Early Approach to Scientific Agriculture 1892-1913
By the 1890s, there was in New Zealand, and elsewhere, a growing interest in applied research in agriculture, combined with an increasing awareness of the magnitude of some of the problems facing farmers, and the almost complete absence of people with the qualifications to tackle them. Amateur naturalists had published papers recording their observations of plants, plant diseases and insect pests, but they were unable to proceed beyond the recording stage. Horticulture was the sphere where the needs were most obvious, with the depredations of the codlin moth, the spread of fruit tree blights which led among other things to the virtual destruction of the wild peach trees that had earlier been established in so many parts of the North Island, and the spread of phylloxera. Some people expected that the setting up of the Department in 1892 would lead to more rapid progress being made as a consequence of qualified people being assembled who would be able to co-ordinate their efforts.
Before 1892, letters to Government asking for advice on agricultural matters were referred to the Geological Survey, where they were dealt with by T W Kirk (W Pember Reeves 1902). Kirk would then confer with Maskell, the University of NZ Registrar and a Post Office staff member, Hudson. All that really happened after 1892 was that Kirk moved across to the new Department with really no more in the way of staff resources. No doubt his consultations with Maskell and Hudson continued, as there were no other people to help. Neither John McKenzie (Minister of Agriculture 1892-1900) nor Richard John Seddon (Prime Minister 1893-1906) had taken any interest in science before they took office and not a great deal after. Experts were recruited to create departmental veterinary services and quality control programmes for the dairy industry, but no one to undertake a purely research function. McKenzie may have considered the setting of the Government’s first experimental farm as providing adequate proof of the Government’s commitment to research.
The only group within the Department in the 1890s, with the ability to undertake scientific research were the veterinarians led by Gilruth. At that time, they enjoyed a special advantage being conscious of "...the great possibilities for research and investigation which contact with the new born science of bacteriology had opened...". This statement was part of the Australian Veterinary Journal’s obituary notice for Gilruth in June 1937. Scientists tend to work in compartments, and the veterinarians seemed to separate themselves from the biologists, chemists and other workers who made up the scientific establishment. It is interesting to note that in Sir Charles Fleming’s history of the Royal Society in NZ there is no mention of Gilruth, nor of any other veterinarian. They did not appear to belong to the Royal Society or its predecessor.
For a decade, animal health laboratory work was carried on under makeshift conditions, but at least, in June 1905, a diagnostic laboratory opened at Wallaceville, the first specialised facility within the Department. Scientific work was, of course, an adjunct to the operation of animal health programmes, and no clear cut distinction could be drawn between research and diagnostic work. So little was in fact known about the range and magnitude of animal health problems that practically every unusual case reported to the Department involved an investigation to determine its origin and how widespread the condition might be. Probably the most interesting piece of research tackled by the veterinary team and one that was carried on for over thirty years was that into "bush sickness".
Early investigations into bush sickness: From the late 1880s reports began appearing in newspapers about what was described as "Tauranga disease" — stock on newly grassed land in the Bay of Plenty area wasting away though feed supplies appeared to be ample. The Stock Department’s part-time veterinarian, John McClean, was reported in November 1891 as attributing "Tauranga disease" to mal-nourishment, something which must have been fairly obvious. Two years later, in 1893, Edmund Clifton in his report on stock in the Auckland district declared that no serious disease affected sheep in his area except the "Tauranga disease" which led to heavy losses (AJHR 1893). He went on to say that "further investigation into the cause of this mortality among their sheep is anxiously expected by the farmers in that district and it must be recognised that this mortality has stopped all progress and settlement for their land cannot be brought into useful occupation except through sheep". Sheep farming around Tauranga must have largely been abandoned in the 1890s and attention shifted inland to the country between Rotorua and Putaruru.
