TO SAFEGUARD BUYERS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 56, Issue 4064, 24 June 1938, Page 5

TO SAFEGUARD BUYERS

RAGWORT POISONING. ISSUING OF CERTIFICATES. What is considered an important step towards safeguarding the farmer in the purchase of stock was made at Ngaruawahia on Wednesday when a conference of Waikato and South Auckland county representatives approved of a proposal to empower county noxious w°eds inspectors to issue certificates to occupiers of land free from ragwort and recommended county councils to adopt the scheme. Mr H. W. Wilson, chairman of the Raglan Countv Council, presided over the meeting, which was attended by representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Mr N. S. Johnson, solicitor to the Raglan County Council. Mr Wilson said the position regarding the bu”ing of sheep was often a matter of “pot luck” and the purchaser had no safeguard against acquiring sheep which he believed to be free from ragwort poisoning but which subsequently became affected. Mr Wilson outlined the details of the certificate which the Raglan County was recommending. It was not the man with clean country who was chiefly concerned but the buyer who received sheep from dirty country. “BRISTLES WITH DIFFICUL-

“The question which we are tackling is one which bristles with side issues,” remarked Mr W. Bluck (Oto-rohang-a). In the Otorohanga County, where ragwort was bad, the only hope of control was with sheep and the supervision of farms under the certificate scheme was going to be a big job.

Mr Wilson said he realised that it would be a hardship to mep who had used sheep for crushing ragwort to have them adversely certified when they were sold, but the man who bought them was infinitely worse off if there was no guarantee against ragwort poisoning.

Mr S. C. B. Macky (Waipa) held that it would be quite impossible for the stock inspectors to keep track of all stock, so he advocated a personal guarantee from the vendor in place of the inspector’s certificate. Waipa was a clearing ground for dirty sheep and for that reason the position was much more difficult there. He thought that the co-operation of the auctioneers would be necessary. Mr E. A. McKinley, Government stock inspector, considered that the guarantees given at saleyards were practically worthless. He suggested that closer co-operation between buyers and sellers was essential if the position regarding the trading of stock was to be put on a satisfactory footing. Mr E. F. Peacocke (Waipa) considered there would be a considerable difference of opinion among inspectors as to what constituted a clean property If a farmer had been running two to two and a-half sheep per acre on a property for a number of years and was still doing it he was sure it would be safe to buy sheep from that property as free from ragwort infection. COST OF SCHEME. The question of the cost of operating a certificate scheme was raised by Mr Bluck, who said it would be a costly business for inspectors to travel round the counties inspecting farms. Mr McKinley suggested an over-all guarantee as there would then be no argument in determining the cause of losses. Mr F. C. Johnstone (Raglan), held that a guarantee of this nature should be obtained through the auctioneers, but it might be necessary to go as far as the Department of Agriculture. Mr Peacocke suggested that it would not be fair to allow inspections to be made during the winter as many farms appeared practically clean in the winter but were substantially affected in succeeding months. On this aspect of the matter, Mr G. M. Wall, inspector to the Waipa County, considered a guarantee could not be given to extend further than three months. A GENERAL GUARANTEE. “I realise it is absolutely impossible to get any watertight scheme,” said Mr N. S. Johnson, , who stated that the issuing of certificates would give farmers an incentive to clean up ragwort-infected property. If an over-all guarantee were enforced he recommended that it apply to all classes of stock. “It is a question as to how far the certificate will be effective but it is a step in the right direction,” he said. As regards the question of inspectors having different ideas as to what constituted a clean property, Mr Johnson said that the position was not materially different from that in respect of other certificates, such as driving licenses. It was well known that traffic inspectors accepted varying standards of efficiency, but, as a whole, the examination system worked out satisfactorily.

It was decided that a committee consisting of the chairman of the counties concerned and Messrs H. Cleland and McKinley, officers of the Stock Department, interview the auctioneering firms regarding a general guarantee. i