THE CONTROL OF WEEDS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1716, 5 April 1913, Page 8

THE CONTROL OF WEEDS.

I • ADDRESS BY GOVERNMENT 1 , BIOLOGIST. During- the courso of aa address Wore uto.Ekelalimia I'\arjnors > Union recently, Mr. A. H. Cockayne, Government Biologist, stressed the importance of using the purest tecds for laying down pastures. It was, he said, a bad proposition to buy cheap seed. Cheap ssed was always the most expensive in the long run. According to the local report, Mr. Cockayne said that a* good manj- farmers argued that it did not pay to give particular attention to eradication of weeds. This was Quito an erroneous impression. Land worth ,£1 per aero and containing ten per cent, of weeds was "worth <£1 2s. 2d. it no weeds were present, or land worth «£GI with tho absßnco of ten per cent, of weeds was worth £71 18s. Bd. The cheaper the land the less chance there was of carrj'ing out weed control work at a profit unless -tho percentage of weeds wero large. On expensive land, even when the percentago of weeds was small, tho cost of weed control was likely to prove t a profitable proposition'. On land valued at <£48 per acre, the eradication of 10 per cent, weeds would increase,its vaiuo by c£s 13s. 2d., and thus this amount per) aero could bo expended without actually incurring any expense at all. In tho caso of cheap land, say, worth £2 per acre, and covered with GO per cent, of tawhine,- an expenditure of J-3 per acre would be fully covered by tho increased area capable of growing stock food. In in any cases, however, a . greater expenditure in controlling weeds was justified than could be recovered immediately in an increased area capable Cf growing grass. This occurred in cases where the weed or weeds were of an aggressivo nature, and if left unchecked spread rapidly, aud in timo seriously reduced the pasture. In such cases an expenditure equal to the amount by which the pastures would be deteriorated by the uninterrupted spread of these weeds could be looked upon as a legitimate and profitable expenditure. Thus land if freo from weeds was worth only JJ27 if it contained 10 per cent, of useless laud, and the appearance of a .weed likely to cause this amount, of damage could havo <£3. per acre speat on its eradication with profit. Ho computed these figures on the earning capacity of the land and not on its speculative value. In dealing with weeds, farmers should not look upon tho worlc as more or less valueless or merely as a means of avoiding conflict with the law, but rather as a profitable investment. It should be, remembered that the loss due to weeds in a pasture should really be calculated at compound interest. -Putting the earning capacity at 6. per cent. -on land valued at ,£9 and containing 10 per cent, of useless weeds, «£2 was lost in every twelve years, and so on as tho value of the land increased. On land worth JJJS per acre and containing i.O per cent, of weeds, the loss would bo .£9 in twelvo years/or ,£72 in 48 years, lie quoted these figures to give a small idea oi the lossss which could be sustained .through weeds, a loss which was often condoned by the statement that it 'did not pay to attempt to control weeds, lie had endeavoured to show that the losses were so great that a really, considerable expenditure was not only justified but necessary in order that the farmer might increase the percentago of-returns from the money invested in his land.