"05427079-dbab-4a87-b73d-043ba0a804a8"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952"@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198"@en . "Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia. Legislative Assembly"@en . "2017-06-05"@en . "[1953]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0348182/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nDepartment of Agriculture\nFORTY-SEVENTH\nANNUAL REPORT\n1952\nVICTORIA, B.C.\nPrinted by Don McDiarmid, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty\n1953 To His Honour Colonel Clarence Wallace, C.B.E.,\nLieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia.\nMay it please Your Honour:\nI have the honour to submit herewith for your consideration the Annual Report of\nthe Department of Agriculture for the year 1952.\nW. K. KIERNAN,\nMinister of Agriculture.\nDepartment of Agriculture,\nVictoria, B.C., February 3rd, 1953. Hon. W. K. Kiernan, Minister of Agriculture. BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\nDEPARTMENTAL STAFF, 1952\nMinister of Agriculture:\nHonourable W. K. Kiernan.\nMinister's Secretary:\nMiss P. Hetherington.\nDeputy Minister:\n*W. H. Robertson, B.S.A.\nAdministrative:\nMiss A. E. Hill, Departmental Secretary, Victoria, B.C.\nN. L. Camsusa, Chief Accountant, Victoria, B.C.\nJ. S. Wells, Assistant Accountant, Victoria, B.C.\nT. T. Vaulkhard, Clerk, Accounts Branch, Victoria, B.C.\nA. J. Hourston, General Assistant, Victoria, B.C.\nJ. A. McDiarmid, Clerk, Publications Branch, Victoria, B.C.\nStatistics:\nG. H. Stewart, Statistician, Victoria, B.C.\nMarkets:\n*M. M. Gilchrist, B.S.A., Markets Commissioner, Victoria, B.C.\nHorticulture:\n*Ben Hoy, B.S.A., Provincial Horticulturist, Victoria, B.C.\n*G. E. W. Clarke, B.S.A., Supervising Horticulturist, Abbotsford, B.C.\n*R. P. Murray, B.S.A., Supervising Horticulturist, Kelowna, B.C.\n*Alan E. Littler, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Victoria, B.C.\n*W. D. Christie, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Abbotsford, B.C.\n*R. M. Wilson, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Kamloops, B.C.\n*I. C. Carne, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Salmon Arm, B.C.\nW. T. Baverstock, District Horticulturist, Vernon, B.C.\n*J. A. Smith, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Kelowna, B.C.\n*A. W. Watt, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, West Summerland, B.C.\n*D. A. Allan, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Oliver, B.C.\n*M. P. D. Trumpour, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Penticton, B.C.\n*J. E. Swales, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Nelson, B.C.\n*G. R. Thorpe, B.S.A., District Horticulturist, Creston, B.C.\n*W. F. Morton, B.S.A., Assistant District Horticulturist, Kelowna, B.C.\n*M. G. Oswell, B.S.A., Assistant District Horticulturist, Vernon, B.C.\n*A. C. Carter, B.S.A., Assistant District Horticulturist, Penticton, B.C.\n*J. L. Webster, B.S.A., Horticulturist, 635 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C.\nApiary:\nI. Corner, Provincial Apiarist, Court-house, Vernon, B.C.\nV. E. Thorgeirson, Apiary Inspector, R.R. 6, New Westminster, B.C.\nPlant Pathology:\n*W. R. Foster, M.Sc, Plant Pathologist, Victoria, B.C.\n*I. C. MacSwan, B.S.A., Assistant Plant Pathologist, Vancouver, B.C.\nEntomology:\nC. L. Neilson, B.S.A., Provincial Entomologist, Vernon, B.C.\n* Member of the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists.\n7 CC 8\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nLive Stock:\n*W. R. Gunn, B.S.A., B.V.Sc, V.S., Live Stock Commissioner and Chief Veterinary\nInspector, Victoria, B.C.\n*F. C. Clark, M.S.A., Live Stock Inspector, New Westminster, B.C.\nThomas Moore, Recorder of Animal Brands, Victoria, B.C.\nA. J. Duck, Brand Inspector, Kamloops, B.C.\nT. J. Batten, Brand Inspector, Nicola, B.C.\nJ. M. G. Smith, Brand Inspector, Williams Lake, B.C.\nR. J. Weir, Clerk, Live Stock Branch, Victoria, B.C.\nP. G. Lawrence, Brand Inspector, Victoria, B.C.\nJohn C. Bankier, B.V.Sc, Veterinary Inspector and Animal Pathologist, Vancouver, B.C.\nJ. J. Carney, M.R.S.L., Veterinary Inspector, Nelson, B.C.\nG. M. Clark, B.V.Sc, V.S., Veterinary Inspector, Kamloops, B.C.\nI. D. C. Clarke, D.V.M., Veterinary Inspector, Penticton, B.C.\nA. Kidd, D.V.M., D.V.P.H., Veterinary Inspector, New Westminster, B.C.\nC. F. Morris, D.V.M., Veterinary Inspector, New Westminster, B.C.\nR. L. Lancaster, V.S., D.V.M., Veterinary Inspector, Nelson, B.C.\nA. S. Clerke, V.S., D.V.M., Veterinary Inspector, Victoria, B.C.\nJohn G. Fowler, D.V.M., V.S., Veterinary Inspector, Prince George, B.C.\nG. H. Thornbery, Supervisor, Cow-testing Associations, Victoria, B.C.\nJ. A. Mace, Inspector, Cow-testing Associations, Victoria, B.C.\nDairy:\n*F. C. Wasson, M.S.A., Dairy Commissioner, Victoria, B.C.\n*G. Patchett, Dairy Inspector, Victoria, B.C.\n*N. H. Ingledew, B.S.A., M.S.A., Dairy Inspector, Nelson, B.C.\n*G. D. Johnson, Dairy Inspector, Kelowna, B.C.\n*H. Riehl, B.S.A., Dairy Inspector, Vancouver, B.C.\n*K. G. Savage, M.S.A., Dairy Inspector, Vancouver, B.C.\n*D. D. Wilson, B.S.A., Dairy Inspector, Victoria, B.C.\nPoultry:\n*G. L. Landon, B.S.A., Poultry Commissioner, New Westminster, B.C.\n*W. H. Pope, Poultry Inspector, Victoria, B.C.\n*R. H. McMillan, B.S.A., Poultry Inspector, New Westminster, B.C.\n*H. C. Gasperdone, B.S.A., Poultry Inspector, Court-house, Vernon, B.C.\nField Crops:\n*N. F. Putnam, M.Sc, Field Crops Commissioner, Victoria, B.C.\n*C. H. Nelson, B.S.A., Assistant Field Crops Commissioner, Victoria, B.C.\n*E. C. Hughes, B.S.A., Assistant in Field Crops, New Westminster, B.C.\nFarmers' Institutes:\nL. W. Johnson, Superintendent of Farmers' Institutes, Victoria, B.C.\nWomen's Institutes:\nMrs. Stella E. Gummow, Superintendent of Women's Institutes, Victoria, B.C.\nSoil Survey:\n*C. C. Kelley, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor, Kelowna, B.C.\n*R. G. Garry, B.S.A., Assistant Soil Surveyor, Kelowna, B.C.\n*J. D. Lindsay, B.S.A., Assistant Soil Surveyor, Kelowna, B.C.\n*P. N. Sprout, B.S.A., Assistant Soil Surveyor, Kelowna, B.C.\n*W. D. Holland, B.Sc, Assistant Soil Surveyor, Kelowna, B.C.\nAgricultural Development and Extension:\n*William MacGillivray, Director, Victoria, B.C.\n*G. A. Luyat, B.S.A., Supervising Agriculturist, Kamloops, B.C.\n*S. G. Preston, M.S.A., Supervising Agriculturist, Prince George, B.C.\n*J. S. Allin, B.S.A., Supervising Agriculturist, Victoria, B.C.\n*J. D. Hazlette, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Duncan, B.C.\n(Vacancy), Courtenay, B.C.\n*A. E. Donald, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, New Westminster, B.C.\nMember of the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 9\nAgricultural Development and Extension\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued\n*A. J. Allan, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Box 498, Mission, B.C.\n*Frank Martin, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Drawer 250, Abbotsford, B.C.\n*George Cruickshank, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Chilliwack, B.C.\n*U. J. G. Guichon, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Kamloops, B.C.\n*G. A. Muirhead, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Salmon Arm, B.C.\n*R. S. Berry, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Court-house, Vernon, B.C.\n*M. J. Walsh, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Williams Lake, B.C.\n*J. V. Zacharias, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Prince George, B.C.\n*A. R. Tarves, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Quesnel, B.C.\n*K. R. Jameson, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Smithers, B.C.\n*R. W. Brown, B.Sc, District Agriculturist, Fort St. John, B.C.\n*A. M. Johnson, B.Sc, District Agriculturist, Dawson Creek, B.C.\n*J. F. Carmichael, M.Sc, District Agriculturist, Grand Forks, B.C.\n*H. R. Anderson, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Nelson, B.C.\n*J. W. Awmack, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Cranbrook, B.C.\n*S. B. Peterson, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Creston, B.C.\n*J. A. Pelter, B.S.A., District Agriculturist, Vanderhoof, B.C.\n*D. M. Hamilton, B.S.A., Associate District Agriculturist, New Westminster, B.C.\n*T. S. Crack, Associate District Agriculturist, Courtenay, B.C.\n*J. C. Ryder, B.S.A., Assistant District Agriculturist, Victoria, B.C.\n*P. E. Ewert, B.S.A., Assistant District Agriculturist, Kamloops, B.C.\n*Miss E. L. R. Lidster, B.S.A., Supervisor, 4-H Clubs, Victoria, B.C.\n*G. L. Calver, B.A.Sc, Extension Agricultural Engineer, Victoria, B.C.\n*A. D. McMechan, B.A.Sc, Assistant Extension Agricultural Engineer, Victoria, B.C.\nJ. R. Caverhill, B.A.Sc, Assistant Director, Land-clearing Division, Vancouver, B.C.\nW. G. Reed, Mechanical Superintendent, Land-clearing Division, Vancouver, B.C.\nH. Barber, Accounts, Land-clearing Division, Vancouver, B.C.\n* Member of the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists. TABLE OF CONTENTS\nReport of Deputy Minister-\nReport of Statistician\t\nReport of Markets Branch\t\nReport of Horticultural Branch\t\nReport of Apiary Branch\t\nReport of Plant Pathology Branch-\nReport of Provincial Entomologist.\nReport of Dairy Branch\t\nReport of Poultry Branch\t\nReport of Live Stock Branch\t\nReport of Field Crops Branch\t\nReport of Farmers' Institutes\t\nReport of Women's Institutes\t\nReport of Soil Survey Branch\t\nReport of Agricultural Development and Extension Branch\nAppendices\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNo. 1. Inspected Slaughterings of Live Stock\t\nNo. 2. Beef Carcasses Graded in British Columbia, December 1st, 1951, to\nNovember 30th, 1952\t\nNo. 3. Average Prices for Cattle\t\nNo. 4. Average Prices for Lambs\t\nNo. 5. Average Prices for Hogs\t\nNo. 6. Dairy Herds and Premises Inspected and Graded under the '\nPage\n15\n16\n23\n28\n53\n56\n61\n68\n75\n83\n109\n120\n125\n132\n144\n184\n185\n186\n186\n187\nMilk Act\"\nand Cattle Tuberculosis-tested 188\nNo. 7. Provincial Cow-testing Associations 189\nNo. 8. List of Licensees 190\nNo. 9. Cattle and Hide Shipments, 1952 193\nNo. 10. Lime Products Used for Soil-amendment Purposes 194\nNo. 11. Summary of Movement of Grain Screenings from British Columbia\nElevators 195\n11 UJ\ntr\nIs\nO CD\na:\n<\no\no\no \u00C2\u00A3!\n<\nNl\nH\nX\n<\n2\n(/)\no\nUJ\nH\no\ntt_\nm\n<\nQ-\nUJ\nQ\ncc\nUJ\nt-\noc\n(0\nUJ\nz\n1-\n(0\n7\nz\nJ-\ns\nQ.\nUJ\nD\nOT\nI-I\nZo\n_D\no<\nok\num\n<\nUJ u.\nzu.\nmo\n(9\n\u00C2\u00A3x\nIjO\n2m\ncn\n2x\nHO\nCOZ\nf=<\nI-CO\ntn\n< 1 ,\nm\nw x\n__> o\nS i\u00E2\u0080\u0094'\nz\n<\nE z\n< <\no ce\nm\n\u00C2\u00A35\no m\nQ.\n(0\n\u00C2\u00B0-X\ngf\n\u00C2\u00B0<\n3S\nUJ\nUJ\n8j*\n^5\n32\nfe-\no\nX\nz\no\n(0\nz\nUJ\n1-\nX\nUIX\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2s\nl-<\n^GC\n-co\n\u00C2\u00A3L\n '\no\n-1\n(J\n>\nUJ\no\nI-\no\nUJ\na. x\na) o\noc\n<\na.\n<\no\n\u00C2\u00B0.x\nJO\noz\n_\u00C2\u00A3<\nj-m\nz\nUJ\nII\nQ-l-\nUJ3\noei-\n< CO\n>-\nUJ\ns\no\na. <\n<\n13 Report of the Department of Agriculture\nREPORT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE\nThe Honourable W. K. Kiernan,\nMinister of Agriculture, Victoria, B.C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094I have the honour to submit herewith the Forty-seventh Report of the Department of Agriculture for the year ended December 31st, 1952.\nThe Report, as submitted, contains a detailed review of each of the branches constituting your Department. Items not dealt with in the reports as mentioned are as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nSTAFF CHANGES\nAppointments.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Miss H. B. Arthur, March 21st; Dr. A. S. Clerke, June 17th;\nMiss B. M. Coles, March 24th; E. D. Daum, September 22nd; Miss M. A. Davidson,\nJune 11th; P. E. Ewert, May 22nd; Mrs. S. M. Glassford, September 23rd; Miss S. J.\nKing, June 10th; P. G. Lawrence, April 1st; Frank Martin, May 17th; Miss B. E.\nMotherwell, April 23rd; A. D. McMechan, April 28th; J. C. Ryder, May 17th; Miss\nM. A. Skene, September 4th; Mrs. C. Smethurst, September 16th; L. R. Stewart, June\n1st; Miss M. A. Sutherland, July 1st; D. D. Wilson, September 1st; J. V. Zacharias,\nMay 17th.\nTransfers.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Miss D. G. Lee, July 1st; Miss E. Mulligan, June 1st; Miss M. E.\nWimperly, June 15th.\nResignations.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Miss J. J. Baillie, December 22nd; J. F. Caplette, July 15th; Miss\nM. A. Davidson, September 30th; J. L. G. Gray, April 8th; G. W. Hayes, March 10th;\nMiss F. R. Messerschmidt, September 16th; Miss V. E. Paddle, May 8th; Mrs. B. H. F.\nPready, September 20th; Dr. A. Robertson, March 10th; Miss A. L. Ross, April 19th;\nS. S. White, January 31st; R. L. Wilkinson, November 15th.\nSuperannuation.\u00E2\u0080\u0094E. W. White, July 31st.\nPUBLICATIONS\nIn the past year the Publications Branch received 3,867 letters requesting agricultural literature, distributed 38,854 bulletins to the public and district offices, and mimeographed 152,039 copies of stencils for the Department.\nThe following is a list of new and revised bulletins printed in 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nAgricultural Statistics Report, 1950.\nHalogeton\u00E2\u0080\u0094Intermountain Range Weed, F.C.C. 18.\nLoganberry Culture, H.C. 54.\nPotato-growing in B.C., B. 86.\nSome Facts about B.C., Settlement Series No. 1.\nSpray Calendar: Control of Tree-fruit Pests and Diseases.\nLEGISLATION\nThe only agricultural legislation dealt with at the Second Session of the Twenty-\nthird Parliament of British Columbia was an Act to amend the \" Oleomargarine Act,\"\nbeing chapter 48 of the Statutes of 1949, and cited as the \" Oleomargarine Act Amendment Act, 1952.\"\n15 CC 16 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nOf the various changes as introduced in this Bill, the most important was the repeal\nof section 5 of the 1949 Statute, which read as follows: \" Colouring of ' oleomargarine ':\nNo oleomargarine shall have a tint or shade containing more than one and six-tenths\ndegrees of yellow, or of yellow and red collectively, measured in terms of the Lovibond\ntintometer scale read under conditions substantially similar to those established by the\nUnited States Bureau of Internal Revenue, or the equivalent of such measurement.\"\nThe result of this amendment was that oleomargarine could be coloured the same\nas butter.\nRespectfully submitted.\nW. H. ROBERTSON,\nDeputy Minister of Agriculture.\nREPORT OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS\nG. H. Stewart, Agricultural Statistician\nSYNOPSIS OF AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS IN BRITISH\nCOLUMBIA, YEAR 1951\nThe agricultural production of the Province of British Columbia reached its highest\nlevel of all time in the year 1951. The aggregate value of all agricultural products is\nestimated at $159,782,636. This is an increase of $23,236,268 or 17 per cent over the\nrevised total for the preceding year.\nFarm cash income also established a new high record in 1951. Estimated at\n$119,486,000, the 1951 total is $19,144,000 or 19 per cent above the revised estimate\nof $100,342,000 for 1950, and 15.2 per cent higher than the previous record of\n$103,655,000 in 1948.\nCash receipts from live stock and poultry attained a new high level of over\n$58,000,000 in 1951. Marketings of poultry increased during the year. There were\ndeclines in marketings of all classes of live stock. However, this was more than offset by\nincreased or record prices. Income from dairy products was 8.3 per cent above that of\n1950, here again higher prices having the effect of more than offsetting a slight decline\nin production. Substantially higher income from the sale of eggs was the result of both\nincreased production and higher prices.\nAlthough the greatest part of the increase in the 1951 farm cash income in comparison\nwith the previous year came from grains, live stock and live-stock products, and poultry\nand eggs, almost all farm items contributed in some degree to the total gain.\nThe total value of imports is placed at $102,808,296, as compared with $84,821,842\nin 1950, an increase of $17,986,454 or 21.2 per cent.\nThe total value of exports is estimated at $35,306,684 in 1951, as compared with\n$33,907,096 in 1950. This represents an increase of $1,399,588 or 4.1 per cent. The\n1951 values are the second highest on record.\nHORTICULTURAL CONDITIONS\nThe winter of 1950-51 was milder than that of 1949-50, but colder than the longtime average. Below-zero temperatures, ranging from \u00E2\u0080\u009421\u00C2\u00B0 F. in Kamloops to \u00E2\u0080\u0094 2\u00C2\u00B0 F.\nat Summerland, were recorded on January 28th. At Summerland the temperature dropped\nfrom 40\u00C2\u00B0 F. on January 25th to \u00E2\u0080\u00942\u00C2\u00B0 F. by midnight January 26th. Corresponding DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 17\nsudden drops in temperature were registered in other fruit-growing sections of the\nProvince. On the Lower Mainland on January 25th the thermometer rose to 50\u00C2\u00B0 F. and\ndropped to 11 \u00C2\u00B0 F. on the 26th. This sudden change in temperature was responsible for\nsome damage to apricots, cherry, and peach buds in the Interior and to strawberry plantations in Coast areas.\nFollowing the cold snap in January, the weather moderated until early in March,\nwhen in many Interior fruit-growing areas below-zero temperatures were recorded. A low\nof \u00E2\u0080\u009413.2\u00C2\u00B0 F. was reported from Kamloops, \u00E2\u0080\u0094 2\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Oliver, and 6\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Creston.\nAfter the cold weather in March, better than average spring weather was experienced\nuntil the middle of April. On April 18th and 19th damaging frosts were experienced at\nmany Interior and Coast points. A few of the low temperatures reported were as follows:\n14\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Robson, 19\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Creston, and 17\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Salmon Arm, Vernon, and Oliver.\nThe spring was drier than normal in all areas. No rainfall occurred from March\n26th to April 27th at Abbotsford. During May and early June, precipitation was normal,\nfollowed by five months of exceptionally dry weather. At Salmon Arm the precipitation\nfor the five months May 1st to September 30th was 4.5 inches, compared with the forty-\nyear average of 6.88 inches. Similar conditions are reported from the Kootenay and\nCreston areas.\nHail-storms were experienced at Creston, Kelowna, and Penticton. At Creston\na storm early in July caused considerable loss to some growers. In Kelowna hail fell on\nJuly 2nd and July 3rd in a small area of the East Kelowna section, but damage was not\nsevere. Heavier damage was sustained in the Glenmore areas, where some growers are\nsaid to have lost as high as 15 per cent of the crops. Little damage was done in the\nPenticton areas.\nAn open fall followed the dry summer with rains commencing in October. These\nrains in many instances interfered with the harvesting of winter apples and late vegetables,\nand were responsible for heavy losses in the bean-seed crop.\nThe fruit-crop, not being as heavy as in previous years, was all harvested in good\ntime, and trees went into the winter in good condition with a satisfactory supply of soil-\nmoisture.\nTree and Small Fruits\nApricots and peaches, though larger than 1950, produced a very light crop. All\nother tree-fruit crops, except pears, were the smallest in many years. Damage to buds in\nJanuary and April, coupled with damaged trees of low vitality that produced heavily last\nyear, undoubtedly had an adverse effect on this year's crop. It was a difficult crop to\nestimate, and as the season advanced each estimate was lower than the preceding one.\nThis was particularly so with the apple-crop.\nThe pear-crop was one of the largest ever harvested. Owing to trees damaged by\nwinter-injury in 1949-50 and the large crop, the size of fruit was smaller than normal.\nPeaches and Apricots. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 There was considerable increase in the tonnage harvested\nover last year, but crops were far below those previous to 1950. Zero weather in January\nand killing frosts in April were the main reasons for the small crop this year.\nPlums and Prunes.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The plum-crop exceeded that of last year but was 20 to 25 per\ncent below crops previous to 1950.\nPrune-trees showed little increased mortality over what was obvious last year and\nthe set of fruit was heavy this spring. As the season advanced, it was noted that sizing\nwas not good. The early prune-crop was harvested and shipped without loss, but a few\ndays after commencement of harvesting the main crop the fruit started to shrivel, and as\nthe season progressed the shrivelling increased. Some growers did not harvest their crop.\nThis shrivelling caused concern in the packing-houses because of the high cost of sorting.\nThere was much speculation as to the cause of this trouble, but it was probably due to CC 18 BRITISH COLUMBIA\na number of factors. Trees were generally low in vitality, spur-damage from spring frosts\nis possible, and the summer was one of the hottest in several years.\nSmall Fruits.\u00E2\u0080\u0094-The strawberry yield was considerably below that of last year in all\ndistricts. The low yield on the Lower Mainland is attributed chiefly to crown and root\ndamage caused by the cold weather in January and the very dry summer. On Vancouver\nIsland the plants came through the winter in good condition but, as in the Interior, suffered from spring frosts at blossoming-time and, in many instances, drought during the\ngrowing season. Though the crop was not as large this year, the price, though a satisfactory one, was slightly lower than last year. There was no difficulty in marketing\nthe crop.\nRaspberries came through better than strawberries, and yields were only slightly\nlower than last year.\nThe loganberry-crop for the third successive year was low. Canes suffered from\nwinter and spring frosts, and this year's crop is considerably below that of last year.\nBlackberries, currants, and gooseberries showed an increase over last year.\nThe total production of all fruit-crops in British Columbia for 1951 is estimated at\n315,252,000 pounds, valued at $20,258,739, as compared with 447,368,000 pounds,\nvalued at $21,472,296, in 1950, indicating a decrease of 132,116,000 pounds or 29.5\nper cent in volume and $1,213,557 or 5.6 per cent in value.\nFinal estimates place the 1951 apple-crop at 214,216,000 pounds, some 154,648,000\npounds less than in 1950.\nThe 1951 pear-crop was the second largest on record. Production is now set at\n31,188,000 pounds, compared with the 1950 estimate of 17,872,000 pounds, an increase\nof 13,316,000 pounds or 74.5 per cent.\nThe 1951 peach-crop was substantially greater than that of the previous year. Production for the current year is now placed at 22,176,000 pounds, as compared with the\n1950 production of 4,126,000 pounds.\nProduction of apricots in 1951 amounted to 1,900,000 pounds, as against 918,000\npounds in 1950, representing an increase of 982,000 pounds.\nThe 1951 strawberry-crop is currently estimated at 10,268,000 pounds, down\n6,304,000 pounds from the 1950 level.\nProduction of raspberries in 1951 is placed at 9,884,000 pounds, as compared with\n10,404,000 pounds in 1950, a decrease of 520,000 pounds.\nProduction by types of the other principal fruits, with comparable data for 1950\nin parentheses, is as follows: Plums, 2,164,000 pounds (2,050,000 pounds); prunes,\n12,392,000 pounds (12,432,000 pounds); cherries, 3,560,000 pounds (4,180,000\npounds); blackberries, 1,014,000 pounds (516,000 pounds); loganberries, 882,000\npounds (1,198,000 pounds).\nVegetables\nThe acreage of vegetables in the Province does not vary a great deal from year to\nyear. This year there was a noticeable decrease in onion-acreage, and a slight increase\nin carrots and tomatoes. This has generally been a good year for the vegetable-growers,\nquality and demand being on the whole satisfactory.\nPractically no transplanting and seeding of early vegetables was made until late\nMarch and early April. On account of the warm, dry weather (except for the cool nights\nand frost during the middle of the month) most growers found it necessary to irrigate.\nThis was much earlier in the season than is usually necessary. It was rather interesting\nto note that in the Cloverdale section a spinach-crop which was nearly ready to harvest\nin mid-April was saved from frost-damage by the use of sprinklers during the night and\nearly morning. Spinach in the adjoining fields, where the sprinkling was not done, was\npractically entirely lost. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 19\nIn spite of the hot, dry season, vegetable-supplies for the most part have been ample\nfor market requirements. Production in some instances has not been up to expectations,\nbut the over-all production might have been considerably less.\nThis past season, owing to the hot growing weather, was one of the best in the Lower\nMainland district for the growing of tomatoes, and a few growers obtained excellent\nreturns on a very receptive and favourable market.\nBroccoli and brussels sprouts are two vegetables that can be grown in the fall and\nwell into the late part of the year. These crops have been grown on a somewhat limited\ncommercial scale in the district surrounding Abbotsford for the past two or three years.\nThere seems to be an increasing demand for these crops for the frozen-pack in addition\nto the fresh-market trade.\nGrowers on Vancouver Island had a fairly good cut of Christmas cauliflower during\nNovember and December, 1950. The spring (overwintered) cauliflower also gave a\ngood cut. Some damage occurred in early March from low temperatures and snow.\nSpring and summer vegetables have been in good supply throughout the season.\nWarm-weather crops, such as tomatoes, corn, melons, squash, cucumbers, etc., have done\nparticularly well.\nThere was a sharp decline in the vegetable-acreage this year in the Okanagan. The\n1950 area is placed at 10,635 acres, as compared to 8,051 acres grown this season.\nThe biggest drop was in potatoes, both early and late\u00E2\u0080\u00941,048 acres last year as\nagainst 761 acres this year for the early crop, or a difference of roughtly 27 per cent.\nThe difference was even greater with late potatoes\u00E2\u0080\u00941,590 acres last year as compared\nto 834 acres, or approximately 52 per cent of last year's acreage.\nThe onion-acreage was also down by about 40 per cent, or 1,073 acres in 1950 as\ncompared with 650 acres in 1951.\nOther vegetable-acreages showed small differences, except tomatoes, which showed\nan increase of 372 acres over last year.\nThe quality of all vegetable-crops has been generally good, and prices much higher\nthan last year.\nThe highlights of the vegetable deal this year have been the general good quality and\nprices received for potatoes, onions, and tomatoes shipped as \"mature greens.\"\nBecause of the keen demand for \"mature greens,\" quite a proportion of the tonnage\nthat would have ordinarily gone to the cannery was shipped to the fresh-vegetable market,\nwith a consequent cut in the canned tonnage.\nThe onion-crop was harvested under almost ideal conditions, and stood up well in\nstorage. A large percentage of this year's crop graded No. 1 and No. 2, with only a\nsmall percentage of \" boilers.\"\nThe early asparagus-crop was damaged by frost, but a good cutting season followed.\nYields in all sections were good and prices satisfactory. The acreage of this crop is\nincreasing, and there is an increasing demand from the canners for asparagus.\nThe aggregate of all vegetable-crops for 1951 was 77,973 tons, of a value of\n$7,655,319, as compared with 84,902 tons, valued at $6,912,352, in 1950, a decrease\nof 6,929 tons or 8.1 per cent in volume, but an increase of $742,967 or 10.7 per cent\nin value.\nThe production of field rhubarb is estimated at 555 tons, of a value of $37,420, as\ncompared with 736 tons, valued at $55,694, in 1950.\nAn increase of 10 tons is recorded in the quantity of forced rhubarb produced. The\n1951 crop amounted to 80 tons, valued at $18,000.\nHothouse tomatoes produced in 1951 amounted to 1,959 tons, valued at $816,452,\nas compared with 1,859 tons, valued at $680,382, in 1950, indicating an increase in the\nvolume of production of 100 tons.\nField tomatoes produced amounted to 15,416 tons, as against 18,027 tons in 1950,\na decrease of 2,611 tons. CC 20 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nThe quantity of field cucumbers produced in 1951 is estimated at 3,329 tons, up\n22 tons over the 1950 production.\nA decrease of 9 tons is recorded in the quantity of hothouse cucumbers produced.\nThe 1951 crop amounted to 314 tons, valued at $109,106.\nField Crops\nBeginning in June, Southern British Columbia experienced the longest period of\ndry weather on record, and crops in the area suffered seriously from drought. Recovery\nhad hardly been made from a long stretch of rainless weather in early spring when drought\nset in again. Spring-sown grains and pastures in particular were seriously affected. In\nthe Central Interior regions intermittent showers maintained growth and in the Peace\nRiver area growing conditions remained excellent throughout the summer.\nThe hay-crop was light in the dry sections and only fair in the remainder of the\nProvince. Second cuttings were light generally. The quality of the crop was good, and\nit was stored in good condition. Harvesting of winter wheat was nearing completion in\nsouthern areas during the first week in August and harvesting of spring grains had begun.\nIn the Peace River area most crops were late and were still growing well at the middle\nof August. Heavy yields were in prospect in that area, but continued warm weather was\nneeded to bring grains to maturity.\nThe long drought in southern parts of the Province was broken by general rains\nfrom August 27th to August 29th. Fine, warm days and cooler nights followed and\ngrain harvesting in these areas was completed under ideal conditions. Yields, particularly on Vancouver Island, were reduced by drought, cutworms, and grasshoppers. Pastures made very little recovery from the dry weather, the quality of the corn-crop was\nlowered, and feed-supplies will be short. Reserves of moisture were poor for planting\ncereals, bulbs, and grasses. In the south-eastern corner of the Province, yields of fall\nwheat were average, and yields of spring grains slightly below average. The non-irrigated\nparts of the Central Interior suffered from dryness, but grass remained good in the upper\nranges, and the yield of irrigated hay was satisfactory and of good quality.\nIn the Peace River area harvesting of grains was general by the middle of September,\nbut snow, rain, and frost interfered with operations, and by the end of the first week in\nOctober it was estimated that about a third of the wheat, 40 per cent of the oats, and\n15 per cent of the barley remained to be cut. Very little threshing had been done and\ngrades were lowered by the unfavourable weather. Conditions in the Peace River Block\nin the spring of 1952 were favourable for harvesting of grain left in the fields last fall.\nThe potato-crop is very light this year. Acreage seeded was much lower this year,\ndue to the unfavourable price prevailing last spring, and the dry season in the main\ngrowing areas reduced average yields.\nForage-seed production is generally down, due principally to the unfavourable\nweather in the Peace River, as mentioned, and also much of the red clover acreage in\nthe Fraser Valley was harvested for hay to help relieve a serious shortage.\nThe total gross value of the principal field crops in 1951 is now estimated at\n$31,744,000, as compared with $28,518,000 in 1950, an increase of $3,226,000 or 11.3\nper cent.\nThe production of all grain-crops amounted to 8,832,000 bushels, valued at\n$8,669,000, as compared with the 1950 production of 5,994,000 bushels, valued at\n$6,640,000.\nFodder-crops aggregating a total of 657,100 tons, valued at $18,704,000, were\nproduced in 1951, as compared with 751,000 tons, valued at $16,547,000, in 1950.\nThe 1951 potato-crop, estimated at 58,800 tons, is down considerably from the\nproduction for the previous year. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 21\nDAIRYING\nAccording to the five-stock survey of June 1st, 1951, there was a reduction of 3.8\nper cent in the number of milch cows on farms. This placed the estimated total at 96,000,\nin comparison with 99,800 in the previous year.\nThe decline in number of cows reported in June was reflected in lower production\nof milk during the year. The exceptionally dry summer in the Lower Fraser Valley and\nthe Gulf Islands, coupled with high prices for beef and for labour, were likewise contributing factors.\nTotal milk production for 1951, estimated at 624,472,000 pounds, was 42,883,000\npounds or 6.4 per cent less than that of the previous year. A considerable decrease in\nbutter production, and a slight decline in production of cheese placed the total milk\nequivalent of factory production slightly below that of the preceding year. Larger\namounts of milk were used in the manufacture of concentrated-milk products and icecream than in 1950. Quantities of milk sold for fluid use were lower in 1951 than in\n1950. On a percentage basis, of the total milk production for 1951 approximately 52\nper cent was used for fluid sales, 10 per cent in the manufacture of creamery butter,\n22 per cent in the manufacture of concentrated milk and ice-cream, and the remaining\n16 per cent in the manufacture of cheddar cheese, dairy butter, cottage cheese, and\nincludes milk consumed on the farm and milk fed to live stock.\nThe total farm value of milk production amounted to $23,888,000 in 1951, an\nincrease of $2,252,000 over that of the preceding year. The total value of dairy products,\nincluding manufactured products and fluid sales valued at the factory, plus the value of\nproducts made and used on farms, amounted to $33,584,000, an increase of $2,589,000\nover the year 1950.\nThe butter output of creameries in 1951 was 2,666,000 pounds, as compared with\n4,672,000 pounds in 1950, a decrease of 2,006,000 pounds. The average price for the\nyear was 62 cents per pound, compared with 58.7 cents in 1950.\nCheddar-cheese production is estimated at 557,000 pounds, as compared with\n564,000 pounds in 1950. The average price of cheddar cheese was 40 cents per pound\nin 1951, and 31.7 cents per pound in 1950.\nProduction of ice-cream during 1951 reached an all-time high. Production for the\nyear is placed at 2,892,000 gallons, as against 2,451,000 gallons produced in 1950, an\nincrease of 441,000 gallons or 17.9 per cent.\nSales of fluid milk and cream, the latter expressed as milk, amounted to 325,859,000\npounds in 1951, a decrease of 8,718,000 pounds in comparison with last year.\nThe production of evaporated whole milk was the highest on record. The output\nof the condenseries in 1951 was 39,080,000 pounds, as compared with 34,868,000\npounds in 1950, an increase of 4,212,000 pounds or 12 per cent.\nThe production of creamed cottage cheese is estimated at 2,829,000 pounds in\n1951, up 227,000 pounds from the total for the year previous.\nLess milk was utilized for dairy butter and there was a decrease in quantities fed to\nlive stock and milk used in farm homes in comparison with the previous year.\nLIVE STOCK AND POULTRY\nThe winter of 1950-51 could be considered an average one in so far as live stock\nwas concerned. Feed-supplies in the range country were, on the whole, up to average.\nThe summer of 1951 was one of the driest on record, and as a consequence feed-supplies\nfor the winter were somewhat shorter.\nCattle population, according to the live-stock survey of June 1st, 1951, shows an\nover-all decrease of approximately 2 per cent. This could be attributed to the high price CC 22 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nof cattle and the larger numbers going to the export market. It would appear that many\nranchers were selling to the very limit and even selling themselves short.\nIt is noted that quite a few stock are being taken back from our different community\nsales to establish breeding herds throughout the country. Also, quite a few beef cattle\nare coming to the Coast to replace dairy herds that are being sold off.\nDuring the year, particularly the early part, there was a considerable movement of\ndressed beef to the United States. Live-stock prices have risen in line with prices all\nacross Canada. The Christmas Fat Stock Show and Sale, December 4th, 5th, and 6th,\ndemonstrated the keen buyer demand for meats, with an average price of $38.41 per\nhundredweight, the highest on record, and nearly $10 a hundredweight higher than 1950.\nThe number of horses on farms is placed at 43,000, a decline of 2,900 from the\ntotal of 45,900 at June 1st, 1950.\nCattle numbers at June 1st, 1951, totalled 350,000, as compared with 357,300 a\nyear earlier, a decrease of 7,300 or 2 per cent.\nThe number of hogs on farms at June 1st, 1951, is estimated at 65,000, an increase\nof 1,000 or 1.5 per cent from the total at June 1st, 1950.\nSheep numbers increased to the extent of 8.4 per cent during the year.\nThere were 3,590,000 hens, cocks, and chickens on farms in the Province at June\n1st, 1951, as compared with 3,370,000 on the same date in 1950, an increase of 220,000\nor 6.5 per cent.\nTurkey numbers at June 1st, 1951, totalled 240,000, as compared with 260,000\non June 1st, 1950, a decrease of 20,000.\nThe number of ducks increased by 22 per cent during the year, being 22,000, as\ncompared with 18,000 on June 1st a year ago.\nThe number of geese is estimated at 12,000 on June 1st, 1951. This represents an\nincrease of 2,000 or 20 per cent over the number on the corresponding date of 1950.\nProduction of eggs in 1951 is estimated at 30,842,000 dozens, as against 26,304,000\ndozens in 1950, an increase of 4,538,000 dozens or 17.2 per cent. Eggs averaged 54.4\ncents a dozen in 1951, as compared with 44.6 cents a dozen in 1950.\nPoultry-meat productions was up from 13,968,000 pounds in 1950 to 21,521,000\npounds in 1951, an increase of 7,553,000 pounds.\nMISCELLANEOUS\nThe acreage of vegetable and flower seed, owing to poor demand and lower prices,\nwas not as great as in previous years. Coupled with smaller acreage the weather conditions for late-maturing seeds were unsatisfactory and considerable seed was reported\nspoiled by continuous rains early in October. The total value of vegetable, flower, and\nfield-crop seed production for 1951 is estimated at $1,065,953, as compared with\n$1,388,970 in 1950, a decrease of $323,017.\nThe 1951 honey-crop is placed at 1,654,000 pounds, as against 1,322,000 pounds\nin 1950, an increase of 332,000 pounds or 25.1 per cent.\nHops yielded 1,901,000 pounds from 1,449 acres, as compared with 2,260,000\npounds from 1,472 acres in 1950, yields per acre of 1,312 pounds and 1,535 pounds\nrespectively. The 1951 crop was valued at $1,422,000.\nClimatic conditions were generally favourable to the growth and development of\nthe 1951 tobacco-crop. The yield of tobacco is estimated at 187,000 pounds from 150\nacres or 1,248 pounds per acre, as compared with 132,000 pounds from 120 acres or\n1,100 pounds per acre in 1950.\nProduction of margarine for 1951 is estimated at 8,767,000 pounds, as compared\nwith 5,734,300 pounds in 1950, an increase of 3,032,700 pounds or 52.8 per cent.\nThe revenue derived from fur-farming is placed at $796,000, as compared with a\nvalue of $515,000 for 1950, indicating an increase of $281,000 or 54.5 per cent. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nREPORT OF MARKETS BRANCH\nM. M. Gilchrist, B.S.A., Markets Commissioner\nCC 23\nGENERAL\nIn common with other Provinces, British Columbia's agricultural economy underwent a period of readjustment during 1952. The full impact of the United States\nembargo on Canadian live stock, established February 26th, made itself felt by late\nsummer. By that time the wholesale price index for animal products had fallen to 244.9,\na decline of 19.8 per cent from the index of 305.4 for the same period in 1951.\nThis sharp decline exerted a depressing force upon the index for all farm products,\nwhich by August had dropped to 236.2, off 10.3 per cent from the August, 1951, figure.\nThe price index for field products registered a lesser decline of 8.4 per cent from the\nprevious year.\nCoincidental with these declines was a slight easing of the composite index of commodities and services used by farmers. This index, which stood at 228.6 in August,\n1951, rose to a record high of 229.8 in April of this year, before dipping slightly by\nAugust to 227.7, a decline of less than 1 per cent.\nExclusive of farm living costs, the index actually registered an increase of 2 per cent\nover the 1951 figure to 243.4.\nThe farm wage index contributed materially to this increase, rising to a record 457.3\nby late summer. Among other contributing factors were building materials and such\narticles as binder-twine.\nFEED-GRAIN MOVEMENTS\nDuring the year, Canadian railways again made application to the Transport Board\nfor two freight-rate increases of 8 and 9 per cent respectively. Rates on all grain or flour\nshipped out of Western Canada are governed by two factors. First of these is the Crow's\nNest Pass Agreement, which is a Statute of Parliament and therefore binding upon the\nTransport Board. Second is the so-called \" hold-down \" rule applied by the Board in the\nWestern Rates Case judgment of 1914, which is still in force. Under this rule, rates on\nall grain or flour moving in a direct line toward the Lakehead or Vancouver are definitely\nfixed.\nThus the bulk of grain traffic has been and still is protected. The remainder is\nconfined to what might be termed \"north-south\" traffic and the westward traffic in\nfeed-grains to British Columbia.\nFollowing hearings before the Transport Board, the railways were granted tariff\nincreases on such \"remainder\" hauls. Thus feed-grain shipments to British Columbia\nwere raised by about 26 per cent. The new rates became effective November 15th for\nshipments to Interior points and November 25th to Vancouver and other Coastal centres.\nAs a result, the rate from Calgary to Vancouver rose from $7.30 to $9.20 per ton.\nThe new rate to Victoria and most Fraser Valley points now stands at $9.80.\nUnder terms of the Federal Freight Assistance Policy freight tariffs on feed-grain\nshipments to British Columbia from Calgary or Edmonton continued to be paid by the\nFederal Treasury. To the end of November, freight assistance was granted on a total of\n170,675 tons shipped after January 1st, indicating a continued heavy flow of feed-grains\nat an average monthly rate of close to 16,000 tons, down fractionally from the 1951\naverage.\nAbout one-quarter of the total was made up of feed-wheat, followed in order of\nvolume by oats, mill-feeds, and barley. CC 24 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nFEED PRICES\nModerate declines were registered in most live-stock feed prices during the year.\nSince January feed-wheat declined in price 9 per cent, oats 13 per cent, barley 10 per\ncent, dairy mash 16 per cent, laying-mash 7 per cent, and turkey-grower mash 11 per cent.\nDespite these declines, feed prices remained at comparatively high levels, particularly in relation to decreased prices for most animal products. While the national carryover of grains of all grades from the 1951 crop was substantial, a strong demand, coupled\nwith increased handling costs, tended to maintain relatively firm price-levels.\nExcellent hay-crops throughout virtually the entire Province effectively depressed\nprices. Second-cut alfalfa dropped by 16 per cent from a January high of $56 per ton at\nVancouver. Other hays declined also, with demand very sluggish during late summer\nand autumn months.\nFRUIT\nA cool spring in British Columbia's major tree-fruits areas was followed by a dry,\nhot summer and a long, \" open\" fall. This had a definite effect upon fruit ripening,\nsizing, and colour, to some extent unfavourable. The apple-crop in particular was\nadversely affected by drought conditions and the lack of cool temperatures.\nOne of the most outstanding features of the 1952 fruit deal was the amazing comeback of stone-fruits, particularly apricots. This year saw a total of nearly 825,000 cases\nmarketed, a sevenfold increase over the 1951 figure. At the peak of the season over 20\ncars per day were rolling out of Okanagan points, glutting every available market. So\nheavy was the volume that a stop-pack order was put into effect on August 8th.\nPeaches also showed strong recovery from the severe cut-back following the winterkilling of 1949-50. B.C. Tree Fruits Limited shipped a total of over 1,350,000 cases,\nan increase of 30 per cent over the 1951 total. Prices were somewhat lower this year\nhowever, in the face of strong competition from other peach-growing areas.\nPears were down slightly in volume from the preceding year, with about 625,000\ncases marketed. In general, prices were comparable with those realized in 1951.\nThis year's apple-crop, while up substantially from 1951, was not a heavy one. The\nprincipal growing districts produced approximately 5,500,000 boxes, an increase of close\nto 20 per cent over the 1951 output. Both domestic and export markets maintained a\nfirm tone generally, although Eastern Canadian centres were variable at times.\nThe United States market again proved receptive, taking some 800,000 boxes up to\nthe end of November, spread over thirty-four States, at generally satisfactory prices. With\nthe United States Department of Agriculture's $1.25 per box subsidy on off-shore apple\nshipments discontinued this year, British Columbia apples once again were able to find\ntheir way into export markets previously barred to them by this subsidized competition.\nAmong these markets was Brazil, which by November 30th had taken over 50,000\nboxes.\nThe Okanagan apple-juice output, at 352,700 cases, was down about 5 per cent up\nto November 30th this year as compared to the same period in 1951. Included in juice\nsales this year was a considerable gallonage purchased by the National Department of\nDefence Production for consumption by Canada's armed forces.\nThe small-fruits industry was hit this year by a weakened price structure, particularly in the processing trade. While output was up from 1951, fresh strawberries and\nraspberries were down in price, hovering about $4 and $4.50 wholesale at Vancouver.\nStrawberries for processing were down sharply to 12V-. cents per pound.\nThe steadily expanding blueberry industry experienced a satisfactory market once\nagain. Fresh berries brought an average of $6 per crate on the Vancouver wholesale\nmarket. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 25\nWhile the over-all situation in British Columbia could be considered reasonably\nsatisfactory this year, the industry was still hampered to some extent by two adverse\nfactors\u00E2\u0080\u0094freight rates and United States imports.\nRail-haul tariffs eastward in Canada from British Columbia are at levels which\npermit exceedingly keen competition from both Ontario and Washington State. Even\nthe comparatively short haul from Kelowna to Vancouver meets with stiff competitive\nrates between California and British Columbia coastal points. Rates generally have\nrisen 85 per cent since 1941.\nThe second factor, United States imports, has from time to time produced depressed\nmarkets for domestic crops. British Columbia, in common with other Provinces, enjoys\nonly brief periods annually of tariff protection. While these have a certain value, that\nvalue is often limited, particularly in \" long \" crop years.\nFIELD CROPS AND VEGETABLES\nProduction patterns were variable this year, due to the twin influences of price\nstructures and weather. Outstanding feature was the continued firm tone in potatoes.\nThe short crop of 1951 resulted in unusually high prices and scant supplies by\nspring. To alleviate the shortage, Grade 3 potatoes were authorized. Later, by Federal\norder, United States size B potatoes were admitted. Substantial tonnages of these smaller\nsize tubers were imported, chiefly from California, until the official cut-off date in mid-\nJune.\nAn estimated acreage increase of 10 per cent was lifted in good condition, and\nfound a ready, firm market. However, as in 1951, a substantial portion of the crop was\nstored, to be marketed at anticipated higher prices in the early months of 1953. Although\nprices by late autumn were running as high as $85 per ton to the producer, local deliveries\nwere insufficient to meet demand. As a result, considerable tonnages of Washington\nState and Alberta stocks were imported, principally to the larger Coastal centres. In\nOctober, Grade 3 potatoes were again authorized, but met with only moderate acceptance.\nBy the end of November the British Columbia Interior Vegetable Marketing Board\nAgency moved a total of nearly 4,000 tons of potatoes, about 12 per cent less than the\n1951 figure for the same period. Its counterpart at the Coast marketed 17,400 tons, an\nall-time record, during the same months. The Coast Board placed over 3,500 tons on\nthe export market, chiefly to the Prairies.\nMarketings of root-crops were about on a par with 1951, although cabbage was\nweaker. Carrots were also rather sluggish, although bunched carrots moved well.\nCantaloupes, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, and tomatoes were down this year in\nvolume to the fresh market. Other items were little changed from the preceding year.\nA prolonged warm fall produced one of the most satisfactory processed-tomato deals\non record however. The Interior Board handled a total of over 20,000 tons of canners,\nabout double the 1951 total, at $36.25 per ton for first grade. Also shipped to the processing trade were 1,500 tons of beans, 600 tons of pumpkins, 250 tons of carrots, and\nclose to 120 tons of asparagus. Asparagus prices remained unchanged from 1951,\nranging from 16 cents to 29 cents per pound according to grade.\nThe 1951 canning-pea deal was a satisfactory one, with yields averaging over 2 tons\nper acre and prices holding at 1951 levels.\nLIVE STOCK\nFollowing the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country and the immediate\nembargo placed against Canadian live stock by the United States, the live-stock industry\nunderwent a period of retrenchment as market values declined an average of 25 per cent.\nDespite the uncertainties of the market and the threat of further price declines under\nthe impact of potential heavy surpluses, sales held remarkably well. Federal support CC 26 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nprices for beef and pork and the siphoning off of a substantial surplus of the latter to the\nprocessing trade provided a measure of stability.\nBeef-cattle auctions at Okanagan Falls and Elko early in the fall were somewhat\ndisappointing, but later sales at Williams Lake, Quesnel, and Kamloops saw keener bidding and firm prices. An unexpected demand for feeders at Williams Lake particularly\nkept prices reasonably firm.\nAt Kamloops, cattle brought comparatively firm prices, ranging up to $5 above\nthe support price. Car-lots averaged $27.10.\nCEREAL GRAINS\nGrain-growers in British Columbia's Peace River District harvested their best crops\nin recent years this year. Excellent weather conditions at harvest saw well over 1,500,000\nbushels of wheat taken off. The barley and oats crops were also in good condition, with\nyields totalling approximately 1,750,000 and 2,250,000 bushels respectively. The latter\ntwo grains brought initial prices averaging on a par with 1951, while the wheat was of\nconsiderably higher grade with consequent better prices. Initial payment for No. 4\nwheat this year was $1.031/i per bushel. Flax was down somewhat this year, netting\ngrowers $3.10 per bushel.\nFORAGE-CROPS\nHeavy increases in legume-seed production, accompanied by sharp price declines,\nfeatured the forage-crops picture this year. Alfalfa-seed output was several times greater,\nthe Peace River alone producing over 1,000,000 pounds. Prices opened as high as 25\ncents, but record production in the United States quickly depressed prices to as low as\n15 cents per pound.\nSweet-clover seed output was tripled this year at about 1,000,000 pounds, but prices\ndropped from last year's 4 cents to 3 and 2 cents per pound.\nRed-clover output also rose sharply. Lower Fraser Valley production totalled\nabout 500,000 pounds and prices steadied at 21 cents. Altaswede and alsike both registered declines, the former dropping about 4 cents to 19 cents, while alsike skidded sharply\nfrom a high of 27 cents to half that figure.\nStill gaining in popularity with British Columbia seed-growers, creeping-red-fescue\nproduction was doubled this year, but returns decreased by 10 to 15 cents from last\nyear's 45-cent figure.\nBrome prices eased from 6 down to 4 cents, about one-half the 1951 average.\nTimothy strengthened slightly, rising 2 cents from a low point of 8 cents per pound.\nPeas held reasonably at about $110 per ton. Yields were down slightly in the\nNorth Okanagan but up in Creston.\nSugar-beet seed production was satisfactory this year, with well over 500,000 pounds\nharvested.\nPOULTRY AND EGGS\nConditions in the Province's poultry industry were generally depressed throughout\nthe year. The spring-chick hatch was off about 11 per cent from 1951. Egg prices\nremained at relatively low levels as compared with the preceding year, reaching a peak\nof 50 cents per dozen for Grade A Large to the producer at Vancouver in September.\nThis was approximately 25 per cent below the 1951 top. A sharp 8-cent drop at the\nfirst of December further reflected the depressed market tone.\nWhile domestic consumption of poultry rose by about 35 per cent, offerings kept\npace. By mid-summer, storage stocks were double the 1951 holdings. As a result prices\nwere unattractive throughout the balance of the year. Chicken in the 4- to 5-pound\ncategory ranged between 32 and 34 cents per pound to the producer at Vancouver.\nFryers and broilers were steady at 25 to 30 cents. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 27\nAn estimated 11-per-cent boost in turkey-poult hatching featured this year's turkey\nindustry. Prices were down 10 to 12 cents per pound from 1951 levels for the Thanksgiving and Christmas trade, averaging below 40 cents per pound to the producer for all\ngrades.\nMISCELLANEOUS\nRanch-bred furs, mainly mink, continued to enjoy active demand, although the\nretail market was slow at mid-year. A total of 28,000 Standard mink pelts brought good\nprices when offered at the first fall auction in Vancouver. Prices ranged as high as $36\nfor Extra Large Dark males.\nThis year's Christmas-tree cut was again substantial, the bulk going as usual to\nUnited States points. The East Kootenays cut was slightly over 100 cars, while the\nOkanagan-Mainline and Cariboo Districts produced lesser amounts. Average value was\nclose to the 1951 figure of about 40 cents per tree.\nMARKETING BOARDS\nBy order in council approved May 2nd this year the British Columbia Tree-fruit\nMarketing Scheme was amended by the provision of authority whereby the Board's\ndesignated agency, B.C. Tree Fruits Limited, can handle advertising appropriations\ndirectly, rather than through the Board as in past years.\nThis scheme was further amended on the same date by granting to the Board powers\nto fix and collect fees for services rendered as a means of raising revenue. Previously,\nthe Board had been restricted to licence fees, which was found to be rather unwieldy in\noperation.\nApproval of the British Columbia Marketing Board was granted on October 10th\nwhereby the B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board designated the Island Vegetable\nCo-operative Association as sole selling agency for all controlled produce on Vancouver\nIsland. This move provided the Coast Board with two instead of one designated selling\nagencies.\nFollowing numerous complaints directed against controlled marketing in general\nand the three Marketing Boards now operating in particular, an impartial survey of the\noperations of these Boards was ordered by the Minister of Agriculture. Since the bulk\nof these complaints was directed against the B.C. Coast Board, the survey was largely\nconfined to the area under that Board's jurisdiction.\nASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES\nAs in former years, the Markets Branch was again associated with the Economics\nDivision of the Canada Department of Agriculture in an economic survey of a section of\nthe Province. This year the East Kootenay region was surveyed, with data collected\nat Cranbrook, Kimberley, Creston, and in the Windermere District. Findings of this\nsurvey, when completed, will complement those of the West Kootenay District carried\nout in 1951. The two surveys together are expected to provide a comprehensive study\nof the agricultural economy of South-eastern British Columbia.\nIn late November this Branch took an active part in xthe annual agricultural marketing conference, held in Vancouver in conjunction with the annual convention of the\nBritish Columbia Federation of Agriculture. Briefs were submitted and discussed from\nall major industries in the Province's agriculture, covering current conditions in each. CC 28\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT OF HORTICULTURAL BRANCH\nBen Hoy, B.S.A., Provincial Horticulturist\nCLIMATIC CONDITIONS\nSub-zero temperatures were experienced at Interior points during the winter of\n1951-52, but they were of short duration and no serious winter-injury was reported.\nTemperatures varied on the coldest night from \u00E2\u0080\u0094 27\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Kamloops, \u00E2\u0080\u009425\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Salmon\nArm, \u00E2\u0080\u0094 11 \u00C2\u00B0 F. at Cawston to \u00E2\u0080\u00946.9\u00C2\u00B0 F. at Penticton. In nearly all areas there was a good\ncovering of snow from early in December to well into March.\nIn the Kootenay area the two coldest days reported were December 31st and January\n10th when the temperature was 4 and 6 degrees below zero at Nelson.\nNo extreme temperatures were recorded on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland. With few exceptions in low-lying and wind-swept areas crops came through the\nwinter in good condition.\nOwing to snow-coverage delaying operations on the land, the spring was considered\nsomewhat later than normal, but regardless of the long winter and early-spring frosts the\nstart of the growing season was not delayed. The following table, prepared by M. P. D.\nTrumpour, District Horticulturist at Penticton, indicates the comparison of blossom dates\nat Penticton for the past five years:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFruit\n1948\n1949\n1950\n1951\n1952\nApr. 20\nMay 5\nMay 4\nMay 11\nApr. 17\nApr. 24\nMay 1\nMay 3\nApr. 29\nMay 9\nMay 11\nMay 14\nMay 15\nMay 18\nApr. 19\nApr. 29\nApr. 30\nMay 7\nMay 6\nMay 12\nApr. 18\nApr. 25\nPeaches\t\nPears \t\nApr. 29\nMay 4\nApples \t\nMay 17\nMay 8\nMay 10\nFrosts were experienced in the Okanagan during the first week in May and damage\nwas reported most severe in southern districts, especially in low-lying areas with little air-\ndrainage. The over-all damage was not considered heavy. Some frost-damage to raspberries and early bloom of strawberries was reported from scattered areas in the Fraser\nValley and on Vancouver Island, but this had little effect on yield.\nScattered hail-storms were reported from Penticton, Naramata, Kaleden, and\nKelowna, but there was no appreciable damages. The weather was generally cool\nthroughout May, June, and July.\nFrom the middle of August to the end of October, temperatures were above normal\nand precipitation was less than average. Practically all areas would welcome rain to\nimprove soil-moisture conditions.\nThe hot, dry weather experienced from the middle of August to harvest was not\nfavourable to the sizing and coloring of late apples and pears, but was beneficial in so far\nas the ripening of tomatoes and harvesting of fruit and vegetable crops was concerned.\nAll crops were harvested in good time.\nHORTICULTURAL CROPS\nTree and Small Fruits\nApricots.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The apricot-crop was larger than the last big crop harvested in 1949.\nMuch of the crop, however, ran to the smaller sizes, which were difficult to market. This\nsmall size was due to an extremely heavy set of fruit and to insufficient thinning. In some DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 29\ninstances the trees, weakened by the freeze in January, 1950, were also incapable of carrying a heavy load of fruit.\nPeaches.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The peach-crop, while not as large as the crops produced previous to\n1950, showed some increase over last year, and with favourable weather conditions it is\nprobable that the 1952 crop will equal or exceed that of the large crop produced in 1949.\nAs with apricots, there were too many small-sized peaches, and difficulty was experienced\nin marketing some of the crop.\nPlums and Prunes.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The yield of plums and prunes was below that of last year, but\nthe quality was generally better owing to less shrivelling and gumming. Young trees are\nmaking good recovery from the 1950 freeze, but many old trees will never make sufficient\nrecovery to become profitable.\nCherries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The cherry-crop yielded more than double the tonnage of the small crop\nin 1951. They set well and showed good promise in the Okanagan area during the early\npart of the season, but rains during the last week in June caused considerable splitting in\nBings, which was responsible for considerable culling and reduction in crop. Weakened\ntrees were also responsible in many orchards for small sizes, and production, though\ngreater than last year, was considerably below early expectations.\nApples and Pears.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Apples sized well through June and July but continuous dry,\nhot weather after the end of July affected the size and colouring of late varieties. There\nwas more than average Grade Cs because of poor colouring in Delicious and Winesap.\nThe market has been favourable, and indications are that prices will be higher than last\nyear for a larger crop.\nPears did not set as heavy as last year, and the sizes ranged from small to medium.\nThe small size, as last year, could be attributed in some degree to insufficient thinning, to\nthe growing season, and, in some instances, to trees weakened by winter-injury.\nSmall Fruits.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Production of small fruits shows considerable increase over last year.\nPrices received were somewhat below those of 1951 but there was a ready market, and\nall of the crop was sold.\nThe following table indicates the actual production of tree and small fruits in 1951\nand the estimated production for 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKind\nYear\nProduction\nKind\nYear\nProduction\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\nBoxes\n5,100,373\n6,322,000\n79,145\n130,900\n742,559\n551,600\nCrates\n144,300\n118,000\n826,144\n951,500\n1,108,850\n1,312,500\n95,024\n626,000\n177,970\n372,400\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\nCrates\n570,462\n772,900\n549,071\n645,500\n49,047\n80,500\n56,340\n47,700\n4,080\n5,500\n7,658\n10,250\n3,368\n4,700\nLb.\n1,894,465\n2,533,000\nRaspberries \t\nPeaches \u00E2\u0080\u0094 -\t\nGooseberries \t\nGrapes.. \t\nCherries\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nVegetables\nTomato-acreage showed an increase of about 400 acres over 1951. This was the\nlargest increase reported for any one crop. Yields and quality of vegetables were generally good and the demand and prices satisfactory.\nThe production situation in the three main producing areas is outlined in the following reports of G. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist for the Fraser Valley; E. W.\nWhite, Supervising Horticulturist for the Okanagan. CC 30 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nG. E. W. Clarke, Fraser Valley:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"During February and March an early spring was anticipated, and while land\npreparation went forward rapidly, cool temperatures with cool soil conditions retarded\ngrowth and early transplanting.\n\"Some early bunch vegetables from the warmer areas, such as radishes, onions,\nturnips, beets, and spinach, were on the market around May 1st, followed by head-lettuce\nabout May 15th. Early potatoes, although planted earlier than last year, developed\nslowly; consequently the first digging was about June 15th.\n\" Canning-pea crops were, on the whole, good; beans were slow at the start but\nyields, except in a few places, were fair to good. Corn was also slow to start and the\ncanning production looked to be very disappointing at first, but continued warm weather\nbrought the crop along rapidly in September. Canning and freezing of the crop continued\nuntil the end of October. It is rather interesting to note that a crop of corn seeded in\nAgassiz in mid-June matured too late for the cannery but was successfully marketed\nduring November on the Vancouver market.