IMPORTING ORCHARD PESTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13278, 10 September 1906, Page 7

IMPORTING ORCHARD PESTS.

•Sir,—A letter signed. P. K. N. Gaitdin in your issue of August 29 makes an attack upon Mr. W. Boucher, which anyone having the interests of our fruitgrowing industry at heart should not allow to pass unnoticed. Mr. Gaudin blames the Government pomologist for stating in a iecture to fruitgrowers that the only sure means of guarding the fruitgrowing industry against the introduction of such a veritable scourge as the Queensland fly was to destrov all lines of fruit which on arrival here "from other countries were found to be infected with this pest. Mr. Boucher is well known to practical fruitgrowers in this district as one of the most competent and earnest workers amongst the officers of the horticultural division of the Department of Agriculture. Ho is not a mere theorist, but a man of common sense and practical experience, and in my opinion he. has again exhibited these qualities in making the statement which Mr. Gaudin condemns. Anyone who knows anything about, the difficulties of preventing the introduction and spread of insect pests will realise the practical impossibility of there being any certainty about the exclusion of insects which come here in the form of burrowing maggots if an infected line of fruit is allowed to be nicked over by importers and only those fruits destroyed which show plain signs of infestation. Our fruit inspector here is a capable man, but to suppose that he, or any other expert, could guarantee that no individual oranges with maggots in them, out. of an infected consignment of fruit, would escape his notice is absurd. Indeed, in view of the terrible havoc worked in Australian orchards by the fruit fly and the- absence of any known remedy where the pest is once established, orie would not be surprised to find the Auckland Fruitgrowers' Union agitating for the total prohibition of imports of fruit from any part of a country afflicted with the fruit fly. With the light-hearted unconcern of the man who presumably doesn't care Mr. Gaudin writes:—"That "it (the. fruit fly) can be hatched here is admitted, but that it can live and thrive to be a pest to the local fruitgrowers is open to grave doubt, ■ and until it is Droved that it can live under natural conditions it would ill-become the Government ■to adopt the arbitrary measures advocated bv Mr. Boucher."

Does Mr. Gaudin seriously contend that, because there is a doubt (even a " grav<?" one) that the fly, which admittedly hatches here, will live and flourish in this genial climate of North New Zealand it is wrong to take ilk- most efficient means of preventing the introduction of < the pest? Is the existence of our promising and growing fruit industry to depend upon ap alleged "doubt?" By all accounts the Queensland fruit fly is infinitely worse as an orchard pest than anything else in destructive insects our fruitgrowers have eve* had to contend against, not excepting tin codlin moth. Is it worth while to wait until we can "prove

it will live- here" ; be-fore ! taking i the most efficient means of keeping such a scottirge out of the country? " The experiments conducted; by the Agricultural Department, and , referred; to by Mr. Gaudin, proved 'that" the insect will breed in confinement in Auckland. These experiments, I understand, were discontinued because, even with the exercise of the utmost care in the construction of the " insectorium," it was found there were* grave risks of the escape of some of t lie flic-. Perhaps Mr. Oaudin would say it. wan a good tiling that they should ccajn? in order to " prove" whether they would live nnd breed here "under natural condition." We must all hope the Fruitgrowers' Union will firmly support the Agricultural Department and its officers in the efforts they are making to keer. our orchards free from even the risk of infection by. this most pernicious pest. Gehald L. Peacocks.