Manuka Blight

Forest and Bird, Issue 106, 1 November 1952, Page 4

Manuka Blight

A NEWS item which has deeply stirred public opinion in recent months has been that of the deliberate spreading of the so-called “manuka blight” by certain farmers in the North Island. A leading provincial daily paper, quite early in the discussion called it, with prophetic foresight, “an issue which has every prospect of becoming one of the liveliest controversies seen in the country in many years”. Many persons have taken part, from leading scientists downwards. The scientists have not been so definite in their views as others, some of whom, without a full examination of the subject, have confidently put forward strong views in favour of the spread of the blight which may have seemed convincing to the uninitiated, while others again have argued from an intuitive repugnance to the deliberate spreading of disease or to the destruction of beauty. The scientists take the line that much research is needed before a definite pronouncement can be made. They are, however, uniformly against the artificial spreading of the disease in the meantime, and with this the Society definitely concurs, though it agrees that farmers should be given all reasonable help in their work and does not dispute the fact that manuka is a plague on some farms. On the other hand many farmers admit the shelter value of manuka for stock and the benefit accruing from the insect-eating birds which it, in turn, shelters. Protest and Reply In reply to a protest against deliberate infestation, the Society has received an assurance from the Hon. Mr. Holyoake, Minister of Agriculture, that he will consider whether any active steps should be taken to control the spread of the disease when an up-to-date survey, which he has arranged for his officers to undertake, has been completed. He has also told us that an inter-departmental committee which investi-

gated the matter some little time ago considered it to be unwise to foster and distribute manuka blight beyond the range of its spontaneous occurrence. Such urging does not appear to have carried weight with some farmers who are jubilant about their success in spreading the blight with results satisfactory to themselves but, as we consider, dangerous to the country. The Society’s protest was based on four points:— The danger of erosion caused by the disease spreading and killing out manuka on steep slopes. The loss of the “nursery” of regenerating forests. The possibility, based on the known fact that it is not confined to manuka, that it may get out of hand and destroy other trees. The possibility of unforeseen repercussions caused by the deliberate spreading of disease. Native Birds A further argument could have been the danger to native birds. Manuka is a source of food to many insect-eating birds, and indeed the habitat of numbers of them. The destruction of thousands of acres of manuka would spell the doom of further numbers of our native birds, which have already been too far reduced. The Need for Beauty: A still further argument could have been against the destruction of beauty. Those who argue from this basis have a good case. Beauty is an absolute need of man. Crime flourishes in ugly places. Manuka, particularly in flower, is beautiful. It holds a place in the hearts of most New Zealanders, as shown by the remarkable publicity given by the press to a remark by a lady at our Annual General Meeting that manuka is to New Zealand what heather is to Scotland.