\n\" Potatoes were scarce during the early part of the year; in fact, some restaurants\nwere either not serving or were limiting servings of potatoes.\n\" Seed-potatoes were also in short supply. The crop for this year, however, appears\nto be ample to meet requirements. Imported potatoes at various times during the year\nhave affected the price situation.\n\" In order to give the small-fruit growers an additional source of income, time has\nbeen spent in introducing a few vegetable crops. The Pacific Co-operative Union have\nbeen interested in putting up a frozen pack.\n\" Work has been done with broccoli and brussels sprouts, two crops that will continue to produce a marketable crop well into fall and early winter. In 1951, about 35\nacres of broccoli and 20 acres of brussels sprouts were grown in the vicinity of Abbotsford. This year, 75 acres of broccoli and 40 acres of brussels sprouts were planted.\"\nE. W. White and A. E. Littler, Vancouver Island: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Growers had a good cut of cauliflower during November and December, 1951.\nThe spring (overwintered) cauliflower also gave a good cut.\n\" The spring and summer vegetables have followed the usual pattern and been in\ngood supply throughout the season. Warm-weather crops such as tomatoes, corn, squash,\netc., were late in maturing due to the cold nights during July and August. There were\nvery few local tomatoes on the market before the last week in August. However, the fall\nwas a warm one and these crops matured in volume well on into October. Tomatoes in\nparticular came on in such volume that they presented quite a marketing problem.\n\" Potatoes have been a good crop and prices have been relatively high.\n\" Christmas and overwintered cauliflower-crops look in good condition for the most\npart.\"\nR. P. Murray, Okanagan:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Vegetable-crops have been good generally. Prices have been favourable and the\ngrowers have had a good season.\n\" The vegetable-crop was larger this season than a year ago by 557 acres. This is\nmade up largely by the increased acreage of tomatoes, carrots, green beans, dried beans,\ndried peas, and late potatoes.\n\" Celery, cantaloupes, early potatoes, parsnips, and cucumbers all show a drop in\nthe 1952 acreage.\n\" The total acreage for 1952 was 8,614 acres, as compared to 8,057 in 1951.\n\" There are more carrots in storage than a year ago, caused possibly by an increased\nacreage (108 acres) and a smaller amount taken by the canners. However, no trouble\nis expected in moving all the carrots now on hand. The amount in storage is estimated\nat about 1,200 tons. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 31\n\" Because of heavy imports from the United States just as the early cabbages and\ncantaloupes started to move, returns for these two crops are going to be disappointing.\n\" This year, quite extensive trials were made with staked tomatoes, the reason being\nto meet competition from Ontario for tomatoes sold in cellophane tubes.\n\"The following varieties were tried: Sutton's Best, Carleton, Best of All, E 21,\nSelandia, and Early Harkness. With the exception of the hybrid E 21, which grew too\nlarge, the varieties were quite suitable for staking. From the growers' view-point, Carle-\nton and Best of All were the two most satisfactory varieties for staking.\n\" Whether this crop will be continued for another year or not is uncertain. With a\npoor growing season and a lack of experience in growing staked tomatoes most growers\nhave lost interest.\n\" Yields in some cases were quite high, and it is reported that one grower at Okanagan Centre produced 20 tons of marketable fruit per acre.\n\" It has been amply demonstrated this crop can be grown in the Okanagan, and\nwith a little more experience on the part of the growers there should be no difficulty in\nsupplying tomatoes of this type, if the market requires them.\"\nThe following table gives the estimated acreage and production for 1952: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nEstimated Acreage and Production of Vegetable-crops in British Columbia,\nYear 1952 (as at November 1st)\nCrop\nPlanted\nArea\nAverage\nYield\nper Acre\nAcres\nLb.\n190\n2,300\n1,280\n8,500\n380\n14,500\n720\n9,900\n1,120\n14,600\n440\n6,400\n630\n8,100\n2,480\n6,100\n770\n12,200\n730\n22,700\n130\n11,800\n4,090\n2,500\n480\n6,300\n3,180\n14,000\n250\n18,500\nTotal\nProduction\nAsparagus \t\nBeans (green and wax)..\nBeets \t\nCabbage \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _\nCarrots \t\nCauliflower \t\nCelery \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nCorn \t\nLettuce \t\nOnions -\t\nParsnips\t\nPeas (green ...\nSpinach-\nTomatoes (field...\nTurnips \t\nLb.\n437,000\n10,880,000\n5,510,000\n7,128,000\n16,352,000\n2,816,000\n5,103,000\n15,128,000\n9,394,000\n16,571,000\n1,534,000\n10,225,000\n3,024,000\n44,520,000\n4,625,000\nFlower and Bulb Production\nThe flower and bulb production is summed up in the following paragraphs taken\nfrom the reports of A. E. Littler, District Horticulturist for Vancouver Island, and\nG. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist for the Fraser Valley:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nA. E. Littler, Vancouver Island:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" This crop appears to be reaching a more stabilized status on Vancouver Island\nwith the bulk of production being carried by the larger, well-established growers. Easter\nthis year, with Good Friday falling on April 11th, came at a very opportune time for the\ngrowers of cut blooms. The King Alfred daffodils were at their peak for this period and\na considerable shipment of bloom by air cargo took place.\n\" The tulip blooms came on quite rapidly during April but there was still considerable\nbloom available for Mother's Day on May 11th.\n\" The weather during July and August was dry as usual but satisfactory for the\nharvesting of the bulbs.\" CC 32 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nG. E. W. Clarke, Fraser Valley:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Bulb-growers have had many difficulties to contend with in growing their crop and\ngaining the confidence and support of the purchasers. Production is on the increase and\na large proportion of the crop was sold on the local markets.\n\" It has been shown that high-quality bulbs of most kinds can be grown successfully.\nThe elimination of poor stock and the building up and improvment of foundation stocks\nhas been a slow process. This work, in co-operation with the Inspection Service of the\nDominion Department of Agriculture and the Entomological Branch, as well as the\nexperimental work being done at the Dominion Experimental Station at Saanichton, is\nnow showing results. There are, and always will be, problems in the growing and handling\nof bulbs but many of the present growers are now in a position to produce good crops.\n\" Field days have done a great deal to bring the buyers into closer contact with\ngrowers.\n\" Your officials assisted the growers in arranging for speakers and topics for meetings\nand demonstrations during the year.\"\nThe following table gives an excellent idea of the value of bulb production in British\nColumbia in 1952: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nEstimated Value of Marketable Bulb Production in British Columbia in 1952\nNarcissus\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n175 acresX 100,000=17,500,000 planted.\nMarketable output\u00E2\u0080\u009415% =2,625,000 @ $30perM= $78,750\nTulips\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n75 acres X 100,000=7,500,000 planted.\nMarketable output\u00E2\u0080\u009425% = 1,875,000 @ $25 per M= 46,875\nIris (bulbous)\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n35 acresX 150,000=5,250,000 planted.\nMarketable output\u00E2\u0080\u009430% = 1,575,000 @ $30perM= 47,250\nGladiolus\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n88 acres X 100,000=8,800,000 planted.\nMarketable output\u00E2\u0080\u009430% =2,640,000 @ $20 per M= 52,800\nMiscellaneous\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n30 acres X$ 1,000 per acre = 30,000\nTotal (403 acres) $255,675\nBlueberries and Cranberries\nThe following paragraphs, extracted from the report of G. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist in the Fraser Valley, will give some idea of the progress in the production of these two crops:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Blueberries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094About twenty-seven years ago the first high-bush blueberry plantings\nwere set out on Lulu Island by W. Johnston, and during the last few years there has been\na marked increase in plantings. Production is now between 200-300 tons, and as new\nplantings are now coming into bearing, the increase in production from now on will be\nvery rapid. At the present time there has been a fairly firm fresh-fruit market, but as the\ncrop tonnage is increasing, manufacturers are becoming more interested in the handling\nof this fruit. While the greatest acreage is located on Lulu Island, plantings are also\nbeing made in other parts of the district. Blueberry-growers have formed an association\nand with the increasing crop production are beginning to organize for the sale of the crop.\n\" Cranberries.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A few growers on Lulu Island have been interested in growing\ncranberries and this year the production is expected to be about 30 tons. The majority\nof these growers have become members of the American Cranberry Association, and it is\nexpected that the returns will be more satisfactory than in previous years.\" r\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 33\nHops\nThis year there has been a further increase in hop acreage in the Interior. The\nreports from the horticultural offices in the three main producing areas of the Province\nare given below:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nG. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist at Abbotsford:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The present acreage at Chilliwack, Sardis, and Sumas is owned and operated by\nlarge companies. The hop planting belonging to the B.C. Hop Company in Agassiz was\ntaken out in 1951 and the property was sold during the early part of 1952.\n\" The hop-crop was a little lighter this year, possibly due to the carry-over from\nprevious years and the prospects of lower prices.\n\" During the past few years, stationary mechanical hop-picking equipment has been\nreplacing a large proportion of the hand picking. This year a couple of portable hop-\npickers were tried out and seemed to be proving fairly satisfactory. Considerable adjustment is required in order to operate this equipment efficiently.\n\" The hop companies have been importing root and crown cuttings of various\nvarieties for trials in other parts of this Province and this may mean a reduction in some\nplantings in the district.\"\nR. M. Wilson, District Horticulturist at Kamloops:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Growing conditions for hops were generally satisfactory this season. The acreage\nat the John I. Haas hop planting, Lillooet, increased by 30, bringing their total to 110\nacres. The Ord and Sicks' acreage near Kamloops remained unchanged at 70 and 100\nacres respectively. Yields were about average for this area, ranging between 6 and 9\nbales per acre and the quality was good.\n\" In portions of the Haas planting at Lillooet, a condition of the foliage suggested\nthe presence of Verticillium Wilt. The land was planted to tomatoes for a number of\nyears before being converted to hop farming two years ago, and the soil was known to be\ninfested with the Wilt organism. The Plant Pathology Laboratory at Summerland has\nnot yet established the condition as Verticillium Wilt, but this disease is the chief suspect.\"\nG. R. Thorpe, District Horticulturist at Creston:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Hops produced the first commercial crop this year in the Creston Valley. Fifty-\nnine bales were picked and dried on the reclaimed lands. The section from which the\nhops were harvested varied a great deal in production. The highest yield was estimated\nat 10 bales per acre, while the lowest production was estimated at 5 bales per acre.\n\" The great variation in the hop yield was attributed to several factors. The two\nmain factors contributing to this variation were, undoubtedly, soil variations and the high\nwater-table. Other factors contributing to the reduction of yields were ' bastard ' hops,\ntwo-spot mites, and aphids.\n\" T.E.P.P. was used to control the two-spot mites and nicotine dust 5 per cent for\nthe aphids. Control was good in both cases; however, the aphids built up again by\nharvest-time and caused considerable damage.\n\" Two plants, suspected of carrying a virus disease, were removed and destroyed.\"\nTobacco\nAt the present time the commercial production of tobacco in British Columbia is\nconfined to the Fraser Valley area. G. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist at\nAbbotsford, reports on the progress of this crop as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The commercial growing of Virginia Leaf flue-cured tobacco is in the Sumas\nDistrict and all growers are members of the Sumas Co-operative Tobacco Growers'\nAssociation. The crop is sorted and baled and then shipped to the Imperial Tobacco\nCompany, where it is sold on a grade basis. Cars are loaded at Abbotsford during the\nearly part of December. CC 34\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\n\" White Mammoth has been the principal variety grown, but during the past couple\nof years Delcrest, a new variety, is gaining favour as it is producing good yields of high\nquality.\n\" The weather during transplanting was cool and uncertain; consequently, this was\nresponsible to some extent for the decrease in this year's acreage to about 120 acres.\n\" Conditions during the season were satisfactory and while the quality of the crop,\nfor the most part, is good, shipments will probably total about 120,000 pounds as compared to 150,000 pounds in 1951.\"\nSeed Production\nThe seed-production work in this Province is under the direction of J. L. Webster,\nof the Horticultural Branch, and the following extracts are taken from his report: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" While spring grain in the Southern Interior was short and poor, pea-crops did well\nin the North Okanagan, particularly well in the Creston area. Heat-loving crops, such\nas tomatoes, were set back at least two weeks by cool weather experienced during the\nlatter part of June and early July.\n\" Irrigated vegetable and vegetable-seed crops did unusually well at Grand Forks\non a reduced acreage. Grass- and legume-seed crops in the northern area, although\nslightly, affected by drought during the latter part of the summer, nevertheless set good\ncrops of seed, particularly alfalfa in the Peace River. The harvesting weather during\nSeptember and October was almost ideal in most districts and little or no loss was taken\non either forage or vegetable seeds, although some rain during the latter part of October\ncaused difficulty with flower-seed crops on Vancouver Island.\n\"The following data shows the 1950 and 1951 yields of vegetable-seed, together\nwith the November estimate for the current year (1952):\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKind\n1950\n1951\n1952\n(Estimated)\nLb.\n59\n15,000\n308,500\n21,900\n536\n1,200\n41,200\n375\nLb.\n372\n10,000\n120,791\n8,055\nLb.\n250\nBeans\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n11,000\n134,750\n15,300\n37\n9,711\n674\n25\n8,300\nCauliflower. _ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n210\n100\n31,000\n1,000\n500\n23,434\n400\n99,725\n14,000\n7,626\n1,573,393\n180\n1,000\n9,350\n8,500\n370\n1,040\n34,882\n250\n290\n2,359\n357\n697\n4,609\n50\n15,343\n18,000\n2,500\n300\n8,600\n50\n6,000\n2,000\n3,900\n2,559,000\n100\n1,327\n2,280,836\n25\n92\n9,016\n2,132\n171\n52\n31,404\n356\n100\n300\n12,800\n550\n800\n52,200\n400\nTotals \t\n2,195,930\n2,498,466\n2,837,835\n\"Discussion on the Vegetable-seed Marketing Situation.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The over-all marketing\nsituation for vegetable-seed remains unfavourable. Since 1948, when the United Kingdom refused to allow British seedmen to obtain import permits to purchase Canadian-\nI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 35\ngrown vegetable and flower seed, the export market for our competitive vegetable-seed\nitems has been almost nil. The devaluation of British, Dutch, and other European\ncurrency, which results in a 20-per-cent to 30-per-cent monetary advantage for imported\nseeds from these countries, has had a serious effect on the price structure in this country.\nThis general low-price structure, resulting from the competition from the sterling areas,\nhas now continued for almost four years. Our main export market, the United States,\nhas been affected in the same way as Canada, with prices being geared to meet competitive\nimport quotations. Possibly the United States has been able to meet these prices more\neffectively through the medium of mass production or mechanization, which is more\nadvanced than in Canada. It, therefore, appears that lowered cost of production is the\nonly answer to the problem at the present time.\n\"A large surplus of onion-seed (70,000 pounds) of exportable varieties has been\nheld by British Columbia growers since 1949. We are now happy to report that this\nsurplus has been disposed of in Holland, unfortunately at low prices. However, the\nremoval of this large surplus from the local market will have a more healthy effect on the\nprice structure, and it is expected that prices on onion-seed will rise, leading to more\ninterest amongst seed-growers in the Province and consequent acceptance of sizeable\ncontracts.\n\" Unfortunately, the situation with respect to biennials, such as onion and carrot,\nfor 1953 is that very little will be grown for seed. Commercial onion-growers are taking\nadvantage of the high price of onion-bulbs and are disposing of them all at the very\nsatisfactory price of $80 f.o.b. Interior points. With onion-bulbs at $80 per ton and\ncarrot-roots at $50 per ton, there is actually more revenue in the growing of commercial\nvegetables than storing same and planting them for seed production the following year.\nDealing with the matter of returns from commercial vegetables and vegetable-seeds with\nrespect to onions, we have the following illustration: It takes approximately 4 tons of\nonions to plant an acre for seed. For 1953 crop it would therefore cost $320 in onion-\nbulbs alone to plant 1 acre. Taking the average yield of onion-seed per acre, namely\n500 pounds, at prevailing price of $1.25 per pound, the grower would receive $625 per\nacre, leaving him only $305 to store the onions over winter, plant out, fertilize, cultivate,\nirrigate, harvest, thresh, and finally to clean his seed. It is, therefore, not profitable to\ngrow onion-seed at the present prices. We have previously reported that to grow onion-\nseed profitably onion-bulbs must cost $40 or less per ton, unless, of course, the price of\nonion-seed is raised to the wartime level of $2 or more per pound.\n\"A somewhat similar situation applies to carrots. With Swede turnips, however, the\ncrop is seeded in early fall and allowed to overwinter in the ground in the Fraser Valley,\nmaking it unnecessary to grow mature roots and store them over winter.\n\" Indications are, however, that we have reached the bottom of a price cycle and\nvegetable-seed prices are now rising slightly, with demand also increasing. If seed firms\ndirectly engaged in the contracting of vegetable-seed can finance and operate through the\n1952-53 season, we believe that they will be able to take advantage of rising prices and\na much greater demand for the commodity throughout North America.\n\" Flower-seed.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Flower-seed acreage is about on a par with that of 1951 and it is\nbelieved that the total value of the crop may be up slightly from that of the last two years.\nThis small but interesting phase of seed production now seems to be definitely established\nin the Province, particularly on Vancouver Island, Grand Forks, and in one or two other\nSouthern Interior districts. There are a number of items in perennials and kinds which\ncannot be harvested by machinery which are well suited to climate and soils in this\nProvince and, while a complete range of varieties can be produced in British Columbia,\nit is more economic to produce certain items in volume which do not succeed as well in\nCalifornia.\n\"In 1951, flower-seed was valued at $48,228.34 and this year we anticipate that\nthis figure may reach $50,000, although it is extremely difficult to estimate or calculate\nyields of some of the later items at this date.\" CC 36\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nHORTICULTURAL SURVEYS AND FIELD INSPECTIONS\nThis year a tree-fruit survey was made in the Okanagan because it was felt that the\nregular quinquennial orchard survey completed just previous to the severe weather of\nJanuary, 1950, did not give a very accurate picture of the number of producing trees\nowing to the large number destroyed at that time.\nThe following table indicates the number of trees of the different kinds of fruit in\nthe Okanagan and Kootenay as shown by the last survey and in comparison with the\nfigures obtained in the surveys conducted from 1925 to 1945 inclusive:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBritish Columbia Tree-fruit Survey, 1925-52\nOkanagan\nFruit\n1925\n1930\n1935\n1940\n1945\n1952\n1,147,511\n70,254\n20,874\n33,420\n28,854\n7,152\n51,107\n52,425\n1,137,851\n84,589\n16,689\n31,029\n30,686\n4,571\n43,770\n47,157\n1,130,554\n106,438\n16,395\n56,883\n43,603\n2,452\n56,640\n132,297\n1,091,849\n150,863\n16,115\n93,227\n47,228\n1,139\n45,361\n182,957\n1,052,037\n230,330\n17,232\n137,994\n68,289\n886\n85,525\n298,339\n1,014,744\n359,814\n12,663\n190,159\nCherries\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n111,687\n1,593\n194,241\n306,465\nKootenay\nApples..\nPears \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPlums and prunes .\nCherries\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSweet\t\nSour \t\nApricots\t\nPeaches \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n378,096\n21,820\n25,031\n22,822\n4,942\n712\n1,505\n289,546\n18,254\n13,792\n30,086\n2,784\n983\n2,142\n244,557\n25,914\n17,339\n38,762\n2,123\n2,613\n6,143\n161,631\n23,824\n10,159\n30,141\n1,402\n2,033\n6,680\n143,216\n24,027\n19,294\n29,512\n1,079\n2,222\n6,728\n131,890\n22,846\n13,203\n12,711\n186\n335\n1,078\nThe 1952 small-fruit survey has been completed and the following tabulated\nsummary indicates the acreage and trends in this industry since 1922:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSmall-fruit and Rhubarb Acreage,\n1922-52\nKind\n1\n1922 1 1924\n1\n1926\n1928\n1930\n1932\n1934\n2,886\n2,105\n506\n329\n42\n138\n2,331\n2,387\n764\n252\n58\n2,042\n1,641\n802\n178\n34\n3,005\n1,258\n713\n170\n42\n179\n69\n320\n2,198\n1,060\n821\n120\n22\n149\n60\n382\n2,264\n1,077\n844\n158\n20\n159\n60\n396\n2,944\n1,371\n697\nLoganberries \t\n36\n239\n192\n272\n85\n96\n68\n244\n112\n111\n183\n571\nTotals \t\n6,202\n6,310 | 5,201\n5,756\n4,812\n4,989\n6,159\nKind\n1936\n1938\n1940\n1944\n1946\n1950\n1952\n3,312\n1,438\n628\n140\n42\n326\n112\n685\n3,338\n1,424\n648\n133\n36\n255\n57\n572\n3,292\n1,194\n703\n74\n24\n248\n53\n395\n1,570\n1,520\n467\n85\n12\n189\n26\n141\n2,833\n2,058\n393\n56\n18\n132\n12\n112\n3,170\n1,261\n417\n46\n9\n84\n10\n168\n340\n3,036\n1,409\n399\nBlackberries \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n55\n7\n52\n8\n99\n506\nTotals - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n6,683 ] 6,463\n5,983\n4,010 | 5,614\n5,505\n5,571 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 37\nNursery Inspection\nTo comply with the \" Plant Protection Act,\" 114 licences were issued to nurseries\nand nursery agents at a cost of $5 each.\nInspection of all nurseries in the Province was carried out by the staff of the\nHorticultural Branch, either at the time of digging or previous to shipping. The following\ntable summaries the work for 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNursery Inspection Report, 1952\nTrees\nNumber\nInspected\nNumber\nPassed\nNumber\nCondemned\n70,303\n51,179\n14,051\n32,764\n45,671\n22,262\n69,155\n50,496\n13,881\n32,242\n45,024\n22,262\n1,148\n683\n170\n522\n647\nTotals -\t\n236,230\n233,060\n3,170\nThirty-nine inspections made; 1.34 per cent of stock condemned.\nFire-blight Inspection\nThis year there was considerable reduction in the amount of fire-blight in the pear-\ngrowing sections of the Province. There was less than any year since 1947.\nThe Horticultural Branch carries out an annual inspection of orchards and a continuous educational campaign to acquaint the growers with the latest methods of combating this disease.\nThe following table indicates the number of acres inspected in 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFire-blight Inspection, 1952\nDistrict\nTotal Acres\nInspected\nInspected\nand Passed\nNot Passed\n208\n29\n14\n3,500\n6,300\n520\n97\n1,758\n471\n600\n43\n188\n29\n14\n3,480\n6,300\n520\n97\n1,748\n456\n600\n43\n20\n20\n10\n15\n13,540\n13,475\n65\nHORTICULTURAL DEMONSTRATION WORK\nPruning Demonstrations\nPruning demonstrations were held throughout the Province again this year and were\ngenerally well attended.\nThe following table indicates the districts, number of demonstrations held, and the\nattendance in 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNumber of Number of\nDistrict Demonstrations Pupils\nVancouver Island 18 515\nLower Mainland 17 587\nOkanagan _ 3 40\nKootenay 11 66\nTotals 49 1,208 cc 38 british colu_v|-bia\nTomato Demonstration-plot\nLast spring a piece of land was leased at Kelowna for the purpose of demonstrating\ncultural methods that should tend toward increasing the yield and quality of tomatoes.\nIt is the intention to carry this work over a five-year period in order to have time to\ndemonstrate the possibilities of the programme adopted. R. P. Murray, Supervising\nHorticulturist at Kelowna, reports on the work to date as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The tomato represents a very important crop in the valley, but in spite of all the\nadvice on how to grow this crop, the yields have been going steadily down hill. The\nreason for this decline can possibly be summed up quite simply\u00E2\u0080\u0094poor farming. The\npoor farming may be accounted for in part by our limited acreage\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, small holdings\nand system of renting.\n\" To try and show how the tonnage and quality could be raised, 3 acres at Kelowna\nwas leased for five years, at an annual rental of $75 per acre.\n\" The grower supplies the plants, does all the necessary cultivation, keeps yield\nrecords, and takes the crop. The Horticultural Branch provides seed for the cover-crop\nand fertilizer.\n\" The 3 acres are divided into 1-acre plots; 2 acres are in cover-crop while 1 acre\nis cropped.\n\" This year, sweet clover was seeded on the 2 acres at the rate of 8 pounds per acre,\nand the whole 3 acres given a dressing of 16-20-0 at the rate of 400 pounds per acre.\n\" The plants, Clarke's Early, were set out May 24th, and because of the shortage\nof plants, due to losses in the plant-beds because of frost, were not as good as they should\nhave been.\n\" The plot was well cared for during the season and the first ripe tomatoes were\npicked August 11th, and picking finished October 3rd, due to a killing frost.\n\" The yield was low, only 10,445 pounds of ripe tomatoes being harvested. Had\nthere not been a long, warm fall the crop would have been considerably less.\n\"Apart from some supervision, the cost to the Department was: Rent, $224; fertilizer, $46.14 (1,200 pounds); sweet clover seed (25 pounds), $5.25; or a total of\n$276.39.\n\" This work should be an important contribution to the tomato production problems\nwe are faced with, and by visual education show the growers what can be done with\nordinary good farming methods.\n\" Since the cost of establishing these plots is small, I would recommend that similar\nplots be set up in the Vernon-Kamloops or Ashcroft areas next season.\n\" In addition to the use of sweet clover as a cover-crop, 100 pounds of Austrian\nwinter peas was obtained and sown this fall. Fifty pounds were sown on the plot that\nproduced tomatoes this year and 25 pounds each were sown at Oliver and Cawston.\n\"According to the information at hand, Austrian winter peas may be sown quite\nlate, that is, after the tomato-crop is harvested, and start early enough to give a good\nyield of green material in time for ploughing under for any transplanted vegetable-crop.\nIt will be interesting to see how this crop behaves.\n\" The Austrian peas under trial at Kelowna were sown November 10th, at the rate\nof 100 pounds per acre.\"\nTest of Greenhouse Tomatoes\nE. W. White, Supervising Horticulturist, Vancouver Island, made observations on\nvariety test of greenhouse tomatoes during the spring of 1952, as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"A number of mould-resistant strains secured from the Horticultural Experiment\nStation, Vineland, Ont, were tried out in 1951 at Riddle Bros., 800 Seymour Avenue,\nVictoria; H. F. Atkin, Box 2240, R.R. 5, Victoria; and Young Bros., Box 2432, R.R. 5,\nVictoria. These were V-501-2-3-4-7-8.\n\" None of these proved superior to V-121 for the main crop. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 39\n\" Riddle Bros, tried out this year a variety called Crystal, seed of which was sent\nout from England in January, 1951, by A. J. Wills, which arrived too late for the spring\ncrop. The plants grew well and set a good crop, but the fruit was too small for this\nmarket.\n\" Riddle Bros, also tried out Improved V-121 but it was too vigorous for their heavy\nsoil. Michigan State Forcing was also tested but it proved to be too rough.\n\" H. F. Atkin, Box 2240, R.R. 5, Victoria, selected two of the most promising of\nthe Vineland strains tried in 1951\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, V-504 and V-508\u00E2\u0080\u0094and tried them out again\nthis year. They were not as satisfactory as the Improved V-121 which he grew for his\nmain crop.\"\nVariety Test of Tomatoes Grown Outside\nA. E. Littler, District Horticulturist for Vancouver Island, reports on the performance of Carleton in comparison with Scarlet Dawn and Best of All as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Carleton showed good germination and escaped the ravages of the mice. Four\nhundred plants of Carleton were set out from May 12th to 14th. The system of training\nwas to keep each plant to a single stem up a string supported by an overhead wire. The\nplants were allowed to grow until they had set three trusses of fruit, after which time the\ngrowing tips were nipped out.\n\" Observation of these plants, which were compared to the standard staking varieties\nScarlet Dawn and Best of All used as checks, indicated that under the growing conditions\nin which these plants were grown Carleton was not as vigorous a plant as either of the\nother two varieties. The lower sets of fruit were very poor, often having only two or three\nfruit to a cluster. The fruit was considerably smaller than the other varieties and the\nbulk of the crop was approximately six days later than Scarlet Dawn and two days later\nthan Best of All. In view of the above observations, this variety does not appear too\npromising. However, further tests will be carried out with this variety.\"\nLima Bean Trials\nThis work was carried out on the Cawston Bench by M. P. D. Trumpour, District\nHorticulturist, Penticton, in co-operation with J. L. Webster, Horticulturist in charge of\nseed-work in the Province. Mr. Trumpour reports on this year's trials as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"Purpose.\u00E2\u0080\u0094To continue with the testing of Lima bean varieties for frozen-food\npurposes on the Cawston Bench. In addition, these trials were extended to make preliminary tests of fertilizer effects and of seeding-dates.\n\" Place.\u00E2\u0080\u0094C. Finch holding, Cawston.\n\" Varieties.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Logan, Henderson's Bush, Fordhook, Clarke's Bush, Thorogreen\nGreen-seeded, Triumph, Allgreen, Thorogreen Improved.\n\" Dates of Sowing.\u00E2\u0080\u0094May 20th and June 5th.\n\" Fertilizer.\u00E2\u0080\u0094No fertilizer applied except on Clarke's Bush. On Clarke's Bush,\n16-20-0 was applied on June 7th at 0, 200, and 400 pounds per acre.\n\"Remarks.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It had been planned to make the first seeding on May 15th but the\nseed for this did not arrive soon enough. In fact, plant-growth from the May 20th\nsowing was slow and it appeared that no advantage was gained by this sowing over that\nof the June 5th sowing. However, by late August it did become evident that pod and\nbean formation was definitely advanced on the earlier-seeded plants than on the later-\nseeded plants. This observation was definitely substantiated as the beans became ready\nfor harvesting. Maturity was generally later than that of the preceding year. It is\npossible that the cool weather which prevailed in June checked the plants too long.\n\" Yield data are, unfortunately, lacking. Two factors made it impossible to derive\naccurate yield information. One factor was that rabbits had caused considerable damage\nin some of the plots. The other factor was that there was insufficient time to pick the\npods even though the respective plots were small. To hand-pick a 30-foot row required CC 40 BRITISH COLUMBIA\none to two hours per man per picking and several pickings must be made. Response\nfrom the fertilizer applications was very marked. Maturity appeared to be delayed but\nplant-growth and pod-yield were definitely increased. When no fertilizer was applied\nthe yield from the June 5th sowing of Clarke's Bush was 7.5 pounds; when 200 pounds\nof 16-20-0 per acre were applied the yield was 10 pounds; and when 400 pounds of\n16-20-0 per acre were applied the yield was 16 pounds. These yields were obtained\nin the first picking on the same day.\n\" Of the varieties tested, Clarke's Bush continued to be one of the best in the field.\nAllgreen, reputed to be an improved Clarke's Bush, yielded less and matured much\nlater. Logan showed more promise than Allgreen but matured unevenly. Thorogreen\nGreen-seeded also matured unevenly, produced small pods and was difficult to pick.\nThorogreen Improved was easier to pick. Fordhook was in a class by itself, being a\nvery large bean which did not seem to be a desirable characteristic for the frozen-food\ntrade.\"\nRaspberry Variety Observations\nG. E. W. Clarke, Supervising Horticulturist at Abbotsford, makes the following\nobservations on raspberry varieties in the Fraser Valley:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"At the present time, the Newburg is the principal variety grown. It produces\nheavy yields on a wide range of soils. It is less subject to winter-injury and some problems affecting many other varieties. This variety is not rated high in quality but it is\nlarge, of fair quality, and easy to pick.\n\" The Washington variety, which more closely approaches the high quality of the\nCuthbert, is the leading variety in the West, being preferred for canning, jam, and\nfreezing purposes. In spite of the slight premium in price, this variety is not profitable\nin some raspberry-producing areas. It is more exacting with regard to soil conditions\nand cultural practices. This year, there was considerable bud-injury to Washington\nraspberry plantings due to the late spring frosts.\n\" In view of the preference for the Washington type of raspberry, it would appear\nthat a new variety which could be commercially grown under a comparatively wide\nrange of conditions would be of value in stabilizing the commercial raspberry acreage.\nIn order to maintain and hold a good market for our raspberries, a good quality berry\nis necessary. Commercial plantings of the Willamette are under observation and present\nindications are that this variety is not likely to become a leading variety in this district.\nThe Willamette prefers conditions similar to those of the Washington and while the\nberries are large, attractive, of fair quality, and easy to pick, the ripening fruit has\na tendency to drop and this could result in considerable loss of crop, particularly in\na wet season.\n\" Selective plantings of a raspberry which may prove to be of commercial importance has been under observation on the farm of F. Seifred for the past four years.\nAbout an acre of this variety was set out in 1951 and a further planting of about 9 acres\nwas planted this year. The grower expects to have 20 acres planted by 1953. Small\nquantities of this raspberry have been tested by the canning and freezing trade and\nreports are encouraging. The berries are medium to large, firm, of good flavour, with\nsmall, soft seeds. This variety has some of the characteristics of the Lloyd George and\npromises to be productive. No plants have been distributed from this farm and if the\nvariety continues to be promising on an acreage basis, plants will be available for commercial planting. Propagation stock of this variety is being selected and isolated in\norder to maintain vigorous plants.\"\nCouch-grass Control in Washington Raspberries\nAn effective chemical weed-killer that will kill grasses in small-fruit plantations\nwould be of great assistance to growers. I. C. Carne, District Horticulturist at Salmon\nArm, reports on a field trial conducted last summer as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 41\n\"A small-scale experiment was drawn up to determine whether or not couch-grass\ncould be effectively controlled in a commercial raspberry planting. Plot size was kept\nsmall (8 by 25 feet) to avoid damaging too many plants. The larger plot sizes of\n20 by 20 feet contained no raspberries. Presented below in tabular form are the details\nof this experiment:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPlot No.\nMaterial Used\nRate per\nAcre\nTreatment\nPercentage\nof Grass\nKilled\nRemarks\n1\t\nI.P.C\t\n2 \t\n3\t\nI.P.C \t\nWater.\t\nI.P.C. . -\t\n4\t\n5 -\n6a.\t\nWater\t\nT.C.A. \t\nWater\t\nT.C.A \t\nWater \t\nT.C.A\t\n6b\t\nWater \t\nT.C.A \t\n7a.\nWater. _.\t\nI.P.C.\t\n7b \t\nI.P.C \t\nCheck\t\nNot sprayed\t\n5 gal.\n80 gal.\n12 1b.\n55 gal.\n16 1b.\n55 gal.\n401b.\n55 gal.\n801b.\n55 gal.\n401b.\n55 gal.\n401b.\n55 gal.\n5 gal.\n40 gal.\n5 gal.\n40 gal.\nNot disked..\nNot disked-\nNot disked..\n'/ Not disked-\nI\nNot disked-\n' Not disked..\n1 Disked three times during summer..\n' Not disked \t\nI Disked three times during season .\nDisked three times during season\t\nNil\nNil\nNil\n35\n90\n15\n95\n10\n25\n75\nAll materials applied\nMay, 1952.\nPlot 10 by 20 ft.\nPlot 10 by 25 ft.\nPlot 10 by 25 ft.\nPlot 10 by 20 ft.\nPlot 20 by 40 ft.\n\" Summary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There was no apparent injury caused to the raspberry canes with these materials used as reported.\nThe kill of couch-grass in the planting was not considered satisfactory. T.C.A. when used in conjunction with a disking\nprogramme may be feasible under certain circumstances.\"\nFertilizers on Italian Prunes\nIn an effort to find the effects of fertilizer treatments in improving the size of prunes,\na field test was set up at Penticton by R. P. Murray in 1949. This test is being carried\non by M. P. D. Trumpour, District Horticulturist at Penticton, and he reports as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" This is a progress report on the fertilizer plots set up in 1949 by R. P. Murray,\nSupervising Horticulturist.\n\" Fertilizers, manure, and sawdust were again applied to the respective plots in the\nlate fall of 1951.\n\" In addition to obtaining yields per tree, sizes of prunes per treatment were recorded\nin an attempt to determine if there was any correlation between prune size and fertilizer\ntreatment. These sizes were measured as the average number of prunes per pound and\nare recorded in the tables. Thus the more prunes there were per pound the smaller were\nthe prunes. CC 42\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\n\"Harris Orchard, Penticton\nPlot\nMaterial\nRate per\nTree\nAverage Yield per Tree\nAverage\nNumber\n1950\n1951\n1952\nof Prunes\nper Pound\n1\nLb.\n10T/A\n8\n10\n4\n10\nLb.\n143.6\n196.3\nI 234.3\n232.2\n135.4\nLb.\n209.3\n266.8\n305.5\n221.0\n177.8\nLb.\n202\n216\n250\n167\n130\n16.2\n2\n16.3\n3\n16-20-0 -_ \t\n17.1\n4\n16-20-0 -\t\n15.3\n5\nCheck.. _ _ \t\n16.4\n\"Barker Orchard, Keremeos\n1\nLb.\n6\n8\n10\n10\n4\n6\nLb.\n1 138\ni 185\n174\nLb.\n174\n204\n182\n170\n207\n185\nLb.\n190\n217\n159\n167\n184\n128\n16.2\n2\n15.0\n3\n14.2\n4\n16-20-0- - \t\n16.4\n5\n14.5\n6\nCheck _ _\t\n15.0\n\" With regard to the yield of prunes per tree, there were reductions from last year in\nall plots in the Harris orchard and in most plots in the Barker orchard. This general\nreduction was attributed to a light set of fruit and to a heavy pre-harvest drop as indicated\nin the section under Horticultural Crop Conditions. The most significant reductions were\nin the check-plots, which indicate that nitrogen is a necessary plant-food.\n\" While the differences in size of prunes were very slight, those prunes from the\npotash-treated plots were the smallest in each orchard. The prunes from the check-plots\nwere medium in size but this may be attributed to more advanced maturity at harvest-time.\nIf these prunes had been picked at the relatively correct maturity, it is possible that they\nwould have been smaller in size and would also have shown even smaller yields per tree.\n\" Quality and uniformity of size of fruit was definitely superior in the manure plot\nin the Harris orchard and in the sawdust plot in the Barker orchard.\"\nNitrogenous Fertilizer on Carrots\nAlan Littler, District Horticulturist for Vancouver Island, makes observations on the\neffects of heavy applications of manure on carrots, as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" It has been reported by several of the producers of bunch carrots that quite frequently the tops were slender and weak, with the result that the tops parted from the roots\nduring handling.\n\" Since it is a well-known fact that nitrogen added to the soil increases the top growth\nof the various plants, additional nitrogen in the form of poultry-manure was added to\nseveral blocks of Imperator carrots. The amount used was only arbitrary to get a general\nidea of the response. As expected, the tops increased in size with the increased applications of manure. However, where excessive manure was applied considerable forking\nof the roots was evident. In all cases, however, where the top growth was noticeably\nincreased, there was a corresponding increase in the size of the green ring surrounding\nthe core of the carrot. It would, therefore, appear likely that to increase the top size\nof the carrots to a satisfactory level from the standpoint of increased strength would lower\nthe quality of the root to a marked degree by causing a more pronounced green ring to\nbe evident.\n\" It would, however, probably be well to carry this experiment a step further and\nstudy the results obtained by using a nitrogenous chemical fertilizer in measured amounts.\" DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 43\nMineral Deficiencies\nSymptoms of mineral deficiencies in our soils that have been farmed over a long\nperiod of years are becoming more apparent each year. In order to determine the results\nof adding minor elements where growth symptoms indicate they are lacking, many trial\nplots are under observation. In order to indicate the type of work that is being carried\non, the following extracts have been taken from the report of A. W. Watt, District Horticulturist at Summerland:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" No new work was started but an effort was made to follow up the work done last\nyear.\n\"(a) Manganese Deficiency\u00E2\u0080\u0094Brown Orchard, Westbank\n\"As reported on page 12 of the 1951 Report, a test in this orchard revealed a marked\nresponse to application of manganese sprays at approximately 8-pounds-per-acre rate.\nAccordingly, the operator of this orchard was advised to apply at least one spray of manganese to the entire orchard as soon as the trees were fully leafed out in 1952.\n\" The operator carried out these instructions on all but a small block of peaches\nwhich had shown no symptoms of deficiency in 1951. As a result, dark green foliage\ndeveloped on all the sprayed trees with the exception of one block of Delicious. The\nfoliage on these trees remained small and lacked deep green colour. The trees in this\nDelicious block were severely winter-injured and this may have been a reason for their\nlack of response.\n\" The small block of peaches which was not sprayed with manganese because it had\nnot shown deficiency symptoms in 1951, now looked very poor, in comparison to the\ndeep green of the manganese-sprayed trees. Although the chlorotic symptoms displayed\nby these trees were not similar to those shown by the nearby trees in 1951, it was remembered that symptoms of manganese deficiency had never been observed early in the season.\nIt was decided, therefore, to try manganese on these trees. The grower sprayed the trees\nand in less than a month they returned to a healthy green colour.\n\"Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094(i) Grower-applied sprays of manganous sulphate proved effective.\n\"(ii) Symptoms not entirely typical of manganese deficiency may still indicate\na manganese lack if these are observed early in the season.\n\"(b) Multiple Deficiencies (Zinc, Iron, Manganese)\u00E2\u0080\u0094Gogel Orchard,\nWestbank\n\"As reported on page 13 of the 1951 Report, the Gogel orchard at Westbank contained a large number of trees which were suffering from multiple deficiencies. Zinc\noxide, iron sulphate with lime, and manganous sulphate were applied as summer sprays\nto these trees. Elements were applied in groups of two and three at a time to both\nDelicious apples and Bartlett pears. As reported in 1951, there was no response to either\niron or zinc that summer but by the fall most of the manganese symptoms had cleared up.\n\" On the advice of this office the grower applied zinc sulphate to most of his orchard,\nincluding the trees in our experimental plots. Application was made at the approximate\nrate of 80 pounds per acre in the dormant season. The orchard was again examined\nduring the summer of 1952. A definite improvement with less severe zinc-deficiency\nsymptoms was noticed. No manganese-deficiency symptoms were found. Iron-deficiency\nchlorosis still showed up in many trees.\n\"Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094(i) In this test, slight manganese deficiency was cleared up by one\nsummer spray of manganous sulphate at 8 pounds per acre (1951).\n\"(ii) Zinc deficiency was not noticeably improved by one summer spray of 8 pounds\nzinc oxide per acre, but improvement was noticeable after a dormant application of zinc\nsulphate at 80 pounds per acre had been made by the grower (1952).\n\"(iii) Iron-deficiency symptoms were not improved by a summer application of\nferrous sulphate (8 pounds per acre) with lime (8 pounds per acre).\" cc 44 british columbia\nMulches\nThe following observations on mulching are taken from the reports of G. E. W.\nClark, Supervising Horticulturist for the Fraser Valley, and E. W. White, Supervising\nHorticulturist, Vancouver Island:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nG. E. W. Clarke, Fraser Valley:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Observations on the use of sawdust as a mulching material on various horticultural\ncrops have continued during the past season. The use of sawdust as a mulching material\nis of particular interest to strawberry-growers where weed-control and moisture-conservation are often the two limiting factors in production. One planting of strawberries, which\nwas mulched with a 2-inch layer of hemlock sawdust after planting in 1950, produced\na good crop during the very dry crop-year of 1951 and during the past season has again\nshown up well, having given a yield of 7 tons per acre. The sawdust on this planting is\nnow showing signs of decomposition but still forms a definite mulch layer over the soil.\nCultivation has been used but this cultivation has been shallow and has resulted in no\nappreciable mixing of soil and sawdust. From the condition of the mulch, it would\nappear that it should be effective for at least one more season, after which time the strawberries would normally be ploughed under.\n\" On another planting in the Coghlan district, a five-year-old strawberry planting was\nploughed under in 1951 and a 2-inch layer of sawdust and chicken-litter was worked into\nthe soil. New plants were set out in the fall of 1951 and these plants did remarkably well\nduring the 1952 season. The soils in this district are very light and under strawberry\ncropping very quickly lose their organic matter and become unproductive. The sawdust\nin this case appears to have provided organic matter and improved the mechanical structure of the soil, and the chicken-manure seems to have compensated for the temporary\ndepletion of nitrogen, which would be expected where such a large amount of sawdust is\nworked into the soil. It is possible that this practice may be worthwhile on other worked-\nout strawberry plantings and observations will be continued.\n\" There seems to be little doubt that on certain soils sawdust can be successfully\nused on strawberry plantings, the limiting factor being cost. Twelve to fifteen loads per\nacre are required to produce a mulch about two inches deep and at $5 a load this would\namount to $60 to $75.\"\nE. W. White, Vancouver Island:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Sawdust continues to be used as a mulching material on all small fruits. The\nresults seem to be satisfactory and no adverse conditions have been experienced.\n\" With another very dry year in 1952, mulching was undoubtedly a benefit in conserving moisture. Where sawdust is used on strawberries, the cost of Wi to 2 tons of\nstraw is saved, which at present prices would go quite a way in paying for the sawdust.\"\nMouse Baits\nThe mouse population, though not as severe as two years ago, is still plentiful.\nToxaphene was tried out as a ground spray in a limited way during the early fall and\nthe results were very encouraging in killing mice. Further trials are under way and\nthis material will be used by a few growers. Until there is more definite information\non the use of Toxaphene, it is probable that most growers will continue to use standard\nbait formulas.\nMite-control on Strawberries\nMites are becoming more prevalent in strawberry plantations and a good control\nthat is economical to use is of benefit to the growers of this crop. The following report\non this work at Salmon Arm is taken from the annual report of I. C. Carne, District\nHorticulturist in that area:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 45\n\" Growers in this area have been consistently bothered by infestations of the Two-\nspotted mites. The grower-applied dusts of lime and sulphur did little to control this\npest even when applied every two weeks. Consequently, an experiment was laid out\nin co-operation with C. L. Neilson, Provincial Entomologist. Two materials were\nused,\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, 5-per-cent dusts of Aramite and of Ovatran and applied at the rate of\n45 pounds per acre. Two identical plots of one-fifth acre each were laid out in two\ndifferent plantings; one planting has had the tops cut and removed after harvest while\nthe second planting had had the runners only removed after harvest. It was felt that\nremoving all debris after harvest may have a bearing on the carry-over of mites through\nthe winter months.\n\" Nabata Patch (Runners Only Removed)\n\" Procedure.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Aramite and Ovatran dusts applied April 29th when live mites were\nvisible on the leaves. Aramite plot was redusted on May 20th while the Ovatran plot\nwas not dusted again until June 2nd.\n\"Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The second application of both materials held the population of mites\nin check until after the fruit was harvested in July.\n\" Nishi Patch\n\"Procedure.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Aramite and Ovatran.dusts applied as in the Nabata patch on April\n29th. Both plots were dusted again on May 20th as the Ovatran plot did not appear to\nbe holding the mites as well in this planting as it did in the Nabata planting.\n\" Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The second application of both materials appeared to give reasonably\ngood control until harvest was completed.\n\" Check-plot.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Check-plots were left in both plantings and by May 20th were\nbadly infested with mites and required spraying with Visko and mineral oil.\n\" Summary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Both the 5-per-cent dusts of Aramite and of Ovatran applied at the\nrate of 45 pounds per acre successfully controlled Two-spotted mites until harvesting\nwas completed. Due to the availability of Aramite as a dust, arrangements are going\nforward to have a supply of this dust on hand for next year's operation. Further\nexperiments are contemplated for the next season. There was no significant difference\nin mite populations between cultural treatments, although the infestation appeared to\nbe slightly higher in the Nishi planting, where both tops and runners are removed after\nharvest.\"\nTurnip-maggot\nTurnip-maggot is a very destructive insect and is the cause of much culling and\nloss to turnip-growers. This year a small field trial to control this insect was carried\nout by Alan Littler, District Horticulturist on Vancouver Island, and in his annual\nreport he makes the following remarks:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The turnip-maggot has for some years provided a problem. However, during\nrecent years several insecticides have been under test, among which is Aldrin.\n\"A test-plot of Laurentian Swede turnips, comprising thirty rows each 100 feet\nlong, was set up to determine the results of this insecticide. The test was set up in a\ndistrict where the fly was known to be prevalent and which in the past had made turnip-\ngrowing almost impossible. The planting date was June 29th.\n\"Method of Application.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A line was drawn from one end of each row to the\nother and a furrow approximately an inch deep was made along this line. Aldrin was\nthen dusted along this furrow using a salt-shaker type of applicator at the rate of one-\nhalf ounce to each 10 feet of row. Only 85 feet of each row were dusted, the remaining\n15 feet being left as a check. Following the dusting the turnip-seed was sown along\nthe furrows using a Planet Junior seeder.\n\" Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The usual methods of cultivation necessary for a crop of Swede turnips\nwere followed, with irrigation-water being applied at weekly intervals. Inspection of CC 46 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nthe roots from the sixth week onward showed the turnips from the treated portions of\nthe rows to be practically 100 per cent clean, whereas those from the untreated portions\nof the rows showed severe tunnelling. The difference between the treated and untreated\nplots became more noticeable as time progressed. The injury caused by the maggots\nin the untreated portions of the rows became so severe that top growth was inhibited,\nwhereas in the treated portions the roots were plump and top growth appeared very\nvigorous.\n\" However, the fall of 1952 was a warm, dry one and there was apparently a third\nbrood of the maggot, since quite a number of the turnips from the treated portion showed\nvarying degrees of injury. This injury did not appear near the root end of the turnip,\nas had been the case of the untreated roots, but appeared on the outer circumference\nof the roots just below soil-level. However, this furrowing caused by the late brood\nwas sufficient to disfigure a fair proportion of the crop and cause considerable trimming\nto be necessary.\n\" Conclusions.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Aldrin appears to show promise in the control of the turnip-\nmaggot. However, it appears from the above results that other methods of application\nmust be devised.\"\nControl Sprays for Fire-blight\nIn past years the removal of diseased branches, twigs, and tissue has been the\nstandard method of controlling fire-blight. It would be desirable if satisfactory control\ncould be obtained by the use of sprays. Some results have shown encouragement and\nfor this reason considerable time has been devoted to testing out this method of control\nin the Okanagan. The following extracts are taken from the annual reports of M. P. D.\nTrumpour, District Horticulturist at Penticton, and W. T. Baverstock, District Horticulturist at Vernon:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nM. P. D. Trumpour, Penticton: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Purpose.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In view of the interest shown in sprays to aid in the control of fire-blight,\na series of plots were set up to demonstrate the effectiveness of such sprays. In addition\nto the standard recommendation of spraying daily during the blossom period, variations\nin time of applications were tried.\n\" Place.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. B. Hughes orchard, Penticton.\n\" Variety.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bartlett. Fire-blight was exceptionally serious in 1951.\n\"Equipment.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Hardie 16.\n\" Material.\u00E2\u0080\u0094One pound copper sulphate and 1 pound hydrated lime per 100 gallons.\n\"Plots.\u00E2\u0080\u00941. Sprayed at 60 per cent of full bloom, two weeks later, and four weeks\nlater (after recommendation for Wenatchee Tree Fruit Experiment Station).\n\" 2. Sprayed at 10-20 per cent of full bloom and every second day during blossom\nperiod.\n\" 3. Sprayed at 10-20 per cent of full bloom and two days later.\n\" 4. Sprayed at 60 per cent of full bloom and every second day during blossom\nperiod.\n\" 5. Sprayed at 10-20 per cent of full bloom and every day thereafter during\nblossom period (total of eight applications).\n\" Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Results were inconclusive. There were no fresh outbreaks of fire-blight\non any tree except one in Plot 5, which was sprayed every day during the blossom period.\nOn this tree twenty-eight infections were removed on May 21st, yet there were no\ninfections then or later on adjacent trees.\"\nW. T. Baverstock, Vernon:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Place.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cliff Davies orchard, Lavington.\n\"Material.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bordeaux 1-1-100.\n\" Variety.\u00E2\u0080\u0094-Transcendent crab-apples. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 47\n\" Weather.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Mostly cloudy.\n\" Machine.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Hardie Gun Machine.\n\"A block of Transcendent crab-apples was used for this experiment. Same was\ndivided into three blocks as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPlot\nDate Applied\nNumber of\nSprays\nPeriod\nMay 14\t\nMay 14\t\nMay 19\t\nNo sprays..\n30 per cent of full bloom.\n30 per cent of full bloom and full bloom.\n1\n\" Control was quite noticeable in sprayed plots. Check-plot was completely covered\nwith blight by the end of July but the sprayed plots only showed a few odd branches.\nThis experiment will be carried on again during the coming season as the above sprays\nlook very promising.\"\nControl of Pear-scab in the Kootenays\nThe following is a summary of the results obtained in controlling pear-scab in the\nWest Kootenay, as submitted by J. E. Swales, District Horticulturist at Nelson:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" For many years pear-growers in the Kootenay and Arrow Lakes District have had\nto contend with pear-scab on Flemish Beauty. During the past few years they have been\nable to control this disease on Flemish Beauty by applying three sprays\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, pre-pink,\npink, and calyx, consisting of Ferbam 1 pound and wettable sulphur 3 pounds per 100\ngallons of water. In 1948 some scab was noted on Bartlett in the Thrums area and since\nthat time it has become quite serious on both Bartlett and Anjou in the Longbeach-\nSunshine Bay area. The Ferbam-wettable sulphur sprays which controlled the disease\non Flemish Beauty have been none too effective in controlling scab on either Bartlett or\nAnjou. The purpose of this work is to test the effectiveness of several fungicides in\ncontrol of pear-scab on Bartlett.\n\" Experimental plots were located in a block of Bartlett pears on the Eaton farm at\nLongbeach. There were seventy-seven trees divided into twelve plots. A conventional\n' gun ' sprayer was used in this work, as the orchard did not lend itself to spraying with\nan automatic concentrate machine. Two delayed dormant sprays were applied; one\nconsisting of sodium polysulphide at a concentration of 13 pounds per 100 gallons of\nwater, the other lime sulphur 1-8. Other sprays applied at the pre-pink, pink, and calyx\nstages were lime-sulphur 1-40,' Crag ' (Fungicide 341CA) Wi quarts and hydrated lime\n1 pound per 100 gallons of water, and Ferbam 1 pound and wettable sulphur 3 pounds\nper 100 gallons of water.\n\" Dates of spray application are as follows: Delayed dormant, April 10th; pre-pink,\nMay 2nd; pink, May 9th; calyx, May 22nd.\n\" Lime-sulphur gave only fair control of pear-scab. Much of the fruit from these\nplots (4, 5, and 6) had a roughened appearance and some russeting was evident. In Plots\n7, 8, and 9 the Ferbam-wettable sulphur combination did not give such good control\neither. However, good control was obtained in Plots 10, 11, and 12 where ' Crag ' was\napplied. Fruit from the latter plots was very smooth and had a fine finish compared with\nthat from Plots 4, 5, and 6. It is difficult to assess the value of the dormant sprays from\nthe results of only one season's work. However, results would indicate that only slightly\nbetter control of pear-scab was obtained in plots which received the dormant spray,\nalthough in the three ' Crag' sprayed plots the cleanest fruit was in Plot 12 which had\nno dormant spray.\n\" The following table summarizes this work on control of pear-scab. All fruit free\nfrom scab was classified as clean and that showing any signs of scab as scabby:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 48\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nResults Obtained in 1952 Pear-scab Control Experiment\nPlot\nMaterials Applied\nPercentage\nof Clean\nFruit\n9\n10\n11\n12\nCheck (unsprayed) \t\nSodium polysulphide (13 pounds per 100 gallons water) in delayed dormant.\nLime-sulphur 1-8 in delayed dormant-\nSame as Plot 2, plus lime-sulphur 1-40 in pre-pink, pink, and calyx..\nSame as Plot 3, plus lime-sulphur 1-40 in pre-pink, pink, and calyx..\nLime-sulphur 1-40 in pre-pink, pink, and calyx..\nSame as Plot 2, plus Ferbam 1 pound and wettable sulphur 3 pounds per 100 gallons water\nin pre-pink, pink, and calyx.\nSame as Plot 3, plus Ferbam 1 pound and wettable sulphur 3 pounds per 100 gallons water\nin pre-pink, pink, and calyx.\nFerbam 1 pound and wettable sulphur 3 pounds per 100 gallons water in pre-pink, pink, and\ncalyx \t\nSame as Plot 2, plus ' Crag ' V/z quarts and hydrated lime 1 pound per 100 gallons water in\npre-pink, pink, and calyx \t\nSame as Plot 3, plus ' Crag ' l'/i quarts and hydrated lime 1 pound per 100 gallons water in\npre-pink, pink, and calyx \t\n' Crag ' l'/_ quarts and hydrated lime 1 pound per 100 gallons water in pre-pink, pink, and\ncalyx \t\n2.9\n15.7\n5.0\n76.81\n82.6i\n73.li\n73.6\n87.1\n60.8\n93.4\n95.6\n96.5\n1 Much of the fruit in Plots 4, 5, and 6 had a roughened appearance and some russeting was evident.\"\nApple-scab Control\nAfter five years of using lime-sulphur and Ferbam plus wettable sulphur to control\napple-scab on plots at Creston, G. R. Thorpe, District Horticulturist, sums up the\ninfluence on tree vigour and yield as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n\" The 1952 spray demonstration plots using lime-sulphur and Ferbam plus wettable\nsulphur revealed no great differences in yields. This was the ' on ' year for the lime-\nsulphur plots and therefore this yield can only be attributed to tree vigour. The following\nfigures summarize the yields from these plots during the past five years:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nYear\n1948-\n1949..\n1950\n1951\n1952-\n\" Mcintosh\nLime-sulphur\n(Boxes per Tree)\n 15\n28\n9\n19\nFerbam and\nWettable Sulphur\n(Boxes per Tree)\n14\n15\n28\n15\n18\nFive-year average 15.8\n18.0\nYear\n1948-\n1949_\n1950_.