THE IMPORTATION OF FRUIT TREES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17089, 22 August 1917, Page 6

THE IMPORTATION OF FRUIT TREES.

TO I'HE KDITOB. 6nt,--Under tho heading of "Prohibition of the Importation of Fruit Trees," there appears in too Now Zealand Gazette a notice, under date July 19, to the effect that the importation ol pear, apple, quince, or stone fruit trees from the commonwealth of Australia is prohibited, on tho ground that tho introduction of any of tlu-se, or the cuttings of buds of thorn, is likely to introduce tho disease of hairy root, crown gall, or root knot The publication of tliie notice leads to the following oriticisuv: and despite the fact that tho criticism may hurt the feelings of some, I consider it my duty to express an opinion upon a subject which is bound to be of public importance. The importation of diseased trees is a matter of concern to ail those engaged in the _ fruit-growing industry, and those who realise or imagine the olfects of tho disease named cannot but applau:! any efforts of the Department of Agriculture to prevent tho importation of that disease. But what is that disease which they seek to quell by non-importation ? Hairy root, toot knot, or crown gall has during tho last few years boon a matter of great concern to the port inspectors and the Agricultural Department, and while, no doubt, the officers will no longer be placed i:i the invidious position of being unable to obtain from the director of their division any definite instructions on which to proceed with the necessary examination, still it would have been preferable and more instructive to them if, instead of importation of trees being wholly prohibited, tho head of the department had directly shown his subordinates tho principles upon which they might determine whether or not the trees wore diseased. Moreover, this would havo inspired in fruitgrowors the confidence they wish to repose in tho department. Not only has the subject exercised the minds of fruitgrowers, but for the last two or three years the root knot question has also been one of a great deal of interest to these subordinate officers, with consequent inconvenience to the importers of fruit trees. Thousands of trees which havo been held up and re-shipped to Australia showed absolutely no sign of disease. They were condemned by the port "nspeotors because it was a sure course to condemn, while they have been actually unable to determine the position accurately. Last year the Victorian Agricultural Department sent to New Zealand a very capable _ officer (Mr Brittlebank), plant pathologist to the Victorian Department of Agrioulture. He, along with Mr A. TI. Cockayne (biologist of the Agricultural Department) came to Dunedin, and a bacterial examination of certain Victorian ■roes was undertaken by Professor Champtaloup in conjunction with them. That investigation has as yet failed to produce positive results in inoculation experiments, although cultures were taken of an organism identical' with that described by Dr Smith, of America, as bacterium, tumo faciens. Mr Brittlebank took with him on his return to Victora the cultures secured from some of these Victorian trees, and they also have failod to produce positive results.

Further, it can, I think, be safely stated that between 70 and 80 per cent, of the orchards * planted out in New Zealand are planted with Australian-grown trees. Last year was no exoeption to other years in the number of trees' imported. It is a fact that many thousands of trees were last season held up by the department. Among the importers of these trees the New Zealand nurserymen would be the largest importers, as they have always been in the past. The reason why fruit growers have so persistently imported trees from Australia is because they are unable to obtain from nurserymen here trees worked on blightproof Northern Spy stocks. So many of the New Zealand nurserymen work Winter Majeton stock—a clean rooted strong grower which roots one-sided, and grows very strong for a few years, but never gives the '6ame fruiting stock as the Northern Spy, and does not stand either wet or dry seasons so well. This Winter Majeton stock does not throw fibrous roots. On the other hand, the so-called rootknot affected trees and the freely fibrous rooting system of the Northern Spy stock throws just those very fibrous roots which the orchardist desires and which the department has decided to condemn. I suggest that the director of the orchard division is boing governed by Dr Smith's work. It would be interesting to know if the director is aware whether or not the Northern Spy stock is in America?

