Delayed Return From Run Improvement

Press, Issue 31095, 25 June 1966, Page 8

Delayed Return From Run Improvement

During this week’s conference of South Island high country sub-sections of Federated Farmers at Timaru the point was strongly made that investment in run improvement earns no early profit and that for some time the runholder may have a fairly difficult row to hoe.

The chairman of the South Island high country committee, Mr P. C. Ensor, said that Dr. K. F. O’Connor, of the Grasslands Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in making a comprehensive survey of pastoral potential of the Mackenzie basin, had produced figures for future production which would rather stagger the layman. Mr Ensor said he believed they were worthy of most serious thought as they were probably technically correct in the light of present knowledge, and in principle they were applicable to much of the high country, according to climate and the proportion of country that was able to be developed. But, Mr Ensor said, such figures had to be translated into practical possibilities, and here Dr; O’Connor had himself stated that to reach his full projection would take 10

years, given the full resources of the State in money, material and manpower, and even then it would take 13 years before income would equal expenditure. It became obvious that the practical realisation of such development was long term where the individual had to find the capital, material and manpower, and at the same time provide a reasonable standard of living for his family and himself. Services providing the correct technical advice and

knowledge had also to be expanded. Rightly or wrongly, Mr Ensor said, the over-all concept of conservation in the high country was establishing itself on a fairly simple basis —the removal of stock from all class VIII and most of

class VII land, and supplying alternative grazing through more intensive use of land easier to Improve.

The withdrawal of land from grazing could be described as a negative approach, in so far as it was only assumed that certain things would happen which did not happen even under careful and controlled grazing. The second step could be described as positive in so far as it was known that by doing certain things the ground cover could be improved. It was some aspects of the implementation of this policy which, he believed, were open to criticism. The scene was now moving

into the real high country where the scale of operation

was generally larger and the proportion of class VII and VIII land to other classes was much higher. This meant, in effect, that the cost of development would be high. In this change over from a comparatively low cost structure to a relatively high one the utmost care had to be taken by conservation authorities that their proposals were financially sound and practical —not only must the capital and development costs be reasonable but above all the future maintenance costs must also be so.

“I see no reason to believe that over capitalisation and high costs, combined with even a mild period of low prices, would not be just about as bad for the high country in the future as it was in the past,” commented Mr Ensor.

“In short, nothing but the very best in the way of conservation run planning should be good enough for the high

country. It has been suggested to me, and my own observations tend to confirm this, that in the minds of some the implementation of a conservation run plan is of more consequence than the quality of the plan itself. In saying this I am in no way suggesting that any individuals or authorities are pursuing this as a policy, but rather that it is a state oi mind that could exist and grow to the detriment of legitimate conservation and the expenditure of much unnecessary public money.”