\n1951..\n1952.\n\" Delicious\nLime-sulphur\n(Boxes per Tree)\n 23\n 6\n 20\n 5\n 14\nFerbam and\nWettable Sulphur\n(Boxes per Tree)\n22\n11\n19\n9\n15\nFive-year average 13.6 15.2\n\" From these figures, it is quite evident that lime-sulphur sprays accentuate biennial\nproduction. Also, that Ferbam and wettable sulphur sprays reduce the great fluctuation\nin yields from year to year and increase production over the period of years.\" DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 49\nSpraying of trial plots for the control of apple-scab in the Kootenay area has been\ncarried on for several years. A summary of the results this year is taken from the reports\nof J. E. Swales, District Horticulturalist at Nelson:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"All sprays were applied with a Turbo Mist concentrate-sprayer and carried out in\nco-operation with officials of the Federal Entomological Laboratory at Summerland.\n\" The dates of application were: Pre-pink, May 2nd; pink, May 14th; calyx, May\n23rd; first cover, June 9th; second cover, June 16th.\n\"Materials:\u00E2\u0080\u00941. Lime-sulphur.\n\"2. Sodium polysulphide, a mixture of sodium polysulphide (84 per cent by\nweight) and sodium thiosulphate (8 per cent by weight) in dry granular form. Distributed\nby Niagara Chemical Division, Food Machinery & Chemical Corporation, Middleport,\nN.Y.\n\"3. ' Crag ' (Fungicide 341), a liquid containing 2-heptadecyl glyoxalidine acetate\n(34 per cent by weight). Manufactured by Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Company, New\nYork, N.Y.\n\"4. DN (dinitrocresol), 40 per cent dinitro-ortho-cresol powder.\n\" In the Fransen orchard, best control was obtained in Plot 2 where DN was added\nto the lime-sulphur spray. Fruit was also appreciably larger in this plot, bearing out the\nresults of the previous year's work when the addition of DN to the lime-sulphur spray\nappears to have a beneficial effect on fruit size. In Plot 1 there were 141 apples per box\nwhile in Plot 2 there was an average of 106 apples. In Plot 3, the unsprayed check-plot,\nthere were 350 apples per box. It is felt that DN alone is not fully responsible for such\na difference in fruit size and other factors possibly had some influence. Fruit on all the\nDN-sprayed trees was noticeably larger, however.\n\" In the Sewell orchard, lime-sulphur gave only fair control of apple-scab in Plot 1\nwith 74.5 per cent clean fruit. Sodium polysulphide gave very poor control in Plot 2 with\nonly 42.3 per cent clean fruit. Although there was considerable foliage infection evident\nearly in the season in Plot 3, the fruit in this plot sprayed with ' Crag ' was the cleanest in\nthe orchard.\n\" The following table will serve as a summary of this work:-\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPlot\nMaterials Applied\nPercentage of\nClean Fruit\nFransen Orchard\n(Five sprays applied: Pre-pink, pink, calyx, and first and second cover-sprays.)\nLime-sulphur 10-100 (or 8 gallons per acre) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nSame as Plot 1, plus DN 4 pounds and hydrated lime 8 pounds per 100 gallons water (or\nDN 3V4 pounds and hydrated lime 6'/_ pounds per acre) - \t\nCheck (unsprayed) \t\nSewell Orchard\n(Five sprays applied, as in Fransen orchard.)\nLime-sulphur 10-100 (or 8 gallons per acre)..\nSodium polysulphide 25 pounds per 100 gallons water (or 20 pounds per acre) _\n' Crag ' 7'/_ quarts and hydrated lime 4 pounds per 100 gallons water (or ' Crag ' 6 quarts\nand hydrated lime 3 pounds per acre) \t\nCheck (unsprayed).\t\n93.3\n0.0\n74.5\n42.3\n83.2\n4.5'\nChemical-spray Thinning\nSpray-thinning, though giving variable results from year to year, has, because of\nthe labour-saving feature of this type of thinning, become an established orchard practice\nin the commercial fruit-growing areas of the Province.\nThe following observations on chemical-spray thinning have been extracted from\nthe annual report of M. P. D. Trumpour, District Horticulturist at Penticton:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 50 BRITISH COLUMBIA\n\" Observations from Previous Year's Work.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In the annual report for 1951 an\noutline of an experiment on the A. M. Costley place was presented. In that outline it\nwas noted that Parmone was applied with a Turbo-Mist concentrate-spray machine to\none plot of Winesap apples and that much of the foliage on the lower parts of the trees\n' wilted ' and later dropped off.\n\" This year the same trees required no thinning, yet produced a full crop of good-\nsized fruit. Trees in adjacent rows that were not sprayed last year required a normal\namount of hand-thinning this year\u00E2\u0080\u0094that is, two to three hours per tree\u00E2\u0080\u0094and produced\nfull crops of smaller apples.\n\" It might also be pointed out that another plot of Winesap trees was sprayed last\nyear with a gun machine using Parmone. These trees required very little hand-thinning\nthis year and produced full crops of fruit, the size of which was intermediate between\nthat on the concentrate-sprayed and non-sprayed trees.\n\" Weather Effects.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It has been observed that when dinitro compounds for spray-\nthinning have been applied immediately prior to or during rainy weather, excess thinning\nof fruit and damage to foliage has occasionally occurred. This has led to the opinion\nthat if humid weather prevails, lower concentrations of the dinitro compounds should\nbe used. Therefore, if advance forecasts of weather could be obtained then the concentration of spray materials could be adjusted accordingly.\n\"An experimental procedure making use of advanced weather forecasts was\ncarried out this year. Arrangements were made with D. N. McMullen, Frost Warning\nService, whereby two-day advance forecasts were released to the Penticton office of\nthe Horticultural Branch, and this information was in turn relayed to Horticultural\nBranch offices in other centres. In this way, respective District Horticulturists could\nadjust their spray-thinning experiments.\n\" The forecasts proved to be very accurate up to May 8th, but after that date the\nforecasts did not always prove to be accurate. Two examples of this are presented:\nThe forecast for May 10th was ' settled, some cloud with dry air.' On the night of\nMay 10th, however, excessively heavy rain fell. The forecast for May 13th was 'little\nor no precipitation; air gradually drying out; high-pressure area over Okanagan zone;\nlow-pressure area at Coast which won't affect the Okanagan.' This forecast was reaffirmed as late as the evening of May 12th. On May 13th, however, the low-pressure\narea at the Coast did move in and one of the heaviest rainfalls in the spring months was\nexperienced. Thus, it is evident that forecasts provided by today's techniques are not\nalways reliable and cannot be used with enough confidence for a guide in the application\nof the dinitro types of materials for spray-thinning.\n\" Spray-thinning of Apples\n\" Purpose.\u00E2\u0080\u0094To check current spray-thinning recommendations.\n\"Place.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Miss M. and Mrs. R. F. Robertson orchard, Lot 170, Kaleden.\n\" Variety.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Winesap, 18-year-old trees.\n\"Equipment.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Gun sprayer, Hardie (Provincial Government machine); concentrate sprayers, Turbo-Mist (1951 model), Oliver blower conversion (grower hired).\n\"Materials and Rates.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Twenty-per-cent dinitro-ortho-cresol (Elgetol), IVi pints\nper 100 gallons or 15 pints per acre; naphthaleneacetic acid (Parmone), 6 ounces per\n100 gallons.\n\" Plots.\u00E2\u0080\u00941\u00E2\u0080\u0094Parmone, applied with gun machine, five trees; 2\u00E2\u0080\u0094Parmone, applied\nwith gun machine, five trees; 3\u00E2\u0080\u0094Elgetol, applied with gun machine, six trees; 4\u00E2\u0080\u0094Elgetol, applied with Turbo-Mist machine, eighteen trees; 5\u00E2\u0080\u0094Elgetol, applied with Oliver\nconversion, twelve trees; 6\u00E2\u0080\u0094Check, not sprayed, three trees.\n\" Dates of Application.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Plot 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094May 23rd, fourteen days after full bloom; Plot\n2\u00E2\u0080\u0094May 15th, six days after full bloom; Plot 3\u00E2\u0080\u0094May 8th; Plot 4\u00E2\u0080\u0094May 8th; Plot 5\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nMay 7th. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 51\n\" Co-operator.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Entomology Laboratory, Summerland.\n\" Results. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 (i) Hand-thinning: Additional hand-thinning was necessary. The\ngrower did not keep detailed records of time spent per tree but did spend less time on\nthe trees in Plot 5 and more time on the check-trees in Plot 6. Grower also thinned\nthe check-trees in Plot 6 heavier than in the other plots.\n\"(ii) Average number of apples per box and the average yield per tree are shown\nin the following table:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nTreatment\nAverage\nNumber Apples\nper Box\nAverage\nNumber Boxes\nper Tree\n1\n104.5\n97.2\n97.2\n83.1\n82.3\n92.3\n14\n2\n21\n3\n30\n4\n18\n5\n10\n6\nCheck, not sprayed \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n13\n\" Discussion of Results.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The results from this work are not very conclusive. The\nreduction in the amount of necessary hand-thinning was not too satisfactory.\n\" On those plots where Elgetol was applied, there is an indication that the use of\nconcentrate-machines caused a reduction in the yield per tree and this was brought\nabout by overthinning the bottom of the tree and not thinning the top enough. There\nis also an indication that some types of concentrate-machines cause a greater degree of\noverthinning than other types. In this particular work, the Oliver conversion sprayer\ncaused a greater reduction in yield than did the Turbo-Mist machine.\n\" In so far as the work with the hormones goes, this type of material did not prove\nto be nearly as efficient when it was applied at two weeks after full bloom than when it\nwas applied only one week after full bloom.\"\nBlossom-thinning of Peaches\nD. A. Allan, District Horticulturist at Oliver, reports on blossom-thinning of peaches\nas follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" During the past few years a small number of growers, including this official, have\nbeen brush-thinning peaches during the blossom period with quite satisfactory results.\nMost find that it pays to take somewhat less blossom off than the amount of fruit desired.\nThis allows for a further thinning to remove cat-faced and split-stone peaches at a later\ndate. Those who have tried it generally feel that there is a definite saving in time and\nmoney in addition to the tree being able to carry somewhat more fruit due to early\nthinning.\n\" One grower, in Osoyoos, this year tried water-thinning on peaches. The method\nis to spray the trees during full bloom with a hand-sprayer at a high pressure so that\nthe water under pressure blows the blossom off. The grower claims that he got some\nresults out of the work and plans to do it again in 1953. It is wondered whether the\ngrower with a sprinkler system under 30 to 40 pounds pressure might not be able to\nsubstitute volume for pressure and get comparable results.\"\nAircraft Spraying\nM. P. D. Trumpour, District Horticulturist at Penticton, in his annual report makes\nobservations on aircraft spraying as follows: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" During September a representative of the Skyway Air Services of Langley, B.C.,\nexpressed the desire to set up a custom aircraft-spraying service for orchardists. It\nwas pointed out to this representative that there were possible disadvantages with this\ntype of spraying, such as the relatively small size of orchards and the mixed plantings CC 52 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nthat are characteristic for this area. Nevertheless, this office was instrumental in\nselecting a block of Delicious apples for the experimental application of a stop-drop\nspray by aeroplane.\n\"Accordingly, on September 27th, part of this block of Delicious apples on the\nMacCleave-Stocks orchard was sprayed from a Stearman airplane with napthaleneacetic\nacid. This operation indicated two factors in favour of airplane spraying. One factor\nwas that the airplane was extremely manoeuvrable and the spray could, if desired, be\ndirected to a very restricted area. The other factor was that the stop-drop spray application was effective. Observations on drop were made two weeks later and revealed\nthat there was no drop of apples on the sprayed section but that there was a drop of\napproximately one-half box of apples per tree on the unsprayed section.\n\" From this experiment it became evident that the use of airplanes for orchard\nspraying in this area was more feasible than expected. It was considered that this type\nof equipment could be used particularly for the application of zinc sulphate and other\ndormant sprays in this area.\"\nPUBLICATIONS, CROP ESTIMATES, REPORTS, AND MEETINGS\nHorticultural Circular No. 42 on Propagation and Grafting of Fruit Trees has been\nrewritten by R. M. Wilson, District Horticulturist at Kamloops. Other publications in\nuse were revised and reissued as required.\nInformation dealing with spraying was issued from the Kelowna office and broadcast by T. Leach over C.B.C. on the noon broadcast. B.C. Tree Fruits Limited gave\nexcellent co-operation by transmitting this information to CBU at Vancouver and also\nallowing us time for special messages on their weekly Thursday noon radio programme\nover CKOV.\nThe Horticultural News Letter, covering the period from May to September (ten\nissues), was assembled and mailed from the Kelowna office under the direction of the\nSupervising Horticulturist. General horticultural conditions, vegetable acreages, and\ncrop estimates are dealt with in this publication by district officials from all parts of the\nProvince.\nFruit- and vegetable-crop estimates, in co-operation with the Statistics Branch, were\nissued as required through the year. Final production figures were compiled and forwarded to the Statistics Branch.\nMany meetings and demonstrations throughout the Province were addressed by\nmembers of this Branch. The Chautauqua meetings held annually in the Okanagan\nwere again well attended. Soils, fertilizers, irrigation, marketing problems, as well as\ndisease and pest control were discussed. In arranging these meetings, excellent co-operation was received from the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association Locals, B.C.\nTree Fruits Limited, and officials of the Canada Department of Agriculture.\nCHANGES IN STAFF\nE. M. White, B.S.A., after about forty years of service in the Department of Agriculture, was superannuated. This vacancy was filled by the appointment of A. E. Littler,\nB.S.A., a graduate of the University of British Columbia, to the position of District\nHorticulturist for Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands. Previous to this appointment,\nMr. Littler handled the clerical work of the Horticultural Branch, which is now being\ndone by R. C. Louis.\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nYour Horticulturist wishes to acknowledge the co-operation he and members of\nthis Branch have received from other branches of this Department, from members of\nthe Federal services, and the University of British Columbia throughout the year. These\ngood relations that exist are much appreciated. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 53\nREPORT OF APIARY BRANCH, 1952\nJ. Corner, Provincial Apiarist, Vernon, B.C.\nBee-keeping in British Columbia has now returned to normalcy after experiencing\na tremendous upswing during the war years. This increase was the result of those\npersons interested in keeping bees for the sole purpose of the sugars involved. The\n1951 honey-crop report showed a total production for this Province of 1,654,400 pounds\nof honey, which has been exceeded only once, during 1947 with a total production of\n1,805,000 pounds. In contrast to these figures, the total crop for 1952 is only 954,230\npounds, which compares to the average crop experienced during the late twenties. This\nreduction in honey-crop is the result of a variety of factors, such as a sharp decrease\nin the numbers of bee-keepers and apiaries, together with some evidence of spray poisoning. The chief cause, however, has been the extended dry season following one already\nunusually dry year, experienced during 1951. A low percentage of humidity and little\nprecipitation, together with warm evenings, has resulted in poor nectar secretion. Beekeepers in the Coastal regions with a 7 5-pound average generally fared better than\nthose in the Interior where the over-all average was 65 pounds per colony. The Peace\nRiver area, with the smallest number of apiaries and bee-keepers, experienced the\nhighest Provincial average of 100 pounds per colony (Appendix No. 1).\nAll commercial bee-keepers in the southern part of the Province are still outside\nwintering colonies. The topography of this Province and local conditions are such\nthat many different methods of wintering and types of winter cases are employed which\nare best suited to the prevailing local conditions, chief of which are weather and food\nsupplies. From the Prince George area north to the Peace River Block, the present\npractice is still that of importing package bees in the spring from the Southern United\nStates, extracting the honey-crop, and killing the bees in the fall by the use of cyanogas.\nWinter-losses for 1951-52 were approximately 4 per cent of the total colonies wintered.\nThis is slightly below the average of 5 per cent and can be credited to good management\nas well as an abundant supply of wholesome winter stores, which existed as the result\nof such an excellent honey-crop. During the spring of 1952, cold inclement weather\nresulted in a backward spring and the build-up of colonies was retarded to a great extent.\nHad nectar secretion been as abundant as during the 1951 season, this slow build-up\nwould have undoubtedly resulted in a below-average honey-crop. Some spring dwindling\noccurred, due largely to the unseasonable spring weather conditions. A noticeably\nshort blooming period for all nectar-secreting flowers was recorded during the summer\nof 1952.\nAlthough the density of the honey-crop for this Province during 1952 was well above\nthe requirements in our regulations, the colour was not as light as is usually the case.\nThe over-all darker colour was the natural result of field bees gathering nectar from all\navailable sources. The legumes, which generally provide the most reliable source of\nwhite honey, yielded very sparingly, and in some regions of the Province, notably the\nSouth Okanagan, sweet clover (Melilotus alba), which is generally a major source of\nnectar, failed entirely.\nThe demand for British Columbia honey continues to be good, and for those\nbee-keepers who do not sell to regular customers, the newly established packing plant\naffords a ready purchaser for any surplus of honey. The price of honey continues to be\nquite satisfactory, although it is well below that of other comparable foodstuffs considering the cost and labour involved in production.\nOffice work has included a card survey which involved the handling and mailing of\n3,000 cards. This survey has resulted in up-to-date file cards on nearly every bee-keeper\nin the Province. Correspondence over the past eleven months has consisted of 1,016\nletters in and 1,140 letters out. CC 54 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nINSPECTION WORK\nInspection work for the purpose of disease-control was given priority during the\nsummer months, and as a result of this systematic inspection a considerable amount of\nold abandoned equipment which was heavily infected with American foul-brood spores\nwas destroyed. Systematic inspection work was carried out in the vicinities of Ashcroft,\nLillooet, Kamloops, and throughout the Okanagan Valley. V. E. Thorgeirson made\na complete inspection of the Lower Mainland and also the Vancouver and Gulf Islands\narea.\nH. Boone, who carries out inspection work in the South Okanagan and Similkameen\nValleys, had suffered ill health during the major part of his inspection period. In spite\nof this, a cursory inspection was made throughout his area and assistance was promptly\ngiven to those bee-keepers who requested inspection, either through the services of\nMr. Boone or from this office.\nEXTENSION WORK\nShort courses on bee-keeping were conducted at high schools in Creston, Vernon,\nand Kelowna. Mr. Thorgeirson gave lectures and conducted demonstrations at the\nUniversity of British Columbia short course on bee-keeping. Both the writer and Mr.\nThorgeirson judged honey at the Pacific National Exhibition. In addition, honey was\njudged at many of the smaller fairs and exhibitions, some of which were the North\nBurnaby Show, Cloverdale Fall Fair, Interior Provincial Exhibition, and the Salmon\nArm and Shuswap Valley Fair. Many lectures and demonstrations were given to beekeepers' associations, biology classes, and service groups.\nField days were held in all parts of the Province and, on the whole, attendance was\ngood.\nDISEASE-CONTROL\nThe control of American foul-brood continues to present a problem which requires\nconstant attention. Control measures at present in practice are:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) Burning of infected colonies.\n(2) Feeding of the antibiotic sulphathiazole to healthy colonies which were\npresent in infected apiaries. Sulphathiazole can only be considered as a\ncontrol method and not as a cure.\nGood colony management is still one of the most important factors in disease-control\nand every effort is being made to educate bee-keepers in the methods of good bee-keeping\npractices. During the 1951-52 season a total of 156 diseased colonies were destroyed\nby fire. Forty-seven of these were located in Mr. Thorgeirson's district, twenty-two in\nMr. Boone's district, and eighty-seven throughout the remainder of the Province. This\nrepresents a total monetary loss by disease of $5,360 to the bee-keepers of British\nColumbia. Although this loss is considerable for an industry as small as ours, it is small\nindeed when compared to the losses sustained by our industry before the advent of\nsulphathiazole.\nCONTROL OF WAX-MOTH (GALLERIA MELLONELLA)\nThis pest has been doing considerable damage to stored brood combs, particularly\nin the southern areas of the Province where milder winters prevail. Two tests on the\ncontrol of wax-moth by the use of methyl bromide were conducted on a quantity of moth-\ninfested equipment in Oyama. Very good results were obtained, one treatment killing\nthis pest in all stages of growth from egg to adult.\nSPRAY POISON\nSome damage was done as the result of spray poisoning. Apiaries in the vicinity\nof Glenmore and Winfield suffered two quite severe kills of field bees as the result of r\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 55\npoisoning by parathion. This poisoning, together with poor nectar secretion, resulted\nin colony averages of as little as 30 pounds of honey per colony in these areas. Some\nscattered and insignificant cases of brood poisoning were noted. It is assumed that the\npollen poisoned by one of the thinning sprays (dinitrocresol) was responsible, and in'an\neffort to confirm this, an analysis is to be made of stored pollen to determine the presence\nof dinitrocresol, if any.\nBULLETINS AND PUBLICATIONS\nThe revision of Bulletin No. 92 is well on the way to completion. Seven issues of\nthe publication entitled \"Bee Wise\" were issued during the 1951-52 season, dealing\nwith all phases of profitable bee-keeping. The following list of mimeographed instruction\nsheets were made available at the apiary office:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) Bee-keeping general.\n(2) Plans and dimensions of standard Langstroth hive.\n(3) A safe method for installing package bees.\n(4) Feeding bees.\n(5) Methods of feeding sulphathiazole to colonies of bees for the purpose of\nAmerican foul-brood control.\nA number of charts and drawings were completed, designed to assist in the instruction of beginners interested in bee-keeping and for use at meetings and short courses.\nVISUAL AIDS\nA series of coloured 2- by 2-inch slides were completed dealing with the subjects\nof British Columbia nectar- and pollen-producing flora, wintering, and pollination.\nHONEY-GRADING REGULATIONS\nGrading regulations dealing with the production and marketing of honey in British\nColumbia were first put into effect during August, 1951. The establishment of a fully\nmodern honey processing and packing plant at New Westminster, together with increased\npacking and marketing of honey, has resulted in a complete revision of these regulations\nto cover all phases of grading, marking, and merchandising.\nIn completing this report for 1951-52, I would like to express my appreciation of\nthe staff of the Apiary Branch for the efficient and co-operative way in which they have\nperformed their duties. Mr. Thorgeirson, our Inspector of Apiaries for the Lower Mainland, has done excellent work in both extension and inspection. Mr. Boone, although\nonly part-time, has given of his time conscientiously and willingly; also our office secretary, Miss Margot Skene, who is handling an increased volume of work. Appreciation is\nalso extended to the Supervising Agriculturists and District Agriculturists throughout the\nProvince for their willingness and assistance on behalf of the Apiary Branch.\nHONEY-CROP REPORT\nThe following statement summarizes the honey-crop situation for 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDistrict\nApiaries\nColonies\nCrop\nAverage\n548\n119\n179\n307\n478\n37\n1,055\n576\n1,356\n1,648\n8,008\n957\nLb.\n73,850\n40,320\n108,480\n115,360\n520,520\n95,700\nLb.\n70\n70\n80\n75\n65\n100\nTotals .\n1,668\n13,600\n954,230\n70\nValue to Producers.\u00E2\u0080\u0094954,230 pounds of honey at 21(f (wholesale),\npound (wholesale), $4,471.\n$200,388.30; 9,542 pounds of beeswax at 50^ per CC 56 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT OF PLANT PATHOLOGY BRANCH\nW. R. Foster, M.Sc, and I. C. MacSwan, B.S.A.\nIn general, the damage caused by plant diseases was not serious. The diseases that\ncaused the greatest concern to growers in the Coastal districts were scab and anthracnose\nof apples, black-knot of plums, red-stele and powdery mildew of strawberries, Godronia\ncanker of blueberries, yellow rust on raspberries, and club-root of cabbage. In the\nInterior, the most important diseases were powdery mildew on the fruits of cherries,\nCoryneum blight of apricots and peaches, Verticillium wilt of tomatoes, boron toxicity,\nTyphula blight of wheat, and deficiency diseases of fruit-trees caused by a lack of zinc,\nmanganese, and magnesium. Some of the diseases that caused less damage than usual\nthroughout the Province were late blight of potatoes and tomatoes, fire-blight of pears,\nlittle-cherry in the Creston area, downy mildew of onions, bunt in wheat, and white-pine\nblister-rust on black currants.\nFor the first time in the Southern Okanagan, apple-scab and powdery mildew on\ncherry-fruits became an economic problem. An outbreak of curly-top of tomatoes in the\nAshcroft-Kamloops area also occurred for the first time.\nThe Province continues to be virtually free of ring-rot of potatoes. This disease has\nbeen found on one farm in the Fraser Valley.\nAPPLE-SCAB\nApple-scab has suddenly become of some concern to the Southern Okanagan\u00E2\u0080\u0094an\narea where it has previously been an insignificant disease. After the wet period of June\n27th-29th, numerous infections were found in many orchards in the Upper and Middle\nBench sections of Penticton. Epidemic proportions were reached after the wet weather of\nJuly 22nd-23rd. Only a trace of scab was found in the Naramata and Kaleden areas, and\nnone was found in the Keremeos-Cawston area.\nTests are usually conducted each year in the worst scab areas\u00E2\u0080\u0094Creston and Nelson\nin the Kootenays, and in the Northern Okanagan. G. R. Thorpe, District Horticulturist\nat Creston, co-operates with the Dominion Plant Pathology Laboratory at Summerland.\nJ. E. Swales, District Horticulturist at Nelson, conducts his own scab tests. The sprayer\nused by both is a Turbo-Mist.\nTable No. 1.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Results of Spraying Mcintosh Apples for Scab, Using Different\nFungicides, in the Early Pink, Calyx, First and Second Cover, at Creston\nPercentage\nMaterial of Scab\nCheck (no treatment) 71.6\nOrthocide 1.8\nCrag 4.3\nFerbam 6.3\nFerbam plus wettable sulphur 9.4\nLime-sulphur 18.9\nTable No. 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Results of Spraying Apples for Scab, Using Different Fungicides, in the\nPre-pink, Pink, Calyx, and First and Second Covers, at Procter\nPercentage\nMaterial of Scab\nCheck (no treatment) 95.5\nLime-sulphur 25.5\nSodium polysulphide 57.7\nCrag 16.8 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 57\nTable No. 3.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Effect of Lime-sulphur and Ferbam plus Wettable Sulphur on the\nYield in Boxes of Apples per Tree, for Five Years, at Creston\nMcintosh\nDelicious\nYear\nLime-\nsulphur\nFerbam plus\nWettable\nSulphur\nLime-\nsulphur\nFerbam plus\nWettable\nSulphur\n1948 \t\n15\n8\n28\n9\n19\n14\n15\n28\n15\n18\n23\n6\n20\n5\n14\n22\n1949- \u00E2\u0080\u009E\t\n11\n1950 _\n1951 \t\n19\n9\n1952 \t\n15\n15.8\n18.0\n13.6\n15.2\nThe results for one year, shown in Tables Nos. 1 and 2, indicate that both Orthocide\nand Crag are worthy of further testing. The results for five years, shown in Table No. 3,\nindicate that lime-sulphur sprays accentuate biennial production. The plot size for the\nMcintosh and Delicious varieties was twelve trees per plot, as shown in Table No. 3.\nPHYSIOLOGICAL DISORDERS OF FRUIT-TREES\nPhysiological disorders seem to be on the increase in the Okanagan. Zinc, manganese, and magnesium deficiencies appear to be more widespread than in previous years.\nBoron-deficiency symptoms, once widespread, are seldom seen, but indications of boron\ntoxicity are becoming increasingly common. Boron toxicity is probably due to either an\nuneven application of boric acid or to an application which is too strong. A spray\napplication of boric acid on the trees will reduce the likelihood of a boron toxicity,\nbecause the amount sprayed on young trees is automatically governed by the size of the\ntrees. Usually, the minor element sprays can be applied with fungicides or insecticides\nand will, consequently, eliminate an extra orchard operation. In an attempt to prevent\nthe occurrence of a zinc, a manganese, a magnesium, or a boron deficiency, the following\npreventive sprays are recommended: Boron, 2 pounds boric acid per acre; manganese,\n2 pounds manganese sulphate per acre; zinc, 2 pounds zinc oxide per acre; and magnesium, 20 pounds magnesium sulphate per acre. All of these materials, or any number\nof them, can be combined in a single spray which may be applied to all trees as a foliage\nspray. The number of these materials that can be combined depends on the likelihood\nthat there is a lack of these elements. The application of boric acid as a spray is supposed\nto reduce the chance that a boron toxicity might occur. It is a difficult condition to\nremedy. If zinc-deficiency symptoms are severe (little-leaf or rosette), a spray of zinc\nsulphate, 40 pounds per acre, is recommended in the late dormant. These recommendations are based on the experimental work of Dr. C. G. Woodbridge, of the Dominion\nPlant Pathology Laboratory, Summerland, in co-operation with the Provincial Department of Agriculture.\nBLACK-KNOT OF PLUMS\nThe campaign to reduce the amount of this disease in the Fraser Valley was continued. Publicity, as in previous years, was obtained by mailing circulars to householders\nin several areas; articles were sent to agricultural and urban papers; Radio Stations\nCHWK (Chilliwack) and CBU (Vancouver) co-operated; letters were written to Horticultural Societies; the Farm Forum and Farmers' Institutes participated; and displays\nwere put up in store windows in Chilliwack, Mission, Abbotsford, Haney, and Pitt\nMeadows.\nA survey was made in the Chilliwack-Sardis-Rosedale area, and also in the Ham-\nmond-Haney-Pitt Meadows area, with the co-operation of the District Agriculturists,\nR. S. Berry and A. J. Allan. Since the last survey, conducted in 1950, the amount of\nblack-knot has been reduced considerably in the Chilliwack-Sardis-Rosedale area. CC 58 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nThere has been some success in some areas, but there is still a great deal of work to\nbe done. Attempts are being made to find a cheaper chemical to eradicate plum-trees in\ndeserted orchards and on Indian Reservations.\nLITTLE-CHERRY\nA number of cherry orchards were inspected in different areas of the Okanagan\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nbeginning at the border at Osoyoos and finishing near Kelowna. A slight increase in the\namount of small bitter cherry was observed in the Southern Okanagan. Lambert mottle\nwas also slightly increased in the Kelowna district. No typical little-cherry symptoms\nwere observed.\nIn the Creston area, the little-cherry disease caused less damage than in any year\nsince it first became widespread. The trees which showed the most damage were those\nthat had recently become infected. Most of the trees which were known to have been\npreviously infected now appear to be practically normal. The cooler-than-usual spring\nmay account for the nearly normal fruit. A number of observations and tests have been\nmade in the past which indicate that the fruit on branches which are shaded by a veranda,\nor some other cover, may be normal in size.\nFIRE-BLIGHT OF PEARS\nThere has been a marked reduction in fire-blight damage in the Province. This is\nevident in a comparison of the previous four years. A considerable build-up occurred in\n1948\u00E2\u0080\u0094a year with well-above-average rainfall. Losses were severe in many orchards in\n1949, 1950, and 1951. The rapid decline in losses is probably due to an active campaign\ncarried on by the district men and also to the hot, dry summers of 1951 and 1952.\nFor the first time, a blossom spray of Bordeaux 1-1-100, in ordinary sprayers or in\nconcentrate-sprays at 3-3 per acre, is recommended for use at 10-per-cent full bloom and\nagain at full bloom.\nG. Thorpe, District Horticulturist at Creston, reports: \" Spraying Bordeaux\n(V2\u00E2\u0080\u0094V2\u00E2\u0080\u0094100) at forty-eight-hour intervals at blossom-time showed great promise. . . .\nPractically no fire-blight developed in the sprayed trees and a good crop was harvested.\nIn an adjacent unsprayed orchard, the trees developed heavy infections and a poor crop\nwas harvested.\"\nCORYNEUM BLIGHT OF APRICOTS AND PEACHES\nThis disease was more serious and widespread than usual in the Summerland and\nNaramata districts of the Okanagan. The common symptom on apricots in the Okanagan\nis a spotting of the fruit. The increased incidence is probably due to the growers not\nrealizing the need to apply the usual, recommended sprays during the two preceding\nyears when there was little or no fruit. No difficulties were encountered in the Creston\narea when the recommended sprays were applied. This disease not only causes a spotting of the fruit of apricots and peaches in the Creston area, but also attacks limbs, twigs,\nand leaves.\nIn the Chilliwack area, this blight continues to be one of the major difficulties in the\nproduction of clean, marketable peaches. Our spray trials indicate that the most effective\ntime for application is in the late fall, in October and November. An application of Bordeaux will probably be applied to the demonstration plot about the end of November.\nPOWDERY MILDEW OF CHERRY\nThis is the first year that powdery mildew on the fruit has necessitated extensive sorting before shipping in the Southern Okanagan. For several years, this disease has been\nobserved on the foliage of some cherry-trees in a few orchards, but this is the first time\nthat it has been a problem on the fruit. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 59\nSTRAWBERRY-PLANT CERTIFICATION\nThis project was carried out with the co-operation of G. E. W. Clarke, Supervising\nHorticulturist, and W. D. Christie, District Horticulturist, at Abbotsford.\nIn an attempt to improve certified strawberry plants, the number of inspections conducted annually has been increased from one (in the spring) to two\u00E2\u0080\u0094one during the\nsummer and one in the spring. The Inspectors will have a better opportunity to judge\nthe vigour and high-yielding ability of the planting stock, and also to detect some of the\ndiseases and pests which affect strawberry plants.\nThe total number of applications for certification was 122\u00E2\u0080\u0094ninety-three passed\nand twenty-eight were rejected. The number of strawberry plants certified was approximately 5,000,000\u00E2\u0080\u0094the same as for the previous year. The demand for plants in 1952\nwas less than in 1951\u00E2\u0080\u0094about 3,500,000 as compared to about 4,500,000.\nG. R. Thorpe, District Horticulturist at Creston, reports: \"The main factor contributing towards the increase in strawberry production is the use of certified stock\nimported from the Fraser Valley.\"\nRED-STELE OF STRAWBERRY\nTwo tests are being conducted on two farms in the Fraser Valley in order to determine if Dithane D-14, as a soil treatment, is an effective, practical control for red-stele\ninfected areas. The results will be known next spring.\nThe most practical control would be a suitable resistant variety. A new variety\nwhich was developed in England, called Climax, is under test. The Experimental Farms\nat Agassiz and Saanichton are also attempting to develop a new resistant variety.\nPOWDERY MILDEW OF STRAWBERRY\nThis year, powdery mildew was much more severe than usual at the Coast. This\ndisease is not often severe enough to justify the expense of spraying regularly. An application of Dithane Z-78, IVz pounds to 80 gallons of water, after the disease was well-\nadvanced, did not appear to have any beneficial effect.\nSPRING DWARF OF STRAWBERRY\nThis nematode disease appeared in the same part of a garden at Langley, where it\nwas originally discovered for the first time in the Province, four years ago. The grower has\nbeen supplied with enough soil-fumigant to eradicate it.\nYELLOW RUST ON RASPBERRY\nThis year, yellow-rust damage was quite severe. It may be the worst year ever\nexperienced. On the Washington variety, the disease was general and severe in most\ndistricts. The Newburgh and Willamette varieties were not seriously affected.\nGODRONIA CANKER OF BLUEBERRIES\nA spray trial with Bordeaux 10-10-100 was conducted in an attempt to prevent\nfuture damage due to Godronia canker of blueberries. The purpose of this spray trial was\nto discover the most effective time to apply the spray. The results, shown in the following\ntable, indicate that the spring application is more effective than the fall application.\nThe Effect of Spraying Bordeaux, at Different Times, on Godronia Canker of Blueberries\nDate of Application Number of Canes Killed\nCheck (no treatment) 16\nApril 25th, 1952 4\nOctober 13th, 1951 9\nSeptember 15th, 1951; October 13th, 1951; April 25th, 1952 _ 6 CC 60 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nROOT-ROT AND CROWN-ROT OF LAWSON'S CYPRESS\nThis disease has been found to be widely distributed in nurseries and in private\ngardens in the Fraser Valley and, to some extent, on Vancouver Island. It is caused by\na species of Phytophthora.\nThis disease is being investigated, at our request, by P. Salisbury, of the Dominion\nForest Pathology Laboratory at Victoria. Tests are being conducted in a nursery in the\nFraser Valley in an effort to discover a control.\nVERTICILLIUM WILT OF TOMATOES\nVerticillium wilt continues to be a serious disease of tomatoes. R. M. Wilson, District Horticulturist at Kamloops, reports that a variety called Moscow, which has been\nrecently introduced by Westminster Canners Ltd., appears to be resistant. This new\nvariety, Moscow, is about as early as the variety Clarke's Early and is equal in yield.\nCURLY-TOP OF TOMATOES\nThis virus disease was reported, for the first time, in the Ashcroft-Kamloops area.\nAt Ashcroft, 30 per cent of the plants were affected in one 40-acre field, and at\nKamloops, a slight amount was observed in three fields.\nCurly-top can be recognized by observing the leaflets of infected plants. The leaflets\nroll upward along the midrib and become thickened and crisp as the leaves curve downward. The leaf tissue gradually turns yellow, while the veins take on a purplish tinge.\nThe plant assumes an erect habit, remains stunted, and usually dies. The disease is\nspread by the beet leaf-hopper.\nBACTERIAL RING-ROT OF POTATOES\nThis Province continues to be virtually free of bacterial ring-rot of potatoes. It was\nfound on only one 4-acre field of White Rose potatoes, on Lulu Island, in the Fraser\nValley. The amount of this disease was about 15 per cent. This is a much greater percentage than any that has been previously found on any farm in the Fraser Valley.\nThe origin of the outbreak was not determined, because other White Rose crops,\nreportedly grown from the same seed-source, appeared to be free of ring-rot. An inspection of 125 acres at digging-time in the same area, Lulu Island, failed to detect any ring-rot\nof potatoes. There has been no reoccurrence of the disease on those farms which have\npreviously grown affected crops.\nRing-rot was found in six imported carloads of potatoes. A total of 250 carloads\nwere imported into the Province\u00E2\u0080\u0094125 from other Provinces and 125 from the United\nStates. Two of the affected carloads came from Alberta, one from Manitoba, and two\nfrom Washington. One of the carloads from Washington was returned to Seattle because\nthe importer was unable to find a suitable market.\nA bacterial ring-rot directive, dealing with imported potatoes, was issued in September, 1952, and forwarded to all known importers and wholesalers in the Province.\nLATE BLIGHT OF POTATOES\u00E2\u0080\u0094FORECAST SERVICE\nThe first bulletin was issued on June 13th to potato-growers in the Fraser Valley.\nThis was done in co-operation with the Dominion Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Vancouver. The growers were warned that the cloudy days, cool nights, and intermittent\nrains of the previous two weeks had created an ideal environment for the development\nof the fungus which causes late blight of potatoes. The growers were also warned that\noutbreaks of the disease could be expected if the damp weather continued. However,\njust shortly after the press release was issued, the weather turned hot and dry. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 61\nLate blight was reported during the second week in August. It occurred in slight\namounts in some of the crops in the Lulu Island and Ladner districts.\nA second press release was issued on August 13th, to the effect that the hot weather\nat that time would keep the disease in check. In addition, growers were warned to be\nready to apply sprays if cool nights and warm, muggy days prevailed. After this date,\nlate blight could be found generally in many fields in the Lower Mainland but only in\nlight-to-moderate infections.\nLate blight did not become a major problem to the potato-growers during the season.\nACKNOWLEDGMENT\nWe wish to thank officials of the other branches of the Department of Agriculture,\nthe Canada Department of Agriculture, and the University of British Columbia for their\nco-operation.\nREPORT OF PROVINCIAL ENTOMOLOGIST\nC. L. Neilson, M.S., Entomologist, Vernon\nThe general insect condition throughout the Province was one of increased activity\nin many respects. The dry growing season once again favoured the increase of grasshoppers in most of the Interior. There were local \" unusual \" outbreaks of grain-aphis\nin the Fraser Valley, black vine-weevil on Vancouver Island, blister-beetles in the Kamloops and Okanagan Districts, bud-moth, woolly aphis, scales, and black cherry fruit-fly\nin the Okanagan. Cutworm damage was prevalent throughout the Province. There has\nbeen increased inquiry about ticks, black widow spiders, flesh-maggots in cattle, household pests, and pests in stored grains.\nFrom a control standpoint, I believe the following advances have been made in the\nProvince by Provincial authorities, various Dominion Entomological Laboratories, and\nother agencies:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(a) An improved control for turnip-maggot, onion-maggot, carrot rust-fly,\nand tuber flea-beetle.\n(b) The recognized and recommended use of \" soil insecticides \" to give better\nand (or) more economical control of some of our pests which have been\ndifficult to control effectively.\n(c) The introduction of methoxychlor and malathon into the control of fruit\npests. These will, it is hoped, eventually replace insecticides which have\nbeen in use and have a high toxicity to humans.\n(d) The entrance of medical personnel from the Provincial Department of\nHealth into the Okanagan Spray Committee, to study the toxicity hazards\nof spray materials to humans.\n(e) Increased publicity and direction to persons seeking advice re insects or\ninsect controls.\nFIELD-CROP AND VEGETABLE INSECTS\nColorado Potato-beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)\nDuring the past year there was no survey made of this pest, such as has been carried\non for many years previous. Existing stocks of 3-per-cent DDT were distributed to\ngrowers as requested, but no new stock was purchased by the Government. Growers\nwere warned that free DDT would not likely be available in future. Beetles were present\nin all areas where reported in 1951, but little or no serious damage was caused by their\npresence. CC 62 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nThe co-operative parasite study started in 1951 with the Dominion Biological Control Laboratory, of Vancouver, was continued in 1952. This year, collections of Colorado potato-beetle larva, were made in both East and West Kootenay Districts. These\nwere kept for rearing and determination of parasite species. Of the twenty collections\nmade in 1951, sixteen contained parasites. This shows a wide distribution of parasites\nin the Kootenays, with percentage parasitism as high as 32 per cent from one location.\nThe species of parasites are to be determined from 1952 collections.\nGrasshoppers\nThere was a general increase in grasshopper populations throughout British Columbia, other than in the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island. This was as expected (see\n1951 report). Of particular interest was the occurrence of grasshoppers in outbreak\nnumbers in the Prince George district. The main species, as determined by Dr. R. H.\nHandford, was Melanoplus borealis. Throughout the remainder of the affected area the\ntwo main species were Camnula pellucida and Melanoplus mexicanus, and in general the\nformer was dominant at the higher elevations (over 3,000 feet approximately) while the\nlatter was more plentiful at the lower levels.\nAircraft were used to spray approximately 20,000 acres for grasshoppers, mainly\nin the Merritt and Pavilion districts.\nDuring the summer, L. G. Putnam, of the Dominion Entomological Branch (Saskatoon) and director of the Regional Grasshopper Control Committee, and his staff conducted extensive spraying experiments in the Merritt district.\nA spot grasshopper-egg survey conducted in October by the author and Dr. R. H.\nHandford, of the Dominion Field Crop Insect Laboratory, Kamloops, showed:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(a) That the fall had been ideal for grasshopper-egg laying.\n(b) That sufficient eggs had been laid and there is every reason to expect as\nmany or more grasshoppers in 1953 than were present in 1952. This\nforecast is based on knowledge as of October, but could possibly be upset\nby adverse weather, parasites, and predators later than this date and prior\nto early nymphal development in the spring.\nCutworms\nAs in 1951, the cutworm outbreak was widespread and occurred in most districts of\nthe Province in 1952. The dry soil conditions once again aggravated control measures,\nand as this tended to keep cutworms below the surface, there were numerous unsuccessful\nattempts at control. DDT dust (5 to 50 per cent) and Chlordane dust (5 per cent)\nwere most commonly used, but baits and numerous sprays were also used with varying\ndegrees of success.\nThe main species was the red-backed cutworm (Euxoa ochrogaster), as in 1951,\nbut in the Prince George district a heavy outbreak of the black army cutworm (Actebia\nfennica) damaged cereal and forage crops severely. Populations as heavy as 100 pupa,\nper square foot were found in a clover field in June. This species feeds above ground and\nexcellent control was secured in several cases by spraying the soil in the evening with\n50-per-cent wettable D D T at 2 pounds actual DDT per acre.\nCarrot Rust-fly (Psila rosai)\nThis pest caused its usual concern and loss in the Fraser Valley and Armstrong and\nNelson districts. Additional information re life history and chemicals for control has been\nfurnished by the Dominion Field Crop Insect Laboratories at Kamloops and Agassiz.\nThis involves the use of Aldrin dust (2Vz per cent) or Chlordane dust (5 per cent) at the\nrate of 1 ounce to every ten feet of row when the first forked leaves appear, and a second\napplication during the first week of August in the Interior, or the last week of August at\nthe Coast. department of agriculture, 1952 cc 63\nFlea-beetles\nFlea-beetles were present in numbers on both crucifers and potatoes. However, the\nonly real concern was from the potato-tuber flea-beetle (Epitrix tuberis). Damage was\nagain in evidence throughout the Interior from Lytton through the Kamloops district, the\nNorth and South Okanagan, the Fraser Valley, and Vancouver Island. Growers in the\nInterior have complained of poorer results from dusting with 5-per-cent DDT this year\nthan in previous years, but most of this can be attributed to improper timing of the\ntreatments. Several growers in the Vernon and Lavington areas who used orchard\nsprayers in their fields for control measures were not successful. This is no doubt due to\nimproper coverage of all parts of the foliage by the gun-type orchard sprayers.\nSufficient experimental evidence has been gathered by the author and the Dominion\nInsect Laboratories at Kamloops and Agassiz to enable a control recommendation by the\nuse of \" soil insecticides \" to be made. This will read as follows: Soil treatment\u00E2\u0080\u0094an\nalternative to sprays or dusts. Prior to or soon after planting, apply Chlordane dust at\n10 pounds actual per acre or Aldrin dust at 4 pounds actual per acre. Harrow or disc\nthoroughly into the ground. These materials have given excellent results in many cases.\nConsult your local office for complete method of application.\nCrucifer Pests\nThere were the usual localized outbreaks of such pests as cabbage-maggot, cabbage-\nworm, and cabbage-seed pod-weevil. The Dominion Field Crop Insect Laboratories at\nAgassiz and Victoria have provided a fairly reliable control for turnip-maggot. This is\nindeed a milestone, as turnip-maggot has long been one of the pests for which no control\nwas known.\nOnion-maggot\nOnion-maggot infestations were again widespread. Growers who used the recommended DDT seed treatment obtained good control, but difficulties are experienced in\nthe physical use of this material. This will be overcome in a new recommendation to be\nissued for 1953; that is, 2 ounces of 50-per-cent Aldrin used to treat each 1 pound of\nonion-seed.\nWhite Grubs\nWhite grubs were the cause of damage to such crops as strawberries, potatoes, and\nmany perennial flowers. By the continued and expanded use of D D T, Chlordane, and\nethylene dibromide the loss to commercial crops is steadily decreasing.\nWireworms\nLoss from wireworms in vegetable-growing areas of the Okanagan and Fraser Valleys\nis decreasing yearly. This is due to the use of ethylene dibromide as a soil-fumigant on\nthe land which is intensively cropped.\nBlister-beetles\nLocal outbreaks were recorded from Ashcroft on tomatoes, Vernon, and Cawston.\nHessian-fly (Phytophaga destructor)\nThere was an increased infestation by hessian-fly in the North Okanagan during the\npast year. Inquiries re controls came from several points between Vernon and Enderby.\nHorn Worms\nThere was a general increase in horn worms in the Province. Only one case of\ndamage was reported and that was on tomatoes at Keremeos. Other localities reporting\nslight damage included Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Creston, and Nelson. CC 64 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nEarwigs (Forficula auricularia)\nThere was a definite increase in earwigs in most sections of the Province. Damage\nwas reported from several vegetable-crops, and householders complained of them entering\ndwellings. Of particular interest was their marked increase in the Kamloops, Okanagan,\nand East and West Kootenay Districts, where populations are usually very low.\nMiscellaneous Pests\nOther pests reported in localized areas included: (1) red turnip-beetle (Ento-\nmoscelis americana), Mammet Lake; (2) painted lady butterfly (Vanessa cardui),\nOkanagan and Kootenay; (3) clover-weevil (Tychius picrostris), Salmon Valley near\nPrince George; (4) lygus bugs (Lygus spp.), general infestations; (5) burrower bugs\n(Schirus cinctus), Prince George area; (6) grain-aphis (Macrosiphium granarium),\nFraser Valley; (7) clover-aphis (Anuraphis bakeri), Fraser Valley; (8) slugs, Vernon;\n(9) pea-weevil (Bruchus pisorum), Armstrong; (10) crickets (Gryllus assimilis),\nVernon; (11) crickets (Peranabrus scabricollis), Vernon; (12) cave crickets (species\nunknown), Vancouver Island; (13) seed-maggots (Hylemia sp.), general infestations;\n(14) stink-bugs (Euchistussp.), Vernon and Armstrong; (15) wheat-midge (Sitodiplosis\namericana), Armstrong; (16) sod web-worms (several species), Fraser Valley; (17)\naphis on celery (species unknown), Kelowna.\nORCHARD INSECTS\nThis portion of insect work is largely reported by Provincial Horticulturists and will\nbe found elsewhere. While most orchard pests are well in hand, I believe the following\nexceptions are worth noting: Cherry fruit-fly on Vancouver Island and increased infestations of fruit bud-moth, fruit-tree leaf-roller, woolly apple-aphis, and Lecanium scale on\nsoft fruits in the Okanagan. During the year there was also a higher-than-normal infesta-\ntation of codling-moth caused by a late second generation. The infestation of black cherry\nfruit-fly (reported in 1951) at Bear Creek, near Kelowna, was largely cleaned up through\na co-operative effort by the author, the Provincial Horticulturist at Kelowna, and Mr.\nProverbs, of the Dominion Fruit Insect Laboratory at Summerland. This consisted of\nspraying all sour and sweet cherries in the district. During the close of the campaign only\nan odd fly was found by trapping and no fruit was found to be infested.\nHOUSEHOLD AND STORED PRODUCTS\nCarpet-beetles\nThese were abundant as usual in the Fraser Valley, and there were several inquiries\nfrom householders in the Vernon and Kelowna districts.\nSawtooth Grain-beetles (Oryztephilus surinamensis)\nInquiries were received from Duncan, Oyama, Vernon, and Nelson regarding control\nmeasures.\nBlack Widow Spiders (Latrodectes mactans)\nThere has been a definite increase in the incidence of these spiders during the year.\nNumerous requests on identification and control were received from the Okanagan and\nNelson-Trail Districts.\nMiscellaneous Inquiries\nThese included bedbugs, clothes moths, mice, fleas, cockroaches, lice on household\npet birds, wasps, poultry mites on feathers, earwigs, sphinx moths, houseflies, black-flies,\nmosquitoes, and ticks on humans. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 65\nSMALL-FRUIT INSECTS\nStrawberries\nThe main pests during the year were weevils, white grubs, crown-moth, and mites.\nThe strawberry root-weevil (Brachyrhinus ovatus) was prevalent throughout the Province.\nThe black vine-weevil (Brachyrhinus sulcatus) infestations have greatly increased on\nVancouver Island, are are now becoming equally as serious, if not more so, than the\nstrawberry root-weevil. At present the weevil-bait is not giving satisfactory control of\nthe black vine-weevil. In the Magna Bay area a joint demonstration of control of two-\nspotted mite was undertaken with the District Horticulturist of Salmon Arm. This showed\nthat two applications of either Aramite or Ovatran dust (5 per cent) gave better control\nthan several applications of lime-sulphur dust, and at a reduced cost per acre. Crown-\nmoth (Ramosia bibronipennis) was most prevalent on Vancouver Island.\nCurrants\nThe currant-borer (Ramosia tipuliformis) did considerable damage in the Langley\ndistrict. The present control of pruning does not meet with a too enthusiastic acceptance\nby the grower.\nThe Pacific mite was again present at Armstrong. An extensive test of a series of\ndifferent spray materials was started and one application made. Drought conditions continued for such a lengthy period that the grower finally pulled out practically all of his\nacreage and consequently the experiment was abandoned.\nRaspberries\nThe pest of most concern to raspberry-growers was the root-borer (Bembecia\nmarginata). There were several heavy infestations in the Fraser valley, centering on\nAbbotsford and Mission. Requests for information re control of this pest were received\nfrom various points in the Okanagan and Kootenays. Only minor infestations of the\nfruit-worm (Byturus bakeri) were present in the Fraser Valley, for a second year.\nResearch work on both of the above pests, and leaf-hoppers, is continuing under the\nDominion Fruit Insect Laboratory at Victoria. The raspberry-sawfly (Blennocampa\nrubi) was present in most of the plantings in the Okanagan, but infestations were not\nsufficiently heavy to cause excessive loss of leaves. No controls were applied.\nOTHER INSECTS IN OUTBREAK NUMBERS\nTent-caterpillars\nThe forest tent-caterpillars (Malacasoma disstria and M. pluviale) were present in\noutbreak numbers in several municipalities of the Lower Mainland during May and June.\nFall Web-worm (Hyphantria textor)\nThere was an unusually heavy outbreak of this insect throughout the Interior. It\nwas not uncommon to see native trees devoid of leaves in early summer, due to the heavy\ninfestations.\nGrape Leaf-hoppers (Erythroneura sp.)\nAs in 1951, these leaf-hoppers were abundant in the Kamloops and Vernon districts.\nOnly minor infestations were present elsewhere in the Okanagan.\nRose Insects\nThere were several inquiries re rose-weevil, rose leaf-hopper, and rose-aphis in the\nOkanagan. Leaf-hoppers were especially numerous and nearly every plant examined\nshowed some evidence of feeding. cc 66 british columbia\nSpruce Gall-aphid\nThe presence of this aphid was noticed more than usual, particularly in the North\nand South Okanagan. Undoubtedly infestations had been increasing for at least one year\nprevious, but had not reached such proportions.\nPine Leaf Needle-scale (Phenacapsis pinifoliat)\nSevere infestations of this scale were reported from both the North and South\nOkanagan on native and domesticated trees.\nHolly Leaf-miner (Phytomyza ilicis)\nThis insect was present in holly on Vancouver Island and throughout most of the\nFraser Valley. Where the recommended DDT spray was applied, no difficulty was\nexperienced with control.\nLilac Leaf-miner (Gracilaria syringella)\nThe lilac leaf-miner is present throughout most of the Province where lilac is grown.\nDuring the past two years there has been more than usual interest in its control, particularly in the Vernon district.\nCaragana-aphis (Species Unknown)\nA severe infestation of aphis on caragana occurred in parts of the East Kootenay,\ncausing considerable premature yellowing and leaf-drop. This same pest was reported\nin outbreak numbers in both Alberta and Saskatchewan this year.\nMiscellaneous Flower Pests\nInquiries were received concerning:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(a) Dipterous maggots in Aquilegius from Vancouver Island.\n(_>) Dipterous maggots in Primula from Salmon Arm.\n(c) Bulb-mites in Primula from Salmon Arm.\n(d) Other pests were aphis, white grubs, wireworms, mites, and white fly.\nLIVE-STOCK INSECTS\nDuring the year there was no experimental work done with live-stock insects. A\nreport by the Live Stock Branch covers their warble-fly control campaign. In the East\nKootenay there was an outbreak of blow-fly and range animals were frequently infested.\nTicks\nInfestations of both the paralysis tick (Dermacentor undersoni) and the winter tick\n(Dermacentor albipictus) were reported from Interior British Columbia. Infestations\nwere not as heavy as those of 1951.\nBlack-flies\nBlack-flies are an annual problem with live-stock men in various sections of the\nProvince. Attacks by these flies are particularly bad on young stock, which are often\nkept in the vicinity of the fast-flowing streams\u00E2\u0080\u0094the breeding place of the black-flies.\nSuch a case was reported from Cherryville, 30 miles east of Vernon.\nA black-fly control programme was carried out in Mount Seymour Park (North Vancouver) by the Provincial Forest Service. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 67\nHorn-flies (Siphona irritans)\nThese flies were numerous on unsprayed cattle. However, more interest is being\ntaken in control of these flies by ranchers and dairymen and the number of cattle treated\nis believed to be increasing yearly. Experiments with new materials, methods, and spraying equipment to control these flies are being conducted by the Dominion Livestock\nInsect Laboratory, Kamloops.\nSheep-ked (Melophagus ovinus)\nThese keds were very abundant on sheep in the Vernon-Kamloops districts during\nthe past year. With increased interest in sheep by many of the smaller farmers and\norchardists, it is very likely that requests for advice re control measures will also increase\nsharply.\nCONTROL OF ST. JOHN'S WORT BY BEETLES\nDuring 1951 an attempt was made to introduce the beetles Chrysolina gemellata\ninto British Columbia to control the weed St. John's Wort. Liberations were made at\nWestbank, Fruitvale, and Christina Lake by the Dominion Biological Control Laboratory\nand the Range Division of the Provincial Forest Service. Examinations which were made\nduring 1952 showed that the beetles had overwintered, reproduced, and spread out slightly\nfrom the original liberation points.\nGENERAL\n1. Teaching agricultural entomology at the University of British Columbia during\nJanuary, February, and March.\n2. A joint paper, \" Experiments on the Insecticidal Control of the Tuber Flea-beetle,\nEpitrix tuberis Gent., in the Interior of British Columbia,\" was prepared for publication\nwith D. G. Finlayson, of Kamloops.\n3. A new bulletin, \" Stored Product Insects in British Columbia,\" is being readied\nfor publication by the Dominion Stored Product Insect Division, at our request.\n4. A paper, \" Entomological Work in Progress in British Columbia,\" was presented\nat the H.E.P.P. meetings at Puyallup, Wash.\n5. Served as (a) chairman of the \" Insects and Diseases Committee \" of the B.C.\nAgronomists' Association; (b) chairman of the \" Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Pacific\nNorthwest Vegetable Insect Conference \"; (c) secretary-treasurer of the \" Entomological\nSociety of B.C.\"\n6. Preparation and release to press of articles on (a) Sheep-ked Control; (b)\nHessian-fly Control.\n7. Participation in planned-farming demonstrations in the Fraser Valley.\n8. An exhibit, \" Insects and Controls,\" was placed and staffed at the Nelson and\nCreston Fall Fairs.\n9. Assistance in the revision of (a) Tree Fruit Insect Pest and Diseases Calendar\nfor 1953; (b) Field Crops and Vegetable Insects and Diseases Calendar for 1953-54.\n10. Coloured pictures on insect damage of various types were taken and will be\nused for extension purposes.\n11. Assistance with organization of a Grasshopper Control Zone in the Vernon\ndistrict.\n12. Together with officials of the Dominion Medical and Veterinary Laboratory of\nKamloops, made a survey of the biting-fly problem at Kitimat, at the request of the\nAluminum Company of Canada. CC 68 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nREPORT OF DAIRY BRANCH\nF. C. Wasson, M.S.A., Dairy Commissioner\nThe year 1952 has been a fairly favourable one from the standpoint of milk production, and it is estimated that the total amount of milk produced will exceed the 1951\nproduction of 624,472,000 pounds by 2 to 3 per cent. The amount of creamery butter\nmanufactured is up 37 per cent over the 1951 figure of 2,666,000 pounds. Cheddar\ncheese shows a slight decrease in pounds made, while production of evaporated milk is\ndown slightly, and ice-cream and cottage cheese on a par with last year's production.