I have touched on the question of the rooting system so that the public may have a clear idea of the evolution of the position which has arisen. I assume that the New Zealand Nurserymen's Association came to the conclusion that it was not making sufficient out of tho Australian trees because it approached the National Efficiency Board and requested it to recommend the Government to prohibit the importation of these trees. Subsequently, a deputation from the fruit growers waited on Mr Hunt, representative of the Efficiency Board in Dunedin. I am not aware of the personnel of the deputation, but I do know that Mr John Bennetts, of Roxburgh, represented Otago, and that Mr Archer, of Ohristchurch, represented Canterbury. The members of the deputation, I have been told by Mr Hunt, were unanimous in their decision that the importation of fruit trees from Australia should be proh-bitcd. and when I interviewed that gentleman he informed me that I was the first person who had suggested to him that there should be no prohibition. Within two days Mr Hunt had a deputation comprised of the local nurserymen and representatives of the fruit-growers of Dunedin, and they explained to him- that thoy were not in accord with the suggested prohibition of tho importation of trees, and they asked that the matter, before being dealt with by the Efficiency Board, should be considered bv the fruitgrowers of New Zealand as a whole.

On the 15th May I sent the following letter to Mr Hunt, in which the position is, I think, perfectly clearly set out: —

Referring to my interview with you regarding the suggested prohibition of importation of fruit trees from Australia, and dealing with the question of the deputation which waited on you from the Fruitgrowers' Association some few days ago, as I explained then, since the matter has never been referred to the fruitgrowers themselves, it seems hard to understand why people representing themselves to be delegates should deal with a matter pertaining to the welfare of an industry without having that matter thoroughly discussed by the people whom it most concerns. Mr Bennetts, as representing Otago, is not concerned with the importation of fruit trees in so far as lie is, and always has been, a stone fruit grower and his orchard is planted; any future planting on his part can only be a mere bagatelle. Mr Archer, who represented Canterbury, has certainly in years gone by shown a great deal of interest in the fruit industry, but this no doubt is due to the fact of his being a trader partially earning his living from the fruitgrowers. I am not aware that he has changed his occupation, and consequently cannot help but feel that he was more interested in the aspect from a seller's point of view than from a grower's point of view. The position however really resolves itself into whether or not the planters of the future are to be placed, as near as possible on a similar footing to the planters who have completed their areas. Personally, I have planted out what might bo considered a fairly large area, a "d I have no hesitation in saying that the trees which came from Australia (and I have received many thousands of them) wero easily preferable to any of the trees which I obtained from nurserymen in New Zealand. Tho reason for this is simply a. matter of climatic conditions. The trees grown in Australia are very much stronger than those grown in New Zealand, and what is sold as a two year old tree from Australia is generally nothing more than a well-branched yearling tree, which is equal to the two year -old tree which is sold in New Zealand, and so the Australian tree, of course, can be supplied at a very much lower price than the New Zealand tree. I have landed on to my own orchards in Central Otago thousands of trees from Australia, costing only a little over £30 per thousand— trees excellently grown, free from all disease, and with a perfect root system, all worked on Northern Spy stocks. I mention this particularly, as there are so many of the New Zealand nurserymen who do not handle northern stocks—a matter which in the interests of the fruit-growers, is a very serious one, and which is almost essential to the success of commercial orcharding. I understand and believe that many thousands of acres hi Central Otago will in the future bo planted out to apples, and sur«ly, the interests of these plantere arc entitled to consideration just as much as the few nurserymen who are moving in this matter—particularly so sinco it is quite clear that the Nurserymen's Association in New Zealand is not unanimous in tho matter. The suggestion that labour is cheaper in Australia is, I am advised, not correct. as_ tho Australian nurserymen are paying in many insta/wea higher viragea

than the New Zealand nurserymen, bnt the labour which is available in Australia consists of more expert men than the class which is available here. For instance, in Dunedin it is only such men as Messrs Cousins, Bennetts, and Harrison who can bo looked upon as thoroughly capable workera of stock, and these men aro now up in years and naturally would not bo able to stand up to the work as the ■younger men do. But i± is just these men who aro able to do the work who find it advisable, when they want trees, to import them from Australia, knowing as thoy do that our climatic conditions aro such that it would be impossiblo to produce a plant in tho time equal to the imported article.

