by the inspector. A total of over 30 acres was now cleared, and

not a great deal remained to be done. Much could be mowed arid the front controlled by sheep. The best time to mow the was approaching the flowering Such work in May was a yraste of /' time. A. good effort had been to clear the property. ’ ' ft?, j| To Mr. Mason, witness only 15 acres, not 50,- required tion. Rlants .approaching flowering * were being ; sprayed. - t Not niuch work had been,fdone, by, late September, / but .it! was not necessarily essential to treat -the weed before then. Under v ' the circumstances this could not have /.• g been done anyway. Since the prose-!’ cution last year a number of tree* ' ' had been removed. The greater part of the weed had been chemically / treated last season and the remaind- \V er had been mowed. / Mr. Mason suggested such plants y’jV had seeded on the ground and that - plants were flowering now. Witness. thought these were isolated, cases. Control V. Eradication i ' / vJcl C. H. Humphries, farmer, neigh-' hour of defendant, recommended the '/ use of sheep, aged ewes for prefer- ‘‘M ence, for ragwort control. This was the Taranaki system.- Sodium did !j/ not completely eradicate the pest, 'p The Department of Agriculture said there was no successful way eradication. In August defendant’s , j*! \ property had not appeared bad and/'||y!: sheep had control;- while by Septem-/ her an obvious effort had been made;/ It would be impossible to dearth#*. ” farm with reasonable expense. was exposed 'to. wind-distributed '/ “ v seed from three points, and in con-; * tradiction of the inspector, witness /.v,/ thought the land could not be clear- ;! v ! ed.. A prosecution for failure clear in May was unjust. Where’ - considerable areas were concerned he thought eradication impossible . at great expense. . Control was bet- v ter. -, v . ' .// \

To Mr. Mason, witness thought!*/ sodium spraying was not the best/ *„ method. The material was not eff;! fective, aqd was ; largely wasted./ the period named he thought about 30 acres had been cleared, and

the rest was reasonably clean. Thte growth was lusty, but he. considered;, ragwort was not serious providing"

measures of control were taken be-

fore it flowered.- Even if.it was in

flower this was not condemnatory, so long as the weed was prevented f? from spreading. . - . :r Defendant submitted he . had made/ : all reasonable -efforts to! clear his. farm. . He had experienced a winter with additional, work throhgdv trie' destruction: of Ins borne, faced labour difficulties/ Work in;

May would hojt h£tve prevented re- v growth, whereas work" now woujxL. enable a clean sweep to be made. He§: ; . had purchased sheep, but was sheepfarmer and had suffered loss by > this. When sheep fences were erectf" ed effective control would be ed. Chemicals were on hand andv" g. with considerable expense he ted that a reasonable effort had been made. The property was exposed seed-distribution from the Hinuera .V*; Valley, the Tirau Valley and from Maungatautari. It was possible tha* parasites would be liberated there by the Department of Agriculture. He had passed through an abnormal period and had done what he could. ;•*' The information was dismissed. ■'