\nVALUE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS\nFarm value of milk products in British Columbia for 1951, according to statistics,\nwas $23,888,000, and dairy products valued at factories or milk plants amounted to\n$31,020,000. Farm and factory figures should be somewhat higher for 1952.\nUTILIZATION OF MILK IN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MILK\n(1951 STATISTICS)\nPer Cent\nFluid sales, milk and cream 52.18\nCreamery butter 10.00\nFactory cheese 1.39\nConcentrated milk and ice-cream 22.10\nDairy butter 3.47\nUsed on farms and for other purposes 10.86\n100.00\nIt is not anticipated there will be much change in the utilization of milk during 1952.\nPLANTS MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTING\nDAIRY PRODUCTS DURING 1952\nAcme Dairy Ltd., Vancouver. DeClark's Dairy (A. and J. DeClark), Ladysmith.\nArlada Dairy (Mrs. Martha S. Slater), Edgewood. Dexter Dairy Ltd., South Burnaby.\nArmstrong Cheese Co-operative Association, Diamond Dairy (H. H. Trerise), Haney.\nArmstrong. Dominion Dairy (Gordon Milum), Golden.\nArrowsmith Farms (B.C. Ventures Ltd.), Hilliers. Drake's Dairy Ltd., New Westminster.\nAvalon Dairy Ltd., Vancouver. Dutch Dairy Farms Ltd., Kamloops.\nBaby's Own Dairy (H. Armishaw), Nanaimo. Dyffryn Dairy (P. C. Inglis), Lumby.\nBlue Ribbon Dairy Ltd., Mission City. Enterprise Dairy (W. Pighin), Kimberley.\nBrooksbank Farms Ltd., Lulu Island. Fernie Dairy (Morley Obee), Fernie.\nBulkley Valley Creamery (Paulsen and Kinney), Frasea Farms Ltd., Eburne.\nTelkwa. Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, Van-\nCariboo Farmers' Co-operative Association, couver (Hornby St.).\nQuesnel. Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, Van-\nCentral Creameries (B.C.) Ltd., Vancouver, couver (Eighth Ave.).\nCentral Dairy Ltd., Nanaimo. Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, Sardis.\nChilliwack Dairy Ltd., Chilliwack. Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association, Ab-\nCity Dairy Farm (M. McCrindle), Cranbrook. botsford.\nColumbia Valley Co-operative Creamery Asso- Glenburn Dairy Ltd., Vancouver.\nciation, Golden. Guernsey Breeders' Dairy Ltd., Vancouver.\nComox Co-operative Creamery Association, Hazelwood Creamery Ltd., Vancouver.\nCourtenay. Island Farms Co-operative Association, Port Al-\nCreamland Crescent Dairy Ltd., Vancouver. berni.\nCreamland Ice Cream Ltd., Vancouver. Island Farms Co-operative Association, Victoria.\nCreston Co-operative Milk Producers' Associa- I.X.L. Dairy Ltd., Nanaimo.\ntion, Creston. lersey Dairy (D. M. Archibald), Chilliwack.\nDairy Queen Mixco (J. C. Mulvey), Langley lersey Farms Ltd., Vancouver.\nPrairie. Kalamalka Dairy Ltd., Vernon. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 69\nKamloops United Dairies Ltd., Kamloops.\nKelowna Creamery Ltd., Kelowna.\nKootenay Valley Co-operative Milk Products Association, Nelson.\nLewis & Sons' Dairy (E. R. Lewis), Powell River.\nLittle Mountain Dairy (Carncross and Thompson), Abbotsford.\nMaple Ridge Dairy (Mrs. D. C. Vogel), Haney.\nMedo-land Farm Dairy Ltd., Port Coquitlam.\nModern Dairy (D. Macaulay), Marysville.\nModern Dairy (K. Sharpies), Castlegar.\nMorrison-Knudsen Company of Canada Ltd.,\nKemano.\nNanaimo Dairy Co. Ltd., Nanaimo.\nNational Dairies Ltd., Vancouver.\nNorthern Alberta Dairy Pool Ltd., Dawson Creek.\nNorthern Dairies Ltd., Prince George.\nNorthern Dairies Ltd., Quesnel.\nNorthland Dairy Ltd., Prince Rupert.\nNorthwestern Creamery Ltd., Victoria.\nOdermatt's Dairy (Paul Odermatt), Fort St. John.\nOliver Dairy (Henry Hettinga), Oliver.\nPacific Mills Ltd., Ocean Falls.\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Kamloops.\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Nelson.\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Trail.\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Vancouver (1803 Commercial\nDr.).\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Vancouver (1060 Cambie St.).\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Vancouver (3333 Main St.).\nPalm Dairies Ltd., Victoria.\nPeerless Dairy (lohn Lancaster), Cranbrook.\nPenticton Dairy and Ice Cream Co. Ltd., Penticton.\nPeter's Ice Cream Co., Vancouver.\nPinelawn Dairy (Mrs. Dulcie Hamilton), Comox.\nPrimrose Dairy (L. R. Singlehurst), Williams\nLake.\nRichmond Milk Producers' Co-operative Association, Vancouver.\nRivers' Dairyland (J. P. Rivers), Salmon Arm.\nRose's Ice Cream Ltd., Prince George.\nRoyal City Dairies Ltd., New Westminster.\nSalt Spring Island Creamery Co. Ltd., Ganges.\nSeal-Kap Dairy Ltd., Langley Prairie.\nShannon Dairies Ltd., Vancouver.\nShepherd's Dairy (H. G. Shepherd), Victoria.\nShirley Farm (H. G. Morson), South Burnaby.\nShuswap Okanagan Dairy Industries Co-operative\nAssociation, Enderby.\nShuswap Okanagan Dairy Industries Co-operative\nAssociation, Kelowna.\nShuswap Okanagan Dairy Industries Co-operative\nAssociation, Salmon Arm.\nShuswap Okanagan Dairy Industries Co-operative\nAssociation, Vernon.\nSilver Rill Dairy (Stanley H. S. Fox), Saanichton.\nSquamish Dairy (Lloyd Goodale), Squamish.\nStandard Dairy (Mrs. D. McKinnon), Revelstoke.\nStanhope Dairy Farm (R. Rendle), Victoria.\nSunny Brae Dairy Ltd., Duncan.\nSunnybrook Dairy (Hay Bros.), Vancouver.\nSunshine Valley Dairy Ltd., Grand Forks.\nSurrey Dairy (Mrs. Frances R. Lipsey), New\nWestminster.\nTip Top Dairy Ltd., Westview.\nTurner's Dairy (Ruby J. Turner), Ladner.\nTurner's Dairy Ltd., Vancouver.\nUnited Dairies Ltd., Trail.\nValley Dairy (Albert Doratti), Rossland.\nValley Dairy (Armstrong Cheese Co-operative\nAssociation), Penticton.\nWood's Dairy (J. P. Wood), Creston.\nNUMBERS OF DAIRY CATTLE ON FARMS\nThe Dominion Bureau of Statistics' June survey shows the following number of dairy\ncattle in all of Canada and in British Columbia, 1951 and 1952:-\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nJune 1st\nDairy Cows*\nChange\nDairy Heifers2\nChange\nCalvesS\nChange\nCanada\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n1951 \t\nNumber\n2,908,000\n2,968,000\n83,000\n84,000\nPer Cent\n+2.2\n+ 1.2\nNumber\n850,000\n922,000\n26,000\n26,000\nPer Cent\n+ 8.6\nNumber\n2,101,000\n2,310,000\n71,000\n80,000\nPer Cent\n1952 _\nBritish Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n1951\n+ 10.1\n1952\n+ 12.7\n1 Dairy cow numbers include all breeds (grade and purebred) kept mainly for milking purposes.\n2 Heifer numbers include all breeds (grade and purebred) being raised mainly for milking purposes.\n3 Calves reported on farms are those being raised for both beef and dairy purposes.\nMost of the upward trend in the number of dairy cattle on farms during 1952 is\nprobably due to the embargo on the shipment of cattle from Canada to the United States\nbecause of the foot-and-mouth-disease epidemic.\nDAIRY PLANTS\nAt present there are 15 creameries, 3 cheddar-cheese factories, 2 powdered-milk\nplants, 1 evaporated-milk plant, 98 large and small milk-pasteurizing plants, 26 ice-cream\nJ CC 70 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nplants (mostly included in creameries and milk plants), around 250 counter-freezers, and\napproximately 450 to 500 producer-vendors of raw milk.\nThe distribution of dairy plants remains much the same as last year\u00E2\u0080\u0094approximately\n43 per cent around Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, 17 per cent on the Gulf Islands\nand Vancouver Island; the remaining 40 per cent are located in the Interior of the Province, with 16 per cent in the Okanagan and the other 24 per cent scattered throughout the\nEast and West Kootenays and Central British Columbia.\nCREAMERIES\nOnly fifteen creameries were making butter during the year. The general trend in\ncreamery-butter production has been downward since our peak year of 1945, when\nBritish Columbia produced an all-time high of 6,205,000 pounds. In 1951, we reached\nour lowest production in thirty years, making only 2,666,000 pounds. For 1952, our\nproduction will be up approximately 37 per cent or around 3,500,000 pounds. The\ndownward trend in creamery-butter manufacture is due chiefly to our increased population taking more milk on the fluid market, and partly to the manufacture and sale of\nmargarine at a much lower price than butter. The retail price of creamery butter has\nbeen slightly lower than in 1951, ranging between 65 and 75 cents per pound.\nCHEESE-FACTORIES\nThree cheese-factories have been making cheddar cheese during 1952 and one small\nplant has been making farm cheese. These factories are located at Armstrong, Salmon\nArm, Edgewood, and Nanaimo. The quality of cheese produced has been very good and\nmuch in demand. A little over 500,000 pounds were made during the year.\nCONCENTRATED-MILK PRODUCTS\nThere are two powdered-milk plants and one evaporated-milk plant operating in the\nProvince. While exact figures are not available at time of writing, indications are that\nevaporated-milk production is down about 5 per cent and powdered-milk production is\nup around 30 per cent in comparison with 1951 production. Approximately 14 per cent\nof our milk production goes into concentrated products. The following excerpt is taken\nfrom the October Dairy Review:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Concentrated Products: Domestic prices of evaporated milk in Montreal were cut\n50 cents a case, late in September. This development should stimulate sales and thus\nreduce stocks from present unprecedented levels to more normal ones.\n\" Spray-process skimmed-milk powder remained firm at 16 and 17 cents a pound\n(f.o.b. Montreal) in September, but signs of weakening appeared in the market in early\nOctober.\"\nICE-CREAM\nTwenty-six large and small ice-cream factories will make around 2,850,000 gallons\nof ice-cream during 1952, representing only a slight increase over 1951 production.\nOnly six out of the twenty-six can be classified as strictly ice-cream plants, the other\ntwenty are included in milk plants and creameries. Around 8 per cent of our total milk\nproduction is used in ice-cream. Ice-cream prices vary considerably and it has been\nrequested that the Provincial Milk Board establish prices for this product. Latest figures\navailable indicate around 235 counter-freezers operating in the Province.\nSHORT COURSE IN DAIRYING\nThe sixth annual short course in dairying offered jointly by the Department of\nDairying, University of British Columbia, and the Dairy Branch, Department of Agriculture, Victoria, was given at the University of British Columbia from October 27th to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 71\nNovember 22nd of this year. The following seventeen students attended: Mrs. Irene\nBarrett, Cranbrook; George Borstel, Salmon Arm; Mrs. Nelia Callender, North Bend;\nRoderick Davidson, Victoria; Wm. G. Easterbrook, Nanaimo; Fred J. George, Chilliwack; John Hardman, Vancouver; Wm. Keck, Victoria; Nick Kosowan, Chilliwack;\nGordon E. Olson, Salmon Arm; Miss Valerie A. Pemberton, Parksville; Harold South-\nwick, Vancouver; John R. Steele, Burnaby; Bernard Vogel, Haney; James Watson,\nVancouver; Francis Stevens, Cloverdale; and Alfred H. Levy, Tranquille.\nLectures were given by members of the Dairy Faculty, University of British Columbia; by representatives of some of the larger dairies in Vancouver; and by the Dairy\nInspectors of this Branch. George Patchett, Senior Inspector, was in charge of the course.\nLectures were also given by some of the members of the dairy supply-houses.\nThe annual banquet for the students was held in the faculty dining-hall, University\nof British Columbia, Wednesday, November 19th.\nThe services of all those who helped to make this year's short course a success is\nherewith gratefully acknowledged. Consideration is being given to rearranging the timetable to make the course more instructive another year.\nDAIRY LICENCES AND CERTIFICATES\nDuring 1952, the following licences and certificates of proficiency were issued:\nCreamery or Dairy Licences, 103; Milk-testers' Licences, 138; Combined Milk-testers'\nand Cream-graders' Licences, 44; Certificates of Proficiency, 13. Twenty-eight examinations were given for Milk-testers' Licences.\nOLEOMARGARINE LICENCES\nFive firms in all were issued licences to manufacture oleomargarine in 1952:\nCanada Packers Limited, Consolidated Enterprises Limited, Kraft Foods Limited, Nova\nMargarine Limited, all of Vancouver, and Wentworth Canning Company of B.C., New\nWestminster. Twenty-three licences were issued to wholesalers of margarine.\nOleomargarine Production: 1949, 3,459,725 pounds; 1950, 5,734,290 pounds;\n1951, 8,767,117 pounds; 1952, 8,500,000 pounds (estimated), being the first year a\nslight decrease has been shown since production started in 1949.\nINSPECTION AND INSTRUCTION SERVICES\nSix Dairy Inspectors are now employed by this Branch, as follows: George Patchett,\nSenior Inspector, Victoria; G. D. Johnson, Kelowna; Herbert Riehl and K. G. Savage,\nVancouver; Norman Ingledew, Nelson, and a new Inspector, D. D. Wilson, who joined\nour staff September 1 st of this year. Mr. Wilson is stationed at Victoria, and will divide\nhis time between inspection work and analytical determinations of dairy products and\noleomargarine. A small dairy laboratory is being equipped at 545 Superior Street,\nVictoria.\nFollowing are excerpts taken from the Inspectors' annual reports:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nGeorge Patchett, Vancouver and Gulf Islands:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" This year will probably prove to be the levelling-off year in dairying. Inflationary\ntrends have slowed to a halt for dairy products and feed prices have shown a tendency to\nrecede a little. The labour problem has been partly solved by using more machinery.\nIncreased acreage in pasture in some areas and greater production per acre, by means of\nrotation, fertilizing, and irrigating, has helped to stabilize both the feed and labour\nsituation.\n\" Beef and veal prices have been lower due to the embargo on shipments to the\nUnited States. Exports of dairy cattle to that market have also been prohibited. These\ntwo factors have resulted in more cows being kept for milking with a consequent increase\nin milk production. These factors have combined to make our quality-milk programme CC 72 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nmore effective, and many farmers have responded by installing better cooling systems\nand using more efficient methods of handling and caring for the milk before delivery.\nConstant checking has shown that there are still a number of producers who think they\ncan get away with the nefarious practice of watering their milk. These shippers are first\nwarned, and if they persist in this illegal proceeding, their Milk Board licence is suspended\nfor an indefinite time.\n\" Much of my time this year has been utilized in redrafting old regulations and drafting new ones, both under the ' Oleomargarine Act' and the ' Creameries and Dairies\nRegulation Act.' Some of these proposed regulations have been presented to the Attorney-\nGeneral's Department for scrutiny.\n\" A very interesting panel discussion was held this year at the short course, when the\nsubject' Is Milk Being Paid For on a Proper Basis? ' brought forth the idea that perhaps\nthe time is at hand when the solids-not-fat in milk should become a large factor in evaluating milk for all markets, the money value of milk-fat being lessened by the advent of\nvegetable-oil imitations and the solids-not-fat money value being increased because of\nthe necessity of using these solids to give flavour to the synthetic dairy products. If a\nquick method can be devised for the testing of milk for solids-not-fat, it may well be the\nbeginning of a new trend in dairy practices.\"\nG. D. Johnson, Interior:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Inspections were carried out during 1952 in the Similkameen, Okanagan, Cariboo,\nPeace River, and Central British Columbia Districts, with stress again being laid on the\nproduction and processing of high-quality milk for the fluid markets.\n\" In conjunction with the health units, a considerable amount of work was carried\non to improve and maintain a high quality of fluid milk. Bacteriological reports were\nreceived from the health units covering all pasteurizing plants in the districts mentioned,\nand these reports greatly assisted in locating plant problems during inspections.\n\"A great deal of effort has been given to encourage dairy-plant operators to carry\nout qualitative tests on milk. This endeavour has been rewarded to a point where eight\nmilk plants are carrying out resazurin and sediment monthly or semi-monthly tests, and\nfive of these plants, operated by co-operative associations, are buying milk on a qualitative\nbasis. Efforts have also been rewarded in improvement of plants with respect to installation of suitable equipment and building alterations to conform to regulations.\n\" Many areas are still in short supply of fluid-milk requirements throughout the\nwinter months, and in cases such as Prince Rupert, Prince George, and other parts of\nCentral British Columbia, throughout the whole year. The latter situation has been\naggravated by the tremendous growth in population brought about by the industrial\ngrowth in that area.\n\" In summing up the year's work there has been greater co-operation apparent\nbetween the dairy-farmers and processing plants and more satisfaction has been obtained\nfrom the improvement of raw milk supplies by the dairies concerned. Whilst it is\nacknowledged that bacteriological reports on pasteurized products at most plants vary\nconsiderably throughout the year, a general improvement has been noted this year over\nprevious years. This can be attributed to the numbers of qualified men being employed\nby the dairies, which in turn reflects the usefulness of the dairy short course.\"\nH. Riehl and K. G. Savage, Greater Vancouver:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" In the past year, due to the permanence of the staff, there has been a considerable\nincrease in butter-fat check-testing. This has been so for two reasons: Firstly, a desire\non the part of the Department to check regularly each shipper in the Greater Vancouver\nmilk-shed, and, secondly, increased agitation from the farmers for check-tests. In spite\nof our fullest co-operation in such check-testing, there remains a suspicion in the minds of\nall concerned parties that the means of checking leaves something to be desired; for\nexample, inadequate control of milk-sampling methods, variations in design of dump-\ntanks, etc. It is felt that, numerically speaking, an increase in butter-fat check-testing is DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 73\nnot warranted, but rather that a study should be made of control measures as they exist\nin the United States, with an eye to implementation of the more successful features of their\ncontrol scheme. It is the hope of the Inspectors in this area that, in answer to the problem\nand to the increased agitation, an early start on such a study will be made.\n\"Again this year, the milk-shippers have been checked for possible water adulteration. Broadly speaking, the picture has not changed a great deal in that there are nearly\nas many offenders as last year. However, the percentage of water added is decreased\nfrom last year. A more complete reference can be gained by perusal of the following\nchart comparing the years 1951 and 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNumber of tests carried out 642 683\nNumber of shippers in each class\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nUnder 3 per cent added water 26 44\n3 to 5 per cent added water 18 30\n5 to 10 per cent added water 30 33\n10 to 20 per cent added water 10 1\nOver 20 per cent added water 2 1\nNumber of warning letters mailed 59 55\nNumber of offenders suspended on rechecking 6 10 \"\nN. H. Ingledew, East and West Kootenays:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The area comprising the East and West Kootenays is a district of relatively scattered\npopulation, and consequently one of small pasteurizing plants. For this reason, a large\nproportion of the work of this Department is of an educational nature. It is one of the\nfew remaining areas where the pioneer spirit still prevails and a producer can obtain a start\nwith a very little capital investment. The same applies to many of the dairy plants which\nhad their beginning as producer-vendors. It is, most gratifying to work in an area where\nhelp is appreciated.\n\" Due to the splendid co-operation we have received from the Live Stock Branch,\nthe District Agriculturists, and the Health Department, considerable improvement has\nbeen made in the quality of milk being supplied to the dairies in the entire area. As a\nresult the quality of the finished products going to the consumer has been excellent.\n\" The supply situation is critical in both the East and West Kootenays when one\nconsiders the proposed expansion of industry which is taking place. For a few short\nweeks in the spring a surplus develops, while at all other times there is a distinct shortage.\nFrom early summer until the following spring, milk must be transported into the area\nfrom the Fraser Valley and Alberta.\n\" In the East Kootenays from Creston east, with an approximate population of\n20,000 in four main centres, only thirteen producers remain, of which nine produce an\naverage of only 200 pounds daily. From these figures it can be quite readily seen that if\nthe industry is to remain on a sound basis, and we are to take care of the increased\npopulation which is inevitable in the next two years, then new production areas must be\ndeveloped. These areas are Grand Forks, Edgewood, and Creston.\n\" Inspections have been carried out at all plants with a view to the improvement of\nproducts, and to increase the working efficiency of both plant and labour. Resazurin\ntests, sediments, temperatures, and butter-fat tests have been carried out periodically\nthroughout the year, with reports being sent to the producers concerned. Many farm\nvisits have been made as a follow-up to these reports, especially in the outlying areas.\n\" Reasonable progress has been made in the past year in all phases of the work.\nThe foundation has been laid for improved quality, improved production, and improved\nmarketing relations. As industrial expansion takes place, with its increased population\nand increased consumption of milk, the producers should be in a position to take greater\nadvantage of their opportunities.\" CC 74 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nSUMMARY OF PLANT INSPECTIONS, TESTS MADE, AND\nMEETINGS ATTENDED BY INSPECTORS IN 1952\nDairy-plant inspections 813\nFarm visits 363\nButter-fat check-tests 7,949\nResazurin quality tests and temperature tests 2,255\nSediment tests 1,780\nMilk samples tested for added water_ 967\nWarned for adulteration 71\nLicences suspended 10\nReports and test-cards sent to milk and cream producers 4,841\nMeetings attended 136\nVisits to margarine plants 35\nLEGISLATION\nAmendments to the \" Creameries and Dairies Regulation Act\" are pending, also\namendments to regulations pursuant to this Act.\nThe \" Oleomargarine Act \" was amended in March of this year, and amendments to\nregulations pursuant to this Act are pending.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA DAIRYMEN'S ASSOCIATION\nThe British Columbia Dairymen's Association held its annual convention in the Plaza\nHotel, Nanaimo, on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 29th and 30th, of this year.\nSpeakers present from outside the Province were J. S. Turnbull, Regina, Sask., who is\npresident of the National Dairy Council; W. C. Cameron, Associate Director, Marketing\nServices, Ottawa; Dr. C. K. Johns, Division of Bacteriology and Dairy Research, Ottawa;\nand D. H. McCallum, Dairy Commissioner, Edmonton.\nThis was a very good convention, and its success was due chiefly to the efforts of\nthe energetic secretary, Everard Clarke, who gave freely of his time during 1950 and\n1951 in making collections and doing publicity work for the Association. Arnold Webb,\nof the Provincial Milk Board, stationed at Victoria, and Walter Sorensen, of the Nanaimo\nDairy Company Limited, made all arrangements for the banquet, luncheon, and entertainment, and, in addition, arranged hotel reservations. Much credit is due these men for the\nvery commendable manner in which they rendered these useful services.\nThe following officers and directors were elected for the ensuing year: President,\nLeonard Zink, Sardis; vice-president, S. Halksworth, Grindrod; secretary-treasurer,\nEverard Clarke, Vernon, who resigned later in the year; directors\u00E2\u0080\u0094Vancouver Island:\nHenry Robinson, Royal Oak; C. R. Porter, Duncan; Lower Mainland: Leonard Zink,\nSardis; Dr. C. D. McKenzie, Glen Valley; Acton Kilby, Harrison Mills; John Wood,\nLadner; Everett Crowley, Vancouver; Okanagan: S. Halksworth, Grindrod; S. Schrau-\nwen, Kamloops; J. Mullen, Armstrong; Kootenays: J. P. Wood, Creston; Cariboo:\nEarl Malcolm, Quesnel; Bulkley: J. C. Green, Telkwa.\nTentative dates of March 25th and 26th, 1953, have been set for the next convention,\nat Mission City.\nMILK BOARD PRICES, 1952\nMilk Board prices to the producers in the Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley area have\nremained the same ($5.03 per 100 pounds for 3.5-per-cent milk) since October 16th,\n1951. On Vancouver Island, the price to producers in the Victoria, Duncan, Nanaimo,\nand Courtenay-Campbell River areas, has remained at $5.90 per 100 pounds of 3.5-percent milk since September 10th, 1951. Retail prices are as follows: Vancouver area\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n22 cents per quart for Standard milk and 24 cents for Special milk; Vancouver Island DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 75\nareas\u00E2\u0080\u009424 cents per quart for Standard milk and 26 cents for Special. Incidentally, Milk\nBoard prices right across Canada have, generally speaking, remained unchanged during\nthe last year.\nSUMMARY\nOn the whole, weather conditions have been favourable throughout the year with less\nrain than average, resulting in good crops and fair pasture conditions. The present\ntrend is' towards better handling of pastures by way of fertilizing and irrigation. During\nthe ten-year period 1941 to 1951, our milk production increased 13 per cent while our\npopulation, due to industrial development, increased 42 per cent. In the thirty-year period\npreceding 1941, our milk production, by ten-year periods, was greater than our population increase during the same periods.\nThe dairy industry across Canada and in British Columbia is entering a period of\nkeen competition from vegetable-oil products. The industry must, through its public-\nrelations programme, continue to impress upon the consuming public the nutritional value\nof milk and milk products. The industry should also insist on protective legislation when\nand where advisable.\nACKNOWLEDGMENT\nThe loyal co-operation of all members of the staff in carrying out the many and sometimes trying duties of the Dairy Branch and in preparing this annual report is gratefully\nacknowledged.\nREPORT OF POULTRY BRANCH\nG. L. Landon, B.S.A., Poultry Commissioner\nConditions in the poultry industry in 1952 were not as good as in 1951, with high\nproduction costs and lower prices for eggs and poultry-meats. The season could be\ndescribed as mediocre. There has been a marked increase in consumption of poultry-\nmeat, probably partly due to lower prices for chicken and fowl.\nMARKETING\nThe increased consumption of poultry-meat included chicken, fowl, broilers, and\nturkeys. Broiler producers have had a reasonably good year, with future prospects\nfairly good.\nInspector W. H. Pope reports there has been a considerable revival of interest in\ncommercial poultry production throughout the southern portion of Vancouver Island,\ndue mainly to the activities of the Vancouver Island Poultry Co-operative. This organization is to be highly commended.\nSome broiler and fryer producers in Courtenay-Comox area were forced out of\nproduction due to lower prices for poultry-meat.\nThe great increase in the consumption of broilers and fryers has been due to evisceration and sale of fresh chilled poultry and sharp-frozen packaged chicken.\nInspector Gasperdone reports that a series of meetings have been held in the Okanagan by operators of the egg-grading stations to form an organization along co-operative\nlines. The idea is to market a quality egg product under one brand-name carton.\nThe marketing of cut-up and eviscerated poultry has not been accepted to any extent\nas yet in the Interior, probably due to lack of equipment and the fact that no consumer\neducation has been undertaken.\nPoultry-meat consumption is up about 2,000,000 pounds over the same period of\nlast year, as indicated in Table No. 1:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 76\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable No. 1 _ . . ,_.\nReceipts of Dressed\nEgg Receipts at Poultry at Registered\nRegistered Egg- Poultry packing\ngrading Stations Stations\nYear (Cases) (Lb.)\n1949 515,944 8,332,158\n1950 410,752 9,027,541\n1951 404,552 8,619,525\n1952 480,830 10,684,000\nData on imports and exports of eggs and poultry for years 1949-52 is shown in\nTable No. 2:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nTable No. 2.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Imports and Exports of Eggs and Poultry\nYear\nImports\nOf\nEggs\nExports\nof\nEggs\nImports\nof\nPoultry\nExports\nof\nPoultry\n1949 _\n1950 - \t\n1951\nCases\n66,143\n146,893\n80,100\n45,000\nCases\n39,172\n8,834\n13,122\n11,580\nLb.\n1,137,161\n855,765\n2,075,799\n61,230\nLb.\n604,573\n48,007\n28,113\n1952 to Tlpcpmher 8th\nNil\nPOULTRY-FLOCK APPROVAL\nThis continues to be a major project of the Poultry Branch, although indications are\nthat economic conditions will cause a reduction in the number of flocks approved for the\n1952-53 season.\nInspectors W. H. Pope, R. H. McMillan, H. Gasperdone, Fred Wilkinson, H. K.\nArnould, Victor North, and H. E. Upton were all employed on this project for varying\nperiods of time. The testers employed were H. E. McDaniel, William Brookes, S. R.\nMcAninch, Allan Mufford, and C. W. Wood.\nAs in past years, the technical aspects of the programme were supervised by Dr. J. C.\nBankier, while all the clerical work, testing schedules, collection of accounts, etc., was\ndone in the office of the Poultry Commissioner.\nTable No. 3.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Statistical Data on Flock Approval 1935\u00E2\u0080\u009452\nYear\nNumber\nof Flocks\nApproved\nNumber\nof Birds\nPullorum-\ntested\nPercentage\nof Reactors\nto Pullorum\n1935..\n1936-\n1937-\n1938..\n1939..\n1940-\n1941..\n1942-\n1943-\n1944.\n1945-\n1946.\n1947-\n1948-\n1949-\n1950-\n1951..\n1952 (estimated)..\n43,074\n77,493\n93,008\n92,178\n115,543\n121,954\n158,867\n197,127\n362,414\n371,655\n433,724\n477,724\n430,439\n334,667\n347,268\n253,848\n326,046\n225,000\n6.09\n2.42\n3.47\n2.00\n1.84\n2.65\n2.59\n2.66\n2.79\n1.30\n1.00\n0.72\n0.25\n0.07\n0.13\n0.046\n0.22 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 77\nThe report from Inspector R. H. McMillan indicates that the percentage of flocks\nwith approved males and cross-mated flocks of the heavy breeds has increased in two\nyears by 17.6 per cent in the case of New Hampshires and 40.3 per cent in the case of\nBarred Plymouth Rocks, to the detriment of the R.O.P.-sired flocks. The percentage of\nR.O.P.-sired White Leghorn flocks has increased, indicating a trend towards the production of broiler chicks using less expensive sires, as indicated in Table No. 4.\nTable No. 4\nFlocks R.O.P\nSired\nFlocks P.F.A\nSired\nFlocks with Males of\nOther Breeds\nBreed\n1950\n1952\nIncrease\nor\nDecrease\n1950\n1952\nIncrease\nor\nDecrease\n1950\n1952\nIncrease\nor\nDecrease\n%\n64.3\n62.2\n73.6\n78.6\n%\n46.7\n76.9\n33.3\n71.4\n%\n-17.6\n+ 14.7\n\u00E2\u0080\u009440.3\n-7.2\n%\n24.7\n11.1\n21.0\n21.4\n%\n32.3\n15.4\n53.3\n%\n+7.6\n+4.3\n+32.3\n-21.4\n%\n11.0\n26.7\n5.4\n%\n21.0\n7.7\n13.4\n28.6\n%\n+ 10.0\nS.C.W. Leghorn ...\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 19.0\n+ 8.0\n+28.6\nHATCHERY OPERATIONS\nThe hatchery season was not as good as in 1951 but better than in 1950. The\nyear 1947 was the best year for chick production in British Columbia, when 8,523,781\nwere hatched, as compared with 4,770,978 in 1950 and 5,670,066 to October 31st, 1952.\nTable No. 5.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Production and Distribution of Chicks Hatched\nYear\nChicks\nHatched\nChicks\nExported\nChicks\nImported\nChicks\nDestroyed\nChicks\nPurchased\n1947 _ \t\n1948 ... . \t\n8,523,781\n5,610,212\n6,306,342\n4,770,978\n6,234,426\n5,852,539\n1,947,733\n1,171,079\n1,598,215\n642,949\n750,991\n522,746\n164,343\n39,087\n78,085\n93,815\n117,684\n155,340\n1,411,406\n1,196,154\n896,450\n962,468\n595,950\n841,368\n5,328,985\n3,292,166\n1949. . _ _ \t\n3,889,762\n1950\n3,259,376\n1951 -.\u00E2\u0080\u009E -_ _ ._\n1952 \t\n5,005,169\n4,643,765\nTable No. 6.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Chicks Hatched by Breeds, January 1st, to June 30th, 1952\nS.C. White Leghorns\t\nBarred Plymouth Rocks\nS.C. Rhode Island Reds .\nNew Hampshires\t\nLight Sussex\t\nCrosses\t\nMiscellaneous\t\nChicks\n983,902\n65,955\n36,501\n2,160,994\n126,599\n1,447,393\n262,818\nTHE TURKEY INDUSTRY\nThe turkey industry was not in as strong a position in 1952 as in 1951, owing to\nconsiderable increase in poults hatched and turkeys raised in every Province in Canada.\nProduction costs have not been reduced as yet and competition is increasing from the\nPrairie Provinces. CC 78 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nTable No. 7.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Production and Distribution of Approved Poults\nYear\nPoults\nHatched\nPoults\nExported\nPoults\nImported\nBalance Left\nin Province\n1947 \t\n1948 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n346,161\n257,438\n387,234\n441,121\n356.069\n37,963\n93,206\n128.975\n264\n308,442\n164,232\n1949. .. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ _\n2.035\n260,294\n1950 \t\n96.185 2.694\n347,630\n1951\n50.237\n305,832\n1952 _ - .\n464.202 1 162.852\n8,854\n310,204\nTable No. 8.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Turkey Flock Approval, 1946-52\nYear\n1946__ ,_ _ \t\nNumber of\nTurkey\nFlocks\nApproved\n ___ 73\nNumber of\nTurkeys\nPullorum-\ntested\n21,313\n1947\t\n 80\n24,757\n1948\t\n1949\t\n 100\n 100\n.__ 67\n36,479\n45,364\n1950 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ \t\n25,667\n1951\t\n 53\n28,220\n1952 .estimated. \t\n--_ __. ___ 30\n18,000\nPOULTRY DISEASES\nSome losses are still being experienced from Newcastle disease, but the live-virus\nvaccine programme has been very successful in controlling this disease. A combination\nof respiratory-disease conditions has affected quite seriously many producers, particularly\nbroiler producers in certain sections of the Lower Mainland.\nTable No. 9.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Newcastle Disease Data, Flocks and Eggs Destroyed, 1950-52\nYear\nPoultry\nFlocks\nDestroyed\nTurkey\nFlocks\nDestroyed\nNumber of\nChickens\nDestroyed\nNumber of\nTurkeys\nDestroyed\nNumber\nof Eggs\nDestroyed\nCompensation\n1950 \t\n331\n156\n41\n14\n1\n1\n509,225\n274,552\n63,100\n23,822\n1,933\n6,228\n335,049\n153,914\n32,968\n$717,533.071\n1951 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 -\n1952, to December 10th\n65,464.22z\n279.327.151\n13/700.952\n85,500.86\n1 Chickens.\n2 Turkeys.\nVACCINATION\nAfter experimenting with killed vaccines such as Doyle-Wright and ADRI in 1950\nand 1951, a change was made to the Blacksburg Bl strain. This was decided upon at a\nmeeting held in Regina, Sask., in January, attended by representatives from British\nColumbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Canada Departmeat of Agriculture.\nOn February 1st, the vaccine from Lederle Laboratories was made available and a\nsystem of permits established in the office of the Poultry Commissioner.\nIn May, vaccine of the same type was secured from Connaught Medical Research\nLaboratories to be applied as a spray. This followed a visit by Dr. J. F. Crawley, of\nConnaught Laboratories, to this Province.\nBoth vaccines are available to poultry producers who apply for same, and to date\n1,084,400 doses of Lederle vaccine (ocular method) have been distributed and 160,000 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 79\ndoses of Connaught (spray method) distributed. A total of 810 permits have been issued\nfrom this office.\nTable No. 10.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Data on Vaccination\nYear\nChicken\nFlocks\nVaccinated\nTurkey\nFlocks\nVaccinated\nChickens\nVaccinated\nTurkeys\nVaccinated\n1950 (killed vaccine)\t\n1951 (Doyle-Wright)\t\n1952 (live-virus vaccine)1\n443\n1,311\n36\n46\n236,700\n743,818\n38,086\n30,873\n1 810 permits issued to December 8th.\nThe distribution of Newcastle disease vaccine has taken a great deal of time in this\noffice, as a recording system had to be set up and weekly reports sent to the Deputy\nMinister, the Veterinary Director-General, and the Health of Animals Division at\nVancouver.\nThe system has worked very well and we have been complimented by Dr. T. Childs,\nVeterinary Director-General, on its efficiency.\nPOULTRY LABORATORY FACILITIES\nLaboratory facilities have been available for Vancouver Island at Victoria and for\nthe remainder of the Province at the Provincial Animal Pathology Laboratory at the\nUniversity of British Columbia, under the supervision of Dr. J. C. Bankier. The Science\nService Laboratory of Canada Department of Agriculture at the University of British\nColumbia, under the supervision of Dr. I. W. Moynihan, is also giving pathological service\nto the poultry industry.\nThe one serious problem facing the poultry industry is the respiratory disease in\nbroiler plants, and a resolution covering this matter was adopted at the Canadian Hatchery\nFederation meeting held at Banff, Alfa., in September requesting the Government of\nCanada to establish a suitable virus unit in Western Canada to provide an efficient\ndiagnostic service and to conduct a study of respiratory diseases in poultry.\nNo doubt Dr. J. C. Bankier will have dealt with poultry diseases in his report as\nAnimal Pathologist.\n\" SOUR EGG \" PROBLEM\nAs a result of representations made by poultry-industry representatives, a meeting\nwas held on July 17th in Vancouver at which a full review was made of a problem\naffecting egg quality in British Columbia. This was described as \" sour egg \" and\nidentified as being similar to problems affecting egg quality in California and Australia.\nA further meeting was held at the Canadian Hatchery Convention at Banff on\nSeptember 6th and a meeting at the British Columbia Research Council on September\n12th. At this last meeting, representatives were present from the British Columbia\nResearch Council, University of British Columbia, Canada Department of Agriculture,\nBritish Columbia Department of Agriculture, Western Canada Produce Association, and\nBritish Columbia Poultry Industries Council.\nThe BritishXolumbia Research Council agreed to undertake a research project on\nthe problem witlro budget of $2,200, provided as follows: $1,000 by the British Columbia Research Council, $1,000 from the British Columbia Department of Agriculture, and\n$200 from the Western Canada Produce Association (British Columbia Section). The\ngrant from the British Columbia Department of Agriculture was held in abeyance for\nthe time being, and instead a grant of $1,000 was provided from the Poultry-testing\nAccount.\nThe project is under the supervision of Dr. Paul Trussel, British Columbia Research\nCouncil, and assistance in field work is being given by the Poultry Branch. Inspector\nMcMillan assisted in preparing a questionnaire to be used on field work in that project. CC 80 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nPOLIOMYELITIS AND EGGS\nThe poultry industry received a severe jolt in September, when two Vancouver\nmedical men undertook to publicize their theory that eggs from chickens with fowl-\nparalysis might transmit poliomyelitis. This was done by means of paid advertisements\nin Vancouver daily papers and weekly papers in the Province.\nDue to this publicity, egg consumption dropped about 30 per cent and did not return\nto normal for two months.\nYour Poultry Commissioner immediately organized a campaign to counteract this,\nand secured opinions from leading medical research investigators in the United States\nand Canada, Medical Health Officers, and others to show there was no evidence to prove\nthis theory.\nRepresentatives of the British Columbia Poultry Industries Council and British\nColumbia Federation of Agriculture, with your Poultry Commissioner, interviewed\nofficials of the three Vancouver dailies, the Council of the British Columbia College of\nPhysicians and Surgeons, and the British Columbia Medical Association with good results.\nThe British Columbia Federation of Agriculture counteracted the publicity on its\nweekly broadcasts on Sundays over Radio Station CKWX in Vancouver. The annual\nreport of the secretary of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture states as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The Poultry Commissioner, Mr. Gordon Landon, is to be congratulated in his\nsuccessful efforts to obtain refutation of this doctor's theories from the leading polio\nresearch laboratories in North America. As a further result of his energy, we joined forces\nwith the Poultry Industries Council in appearing before the editors of the Vancouver\ndailies in an effort to have this publicity and advertising discontinued. We also appeared\njointly before the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Our radio broadcasts over Station\nCKWX were used to good effect in bringing the true facts before the city consumers, and\negg sales are gradually returning to normal.\"\nPOULTRY CONFERENCES\nConferences attended by your Poultry Commissioner during the year included the\nmeeting at Regina, Sask., in January on Newcastle disease, already mentioned above;\nthe Canadian Hatchery Federation at Banff, Alta., in September; and acted as secretary\nof the Poultry Health Fact Finding Committee. A separate report was sent in on this\nmeeting.\nOther conferences attended included the annual meeting of the British Columbia\nInstitute of Agrologists at Penticton in May and the 4-H Club Council meeting at\nArmstrong in April.\nMEETINGS\nAll members of the Poultry Branch staff attended many meetings of poultry\nproducers, turkey producers, committees dealing with poultry problems, Farmers'\nInstitutes, British Columbia Poultry Industries Council, produce dealers, hatcherymen,\netc., during the year. The general public does not realize the staff pj\u00C2\u00A3 in hundreds of\nhours attending meetings at night.\nPLANNED AGRICULTURAL FEATURE\nThe Fourth Agricultural Feature was held from March 7th to 14th at Langley Prairie,\nHaney, and Chilliwack. Attendance was good at Haney but disappointing at Langley\nPrairie and Chilliwack. The poultry display was a co-operative effort of the Poultry\nBranch and the Canada Department of Agriculture and attracted considerable attention. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 81\nPOULTRY SHORT COURSES\nShort courses were reduced this year and were arranged by the Extension Department\nof the University of British Columbia at Abbotsford and Matsqui. Lectures were given\nto students at the University of British Columbia.\nInspector Gasperdone spoke at short courses at Rock Creek and Grand Forks,\nFebruary 25th to 27th, and at Armstrong, Lavington, and Kelowna, March 24th to 26th.\nSTAFF CONFERENCE\nA conference of members of the Poultry Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture\ninspectors, Pullorum-testers, and University of British Columbia staff was held at the\nUniversity of British Columbia on October 24th and 25th.\nThis was an excellent meeting and addresses were given by Dr. Hicks, Professor E. A.\nLloyd, and Mrs. B. March of the University of British Columbia Poultry Department.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA POULTRY INDUSTRIES COUNCIL\nThe Council continued active during the year in connection with egg and poultry\nprices, poultry disease problems, and problems such as \" sour egg,\" vaccination, etc.\nThe Council has accomplished a great deal for the poultry industry over the years\nand deserves the support of all sections of the industry.\nWATER-FOWL\nInterest in the production of ducks and geese continues very keen, and an increasing\nnumber of ducklings and goslings are being hatched each year to supply the domestic\nmarket and for export to the Prairie Provinces.\nA number of breeder hatcheries are hatching ducklings and goslings, and it is\nestimated the increase in goslings is at least 100 per cent this year. Actual data will be\nkept for 1953 to give some indication of the volume.\nPACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION\nYour Commissioner continued as a director of Pacific National Exhibition during\n1952, as chairman of the Junior Farmer Show and vice-chairman of the Poultry\nCommittee.\nThe Junior Farmer Show at the 1952 Pacific National Exhibition was again an\noutstanding success and was attended by 475 boys and girls from British Columbia for\nfour days. In addition, 250 4-H Club members and Future Farmers of America attended\nfrom the State of Washington.\nPROVINCIAL TOURS\nVisits were made during the year to poultry producers in the Okanagan and a trip\nwas made in July to Central British Columbia, where producers in Smithers, Vanderhoof,\nPrince George, and Quesnel districts were visited with the District Agriculturists.\nEgg-grading stations were also visited.\nDuring this .rip, talks were given at field days and at 4-H Club events.\nPRESENTATION TO PROFESSOR E. A. LLOYD\nProfessor E. A. Lloyd retired as head of the Poultry Department at the University\nof British Columbia after thirty-three years of service. Your Commissioner acted with\nProfessor J. Biely to arrange a presentation for him.\nSufficient funds were secured from graduates, students, producers, wholesalers, feed\nmanufacturers, and friends to present him with a new car and a bound volume of letters\nfrom graduates. CC 82 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nThe presentation was made on June 30th at the University of British Columbia by\nHon. H. R. Bowman.\nPOULTRY SHOWS, TURKEY SHOWS, ETC.\nInspectors of the Poultry Branch assisted in judging poultry shows in various parts\nof the Province. In addition, considerable assistance was given to the two turkey shows\nheld at Victoria in November and at New Westminster in December. Reports of the\nvarious shows indicated they were very successful.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA LIME COMMITTEE\nYour Poultry Commissioner continued as secretary of the British Columbia Lime\nCommittee during the year, and the volume of work continues to increase. Indications\nare that the tonnage will reach 40,000 by March 31st, 1953.\nBULLETIN SERVICE, RADIO BROADCASTS, ETC.\nThe bulletin Practical Rabbit Raising No. 3 was reprinted, and a new circular No. 37,\nentitled \" Feed Formulae for 1952,\" was prepared by Professor J. Biely and Mrs. March\nof the University of British Columbia Poultry Department.\nIn co-operation with the Agricultural Engineering Division of the department, a\nseries of poultry-house plans and equipment were prepared. They were plans for 500-\nbird laying-house for Coastal areas and Interior areas (both gable roof and flat roof),\nlaying-cages with both roof types, community laying-cages, 500-bird units for both\nCoastal areas and Interior, broiler-house, fifteen-bird laying-cage, community nest, and\ncentral roosting-rack, or a total of eleven plans.\nThis year your Commissioner, with Inspectors McMillan and Pope, made radio\nrecordings for the use of the Extension Service at Dawson Creek radio station in May.\nThis service may be extended in future.\nIn addition, members of the staff appeared in several C.B.C. Farm Broadcasts, etc.\nWORLD'S POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION\nYour Commissioner continues as one of the two representatives from Canada on the\ncouncil of the World's Poultry Science Association and assists in the work of this very\nimportant organization.\nReprints of the paper \" Newcastle Disease in British Columbia,\" by I. W. Moynihan,\nG. L. Landon, and R. H. McMillan, published in the proceedings of the Ninth World's\nPoultry Congress at Paris, France, in August, 1951, were secured from Paris.\nCONCLUSION\nI would like to express my appreciation of the staff of the Poultry Branch for the\nefficient way they have performed their duties in 1952. Also for the co-operation received\nfrom other branches of the British Columbia Department of Agriculture, Canada Department of Agriculture, University of British Columbia, and other agencies. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 83\nREPORT OF THE LIVE STOCK BRANCH\nWallace R. Gunn, B.V.Sc, B.S.A., V.S., Live Stock Commissioner\nand Chief Veterinary Inspector\nHORSES\nHorse breeding in the Province is following the general pattern which obtains all over\nthe country\u00E2\u0080\u0094lack of interest in draft horses with a limited call for the light-draft and\ngeneral-purpose horse. The interest in light horses for riding purposes is keen.\nStallion enrolments for the year were as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1952: A, 2; B, 5; C, 0; D, 6; E, 13; F, 7.\n1951: A, 5; B, 2; C, 1; D, 7; E, 12; F, 9.\nSome assistance was given to a small exhibit of draft horses going to the Royal\nWinter Fair, Toronto, to compete mostly in the light and heavy draft harness classes.\nNo high prizes were won.\nBEEF CATTLE\nFor inspected slaughterings of cattle and calves see Appendix No. 1. For beef\ncarcasses graded in British Columbia see Appendix No. 2. For average prices of cattle\nsee Appendix No. 3.\nThe cattle price picture for the year shows much the same trend as the over-all\nCanadian picture, which reflects the results of the closing of the United States market\nto Canadian cattle as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan.\nBULL-TESTING\nWork done this year at the University of British Columbia, under the immediate\ndirection of Dr. A. Wood, Faculty of Agriculture, on the checking of bulls for rapidity\nand economy of gain has opened up an entirely new approach to the problem of beef-\ncattle production. The implications of this work cannot of course be dealt with in this\nreport.\nThe work is being carried on again this coming year and the results should be most\nvaluable.\nSALES AND SHOW RESULTS\nThe summarized reports of sales in British Columbia during the year 1952 are as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProvincial Bull Sale and Fat Stock Show, Kamloops, March 13th, 1952\nNumber and Kind\nHighest\nPrice\nper Cwt.\nLowest\nPrice\nper Cwt.\n1952\nAverage\n1951\nAverage\nCar-lots of fifteen steers..\nGroups of five steers\t\nSpares..\nOpen singles and boys' and girls' classes-\n$36.25\n36.75\n36.50\n105.00\n$34.00\n34.25\n32.75\n35.50\n$35.45\n35.82\n35.10\n41.60\n$36.95\n36.15\n33.96\n38.71\nTotal head, 235.\nCar-lot of fifteen steers, heavy class: Haughton Brothers, Kamloops.\nCar-lot of fifteen steers, light class: Earlscourt Farms Limited, Lytton.\nChampion car-lot: Haughton Brothers, Kamloops.\nReserve champion car-lot: Douglas Lake Cattle Company, Douglas Lake.\nGroup of five steers, heavy class: Douglas Lake Cattle Company, Douglas Lake.\nGroup of five steers, light class: Douglas Lake Cattle Company, Douglas Lake. CC 84\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nChampion group of five: Douglas Lake Cattle Company, Douglas Lake.\nReserve champion group of five: Haughton Brothers, Kamloops.\nSingle steer or heifer, 1,210 to 1,280 pounds: A. and W. Watt, Barriere.\nSingle steer or heifer, 1,140 to 1,180 pounds: H. E. Leavitt, Heffley Creek.\nSingle steer or heifer, 1,040 to 1,110 pounds: L. J. Gacomuzi, Kamloops.\nSingle steer or heifer, 910 to 1,020 pounds: A. and W. Watt, Barriere.\nSingle steer or heifer, 770 to 890 pounds: Glen Shannon, Knutsford.\nChampion animal of the open singles: Glen Shannon, Knutsford.\nReserve champion animal of the open singles: A. and W. Watt, Barriere.\nBoys' and girls' competition, steer or heifer, heavy class: Helene Turner, Royal Oak.\nBoys' and girls' competition, steer or heifer, light class: Rita Abel, Westwold.\nNew exhibitors, drawn from above two classes: James Todrick, Westwold.\nChampion animal of boys' and girls' competition: Rita Abel, Westwold.\nReserve champion animal of the boys' and girls' competion: Glen Shannon, Knutsford.\nGrand champion animal of the show: Rita Abel, Westwold.\nReserve grand champion of the show: Glen Shannon, Knutsford.\nSouthern Interior Stockmen's Association Tenth Annual Cattle and Bull Sale\nSEPTEMBER 10th, 1952\nKind\nNumber\nHighest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nLowest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nAverage\nPrice per\nCwt.\nTotal\nCows \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ \t\nHeifers _ - \u00E2\u0080\u0094 . \t\nSteers ..\nBulls \t\n115\n103\n343\n5\n45\n7\n5\n$17.50\n22.00\n24.60\n14.25\n25.25\n36.00\n30.50\n$8.50\n17.75\n13.60\n14.25\n20.00\n27.50\n26.50\n$13.36\n20.00\n20.77\n14.25\n24.10\n29.85\n28.50\n$16,078.23\n16,453.45\n63,743.67\n1,044.53\nCalves\n3,842.62\n2,063.40\n1,371.88\nTotals _\t\n623\n\t\n$104,597.78\nSECOND SALE, OCTOBER 29th,\n952\nCows _ .\n90\n89\n242\n12\n134\n$16.00\n18.00\n19.25\n12.00\n20.00\n$6.75\n13.50\n11.25\n11.25\n15.00\n$10.22\n16.25\n16.99\n11.62\n17.63\n$9,900.90\n11,530.40\n34,327.83\nBulls _ _ \t\n1,825.94\n8,894.70\nCalves\nTotals \t\n567\n\t\n$66,479.77\nEleventh Annual Waldo Stock Breeders' Association Sale, October 2nd, 1952\nKind\nNumber\nHighest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nLowest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nAverage\nPrice per\nCwt.\nTotal\nCows _ \t\nBulls \t\n60\n7\n33\n203\n233\n$15.60\n9.60\n19.00\n19.20\n22.60\n$7.80\n2.75\n12.00\n13.75\n10.00\n$12.17\n7.76\n15.34\n17.22\n17.07\n$7,697.89\n736.78\n3,599.78\nSteers _ _\t\n31,299.98\n16,294.72\nTotals \t\n536\n\t\n\t\n$59,629.15 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 85\nFifteenth Annual Cariboo Feeder and Fat Stock Sale\nOCTOBER 9th, 1952\nKind\nNumber\nHighest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nLowest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nAverage\nPrice per\nCwt.\nTotal\n825\n271\n71\n310\n358\n15\n21\n$23.50\n15.75\n16.80\n22.25\n28.00\n13.20\n50.00\n$14.00\n7.60\n16.00\n16.25\n15.75\n13.20\n20.00\n$19.82\n12.42\n16.57\n18.73\n21.28\n. 13.20\n27.52\n$147,575.53\n35,530.70\nHeiferettes \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n10,766.66\n37,819.60\n24,187.11\n2,932.65\n5,253.41\nCalves.. \t\nBulls \t\nTotals\n1,871\n$264,065.66\nSECOND SALE, OCTOBER 29th,\n952\n726\n208\n33\n253\n249\n19\n290\n23\n$23.50\n15.50\n18.85\n19.10\n23.25\n13.00\n19.85\n8.00\n$9.50\n2.00\n10.35\n8.25\n10.00\n8.25\n14.75\n4.00\n$18.23\n10.43\n15.45\n16.80\n18.40\n11.58\n17.18\n6.44\n$131,371.73\n23,857.42\n4,941.80\n31,808.62\n18,942.64\nCows _\t\nHeiferettes \t\nHeifers . _. \t\nBulls \t\n2,863.56\n4,594.51\n259.90\nTotals _ _\t\n1,801\n\t\n$218,640.18\nNinth Annual Quesnel Cattle Sale, October 21st, 1952\nKind\nNumber\nHighest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nLowest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nAverage\nPrice per\nCwt.\nTotal\nSteers \t\nCows _ \t\n432\n190\n118\n25\n28\n174\n$25.60\n14.00\n22.25\n17.20\n11.00\n27.00\n$12.00\n7.60\n14.25\n15.75\n9.00\n7.50\n$18.50\n10.80\n19.30\n16.44\n10.00\n18.74\n$71,370.66\n20,454.91\n14,369.76\nHeiferettes _\t\nBulls \t\n3,641.01\n3,638.34\n12,605.87\nTotals - _\t\n967 1 \t\n$126,080.55\nChristmas Fat Stock Show and Sale, December 4th, 1952\nKind\nNumber\nHighest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nLowest\nPrice per\nCwt.\nAverage\nPrice per\nCwt.\n1951\nAverage\nTotal\n60\n75\n15\n151\n20\n4\n$28.40\n28.50\n26.25\n75.00\n130.00\n$26.00\n23.25\n23.25\n18.00\n26.00\n$27.10\n26.41\n24.38\n26.68\n33.17\n$37.76\n38.06\n38.00\n39.82\n37.00\n$15,821.55\n20,270.05\nSpares.. \t\nOpen singles and boys' and girls' entries\nLambs- . \u00E2\u0080\u009E - \t\n3,465.86\n39,174.66\n696.35\n1,300.00\nTotals _ _ \t\n325\n\t\n\t\n\t\n$80,728.47\nBULL-CONTROL AREAS\nThese areas, established under the authority of the \"Animals Act,\" should be more\nwidely used to deal with the problem of insufficient bulls, poor quality and old bulls, and\nbulls being retained too long on ranges thus to breed their own direct progeny, and also\nthe use of brother-sister mating where young bulls from the herd are kept as herd sires.\nThere seems to be evidence of renewed interest in this policy. CC 86 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nJ. W. Awmack, reporting briefly for the four bull-control areas in the East\nKootenay\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Columbia Bull-control Area, Sand Creek Bull-control Area, Waldo\nBull-control Area, and Newgate-Grasmere Bull-control Area\u00E2\u0080\u0094states that all areas have\nbeen operating satisfactorily. Ranchers have been co-operating.\nDAIRY CATTLE\nThe dairy industry has had quite a difficult time for a number of years. It is a\nbusiness which calls for attention to details, which means skilled labour. Such labour is\nvery hard to procure, especially in competition with other industries that are in a better\nposition to bargain.\nGreat strides have been made with the help of the \" Milk Act \" in the improvement\nof quality and the safety of the milk being produced, this tending to increase the per\ncapita consumption. The rapid extension in the area disease work for the control and\neradication of brucellosis is reflecting to the benefit of the dairy cattlemen.\nSome inroads have been made into the field of the milk producer by artificial\nproducts produced almost entirely from foreign fats, largely of vegetable origin.\nInternational markets for dairy products are being lost for various reasons, all of\nwhich reflects in additional problems for our British Columbia industry. The closure\nof the United States market for cattle as a result of foot-and-mouth disease having broken\nout in Saskatchewan has temporarily cut off a very profitable market for surplus dairy\ncattle.\nDAIRY-HERD IMPROVEMENT\nThis very essential service is gaining in popularity and is gradually extending into\nnew districts. It is expected that the service will soon reach out into some of our\ndisease-free areas as the second step in our over-all Live Stock Branch policy of improvement. The following extracts are taken from the annual report of G. H. Thornbery,\nSuperintendent of Cow-testing Associations:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" During the early part of the year, many dairymen were buying feed for their cows,\nowing to a serious shortage of hay, and prices were high. Fortunately, however, climatic\nconditions for growing and harvesting this season's crops have been the best for many\nyears. Pastures have been good and with a mild open fall have provided the dairy herd\nwith succulence for longer than usual.\n\" In the period under review, the price of concentrates, cereals, mixed dairy feeds,\nand hay has been dropping slowly and is now 10 to 20 per cent lower than early in the\nyear. The exceptions are high-protein concentrates, which show very little variation.\n\" There are now fifteen Cow-testing Associations, employing twenty supervisors,\nwho are testing approximately 10,700 cows in 460 herds. A new association was\norganized in the Cowichan area and the route commenced operations in September.\nA list of these associations, their secretaries, and supervisors is shown in Appendix No. 7.\n\" There are, in addition, about forty herds with 300 cows that are being tested\nregularly by Cow-testing Association supervisors on the owner-sampler plan, designed\nchiefly for small-herd owners or dairymen who are waiting for a vacancy on a regular\nroute.\n\" The average production of all milking periods, totalling 7,432, completed under\nCow-testing Association auspices during 1951, again shows an increase and is 9,363\npounds of milk and 399 pounds of fat. A full report concerning this summary, which\nincludes breed averages, is given in Appendix No. 7. All routes on the Lower Mainland\nand Vancouver Island are in good condition and maintain a full quota of herds on test.\nThe route in the North Okanagan has not been up to a proper standard of efficiency for\nsome time, but as a change of supervisors is now in effect it is already apparent that this\nroute will once more be operating satisfactorily. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 87\n\" It is interesting to note that as the tabulation of records of the Dominion Record of\nPerformance is on a mechanized basis, through the use of International Business Machines,\nthis office is now receiving each month from the head office of the respective Canadian\nassociation for the Ayrshire, Guernsey, and Jersey breeds particulars of all R.O.P. reports,\nboth qualified and non-qualified, which were compiled and issued the previous month.\nDairymen in this Province have realized for many years that the absence of non-qualifying\nrecords could give an unreliable indication of a sire's transmitting ability, as expressed\nthrough his daughters' qualifying records only. The Canadian Holstein-Friesian Association has advised that as soon as records for that breed are handled mechanically\nthrough International Business Machines, they will also supply us with particulars of all\nR.O.P. reports.\n\" These arrangements will now make it possible to publish a complete report on\na dairy sire, based on all his daughters with production records in British Columbia,\nat a much earlier date, as it will no longer be necessary to wait for printed lists in breed\nmagazines which were issued monthly or quarterly. This should reduce the number of\ninstances where valuable bulls are beefed before their worth can be determined.\n\" R.O.P.-C.T.A. Combined Service.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The arrangement with the Federal Department\nof Agriculture, Production Services, whereby Cow-testing Association supervisors are\napproved to carry out the duties of R.O.P. inspectors in herds that are on both R.O.P.\nand C.T.A. is operating smoothly and efficiently. Forty-three herds, in various associations, are taking advantage of this scheme and reports are being forwarded through\nthis office to Ottawa in regard to 400 cows every month.\n\"Certificates of Production.\u00E2\u0080\u0094During 1951 there was a healthy increase in the\nnumber of completed milking periods qualifying for certification, amounting to 419\n(11 per cent) or a total of 4,076. Details concerning this year's progress will not be\navailable until the spring of 1953.\n\" Publications.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The following publications have been prepared and made available\nfor distribution:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The Twentieth List of Jersey Sires\u00E2\u0080\u0094Herd Improvement Circular No. 67,\ncontaining reports concerning 146 sires.\n\" The Twenty-first List of Holstein Sires\u00E2\u0080\u0094Herd Improvement Circular No. 70,\ncontaining reports concerning 141 sires.\n\" The Twenty-first List of Guernsey Sires\u00E2\u0080\u0094Herd Improvement Circular No. 70,\ncontaining reports concerning 73 sires.\n\" The Twenty-first List of Ayrshire Sires\u00E2\u0080\u0094Herd Improvement Circular No. 70,\ncontaining reports on 47 sires.\n\" The Thirteenth Annual List of Long-distance Production Records of One\nTon of Butterfat or More\u00E2\u0080\u0094Herd Improvement Circular No. 71, giving\ndetails of cumulative milk and butter-fat records for 735 cows.\n\" Departmental Subsidies.\u00E2\u0080\u0094During the period under review, subsidies paid to Cow-\ntesting Associations amounted to $33,662.\n\" Calf Tagging.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The identification of heifer calves, a service that has been available\nto Cow-testing Association members for the past twenty-nine years, is instrumental in\nproviding the information about a large majority of the daughter-dam pairs which are\ntabulated when evaluating dairy sires.\n\"A total of 2,100 tags have been allocated and dispatched to Cow-testing Associations in the past year.\"\nSUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS UNDER PURE-BRED SIRES\nFOR FARMERS' INSTITUTES POLICY\nAs a result of insufficient funds being available during the last six months of the\n1951-52 fiscal year, it became necessary to turn down a number of applications for sires CC 88\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nunder this policy. Departmental purchases during 1952 are therefore rather small as\ncompared with 1951 figures, which appear in parentheses.\nDuring 1952 only 3 (9) pure-bred sires were purchased at a cost of $650 ($4,800),\nwith a total freight charge to this Department of $54.36 ($497.01). These sires were\nshipped to Kersley, North Quesnel, and Alberni Farmers' Institutes, and were of the\nGuernsey, Shorthorn, and Red Poll breeds respectively.\nPayments received on the above animals totalled $220.34, with the balance payable\nover the next two years. In addition, payments on previous purchases were received\nthrough Farmers' Institutes in the amount of $2,219.37, making a total of $2,439.71\n($3,014.65).