BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ CLUBS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 345, 16 August 1930, Page 5

BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ CLUBS

AGRICULTURE IN THE SCHOOLS JUDGES’ OFFICIAL REPORT ON ROOT CROPS WANGANUI-MAIN TRUNK DIVISION The following is the report of the judges and the official list of tho results to be presented at the annual meeting of the executive committee controlling the Clubs in tho Main Trunk Division, and correlating with the Wanganui area. General. Reviewing the work in connection with the Boys’ and Girls’ Agricultural Clubs in the Main Trunk area, it is gratifying to note an increased interest apparent during this, the third year of our participation in a popular movement. While this interest is not altogether general, there has been an all round improvement in the general attention to plots by both competitors and local supervisors. There are, however, competing schools that are disappointing: in some eases the majority failed to complete their work. We cannot but think that, in uch instances, lack of sufficient interest of an active kind on the part of the teachers is the predominating factor contributing towards failure. Cohesion on the part of teachers and committees would greatly facilitate and enhance the value of agricultural education in general. This notwithstanding, the 1930 club work in this area has been eminently successful. For this, our thanks are due to our local honorary secretary, Mr C. F. Dalgety, Kawhatau, Mangaweka, to the local supervisors of each school area, to the committees and farmers and local bodies who materially assisted us, to the teachers, whose interest is so important, to the Wanganui Education Board and the Department of Agriculture who encourage the work and make it possible, finally, to the competitors themselves.

Notes. Between sowing time and final judging 75 plots were lost, the main causes being:—(l) Damage by stock, (2) competitors leaving district, (3) disease or unskilled handling, (4) lack of interest—probably parental, (5) laziness or “no chance of winning.” The relatively large number of plots destroyed by loose stock is matter for comment. Surely, parents will agree that the interest and efforts of their children are worthy of encouragement and protection. In this connection, the plan adopted by some enterprising committees is worth consideration by all:—A suitable area close to the school is ploughed and divided into the requisite number of plots. Thus, all competitors are equally placed as regards soil conditions and access. Further, supervision by local supervisors is much easier and judging is equally facilitated and also is less expensive—an important consideration. Committees are asked to consider the possibilities of adopting this plan at their respective schools. Crops. Mangolds again proved the most popular crop with field carrots next and swedes least so. No doubt swedes will gain in popularity as the movement works north. Number of mangold plots completed—l92B, 39; 1929, 57; 1930, 73. Number of carrot plots completed—l92B, 3; 1929, 8; 1930, 24 Number of swede plots completed—l92B, nil; 1929, nil; 1930, 3. The rapid growth of the movement is thus indicated, the 1930 season showing an increase of nearly 70 per cent, over the previous season. Yields. The influence of a reversed climatic factor is shown in the reduced average yields. This reduction has been apparent in our neighbouring districts and in farm crops in general. Our average yields for this season have included a proportionately large number n f plots from the Raetihi-Ohakune area where conditions are generally thought to be conducive to smaller yields. That the averages, allowing for the climate factor, have been so well maintained, speaks sufficiently for the productivity of this northern end of our district. x Averages of Mangold Yields. 1928 61 tons per acre. 1929 55 tons per acre. 1930 51 tons per acre. Averages of Carrot Yields. 1928 27 tons per acre. 1929 47 tons per acre. 1930 39 tons per acre. Average of Swede Yields. 1930 .. 47 tons per acre. Analyses of Yields. Mangold plots yielding over 100 tons per acre „ 1 Mangold plots yielding over 90 tons per acre .... 3 Mangold plots yielding over 80 tons per acre 6 Mangold plots yielding over 70 tons per acre 12 Mangold plots yielding over 60 tons per acre 24 Mangold plott yielding over 50 tons per acre3s Carrot plots yielding over 60 tons per acre ~~ 2 Carrot plpts yielding over 50 tons per acres Carrot plots yielding over 40 tons per acre „.. 13 Swede plots yielding over 60 tons per acre 1 Highest yield per acre of mangoldslo4 tons 9cwt. Lowest yield per acre of mangolds —ll tons 17cwt. Highest yield per acre of carrots 65 tons 17cwt. Lowest yield per acre of carrots 15 tons Highest yield per acre of swedes 65 tons scwt. Lowest yield per acre of swedes 16 tons Bcwt. The use of fertilizers extra to those supplied to competitors was a factor where heavy yields were obtained. Cultivation. The standard of cultivation again shows much improvement, 64 per cent, of the competitors gaining full marks in this respect. Several competitors presented plots of outstanding merit in this direction. The average of cultivation at the following areas is especially commended:—Bell’s Junction, Ruahine, Mangaonoho (lost only one mark with 17 competitors), Raetihi, Rangataua. Quality of Crops. Although thinning, cultivation, etc., were generally well handled, crops were very varied in quality, very few being worth full marks. No doubt the seed was variable. Record Charts. An improvement is apparent in the record charts of competitors, many submitting work reflecting credit on their training. But many charts were extremely weak and crude efforts. The general average (31.7 marks in 40) should be higher. It is felt that only the teachers can influence this section of the competitions. In marking, due allowances were made for age, standard, etc. Prizes. The Executive Committee provides certificates for successful entrants a* each school. School Committees may, if they so desire, supplement these certificates with small book- prizes. The Executive provides for the usual group prizes, special prizes and two championship cups. The N.Z. Farmers’ Union provides a challenge shield for the school in the Wanganui Education Board whose total competitors secure the highest average of marks under headings—Cultivation and Record.