The question as to disease can bo mot if the Agriultural Department will engage thoroughly capable officers to deal with tho matter. The trouble last year as to the Australian nursery stock resulted in an investigation by Mr Brittlebank, Plant Pathologist of the Victorian Department of Agriculture, Mr A. H. Cockayne, Biologist of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture, and Professor Ohumptaloup, of the Otago University, and tho results of the investigation carried out both in New Zealand and Australia wont to prove that what inspectors of tho Agricultural Department here were looking upon as disease (no doubt at the instigation of the New Zealand Nurserymen's Association) was not the disease which they wore looking for, namely, root knot, or crown gall, and that tho cults taken from tho bacteria when tested as they were in Victoria failed to produce positive results in the inoculation ex-

periments. Tho Victorian Department of Agriculture claims that no root knot exists in the nurseries of that State, and those of us who arc interested and claim to have some knowledge of the fruit industry know that the officers of the Fruit Division of the Department of Agriculture in Victoria aro thoroughly capable and experienced men—unfortunately, no more capable in Australasia. It appears to me that before a matter should dealt with by such a board as your National Efficiency Board and before prohibition of an essential to any is suggested, the whole question should in the first instance be referred to the parties interested and due notice be given to those parties so that they can deal with the matter, thus enabling you as an advisory board to the Government to givo a reply which would be comprehensive of the feelings of all parties concerned.

Now we have the Gazette notice of July 19. It is desirable that the fruit-growers and the public should understand what the present position is. The National Efficiency Board has been made use of by three or four interested nursery firms in New Zealand to recommend to the Government that certain steps should be taken with regard to importations. The report which has been sent in was made without matters being. thoroughly sifted_ and tho facts obtained; and the result is that, willy nilly, the growers—tho planters of the future—must apply to these three or four nurserymen in New Zealand for their supplies. The Government has purchased blocks of land on which it is proposed to settle returned soldiers in tho occupation of fruitgrowers—and these men who havo had to imdergo hardships and make saorifices are, on their return to New Zealand, to be asked, when thoy take up their selections, to pay at tho rate of £10 to £15 per 1000 more, for their trees than they otherwise would have done; and, further, are prevented from obtaining supplies of Northern Spy blight-proof stocks. I need not add to whom the benefit will accrue. That is evident.

If I am wrong in my deduction as to the report of the National Efficiency Board, my only answer is that I have not been permitted to poruse it.The notice of prohibition is fhere, and I havo pointed out the beginning and the evolution of the endeavour to obtain it; and I submit in all seriousness that if tho report of the National Efficiency Board is based upon the ev ; dence from the delegates which went in from the conference in connection with root knot, tho report is ill-founded.

Just to meet the statement that may eomo from some of the Now Zealand nurserymen that they are able to supply all the trees that are required, let me sav that I am advised that one of the Victorian nurserymen's last accounts with a New Zealand .nurseryman was for the season a few pounds short of £1000. and that two Now Zealand nurserymen last year did not take delivery of trees, _ the cost of which amounted to _ £500. and this, remember, at wholesale prices. Would it not then have been a better thing for this dominion that the officers of the Department of Agriculture should handle the subject with knowledge and justice?

Since the department has deoided that it is advisable to prohib't the importation of thoso diseased trees, how can the director justify his decision and vet permit, as he has done since tho gazetting of the prohibition, thousands of Australian trees to land in New Zealand? If t>>"y are diseased, whv permit a diseased article to be distributed? Finally, let mo say to the fruit-growers of Otaero that it is "up.to" them to band toeethor and insist on tho Government at onoe withdrawing the restriction so that the planters of the future may be on a somewhat equal footing with those who have finished planting. I cannot too strongly condemn the members of tli2 Fruit Conference deputation for their action in not lying far-sighted enough to realise that while they probably are in tho fortunate position of not themselves wanting trees, there is still a duty on those who are placed in a position of trust to remember that th«ir own personal interests are not neeessarilv the interests of the ■n'-onle whom th"v r-yn-osont. Tn this particular instance, thev dismally failed to realise, when they took part in the deputntfon. and took the ftand which they did. that they were dealing with a. subieet on whmh they had not received instructions from the Growers, nm.rt aUoge+h°r from the fact that they should have taken a view, a view.'acquired bv studv of thf subiect. in reared" to those who are to plant in future, "WouM they not. I ask. have di'r<-o.tod fhe-'r efforts to HW purpose by trvincr to inrnrov* the mnr'o of the department on ft" - * import-iKon question rather than have kilM 'mportation with such disastrous results?— J am etc., Fred. Otio. Dttxoax.