\nFinal payments were received on seven sires\u00E2\u0080\u0094one Ayrshire, one Hereford, three\nHolsteins, and two Shorthorns\u00E2\u0080\u0094and the pedigree transferred to the new owners.\nROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR, TORONTO,\nNOVEMBER 14th TO 22nd, 1952\nI appreciated the opportunity of being able to attend this greatest Canadian agricultural event. This great fair rotates largely around the various live-stock events.\nIt offers to those persons charged with the responsibility of policy administration the\nbest possible and only one complete all-Canadian show window for our national agriculture. In live-stock production, as in all other industries, styles, types, and methods\nare ever-changing.\nThe \" Royal\" is the greatest single link to hold together Canadian live-stock producers from all the Provinces. It is the only single meeting place for Canadian live-stock\nmen and for the workers in the various branches and fields of live-stock production,\nwith its many ramifications and interlocking policies.\nSHEEP\nPrices for breeding stock, meat, and wool have been satisfactory. The generally\nhigh prices have encouraged more people to establish new flocks. The equipment\nnecessary for sheep-farming is not extensive, but it calls for good management in order\nto protect the flock against sheep-killing dogs if possible.\nFor average prices for lambs, see Appendix No. 4.\nCompensation Paid under the \" Sheep Protection Act \" from the Dog Tax Fund\nYear\nGoats\nSheep\nPoultry\nNumber\nCompensation\nNumber\nCompensation\nNumber\nCompensation\n1948 -\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1949 \t\n1950 \t\n1951 \t\n4\n11\n8\n1\n2\n$80.00\n145.00\n135.00\n18.00\n70.00\n86\n191\n123\n114\n120\n$1,110.50\n2,836.50\n1,721.00\n1,728.00\n2,168.00\n704\n861\n1,371\n401\n376\n$2,151.91\n1,230.25\n1,996.58\n673.80\n1952 \t\n697.43\nSWINE\nThere is little to report in the way of anything new as far as swine production is\nconcerned. Specialized farming which calls for intimate attention to one type of production and the lack of sufficient coarse-grain supplies definitely limit the production of\nswine in this Province.\nFor inspected slaughtering of hogs, see Appendix No. 1. For average prices of\nhogs, see Appendix No. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 89\nDISEASE\nThe over-all picture showed no spectacular outbreaks of diseases of live stock.\nThe changing live-stock production picture associated with the ever-increasing tempo\nin movements of live stock is placing a very heavy burden upon the staff of the Live\nStock Branch.\nSince the Branch began, some eleven years ago, to pinpoint its efforts under the\narea plan in an attempt to deal with the problem of disease-control and eradication,\nthere has been a marked change in the general attitude of the legitimate producer. Producers who but a few years ago were at best only mildly interested in disease-control are\nto-day keenly awake to the importance of this basic work. The spread of area control\nof diseases, such as brucellosis, is an indication of this changed view-point.\nSPECIFIC DISEASES\nHemorrhagic Septicemia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094-This particular disease usually appears in a more complex form as \" shipping fever.\" Early work done on the handling of this disease has\nresulted in very good general control.\nCoccidiosis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Here again good educational work by the Branch throughout the\nyears has largely eliminated this disease from much of the beef-cattle country. Where\nnutrition and general management are weak, the disease often appears. It is appearing\nin places among dairy calves where practices are poor.\nNecrotic Stomatitis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The disease has been greatly reduced amongst our range\nherds. Good field work has brought results.\nBlackleg and Malignant (Edema.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Trading in breeding stock back to farms and\nranches from sources outside the Province has resulted in the rather wide establishment\nof blackleg. Malignant oedema is now quite often found associated with blackleg.\nEquine Encephalomyelitis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Last year's prediction that a step-up in the incidence\nof the disease could be expected proved to be correct.\nCaseous Lymphadenitis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Gradual progress in the eradication of this disease is\nbeing made. More intimate field work at shearing-time is helping.\nKeratitis (Pink-eye).\u00E2\u0080\u0094Closer attention to the treatment and control of this disease\nis showing some results and field work is helping.\nCarcinoma of the Eye.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This condition is something of a problem, since it may\nhave an inheritance factor.\nFoot-rot in Sheep.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Our long-time quarantine and control is resulting in definite\nimprovement.\nFoot-rot in Cattle.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cattle harbour an infection different from the one found in\nsheep. More definite field work is improving this situation.\nLiver A bscess.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This condition in cattie is found chiefly where foot-rot is prevalent.\nImprovement in the foot-rot situation will be reflected in a reduction in the incidence of\nabscessed livers.\nActinomycosis and Actinobacillosis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094These conditions may appear singly or in\ncombination. When found in cattle, they result in condemnations of heads and tongues.\nGood field work in the past did much to reduce the incidence of these diseases, but\ncontrol and eradication calls for regular systematic field work.\nSwine Erysipelas.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It is thought that this disease is another importation, coming in\nlargely with swine. Where imported swine go to feed-lots, they frequently get out to\nfarms, where the disease becomes established.\nSwine Rhinitis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This disease is so widely established in our swine herds over most,\nof not all, of this Dominion that it is felt by many workers that we may have to live with\nthe problem.\nOther Complex Swine Troubles.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It would be difficult to specifically tabulate such\nswine conditions. These conditions affect swine in many different ways. They may CC 90\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nappear in enteric (scours) form, pulmonary (lung) form, etc. These forms may appear\nin combination and associated with secondary infections not necessarily specific. There\nis little doubt but much of this trouble can be attributed to bad management and poor\nfeeding practices as a starting-point. The peddling about of breeding stock and feeders\nwas the primary cause for the widespread appearance of this complex picture.\nInfectious Abortion Other than Brucella Infection.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It must be recognized that\nthere are many micro-organisms and materials which may, under certain circumstances,\nproduce a premature expulsion of the foetus (abortion). It would be impossible to even\nattempt to enumerate these, but there are two specific infective organisms which are\nbecoming of more and more economic importance all the time\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Trichamoniasis\nfoetus and Vibrio foetus. These infections are making their appearance in several parts\nof the Province, and it would seem that in many instances they came in with animals from\noutside points. There is still another condition, commonly called vaginitis, which may in\nsome instances be caused by some infective factor or group of causative factors.\nMastitis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This complex disease syndrome injects upon the dairy industry one of its\ngreatest burdens. Surveys made all over this continent have come forward with figures\nof estimated losses which are colossal. More work should be done as soon as\npossible on this great problem. In addition to the loss to the industry, the public health\nsides inject a very important problem. Everyone should remember that milk is a food for\nhumans, and that it should be produced and handled as such. Those people charged with\nthe responsibility of trying to regulate the production of milk, which must include the\ncontrol of mastitis, have a most difficult job in many ways. The indifference to the disease\nshown by some producers and others in the trade is a very great obstacle in the way of\nour officers trying to deal with the problem. The indiscriminate use of new treatments\npurported to be highly effective in the treatment of mastitis is beginning to show the\nresults predicted by professional veterinarians. We are now beginning to find herds in\nwhich the disease seems to be impossible to deal with, simply because home treatment\nhas succeeded only in the elimination of the milder strains of the predominant causative\norganism, resulting in the field being taken over by the more virulent forms of streptococci and other equally difficult mastitis-producing germs, such as staphlococci and forms\nof coli as well as other micro-organisms. As our Veterinary Inspectors go about their\nwork of farm and dairy herd inspections, as provided under the \" Milk Act,\" they urge\ndairymen to use good judgment in the matter of their choice and use of treatment.\nWe are constantly trying to instill into the minds of all dairymen the importance\nof good herd management as the cornerstone on which to build their herds as the only\nway possible to reduce and control mastitis. Too many dairymen fail to appreciate the\nvalue of the regular checks being made by our Veterinary Inspectors, but during this\nyear there seems to be a change for the better. Too many dairy-plant operators still\ncontinue to offer the suggestion that they can successfully handle the production of milk\nfrom the receiving stand. It will take all our forces, working in the closest harmony,\nto even hope to deal with this great problem.\nSome very excellent tables were prepared by the different Veterinary Inspectors,\nbut space does not permit them to be included. However, a summary of these follows: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVeterinary Inspector\nLocation\nNumber of\nCattle\nExamined\nNumber of\nClinical\nCases\nNumber\nto Be\nEliminated\nA. S. Clerke \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n670\n1,584\n602\n1,032\n1,563\n329\n689\n329\n145\n144\n92\n78\n32\n46\n63\n24\n12\n27\nA. Kidd -\t\nNew Westminster\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nPrince George -\t\nKamloops - \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n17\n3\nG. M. Clark -.\n6\n15\nNelson \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n5\nIDC. Clark \t\n10 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 91\nBRUCELLOSIS-CONTROL\nAll over this continent, brucellosis and its control are receiving more consideration\nto-day than any other single disease entity. The work of control and eradication in some\nparts of the world has almost developed into a race to see who can get cleaned up first.\nThinking cattlemen are fast awakening to the fact that unless they eradicate this disease\nfrom their herds and their community that markets will very soon be closed to their cattle\nand even to their dairy products.\nVery fortunately this development was anticipated by this Branch many years ago\nand when Brucella Vaccine (strain 19) became available in 1941 we immediately started\nour brucellosis-eradication work. This began first by arranging to have practising veterinarians administer the vaccine according to a specific plan, where calves between certain\nages were vaccinated and duly identified by tagging and an official certificate issued.\nFrom a small beginning of 3,098 calves vaccinated in the first year (July 31st, 1941, to\nJuly 31st, 1942), entirely done by practising veterinarians, we have reached the place\nwhere 24,153 calves were vaccinated by private plan and under our area control plan.\nThe following tabulated statement gives the over-all picture:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFirst year (July 31st, 1941, to July 31st, 1942) 3,098\nSecond year (August 1st, 1942, to July 31st, 1943) 5,778\nThird year (August 1st, 1943, to July 31st, 1944) 7,022\nFourth year (August 1st, 1944, to July 31st, 1945) 8,318\nFifth year (August 1st, 1945, to July 31st, 1946) 7,434\nSixth year (August 1st, 1946, to July 31st, 1947) 8,569\nSeventh year (August 1st, 1947, to July 31st, 1948) 10,980\nEighth year (August 1st, 1948, to July 31st, 1949) 15,448\nNinth year (August 1st, 1949, to July 14th, 1950) 17,083\nGrand total for nine years of this policy's operation 83,730\nCalfhood Vaccination Under Joint Policy of Federal-Provincial\nBrucellosis-control\nArea\nVaccinations Total\nby Provincial Vaccina-\nVeterinarians tions\nJuly 15th, 1950, to June 30th, 1951 8,798 18,929\nJuly 1st, 1951, to June 30th, 1952 11,324 24,153\nGrand totals 20,122 43,082\nOn the date of July 14th, 1950, the programme became a joint Federal-Provincial\npolicy, in which the Federal Department of Agriculture, Health of Animals Division, furnished to the Provincial Department vaccine free for distribution according to an agreed-\nupon plan. The Province is required to direct and administer the policy.\nDisease-free Areas\nThe first area was gazetted on May 18th, 1949. We now have nineteen areas or\nextensions to areas most of which are gazetted. The others should very soon be ready for\ngazetting, when little matters such as boundary locations have been cleared up.\nThe following table gives in concise form a picture of the vaccinating work done to\ndate in the different areas:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 92\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nArea\nArea\nNo.\n1946-47\n1947-48\n1948-49\n1949-50\n1950-51\n1951-52\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n170\n14\n2,206\n51\n3,614\n736\n269\n504\n1,078\n30\n3,433\n530\n321\n453\n148\n70\n221\n1,349\n2\n24\n3,936\n667\n280\n504\n197\n120\n330\n39\n13\n2,637\n5\n55\n3,750\n539\n414\n682\n209\nSouth-west Kootenay _ -\t\n51\n355\n31\n15\nGulf Islands.\n55\n14\n1,637\n3,503\nOther ._\t\n5\nTotals - _\n170\n2,220\n6,252\n6,557\n8,752\n11,315\nFor more details with respect to the establishment of these areas, I would refer you\nto the Annual Reports of previous years.\nI am pleased to be able to report the following areas as now brucellosis-free: Areas\nNos. 1, 3, 8, 11, and 15, which includes all of the West Kootenay, except a small spot\nshortly to be completed in Area No. 15. This area includes some 4,500 or more herds.\nFour other areas have been finally cleaned up and shown by blood test to be free of\nbrucellosis\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Area 10, Powell River; Area 12, Squamish; Area 13, Galiano,\nMayne, Saturna, North and South Pender, Prevost, and Moresby Islands; and Area 14,\nSalt Spring Island.\nA new area at McBride, just recently presented and not yet gazetted, has been completely blood-tested and found to be entirely free from brucellosis. An extension to the\nNo. 6 area (Savona) has been presented and work is starting soon in this area. Petitions\nhave been received from the Pemberton district asking that they be brought under the\npolicy. A small, intimately confined area about Oyama has been presented and is being\ndealt with.\nIn the conduct of this work, it should be realized that it places a very heavy strain\nupon the staff during the period when this work is required to be done. Blood-testing for\nbrucellosis has included several types of service. The major effort, of course, is the work\nwithin our disease-control areas. In the mixed-farming and small-herd areas, blood-\ntesting is the hub around which the control work turns.\nQuite a number of calves and young stock are blood-tested under our calf-placement\nprogramme. Several practising veterinarians make use of our laboratory service in the\ntesting of bloods drawn by them.\nThe following are extracts from reports of Veterinary Inspectors:-\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDr. I. D. C. Clark, Penticton:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Princeton Disease-free Area No. 9 includes 52 premises and approximately 2,500\ncattle. Blood-testing of dairy cattle completed and all reactors (39) slaughtered.\n\" Southern Interior Disease-free Area No. 16 is one of the larger areas, consisting\nof 9 separate cattle associations. The total number of premises and of cattle has not\nas yet been assessed, but there are over 700 premises and approximately 13,000 cattle.\nWork in this area began in January, 1952. In the Grand Forks-Cascade district, a total\nof 1,197 cattle were blood-tested on 383 premises. Only 9 positive animals on 4 premises\nwere found. These were immediately slaughtered. Retest on 104 cattle found 1 reactor\nand 1 suspicious reactor which later turned negative.\" DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 93\nDr. J. G. Fowler, Prince George:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"A total of 4,090 calves were vaccinated on 134 premises in 6 areas. The blood-\ntesting in the areas has been marked by a fairly high percentage of reactors. The McBride\narea however was entirely free of the disease.\n\" The two Williams Lake cattle sales this year very forcefully pointed out the\nnecessity for testing all cows going into the control areas. One hundred and forty-four\ncows were tested and 37 of these were removed as either positive or suspicious animals,\napproximately 25 per cent. The sales also pointed out the value of the V. 12 in controlling and following the movement of reactor cattle. Further to the sales at Williams\nLake, many of the local ranchers bought those heifers that had a tag in their right ear,\nan indication of their faith in the vaccination programme. Those heifers that were vaccinated were released from the sale without further test. Heifer calves were also released\nsubject to their being available for vaccination this fall.\n\"A total of 620 animals were blood-tested, of which 530 were negative, 55 positive,\nand 35 suspicious, giving a reactor percentage of 15.\"\nDr. J. J. Carney, Nelson:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"A total of 908 cattle were blood-tested in Areas Nos. 15 and 16, of which 8 head\nwere positive and 5 head suspicious.\n\" Quarantine from 3 dairy premises having had ' hot' herds was lifted during the\nyear, as brucellosis had appeared to have been eliminated from premises concerned.\nPeriodical vaccination of calves is being carried out in these and adjacent herds as a\nprecautionary measure.\n\"A total of 562 calves was vaccinated during the year in Southern Interior area,\nInonoaklin Area, and South-west Kootenay Area.\"\nDr. R. L. Lancaster, Nelson:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"A total of 808 head were vaccinated in Areas Nos. 2, 6, and 11. Blood tests were\ncarried out on 306 head in the Burton Area, all of which tests proved negative. In the\nSouth-west Kootenay Area, 483 head were bled, with 5 suspicious and 4 positive reactors.\nAll 79 head tested in the North-west Kootenay Area reported negative.\n\" Besides area testing, 4 herds were blood-tested to ascertain the health status prior\nto issuing A Grades under the ' Milk Act.' \"\nDr. A. Kidd, New Westminster:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\"A total of 645 head were blood-tested for brucellosis, of which 545 head were\nnegative, 65 positive, and 35 suspicious. Seventy-three calves were vaccinated. The\nGulf Islands Disease-free Area and the Squamish Disease-free Area are both well established now, and work in these areas is routine.\"\nDr. C. F. Morris, New Westminster:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Powell River Area is now disease-free, with all reactors having been shipped out.\nSince the initial blood test on this area, 96 head on 10 premises have been tested, with\n4 head positive and 2 suspicious. A total of 42 reactors have been removed from this\narea, with all of them being dairy stock. Of a total of 331 head blood-tested so far in\nthis area, the 42 reactors represent 12.7 per cent. In this area, 39 heifer calves have\nbeen vaccinated.\"\nFOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE\nNo attempt will be made to deal with this subject at any great length. I feel, however, that a statement should be placed on permanent record. Individuals as well as\nsome officials saw fit to express opinions with respect to the action taken by this Department, which in many instances were not correct and often were entirely unfair. It is\ngenerally felt that the job done by this Department was a very useful and necessary\ncontribution.\nWhen foot-and-mouth disease was finally officially announced on February 25th,\n1952, by the Federal Department of Agriculture, as having appeared in Saskatchewan, CC 94 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nthere was a flood of inquiries asking about what was going to be done by our Department\nto protect the interests of British Columbia stockmen and game interests. The fact that\nthe disease had been existent in the Saskatchewan area for some time was alarming, and\npeople were critical. In explanation, we consistently defended the Federal Department\nof Agriculture, pointing out that it was a new experience for this or any Canadian\nDepartment; its appearance in such a location was difficult to appreciate; and certainly\nthe Federal Department had to be very sure of its ground before declaring the outbreak\nof a vesicular disease to be foot-and-mouth disease. The usual group of traders and\ndealers who usually find fault with anything and everything done which may interfere\nin the slightest with their activities would have been the first to attack the Federal Government had they wrongly declared the outbreak.\nWhen the disease was reported in Saskatchewan, we at once tried to ascertain from\nFederal officials where all the disease had appeared. We got little specific information\nor advice. Anyone acquainted with disease-control work at once saw the possibility that\nthe virus of foot-and-mouth disease could be widely spread during this time by traffic in\nlive stock and industry in general in and out of the Saskatchewan area. The fact that\nclimatic conditions were ideal for the immobilization of the infection definitely indicated\nthe necessity of confining traffic, especially of live stock, to limited areas and this particularly applied to the main traffic lanes.\nIn an effort to get some specific information on just what obtained, we explored\nevery possible avenue and in one instance we were told by an outside official that two\nbreaks had been reported quite close to British Columbia. This fortunately proved to\nbe incorrect, but with the British Columbia live-stock and game interests insisting upon\naction and the Federal Government not wishing to act even for a temporary Provincial\nborder closure, the British Columbia Department of Agriculture moved to place a ban\nagainst the movement of live stock across our Province until such time as the situation\nwas clarified. I was directed to go to Alberta to look into the matter and report.\nAfter discussion with our live-stock interests, a plan was presented whereby we\nwould draw a full quota of all classes of five stock from selected districts well removed\nfrom the main traffic lanes. This plan was immediately put into application. A point\nwhich seemed to be entirely ignored was that British Columbia imported more live stock\nfrom the Prairie Provinces than did any other country or Province, which, of course,\nmade us proportionately more vulnerable, and that it was only sound procedure to draw\nany supplies most carefully. Had there been no control, the weight of live-stock movements could easily have been from areas close to and from all around the trouble zone.\nAgain no one could speak with certainty about where the disease might be lying latent\nduring those early months with feed-lots frozen.\nBritish Columbia continued to carry out this policy and stationed Veterinary Inspectors at the several markets to assist in the checking of shipments which would be suitable\nto travel across British Columbia. We received the very best of co-operation from the\ntransportation people and from the stockyard officials and commission firms. Needless\nto say, we had all the approaches in the world offered and the usual attempts made by\ndealers to break down our plan. Despite all the reports to the contrary, none of these\nattempts was successful. It is very gratifying to be able to report that we had every\nencouragement and support from live-stock producers east of the mountains. Our own\nlive-stock people and game interests and people in general gave the best of help and\ncontinue to voice their appreciation of what was done. It is felt that our effort very\nmaterially assisted the over-all work of control. As is so often stated, \" What could be\ndone if foot-and-mouth disease once became established in this Province? \"\nThe Federal Department finally accepted our suggestion and for the last few weeks\ndirected the movement of live stock along the line which we had been doing. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 95\nGENERAL EXTRACTS FROM REPORTS OF INSPECTORS\nMembers of the staff are called upon to make many contributions in service which\ncannot be intimately recorded. These I will try to present briefly.\nAll members of the staff endeavour to set aside a short period each week for office\ninterviews. This is usually on Saturday.\nDr. Morris spent seven weeks on area work in the Interior of the Province vaccinating\n1,597 calves, and six weeks in Alberta on foot-and-mouth disease embargo control,\nwhere 30,694 head of live stock were checked for entry. Field investigations in areas\noutside his own district, one requiring surgical treatment of over 100 head of range calves,\nwere also carried out.\nDr. Kidd reports briefly on our voluntary meat-inspection service being tried at\nClappison Packers Ltd., Haney. In this formative stage, it was necessary for Dr. Kidd\nto make thirty-one visits to the plant, and hold six conferences with Dr. Hopkins on\nthe work.\nThere is still considerable work to be done in order to get this service properly\nestablished on a routine basis. This effort will, we trust, set the stage for more such\nproperly built and conducted plants. A total of 804 cattle, 59 sheep, 98 lambs, and\n4,135 swine were inspected at slaughter, with the total carcasses of 2 cattle, 1 sheep, and\n20 swine being condemned, as well as the usual condemnations of livers, hearts, kidneys,\netc. It must be borne in mind that this is a very high-class small plant handling only the\nbest class of live stock. Condemnations in such an establishment are very small in comparison to what would be made in some of the places at present slaughtering without\ninspection. Scattered around the country, unfortunately, are slaughtering places where\nthe most inferior quality stock is killed and peddled off to a trade prepared to handle this\nclass of meat.\nDrs. Lancaster and Carney report quite a bad outbreak of winter-dysentery in cattle\nin the Golden district, wrongly diagnosed as hemorrhagic septicaemia. They also report\nseveral breaks of coccidiosis in cattle in the East Kootenay with some fatalities. These\nwere promptly dealt with. A case of tetanus in a horse was uncovered in the Fernie\ndistrict. The Department of Health in Victoria was promptly advised and the medical\nmen in the territory about Fernie were alerted for possible human cases.\nAn outbreak of encephalomyelitis in the Parsons area was dealt with. Horsetail\n(equisetum) poisoning in Fruitvale was diagnosed by this office by phone and Drs.\nCarney and Lancaster promptly took charge.\nAn extensive outbreak of avian tuberculosis was uncovered in flocks in the Golden\nand in the Greater Nelson areas. Blackhead in turkeys was found at a number of points.\nA peculiar form of encephalitis in cattle developed in the Creston area. Laboratory\nfindings have shown negative, but the case is being watched.\nA very nice liaison exists between the different district offices and the office in\nVictoria in the way of specific reports (L.S. 10 Report Form) on all happenings in the\nfield. These reports give a total of well over 600 investigations.\nSummarizing from the report of Dr. J. G. Fowler, in the field of swine production we\nget a typical present-day swine-disease picture including shipping-fever, pneumonia,\nthe complex enteric conditions, swine erysipelas, and skin conditions, arthritis, baby-pig\ndiseases, and no doubt the so-called rhinitis.\nIn the matter of horse troubles, there were the usual colic cases, especially of the\nimpaction type so frequent in that country. We have had these reported for many years.\nPoor feeding and management are the basic causes. Swamp-fever was reported, as usual.\nIn cattle, cases of white scours in calves, winter-dysentery, chronic bloat, necrotic\nstomatitis, blackleg, foot-rot, shipping-fever, plant-poisoning, actinomycosis, bothryomy-\ncosis, and actinobacillosis. CC 96 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nIn poultry, some Newcastle disease was reported. Leukosis seems to be the most\ncommon condition met with in the flocks of that area. In sheep, some shipping-fever\nwas encountered.\nDr. Fowler, Dr. G. M. Clark, and Dr. I. D. C. Clark spent some time in assisting\nwith the several cattle sales in their respective districts, and in taking care of the blood-\ntesting work required under our brucellosis area policy. All members spent some time\nattending meetings and conferences and assisting other groups in specific jobs.\nIn the case of Drs. Kidd, Morris, Clerke, G. M. Clark, and I. D. C. Clark, there\nhave been fewer investigations dealing with sporadic and general disease problems, since\nin these districts there is a good private-practitioner service. However, in these districts\nthere is a wider range of policy programmes to be dealt with. The prompt action of Dr.\nI. D. C. Clark was responsible for saving most of a herd of some sixty cattle from nitrite\npoisoning.\nPROVINCIAL WARBLE-FLY AND TICK CONTROL\nBritish Columbia, although the first Province in the Dominion to come forward with\nan organized warble-fly control programme, still has much to do before our goal of complete eradication will be reached.\nIn areas where we cart intimately follow out the conduct of the work, the results are\nhighly satisfactory. I wish to express appreciation for all help received from Departmental personnel who have taken time from their regular duties to assist.\nThe very fine and intimate job done by F. C. Clark, Live Stock Inspector, New\nWestminster, deserves mention. His report, in summary, states that warble-fly material\nwas distributed through seventy centres in fifteen municipalities in the Fraser Valley.\nSome 1,488 pounds of powder were distributed, including 19 pounds to the Pemberton\nValley and 20 pounds to Lytton. Some warbles appeared in February, but the greatest\nincidence occurred in April and May. Many field checks were made at farms and at\nauction barns, and an estimate made showed approximately 80 per cent of adult cattle\nand 60 per cent of young stock to be free of warbles and the average incidence over all\nwas between one and two warbles per head. Most herd owners appreciate the service\nand are asking that the programme be made compulsory in order to finally eradicate\nthe warble.\nSome reports received might be mentioned briefly. R. J. Desrosiers and J. B. Aye,\nJaffray, B.C., report bulls having four warbles on first treatment and two on the second\ntreatment; cows showed an average of one warble on first treatment and an average of\none-half warble on second treatment, with yearlings and 2-year-olds showing two in first\nand one in second treatment. This is a marked improvement over the ten to fifteen\nwarble incidence found when the work began.\nJ. D. Hazlette, District Agriculturist, Duncan, reports 325 cattle treated. T. S.\nCrack, Associate District Agriculturist, Courtenay, reported on the treatment of some\n800 cattle in the Greater Courtenay area.\nA very good report came in from G. D. Johnson, Dairy Branch, Kelowna, for that\ndistrict, which shows steady progress and a quite light infestation.\nThe North Okanagan has not progressed as rapidly as it should. The incidence\nof warbles in many parts, especially the outer fringes, is perhaps above ten per animal on\nthe average. Good work done in past years in Central British Columbia has practically\neliminated warbles from the cattle herds.\n\"MILK ACT\" ADMINISTRATION, DAIRY-HERD INSPECTION,\nAND DAIRY-FARM GRADING\nThe importance of this service to the dairy industry and to public health is becoming\nmore appreciated. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 97\nLike many other industries, the dairy industry developed from a very small beginning\nwhere perhaps single-cow owners began to sell a few quarts of milk until to-day we find\nthe modern dairy industry, which consists of several essential units\u00E2\u0080\u0094the producer, the\ndistributor, and processing units\u00E2\u0080\u0094and the consumer as the group to whom the product\nis delivered for final consumption.\nThe complexity of the over-all picture injects a heavy responsibility upon regulatory\nbodies charged with the work of trying to take care of the needs of the respective groups.\nThe consumer, as the end market for the product, must be considered. Milk must\nbe safe and free from infectious organisms which might be harmful or dangerous. Milk as\na food product should be clean and wholesome. In the case of the distributors, the supervision received from Inspectors of the Dairy Branch is most helpful and needs to be\nextended. In the case of the producer, our Veterinary Inspectors are doing a very\nwonderful job but certainly the staff is inadequate to do the work as completely as it\nshould be done. One of the real problems with which we are faced to-day is that of\nherd examinations, especially for mastitis. Where our men have been able to cover the\nfield, marked improvement is noted. Much depends upon the attitude of the individual\ndairyman and upon the support given by the dairy plant receiving the product. Where\ngood co-operation is received from the plant operator, milk quality is high and is being\nsought after by consumers.\nI wish to express appreciation for the fine co-operation received from the Provincial\nDepartment of Health and the several health officers and directors throughout the Province. The work of our two Departments is becoming very closely co-ordinated.\nAppendix No. 6 gives a summary, of premises and herds graded by our Veterinary\nInspectors.\nA short tabulation of work done by Veterinary Inspectors under the policy shows\nas follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVeterinarian\nTotal\nPremises\nTotal\nCattle\nTotal\nMilk\nCows\nTotal\nMilking\nGrade of Premises\nA\n1\nB 1 C\n1\nU\nDr. A. Kidd \t\n336\n425\n297\n183\n290\n330\n168\n228\n8,698\n6,323\n9,622\n3,013\n2,432\n3,760\n4,791\n4,258\n5,797\n1,914\n1,023\n1,958\n3,915\n2,833\n4,758\n1,405\n811\n1,563\n5\n71\n28\n4\n9\n12\n4\n9\n262\n6\n63\nDr. A. S. Clerke\t\n174\n253\n117\n55\n22\n128\n33\n16\n6\n22\n15\n34\n148\nDr. C. F. Morris \t\nDr. I. D. C. Clark\t\nDr. R. L. Lancaster\t\nDr. J. J. Carney \t\nDr. G. M. Clark. \t\n16\n23\n202\n93\n32\nDr. J. G. Fowler. \t\n152\nThe large number of Grade U premises is made up of small one- and two-cow people\nwho were peddling without a grade and making it hard sometimes for the legitimate\ndairymen. They are now mostly graded and will be held responsible under the Act.\nAPPROVED HERD PLAN\nThis policy is yet but a small beginning. Some five herd owners are being helped to\nco-ordinate the several live-stock divisional programmes in order that when the final\nmeasure of evaluation is placed upon their herds, by means of cow-testing, a more accurate measure of the real worth of individual animals may be secured.\nThis is a fine piece of teamwork where the herd owner, his veterinarian, the Veterinary Inspectors and Live Stock Inspectors, and the Cow-testing Association supervisors\npool their experience. All is assembled by the Live Stock Branch and is presented to the\nhprA owner as a plan of procedure. CC 98\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nDAIRY-STOCK PLACEMENT PROGRAMME\nThis work is basically sound and is beginning to attract more and more interest all\nthe time. It is built around the approach of high production and sound health. Calves\nand young breeding stock are carefully selected for production and type by our dairy-cattle\nspecialist and our Cow-testing Association staff. After such preliminary selection, Veterinary Inspectors of the Branch carefully check for evidence of clinical disease and by\nblood test for freedom from brucellosis.\nUnder this policy, established in 1950, there have been to date some 104 buyers,\nwhich can easily mean an equal number of potential dairymen who have been given a\nproper start so that they may by reasonable effort be really successful. The possibilities\nof this work are very great. It is a quality job.\nDr. C. F. Morris was called upon to undertake a large part of the blood-testing and\nclinical inspection of calves and young stock selected under this policy. Dr. A. Kidd\nassisted, but work on other policies did not permit this officer to associate himself closely\nwith this policy.\nThe following is a summary from the report of F. C. Clark:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nInquiries for aid in locating dairy stock were received from much farther afield than\nin 1950 or 1951. The following table lists the areas in the Interior of the Province where\ndairy cattle from the Fraser Valley were placed under our programme during 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nArea\nNumber\nof Buyers\nAyrshire\nGuernsey\nHolstein\nJersey\nTotal\n9\n2\n8\n5\n1\n1\n3\n8\n18\n9\n1\n34\n3\n5\n13\n6\n1\n2\n1\n1\n52\nCoastal \t\n4\n24\nKootenays \t\n14\n6\n1\nPemberton \u00E2\u0080\u009E - \t\n1 j 2\n4\nTotals.\t\n29\n8\n28\n62 1 7\n105\nThis year nineteen registered dairy bulls or bull calves were selected and shipped in\nresponse to inquiries received. This is a tremendous increase over 1951, when only one\ninquiry was received for a bull calf.\nA total of sixty-nine head of registered stock was placed in 1952, which is also a very\ngreat increase over the number of registered animals shipped in 1951.\nDuring a field trip in September to the North Thompson Valley near Kamloops and\nto the Okanagan Valley, it was found that 95 per cent of the heifers shipped in under\nour programme were still there. Approximately 24 per cent were milking and another\n28 per cent had been bred but not yet calved. Of the total shipped, 42 per cent had not\nyet been bred.\nA record has been kept of every calf shipped, as a guide to the future and to place\nthe programme on a sound basis. In almost every case, those purchasing calves were\nvery well satisfied with them\nAs a result of past experiences, certain adjustments will be made in this work. We\nfeel that it is a waste of top breeding dairy stock to find so many being bred to beef bulls.\nIn the coming year it is hoped that more intimate field work can be done in an effort to\nplace these clean, quality young dairy animals in areas where greater dairy production is\nneeded, especially in those areas where our disease-control area work has been established\nand where Cow-testing Association routes are established. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nTUBERCULOSIS\nCC 99\nDistrict\nHerd-\nTested\n1952\nCattle\nHerds\nTotal\nCattle\nReactors\nFraser Valley\u00E2\u0080\u0094Accredited to June 1st, 1954; seventh general\n9,299\n2,231\n15\n3,718\n465\n2,206\n608\n325\n173\n322\n88,757\n16,768\n48\n42,534\n14,512\n18,101\n7,264\n6,585\n813\n4,016\n81\nVancouver Island \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Third general completed April 12th, 1952;\nestablished December 8th, 1939 _\t\n7\n15\n424\n111\n507\n366\n232\n3\n135\n74\n48\n11,021\n3,904\n7,759\n4,757\n5,074\n41\n1,997\n8\nVancouver Island (extended)\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June\n30th, 1950 - - - - - - \t\nGreater Okanagan\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established August 10th, 1949 .\nKamloops\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30th, 1950- \t\nKootenay\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30th, 1950 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nPrince George\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30th, 1950 -\nCariboo\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30th, 1950\t\nVancouver\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30lh, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPrince Rupert\u00E2\u0080\u0094First general; established June 30th, 1950-\t\n0\n35\n8\n2\n2\n53\n0\n36\nTotal tested, 1952\n4.9.K 1 34.675\nThe last Provincial tuberculosis testing was done in the Peace River area during the\npast summer, when Dr. J. G. Fowler tested eighty-eight head. The Peace River Land\nRecording District has been declared a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis by Federal Order in Council P.C. 4537 of November 28th, 1952.\nFUR-FARMING AND \" FUR-FARM ACT \" ADMINISTRATION\nThe \" Fur-farm Act \" is the newest Act which the Live Stock Branch is required to\nadminister. This Act is basically practical and is designed to direct and protect the\nindustry. It has accomplished much for the fur-farmers of the Province since it was\nlegalized in 1947.\nA study of the several tables will give a general picture of the industry. The following figures were released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in April, 1952, for the\n1950-51 season:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1950\n1949\n1948\n65,659\n$1,147,321\n$1,473,988\n56,677\n$700,728\n$1,277,560\n46,627\n$638,612\n$1,099,710\nDuring 1952, three outbreaks of distemper occurred, involving nine ranches, all in\nthe Fraser Valley, and all are still under quarantine. Quarantine was lifted in August on\na Vancouver Island ranch which had been quarantined in August, 1951, following an outbreak of distemper.\nVaccine for these outbreaks was supplied by the Department at a cost of $2,197.\nAs a precautionary measure, eight other ranches vaccinated against distemper during the\nyear, resulting in a total of 19 permits to vaccinate being issued.\nIn 1952, 398 licences (Nos. 1751-D to 2148-D) were issued to operate fur-farms,\nas against 373 licences in 1951. Several ranches changed hands and a number went out\nof business. Sixty-two new licences were issued during 1952, fifty-two to raise mink and\nten to raise chinchilla.\nThe following table indicates the number of ranches raising each species of animal\nand the numbers of each species of fur-bearers on the farms at January 1st each year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 CC 100\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nNumber of Farms\nNumber of Animals\n1949\n1950\n1951\n1952\n1949\n1950\n1951\n1952\n346\n72\n19\n16\n4\n4\n1\n1\n1\n305\n57\n14\n17\n3\n1\n1\n297\n78\n11\n9\n2\n1\n1\n322\n80\n7\n7\n1\n1\n29,778\n1,181\n378\n258\n48\n20\n19\n3\n6\n31,179\n1,345\n326\n136\n22\n2\n18\n36,319\n1,495\n226\n105\n14\n2\n16\n42,171\n2,054\nFox\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n108\n68\n4\n12\nSkunk\nFitrh\n\t\n\t\nTotals. \t\nC)\n(*)\nC1)\n0)\n31,691\n33,028\n38,177\n44,417\n1 These do not total to the number of licences issued, owing to the fact that some licensees keep more than one\nspecies of animal.\nA considerable decrease in the number of fur-farm transportation permits issued\nduring the year is noted. The number of export permits dropped more than 50 per cent,\nalthough the number of animals did not vary greatly. The following table indicates the\ndistribution of the fur-farm transportation permits issued during the period December 1st,\n1951, to November 30th, 1952 (figures for 1951 shown in parentheses):\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nKind and Number of Permits\nMink\nChinchilla\nFox\nMarten\nExport, 82 (169)\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nCanada - \t\n374 (428)\n15 (55)\n14\n67\n94\n3\n2\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nz\n- - (15)\nTotals \u00E2\u0080\u009E\t\n470(483)| 99(325)\n-\n(15)\nImport, 38 (20)\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n511 (128)\n229 (112)\n8(0)\n- (1)\n7(1)\nTotals\n740(240)[ 8(1)\n7(1)\nMove, 47 (24) \u00E2\u0080\u009E\u00E2\u0080\u009E _\t\n224 (646)\n174 (23)\n2(0)\nIn addition to the above, twenty-seven permits were issued for animals entering\nvarious shows, including the Alberta Live Animal Fur Shows in January and November,\nthe Vancouver Island Chinchilla Show, the Second Annual British Columbia Chinchilla\nShow, the Western International Chinchilla Show, and the Toronto Chinchilla Show.\nNearly all of the veterinary staff is called upon to assist to a certain extent with the\nadministration of the \" Fur-farm Act,\" but credit must go to Dr. A. Kidd for the extremely\ncapable job which he does in the matter of administering the Act in the Fraser Valley,\nwhere the greatest volume of the fur-farms are located. A highly efficient veterinary\npractitioner service is being built up to take care of the needs of the industry.\nSecond Annual Chinchilla Show\nThis show was held at Little Brothers Fur Sales Agency in Vancouver on Friday,\nJanuary 25th, 1951, and was followed the next day by the first Western Canadian Chinchilla Show, both under the sponsorship of the British Columbia Mainland Branch of the\nNational Chinchilla Breeders of Canada. There were over 100 entries.\nGeorge E. Currey, Pacific Gem Chinchilla Ranch, Whalley, took the champion\nanimal and champion male trophies in both shows.\nAlberta Live Mink Show, 1951-52\nSponsored by the Alberta Fur Breeders' Association, this show was held in the Live\nStock Pavilion at Edmonton. Four British Columbia breeders entered stock and were\nvery successful.\n\ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 101\nM. D. Combs, of Royal Oak, had the grand champion Standard male kit and\nC. Combs, of Surrey, the reserve grand champion Standard female kit. A. E. Combs, of\nWhite Rock, had the grand champion Pastel adult male, the grand champion Recessive\nWhite adult male, and had bred the grand champion Sapphire medium male kit.\nThe grand champion sweepstakes of the show was won by a Royal Sapphire male\nowned by H. Ausland, of lie a La Crosse, and which had been purchased from C. Combs,\nof Surrey, just prior to the show.\nAlberta Live Mink Show, 1952-53\nThis show, held in Calgary on November 16th, 17th, and 18th, was attended by 6\nBritish Columbia exhibitors showing 86 mink. In the Dark Standard class, M. D. Combs,\nof Royal Oak, took both championships. A. E. Combs, of White Rock, took all four\nchampion awards for Stewart Pastels in classes of 63 for males and 33 for females, and\nwent on to win the show's top breeder award by a substantial margin.\nPATHOLOGICAL LABORATORY SERVICES\nDr. J. C. Bankier, in charge of the Pathological Laboratory at the University of\nBritish Columbia, and Dr. E. A. Bruce, in charge (part time) of the laboratory at\nVictoria, each present a summary of laboratory work done.\nBoth pathologists have, in addition, offered considerable assistance to our field staff\nworking on problems of disease in the field. Livestock men, poultry-breeders, and fur-\nfarmers also make use of this service by direct contact or by shipment of specimens to the\nlaboratories.\nDr. E. A. Bruce has been most helpful in Victoria. His long and varied experience\nis reflected in the very excellent results obtained from this laboratory.\nService such as we provide calls for a prompt diagnosis in order that our field staff\nor the practising veterinarian or the farmer, as the case may be, can take immediate action\nin keeping with the situation uncovered.\nSpecimens Examined in Victoria Laboratory, December 1st, 1951,\nto November 30th, 1952\nDiseases Due 1\n$<\nS.J\nRemarks\nA. Bacteria\nAbscess \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBotulism-\nBrucellosis..\nEnteritis _\nErysipelas\t\nFowl-cholera\t\nGastro-enteritis-\nHa_mor_hagic\nsepticaemia-\nMalignant cedema -\nMastitis \u00E2\u0080\u009E\t\nNephritis\t\nParatyphoid-\t\nPeritonitis \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPleurisy\t\nPneumonia\t\nPseudo-tuberculosis ..\nSepticsemia\t\nSalmonellosis\t\nStaphylococcosis\t\nVibriosis \t\n2\n5,800\n13\n19\n20\n6\nNegative, 5343; suspicious, 181; positive, 284\nChinchilla _\nCanaries-\nNegative, 12; positive, 1\n2\n2\n5,808\n24\n12\n16\n2\n4\n3\n5\n5\n1\n20\n1\n1\n2\n2\n20\n6\n13\nPROVINCIAL UBRARY\nVICTORIA.. B. C. CC 102\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nSpecimens Examined in Victoria Laboratory, December 1st, 1951,\nto November 30th, 1952\u00E2\u0080\u0094Continued\nDiseases Due to\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nC/3\ng\no\nM\nu\ns.\n\nh 3\n3 cu\nP..O\nK\nCJ\nGO\nUi\n0\nffl\nu\na\nc\n'%\n\"3\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094 u\nS3\n\"1\nJo u\nSI\nRemarks\nTotal\nBruising. \t\ni\nVenison \t\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n7\n2\n11\n11\n5\nMink\t\n5\n1\n1\nDegeneration (liver) _\t\n2\n1\ni\n1\nMoose (1), budgerigar (1),\nmink (2) - \t\n5\n1\nChinchilla _\t\n1\nEmaciation \t\n5\n\t\nSwans (2), geese (3)\t\n5\n4\n1\n3\n3\n115\n?9\n3\n4\n3\n154\n1\nMink (1) \t\n1\n?\n2\n2\n?\n4\n1\n1\nHaemorrhage \t\n2\n5\n2\n_..\nMink (1), chinchilla (1)\t\n9\nInjuries \t\n10\n10\n20\n3\n3\nImpaction \t\n4\n2\n-\n1\nRabbit (1), chinchilla (1),\ngoat (1) \t\n7\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n8\n1\n1\n1\n2\n13\nNegative findings ,\n17\n12\n1\n1\n1\n1\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRabbit (1), horse (1) blood,\nbear (1), cow (1) blood\t\n33\n1\n1\n1\n1\n3\n3\n4\n-\n1\n4\n1\n2\n2\n1\n1\n1\n3\n4\n4\n4\nYellow fat. _ \t\n11\nMink\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n11\n1,342\nTotals\n825\n298\n86 I 14\n57\n2\n20\n18\n22\nARTfFICIAL INSEMINATION\nThis work, while not the immediate responsibility of the Department, has yet\nreceived most liberal assistance in money and technical help during the past several years.\nThe Federal Department of Agriculture has continued to provide the bulls of the\nAyrshire, Holstein, Jersey, and Guernsey breeds for this service, conducted from two\ncentres at Chilliwack and Milner.\nThe centre at Milner provides semen to sub-units at Victoria, Duncan, Courtenay,\nSaltspring Island, Salmon Arm, Armstrong, Vernon, and Kelowna.\nThe figures given in the following brief tabulation indicate the progress of the\nwork:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 105\nCows Inseminated during the Period January 1st to November 30th, 1952,\nCompared with Figures for the Full Year of 1951\nDistrict or Unit 1952 1951\nLower Fraser Valley 12,832 15,231\nVictoria 219 100\nDuncan 651 777\nCourtenay 193 109\nSaltspring Island (ten months) 112 53\nSalmon Arm 272 105\nArmstrong 313 135\nVernon (six months) 105 60\nKelowna 392 633\nChilliwack 3,240 3,103\nTotals 18,329 20,306\nBRAND INSPECTION\nThe following is a report by the Recorder of Brands, Thomas Moore:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nShipments\nShipments of cattle in British Columbia in 1952 were 55,374 head, as compared\nto 69,763 head shipped in 1951. This shows a decrease of 14,389 head.\nCattle shipped from the Interior of British Columbia to the United States in 1952\nwere 205, compared to 7,330 head in 1951, a decrease of 7,125 head. With the outbreak\nof foot-and-mouth disease in Canada, an embargo was placed by the United States.\nConsequently, shipments of cattle to the United States show a sharp decrease.\nWilliams Lake held two big cattle sales this year, one on October 9th and 10th,\nwhen 1,962 head were sold, and one on November 1st, when 1,489 head were sold\nthrough the ring. With the present market trend, prices received were lower than in\n1951, packer buyers taking most of the finished cattle.\nOther large cattle sales were held at Okanagan Falls, Elko, and Kamloops. At these\nsales, prices were lower than in 1951 but were in line with the present market trend.\nOkanagan Falls held two cattle sales this year. Packer buyers were well represented.\nElko had a number of Alberta buyers, who purchased the majority of the cattle offered.\nKamloops Spring and Christmas Fat Stock Sales were well attended, with lower\nprices paid for cattle than in 1951.\nShipments of cattle from the Cariboo were 19,295, compared with 20,609 in 1951,\na decrease of 1,314 head.\nKamloops-Nicola shipped 20,679, a decrease of 5,120 head.\nShipments of hides were 14,258, as compared to 13,841 in 1951, an increase in\nthe number of hides of 417.\nHorses shipped in 1952 were 5,251, as against 5,519 in 1951, a decrease of 268.\nShipments of cattle to the Prairies were 4,140 head in 1952, compared to 13,005\nhead in 1951, a decrease of 8,865 head.\nInspection Service\nBrand inspection was carried on by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at sixty-\nnine shipping points in the following districts:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nCariboo: Williams Lake, Quesnel, Alexis Creek, Bella Coola, Clinton, Lillooet,\nBralorne, and 100-Mile House.\nKamloops-Nicola: Chase, Blue River, Salmon Arm, Ashcroft, Lytton, Spences\nBridge, Merritt, Hope, Kamloops, Flood, and Boston Bar. CC 106 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nOkanagan and Similkameen: Vernon, Lumby, Armstrong, Enderby, Kelowna,\nPenticton, Summerland, Oliver, Osoyoos, Princeton, Copper Mountain,\nKeremeos, Hedley, Grand Forks, Greenwood, and Falkland.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia: Rossland, Trail, Fruitvale, Castlegar, Crescent Valley, Nelson, Kaslo, Salmo, Creston, New Denver, Cranbrook,\nKimberley, Fernie, Natal, Invermere, Golden, Revelstoke, Nakusp,\nRadium Hot Springs, and Field.\nCentral British Columbia and Peace River: Smithers, Hazelton, Terrace,\nBurns Lake, Vanderhoof, Prince George, McBride, Red Pass, Pouce\nCoupe, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Fort St. James, Watson Lake, and\nAtlin.\nInspectors paid by the Department attended to the work at sixteen shipping-points\nas follows: Bridge Lake, Clinton, Copper Creek, Dawson Creek, Endako, Graham Siding, Houston, 100-Mile House, Kamloops, Kitwanga, Lac la Hache, Nicola, Pavilion,\nSoda Creek, Williams Lake, and Lone Butte (93-Mile House).\nStaff\nNew appointments during the year were P. G. Lawrence, Inspector of Brands, Victoria; George J. Bowers, Deputy Brand Inspector, Kamloops; Frank Richter, Deputy\nBrand Inspector, Keremeos; E. W. Wright, Deputy Brand Inspector, Lac la Hache; and\nMrs. G. I. M. Ross, Stenographer\u00E2\u0080\u0094Grade 2, Victoria.\nF. C. Clark, Live Stock Inspector; Dr. C. F. Morris, Veterinary Inspector; and\nDr. A. Kidd, Veterinary Inspector, all of New Westminster, were appointed Deputy Brand\nInspectors on August 20th, 1952.\nResignations tendered during the year were S. S. White, Brand Inspector, Victoria,\nand Thomas Pollard, Deputy Brand Inspector, Clinton.\nBrand Commissioners\nAppreciation is expressed to the Brand Commissioners for their assistance and cooperation during the year.\nLectures to Royal Canadian Mounted Police on \" Stock-brands Act \"\nLectures given by the Recorder of Brands during the year were held at Kamloops,\nVernon, Penticton, Cranbrook, Nelson, Clinton, Williams Lake, Prince George, and\nDawson Creek.\nLectures to the police consisted of certain parts of the \" Stock-brands Act,\" \" Beef\nCattle Producers' Assistance Act\" and the \" Horned Cattle Purchases Act.\" In giving\nthese lectures, the importance of proper brand inspection was dealt with, and where\navailable live stock were used and a practical demonstration of brand inspection was\ncarried out. The proper manner of making out brand inspection certificates and the\nimportance of same to secure records was demonstrated.\nThe enforcement of the \" Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance Act\" and the \" Horned\nCattle Purchases Act\" were fully explained.\nIn giving these lectures, it was noted that a number of new members in the Royal\nCanadian Mounted Police were present. The attention and interest shown by all members of the force attending these lectures was appreciated.\nStockmen's Meetings, Cattle Sales, and Police Department\nMeetings at Abbotsford and Milner, held on February 6th, 1952, were attended by\nthe Recorder of Brands. The purpose of these meetings was to explain the proposed\namendments to the \" Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance Act\" to a representation of livestock men. These amendments were fully explained and met with the approval of those\npresent. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 107\nThe annual meeting of the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers' Association, held\nat Merritt on May 30th, 1952, was attended. Proposed amendments to the \"Stock-\nbrands Act\" and the \" Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance Act\" were outlined by the\nRecorder of Brands, approved, and passed by resolutions.\nLive-stock sales at Kamloops, Okanagan Falls, and Williams Lake were attended.\nA large number of police detachments were visited during the course of the year in regard\nto the enforcement of the \" Stock-brands Act,\" the \" Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance\nAct,\" and the \" Horned Cattle Purchases Act.\"\nNational Brand Conference, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.\nThis conference was attended. It started on Sunday, June 29th, with a directors'\nmeeting for a review of the programme to be carried out June 30th to July 1st.\nBrand Recording\nA considerable time was spent on this subject. Members from different States outlined their procedure and aired their problems. This matter was of great interest to all\nin attendance because of its importance in the allotting of registered brands for the\nprotection of the live-stock industry.\nSubjects covered June 29th and July 1st were \" Early History of Brands and Brand\nInspection,\" \" Market Trade Practices and Stockyards Services,\" \" The Railroads' Part\nin Brand Inspection,\" \" Is the National Cattle Theft Act Effective,\" and \" Foot and\nMouth Disease.\"\nA panel discussion on \" Livestock Investigations;\" subjects dealt with were Identification and Brands in Court; Evidence and Authority in Dealing with Cattle Stealing;\nPolicy of a Liaison Officer; Records as Evidence; meeting concluded with the election of\nofficers; the Denver stockyards and Brand Inspection Office visited.\nRoyal Canadian Mounted Police Co-operation\nAppreciation is expressed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their cooperation throughout the Province in the enforcement of the \" Stock-brands Act,\" the\n\"Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance Act,\" and the \"Horned Cattle Purchases Act.\"\n\" Stock-brands Act \" Enforcement\nThe enforcement of section 20 (evidence of sale of stock) : In order to assist in the\nenforcement of this section, the department had a Memorandum of Sale book printed at\nthe request of the directors of the British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers. These Memorandum of Sale books are available to all ranchers, live-stock men, dealers, and any\nperson buying or selling cattle and horses. They can be obtained from the Recorder of\nBrands Office, Victoria, or from the Brand Inspectors at Kamloops, Williams Lake, or\nNicola, at the nominal cost of printing, fifty cents for each book.\nThe purpose of enforcing this section fully is to protect the live-stock industry by\nhaving the purchaser produce definite evidence of ownership.\nSection 34 (licence to engage in business as a stock-dealer): This section applies\nall over the Province. Every effort has been made to enforce this section fully in order\nto give better protection to the live-stock industry. All persons, including auctioneers,\ndealing in stock are required to keep records, such records are open to the police or Brand\nInspectors and are very useful when investigating reported stolen or lost cattle or horses.\nBrand-book\nThe annual supplement, No. 3, to the brand-book, showing all brands issued in\n1951, was published and distributed to ranchers, stock associations, police, and Brand\nInspectors, etc.\n-J CC 108 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nThe issuance of the 1952 brand-book, showing all brands in good standing, is due\nat the end of this year. This brand-book will be compiled in this office and set up ready\nfor an offset job at the printers as soon as possible after the first of the new year.\nNew Brand Applications\nApproximately 248 new brands were issued this year.\nBrand Renewals\nThere were 869 renewal applications sent out from this office in 1952.\nBrand Transfers\nThere were 119 transfers of brands made in 1952.\nBrands Reissued\nThere were 93 reissues of brands made in 1952.\nLicences Issued ]951 ]952\nSlaughter-house 73 81\nHide-dealers 102 89\nStock-dealers 167 147\nBeef-peddlers 11 10\nHorse-slaughterers 23 19\nHorsemeat-dealers (animal-food) 7 5\nHorsemeat-dealers (human consumption) 18 11\nPermit to transport horses for range purposes 35 33\nPermit to transport stallions for breeding purposes \t\nA complete list of the licensees is attached (see Appendix No. 8).\nAmendments\n\" Beef Cattle Producers' Assistance Act \" revised. The proposed amendments had\nbeen to make a deduction of twenty cents on all cattle being exported out of the Province\nand going for slaughter; changed to thirty cents. This is the deduction now charged on\nbulls, steers, heifers, and calves over 500 pounds. No other change made re 1951 Annual\nReport of proposed amendments to this Act.\n\" Horned Cattle Purchases Act,\" the same as shown in 1951 Annual Report.\n\" Stock-brands Act\" revised. Section 26 will be amended to allow a bona fide\nfarmer to slaughter his own stock at his own principal buildings. This amendment applies\nall over the Province. Section 34 will be amended to add section 11. This amendment\ngives authority to the Minister to refuse to issue a licence to deal in stock if the applicant\nis not a suitable person to be issued such a licence. Same applies if the person is not\ndomiciled in the Province.\nProposed amendments had been drawn up for the 1952 Session of the Legislature;\nthese proposed amendments were shown in the Annual Report for 1951. The only\nchanges are shown above and are now included in the proposed amendments to be submitted at the next session of the Legislature.\nFlood Check-point\nThe figures shown below are for the years 1951 and 1952, carried out by the Royal\nCanadian Mounted Police at Flood in the checking of all movements of live stock, hides,\nand dressed beef through this point:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNumber of cattle 4,266 2,595\nNumber of horses 1,307 812\nNumber of hides 1,826 541\nDressed beef (quarters) 29 74\nNumber of trucks checked 1,106 702 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 109\nProsecutions and Convictions\nDealing in stock without a licence: Nelson, 1.\nDelivering stock to a carrier without first securing a brand-inspection certificate:\nOliver, 1.\nFailure to produce a brand-inspection certificate: Flood, 2.\nTransporting stock without the required inspection: Osoyoos, 1.\nKilling cattle in other than a licensed slaughter-house: Armstrong, 1.\nDelivering stock for shipment without notifying Inspector: Williams Lake, 1.\nFailed to separate mixed stock: Kamloops, 1.\nTheft of beef: Kamloops, 1.\nTheft of cattle: Merritt, 1; Trail, 2.\nCattle and hide shipments for the Province of British Columbia for the year 1952\n(see Appendix No. 9).\nREPORT OF THE FIELD CROPS BRANCH\nNorman F. Putnam, M.Sc, Field Crops Commissioner\nWith few minor exceptions, production of major field crops, including cereals, forage-\ncrop seeds, pasture, and hay, was satisfactory in all areas of the Province the past season.\nYields were somewhat above average and the quality is very good. There has been a\nweakening in prices in some crops, notably hay and forage seed, reflecting surplus supply\nfor domestic and foreign demand.\nFIELD-CROP PRODUCTION\nCereals\nThe major cereal-production area of the Province, the Peace River District, experienced one of its best years.\nThe poor fall last year prevented many farmers from threshing before winter set in.\nHowever, the spring was mild and warm and all crops were threshed in good condition.\nThe extra work involved in threshing last year's crop prevented early spring seeding,\nresulting in a drop in wheat acreage, which was made up by increased acreage seeded\nto oats, rye, and particularly barley.\nAn open fall provided ideal harvest conditions of an above-average crop. Only a\nfew isolated areas were caught by early frosts. Estimated total production includes:\nWheat, 1,600,000 bushels; oats, 2,250,000 bushels; barley, 1,750,000 bushels; rye,\n32,500 bushels; and flax, 55,000 bushels.