Conclusion. Without any doubts this work is of great value. Already we note the influence of the competitors , work upon that of their farmer parents. The influence on the competitors themselves will last a life time. The results of good cultivation and skilful handling of crops have evoked comment and discussion of a healthy kind all round. Those many competitors who displayed specimen roots at the Wanganui Winter Show proved, according to the comments of the show judges, that this district can produce winter roots comparing very favourable with those grown in older districts, (Signed) A. G. L. CORK. Wanganui Education Board. T. WALTER LONSDALE, Department of Agriculture. COMPETITION RESULTS, 1929-30. N.Z. Farmers’ Union Challenge Shield: School average for Cultivation and Record. Top schools in Main Trunk Area: 1. Bell’s Junction —. 37.4 in 40 2. Mangaonoho - 36.85 in 40 Note: to be compared with Wanganui and Feilding centres before award made. District Championship Cups. Mangolds—P. Weston, Mangaonoho (runner-up N. Paget, Mangaonoho). Carrots —P. Weston, Mangaonoho (runner-up L. Rowe, Mangaonoho). Swedes—lnsufficient entries. Special prizes. A. Awarded to competitors with highest marks for cultivation and record: Ist. (equal) J. Burrows, Bell’s Junction 40 and 40. Ist. (equal) R. Anderson, Ohutu 40 and 40. B. Awarded to competitor overcoming greatest difficulties: Ist. K. Chittock, Ngamatea, Karioi. C. Commended for excellent cultivation (not necessarily a prize): Ist. (equal). M. Stewart, Rata. Ist (equal). W. Stewart, Rata. 3rd. (equal). A. Illston, Silverhope. 3rd. (equal). H. Thoms, Mangaweka. 3rd. (equal). A. Baldwin, Rangataua. FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUPS. MANGOLDS— Group 1. —Bell’s Junction, Orautoha, Raetihi, Umumuri. Group —Taihape, Pukeokahu, Ohutu. Group 3.—Hunterville, Ohingaiti, Mangaonoho. Group 4.—Mangaweka, Ruahine, Silverhope, Rata. CARROTS— Group I.—Rangataua, Umumuri, Orautoha, Mataroa, Waipuru. Group 2.—Ohingaiti, Otamakapua, Poukiore, Mangaonoho, Silverhope. SWEDES— Group I.—Ngarna.ca. WINNERS OF GROUP PRIZES.

A number of competitors failed to complete and return a record chart. They are thus bythe terms of the competition automatically disqualified, and their names do not appear on the above list of completed competitors’ results.

Entries. Entries Plots at Plots Finally School. Received. February Judging. J'dged. Silverhope .... .... .... 13 12 10 Pukeokahu — — ..... .... .... 1 1 1 Utiku _ ..... ..... «... 3 2 . 1 Putorino — 2 2 Moawhango .... 5 .— — Umumuri .... 10 7 o Mangaonoho ..... 19 17 18 Bell’s Junction 5 5 5 Ohingaiti .... ..... 6 4 3 Mangaweka . —... —... 2 2 2 Bata 12 8 5 Ngamatea ... 7 4 3 Hunterville ~~ .... ...... 11 6 1 Rangataua ... _, .... ..... 11 8 7 Ruahine .—. ..... . 9 7 6 Otamakapua - — .... 9 8 5 Orautoha ..... — 7 7 7 Owhakura 3 Nil Nil Mataroa ....... 3 3 2 Waipuru .... .... ..... 3 1 1 Karewarewa 4 4 Nil Ohutu 9 9 7 Raetihi 6 5 4 Poukiore _ 3 3 3 Taihape ..... — 12 9 5 175 135 100