By 1897, Park was commenting that the "bush" disease was confined to the Rotorua district, appearing to be most serious on newly developed land, but tending to disappear on pastures established five years or more (AJHR 1897). The first elaborate investigation was made by Gilruth and a newly arrived colleague, Clayton, in 1899 and 1900. Sheep grazing an affected area close to the Mamaku bush, on land belonging to the Thames Valley Land Company, were divided into two mobs. One was sent to Wairenga where they were placed in a small paddock from which all vegetation was removed. Supplies of feed were railed three times a week from the Mamaku area. The other mob was placed in a paddock in the latter area in which feed supplies were more than adequate. Despite the poor quality of the feed sent to Wairenga — mainly Yorkshire fog — the sheep there did not lose condition whereas after three months a number of those in the Mamaku paddock were dead with the remainder very weak and emaciated. By 1900, those farming on affected land moved their stock out of the district every year. Gilruth concluded that experiments over several years would be needed if progress were to be made, and a fairly large area might be made available by the Land Company to carry out such work. A postscript to his report lists some soil and water samples analysed by the newly appointed chemist, Bruce Aston (AJHR 1900).
During the debate on the Department’s estimates in 1899, William Herries stressed the need for work on "bush disease" and Robert Thompson, the MP for Marsden pointed out that the sale of Crown land in the affected areas had come to a complete halt (Parliamentary Debates, 1899). Clifton returned to the subject in 1904, when he stated that settlement of the central plateau began after 1870, but stock losses soon became severe. He went on to say that, "since 1889, the number of persons who have propounded theories of the causes of this mortality, who have proffered specifics and panaceas, is legion" (AJHR 1904).
After 1900, work proceeded fairly slowly with attention being devoted to the possibility of injurious substances being present in the feed or water. Experimental areas were established at Litchfield in 1910, and at Mamaku in 1912. Aston started work in 1904 on the mineral content of livers of both affected and healthy animals. Even if the results were inconclusive, the possibility of mineral deficiency being the causal factor became more and more likely. Iron deficiency was seen as the culprit and this state of affairs could be corrected either by incorporating various forms of iron in top-dressing mixtures or in stock licks. Iron in fertiliser produced uneven results, though heavy applications of phosphate pointed the way to the later development of pumice country. The stock licks brought a limited measure of success though up to 1914 little more could be claimed.
Though Reakes continued to be associated with the experimental work at Mamaku, enthusiasm for research amongst the Department’s veterinarians seemed to wane after Gilruth’s departure in 1908. As Reakes wrote in the 1913 annual report of the bush sickness work at Wallaceville, ".....no special original investigations were undertaken" (AJHR 1913).
The Biology and Horticulture (Orchards and Gardens) Division 1892-1914: During its first decade the Biology and Horticulture Division staff had done a lot of work identifying plant diseases, insect pests and weeds, but nothing that could be classed as research, i.e., constructing a hypothesis and testing it by a series of experiments. Cockayne joined the Division in 1901 and assisted with these activities devoting a lot of attention to seed testing. It was well known that the spread of weeds such as ragwort were largely a consequence of the sale of contaminated seed.
But an indication of where Cockayne’s interests would be directed is contained in the 1909 annual report (AJHR 1909). Kirk stated that "an important feature of agricultural botany that has been much neglected in New Zealand is an accurate botanical examination of the various classes of pasture that comprise the lands of the Dominion. The constituents of our various pastures vary greatly in different localities and until an accurate botanical survey of them has been made it will be next to impossible to give any reliable information on the many complex problems that confront the farmer in the laying down and care of grasslands". Kirk also drew attention to the apparent deterioration of pastures in many parts of the country, something with which Clifton was also concerned. As a first step, Cockayne made a survey of the pastures at the Weraroa and Moumahaki farms and this may be regarded as an early step in his study of pasture ecology. This indeed may also have been one of the few projects undertaken at the experimental farms that had any long term significance.
The history of these farms is instructive as they provide an example of institutions being created before the problems they were supposed to deal with were properly identified, an unwillingness to recognise the need for qualified people to undertake research combined with a reluctance to provide the resources needed to carry out any serious investigational work. What is surprising is the time that elapsed before their deficiencies were accepted!
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