\nOn the Creston Flats, grain production was about average, with estimated production\nof wheat, 340,000 bushels; oats, 196,000 bushels; and barley, 30,000 bushels. Major\nproduction of wheat is of winter varieties. In other areas of the Kootenay and Boundary\nDistricts, yields of all cereals were above average, but production is limited and fed on\nthe farms.\nIn the North Okanagan, winter-wheat crops were average this year, but quality was\nvery good. The late, cool spring delayed spring seedings, but ideal growing conditions\nbrought on good crops of oats particularly.\nIn the Vanderhoof area, cereals were about average. There was a slight decline in\nproduction of fall wheat with an increase in spring cereals\u00E2\u0080\u0094wheat, oats, and barley.\nThe estimated production in this area is wheat, 20,000 bushels; oats, 70,000 bushels;\nand barley, 5,000 bushels. Throughout the rest of the Interior, grain-crops were average\nor above, but acreage is not large and the grain is fed on the farm. CC 110 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nAt the Coast, oats is the principal crop grown in the farm rotation and fed on the\nfarm. Much of the oat acreage is harvested for hay and silage. Acreage of threshed oats\nstays about normal, although this year there was a slight decrease in threshed oats but a\nslight increase in the total acreage seeded.\nThere was little incidence of disease or insect pests to cause economic loss. Aphids\nappeared again on some oat-crops in the Fraser Valley. Grasshoppers were quite bad in\nmany districts, but caused very little damage to cereal-crops. Bunt was not a serious\nproblem in the Okanagan area this year, though cutworms did some damage to spring\nseedings in that area.\nThe open, dry fall in most areas of the Province has caused a reduction in the total\nacreage seeded to fall grains, particularly in the North Okanagan and Central Interior.\nHay and Pasture\nHay-crops generally are above average this year, and most farmers are going into\nthe winter with adequate supplies.\nThe spring delayed early pasture growth on the Island, but pastures held up fairly\nwell. July and August were dry. First-cut hay yields were good and of excellent quality,\nbut second cut was light. Good crops were harvested in the Fraser Valley, and pastures\nheld up well. There was some damage to first-cut alfalfa in the North Okanagan due to\nrains during haying, but better-than-average second cuts were harvested under good conditions. The dry spring in the Central Interior, particularly around Prince George,\nreduced hay yields, but summer rains brought crops along nicely. Ranchers in the\nCariboo harvested good crops of alfalfa and wild hay from upland meadows.\nThere is considerable interest in irrigation for forage-crops among farmers on Vancouver Island to supplement the normally dry summer periods. Availability of adequate\nsources of water at reasonable cost is a limiting factor.\nThere is also developing considerable interest in irrigated pasture for beef production\nin the Interior. Dairy-farmers of the North Okanagan are also interested in irrigation for\npasture and hay-crops as an insurance against summer droughts.\nGrasshoppers were quite bad in areas of the Province and did some damage, particularly on ranges. Sod web-worms caused limited and localized damage to some fields in the\nChilliwack area. Cutworms also were numerous and caused light damage to alfalfa-fields\nin the North Okanagan. There was also some crop damage caused by cutworms in the\nPrince George district.\nSilage-crops\nIn all districts of the Province where dairy stock are maintained, there is continuing\ninterest among farmers in the use of grasses and legumes for silage. Several trench or\nhorizontal silos were built and used this year. The new forage-harvesters for larger\nacreages are being utilized to harvest silage-crops and cut down on the labour costs. It\nwould seem as yet these machines are rather expensive for the smaller operator to warrant\nthe investment. Corn for ensilage is still being utilized, and yields were generally satisfactory. The newer hybrid varieties have largely replaced the open-pollinated types.\nForage-crop Seed Production\nInterest in forage-seed production is definitely increasing, and several trial seedings\nhave been started in areas of the Province relatively new to forage-seed production.\nThe forage-seed production has been very good throughout the Province this year.\nThe production of timothy and alsike in the Central Interior was down somewhat, but\nsome good alsike yields were obtained in the Peace River. One of the largest alfalfa-\nseed crops on record has been produced in the Peace River. Acreage and yields of\ncreeping red fescue in the Peace River are also well up. Although no heavy yields of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 111\nred clover have been reported from the Fraser Valley, due to the long open fall, a much\nlarger acreage has been harvested and production, well above 1951, is estimated at\n500,000 pounds. An infestation of clover by the short-beak clover-aphis (Anuraphis\nbakuri) was of severe occurrence in July, but by harvest-time exudations from seed-head\nhad entirely disappeared. A considerable increase has been reported in vetch-seed production. There has been a weakening in the price of some of the major forage-crops\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nalfalfa, creeping red fescue, alsike, and red clover.\nThe following table gives, in summary, the forage-seed crop production for 1951\nand the estimated production as at the end of October for 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProduction, Estimated Production,\n1951, Lb. 1952, Lb.\nAlfalfa 241,000 1,073,000\nRed clover (single) 54,675 205,000\nRed clover (double) 350,000 450,000\nAlsike 70,000 300,000\nSweet clover 322,800 1,000,000\nWhite clover 1,000 6,000\nLadino clover 5,000 5,000\nTimothy 106,000 110,000\nTimothy-alsike mixture 161,000 200,000\nBrome 200,000 102,000\nCrested wheat 5,000 1,000\nCreeping red fescue 150,000 304,300\nReed canary-grass 500 3,000\nOrchard-grass 4,600\nRed-top 21,000 30,000\nSpring vetch 40,000 30,000\nFall vetch 24,000\nTall oat-grass 250\nBird's-foot trefoil 50\nIn 1950 a Canadian Forage Seeds Project was set up to discuss the whole phase of\nforage-seed production in Canada. The Committee has followed the recent trend to\ndevelop and encourage production of named varieties of strains of forage-crops. A Seed\nProduction Committee for British Columbia was set up to work in close liaison with the\nNational Committee. This Committee has made a start in getting some growers interested in production of certain varieties adapted to British Columbia conditions. Fifty\npounds of Lasalle red clover was placed with growers in the Grand Forks area and 50\npounds with growers in the Armstrong area. Stands of this strain have been established\nand production is under way. In addition, one grower in the Windermere district has\nestablished a field of Hercules orchard-grass for seed production. Yields from the first\nyear averaged 125 pounds per acre.\nThe British Columbia Committee met with J. W. Mackay, Chairman, Co-ordinating\nCommittee, Canadian Forage Seeds Project, during the summer to discuss the distribution of seed from the present Lasalle red clover seedings.\nPotatoes\nPotato acreage was increased somewhat in 1952. In general, yields were good\nthough drought again reduced yields in some areas. Potato prices have been holding up\nthis fall.\nThe dry season has been conducive to the production of good quality stock. There\nwas little report on blight this year, and little damage from tuber flea-beetle reported.\nProduction of seed-potatoes continues to hold a prominent position in the agriculture of British Columbia. Slightly more than 1,600 acres passed inspection for founda- CC 112 BRITISH COLUMBIA\ntion and certified seed in 1952, a slight increase over 1951. Seven seed-control areas are\nset up under the Act and the high-quality British Columbia seed is finding a steady market\nin the United States.\nThe following is a list of the main varieties and acreages, as supplied by the Dominion\nSeed Potato Certification Service:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVariety\nAcreage\nVariety\nAcreage\nBurbank \t\n5.70\nKennebec \t\n1.50\nCanso \t\n5.90\nKeswick \t\n12.50\nChippewa\t\nColumbia Russet-\n1.25\nNetted Gem \t\n1,154.06\n18.28\nPontiac\t\n15.25\nEarly Epicure\t\n21.35\nRed Warba\t\n0.75\nEarly Rose\t\nGold Coin \t\n10.80\nSebago _\n6.00\n4.50\nSir Walter Raleigh,\n1.10\nGreat Scot\t\n3.00\nWarba \t\n89.34\nGreen Mountain\t\n122.95\nWee MacGregor\t\n2.00\nKatahdin \t\n15.20\nWhite Rose\t\n135.00\nThe main areas of production are also given, with approximate acreages inspected\nin 1952: Vancouver Island, 160 acres; Lower Mainland, 398 acres; Pemberton, 173\nacres; Okanagan, 239 acres; Cariboo, 136 acres; Central British Columbia, 93 acres;\nBoundary District, 304 acres; East and West Kootenays, 124 acres.\nOceanside Test-plots\nIn 1950 the Department took over supervision of the Oceanside test-plots as a service\nto the seed-potato growers. This year, forty-nine samples were forwarded to this Branch\nby thirty-five growers. These samples were planted at Oceanside under supervision\non November 12th. The results of the disease readings taken early in March are given\nwide publicity to growers and buyers of seed-potatoes.\nPotato Variety Tests\nIn co-operation with Dr. T. Anstey, Dominion Experimental Farm, Agassiz; E. C.\nHughes; and the District Agriculturists, the potato variety trials were continued this year\nat eight stations, and an additional trial was laid down at Vanderhoof. This is the third\nand final year of these tests, using the full sixteen varieties. Results are not as yet compiled but will be available early in 1953.\nPeas\nAcreage of peas for the frozen-food trade on Vancouver Island was down slightly\nthis year, but yields average about the same as last year at 1,500 pounds per acre.\nCanning-peas in the Fraser Valley were generally good this year. Acreage was about the\nsame but yields were up over last year. Dried-pea acreage in the North Okanagan was\nup this year, but yields were generally disappointing. At Creston, 1,875 tons were produced this year compared to 1,480 tons in 1950.\nProduction of Registered and Certified Seed\nThe inspection and registration of cereal- and forage-crop seeds is carried out by\nrepresentatives of the Plant Products Division, Federal Department of Agriculture, under\nthe regulations of the \" Seeds Act.\" The following table gives, in summary, the number\nof acres and estimated production of varieties inspected in British Columbia in 1952.\nThe largest acreage is located in the Peace River Block:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 113\nVariety\nBarley\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nMontcalm \t\nOlli \t\nOats\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBeaver\t\nVictory\t\nClinton1 \t\nWheat-\nGarnet \t\nSaunders1 \t\nSaunders \t\nThatcher \t\nFlax\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRedwing\t\nAlfalfa-\nGrimm 1 \t\nGrimm \t\nRhizoma1 \t\nRhizoma\t\nLadam \t\nBrome-grassx \t\nSweet clover\u00E2\u0080\u0094White Blossom1-\nCreeping red fescue1 \t\nCreeping red fescue\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDuraturf\t\nOlds \t\nCrested wheat-grass1 \t\n1 Denotes \" certified.\"\nSeed Improvement\nAcres\nEstimated Production\n(Bu.)\n10.00\n248.00\n450\n10,695\n174.25\n714.00\n8.00\n9,635\n46,773\n350\n15.00\n106.00\n24.75\n24.00\n400\n2,525\n825\n600\n453.00\n6,783\n50.00\n,696.00\n95.00\n829.00\n55.00\n273.00\n248.00\n707.00\n47,780\n28,449\n101,050\n6.00\n3.00\n15.00\n3,000\n400\n4,500\nFoundation-stock seed produced by the Agronomy Department of the University of\nBritish Columbia was again distributed to growers through the Branch. Amount of seed\nproduced was higher than in 1951, but this seed finds a ready market. The Branch has\nalso introduced small stock seeds of Hercules orchard-grass and Dollard red clover in an\nattempt to interest growers in these varieties.\nThe following is a list of stock seed made available from the University of British\nColumbia in 1952: Kharkov wheat, 130 pounds; Storm fall rye, 400 pounds; Victory\noats, 2,900 pounds; Olli barley, 100 pounds; Ridit wheat, 500 pounds.\nField Crop Union\nDuring the past season membership in the Field Crop Union stood at 182, down\nslightly from 1951. Altogether 170 tests were sent out to members. The list of tests\nincludes peas, legumes, grasses, hybrid corn, and pasture mixtures. Again alfalfa tests\nand pasture mixtures were the most popular. The following gives a breakdown of tests\nconducted in various areas: Vancouver Island, 29; Lower Mainland, 13; North Okanagan, 29; Central Interior, 59; Boundary and Kootenays, 18; and Peace River, 22. The\nannual meeting was held in Victoria in February and the list of tests approved.\nField-crop Demonstrations\nThis Branch has continued to stress the importance of well-established and well-\nmanaged hay-fields and pastures for efficient farm production. Over the past few years CC 114 BRITISH COLUMBIA\na large number of demonstration seedings have been set out and are under continued observation. All plots have been established in co-operation with the District Agriculturists.\nPlots have been used to good advantage and have proved to be a valuable extension\nmethod of interesting farmers in better hay and pasture production.\nIn the North Okanagan, pasture variety trials established by Mr. Muirhead continue\nto show up very well. In addition to such demonstration-plots, nursery rows of grasses\nand legumes have been established in the Kamloops, Boundary, Creston, and East\nKootenay Districts. These plots are under observation for forage production, hardiness,\nand in some cases seed production. Hay and pasture seedings in the Creston area continue to give high yields and high returns per acre. In this area the use of bird's-foot\ntrefoil in the mix is giving very promising results.\nFertilizer-tests on field crops are included elsewhere in this report.\nCereal variety trials were again carried out in the Rock Creek-Bridesville area.\nThese trials have proved of real benefit to the farmers in the area and are having a pronounced effect on the farming practices in the district. Cereal trials are also carried on\nin the St. Mary's Prairie district in the East Kootenays.\nSoil Improvement\nThis Branch stresses the importance of soil-fertility and the need of maintaining\nproper soil conditions to increase the quality and quantity of crops grown. The need for\nsufficient organic matter, sufficient plant-food, and the use of soil amendments or minor\nelements when needed are the main considerations.\nFertilizer and Agricultural Poisons Board\nIn May, 1951, the Board considered the list of approved fertilizer mixes for British\nColumbia, and the following list for 1951-52 was recommended for the Minister's\napproval: 0-12-20; 2-15-15; 2-16-6; 4-10-10; 6-8-6 (organic); 6-30-15;\n8-10-5; 10-20-10. There have been no changes in this recommended list of mixes.\nAgricultural Lime\nThe movement of lime for agricultural purposes has shown a further increase in\n1952, with a total of 36,310 tons sold under the subsidy policy. The use of gypsum for\nsoil-amendment purposes, included in the above figure, has also shown an increase, particularly in the Okanagan. There was no change in the basis of subsidy payment in 1952.\nG. L. Landon, Poultry Commissioner, continued as secretary of the British Columbia Lime Committee for 1952.\nAppendix No. 10 is a summary showing the lime products used since 1935.\nSoil-analysis\nThe Branch has carried on a soil-testing service for several years. Since January,\n1952, 1,909 samples have been analysed. This is almost double the number analysed\nlast year. Reports of analyses are generally forwarded to farmers through the District\nAgriculturist concerned, as the district man can usually make direct contact with the\nfarmer to more fully assess his problem in the field and advise on the use of fertilizers.\nWhen necessary, members of the Branch will visit a problem area and advise on corrective measures.\nAn attempt is also made to follow up the recommendations made and the results\nobtained. District Agriculturists in the Fraser Valley are continuing the systematic sampling of soils for analysis in the Fraser Valley. District Agriculturists in other areas\nhave started a programme of obtaining soil samples in the fall.\nSoil-analysis is only a guide in making recommendations. The greatest benefit\nderived from the present method of analysis is from the interpretation of the pH readings\nJ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 115\nand the rapid analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium. Soil-reaction\nis determined by the potentiometer; the available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and\ncalcium by the Spurway method. This year a conductivity meter was obtained to assist\nin determining total salt concentrations in greenhouse and Interior soils.\nSoil-fertility Trials\nThe soil-improvement programme of this Branch includes a number of fertility-\ndemonstration plots laid down with the District Agriculturists' co-operation. The demonstrations at present under observation are as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(a) Six hay and pasture fertilizer plots in Courtenay-Alberni area.\n(b) Two lime-demonstration plots in the Courtenay-Alberni area.\n(c) Two lime-demonstration plots in the Duncan area.\n(d) Five hay and pasture fertilizer demonstrations in the Duncan-Nanaimo\narea.\n(e) Eight hay and pasture fertilizer trials in the Fraser Valley.\n(/) One fertilizer trial on oats in the Fraser Valley.\n(g) Minor-elements tests at twelve locations in the Fraser Valley.\n(h) One fertilizer demonstration on alfalfa in the Fraser Valley.\n(/) One fertilizer demonstration on oats in the Pemberton area.\n(/') Ten fertilizer trials laid down this fall in the Kamloops area.\n(k) One fertilizer trial on pasture in the North Okanagan.\n(/) One fertilizer trial on potatoes in the North Okanagan.\n(m) One gypsum trial on alfalfa in the North Okanagan.\n(n) One trial on alfalfa with superphosphate and gypsum in the North Okanagan.\n(o) Fertilizer plots in the Vernon area.\n(p) Cereal-fertilizer plots in the Bridesville area.\n(q) Fertilizer demonstrations on hay and pasture in the Grand Forks area.\n(r) Fertilizer trial on potatoes in the Grand Forks area.\n(s) Three fertilizer trials on oats and hay in the Edgewood district.\n(.) Fertilizer strip-tests in the Cranbrook area.\n(it) Fertilizer tests in the Vanderhoof district.\n(v) Potato-fertilizer tests in the Vanderhoof district.\n(w) Fertilizer tests in the Peace River District.\n(x) Two fertilizer trials on potatoes in the Cariboo District.\n(y) Fertilizer demonstration on hay at Dunster.\nThese fertility demonstrations have been utilized to good advantage and are a valuable method of showing farmers the increased returns possible from the use of fertilizers\nand soil amendments. In many cases, field days are held during the growing season and\nthe results of the tests are given. Reports of all demonstrations are on file in this office.\nIn Mr. Hazlette's area the results from one demonstration showed an increase in\nreturn from all fertilized plots. The net returns from the use of fertilizer ranged from\n$8.75 per acre with nitrogen to $54.90 with 16-20-0 plus potash. In Mr. Carmichael's\ntrial with potatoes, 6-30-15 gave the highest net return, the increased value of the crop\nbeing $488.30 per acre.\nIrrigation\nA great deal of interest has been displayed by farmers in the possibilities of irrigation\non hay, pasture, and other field crops. This interest has been especially evidenced in the\nhumid Coastal areas, and has been increased because of the particularly dry summers\nexperienced in 1950 and 1951. The use of irrigation has given increases in production\non many crops on Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley, as well as in the drier\nInterior regions. CC 116 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nIn the Saanich Peninsula a number of dugouts or water-reservoirs have been installed\nin the past two years. The Department, in co-operation with the Dominion Experimental\nStation, conducted a survey and published a stencil on \"Dugouts and Their Use for\nIrrigation on Vancouver Island \" as a guide to future construction.\nIn the Fraser Valley a convention was held under the direction of Government\nofficials to discuss the use of irrigation in the valley. A full report of the proceedings of\nthis conference is held on file in the Branch office.\nWEED-CONTROL\nThe two Weed Inspectors were appointed again this year in the Peace River District,\nworking in co-operation with the District Agriculturists.\nWeed chemicals were supplied to all district agricultural offices this year for trial\npurposes. The Department weed-sprayers are located at Cranbrook, Armstrong, Vanderhoof, and Dawson Creek, and have been used extensively again. Demonstrations\nwith these machines in the past have encouraged some farmers to purchase their own\nequipment for weed-spraying.\nFederal-Provincial Weed-survey\nDuring the past season the Federal-Provincial weed-survey was continued in British\nColumbia. This survey was started in 1951. Two agricultural students were employed\nduring June, July, and August to do the field work. Two areas were covered this year,\neach surveyor working an area independently.\nOne survey started from Osoyoos in the Southern Okanagan, which was completed\nin 1951, and extended eastward across the southern portion of the Province to the Alberta\nborder. The areas included the Boundary area around Grand Forks; the Nelson-Trail-\nCastlegar area in the Arrow Lakes; the Creston area around Creston; and the Rocky\nMountain Trench from Golden south through Kimberley, Cranbrook, and Fernie to\nthe United States border. This whole area is generally referred to as the Boundary-\nKootenay area.\nThe second area surveyed in 1952 completed the Thompson Valley-Nicola-Fraser\nValley area between the two areas completed in 1951; that is, the North Okanagan and\nthe Cariboo. The surveyed area in 1952 included the south Thompson and North\nThompson Valleys to Kamloops; the Thompson River Valley and its junction with the\nFraser River at Lytton; the Fraser River Valley from Lillooet through Lytton to Spences\nBridge; and from Spences Bridge through the Nicola range country to Merritt and north\nto Kamloops. This whole area is primarily range country with limited areas of cultivated\nland for feed production. Smaller areas along the Thompson River near Kamloops are\ndevoted to fruit, canning-crops, potatoes, and dairying. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 117\nGeneral Summary\nrj- . , Number of Approximate\n1 Ota! area Locations Acres\nBoundary-Kootenay 800,000\nThompson-Nicola 1,600,000\nHoary cress\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 6 2401\nThompson-Nicola 22 67\nRussian knapweed\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay :_ 3 6\nThompson-Nicola 30 20\nLeafy spurge\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 1 20\nThompson-Nicola 6 16\nToad-flax\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay (2) \t\nThompson-Nicola (2) \t\nField bindweed\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 4 (3)\nThompson-Nicola 28 (*)\nBladder-campion\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 12 160\nThompson-Nicola 7 15\nKlamath weed\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 10 15\nThompson-Nicola 2 (4)\nDodder\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBoundary-Kootenay 1 15\nThompson-Nicola 2 2\nWhite Cockle\u00E2\u0080\u0094Boundary-Kootenay 17 (5)\n1 One location was a 200-acre field with heavy infestation.\n2 The weed is found throughout both regions but still confined to isolated patches scattered through fields and along\nroadways, railways, etc.\n3 Mosty scattered patches less than 1 acre each.\n1 Less than 1 acre.\n8 Mostly a few plants or small scattered patches.\nGrain Screenings\nGrain screenings are a by-product in the recleaning process of wheat and are graded\naccording to the regulations in accordance with the Grain Act as defined by the Board\nof Grain Commissioners for Canada. Grades include oat screenings, No. 1 feed screenings, No. 2 feed screenings, uncleaned screenings, and refuse screenings.\nIn compliance with the British Columbia \" Noxious Weeds Act\" and regulations\nthereunder, grain screenings which contain weed seeds in excess of the percentage\nallowed by the \" Canada Grain Act\" for No. 2 feed screenings shall not be removed\nfrom any grain-elevator, mill, or warehouse to any place within the Province, except\nonly by virtue of permit duly signed by the Minister of Agriculture or by a person\nauthorized by him. A permit is not required for mixed feed oats, No. 1 and No. 2\nfeed screenings.\nPermits above referred to consist of the specific forms\u00E2\u0080\u0094one, known as the \" Permit\nfor the Removal of Screenings,\" which allows removal of low-grade screenings by a\ndealer or grain merchant; the other, known as a \" Feeder's Permit,\" which allows removal\nof low-grade screenings by a feeder for the feeding of cattle in enclosed feed-lots conditional to prescribed regulations. CC 118 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nRecently, experimental work carried out by Dr. A. J. Wood, University of British\nColumbia, established the fact that heat treatment, approximately 212\u00C2\u00B0 F. under controlled moisture conditions, can devitalize weed seeds in screenings. This work was\nextended to a pilot plant at Lytton during the last two seasons to test commercial practicability. As a result of this experiment, following a meeting with the British Columbia\nFeed Manufacturers' Association and others, N. F. Putnam, Field Crops Commissioner,\nunder the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, incorporated a change in Regulation\nNo. 11 of the Screenings Regulations adopted under the \" Noxious Weeds Act.\" This\namendment, authorized by Order in Council No. 1793, dated July 18th, 1952, now causes\nRegulation No. 11 to read as follows: \" Screenings which contain weed seeds of the percentage allowed by the ' Canada Grain Act' or regulations thereunder for No. 2 feed\nscreenings shall not be ground or otherwise manufactured for sale within the Province\nunless the weed seeds contained therein have been devitalized by a person or firm licensed\nby the Minister.\"\nIn effect this regulation now allows the establishment of plants for the processing\nof feeds from refuse screenings at the discretion of and under regulations set up by the\nMinister of Agriculture. At present, one such plant has been set up in British Columbia\nfor the purpose of processing screenings. Weed seeds in the screenings must be devitalized during the process. Inasmuch as Provincial regulations are concerned, these\nfeeds are hence permissible for sale within the Province. It does not follow that Dominion\nregulations approve of such products, the Dominion being interested in the feeding value\nand the content of weed seeds which would be injurious to live stock.\nRefuse and uncleaned screenings not processed are controlled to prevent their\nremoval to important agricultural areas, where the high percentage of weed seeds contained in the screenings are a menace to the district. Permits for the removal and use\nof screenings are limited to areas where adequate controls can be maintained and to feed-\nlots set up in such a manner as to prevent the spread of weeds through manure distribution, etc. As a result, most permits issued are for the Greater Vancouver and surrounding\nurban areas.\nDuring the first eleven months of 1952, January 1st to November 31st inclusive,\nnineteen permits for the removal of screenings (Nos. 263 to 281) have been issued.\nDuring the same period, seventy Feeder's Permits (Nos. 185f to 254f) were issued.\nOf the total issued, one Feeder's Permit was cancelled because screenings were transported to a location not authorized by the permit.\nA comparison of the movement of screenings to shipment for the equivalent period\nin 1951 shows an increase of 12,000 tons in the total amount of screenings reportedly\nmoved. Local consumption of No. 2 feed, uncleaned and mixed feed oats declined, but\nin all other classes of screenings increased movement is very evident, especially in the\nlocal consumption of refuse screenings and all export classes. The sharp increase in\nthe export of uncleaned screenings is mainly due to the opening of the Canadian Government elevator at Prince Rupert during mid-summer and the shipping of large quantities\nfrom that source. Some increased general movement can also be attributed to the recent\nreopening of Richardson Terminal, which was destroyed by fire over a year ago.\nThe price structure of screenings generally vary as market demand and supply on\nhand fluctuated. The price of refuse screenings is determined principally, however, by\nthe prices set up by the Kansas City market, from which area demand is greatest. Generally, prices have followed the regular pattern of seasonal fluctuation as follows: January\n20th, approximately $23 per ton; February 20th, approximately $12 per ton; March\n15th, approximately $6 per ton; March 21st, approximately $13 per ton; April 21st to\nMay 10th, approximately $8 per ton; July 2nd, approximately $5 per ton; October 22nd,\napproximately $18.50 per ton; November 26th, approximately $16 per ton.\nThe recent interest in processed refuse screenings may create an increased demand\nfor this by-product. From mid-August to the end of October, approximately 95 tons of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 119\nthe new product has moved for local consumption and 70 tons has been exported to\nthe United States.\nMovement of Screenings\nAppendix No. 11 is a summary showing the total movement of all grades for each\nmonth and also the total of each grade of screenings for the period as covered by this\nReport, both for local use and export.\nWeed-control Trials\nWork was continued in the North Okanagan this year on control of toad-flax, hoary\ncress, and leafy spurge. Polybor Chlorate trials were started in the Vanderhoof area\nfor control of toad-flax. An infestation of leafy spurge was treated at Narcosli in the\nCariboo District using Atlacide. Information on results will not be available until next\nyear. Trials were conducted in the southern part of Vancouver Island, using C.M.U., for\nthe control of couch-grass. Treatment at the 40-pound rate is showing good control,\nbut further work will be necessary.\nSeveral weed trials were conducted by Mr. Hughes in the Fraser Valley. A brief\nreport on his results follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Buttercup.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Considerable testing took place, using different formulations of 2,4-D\nand M.C.P. Results were outstanding in favour of M.C.P., and the sodium form\nappeared slightly better than the ester form. The sodium form of M.C.P. gave approximately 85 per cent control in field trials.\n\" Grass.\u00E2\u0080\u0094C.M.U. and T.C.A. were applied to couch-grass at 20, 40, 60, and 80\npounds per acre. C.M.U. showed a positive increase in grass-control depending on the\namount applied, the 80-pound application showing less than 2 per cent couch-grass\nremaining. From the results of the 1951 applications, it is evident that C.M.U. is a more\neffective sterilant than T.C.A.\n\" In applications of the two chemicals in a filbert-orchard for couch-grass control,\n20 to 40 pounds of C.M.U. gave excellent control with no observable effect on the trees.\nT.C.A. was not as effective and was injurious to the trees.\n\" I.P.C. was applied on alfalfa stands for spring grass-control at two locations.\nSix pounds per acre gave 75 per cent control of the grasses and appears to be a practical\napplication, though the material does not give permanent control.\"\nI. C. Carne reports on a couch-grass control trial on Washington raspberries in the\nSalmon Arm district:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Materials used were I.P.C. in stove-oil and I.P.C. in water at varying rates, and\nT.C.A. in water at varying rates applied with and without discing. No apparent injury\nwas caused to the canes with the materials used; the kill of couch-grass in the planting\nwas not considered satisfactory. T.C.A., when used in conjunction with a disking programme, may be feasible under certain conditions.\"\nPRIZE-WINNERS AT THE TORONTO ROYAL WINTER FAIR\nBritish Columbia exhibitors again made an excellent showing at the Toronto Royal\nWinter Fair.\nApart from the first-place award, British Columbia growers again dominated red\nclover classes. Embree Brothers, of Delta, took second place in this class, followed by\nJ. Chimes, Lulu Island, and J. R. Wood, Cloverdale, in third, fourth, and fifth places\nrespectively. Of the first nineteen entrants, British Columbia growers took every award\nexcept first, tenth, and eighteenth.\nJohnson Brothers, of Prince George, placed third in the alsike clover class. In the\nSwede-turnip seed class, Byron Guiry, of Delta, was first; W. Zelmans, Steveston, second;\nand A. Thomson, Delta, third. G. K. Landon, Armstrong, took top award in the alfalfa CC 120\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nclass for his sample of Turkestan, and T. Nicholson took third with his Rhizoma sample.\nA. J. Mason, Hilliers, placed fifth in the field-pea class.\nIn the potato classes, Francis S. Pincosy took reserve for Netted Gem, and J. O.\nDecker, Pemberton, was fifth in the Netted Gem and Russet class. Other British Columbia exhibitors placing were Alfred Needoba, Salmon Arm, and H. H. Bazett, Duncan.\nREPORT OF FARMERS' INSTITUTES\nL. W. Johnson, Superintendent\nDuring the year, two new Institutes were incorporated\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Digby Island in\nDistrict \" B \" on March 31st, and Creston Valley in District \" I \" on May 30th\u00E2\u0080\u0094bringing\nthe total number of Institutes in the Province to 203. However, a considerable number\nof these are inactive and will have their certificate of incorporation cancelled by the\nRegistrar of Companies early in 1953 for failure to file returns, as required under provisions of the \" Societies Act.\"\nAnnual returns from Farmers' Institutes are not received until after annual meetings\nhave been held, therefore figures covering Institute activities are for the year 1951.\nThe number of Institutes in good standing, in so far as this Department is concerned,\nis 182 and are divided into ten districts as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nDistrict Institute Membership\n\" A \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands 20 937\n\" B \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bulkley and Skeena 18 358\n\" C \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Nechako Valley 13 280\n\"D\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Kamloops and North Thompson 17 281\n\" E \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Lower Fraser Valley 31 2,817\n\" F \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094West Kootenay 20 561\n\" G \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Okanagan and Shuswap 13 320\n\"H\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cariboo 11 235\n\" I \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094East Kootenay 16 328\n\" J \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094Peace River 23 525\nAgain, as in the previous years, there was a decrease in membership but an increase\nin receipts and assets. Receipts increased $87,000 over those of the previous year, while\nassets increased $67,000. Figures for the past three years are as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1949\n1950\n1951\nReceipts \t\nExpenditures -\t\n$913,211.32\n824,706.68\n308,540.89\n103,288.58\n$924,625.05\n831,209.48\n348,457.70\n116,017.14\n$1,111,746.02\n1,009,012.51\n415,731.61\n138,915.03\nThe purchase of stumping-powder by Institutes for and on behalf of members\ncontinues to decline, due to the Departmental land-clearing policy and decrease in acreage\nto be cleared. Powder purchased during the year 1951 amounted to $55,592.07, compared with $81,425.17 in 1950. However, the purchase of commodities by Institutes\non behalf of members continues to increase very satisfactorily. During 1951, Institute\npurchases increased by just over $200,000, being $929,928.95, as compared with\npurchases amounting to $727,619.67 in 1950.\nIn seven of the ten districts the individual Institute grants were paid direct to the\nDistrict Institute, as requested by the Institutes in said districts. In the other three DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 121\nDistricts\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, \" B,\" \" D,\" and \" F \"\u00E2\u0080\u0094the regular grant was made payable to the\nInstitutes direct.\nDISTRICT INSTITUTES\nWith the exception of District \" D,\" all districts held annual meetings during the\nyear, with very good attendance in all cases. All districts again passed a considerable\nnumber of resolutions for consideration of the Advisory Board at their next regular\nmeeting.\nDistrict \"A\" meeting was held at Nanaimo on September 26th, when fourteen\nresolutions were considered, twelve being carried, one defeated, and one combined with\na previous resolution. Officers elected were A. J. Mason, Hilliers, president; John T.\nNeen, R.R. 3, Nanaimo, secretary-treasurer; and A. Mclntyre, R.R. 2, Victoria, Advisory\nBoard member.\nDistrict \" B \" meeting was held at Telkwa on June 23rd and 24th, with some twenty-\ntwo resolutions being placed before the meeting, twenty-one being endorsed and one\ntabled. Officers elected were G. Brandon, Telkwa, president, and Arthur Shelford,\nWistaria, secretary-treasurer and Advisory Board member.\nDistrict \" C \" meeting was held at McBride on June 19th and 20th, twenty-seven\nresolutions being considered and endorsed. Officers elected were J. Andros, Vanderhoof,\npresident; Russell E. Johnston, Prince George, secretary-treasurer; and T. E. Gerhardi,\nFort Fraser, Advisory Board member.\nDistrict \"E\" meeting was held at New Westminster on January 11th, and all\nresolutions passed came before the Advisory Board at its meeting held in March. Officers\nelected were T. Kuhn, Cloverdale, president; J. C. MacKenzie, New Westminster,\nsecretary-treasurer; and A. H. Peppar, Anmore, Advisory Board member.\nDistrict \"F\" meeting was held at Kaslo on May 21st, when six resolutions were\nconsidered and carried. Officers elected were D. K. Knowler, Fruitvale, president, and\nK. Wallace, Boswell, secretary-treasurer and Advisory Board member. A semi-annual\nmeeting was also held, at Nelson on November 22nd.\nDistrict \" G \" meeting was held at Winfield on May 26th, nineteen resolutions\nreceiving consideration with sixteen being endorsed and three withdrawn. Officers elected\nwere W. A. Monk, Grindrod, president; M. A. Dangel, Grindrod, secretary-treasurer;\nand J. Woodburn, Salmon Arm, Advisory Board member.\nDistrict \" H \" meeting was held at West Quesnel on June 17th, ten resolutions being\npresented for consideration and all endorsed. Officers elected were H. Trueman, Quesnel,\npresident; F. Vernon, Quesnel, secretary-treasurer; and E. Greenlee, Canim Lake,\nAdvisory Board member.\nDistrict \" I \" meeting was held at Cranbrook on May 23rd, thirteen resolutions\ncoming up for consideration, eleven being endorsed, one tabled, and one lost. Officers\nelected were L. G. Pippen, Cranbrook, president; Mrs. H. E. Miard, Fernie, secretary-\ntreasurer; and J. B. Aye, Jaffray, Advisory Board member.\nDistrict \" J \" meeting was held at Clayhurst on June 26th, when some sixteen\nresolutions were considered, all of which were carried. Officers elected were P. A.\nLeeland, Clayhurst, president; John Close, Sunset Prairie, secretary-treasurer; and A. H.\nDunn, Sunset Prairie, Advisory Board member.\nThe Superintendent attended and addressed all of the above meetings with the\nexception of District \" J.\"\nADVISORY BOARD OF FARMERS' INSTITUTES\nThe Advisory Board met in Victoria on March 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th at the call of\nthe Minister. The Board, in addition to considering some 114 resolutions, met with\nDepartmental officials and officials of other Departments. CC 122 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nOf the 114 resolutions considered, 74 were endorsed, 16 tabled, 15 withdrawn,\nand 9 lost.\nSome eleven resolutions were selected for presentation to the Select Standing\nCommittee on Agriculture, who met with the Board on March 5th. These included\nsuch matters as increased appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, weed-control,\ndaylight saving, Libby Dam, P.G.E. extension, margarine, town planning, rural electricity,\nand taxation.\nFollowing this meeting, the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture presented his report to the Legislative Assembly, which was as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nLegislative Committee Room, March 19th, 1952.\nMadam Speaker:\nThe Select Standing Committee on Agriculture held several meetings and begs leave to\nreport as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThat because of the limited extent to which agriculture can be followed in British Columbia\nand because of the large amount of agricultural products that must be imported into our Province\nunder the best of conditions, this Committee deems it important and necessary that a larger grant\nbe allotted to this Department of the Government so as to further encourage the development of\nthis very important activity in our Provincial economy.\nIt is suggested that grants to all fairs in agricultural districts be increased by 100 per cent;\nthat an agricultural school be established in a suitable locality to extend the knowledge and\ninterest in agriculture; and that, if allotted the funds, the Department seek in every way to have\nproduction increased to lessen purchases elsewhere.\nThat because of the heavy losses to agriculturists from the ever-increasing weed pests, or a\ncontinual fight against them, and because the highways are a prolific source of this trouble, it is\nrequested that the Department of Public Works make a greater effort to keep the roadside weeds\nfrom going to seed because, quite frequently in the past, where action has been taken, it is so late\nthe seeds mature and blow over the cultivated lands. Where this occurs also in a railway right-\nof-way, it is recommended that the authorities be instructed to have the responsible official take\nsome action to avoid seed-spreading.\nThat because of the considerable inconvenience to the farmer in having daylight saving,\nespecially in the months of May, June, and September, principally for the reason that the dew lies\nso late in the morning and hired help for the most part object to working after regular quitting\ntime and thus hindering the quicker handling of crops, it is recommended that a plebiscite be\ntaken at the first general election to ascertain the desires of the people in this regard or, failing\nthis, to confine daylight saving to the months of July and August.\nThat because of the heavy burden on agriculturists in having heavy school taxes assessed\nagainst their lands, it is requested that further study be given this vexing question; that relief\nmeasures may be taken to spread these heavy costs more evenly amongst those who should bear\nthem; and further recommends that the Committee presently working toward this end be added to\nby the addition of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.\nThat because such a large portion of our Province is dependent on the completion of the\nPacific Great Eastern Railway for its prosperity, the Committe recommends that the Government\nwork toward this end with all reasonable haste.\nThat because of the seriousness of the situation in several parts of the Province caused by the\ndepredations of the actions of a sect known as the Sons of Freedom, it is urged that the authorities move with great caution in transplanting them from their present abode. It is considered,\nhowever, that whether the recommendations of the Committee studying the problem are followed\nor not, some action must be taken as quickly as possible so as to end the lawlessness of these\nmisguided people.\nBecause of the great development of hydro-electric and the damming of rivers for water\nconservation and flood-control, it is recommended that where settlers may be affected through\nthe raising of water-levels that they be dealt with quickly after ascertaining information in this\nmatter so they may know what funds they might be obtaining and thus make better arrangements\nfor rehabilitation.\nIt is recommended that irrigation be placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of\nAgriculture because of the special interest that Department has in the benefits to be derived from\nthis necessity to agriculture in so many parts of the Province.\nThe erosion of agricultural lands by many of the rivers in the Province is taking high toll of\ngood farm soil, and it is recommended that more consideration be given to the protection of these\nriver-banks to curtail this damage to as great an extent as is economically possible.\nFor the benefit of the farming communities not presently served with electric power, it is\nurged that the Department of Agriculture design a policy to aid those localities that cannot be\nserved under the present regulations of the British Columbia Power Commission or the policies DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 123\nof private companies whereby assistance be granted under section 107 of the British Columbia\n\" Electric Power Act\" to enable such localities to enjoy the benefits of electric power now passing\nwithin reasonable distance of these sections.\nAll of which is respectfully submitted. Thqmas k_NG; chairman\nEXHIBITIONS AND FALL FAIRS\nOne Class A exhibition, three Class B exhibitions, and sixty-one fall fairs were held\nin the Province during the year, compared with one Class A and two Class B exhibitions\nand fifty-seven fall fairs held the previous year.\nThe Cowichan Agricultural and Industrial Association made application to the\nDominion Department of Agriculture, through this Department, for recognition as a\nClass B exhibition, which was granted.\nAll exhibitions and fairs again received grants in aid of their prize-lists, and all were\nprovided with the services of one or more Departmental officials as judges.\nThe place and date of each exhibition and fall fair held during the year were as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u009E\nExhibitions\nChilliwack August 15 and 16.\nVancouver (Pacific National) Aug. 20 to Sept. 1.\nDuncan September 4, 5, and 6.\nArmstrong September 16, 17, and 18.\nFairs\nVancouver Island\nVictoria May 5 to 10.\nMayne Island August 20.\nCourtenay August 29 and 30.\nSaanichton Aug. 30 to Sept. 1.\nCobble Hill September 3.\nSaturna September 3.\nLuxton September 6.\nGanges _ September 6.\nLasqueti Island September 9.\nSooke September 10.\nAlberni September 11, 12, and 13.\nCoombs September 12 and 13.\nNanaimo September 18, 19, and 20.\nLadysmith September 24 and 25.\nFraser Valley\nHaney August 7, 8, and 9.\nGibsons August 15 and 16.\nPort Coquitlam September 1.\nSquamish September 1.\nLangley September 5 and 6.\nNorth Burnaby September 5 and 6.\nMission September 5 and 6.\nHope September 6.\nAbbotsford September 9 and 10.\nLadner September 10.\nAgassiz September 12.\nCloverdale September 12 and 13.\nSouth Burnaby September 19 and 20.\nVancouver October 3 and 4.\nAldergrove September 26. CC 124 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nOkanagan-North Thompson\nPenticton August 15 and 16.\nPeachland August 28.\nLouis Creek September 1.\nRevelstoke September 1.\nChase September 1.\nCawston September 4.\nWestbank September 5.\nOliver September 5 and 6.\nSalmon Arm September 25 and 26.\nLillooet September 18 and 19.\nRock Creek September 19.\nEast and West Kootenay\nInvermere August 29 and 30.\nRossland September 5 and 6.\nCastlegar September 5 and 6.\nArrow Park September 6.\nFruitvale September 8.\nCrawford Bay September 9.\nNelson September 11, 12, and 13.\nCreston September 19 and 20.\nCentral British Columbia and Peace River\nDawson Creek August 7, 8, and 9.\nRose Prairie August 13.\nSunset Prairie August 20.\nWilliams Lake August 21 and 22.\nBridge Lake August 23.\nFort Fraser August 23.\nMcBride August 27.\nPrince George Aug. 29 to Sept. 1.\nTelkwa September 1.\nTerrace September 1 and 2.\nQuesnel September 5 and 6.\nFrancois Lake September 13.\nWatch Lake September 13.\nAn official visit was made to the following exhibitions and fairs: Haney, Chilliwack,\nVancouver, Cobble Hill, Duncan, Ganges, Sooke, Alberni, Coombs, Nanaimo, and\nLady smith.\nJUDGES' REPORTS\nAs in previous years, a summary of judges' reports was prepared covering 1951\nfairs, and each individual fair was advised of the judges' recommendations and suggestions\nfor improvement of their respective fairs.\nPOUND DISTRICTS\nTwo new pound districts were constituted during the year\u00E2\u0080\u0094namely, Trinity Creek,\non August 13th, and Silver Creek, on September 16th.\nThe boundaries of four existing pound districts were extended during the year.\nThese were as follows: Bear Mountain and South Dawson, in the Peace River District;\nOyster-Cedar, on Vancouver Island; and Chase, in the Kamloops district. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 125\nIn addition to dealing with numerous complaints regarding cattle at large and\nimpounding of cattle, new pound-keepers were appointed for ten pound districts, and\na considerable number of requests for information and procedure in having pound districts constituted were received.\nFENCE-VIEWERS\nDuring the year a complete revision of our list of fence-viewers for unorganized\nterritory was made, and, following this revision, the appointments of 104 fence-viewers\nwere rescinded for the following reasons: District for which they had been appointed had\nbecome organized; left the district; or were unable to act due to age, etc.\nSince this revision, fence-viewers have been appointed in the Comox and Kamloops\ndistricts.\nNumerous complaints and requests for information regarding boundary-fences, etc.,\nwere satisfactorily dealt with.\nMISCELLANEOUS\nSeveral meetings were held during the year with the Pharmaceutical Association of\nthe Province of British Columbia, regarding the sale and distribution of poisons used\nexclusively in agriculture, and 150 licences to keep open shop for the sale of poisons used\nexclusively in agriculture by other than registered pharmaceutical chemists were issued.\nREPORT OF WOMEN'S INSTITUTES\nStella E. Gummow, Superintendent\nBritish Columbia Women's Institutes have shown a satisfactory growth in membership and interest during the year. Five new Institutes were organized\u00E2\u0080\u0094Montney, in the\nPeace River; Promontory Heights, in the Fraser Valley near Chilliwack; Princeton, in\nthe South Okanagan and Similkameen; Chu Chua, in the North Thompson; and East\nVanderhoof, in the Central Interior District. The total is now 231, but three\u00E2\u0080\u0094Ymir,\nTerrace, and Southbank\u00E2\u0080\u0094failed to send in their returns, and it is possible they may not\nbe able to continue.\nAnnual returns were received from 209 Institutes for 1951 and the annual grant of\n$10 each was sent out. The grateful letters of thanks received show how much this\nrecognition of each one by the Department of Agriculture means. These annual returns\nfor 1951 showed a total of $122,180 received and $86,187.35 expended during the year,\nwith a membership of 5,239.\nPROVINCIAL CONVENTION\nThe biennial meeting of the Women's Institutes was held June 4th, 5th, and 6th at\nthe University of British Columbia. The attendance was good, with 188 delegates\nregistered and an average attendance of around 300. The meetings were held in the\nPhysics Building and the dinner given in the Brock Hall, while the women were housed\nin the new women's residences and the youth-training camp.\nThe programme was planned around the work of the standing committees. Mrs.\nRaymond Sayre, president of the Associated Countrywomen of the World; Mrs. Hugh\nSummers, president of the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada; and Miss Lora\nStowell, first scholarship winner, were honoured guests at the convention.\nExcellent reports were given by the conveners of standing committees as follows:\nAgriculture, Mrs. J. Young, Rose Prairie; Citizenship, Mrs. E. Tryon, Parksville; Home CC 126 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nEconomics, Mrs. T. Windt, Alexandria; Handicrafts and Industries, Mrs. L. Cunnington,\nLittle Fort; and Social Welfare, Mrs. M. Powers, Lister.\nA panel discussion on agriculture was arranged by Dean Blythe Eagles, of the\nUniversity of British Columbia, which was chaired by Dr. D. G. Laird, the topic being\n\" Food and Soils.\" Dr. U. P. Byrne, Director, Child Guidance Clinic, Vancouver,\naddressed the convention on social welfare, while Dr. W. G. Black, of the Department\nof Citizenship and Immigration, spoke on citizenship.\nIn reporting to the executive of the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada, Mrs.\nSummers said: \" In June, I had the privilege of attending Provincial conventions of the\nWomen's Institutes of British Columbia, and Homemakers in Saskatchewan. Both were\noutstanding, and the scope of their work and study accomplished in the past year was\ntruly impressive. Both these Provinces are active in soil and food conservation, and, in\nBritish Columbia, a panel discussion on soil conservation by experts in this subject was\noutstanding.\"\nMrs. Sayre in her report to the executive of the Associated Countrywomen of the\nWorld at London in September said: \" I went to a meeting in British Columbia. I have\nnever attended a meeting I found so exciting. I never heard women discuss resolutions\nwith so much intelligence and so much independence of opinion as at this meeting. It was\none of the best meetings in terms of discussion and resolutions I have ever attended.\"\nOfficers were elected at the convention as follows: President, Mrs. A. A. Shaw,\n4020 West Tenth Avenue, Vancouver; vice-president, Mrs. E. J. Roylance, Greenwood;\ndirectors: Mrs. J. Young (Rose Prairie), Mrs. T. Windt (Alexandria), Mrs. P. Douglas\n(Whaletown); secretary-treasurer, Mrs. R. Doe, Box 35, Salmon Arm (non-voting\ndirector, appointed by the Board); F.W.I.C. representatives, Mrs. Shaw and Mrs.\nDouglas.\nProvincial conveners were appointed by the Board as follows: Agriculture, Mrs.\nR. C. Palmer, Experimental Station, Summerland; citizenship, Mrs. J. O. Decker, Pem-\nberton; cultural activities, Mrs. R. Partington, Francois Lake; home economics, Mrs.\nW. G. Brown, 411 Yale Road East, Chilliwack; and social welfare, Mrs. M. Powers,\nLister.\nResolutions were passed asking that soap-packages should have the weight marked\non the outside of the package; that the Brands and Standards Branch should investigate\nthe poor quality of nylon hose, the lack of uniformity of sizes of women's and children's\nclothes, the poor quality of sewing thread, and the poor quality of dyes, particularly of\nwoollens. In discussing hospital insurance, resolutions asked that pensioners and war\nwidows with children under 16 years be exempt from payments; that coinsurance be\nabolished, and in any case that it be not imposed in maternity cases; that the office be\nreorganized for greater speed, economy, and accuracy; and that the date stamp on the\nenvelope be accepted as the date of premium payments. A resolution was passed asking\nthat the licensing of doctors and dentists be placed in the hands of qualified commissioners\noperating under the Federal Department of Health.\nIn citizenship it was asked that immigrants be required by law to apply for naturalization within a reasonable time after they enter this country; that the family allowance\nshould be continued until 18 years if the child is continuing at school; that the \" Wives\nProtection Act\" be amended so that a wife need not register her claim in the home\nproperty to ensure that it could not be sold without her consent.\nThe Women's Institutes are asked to study the drug traffic in an effort to help solve\nthe problem, and ask that rural electrification should be extended as speedily as possible.\nPACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION\nTwenty-one Institutes sent exhibits to the Pacific National Exhibition this year, with\n171 entries and a total of 286 articles. Point Grey won the Challenge Cup, with\nSummerland coming second, Hazelmere third, and Haney fourth. Mrs. A. A. Shaw was DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 127\nonce again in charge of these exhibits, and in her report she quotes the judges as saying,\n\" The work of the Women's Institutes is excellent and of a high standard.\"\nFALL FAIRS AND FLOWER SHOWS\nThe sponsorship of fall fairs and flower shows was an important project for many\nInstitutes this year. Others assisted Agricultural Associations in putting on fairs. Some\ncentres, such as Prince George, Nelson, Armstrong, McBride, Quesnel, and Langley, have\na trophy for Women's Institute displays, and the Institutes in the surrounding districts\nsend in group exhibits for competition.\nHOME ECONOMICS SHORT COURSES\nThe home economics short courses were a new and successful venture this year.\nIn response to a demand for home economics service, it was tried out on a short-course\nbasis. Through the co-operation of Miss Charlotte Black, of the Home Economics\nDepartment of the University of British Columbia, the services of two of her staff\nmembers, Miss N. Morley and Miss O. Ross, were secured. The courses were conducted\nfor six weeks and were a series of two-, three-, and four-day classes, depending on the\nwish of the district. They were held in some centres morning and afternoon and in others\nafternoon and evening, and were held at North Bridge Lake, Bouchie Lake, Alexandria,\nKersley, Vanderhoof, Fort Fraser, Fraser Lake, and Prince George. The subject of Miss\nMorley's class was nutrition and Miss Ross's home decoration. Appreciative letters\nreceived showed that these classes met a need, and requests for their continuation another\nyear show the interest they aroused.\nCANADIAN COUNCIL OF BOYS' AND GIRLS' CLUBS (4H)\nYour Superintendent was privileged to attend the meeting of the Canadian Council\nof Boys' and Girls' Clubs as representative of the Federated Women's Institutes of\nCanada, upon request of Mrs. Hugh Summers, president. This was a very interesting\nmeeting, with members attending from all the Provinces and visitors from Washington\nState. (A number of Institutes sponsor local clubs in clothing, beef, poultry, gardens,\netc.)\nFARM-PLANNING DISPLAYS\nThe farm-planning displays in the Fraser Valley were attended and demonstrations\nfor these arranged. The services of Mrs. D. P. Armstrong, of the Langley Cold Storage,\nwere obtained, and she gave an interesting demonstration on the preparation of foods\nfor freezing and storing. These displays were held at Langley, Haney, and Chilliwack\nin March.\nPEACE ARCH PICNIC\nThe Peace Arch picnic has been established as an annual affair, with British\nColumbia Women's Institutes meeting women of the Washington Home Demonstration\nClubs. The meeting was held this year on July 11th on the Canadian side of the\nboundary-line. Your Superintendent was invited to address the combined groups on the\norganization of the British Columbia Women's Institutes and their link with the national\nand international organizations of the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada and the\nAssociated Countrywomen of the World.\nPROVINCIAL BOARD\nThe first meeting of the Provincial Board, elected at the convention in June, was\nheld in the office of the Superintendent on October 23rd and 24th. Mrs. A. A. Shaw,\npresident, presided, with the following present: Mrs. E. J. Roylance, of Greenwood, CC 128 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nvice-president; the directors, Mrs. J. Young of Rose Prairie, Mrs. T. Windt of Alexandria, Mrs. P. Douglas of Whaletown; and Mrs. R. Doe, secretary-treasurer.\nMrs. Doe reported the interest on the Othoa Scott Fund being used, and an appeal\nfrom a new Institute\u00E2\u0080\u0094Promontory Heights\u00E2\u0080\u0094for help for a child was favourably received.\nThe sum of $1,000 on hand in the Women's Institute Memorial Fund is to be invested\nin Government of Canada bonds to the total of $11,000, the interest being used for the\nhome economics scholarship. Miss Shirley Hawkins, of Saltair, is the winner this year.\nAs a follow up of the recent convention, ideas and suggestions for improvements\nfor another convention were brought forward and discussed.\nCanada is to have the honour of being host to the triennial convention of the\nAssociated Countrywomen of the World next August. This meeting is to be held at\nToronto, with the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada meeting immediately afterwards. Mrs. A. A. Shaw, Mrs. P. Douglas, Mrs. W. Tryon, Mrs. J. Decker, and Mrs.\nS. E. Gummow were appointed as the five delegates to this meeting. Post-conference\ntours are being planned across Canada, and suggestions for the three days allowed for\nthis Province were discussed.\nDISTRICT MEETINGS\nFourteen district meetings were held during the year and attended by your\nSuperintendent, as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nApril 1st, South Fraser at Chilliwack.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Around 300 women attended this meeting,\nwith delegates present from each of the twenty-seven Institutes, including the Upper\nSumas Junior. Women from Promontory Heights were also present and they organized\nwithin the week following.\nResolutions were passed asking for the return of 20-ounce cans of fruit and\nvegetables as well as the 15-ounce can now generally used; that a reasonable service-\nweight silk stocking be obtainable; and that resolutions for discussion at the district\nconferences be in the hands of the secretary for circulation among the Institutes at least\nthree months before the meeting.\nDuring the day, visitors were invited to visit the Chilliwack Women's Institute Hall,\nowned and run by the local Women's Institute. This has a rest-room and a place for\nwomen to meet when in town, and also has a small hall, the rent of which meets all their\nfinancial needs.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. D. McDougall, Fort Langley;\nvice-president, Mrs. E. J. Roberts, Livingstone Road, R.R. 3, Langley Prairie; secretary-\ntreasurer, Mrs. R. Harrington, Peardonville Road, R.R. 1, Abbotsford; directors, Mrs.\nA. Kerridge, Chilliwack, and Mrs. O. France, Chilliwack.\nApril 2nd, North Fraser at Hammond.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This was a good meeting with seventeen\ndelegates from twenty Institutes reporting. The far-away Institutes of Bella Bella,\nLasqueti, and Brackendale were not represented, but approximately 100 women were in\nattendance.\nResolutions were passed asking that the second memorial fund scholarship, when\nthe money is available, should be for home nursing; that the Pacific National Exhibition\nincrease the prize money for Institute exhibits; that all immigrants be required by law to\ntake out naturalization papers within a reasonable time after their arrival in Canada; and\none on \" dope peddling \" was redrafted for the Provincial Conference.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. G. K. Gamble, 690 Government\nRoad, R.R. 8, New Westminster; vice-president, Mrs. J. O. Decker, Pemberton;\nsecretary-treasurer, Mrs. O. E. Leaf, Whonnock; directors, Mrs. E. C. Burgess, Box 128,\nHammond, and Mrs. K. Merkley, R.R. 1, Haney.\nApril 5th, North Vancouver Island at Parksville.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This district now has seventeen\nInstitutes, which include the northern groups of Englewood, Kla-anch, and Woss Lake,\nthe latter being represented at the meeting. There were about 150 registered. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 129\nResolutions were passed regarding boarding-homes for senior citizens; the sale of\nCanada-approved flour; a uniform educational system across Canada; nursing service\nthat would provide bed-side nursing care; a Red Cross Outpost Hospital for Say ward;\nreduction of postage for overseas food-parcels; and a road from Say ward to Port Hardy.\nThe Hillier-Community Institute was represented by several of their members, who\nbrought a display of handicrafts from the Doukhobor settlement.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. J. Thies, Bow-Horne; vice-\npresident, Mrs. C. M. Campbell, Gabriola Island; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. E. M. Smith,\nBox 105, Courtenay; directors, Mrs. A. L. Mitchell, Denman Island, and Mrs. H.\nMacklin, Heriot Bay, Quadra Island.\nMay 1st, North Thompson at Kamloops.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Members of the Kamloops Council and\nthe Rest-room Committee were present at this well-attended meeting. The support of\nthe rural people is being sought for the rest-room project, which is being sponsored by\nthe City of Kamloops and the business people. Many Institutes reported having given\nfinancial support, and they were all anxious to help in every possible way.