MANGOLDS— Group 1.— L, Rowles, Orautoha .. .. .. .. — — 1 ?.4,9 1 C. Bayne, Bell's Junction .. M M 114.8 2 J. Burrows, Bell’s Junction ... . 112.9 3 Group 2.R. Gordon, Taihape M ■ * 116.9 1 I. Gordon, Taihape 113.5 2 A Prime, Ohutu .. M . • — —. — 118.3 3 Group 3,**P. Weston, Mangaonoho .. .. .. .. M 138.2 — 1 N. Paget, Mangaonoho -. .. ~ — — — 129.9 2 p Klatt, Mangaonoho 121.8 8 Group 4— A. Illston, Silverhope .. M ... » 128.7 1 N. Illston Silverhope .. .. .. _ — 124.3 2 J. Illston, Silverhope _ — — — 123.8 •• 8 CARROTS— Group 1.G. Sands, Orautoha .. .. .. M , 102.8 1 E. Whale, Rangataua .. .. .. — — — 101.5 2 R. Parkes, Waipuru .. .. — _ — ~ 100.4 8 Group 2.— P. Weston, Mangaonoho — M .. _ 115.9 1 L. Rowe, Mangaonoho .. — .. M M 115.1 2 P. Klatt, Mangaonoho .. .. .. .. «. 101.1 3 SWEDES— Group 1.— ID. Bougen, Ngamatea — — •4 100.6 ** 1 DETAILED RESULTS. MANGOLDS. BELL’S JUNCTION. Name. Weight per Acre. Yield Tons. Cwt. Pointe. Cult. Qua]. Record. Tot*l. Place. C. Bayne 61 14 30.8 40 9 35 114.8 1 J. Burrows .. .. 49 16 24.9 40 8 40 112.9 2 W. Bayne .. .. 60 14 30.8 40 T 34 112.8 3 K. Bayne .. .. 55 5 27.6 40 32 108.6 J. Bayne .. 34 1 17 39 8 34 98. RUAHINE. L. I hompson .. , 49 10 24.7 40 8.5 37 110.2 B. Guthrie .. .. 54 12 27.3 40 9 32 108.3 <> S. Thompson .. 40 10 20.2 40 7.5 39 106.7 3 R. Thompson .. 44 13 22.3 40 7.5 33 102.8 A. Reilly 41 15 20.8 40 9 30 99.8 D. Evans ... .. 18 0 9.0 40 7.5 32 88.5 A Prime .. « OHUTU. 61 14 30.8 40 9.5 33 118.3 1 K. lorry .. .. 33 14 19.3 40 8.5 85 102.8 2 R- Anderson .. 18 6 9 1 40 7.5 40 96.6 3 F. O'Keefe .. .. 28 18 14.4 39 7.5 32 92.9 R. Deadman .. 27 6 13.6 40 8 30 91.6 0. Clinton .. M 26 0 13 34 7.5 32 86.5 R. Gordon .. M TAIHAPE. - .. 73 18 36.9 40 9 81 116.9 1 I. Gordon .. .. 68 2 34 40 8.5 31 113.5 •> K. Jurgen .. .. 54 12 27.3 40 9 29 105.3 3 D. Baird .. M - - 53 7 26.7 36 9 29 100.7 RATA. R. Harvey .. .. - 70 14 35.3 38 9 30 112.3 1 W. Stewart .. .. > 48 4 24.1 40 7.5 35 106.6 2 J, Sinclair .. .. 45 9 22.7 39 8 31 100.7 8 M. Stewart ... .. 40 7.5 30 98.3 HUNTERVILLE. S. Partridge 36 19 18.5 85 7.5 29 90 1 A. Illston .. — SILVERHOPE. ~ .. .. .. .. 93 10 46.7 40 10 32 128.7 1 N. Illston .. 40 9 35 124.3 2 J. Illston .. . (40 >/ 4 ) - - 83 14 41.8 40 9 33 128.8 3 (41%) F. Bartlett M M 40 q 35 118.3 J. Verry ...... .. ... 81 8 30.7 37 9.5 35 112.3 M. Bartlett .. „ 56 5 28.1 39 7 34 108.1 R. Bartlett .. M M M .. .. 50 15 25.3 38 9 35 107.8 N. Gilbert .. M . PUKEOKAHU. 89 4 19.6 40 8 33 100.6 1 L. Stent OHINGAITI. . - .. .. 