\nResolutions were passed asking for a travelling dental clinic for the North Thompson\nDistrict; that a mother receiving a mother's allowance should be able to increase her\nincome without having it deducted from her allowance; that charity raffles should be\nmade legal; that a proper defence highway via the Yellowhead Pass be constructed; that\nthe public health nurse should be required to live in the territory in which she works\nrather than at Kamloops, which is outside her territory; that the local fall fair sponsor\na Women's Institute competition; that a bridge be built over the Thompson River at\nLittle Fort; and that officers for the District Board should not hold office longer than\ntwo years.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. Kay Bray, Westsyde; vice-\npresident, Mrs. W. N. Livingstone, Little Fort; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. N Belcham,\nLittle Fort; directors, Mrs. L. Schneider, R.R. 1, Kamloops, and Mrs. Aurora Stevens,\nBarriere.\nMay 3rd, North Okanagan and Salmon Arm at Vernon.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The twenty-one Institutes\nin this district were well represented at this large meeting. Resolutions were passed\nasking for old-age pensions at 65 for all, without a means test; for the abolition of the\n3-per-cent sales tax on drugs and medicine; the removal of at least part of the school tax\non land; the abolition of coinsurance; the placing of weights on packages of soap-\npowders; travelling home economists for rural areas; and that the second scholarship\nbe awarded for a student, boy or girl, taking agriculture.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. G. A. McArthur, Tappen; vice-\npresident, Mrs. H. Farmer, Salmon Arm; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. J. W. Grisdale,\nVernon; directors, Mrs. A. Read, Salmon Arm, and Mrs. L. Wejr, Lumby.\nMay 7th, South Okanagan and Similkameen at Naramata.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Seventeen delegates and\n175 members and visitors attended this meeting. Every Institute but the newly organized\nPrinceton group was present.\nResolutions were passed protesting the sale of horror comic books; asking for more\nuniform standards of measurements for women and children's clothing; and that vitaminized apple-juice should be supported as being an Okanagan product rich in vitamins.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. G. Mugford, Rutland; vice-\npresident, Mrs. C. G. Bennett, Penticton; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. R. T. Knox, 599\nSutherland Avenue, Kelowna; directors, Mrs. L. Fletcher, Box 106, Oliver, and Mrs. G.\nRitchie, Summerland.\nMay 10th, Arrow Lakes and Slocan at Nakusp.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There were eighty-seven registered\nfrom nine Institutes in this district. The hostess Institute of Nakusp dressed in the period\nof sixty years ago, as Nakusp this year celebrated its sixtieth anniversary.\nResolutions were passed asking for a road connection between Edgewood and\nsouthern points; continued steamer service; and electricity for rural areas. CC 130 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. J. Greer, New Denver; vice-\npresident, Mrs. A. Slater, Edgewood; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. J. Lee, Arrow Park;\ndirectors, Mrs. T. Mitchell, Nakusp, and Mrs. Crellin, New Denver.\nMay 14th, West Kootenay at Crawford Bay.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sixteen Institutes from the twenty\nin the district sent representatives. This was a smaller meeting than usual, but one that\nwas full of interest and enthusiasm. A resolution was passed asking for the completion\nof the road from Deer Park south for 4Vi miles to link up with Syringa Creek.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. F. A. Mitchell, Kinnaird; vice-\npresident, Mrs. T. Jenkins, R.R. 1, Nelson; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. W. L. Wright,\nRobson; directors, Mrs. S. Coleman, Nelson, and Mrs. J. W. Hearn, Salmo.\nMay 15th, East Kootenay at Creston.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Seven of the eight Institutes were represented\nat this meeting, with Golden, the farthest away, the only one not present. Resolutions\nwere passed asking that the film \" Royal Journey \" be made available in the 16-mm. size\nfor greater distribution, and that the land of the Flatbow Indians be reclaimed and the\nIndians be assisted in better methods of farming and living.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. C. R. Cotton, Creston; vice-\npresident, Mrs. J. McDonald, Flagstone; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. W. Endicott, Creston;\ndirectors, Mrs. G. Hurl, Creston, and Mrs. J. C. Helme, Lister.\nJune 17th, Cariboo at Bouchie Lake.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This meeting was held in the new Bouchie\nLake Hall. Farmers' and Women's Institutes met together for the opening, with sixty-five\nwomen present. Miss N. Morley and Miss O. Ross were present, to be introduced as the\nhome economics instructors who would visit the different Institutes during the summer.\nResolutions were passed regarding a publicity campaign to acquaint the women\nwith the provisions of the \" Wife's Protection Act \"; that woollen underwear for children\nshould be more easily obtainable; that the allocation for agriculture should be increased;\nthat there should be university credits given for the agricultural course in high school.\nDemonstrations were given by each of the Institutes, and these were flowers made from\nnylon, making and finishing figurines, bead-work, ornaments, hooked rugs, and wool\ncrochet over nylon.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. T. E. Windt, Alexandria; vice-\npresident, Mrs. R. E. Williams, Quesnel; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. D. Melville, Alexandria; directors, Mrs. L. Krause, Marguerite, and Mrs. N. Ford, Quesnel.\nJune 19th and 20th, Central Interior at McBride.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This meeting was held in\nconjunction with the Farmers' Institutes, and because of the difficulty of transportation\nwas a much smaller meeting. Delegates were present from all of the eleven Institutes,\nand entertainment was given by McBride and Dunster.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. J. E. Sargent, Dunster; vice-\npresident, Mrs. Anna Holdway, McBride; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. A. Dickson, Vanderhoof; directors, Mrs. J. Andros, Vanderhoof, and Mrs. A. Birchard, Prince George.\nJune 23rd, Bulkley-Tweedsmuir at Francois Lake.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fifty-five women were present\nat this meeting, with reports received from eight of the ten Institutes.\nResolutions were passed asking that the Government be required to post notices\nordering horses and cattle off the range during the winter months from November to\nApril; that more sanitary measures should be enforced in rural restaurants and bus-stops;\nthat Dr. Weber, who has given such satisfactory service in the district, should be allowed\nto take his British Columbia examination without further study; that the licensing of\ndentists and doctors should be in the hands of the Government; that flour and feed sacks\nshould be white with paper labels; that the road between Houston and Francois Lake\nshould be reopened; and that the School Board should be authorized to apply money\nvoted for \" boarding pupils \" to transportation, to allow a longer route for the bus so\nthat children now boarding could live at home.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. E. Partington, Francois Lake;\nvice-president, Mrs. L. Saunders, Decker Lake; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. M. Long,\nDecker Lake; directors, Mrs. F. Reynolds, Burns Lake, and Mrs. H. L'Orsa, Glenwood. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 131\nJune 26th, Peace River at Doe River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In spite of rain and mud, which made the\nroads very treacherous, 110 women registered for this meeting. Because of the weather,\nit was late in starting, and, with the exception of your Superintendent, no outside speakers\narrived. It was a good meeting, with seventeen Institutes reporting. Sunrise Valley,\nwith a membership of sixteen, had eleven members present, constituting a record.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. D. A. Clarke, Dawson Creek;\nvice-president, Mrs. J. Young, Rose Prairie; secretary-treasurer, Mrs. D. Fines, Fort\nSt. John; directors, Mrs. Karen S. Peterson, Dawson Creek, and Mrs. E. Stuby, Fort\nSt. John.\nSeptember 26th, South Vancouver Island at Lake Hill.\u00E2\u0080\u0094This was a well-attended\nand interesting meeting, with 150 women present. Panel discussions on mushrooms,\ndrama, copper-work, and floral arrangements proved of interest. Delegates from all\ntwenty-two Institutes in the district were present.\nResolutions were passed asking that the Government urge all logging operators to\nleave a belt of trees 100 feet wide along the highways; protesting against the depriving\nof elderly people of their driving licences; that candidates for the Provincial Board should\nhave served at least two terms on the District Board; that more sea-front parks should\nbe established in the Lower Island areas. They protested the cutting down of dogwood\non the roadsides. They asked that the Board continue to press for changes in the\n\" Coroners' Act,\" as outlined in the letter received from the Attorney-General following\nthe fatal accident near Koksilah, in which negligence was charged.\nOfficers were elected as follows: President, Mrs. J. Young, Koksilah; vice-president,\nMrs. H. M. McNally, R.R. 1, Saanichton; secretary-treasurer, Miss H. Leighton, Victoria; directors, Mrs. K. Emery, Colwood, and Mrs. M. Martin, R.R. 2, Nanaimo.\nOTHER VISITS\nVisits were paid to individual Institutes during the year, many of these being made\nat the time of the district meetings. These were Cobble Hill, Point Grey for their thirtieth anniversary, Victoria, West Langley, Quadra Island with a good delegation from\nWhaletown attending, Fort Langley, Eagle Crest, Whonnock, Princeton to organize,\nMontney, Rose Prairie, Pemberton, the three Island Institutes of Lasqueti, Denman, and\nHornby; Salt Spring for their thirty-second anniversary, Armstrong, Grindrod, Esqui-\nmalt, Strawberry Vale, Brentwood, Sooke for their forty-third anniversary, Luxton and\nHappy Valley, and Shawnigan.\nThe fall fairs at Armstrong and Lillooet were visited, and at the latter an opportunity\nwas given to address the women regarding the formation of a Women's Institute.\nNEWS LETTER AND HANDBOOK\nThe News Letter, with accompanying highlights from twenty-five Institutes, has\nbeen sent out monthly, except for the summer months of July and August. A booklet\nwith suggestions for District Boards was compiled and is sent out to aid in preparing and\nconducting district meetings.\nHANDICRAFT DISPLAY\nSeveral additions have been made to the handicraft display during the year. A hand-\nmodelled leather purse and a hand-woven thrift rug have been added. During the year\nthe display has been sent to the following Institutes: Nakusp, Kaslo, Haney, Harrop,\nHouston, Summerland, and Lasqueti.\nRECORDINGS OF INTERVIEWS\nRecordings of interviews over CBU with Mrs. Summers and Mrs. Sayre by Ellen\nHarris at the time of the convention were sent to us through the courtesy of Mrs. Harris CC 132 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nand sent to Institutes on request. They have been sent to Robson, Nelson, Cedar, Pem-\nberton, Francois Lake, and Hillier-Community.\nAPPRECIATION OF SUPPORT AND CO-OPERATION\nMy personal thanks and appreciation go to the retiring president, Mrs. J. H. East,\nand retiring members of the Provincial Board for their co-operation and attendance at\ndistrict meetings, and to the new president, Mrs. A. A. Shaw, and the new Board for\ntheir immediate and willing support. I am also most grateful for the encouragement\nand co-operation of the Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and to those staff\nmembers at Victoria and in the field whose unfailing courtesy and assistance have been\nof great value in Women's Institute work.\nREPORT OF SOIL SURVEY BRANCH\nC. C. Kelley, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor\nThe winter months were devoted to the preparation of maps and reports covering\nfield work of the previous summer. Certain maps and reports were completed for special\ndistribution.\nSoil-classification work was continued in 1952 in the Upper Columbia River valley,\nEast Kootenay District. About 91,000 acres classified in 1950 were rechecked, and\n123,000 acres of new land were mapped. The total of classified land in the Upper\nColumbia River valley, consisting of the area between Canal Flats and Parson, now\namounts to 233,000 acres. The locality between Parson and Donald remains to be\nsurveyed.\nThe soil-survey of the East Kootenay District was undertaken at the request of the\nDepartment of Resources and Development (Water Resources Division) and the Department of Lands and Forests, both of which contribute to the cost of field work. The purpose of the survey is to find the acreage of potentially irrigable land in the East Kootenay\nDistrict, and supply information as to the amount of water that should be reserved in\nthis region for an eventual agriculture. These data have significance in connection with\nagreements as to the use of international waters.\nIn the East Kootenay District, the soil-survey of the Upper Kootenay and Elk River\nvalleys has been completed, and a report is being prepared for publication. The soil\nmaps will be drafted for printing and the report will be published at the expense of the\nDominion Experimental Farms Service, under terms of a long-standing agreement.\nThe minor projects undertaken in 1952 included soil-conservation extension work,\nfurther study of the proposed Soil-conservation Act, six meetings of the Reclamation\nCommittee, participation in a ground-water survey in the Peace River Block, detailed\nsurveys of an irrigation proposal and two Veterans' Land Act Small Holdings Proposals,\nexamination of a proposed forest management licence, and scientific inspection of soil-\nsurvey field work.\nThis Branch also contributed a temporary graduate assistant to the Dominion soil-\nsurvey party, which continued operations in the Peace River area during the summer.\nThe northern field party, under the supervision of L. Farstad, Senior Pedologist, Dominion\nExperimental Farms Service, consisted of T. M. Lord and our temporary assistant,\nH. Payne.\nDuring the past few years, consideration has been given to the possibility of placing\nthe Soil Survey Branch on a survival basis. As conditions stand, this Branch could be\nwiped out by loss of the branch head. Development of new personnel is a slow process,\nbased on five years of training after graduation in soil science from a recognized university. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 133\nDuring the training period, there are staff losses serving to set back enlargement of\ncapacity and completion of training. Better-than-average soil technologists are required.\nPlans for expansion of staff in 1952 met with failure, owing to lack of interest on the\npart of the required type of university students. At the present time, such students are\nable to obtain higher wages in summer at construction work than our graduates who are\npermanent employees. While three university graduates in soil science were finally\nemployed as field assistants on trial basis, none of them proved satisfactory for permanent\npositions, and they were laid off at the end of the field season.\nThe permanent staff at this time consists of R. G. Garry, B.S.A.; P. N. Sprout,\nB.S.A.; W. D. Holland, B.Sc; and J. D. Lindsay, B.S.A. R. G. Garry is the only\nsoil technologist in the Department engaged full time at soil-conservation work.\nP. N. Sprout, W. D. Holland, and J. D. Lindsay are soil-survey assistants, and they\nare chiefly responsible for the amount of acreage classified each year. W. D. Holland\nreceived his permanent appointment on October 1st, 1952. J. D. Lindsay took leave\nof absence October 1st, 1952, to May 1st, 1953, to continue postgraduate studies at the\nUniversity of British Columbia.\nOffice assistance consists of Miss Helen H. Smith, stenographer-clerk, appointed on\na temporary basis November 1st, 1952, for general office duties.\nSOIL CONSERVATION\nMany soil problems found in the Okanagan and South Thompson regions result in\nloss of production from erosion, depletion of organic matter, excessive irrigation, and\nseepage. The objective in soils-extension work is to make practical recommendations\nfor the solution of the above-mentioned problems. The recommendations are aimed at\nmaking the land more productive without depleting the soil.\nSoil testing was continued this year as a service to growers. The general procedure\nwas to determine what soil amendments were necessary with the supporting evidence of\nthe soil test. The tests were limited to determination of pH, conductivity, and visual\ndetermination of organic matter. The grower was visited and the problem area examined.\nAppropriate recommendations were made, sometimes involving cultural practices, and\noccasionally soil amendments were necessary. The District Agriculturist or Horticulturist\nwas then in a position to make specific fertilizer recommendations.\nA total of 428 soil samples were tested and dealt with as outlined. Approximately\n7 per cent of the soil samples came from backyard garden-lots. Other duties did not\nallow sufficient time to carry out follow-up visits, necessary to check the effectiveness of\nrecommendations that have been applied.\nThe most widespread soil problem in the Okanagan-South Thompson region centres\non deficiency of organic matter. To overcome the deficiency, orchardists are encouraged\nto utilize soil-building cover-crops, sawdust, shavings, and other organic waste material.\nMarket gardeners and mixed farmers are encouraged to use crop rotations that include\nlegumes.\nA prevalent soil problem in the irrigated areas is caused by the excessive use of\nirrigation-water and seepage. When the soil is saturated with water, soil bacteria cannot\ncarry out their normal function, and nutritional deficiencies develop in the crop. Moisture\nconditions cannot generally be recognized by the soil test but are quite apparent on field\nexamination of the soil profile.\nThe new commercial soil conditioners have stimulated the interest of many growers.\nTwo sets of trial plots were located in the Kelowna district to find how effective one\ncommercial soil conditioner was on clay that lacked good physical structure. The plots\nwere laid out by Dr. C. A. Rowles, of the University of British Columbia, with the\nassistance of this Branch. One set of plots was located on soil mapped as Glenmore clay\nand the other on soil mapped as Nisconlith clay. The soil conditioner was spread during CC 134 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nMay, 1952. To date there has been no observable effect, either in crop response or in\nsoil condition. However, observations are not complete, and the same trials will be\ncarried on another year.\nIn sprinkler irrigation, advisory assistance was confined to design of new systems\nand improvement of older systems to make better use of water or save labour. As more\nexperience is gained in the use of sprinkler irrigation, improved methods in water\ndistribution are developed. Information on new developments is passed on to growers\nat every opportunity.\nThe growers were given advisory assistance in planning new sprinkler systems on\na total of 131 acres. In areas where sprinkler irrigation is well established, recognized\ndealers provide a good service in designing systems. But in areas where experience with\nsprinkler irrigation is not widespread, dealers often lack the necessary experience, and\nerrors in design are commonplace. Many growers prefer to obtain impartial advice from\nthis Branch on installation of sprinkler-irrigation systems. Errors in design are costly\nand usually lead to inadequate distribution of water.\nIrrigation field days were held at Benvoulin, Lumby, and Otter Lake in the Okanagan\nValley and Fairmont in the Upper Columbia Valley. The field day in each case was\nsponsored by the District Agriculturist concerned. The operation and maintenance of\nsprinkler-irrigation systems on mixed farms was emphasized because irrigated pastures\nare a promising development in the agricultural economy. The field day is an effective\nmethod of demonstrating proper use of sprinkler-irrigation systems. The informality\nof the field day gives the grower a good opportunity to obtain information.\nSprinkler irrigation makes possible the use of land that could not be irrigated by\nother methods. Any water-supply is regarded as a potential source of irrigation when\nthis method is used. Occasionally, water from wells, springs, or sump holes contains\nexcessive amounts of alkali salts detrimental to plant growth. In the Interior, growers\nare urged to use our water-testing service before setting up an irrigation system based\non water of unknown quality.\nDuring the year, water from twenty-six sources was tested. Seven of these sources\nwere found to contain water unsuitable for irrigation.\nAn important recent development affecting irrigation systems is the recognition that\nmuch underground pipe corrosion is due to electrolysis. Elimination of corrosion from\nthis source will result in greatly increased life for underground pipe. This will reduce\nthe long-term cost of sprinkler-irrigation systems. By 1953 we will have sufficient\ninformation on the electrolysis problem to find some method of overcoming it.\nLoss of productive land because of seepage is a major problem in the Okanagan\narea. Seepage can be due to both natural and unnatural causes. Unnatural seepage is\ndue to excessive use of irrigation-water. The excess water usually comes to the surface\nat the toe of the slope, saturating the soil profile. In this way, the careless irrigator can\nsaturate the land of a neighbour at lower elevation. The neighbour must then install\nexpensive drainage-works to reclaim his land.\nAdvisory assistance was given by this Branch in locating and planning drainage\nsystems for individual farmers. During the past year, plans were drawn for 2,084 feet\nof drain to reclaim 32 acres. Initial work has been started on thirteen additional projects\nyet to be completed.\nMiscellaneous duties in soils-extension work included participation in the annual\nChatauqua lectures sponsored in the Okanagan by the British Columbia Fruit Growers'\nAssociation. An illustrated lecture was given on \" Soils and Soil Testing.\" This lecture\nwas also given at Creston and Camp Lister as part of the annual Creston short course\nseries.\nControl of erosion due to spring run-off was another project in which advisory\nassistance was given. One farm of 100 acres, located in the Grandview Flats district,\nwas contour mapped in detail. Using the map as a basis, a channel terrace with appro- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 135\npriate outlet was designed. The construction of the terrace was carried out by the\ngrower, using ordinary farm tillage machinery.\nThe channel-terrace method of controlling run-off water has not been used previously\nin British Columbia. This trial demonstration is part of a plan to establish cheap and\npractical procedures of erosion-control within the means of the average farmer.\nPROPOSED SOIL-CONSERVATION ACT\nAn investigation as to the requirements of soil-conservation legislation began in\n1949. In that year the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture for soil conservation was established, and an inventory was taken of cases of soil erosion and the need\nof soil conservation throughout the Province. This was done by means of a circular letter\ncalling on farm organizations, farmers, and Government departments for co-operation.\nThe circular met with a favourable response, and in 1950 over 1,000 copies of a\ndetailed Act memorandum were mimeographed and distributed for general criticism.\nThe Tesult of this procedure was satisfactory proof that all farm organizations and\ninterested Government departments would support well-considered soil-conservation\nlegislation.\nThe detailed memorandum issued to the public in 1950 was regarded as too bulky\nfor introduction as a new Bill, and with the advice of the Legislative Counsel, the proposed\nAct was redrafted and made ready for the 1951 Session of the Legislature.\nHowever, it could not be dealt with at the 1951 Session. With further study and\nminor changes the proposed Soil-conservation Act was made ready for the 1952 Session.\nThe purpose of this procedure is to keep the proposed Act in readiness from year to year,\nuntil it can receive appropriate consideration.\nTHE RECLAMATION COMMITTEE\nThe Reclamation Committee has functioned in an advisory capacity since 1944,\nholding several meetings each year. Its duties consist of giving experienced advice in\nregard to area problems of land-use when Government expenditure is contemplated.\nThese include irrigation, small holdings and dyking proposals, soil productivity ratings,\nand similar problems. After each meeting a brief containing recommendations is mimeographed for limited distribution. To date, twenty such briefs have been prepared.\nSix meetings of the Reclamation Committee were held in 1952. Four of these\nmeetings (Briefs 15 to 18 inclusive) deal with soil-productivity ratings for soils growing\ntree-fruits in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys. The meetings that considered\nsoil-productivity ratings were held at the request of the Surveyor of Taxes, Department\nof Finance.\nReclamation Committee Brief No. 19 contains a description of soils and recommendations in regard to the British Columbia Fruitlands Irrigation Proposal, Kamloops.\nThe meeting was held at the request of the P.F.R.A. Regional Office, Kamloops, B.C.\nReclamation Committee Brief No. 20 deals with the soils and suitability of a\nVeterans' Land Act Small Holdings Proposal near Blueberry Creek, B.C., between\nCastlegar and Trail. The meeting that produced Brief No. 20 was held at the request of\nthe Veterans' Land Act Regional Office, Kelowna, B.C.\nGROUND-WATER SURVEYS\nGeology is of interest and value to agriculture when used to explain the origin of\nsoil-forming deposits, to drain land, to aid soil classification, and to locate ground-water\nsupplies. For several years a co-operative arrangement has been carried out whereby\ngeologists of the Department of Mines and the Geological Survey of Canada were\nacquainted with these problems by the Soil Survey Branch. This was accomplished by\narranging visits of Government geologists to soil-survey parties working in the field. CC 136 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nWhen made fully aware of the contribution the geologist can make to British Columbia agriculture, it was not difficult to formulate a practical arrangement with the departments having geologists on their staffs. In 1952 the Department of Agriculture entered\ninto an agreement with the Department of Mines whereby the latter would undertake\nsystematic ground-water surveys in farming areas of the Province, in the order of need,\nand with the co-operation of the Geological Survey of Canada. The geological origins\nof soil-forming deposits are inclusive with the ground-water surveys. The location of\nground-water by the use of geological science will take the place of the water-witch as\na means of finding farm water-supplies.\nThe area of most immediate concern is the developed section of the Peace River\nBlock, hence this northern district was chosen for ground-water survey work in 1952,\nthe Department of Agriculture and the Department of Mines co-operating. The Department of Mines provided the services of Dr. W. H. Mathews, Department of Geology,\nUniversity of British Columbia, and this Department provided an assistant and field\nequipment.\nDuring the season a survey of ground-water, begun in 1950 in the Peace River area,\nwas completed. Dr. Mathew's report will explain the conditions under which groundwater can exist, and, by means of a map, localities having ground-water suitable for farm\nuse will be separated from areas in which no ground-water can exist. The definition of\nareas in which potable ground-water cannot exist will aid this Department by giving the\nlocalities where farm ponds should be promoted as the source of water-supply.\nBRITISH COLUMBIA FRUITLANDS IRRIGATION PROPOSAL\nThe old irrigation-works of the British Columbia Fruitlands Irrigation District, Kamloops, have deteriorated to the point of failure. Under these conditions the District made\napplication for rehabilitation under an existing Dominion-Provincial agreement, and\nsoil and engineering surveys were required to plan the new proposal. At the same time\nthe soil-survey was extended to include a dyking proposal on the flood-plain of the\nThompson River near Tranquille. The soil-classification work was undertaken in April\nand May.\nThe classified area is located on the west side of the Thompson River, in the river\nvalley from Jamieson Creek to Tranquille, a distance of 28 miles. The greatest width\nof the area is Wz miles and the average width is one-half mile. The classified area\namounts to 8,129 acres, of which 6,494 acres are arable if irrigated or otherwise reclaimed\nby engineering-works. About 287 acres of land containing an excess of alkali salts was\nclassed as temporarily non-arable. Stony, badly eroded land and land subject to annual\nflood, amounting to 1,348 acres, was classed as non-arable.\nThe highest elevation, at the northern end of the area near Jamieson Creek, is about\n1,340 feet above sea-level. The lowest elevation, on the low flood-plain in the vicinity of\nTranquille, is about 1,100 feet above the sea.\nPrecipitation at the northern end of the map-area is slightly higher than at the\nsouthern end, and this slight increase is enough to change the native vegetation from grass\nto trees. At the northern end the native vegetation consists of mature Douglas fir, Pon-\nderosa pine, and scanty grass. At the southern end there is natural grass land producing\nsecondary grasses. A few cottonwood, willow, and aspen occur in damp spots near the\nriver.\nThe North Thompson River valley is of pre-glacial origin. In the mapped area, it\nlies within the Cache Creek formation, the rocks consisting chiefly of argillites, limestones,\nand a few granitic intrusions. During the Pleistocene, it was swept clean by a glacier,\nwhich removed the spurs and left a U-shaped valley now in part refilled. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 137\nNo glacial till was observed in the classified area. The oldest valley-filling deposit\nconsists of the remnants of an ice-margin terrace of stratified silts and clays high on the\nvalley side. From the neighbourhood of Jamieson Creek to the vicinity of Westsyde\nSchool the river deposits below the elevation of the ice-margin terrace have the appearance\nof remnants of former flood-plains. The textural range is from loamy, coarse sand to silt\nloam, finely divided mica being abundant. The slope is inward and the absence of gravel\nis noteworthy. It would appear that these flood-plains were formed as a series, from an\nelevation of about 1,300 feet down to the present level of Kamloops Lake.\nThis feature is probably due to the creation of Kamloops Lake. This was brought\nabout by the blocking of the Thompson valley by the outwash of Deadman's Creek during\nthe decay stage of glaciation. Kamloops Lake came into existence behind the dam thus\nformed, which built up to an elevation of 1,300 feet or more.\nUnder these conditions the North Thompson drainage was forced up the South\nThompson valley, along the west side of the ice-filled Shuswap Lake depressions and into\nthe Okanagan. The overloaded stream deposited thick beds of stratified silts on each\nside of the South Thompson valley, the valley centre possibly holding remnants of\na glacier, and the clays were laid down in laked areas from Chase to Tappen and in the\nNorth Okanagan.\nReversal of flow from the Columbia to the Fraser River drainage started excavation\nof a channel through the outwash of Deadman's Creek at the west end of Kamloops Lake.\nThis process, and the reworking by the river of the drift-filled valley to the west, left\na remarkable series of terraces between Deadman's Creek and Lytton, particularily in\nthe area between Kamloops Lake and Ashcroft. The gradual lowering of Kamloops Lake\nfrom a surface elevation around 1,300 feet to the present low-water elevation (1,109\nfeet) was paced by a series of flood-plains in the North Thompson River valley, the\nremnants of the older ones now serving as terraces with inward slopes.\nWest of Kamloops Junction and Halston in the South Thompson valley the river\ndeposits broaden to form two flood-plains, separable on the basis of age and elevation.\nThe oldest and highest of these flood-plains contains considerable alkali in the form of\nneutral salts. Where the neutral salts (sodium sulphate, magnesium sulphate, etc.) have\nbeen leached away on the old levees, sodium carbonate (black alkali) has been able to\nform in significant concentrations. The younger flood-plain in the vicinity of Tranquille\nis subject to annual flood, and therefore is free of alkali.\nThe soil-forming deposits that occur in the mapped area, in addition to the group of\nflood-plains, consist of postglacial fans at the mouths of the coulees of temporary and\npermanent streams. Here and there the fans spread their aprons over the flood-plains for\ndistances that vary with the width of the valley, the position of the river, and the size of\nthe fans. Some of the fans in the North Thompson valley have had their outer margins\ncarved away by the river.\nThe soil-forming parent materials described above have been classified into several\nsoil types and phases according to their genesis and such features as stoniness, erosion,\nand alkali content.\nA set of temporary soil maps were prepared in May and supplied to the P.F.R.A.\nRegional Office, Kamloops, for immediate use in connection with the engineering-survey\ncarried out to design and estimate the cost of new irrigation-works. Permanent map-\ntracings will be drafted as winter work. When completed, prints from these tracings\nwill be available on special order.\nAfter completion of soil-survey field work the classified area was examined by the\nReclamation Committee. A description of soil types and the recommendations of this\nCommittee are on record in Reclamation Committee Brief No. 19, June 25th, 1952,\navailable from the Department of Agriculture, Kelowna, B.C. c\nCC 138 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nVETERANS' LAND ACT SMALL HOLDINGS PROPOSAL,\nKAMLOOPS, B.C.\nA detailed examination of the soil in parts of Blocks 9 and 10, R.P. 2456, was\nundertaken in October at the request of the Veterans' Land Act Regional Office,\nKamloops. The area consists of about 50 acres, situated between the Kamloops Range\nExperiment Station and the Kamloops Airport.\nThe soils were classified during the detailed soil-survey of the British Columbia\nFruitlands Irrigation Proposal in April and May, 1952. A description of the soil type\nis available in Reclamation Committee Brief No. 19.\nThe examination prior to subdivision of the area into 1.6-acre holdings consisted\nof sampling the surface soil and subsoil of every acre. The samples were tested for alkali\ncontent to ensure that any acreage containing excessive alkali would be eliminated from\nthe development.\nA map, scale 200 feet to an inch, called \" Soil Map of Veterans' Land Act Small\nHoldings Proposal in Parts of Blocks 9 and 10, R.P. 2456, Kamloops, B.C., November,\n1952,\" has been prepared showing the result of this survey. Copies of this map have\nbeen supplied to the Veterans' Land Act Regional Office at Kamloops.\nVETERANS' LAND ACT SMALL HOLDINGS PROPOSAL,\nBLUEBERRY CREEK, B.C.\nBlueberry Creek is situated about 5 miles south of Castlegar or 15 miles north of\nTrail on the main highway between these two points in the West Kootenay District.\nSmall holdings are in demand by veterans who are employees of the Consolidated Mining\n& Smelting Company. A detailed soil-survey of Lots Nos. 12353 and 12092, near\nBlueberry Creek, was undertaken at the request of the Veterans' Land Act Regional\nOffice, Kelowna, to rate the land for 1.6-acre holdings, eliminate unsuitable acreage, and\nclassify the soil for irrigation. This job was done in July, while the soil-survey party was\nmoving into the East Kootenay District.\nAnnual precipitation is about 24 inches and annual mean temperature 45\u00C2\u00B0 F.\nRainfall from May to October amounts to about 8 inches. The coarse-textured soils\nincrease the effect of drought in the summer-dry climate and require irrigation.\nThe original vegetation was a mixed forest of Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, western\nlarch, western red cedar, white pine, lodgepole pine, birch, aspen, and willow. This has\nbeen destroyed, and the present vegetation consists of a dense mat of shrubs and a few\nscattered trees.\nThere is an upper bench at from 1,940 to 1,960 feet elevation, and two lower\nbenches which lie between 1,730 and 1,790 feet above sea-level, all of which are gently\nsloping. These are terraces of the Columbia River and Blueberry Creek. The high\nbench consists mainly of a great thickness of sand, containing thin stratums of gravel.\nThis is probably an ice-margin terrace, formed by deposition of sand during down-valley\ndrainage when the valley centre was occupied by a glacier. There is a similar terrace at\napproximately the same elevation on the other side of the Columbia River valley.\nAt a later stage of deglaciation, a mountain glacier which occupied the Blueberry\nCreek valley pushed a terminal moraine into the mapped area. As the ice retreated the\nmoraine was reduced by melt-water, and, with additional outwash material, formed two\nlower fan-shaped terraces, referred to above.\nThe fan-shaped terraces consist of stones, boulders, and gravel, the average stone\nsizes varying from 2 to 6 inches and a few scattered ones up to 24 inches in diameter.\nThe surface of the stony terraces consists of from 14 to 25 inches of rather fine-textured\nsandy loam. The amount of surface material mixed with the stones varies within wide\nlimits. Some of the stones were brought to the surface by uprooting trees. In places\nthe surface layer of fine texture is not thick enough to cover the underlying rubble. The DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 139\ntexture of the surface soil suggests that loess was deposited after the stony outwash\nterraces were formed, and that this is the material from which the surface soil is derived.\nThe soils derived from surface materials on the upper and lower terraces were\ndifferentiated into several soil types and phases. They are Brown Podsolic soils, with\nreaction from pH 4.4 at the surface to pH 6.3 in the substratum.\nThe total area mapped amounts to 127 acres, with potentially irrigable soils\namounting to 75 acres, none of which is in use at the present time.\nA temporary soil map was produced in July and supplied for immediate use to the\nVeterans' Land Act Regional Office, Kelowna. A permanent soil-map tracing, called\n\" Soil Map of Lots 13093 and 12353, Blueberry Creek, B.C.,\" scale 200 feet to 1 inch,\nwas prepared in November, prints being available from the Department of Agriculture\non special order.\nAfter completion of soil-survey field work the classified area was examined by the\nReclamation Committee. A description of soil types and the recommendations of the\nCommittee were placed on record in Reclamation Committee Brief No. 20, July, 1952.\nThis brief is available at the Department of Agriculture, Kelowna, B.C.\nEXAMINATION OF SOILS IN THE AREA OF A PROPOSED\nFOREST MANAGEMENT LICENCE\nA few days were spent by the field party in September and October in the examination of the south-eastern part of a proposed forest management licence applied for by\nCranbrook Sawmills Ltd. The work was done by request of the Forest Service, the purpose being to eliminate any significant amount of land suitable for agriculture from the\narea of the proposed licence.\nThe locality examined lies adjacent to Bobby Burns Creek and the Spillimacheen\nRiver, from their junction to a point about 15 miles up-stream in both valleys, East\nKootenay District. Elevations in this area range from 3,300 to 3,800 feet above sea-level.\nThe climate is subhumid and more comparable with Golden than with the Edge-\nwater locality to the south-east. The most humid soil conditions in the area produce\nspruce, with cedar in some of the damp bottoms. Fir occupies dry, excessively drained\nsites. After fire the secondary vegetation consists mainly of a comparatively thick stand\nof lodgepole pine.\nThe soils are derived chiefly from coarse-textured glacial deposits. During the last\nglaciation the main ice-supply flowing into the Rocky Mountain Trench probably had its\nsource at the head of the Spillimacheen Valley. The main glacier moved southward\nbetween Steamboat Mountain and the Purcells, strengthened here and there by tributary\nglaciers from the valleys of the Purcell Mountains. Under these conditions the bottom\nof the Spillimacheen Valley was swept clean. When the ice retreated a thin mantle of\ntill was laid down in an area featured by frequent outcroppings of bedrock and large\nsurface boulders. In a few places the till was reduced by melt-water to stony and gravelly\noutwash.\nUnder the more or less humid climatic conditions, Brown Podsolic soils have developed on the coarse-textured glacial materials. Finer textured profiles, more resistant\nto change, show development of the Podsol on the original Grey Wooded soil formation.\nWith one exception, the soil types examined were too coarse, stony, and rough for\nany agricultural purpose, and were recommended for inclusion in the forest management\nlicence. The exception consisted of 200 acres of river flood-plains, subject to flood,\ndifficult of access, scattered along 5 miles of Bobby Burns Creek and located about 35\nmiles from Spillimacheen Station. The cost of reclamation and provision of roads and\npublic services necessary to develop acreage so situated is not warranted. It was recommended that this area be included in the forest management licence. CC 140 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nA report, called \" Reconnaissance Soil-survey to Report the Existence of Agricultural Land in the Area of the Proposed Cranbrook Sawmills Forest Management Licence,\"\nwas delivered to the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture on November 7th,\n1952.\nINSPECTION OF SOIL-SURVEYS\nWhenever possible a scientific inspection of the work of the soil-survey field parties\nis carried out each year. The purpose is to keep soil-classification work across Canada\nup to a single standard. A correlator is supplied by the Dominion Experimental Farms\nService. His duties are to visit all co-operating soil-surveys west of Ottawa, standardize\nthe technique of soil classification, convey new techniques from Province to Province,\nfamiliarize himself with areas being mapped, and act as scientific editor of soil-survey\nreports before they are published.\nThis work is done by Dr. A. Leahey, Principal Pedologist, Central Experimental\nFarm, Ottawa. At the time of his inspection, Provincial authorities are generally included\nin the inspection of soil-survey parties.\nDuring 1952, field inspection of soil-survey work in the Peace River area and the\nEast Kootenay District was undertaken. In the Peace River Block the inspection party\nconsisted of Dr. A. Leahey; L. Farstad, in charge of party; J. S. Clayton, Soil Surveyor,\nUniversity of Saskatchewan; Wm. Odynsky, Soil Surveyor, Alberta Research Council;\nDr. W. H. Mathews, Department of Geology, University of British Columbia; and the\nwriter.\nThe inspection party in the East Kootenay District consisted of Dr. A. Leahey;\nL. Farstad; Dr. C. A. Rowles, Associate Professor of Soils, University of British Columbia; G. A. Luyat, Supervising Agriculturist; arid the writer in charge.\nA technical improvement agreed to in 1952 consists of recognition of secondary\ndevelopment in certain types of soil profiles. The leached horizon of Grey Wooded soils\n(horizon A2) is capable of forming a compressed Podsol profile therein. Where this\nfeature is present the soils require differentiation as Podsolized Grey Wooded soils.\nBrown Podsolic soils may also occur, as secondary development on excessively drained\nGrey Wooded soils, in the cool-humid sections of the Interior.\nPodsolized Grey Wooded and Brown Podsolic-Grey Wooded soil types have been\nidentified in the high mountains and in the more humid sections of the Upper Columbia,\nUpper Kootenay, and Elk River valleys. The 1952 inspection brought agreement as to\nthe way in which such soils shall be differentiated and described on soil maps and in\npublished reports.\nSOIL-SURVEY OF THE UPPER KOOTENAY AND ELK RIVER VALLEYS\nSoil-survey field work in the Upper Kootenay River drainage was completed in\n1951. This area includes the Upper Kootenay River valley from Canal Flats to the\nNational Park boundary, the Rocky Mountain Trench from Canal Flats to Montana, and\nthe Elk River valley from a point 30 miles north of Natal to Elko.\nA report covering this area is being prepared by this Branch for publication by the\nDominion Experimental Farms Service, Ottawa. This report will cover soil classification\nof approximately 875,000 acres, of which about 301,000 acres is classed in several grades\nas potentially irrigable, the total water requirement from the Kootenay River drainage\nbeing about 881,000 acre-feet.\nThe total water requirement is subject to reduction by secondary engineering surveys,\nthe purpose of which would be to determine the amount of land classed as potentially\nirrigable that can in fact be irrigated. Such engineering surveys may be undertaken by\nthe Department of Resources and Development, the Department of Lands and Forests,\nor the P.F.R.A. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 141\nSOIL-SURVEY OF THE UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER VALLEY\nThe soil-survey of the Upper Columbia River valley was undertaken to serve the\nsame preliminary purpose as the soil-survey of the Upper Kootenay and Elk River valleys.\nThis is to find the water requirement of potentially irrigable land in the area, so that an\nadequate supply of water can be reserved for British Columbia agriculture. The secondary purpose is to publish a report giving an inventory of the soil resources of the area.\nWhen completed, the Upper Columbia valley survey will extend from Canal Flats\nto the vicinity of Donald in the Rocky Mountain Trench. A start was made in 1950,\nwith soil classification of the area between Canal Flats and Edgewater. In 1952 this was\nreviewed, owing to changes of personnel, and the survey was continued to Parson, some\n22 miles south of Golden. The field work could be completed in 1953.\nThe Rocky Mountain Trench in this region is regarded as a large valley formed over\na long period of time by natural erosion. The present aspect of the locality between Canal\nFlats and Spillimacheen is that of a broad valley with an uneven bottom, which was more\nor less severely glaciated. Above Spillimacheen there is a smaller trench, glaciated to\na lesser degree during the last glacial epoch.\nIn the southern part, the west side of the Trench is filled by a high, rolling till-plain,\ncut here and there by the coulees of tributary streams. In the valley centre there is a\nbroad channel, occupied in the south by Columbia and Windermere Lakes and in the\nnorth by the swampy flats of the Columbia River. The east side of the valley, from Canal\nFlats to Spillimacheen, contains the remnants of glacial deposits, broken into many parts\nby a remarkable system of coalescing alluvial fans. For some distance above Spillimacheen there is a high, narrow till-plain on the east side of the valley, which occurs on both\nsides about half way to Golden. The deep channel of the Columbia River and its swampy\nflats maintains a gentle gradient in the valley centre.\nThe nature of the main valley erosion, including the complete removal of spurs, and\nthe appearance of the valley-filling deposits, postulates two and possibly three glaciations.\nThis is supported by definite evidence of two till-sheets and scanty evidence of a third till.\nStratified clays, silts, sands, and gravels of interglacial origin occur up to 200 feet or more\nabove the present valley bottom. On the east side of the Trench these deposits are overlaid by a shallow layer of till, which conforms to the interglacial topography.\nThe main build up of ice during the last glaciation was in the Spillimacheen Valley.\nFrom this source a great glacier moved southward, fed by tributary valley glaciers from\nthe Purcell Mountains. This movement, probably supported here and there by glaciers\nfrom the Rockies, left a till-plain extending to Montana. However, the Brisco and Stanford Ranges of the Rockies, which lie between Spillimacheen and Canal Flats, are high,\nnarrow ridges on which a large supply of ice could not accumulate. Hence there was little\nerosion during the last glaciation at the toe of their slopes. In this case the melt-water\nfrom above carried considerable debris, to construct a series of large fans which occur in\nthis area.\nThe broad channel in the centre of the valley, probably of interglacial origin, was\nprotected by static ice during the last glaciation. During retreat of the valley glacier, it\nwas in part filled by stratified silts. The bulk of these silts have been eroded away, leaving\nwhite bluffs that occur as a prominent feature on both sides of the river trench.\nFor a considerable period in postglacial time, this channel conveyed a slow-moving,\nsouth-flowing drainage. This was finally blocked and reversed by the fans of tributary\nstreams, which built dams across the river valley. The fan of the Kootenay River, called\nCanal Flats, and the fan of Dutch Creek ponded a section of the channel to form\nColumbia Lake.\nLake Windermere lies between the valley-filling deposits of Dutch and Toby Creeks.\nThe surface elevation of Lake Windermere is still rising behind the fan of Toby Creek.\nHouses built well above lake-level in 1909 at Athalmer are swamped. CC 142 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nFrom Athalmer to Golden, tributary streams entering the broad channel are more\nfrequent than in the area of the lakes, and the channel has been filled to the stage of low\nlevees, sedge meadows, and swamps. In this area the grade of the river is about 6 inches\nto the mile, and this is being reduced. If any of these flats are reclaimed for agriculture,\nthe job would require the setting up of a new height of land, sending part of the drainage\nsouthward.\nThe north end of the area has the highest precipitation, with about 18 inches\nannually at Golden, the annual mean temperature being 40\u00C2\u00B0 F. In summer the bulk\nof the rain is from the north and north-west, and the rain-clouds spend their force to the\nsouthward. This is expressed by the medium forest at Golden and in the Spillimacheen\nValley, which shades off to scattered trees and grass around Windermere and Columbia\nLakes. The locality around the lakes is the driest part of the Rocky Mountain Trench,\nwith annual precipitation about 11 inches. Rainfall, May to September inclusive,\namounts to about 7 inches at Golden and less than half that amount at Invermere.\nIn the mapped area the texture profiles of soils vary from stone-free silt to shallow,\nstony terraces. The finer textured profiles on moderate topography, stone free and with\nreasonable stone content, are classed in several grades as potentially irrigable. The\nswamped flats are of fine texture and would be arable if reclaimed.\nThe genetic soil types show a considerable range of development. There are feebly\ndeveloped to well-developed Grey Wooded soils, and in the more humid sections Podsolized Grey Wooded, Brown Podsolic-Grey Wooded, and Brown Podsolic soils have\nbeen found.\nThe range of elevation is between 2,600 and 3,800 feet above sea-level, much of the\nexisting agriculture being between 2,700 and 3,000 feet elevation. There is a small\npioneer farm population partly concentrated in two little irrigated communities, and in\npart spread along the valley on fans, where small acreages can be irrigated handily from\ntributary streams.\nThe range of crops is the one that can be produced in the southern section of the\nGrey Wooded soil zone. These consist of alfalfa, clovers, and other varieties of hay,\ngrain for local use, all hardy vegetables, and small fruits. The climate is particularly\nwell suited for a grass agriculture, to support dairying, beef, and other live stock.\nLittle further farm development can take place until irrigation is established on a\nproject scale, and in this regard there are many possibilities. The potentially irrigable\nland resources and the water-supply in frequent tributary streams could support a comparatively large farm population.\nField work in this area was undertaken between July 5th and October 10th. About\n91,000 acres were checked between Dutch Creek and Edgewater. Classification of well-\ndrained land between Edgewater and Parson amounts to about 95,000 acres, of which\n77,000 acres lie west of Steamboat Mountain. The swamped river-flats between Columbia\nLake and Parson contain 28,000 acres. The soil-survey of the Upper Columbia River\nvalley is about two-thirds completed, with about 233,000 acres classified.\nREPORT OF THE SOIL-SURVEY ACTIVITIES IN THE\nPEACE RIVER DISTRICT, 1952\n(Prepared by L. Farstad, M.S.A., Senior Pedologist, Canada Experimental Farm Service)\nSoil-survey in the Peace River region is conducted as a co-operative project\nwith the Provincial Department of Agriculture and the Experimental Farms Service\nparticipating.\nThe personnel for the 1952 field season included T. M. Lord, H. Payne, and L.\nFarstad, with L. Robbins acting as packer and horse-wrangler.\nJ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 143\nField studies were confined to the east half of the Block, and consisted of checking\nthe existing soil lines, mapping of new areas, and correlation of mapped types along the\nBritish Columbia-Alberta boundary.\nThe completed map-area which is now being prepared for publication extends\nwestward from the interprovincial boundary a distance of approximately 40 miles. The\narea is rectangular in shape and covers approximately 2,500,000 acres.\nSoils\nIn the areas covered by the soil-surveys in the past few years, some good agricultural soils were encountered. The surveys also showed that in many districts problems\nconfront the settlers. Among these are soil erosion, heavy brush clearing, lack of suitable\nwater-supplies, and proper utilization of the soils.\nThe dominant occurring soils have developed under climatic conditions favourable\nto the growth of forest vegetation. Under the conditions favouring woodland vegetation,\nGrey Wooded, Brown Podsolic, and Podsol soils occur on the well-drained positions.\nUnder grass-land and park-land vegetation, extensive areas of Thin Black and Degraded\nBlack soils occur.\nThe Thin Black soils occur mainly in the vicinity of Dawson Creek, Rolla, Fort St.\nJohn, Montney, and Rose Prairie. The dark-grey colour of the surface horizons and the\nrelatively high organic matter and nitrogen contents are evidence of their association with\ngrass-land vegetation. These soils are relatively well supplied with plant nutrients, but\nafter a number of years of continuous cropping, they tend to become deficient in phosphorous. Wheat and coarse grains occupy the greater acreage. Hay-crops and sown\npastures are seldom encountered, in fact live stock and live-stock products contribute\nlittle to the farm income.\nBefore discussing the Grey Wooded and Podsolized Grey Wooded soils, there is a\ntransition zone of Degraded Black soils which must be mentioned. These Degraded\nBlack soils were originally Black, but due to an invasion of grass lands by forests, they\nhave undergone some modification, resulting in a partial loss of fertility. Essentially\nthese soils are in the process of becoming Grey Wooded, but they more closely resemble\nthe Thin Black in agricultural adaptations.\nResearches on the physical and chemical properties of the above-mentioned groups\nhave been reported on in the Agronomists' Conference proceedings and in previous\nannual reports.\nThe Grey Wooded soils are considered zonal and occur on calcareous and saline\nparent materials. The model profile is characterized by a thin A0 overlying a grey to\ngreyish-brown leached A2 horizon. The sub-surface horizons are heavier in texture,\nfairly compact, and have a low non-capillary porosity.\nThe soils of this zone contain the greatest acreage of land available for settlement in\nthe Peace River area. Compared with the Thin Black and Degraded Black, they are\nrelatively unproductive without certain improvement practices. With approved practices,\nthey are equal to and often superior to the Thin Black and Degraded Black groups. The\nmain management problems associated with the cultivation of these soils are primarily\nthe incorporation of organic matter into the relatively unproductive leached surface\nhorizon. This can be done by growing clovers and alfalfa. These crops, in addition to\nfurnishing nitrogen, also increase the non-capillary porosity and aid in restoring favourable\nstructural relationships. Information indicates that phosphorous additions are beneficial\nand farm manures give good results. What combination of treatments will give the best\nresults on the many series in this broad zone has not been determined. This information\nwill prove extremely valuable in the full utilization of this great group of soils.\nThe Podsolized Grey Wooded soils occupy extensive areas in the foot-hills and\nwooded lacustrine plains in the western portion of the Peace River Block. They have CC 144 BRITISH COLUMBIA\ndeveloped mainly on highly calcareous lacustrine and alluvial deposits under mixed\nconifer and deciduous forests.\nGeographically the soils grade into Grey Wooded on one side and Brown Podsolic\nand Podsol on the other side.\nComparing the different soils developed in this broad and ill-defined zone, one finds\na continuous range of profiles representing progressively more mature stages of development. These stages include Brown Wooded, Grey Wooded*, Brown Podsolic, and Podsol\nintergrades. The Brown Wooded group (an immature Grey Wooded) represents the\nleast-developed soil. They are found mainly on relatively recent alluvial deposits, and\nhave, therefore, been subjected to soil weathering for the shortest time.\nA serious menace to the well-being of the Peace River area is soil erosion. Erosion,\nparticularly water, has been observed for many years and has caused greatest damage\non the Thin Black and Degraded Black soils. Soil wash starts at the top of the slopes,\nand, as it progresses, it assumes what is commonly termed the gullying stage. From the\neffects of single heavy rains, many fields have already been divided by gullies so deep and\nwide that farm implements find difficulty in crossing.\nThe reason for the recent increase in erosion is due to the gradual change in soil\nstructure, partly caused by the depletion of organic matter and partly by tillage methods.\nThe damage already done has been mainly confined to sloping lands, particularly lands\nhaving a long, gentle slope.\nAs an immediate means for arresting this development, cultivation should be across\nthe slopes rather than with them. However, a final solution can only be found in restoring to the soil the qualities which were present when it was first cultivated. This can be\ndone by growing legume and grass crops having root systems which gradually build up\nthe fertility and make possible a soil structure having a maximum of moisture absorption.\nSoil-surveys, which are fundamental to land appraisal, land settlement, soil conservation, land utilization, and agronomic and economic investigations, should be extended\ninto the foot-hills region and intermountain valleys of the Peace River. The more\nnortherly areas, such as Fort Nelson, should receive consideration in the near future.\nREPORT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION BRANCH\nWilliam MacGillivray, Director\nThe following staff changes were effected during the year:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nG. W. Hayes, District Agriculturist at Prince George, resigned to enter private\nbusiness. He was succeeded by J. V. Zacharias, formerly assistant to the Superintendent\nof the Experimental Station, Smithers, B.C., and an authority on cereal and forage crop\nproduction.\nJ. L. Gray, District Agriculturist at Kamloops, resigned to become editor of\nButterfat, the official publication of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Association. His\nduties at Kamloops were undertaken by U. J. G. Guichon, who transferred from the\nLive Stock Branch of this Department. Mr. Guichon's practical background in the\nbeef-cattle industry fits him admirably for the responsibilities of the Kamloops office.\nJohn Caplette, District Agriculturist at Vernon, resigned to enter private business.\nR. L. Wilkinson, District Agriculturist at Courtenay, resigned late in the year to\nmanage the Oyster River Farm, near Campbell River, V.I.\nR. S. Berry, District Agriculturist at Chilliwack, was transferred to Vernon. George\nCruickshank, District Agriculturist at Abbotsford, is now in charge of the Chilliwack\ndistrict.\n* Analagous to the Brown Forest great soil group occurring in Eastern Canada. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 145\nFrank Martin was appointed to the Abbotsford office. J. C. Ryder and P. E. Ewert\nwere established as Assistants at Victoria and at Kamloops respectively.\nNo appointment has yet been made at Courtenay. T. S. Crack, Associate Agriculturist, is in charge of the office meantime.\nJ. R. Caverhill resigned from the Extension Agricultural Engineering Division staff\nbut later returned to assume the position of Assistant Director of Land-clearing.\nMr. Langston's temporary appointment in Agricultural Engineering terminated\nwhen he obtained a more suitable position.\nA. D. McMechan, B.E.(Agr.), joined the Extension Agricultural Engineering\nDivision in May.\nSeveral changes in the clerical staff are indicated in the report of the Deputy Minister.\nIndividual reports prepared by Supervising Agriculturists, the Supervisor of 4-H\nClubs, the Extension Agricultural Engineer, the Assistant Director of Land-clearing, and\nthe Farm Labour Service are submitted herewith. Each District Agriculturist has, in\naddition, prepared a very comprehensive report of his activities during the past year.\nThese contain, in detail, agricultural and statistical information of a highly valuable nature.\nThey are on file in this office for reference at all times.\nMuch information, dealing particularly with live stock and with field crops and\nfertilizers, has been deleted from the reports submitted by Supervising Agriculturists and\nDistrict Agriculturists. It was felt that this would be covered in detail by the Branch\nCommissioners concerned. Full credit will no doubt be given to the District Agriculturists whose co-operation was afforded these and other Branches of the Department.\nA careful perusal of the various reports embodied here will indicate the wide and\ndiversified range of services expected from and rendered by the personnel of this Branch.\nEach year, since its inception in 1947, the Branch has exerted a steadily increasing\ninfluence on the agricultural development of the Province. There is appreciation among\nfarmers generally of the responsible position held by the District Agriculturists. He is\nrecognized as the key man in the field of general agricultural extension, the official to\nwhom farmers and others refer for information on soils, on field-crops, on live stock,\nand on many matters affecting the fife of the rural community he serves.\nThe incursion of thousands of families seeking farms and ranches has brought new\nproblems to the district official. At many points, much of each week is taken up with\nmatters affecting farm selection and land settlement. This use of and confidence in our\nstaff is very encouraging. Contacts established are usually maintained afterwards,\nenabling much useful extension work to be carried out on the most satisfactory basis\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nthe farmer seeking the services of the agriculturist.\nThe year 1952 has been a full one. Each Division has shared in the increased\ndemands for services. Very definitely the emphasis placed for some years on sound\nfarm-management practices, with particular reference to soil improvement and pasture\nand forage crop improvement, is showing positive valuable results. District officials are\nconsulted to an extent not previously evident in all of these phases of agriculture and of\nlive-stock improvement.\nDeclining revenues from agricultural commodities require that nothing be left\nUndone to ensure that a reasonable spread is maintained between these and the costs of\nproduction. More efficient use of land, of labour, of capital, and of equipment is necessary to ensure for the farmer a reasonable standard of living for himself and for his\nfamily and a reasonable profit on his investment of capital, labour, and management.