32 2 16 39 7.5 81 93.5 I MANGAWEKA. M. toms w 72 0 36 40 9 34 119 L. McNeil .. „ ■ 48 4 24.1 40 9 31 104.1 2 UMUMURI. C. J. McManamin ........... 33 11 16.7 40 9 34 99.7 I T. Hammond .. . . 36 0 18 38 8.5 28 92.5 A, Hammond .. r. 27 13 13.6 38 8 28 87.6 '3 G. Hammond .. ...... ... .. 19 5 9.6 36 6.5 27 79.1 MANGAONOHO. P. Weston .. .. .......... 104 9 52.2 40 10 36 138.2 1 N. Paget 94 16 47.440 9.5 33 129.9 2 P, Klatt .. ►. ., 78 15 39.3 40 9.5 33 121.8 3 L. Rowe .. .. .. .. . 67 10 33.7 40 9 36 118.7 J. Bartlett .. .. .. .■ 69 2 34.5 40 9 34 117.5 D. Rowe ...... 69 2 34.5 40 9 83 116 5 M. Morrison . ......... r . 53 0 26.5 40 9 39 114.5 F. Powell .. M .. - 57 17 28.9 40 8.5 8 36 113.4 G. Hardie .. _. .. — — .. 46 12 23.3 40 34 105.3 J. Hardie .. M . .. 47 8 23.7 40 8 33 104.7 L. Milton .. 41 19 20.9 40 8 34 102.9 R. Stent 43 14 218 40 8.5 31 101.3 A. Milton .. « ~ — .. 33 18 16.9 40 7.5 81 95.4 RAETIHI. S. Mabbott .. M .. 54 12 27.3 40 9.5 28 104.8 1 W. Mabbott .. — .......... 48 4 24.1 40 9.5 28 101.6 2 E. Davis . . .. ... - .. .. 32 9 16.2 40 9 30 95.2 3 K. Reiper ... M .......... 28 18 14.4 40 8 29 91.4 ORAUTOHA. L. Rowles .. M . - « .. - 83 11 41.7 40 9.5 38 124.2 1 H. Meyer .. - 70 14 35.3 35 9.5 30 109.8 2 V. Meyer ........ 67 10 33 7 85 10 80 108.7 3 R. Meyer .. ., 61 7 30.6 35 9.5 32 107.1 W. McNie .... .. 35 7 17.6 40 7.5 27 92.1 CARROTS. UMUMURI. B. Murray .. . 16 7 8.8 40 5 32 85.1 1 OHINGAITI. J.- Stent .. .. .. ...... 32 2 16 39 9 83 97 1 M. Hammond ... 28 18 14.4 28 8 80 80.4 RANGATAUA E. Whale 45 0 22.5 40 10 29 101.5 V. Whale ...... 41 15 20.8 40 9 29 98.8 2 W. Cunningham 48 4 24.1 40 9 24 97.1 3 A. Baldwin .. . 28 18 14.4 40 9 30 93.4 F. Reynolds .. . 28 5 14.1 40 9 30 93.1 J. Kershaw .. . 15 0 7.5 40 5 29 81.5 W. Johnson .. . 39 5 29 68 G. Sands .. .. , ORAUTOHA. 45 12 22.8 40 10 SO 102.8 1 MATAROA. R. Garmonsway .. .. - 42 2 21 40 9 80 100 1 WAIPURU. R. Parkes .... ...... 47 18 23.9 38 8.5 SO 100.4 1 G. Gilligan M .. OTAMAKAPUA. - - -. ~ .. 41 6 20.6 89 9 84 102.6 1 POUKIORE. B. Dewar .. .. 43 1 21.5 40 8 32 101.5 1 J. Coleman .. . >. .. 50 15 26.3 37 8 31 101.3 2 W. Patera w w .......... “• 12 18.8 38 9 29 94.8

K. Gibb® - « w - - - - SILVERHOPE. 19 18 9.9 84 6 84 83.9 1 P. Western w ~ — P* Klatt - - ... MANGAONOHO. 65 17 32.9 64 5 32.1 58 7 29.1 52 4 26.1 40 40 39 40 10 10 9 9 83 33 83 32 115,9 115.1 110.1 107.1 2 8 SWEDES. NGAMA/TEA. 65 5 32.6 40 8 20 100.6 1 K. Chittock ...«*• P. Kennedy .. 58 16 29.3 16 8 8.2 <0 30 8 5.5 19 100.3 62.7 2