\nThe District Agriculturist will, in very full measure, play a vital role in achieving these\nobjectives. He and those associated with him can contribute materially to a better\nbalanced, more stable, more profitable agriculture.\nWhile industrial expansion continues in British Columbia, there are evidences that\nin some basic industries markets may not be as bright as they were these past few years.\nA steadily increasing population points to greater consumer demand for most farm\ncommodities. CC 146 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nVANCOUVER ISLAND AND FRASER VALLEY REGION\n(Report of J. S. Allin, Supervising Agriculturist)\nSix district offices were maintained, and the agricultural extension work of the region\nwas conducted by eight District Agriculturists, as follows: Duncan, J. D. Hazlette; New\nWestminster, A. E. Donald and D. M. Hamilton; Courtenay, R. L. Wilkinson and T. S.\nCrack; Mission, A. J. Allan; Abbotsford, F. Martin; and Chilliwack, G. Cruickshank.\nThey were assisted in their work by specialists of other Branches of this Department, who\nrendered valuable assistance.\nThe co-operation of officials from the various services of the Canada Department\nof Agriculture is also appreciated. Joint efforts were valuable in the field of experimental\ntest-plots related to field crops and fertilizers, as well as in connection with more general\nproblems dealing with the production of hay and pastures, entomology, soils, etc.\nIt is expected that reports of agricultural production in the region will be contained\nin those submitted by the various Branches concerned. Accordingly, this report will deal\nprimarily with the agricultural extension activities of the District Agriculturists in this\nregion.\nGeneral Conditions Affecting Production\nAll District Agriculturists in the Fraser Valley report a good season for the farmers,\nwith satisfactory growing conditions prevailing throughout the year. These were better\nin the Fraser Valley than on Vancouver Island, where the late spring was followed by\ndrought conditions similar to those of a year ago, more especially in the southern portion\nof the Island.\nIn general, however, the production picture appears to be fairly stable, and well-\nmanaged farms produced substantially good yields. This year can be considered, therefore, as reasonably satisfactory.\nMore detailed information concerning production is briefly outlined for each enterprise.\nLand-clearing\nAlthough a separate report on land-clearing operations under the terms of the\nF.L.C.A.A. will be submitted, it is of interest to note that one unit of land-clearing\nmachinery operated in the district served by the Courtenay office. Most of the work in\nthis connection has been conducted by Mr. Crack, who reports that for the year 118\ncontracts were signed, with clearing-work completed on 472 acres at a total cost to the\nfarmer of $38,084.\nThe activities of Mr. Crack on matters pertaining to the operation of Government\nland-clearing equipment represent a large number of farm visits and detailed administration, all of which consumed the major portion of his time.\nDairying and Dairy Cattle\nSituation\nAll reports indicate that milk production in the Fraser Valley was better than average\nand was satisfactorily maintained throughout the season. This resulted from better-than-\naverage pasture conditions during the summer months and from the fact that grazing\ncontinued until the end of November. There has been a gradual build-up of dairy stock\nin anticipation of the opening of the United States border.\nThe situation was slightly different on Vancouver Island, which imports from 20 to\n25 per cent of its milk requirements from the Fraser Valley. Mr. Hazlette, District Agriculturist at Duncan, states that milk production in that district declined somewhat and\nthat fluid-milk sales also decreased. The District Agriculturist at Courtenay reports that\nwith the establishment of two milk-control areas in the district the dairy industry has DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 147\nbecome more stabilized. The population in this whole area is increasing with a resulting\ndemand for fluid milk and milk products. Consequently, there is a greater number of\ndairy cows being kept, and we can expect an increase in the production of fluid milk to\nmeet the heavier market demands.\nThe general trend throughout the region during the past few years of replacing dairy\ncattle with beef stock is not noticeable at the present time and appears to have become\nstabilized.\nExtension Activities\nDistrict Agriculturists have assisted with dairy-cattle placements and have attempted\nto give dairy farmers the latest information on such topics as the production of hay,\npasture, and silage; breeding and feeding; efficiency or cost of production, etc.\nEighteen field-days were attended, and the District Agriculturist in many cases took\nan active part in arranging and presenting the material for these events.\nA series of fifteen panel discussions was arranged by the District Agriculturists on\nVancouver Island for the benefit of the dairymen concerned. The topics for these discussions included the production of hay, pasture, and silage, the pounds of butter-fat\npossible per acre, grass-land farming, crop rotations for the dairy farmer, etc. These\nshort courses have proven to be of great value as a means of conducting extension work,\nwith the farmer being the principal beneficiary.\nHay, Pasture, and Silage\nSituation\nA better-than-average crop of hay was obtained this year, and pastures in the Fraser\nValley yielded exceptionally well. A late spring, with resulting slow growth, accentuated\nmany plant-food deficiencies. The second cut of hay was above average yield and the\nhay-crop in general of good quality.\nMore silage is being produced. The utilization of grasses and legumes for silage is\nincreasing, with heavy tonnages stored this year.\nOn South Vancouver Island, good supplies of hay were obtained. Drought conditions and deterioration of pastures made dry feeding necessary. Supplies of hay are, as a\nresult, barely adequate for winter-feed requirements.\nExtension Activities\nIn many districts, extension work dealing with hay, pasture, and silage production constitutes the major portion of the District Agriculturists' activities. In an attempt\nto encourage increased production and net returns, the District Agriculturists in every part\nof the region, co-operating with the Experimental Farm Service, the Field Crops Branch,\nand the farmers, have laid out demonstration-plots or test-plots.\nAbout twenty-two farmers co-operated in this test-demonstration work. In most\ncases, the objectives were to demonstrate what can be accomplished by the use of proper\napplications of fertilizers.\nA total of 166 plots made up this phase of extension activity, most of which were\nclipped twice, and comparative yields and costs obtained and distributed to the farmer.\nTwo short courses were conducted dealing with the management and feeding of\ngrasses and legumes and their place in the farm programme.\nSeed Production\nSituation\nSeveral offices report increased interest in seed production, particularly from legumes\nand grasses. The report of Mr. Cruickshank, District Agriculturist in Chilliwack, indi- CC 148 BRITISH COLUMBIA\ncates that a heavy crop of red clover seed was harvested this year and that good seed-crops\nof Ladino and White Dutch clover were obtained. Mr. Donald, District Agriculturist,\nreports similarly in the area served by the New Westminster office.\n4-H Clubs\nSituation\nThese require a large part of the time and effort of each District Agriculturist. They\nprobably receive more than a fair share of the extension workers' time, but this is justified\nin view of the importance of 4-H Club work to the community and as an extension\nmethod.\nIn addition to the recognized projects, many 4-H Clubs include as part of their programme such additional activities as public speaking and forage-plant collections. This\nlatter is a continuation of the collection of weed specimens carried on the previous year\nby one of the 4-H Clubs in the Duncan district.\nFive judging teams from this region represented this Province at the National 4-H\nJudging Competition held at Toronto. This meant additional work for those District\nAgriculturists concerned, since special events were arranged for the team members in\norder to provide them with essential experience and instruction.\nThere were eighty-three 4-H Clubs organized which successfully conducted activities\nduring the season. This represented 883 members in all projects combined.\nThe following indicates the projects carried on by 4-H Clubs in the region and the\npercentage of clubs conducting the various projects:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nProject Percentage of Clubs\nDairy 67.5\nPoultry : 7.2\nGarden 6.0\nSwine 6.0\nClothing 3.6\nPotato 3.6\nTractor 2.4\nMiscellaneous 2.4\nElectrical 1.2\nExtension Activities\nAs an indication of the amount of work required from District Agriculturists in conducting and supervising the 4-H Club programmes in the region, there were at least\n150 meetings attended, 587 inspections made, and 59 field-days and demonstrations\narranged or attended. In many cases, this means that the District Agriculturists spent\nmore time on 4-H Club work than on any other extension activity.\nAgricultural Engineering\nSituation\nThere is a definite trend towards mechanization and an increase in the number of\nmachines kept on farms. The increase in the number of forage-crop harvesters for the\nproduction of hay and silage has been noticeable.\nThere have not been many new irrigation systems installed during the year, partly\nbecause of favourable weather conditions in the Fraser Valley.\nA very serious situation exists in many districts, both on Vancouver Island and the\nFraser Valley, with respect to water-supplies. At several points throughout the region,\nwater was not available in many cases even for domestic or stock use, except by hauling,\nmuch less for irrigation. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 149\nExtension Activities\nAt least nine field-days were conducted to give the farmer the opportunity of discussing his problems of agricultural engineering or farm machinery with the Extension\nAgricultural Engineers. These field-days were arranged locally through the District\nAgriculturist.\nIn addition to the organized field-days, frequent farm visits were made. Individual\nproblems concerning irrigation, drainage, buildings, and dugouts were discussed in an\nattempt to arrive at satisfactory solutions. In most cases, the District Agriculturist was\nassisted by a representative of the Extension Agricultural Engineering Division.\nEntomology\nThe major items of concern were damage done to crops by cutworms, sod web-\nworms, and aphids. These pests were under observation by Provincial and Federal\nspecialists. In the Langley-Abbotsford area, aphids on oats caused no serious crop-\ndamage but control measures were carried out on 551 acres using T.E.P.P. sprayed from\nthe air.\nSheep\nThe number of sheep remains approximately constant, although all districts report\nan increased interest in sheep production. In addition, the Duncan office reports a\nnumber of registered sheep imported to establish new flocks.\nSwine\nThe upswing in swine population a year ago has not been maintained. As a result\nof unsatisfactory prices, cost of production, etc., swine production appears less attractive\nto farmers, and at the present time many districts report very little hog-raising.\nSoils and Fertilizers\nSituation\nFarmers are definitely more conscious of the value of fertilizer and soil amendments.\nThis is reflected in greater sales of fertilizers in many districts.\nNot only are farmers more conscious of using fertilizers but they possess greater\nknowledge and exercise greater care in selection and proper application.\nExtension Activities\nAs mentioned earlier under Hay, Pasture, and Silage, demonstration and test plots\nwere laid down in every district to observe fertilizer response. In addition, experimental\nplots have been conducted and the results reported jointly by the Field Crops Branch\nand by the Experimental Farm Service.\nThe farmer's growing consciousness of the proper use of fertilizers and of the plant\nnutrients in his particular soil is, in a large measure, a result of a soil familiarization or\ntesting programme which the District Agriculturists, in co-operation with the Field Crops\nBranch, have conducted during the past four years.\nThree hundred and seventy soil samples were taken for analysis, and, in practically\nall cases, the District Agriculturist revisited the farmer concerned and discussed with him\nthe recommendations regarding the use of fertilizers and good soil management.\nPoultry\nIn the Fraser Valley, more particularly in the Abbotsford district, a series of four\nlectures was arranged dealing with egg and poultry production. These short courses\nincluded addresses by competent authorities from the Poultry Branch of this Department\nand from the University of British Columbia. CC 150 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nROOT-CROPS\nSituation\nAs a general condition, potato-acreage was lower than the previous year. The\nPemberton Valley proved an exception, reporting a considerable increase. Drought\nconditions also generally affected total production figures. Yields were satisfactory in\nthe Fraser Valley but lower than average on Vancouver Island. Quality in all cases\nwas good.\nExtension Activities\nTwo potato field-days were held, each of which was organized by the potato-growers\nconcerned, with the assistance of District Agriculturists and other officials. Attendance\nand interest at these field-days were excellent, and a good deal of value results from these\nparticular events.\nGeneral Extension\nTwo regional meetings were held during the year. The first, in January, was\narranged to provide an opportunity for the District Agriculturists to present their plans\nand extension programmes for 1952. The second, in October, was primarily devoted\nto a discussion of extension principles and methods and an evaluation of some of the\nmethods most commonly employed during the current year's extension work. This\nregional meeting proved to be of unexpected value, judging from the remarks of those\nparticipating and by their subsequent activities in the field. Extension programmes for\n1953 were also discussed.\nPress releases, circular letters, tours and field-days (five stock, field crops, and 4-H),\nfarm visits, distribution of publications, visual aids, meetings, and short courses were all\nused during the year by the District Agriculturists as means and methods of conducting\nextension work.\nAs an indication of extension work performed and not as a measure of effectiveness,\nthe following is a statistical guide: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFarm visits made 2,722\nOffice visitors _ 4,134\nPublications distributed 11,151\nInspections of 4-H projects 617\n4-H field-days and demonstrations attended 59\n4-H meetings held 167\nSoil samples taken and recommendations made 410\nGeneral meetings attended 166 department of agriculture, 1952\nDivision of Office Visits by Subject\nCC 151 CC 152\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nDivision of Farm Visits by Subject\n/ \ Crops / \\n/Livestock \ / \\n/ & \ / Soils \\n/\u00E2\u0080\u00A2^Dairying \ / & \\n/ ~^\^ \ / Fertility \\nPoultry ^^-\^^ \ /\nHorticulture ^x*/ \\nl ^^ / \ Miscellaneous /\n\^^g- / 4-H \ /\n^Engineering / Clubs \ /\nKAMLOOPS, NICOLA, OKANAGAN, SHUSWAP, AND\nCARIBOO REGION\n(Report of G. A. Luyat, Supervising Agriculturist)\nGrowi\nWeather Conditions\nn_ conditions durine the season of 1952 were ideal over the area\ngenerallv.\nSummer temperatures, while not too extreme, coupled with an average number of hours\nof sunlight, provided optimum growth in all crops. During the spring months, however,\nthere was a period of inactivity because of cooler-than-usual conditions. The total rainfall occurred during this period and left the remainder of the season with a complete\nabsence of any moisture. The last killing frost of May 8th shocked the early growth\nbadly for a short period, especially the heat-loving crops. This was made up at the end\nof the season by a long, open frost-free fall. A killing frost occurred on October 4th, but\ngrowth of hardier crops continued on to the end of that month.\nBeef Cattle Industry\nGeneral\nTwo major problems confront the cattle industry to-day; namely, markets and\nlabour. The former is becoming more acute, because of the fact that not only have prices\ndropped 30 per cent but production costs have risen markedly. M. J. Walsh, District\nAgriculturist, Williams Lake, states that the greatest ranch expense is the cost of winter DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 153\nfeed. While very substantial progress has been made in reducing this particular cost, there\nis a limit to the capital that can be invested in labour-saving machinery. Possibly, the\nsituation can be improved somewhat by increasing hay yields per acre and by ensiling the\nfirst crop of alfalfa to a greater extent than is now evident.\nExperienced farm and ranch help have been in short supply during the year,\nprimarily because of the higher wages paid in the lumbering industry and in construction\nwork. The situation is being met on some ranches by providing good accommodation\nfor married employees who become key men on these ranches.\nMarketing\nAs a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, the American market was\nclosed to Canada in February, which almost immediately lowered prices and caused heavy\nlosses to the feed-lot men who had paid $30 or more for feeder cattle and had been feeding\n$60-to-$70-per-ton grain. Strikes and forest closures, caused by abnormally dry weather,\nseriously affected purchasing power of consumers and depressed the market further.\nPrices remained fairly constant throughout the season after the first heavy drop.\nHeavy steers, 1,200 pounds and over, sold at $24; medium-weight steers, $19 to $23.50;\nfeeder and stacker steers, $15 to $18.50; heifers, $18.50; heifer cows, $16; calves, $20\nto $23.50. Feeder buyers, after the experience of 1951, were panicky and cautious in\ntheir buying, and, as a result, prices on the lighter end of steers had usually a weaker tone.\nCows were very hard to move at the beginning of the season.\nFour commercial sales were held in this region this year\u00E2\u0080\u0094two at Okanagan Falls\nand two at Williams Lake. The results of these will be shown in the report of the Live\nStock Commissioner.\nA new system of selling was tried at Williams Lake on November 1st and 2nd. Cattle\nwere sold in single-ownership lots, graded before entering the ring and weighed afterwards. No shrink was deducted, but all cattle were held twenty-four hours without feed\nand water. This system proved to be quite successful, judged by the prices received and\nthe general satisfaction displayed by the contributors. The trend as shown by these sales\nis that more and more ranchers are converting to a cow-and-calf basis.\nNutrition and Breeding\nBoth M. J. Walsh, District Agriculturist, Williams Lake, and U. Guichon, District\nAgriculturist, Kamloops, report that feeding of grain supplements is now common practice\non the ranches, especially to weaner calves. Even though grain prices have been extremely\nhigh, this practice has paid off. The improved wintering of replacement heifers as calves\nhas given better and earlier development, thus resulting in an extra calf being produced\nfrom such dams during their production years. Steer calves have been coming over the\nscales as 2-year-olds carrying considerably more weight. Again, indirectly, winter losses\nof calves have been cut to a minimum by reducing the incidence of disease and winter feed-\nlot troubles. Replacement heifers calving for the first time have greater development,\nand, therefore, the loss at parturition is greatly reduced, especially if such heifers have been\nfurther put on a light ration of grain in the winter just prior to calving. This programme\nhas called for considerable extension work on the part of the Kamloops and Williams Lake\noffices and results are forthcoming. Two thousand tons of feed-grains are imported\nannually into the South Cariboo. Figures for the Kamloops and Nicola territories are\nmuch more difficult to compile, but the same trend is taking place. In some cases the\nfeeding of a light supplement in the way of pellets to stretch out the carrying capacity of\nwinter ranges has been practised. The extension service is working on a salt-control ration\nfor this purpose, whereby the daily intake per animal is controlled by the quantity of salt\nin the mixture.\nA marked improvement in the quality of cattle is reported by the two offices. Higher\ncattle prices have made it possible to invest in proportionately better bulls. Perhaps the CC 154\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nmost noticeable improvement has been in the smaller herds. The bull sales held in the\nthe area continue to serve the industry well and have made quite a contribution towards\nimprovement of herds. The Fat Stock Show and Sales have also played their part in this\nregard. A table shows the prices, with a comparison with those of 1951. The Provincial\nBull Sale and Fat Stock Show was held on March 11th, 12th, and 13th. Bull prices and\nfat-cattle values were very favourable. The bull sale at Williams Lake in October, however, was quite draggy.\nBull Sale\nKamloops\nCariboo\nOkanagan\nFalls\n1952\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\n113\n$952.00\n$5,000.00\n$655.00\n$375.00\n235\n$35.45\n$35.82\n$41.60\n122\n$976.00\n$1,850.00\n$623.00\n$987.00\n177\n$36.95\n$36.15\n$38.71\n66\n$582.50\n$1,375.00\n$460.00\n67\n$867.90\n$2,250.00\n$705.00\n6\n$459.16\n$500.00\n$447.50\n\t\nThe bull-loaning policy of the Federal Department of Agriculture Production\nServices has co-operated in placing bulls of better breeding in districts where smaller\noperators formerly did not use services of registered bulls. These have been loaned to\nlive-stock associations at Upper Louis Creek, Barriere, and Vavenby. The first group of\nbulls went to Upper Louis Creek in 1947. The policy was later extended to Barriere and\nVavenby. The extension service was largely responsible for this progressive step in better\nbreeding.\nDairy Industry\nFluid-milk production in the area covered by the Kamloops, Shuswap, and North\nOkanagan offices has increased as a result of a greater demand created by more population\nin the larger towns of the region. In the partially developed areas, U. Guichon reports\nthat lower beef prices have had the effect of causing marginal producers to turn again to\nthe dairy industry. In the North Thompson valley, an area admirably suited to dairying,\na renewed interest in dairy cattle is evident. He further states that the gallonage of fluid\nmilk for the City of Kamloops produced in the vicinity has increased quite sharply. About\n25 per cent is now imported from the Armstrong area. Formerly, dairies imported 40\nper cent of their supply in the summer months and 60 per cent in the winter. In the\nSalmon Arm district, Mr. Muirhead, District Agriculturist, points out that there has been\na slight increase in the cow population, particularly in the Holstein breed. Two truck-\nloads of Holstein-bred heifers and cows from the Coast and eleven head of local Jerseys\nwere placed during the year.\nR. S. Berry, District Agriculturist at Vernon, states that milk production in the North\nOkanagan was very high during the spring, but dropped off sharply throughout the summer because of the dry weather conditions. More and more dairymen are becoming\ninterested in the feeding of silage during these off-months and also many are turning to\nirrigation, as shown by the number of sprinkler systems sold during the season of 1952.\nExtension Methods Used to Improve Production\nArtificial Insemination. \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Insemination units are operating at Kelowna, Vernon,\nArmstrong, and Salmon Arm. Assistance and direction has been given by the District\nAgriculturists of the area to the units to keep them operating. R. S. Berry reports that in DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 155\nsome sections operating difficulties, combined with a low conception rate, have caused\na great many of the member farmers to stop using this service. He is of the opinion\nthat a veterinary specialist should be available to work with problem herds. Mr. Muir-\nhead, on the other hand, reports good success with the new unit at Salmon Arm.\nBangs Disease.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A calfhood vaccination ring has been set up in the Spallumcheen\nMunicipality, which one-third of the dairy herds have already joined. Many others who\nhave not joined are using the regular vaccination programme.\nDairy-calf Shipments.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A further twenty-six head of well-bred heifer calves have\nbeen brought into the Kamloops area to supplement those brought in under the sponsorship of the Department in 1950 and 1951. Some of the calves of 1950 shipments are\nnow coming into production and show much improved yields over native stock.\nDairy Bulls.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Two pure-bred Ayrshire bull calves have been placed by the Kamloops\noffice at Darfield, North Thompson valley. The Production Services of the Federal\nDepartment of Agriculture, in co-operation with the District Agriculturist at Kamloops,\nplaced a Holstein bull at the Veterans' Land Act settlement on the Chase Flats.\nIrrigated Pastures and Silage.\u00E2\u0080\u0094In this region, a \" green pasture \" programme under\nthe sponsorship of S.O.D.I.C.A., and assisted by the District Agriculturists, will be in full\nswing in 1953. The making of silage will be part of this programme, as generally it can\nbe made from the surplus grass in the flush season, material which would otherwise be\npartially wasted. New plans of silo construction and methods of handling of green\nmaterial are being studied by committees in co-operation with the Kamloops Range\nStation. A large representative group of Okanagan dairymen visited the Range Station\nirrigated pastures in August, and all took back with them favourable impressions. Very\ndefinitely some progress can be expected in the greener pastures and silage campaign in\n1953.\nDairy-cattle Housing.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Housing of dairy cattle during the winter months is much\ndiscussed. Most dairymen are favourable to warm closed-in quarters for dairy cows in\nproduction. Temperature of a dairy barn is too often geared to the operator's own\ncomfort and not to that of the cow. The problem of reducing capital costs of buildings\nwhile providing sufficiently comfortable and efficient quarters for dairy cows is receiving\ncareful study.\nSheep\nU. Guichon reports that sheep production continues to be probably the most\nremunerative of all live stock produced in the area, from the standpoint of return to\ncapital invested. Despite lower prices, the sheep industry is still on a good economic\nfooting. Last year, wool sold for an all-time high of $1 per pound. Prices are definitely\nlower this year. In 1951, range permits were issued for sheep from the Kamloops\nGrazing Office for 20,644 head. This compares with 45,673 in 1936, which was an\nall-time high. According to permits issued this year, sheep are still declining slightly\nin numbers. There is ample room for more sheep producers in this district and we in\nthis office make it a practice to encourage sheep production whenever the occasion occurs.\nLambs came off the alpine ranges in very good condition this year. Some flocks\nshipped lambs averaging 100 pounds or better.\nM. J. Walsh reports that in the Cariboo there are only a few farm flocks in the area.\nIt is my opinion that unless the Extension Branch, in conjunction with the Federal\nProduction Services and the Grazing Division of the British Columbia Forest Service, can\ndevelop a joint approach to greater sheep production, this essential and valuable phase\nor our live-stock economy is threatened with extinction. The writer, in February, had the\nopportunity of recommending farm flocks to fruit-growers from Kamloops to Westbank in\na series of twelve meetings. Some flocks were purchased this fall and the establishment\nof others is under consideration.\nJ CC 156 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nSwine and Poultry\nAll offices report a marked decline in the number of breeding sows kept on the\nfarms and ranches, so much so that the swine industry hardly exists, except in the hands\nof cream shippers to clean up the skim-milk. Prices for pork have been very unfavourable, and this condition has been further aggravated by high grain prices.\nThe poultry industry is undergoing the same fate, except for a few good managers\nwho seem to have the \" know-how \" and are operating successfully with large flocks.\nGrain imported from the Prairies, even though assisted by the feed-grain subsidy, is\nexpensive because of all the handling charges marked against it before it reaches the\npoultrymen.\nField Crops\nHay\nAll offices report damage to the first cut of alfalfa during June, except in the Cariboo,\nwhere M. J. Walsh reports it was cut in July at a very advanced stage of growth. In the\nOkanagan, R. S. Berry states that hay shipments have been lighter than usual, but that\nthis surplus will be used up because of summer feeding made necessary by the droughty\npastures. The second cut was heavier than usual and was put up under ideal conditions.\nM. J. Walsh reports that the yields of hay on the natural meadows have been steadily\ndeclining. In seeking a remedy, he has this to say:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Even under ideal growing conditions, such as prevailed this year, hay yields\namounted to only one-half to 1 ton per acre. The writer has succeeded in interesting a\nfew ranchers in experimental fertilizing and better water-control, but the whole subject of\nwild-meadow cultural practices requires investigation and possible experimentation. This\nproblem was dealt with at the recent co-ordinating committee meeting at Kamloops.\"\nThe production of this natural hay is of great economic importance to many of the\nrange areas.\nGrain\nYields of grain have been variable in the North Okanagan. The dry conditions\nprevailing this fall prevented ploughing and seriously reduced the acreage planted. Those\nwho did manage to seed an acreage did not get good germination. A greater quantity of\nbarley than usual was shipped from Armstrong.\nPotatoes\nOne hundred and fifty acres were grown in South Cariboo this year. Yields were\nabout 20 tons to the acre and grading about 80 per cent No. 1. The acreage was slightly\nup in the Kamloops area. Mr. Guichon reports that the bacterial ring-rot outbreak has\nbeen stamped out.\nPastures and Silage\nU. Guichon emphasizes the importance to the beef, dairy, and sheep industry of high-\nproducing irrigated pastures. He draws attention to the excellent work on this matter\nbeing conducted at the Range Experimental Station at Kamloops. He feels that the\nintelligent use of fertilizers and irrigated pastures might well be the salvation of the cattle\nindustry in many sections if a drastic reduction in prices is ever experienced.\nAll district offices in the region are in a position to supply valuable information to\ninterested farmers or ranchers.\nAs a result of extension work done on silage-making, quite a number of small\noperators are building upright or trench silos for the preservation of the first cutting\nof alfalfa, which would otherwise be damaged by weather. Several forage harvesters\nhave been purchased for the purpose. '\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 157\nOn the matter of testing out pasture grasses and clovers, Mr. Muirhead, in Salmon\nArm, found that a mixture of orchard-grass, timothy, alta fescue, and wild white clover\ngave higher yields than any one single grass listed above with white clover. Mr. Guichon\nstates that the fourteen grass rod-row nurseries established in 1950 by Mr. Gray created\na great deal of interest with the farmers. These have demonstrated which of the species\nwere most resistant to drought and winter conditions. They also served as reference for\nidentification purposes to the community.\nSeed\nIt is estimated that between 35 and 40 tons of alfalfa-seed have been harvested in\nthis region this year, showing a slight increase over last year. One hundred and fifty\npounds of registered Hercules orchard-grass seed have been harvested in Salmon Arm.\nSome commercial brome was harvested in the Kelowna area. About 10 to 12 acres of\nGolden Bantam have been grown in the area for seed.\nInsects\nGrasshoppers\nAs forecast by the Entomological Service, grasshoppers were a serious problem in\nthe farming and grass-land areas of the Interior. The report of Mr. Guichon, secretary of\nthe Nicola and Princeton areas, is as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Wherever control areas were in operation, the machinery and organization was\nthere to deal with the problem. The Nicola area's smooth-working organization was\neasily geared to the task of combating many severe infestations. Using aircraft for the\nfirst time on a large scale, many hay-crops were saved, also a great deal of fall and spring\ngrass. Over 12,000 acres in all were sprayed with Aldrin poison at the rate of about\n2Vi ounces per acre and at a cost of $2 per acre treated. The Nicola area is also modernizing its equipment by the purchase of a truck-mounted power sprayer, which will be used\nnext season on outbreaks of up to 50 acres. It is felt that the smaller outbreaks can be\nhandled more economically by this equipment than by using aircraft. Infestations of over\n50 acres can probably be dealt with more economically by use of aircraft. The organization of this work and the study of the various methods to be used took up a great deal of\nthe writer's time as secretary of the Nicola grasshopper-control area.\n\" In the early part of the summer, complaints of grasshopper infestation were\nreceived from the ranching country near Princeton. After investigating the severity of the\noutbreaks, the writer took steps to have the Princeton grasshopper-control area revived,\nand it operated satisfactorily for the remainder of the season. Aircraft, orchard-sprayers,\nand hand pressure pumps were used to spray the pest and many hay-crops were saved.\nIt is safe to say that no appreciable amount of winter cattle-feed was destroyed by grasshoppers in either the Nicola or Princeton grasshopper-control areas in the past season.\nThis was not the case in the Kamloops district. No organized control being ready to deal\nwith the problem, some crops were destroyed in the Monte Creek, Pinantan, Pritchard,\nand Chase Creek areas. Many farmers appealed to this office for assistance, but our\nefforts were confined to giving advice on the most efficient method of dealing with the\nproblem, and the individuals had to save their crops as best they could at their own\nexpense. At the time of writing this report, arrangements made to get the Kamloops\ngrasshopper-control area in operation for next season have been unsuccessful. This\ncontrol committee has been dormant since 1939. All indications are that next season will\nbe a peak year in the grasshopper cycle, and preparations are being made accordingly.\n\" The use of Aldrin as a poison spray for grasshoppers has now replaced the use of\npoison bait almost entirely on the range areas. The writer does not expect that poison\nbait will be used to any extent in this area in the future.\" CC 158\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nM. J. Walsh points out that in the Cariboo the infestation was medium heavy\nthroughout the entire country. Organized control measures were exercised by the Clinton\nand Riske Creek areas, while in unorganized portions ranchers individually sprayed their\nown infestations. It is expected that as the coverage was not by any means adequate, a\nheavy population is anticipated next year. Some land-owners in the Kamloops control\narea attempted to revive the control measures for 1953, but were unsuccessful, facing very\nstiff opposition from two groups of land-owners. Some progress has been made toward\nhaving an area constituted in the Vernon district. In the Penticton-Keremeos districts a\ncontrol area has been thoroughly discussed, but so far no official approaches have been\nmade to organize.\nCutworms\nCutworms were unusually bad in many districts, even causing considerable damage to\nfield crops in the way of young alfalfa and grains. Wireworms are at a point of quite high\npopulation, and damage to roots of seedlings in the late spring was severe.\n4-H Clubs\nIn the beef-cattle project for the National Contest, Bill Patterson and Arthur Jaik,\nof the Lumby Beef Club, represented the Province. The Provincial elimination teams\nfrom this region again travelled by bus to the Pacific National Exhibition. This system\nof travel gave other club members a chance to visit the Pacific National Exhibition by\nfilling the seats not taken by the teams. This movement has been sponsored by the Armstrong 4-H Council, and any deficit occurring has willingly been taken care of by them\nbecause of the benefit derived by the larger number of 4-H members taking part. The\nbeef eliminations were held at the Interior Exhibition at Armstrong this year because of\nmore representative judging classes of beef cattle on display there.\nSplendid progress is being made by 4-H Clubs in the Kamloops and Okanagan Districts, and the work done by the club leaders continues to be of a high calibre. Educational programmes of one kind or another have been kept functioning before these young\npeople, thus promoting the desired enthusiasm. In many instances, the programmes are\ninitiated by the club members themselves, a fact which in itself displays the independence\nthat is steadily growing as a result of training.\n4-H Clubs in the Region and Membership\nKamloops\nVernon\nSalmon Arm\nWilliams Lake\nNo. of\nClubs\nMembership\nNo. of\nClubs\nMembership\nNo. of\nClubs\nMembership\nNo. of\nClubs\nMembership\nBeef \t\n7\n1\n1\n2\n1\n66\n8\n7\n17\n' 17\n3\n5\n2\n5\n1\n1\n33\n51\n23\n48\n7\n9\n1\n1\n1\n15\n1\n1\n10\nPoultry. _ _\t\nSheep \t\nClothing \t\nGarden. \t\nCommunity \t\nTotals \t\n12\n115\n17 171\n1\n3\n15\n2\n10\nThe 4-H public-speaking contest for this region was won by Don Moor, of\nArmstrong.\nLand-clearing\nA unit has been at work at Salmon Arm, and a progress report from G. A. Muirhead\nis as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Land-clearing commenced in this district on June 2nd in the Canoe area. Since\nthat time the machines have travelled to Grindrod to Enderby to Ashton Creek to Trinity\nValley, returned to Salmon Arm, and are now working on the Gleneden Bench. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 159\n\" Land-clearing Data\nNumber of farms cleared on 88\nNumber of acres 541\nTotal cost $29,481.75\nAverage cost per acre $54.50 \"\nRequests for land-clearing and building of dams have been received by the Kamloops office, but while they are fairly big jobs they are badly scattered. Indications from\nheadquarters are that a unit will be sent in to do this work in the spring of 1953. Generally speaking, the lands cleared during the past years have been put to good use.\nFertilizer Investigations\nIn this region the steadily diminishing yields of alfalfa-hay have been a problem of\nsome concern, and it has even gone further than that. It has been very difficult in some\nareas to obtain good catches of alfalfa, where formerly it was a simple procedure. Over\nthe last ten years, considerable work was done with superphosphate applications to alfalfa\nwith very definite beneficial results, but it required very heavy initial applications. Further\ntesting demonstrated that 500 to 600 pounds seemed to be the minimum quantity required\nto give continuous results for a period of three to five years, depending on the demands\nof the particular soil for a renewal. These facts were definitely established, but some\ntrials done by Reg Hall and G. A. Muirhead indicated that simple gypsum applications on\nthe Salmon Arm soils gave the same results as superphosphate, believing that as the residue in the latter is gypsum it was therefore possible that it was this material giving the\nresults and not the P2Ot.- This matter was thoroughly discussed at the co-ordinating\nconference held in October this year, and a programme of research and testing was outlined for 1953 with applications made this fall. Gypsum (calcium sulphate) will be\ntested as such and the elements which make up its formula will be tested singly against\nsuperphosphate, ammonium phosphate (11-48-0) (there being only a minute quantity\nof gypsum in this formula) and pure phosphoric acid. The main objective behind all\nthese trials and testing work is to determine the cheapest form of fertilizer for legumes\non the dry-belt soils of the Interior.\nIn the meantime, all our offices have advocated heavy initial applications of superphosphate, with good results accruing. One ranch last year purchased two carloads of\nsuper and another one carload. From our observations this year and from the opinion\nof the operators, the hay yields were doubled, which gives these ranches a much better\nand greater carrying capacity. Smaller scale operators report the same advance in yields.\nSome modification in the recommendations may be necessary at a later date as a result\nof research.\nIn a potash experiment conducted by G. A. Muirhead in the Salmon Arm district\non potatoes, the question of \" Is potash necessary for potatoes on the soils of the North\nOkanagan? \" was clarified. By adding 193 pounds of potash to 500 pounds of 16-20-0,\nthere was an increase in yield of 6,135 pounds of tubers over that of the 16-20-0 with\nno potash added.\nWeed-control\nControl steps were taken by U. Guichon in the Kamloops area for the hardy perennials,\nsuch as hoary cress and leafy spurge. The University of British Columbia is studying the\ndiffuse knapweed problem at Monte Creek. In the Salmon Arm area it was found that\nC.M.U. at 40 pounds to the acre was more effective in controlling couch-grass than T.P.C.\nat 50 pounds to the acre. It will not be known until next year if the killing power of the\nC.M.U. was great enough to give an outright kill. M. J. Walsh, in the Cariboo, directed\nthe spraying of an acreage of willows and poplars at the 150-Mile Ranch, but complete\nresults will not be known till next year. The Nicola Stock Farms sprayed 700 acres of CC 160 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nwillows in 1951 by aircraft and got an almost complete kill with 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.\nThe cost of this work was about $2.50 per acre.\nFairs, Field-days, and Short Courses\nAll the personnel of this region were engaged during various times of the year in\nholding short courses, field-days, or lecturing at them. All were employed in judging at\nsome fairs during August and September.\nDuring the year, 2,062 visitors were received by the four offices and 1,369 personal\ncalls were made on the farms or ranches. Two hundred and forty-nine farm meetings\nwere attended.\nBOUNDARY AND KOOTENAY DISTRICTS\nG. A. Luyat, Supervising Agriculturist\nGeneral Conditions\nConditions were conducive to good growth in all agricultural crops. The fall of\n1951 was quite wet and, followed by a greater than average snowfall, gave crops a good\nboost in the spring. Late spring and early summer rains were up to the long-time average\nfor the areas. The summer and fall months have been continuously dry and warm with\nno killing fall frosts until October 5th.\nLive Stock\nDairying\nThe dairying industry in the Boundary area from Grand Forks to Creston has\nexpanded to reach the market requirements of the local industrial centres for fluid milk.\nThe returns for this product during the year have been satisfactory and the general outlook\nis promising, providing that a further expansion does not create a surplus. It will be\nnecessary therefore to gear expansion to the growth of local industry and consumer\ndemand. J. F. Carmichael, District Agriculturist at Grand Forks, has been directing his\nefforts toward encouraging sufficient milk production of high quality to supply the local\nmarket and as much as possible of that available in the West Kootenay. He reports,\n\" This has resulted in a continuous steady rise in milk production throughout the year,\nwith four new shippers having set up the necessary buildings and milking herds while two\nmore are in the process of establishment. Previous shippers have also expanded to their\nlimit. A total of fifty-five pure-bred cattle were placed in the district during the year.\nThis progress was accomplished largely by personal interviews with the farmers, but also\nthrough circular letters, discussions at three annual short courses held in Februrary, and at\nthree other meetings held during the year with the producers and management of the local\ndairy plant.\"\nThe West Kootenay area, which extends north from the boundary to Nakusp, west\nto the Cascades, and east to Kootenay Lake, supplies about 96 per cent of its fluid-milk\nrequirements for its large industrial and urban centres. Dairy products make up about\n40 per cent of the value of all commercial agricultural production in this area. H. R.\nAnderson, District Agriculturist for this district, reports that dairying is taking the lead\nover all other live-stock production. Formerly some live-stock producers were swinging\nover to beef production. S. B. Peterson, District Agriculturist at Creston, points out that\na summer surplus does exist in Creston, and that the local co-operative is being encouraged\nto install facilities to handle the excess fluid milk of the 1953 flush season. If stabilization\nof marketing facilities can be brought about successfully, some expansion will occur, as\nindicated by the fact that a carload of dairy stock from the Fraser Valley is being collected\nat this date. Further industrial expansion is anticipated and the Creston office has in\nmind new markets.\nJ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 161\nBeef Cattle\nBeef production is of definite local importance in East Kootenay, where the rainfall\nis scant and the forest-cover generally is sparse and open. J. W. Awmack, District Agriculturist at Cranbrook, reports, \" The beef-cattle producers have met with decreased\nreturns for their product due, in some measure, to the conditions following the outbreak\nof foot-and-mouth disease but also due to the decline in beef prices generally. Decidedly\nlower marketings of cattle of this area have been apparent during the latter part of 1952.\nThis has affected marketings through local dealers more severely than through the organized sales of live-stock associations and co-operatives.\"\nIn 1952 the total marketings of cattle were 2,269 head, as against 2,762 for 1951.\nProbably many of the beef cattle which normally would have been marketed this year\nwere held back, anticipating greater returns in the next year or two. Mr. Awmack makes\nthis comment about the trends in the kind of cattle being offered for sale: \u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" The following figures for the Elko sale indicate the change in classes of live stock\nbeing marketed. The swing toward the marketing of calves rather than yearling and\n2-year-old steers is quite marked. The drop in numbers of cows and heifers marketed\nreflects the rebuilding and increasing of herds:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nYear\nTotal\nNumber\nCows\nHeifers\nSteers\nCalves\n1952 \t\n1951 .\t\n1950 _ \t\n1949 \t\n536\n553\n558\n780\nPer Cent\n1.9\n15.5\n26.3\n24.4\nPer Cent\n6.9\n5.0\n10.9\n15.5\nPer Cent\n38.4\n40.0\n34.2\n33.0\nPer Cent\n42.1\n37.0\n26.7\n20.7 \"\nImprovement in the breeding of herds is reported by Mr. Awmack to be quite\ngeneral over the area. However, the embargoes cut off this year the normal supply of\nbulls from Alberta. This has resulted in the holding in service some of the older bulls\nand some reduction in the number of bulls on the range. Live-stock improvement has\nbeen effected through farm visits in connection with management and placing of sires,\nalso through live-stock associations such as the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association, the\nbull-control areas, and grazing associations. Eight pure-bred bulls, in addition to the\npurchase of one by the Grasmere Association and by the Waldo Association, were placed\nthrough the medium of the Cranbrook office. Seven registered Hereford herds in the area\nhave largely supplied the requirements of the district this year and of the types most\ndesirable for this part of the country. On the matter of bull-control areas, Mr. Awmack\nreports as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Four bull-control areas are established in the district. These are: Columbia, Sand\nCreek, Waldo, and Newgate-Grasmere. These bull-control areas are all operating\nsmoothly and are serving a useful purpose. Their work has been supplemented in some\ncases by the setting up of grazing associations, which are able to supply additional services\nto the ranchers of the area. Two of these grazing associations now own one or more bulls.\nTwo other associations are expected to purchase bulls within the next year or two.\nOwnership by these associations has made it possible to raise the standard of bulls running\nat large in the control area. These grazing associations work in very close liaison with\nthe district office in Cranbrook.\"\nOn matters pertaining to the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association and the Elko\nAnnual Sale, Mr. Awmack makes this comment on their value and contribution to the\ncommunity:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Two meetings of the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association were attended this year.\nThis organization continues to hold a very important place in the live-stock industry of\nthe southern part of the valley. Almost all ranchers within its area are members.\n6 CC 162 BRITISH COLUMBIA\n\" The Elko sale, sponsored by the Waldo Stock Breeders' Association, continues to\nguarantee to the ranchers the current market price for their live stock. In addition, it has\nproved to be a valuable demonstration to ranchers of the value of producing better quality\nlive stock.\"\nSwine and Poultry\nSwine members in the Kootenays have declined over the past few years, principally\nbecause imported grains have been high in price and pork prices low. Again due to the\nvery narrow margin of profit, poultry flocks have not increased. However, a good market\nfor eggs does exist in the West Kootenay, but the high price of grains makes poultry operations impossible, except for large flocks with first-class managers.\nSheep\nThe offices of the Boundary country have encouraged more farm sheep flocks with\nsome success. Flocks have increased in the East Kootenay and Upper Columbia valley,\nbut this expansion is developing at a very slow pace because of the presence of predators.\nSome difficulty is experienced in getting flocks clipped, the small number not warranting\nprofessional shearers to come into the area to do the job. A few pure-bred rams have\nbeen placed during the fall of 1952.\nField Crops\nHay and Pasture\nMuch time on the part of the district offices is demanded for information concerning\nsuitable hay and pasture mixes and fertilizers for such crops. In the East Kootenay,\nJ. W. Awmack states that nineteen field balers were in use this year as compared with two\nin 1948. The scarcity of farm labour has caused this somewhat heavy investment in\nharvesting machinery. In the Creston area the extension work has centered on grass-land\nfarming with mixes which will given maximum grazing results and yet during the lush\nperiod can be cut for hay or silage. Most new seedings of alfalfa, according to S. B.\nPeterson, incorporate brome or orchard grass, and are followed with exceptionally good\nresults. Bird's-foot trefoil, combined as a mixture with orchard-grass, has come to the\nfront. There are now 20 acres of this mixture, which appears the best combination for\nLister conditions. This plant seems to be indigenous to the East Kootenay, as the writer\nhad the occasion to see quite frequent stands of a native type of trefoil in the Fernie area.\nA 27-acre pasture in the Creston area yielded 29 tons of green weight per acre with\none irrigation in July and an application of 190 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre.\nMr. Peterson reports one year's results from an upland irrigated pasture laid down on\nhis recommendation and the management of which has received close observation. It was\nestimated that this 3-acre pasture received 16 inches of water in seven applications. Some\n712.18 pounds of butter-fat were produced per acre, and it was estimated, after certain\nessential deductions, this had a value of $661.04 per acre. Further information will be\navailable in 1953.\nOn the Creston Reclamation Area, a 27-acre pasture, again established and managed\nunder supervision of the district office, produced 16,624.2 pounds of beef or 615 pounds\nper acre. Further studies are contemplated and should, in the next few years, provide\nvaluable statistical information of a thoroughly practical nature.\nIn the Cranbrook area, Mr. Awmack records that a pasture of native blue-grass and\nwhite clover under irrigation served to demonstrate what production might be expected\nunder a well-seeded, irrigated, and fertilized pasture programme. In the Nelson area,\nH. R. Anderson, D.A. there, tested 200 pounds each of 16-0-0, 0-20-0, and 16-20-10\non mixed hay in two locations. The response was equal for the 16-20-0 and 16-20-10.\nOf the singles, nitrogen alone gave a better response than superphosphate, but in the latter DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 163\nplots the increase of clover was very marked. Potash did not give a response on mixed\nhays. In the Grand Forks area, Mr. Carmichael, on a stand which varied from alfalfa to\na mixture of grasses and clover, used 33-0-0 at 100-pound and 200-pound rates, 16-20-0\nat 200 pounds, and 8-10-5 at 200- and 400-pound rates. In summing up his results, all\ntreatments increased the yields by 50 per cent, but the 400 pounds of 8-10-5 gave a\n100-per-cent increase over the check-plots.\nForage-crop Seeds\nIn Grand Forks, 24 acres of Lasalle red clover have been sown by three farmers on\nirrigated farms this year under contract with the Dominion Department of Agriculture for\nelite seed production next year.\nIn the Camp Lister area, at Creston particularly, good results were achieved. The\nfollowing acreages and yields were secured:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Pounds per Acre\n18 acres of red clover 550\n36 acres of alfalfa 450\n1 acre of creeping red fescue 600\n10 acres of orchard-grass _. 150\nIn the Cranbrook area, 7 acres of orchard-grass gave a yield of 125 pounds of seed\nper acre, which J. W. Awmack claims could be boosted to over 200 pounds per acre with\nfertilizer and management suited to local conditions. Fourteen hundred pounds of\ncanning-peas were grown in the Windermere district. Two acres were sown to Ladak\nalfalfa for seed production in 1953. One field of 15 acres of Grimm alfalfa yielded 100\npounds to the acre. Under the Cranbrook office, a special field day was held in connection\nwith harvesting forage-seed crops. Twenty-one potential growers attended and nineteen\nfarms were visited.\nPotatoes\nThis is a crop of economic importance both in the East Kootenay and Grand Forks\nby virtue of the production and the reputation for certified seed which has been established.\nFive hundred acres Were grown in Grand Forks, showing an increase of 25 per cent over\n1951. Three hundred and one acres of Netted Gems and 15 acres of Warba passed\ninspection. The average yields were about 75 per cent of that of last year, running 15\ntons to the acre. Most of this seed is exported to the State of Washington.\nIn the East Kootenay, because of the uncertainty in returns from the production of\nseed-potatoes resulting from the difficulty in marketing seed in 1950, many growers turned\nto commercials or to the production of forage-crop seeds. The following table shows the\ndrop in certified-seed production from 1950:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nVariety\nNetted Gem\t\nColumbia Russet\t\nWhite Rose \t\nWarba\t\nEarly Epicure\t\nOthers \t\n1950\n1952\n(Acres)\n(Acres)\n113.25\n73.0\n22.35\n2.0\n8.35\n5.0\n8.85\n12.0\n.10\n0.2\n2.0\nVery important fertilizer trials on potatoes were again conducted by J. F. Carmichael\nfor the fifth consecutive year. The fertilizer recommendations produced by these trials\nhave almost become a law with growers of the area. He feels that the growers who\nfavored 8-10-5 formerly may switch to 10-20-10 with its formulation almost the same\nonly in more concentrated form, although the split application of potash in the fall and\n16-20-0 at time of planting may be favoured. CC 164 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nCereals\nAverage yields per acre of cereals in the Bridesville-Rock Creek areas were 25\nbushels for wheat, 35 for barley, and 40 for oats. The trend toward fall wheat and spring\nbarley and away from spring wheat and oats continues. However, this fall was so dry\nthat it made seedings almost impossible, except in the higher regions where moisture was\navailable. In the Grand Forks area the trend is more towards alfalfa, mixed hays, and\npastures under irrigation. In the Creston area, yields of grain have been dropping. There\nis a tendency to rotating more with pasture, hay, and seeds such as peas and beans. S. B.\nPeterson states that the principal problems in a soil-conservation programme for Creston\nconsist chiefly of the lack of flood-control on the reclamation which hinders a grass-land\nfarming programme, and the lack of irrigation-water which would permit an increase in\ncrop rotation and pasture land on the upland areas.\nIn the Rock Creek area, rod row cereal varietal trials and fertilizer tests were conducted by J. F. Carmichael. Spraying with 2,4-D was done to demonstrate weed-controls\nin grain. Rod row nursery plots of grasses and legumes were sown on cultivated dry land\nat Rock Creek, and seventeen grasses were sown in rod rows at Bridesville. The objective\nis to increase the interest in forage-crops to take the place of cereals.\nWeeds\nHoary cress, field bindweed, leafy spurge, and diffuse knapweed are the problem\nweeds in the Grand Forks area. Four leafy spurge areas have been discovered in the\nUpper East Kootenay. Low thistle presents a perennial problem in the whole Columbia\nvalley. In the reclamation flats, S. B. Peterson records some observations and methods of\nweed-control:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" 1. Approximately 75 to 80 acres of field peas were treated with I.P.C. at 8 pounds\nper acre, and good success in controlling wild oats was noted. Experimental data collected\nindicated approximately 75-per-cent wild oat control when applied as pre-emergence.\n\" 2. Sinox, used at 2 quarts per acre, gave good control of broad-leaved weeds\nin alfalfa. Sinox was applied as soon as weeds showed vigorous growth. This is an\nimportant feature in new stands of alfalfa, which are usually weedy.\n\" 3. The programme of conducting seed inspection of all seed intended for Duck\nLake area was continued, and good co-operation was secured from the land-owners. The\npurpose of this work intended to prevent the introduction of noxious weeds until such\ntime as the district became organized as a dyking district and would administer their\nown area.\"\n4-H Clubs\nTwo dairy clubs are maintained in the Creston area. From the Nelson office, three\ncalf clubs and one potato club are supervised. The Cranbrook office reports potato,\ngarden, and sewing clubs in the district. From the Grand Forks office, three beef calf\nclubs are in operation, two at Rock Creek and Bridesville and one at Okanagan Falls.\nThe latter club sold their calves at the Okanagan Falls sale held on September 10th. The\nother two clubs will be entered in the Christmas Sale and Fat Stock Show at Kamloops\non December 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. This marks their first entry in this show and sale. The\n4-H projects in this region have helped greatly the development of youth, and the effect\nhas been far reaching on the communities as a whole. It seems regrettable, because of\ndistance in sparsely settled districts where there are not enough members to form the\nnucleus of a club, that good club material too often should be passed up in the outlying\nparts of the Kootenays.\nFairs, Field-days, and Short Courses\nEach office in this region has had its full share of agricultural gatherings in one form\nor another, and from each went the message of better farming to the farm visitors at these\nfunctions. Good extension has been practised through this medium. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 165\nDuring the year the four offices of the region received 1,391 office visits; 1,848 farm\ncalls were made; and 147 meetings were attended or held. It is of significance to observe\nthat the office visits are increasing and that it denotes confidence in the officials and the\nservice.\nCENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA, NORTH CARIBOO, AND\nPEACE RIVER REGION\n(S. G. Preston, Supervising Agriculturist)\nAgricultural production in Central British Columbia and the Peace River was generally above normal, but prices for farm products lower than for several years.\nLocal incidence of rain in May and June determined the yield of hay or forage seed\ncrops. In all areas, however, there was ample moisture for good to bumper cereal-crops.\nReturns to dairymen showed some improvement in the Peace River, but uncertain\nconditions persist in the Cariboo, Prince George, McBride, and Nechako valley. In the\nBulkley valley, dairying shows a slow but healthy and stable increase.\nIn general extension services, the District Agriculturist stationed at Fort St. John\nfinds in his relatively pioneer area of the Peace River that farm calls are his most effective\nmeans of reaching the farmer and dealing with his problems. In the area south of the\nPeace, with the larger population and older settled areas, a good many of the farmers\nseek the advice of the District Agriculturist in his office, and in this way the maximum\nnumber of direct contacts can be made.\nIn the Quesnel, Prince George, and Smithers districts, land-clearing operations have\ntaken up the greater part of the time of District Agriculturists. Nevertheless, calls on\nland-clearing business constitute valuable farm contacts, and the officials concerned never\nmiss an opportunity to discuss farm operation.\nMr. Pelter, at Vanderhoof, has given valuable assistance in other areas this year, as\nrequired, and in addition has directed a great deal of effort and thought into publicizing\nthe absolute necessity for a mixed-farming economy in the Vanderhoof district.\nThe Prince George office, because of its location in a rapidly expanding area, has\nbeen a source of information not only on matters affecting agriculture in the immediate\ndistrict but for all of British Columbia north of the Cariboo. As a consequence, it has\nbeen almost a necessity for either Mr. Zacharias or the writer to be present whenever the\noffice is open, particularly during the months of spring and summer.\nLand-clearing operations at Quesnel, Prince George, and the Bulkley valley, and\nbreaking in the Prince George area, got under way in May. Weather conditions were\nthe most favourable in years, and this factor, coupled with experienced foremen and\noperators, shows a considerable improvement in the quality of work and added value for\nthe farmer's dollar.\nField Crops\nWeather records indicate average or greater precipitation for the twelve months\nended October 31st. As the above-average snowfall, however, accounts for approximately half, the moisture throughout the growing season was generally no more than\nadequate. Higher-than-normal mean temperatures for Central British Columbia were\ndetermined by a mild winter rather than by the warm growing season.\nThe months of April and May were very dry, except in the North Cariboo. There\nwas sufficient rain in June, however, in most areas, except Prince George, for fair to high\nyields of hay-crops. In areas of good forage-crop growth, small-seed production was\nsatisfactory.\nAdequate early June rains resulted in above-average grain-crops. Some frost-\ndamage in the lower areas of the Peace River reduced yields locally. (See Table 1 for\ncereal and forage crop production.) CC 166\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nFarmers in the Prince George area are for the first time concerned with marketing a\nsurplus of oats. While the over-all production is not too high, it is encouraging to note\nthat there is now sufficient acreage under cultivation to produce a surplus. It is only\nwhen such conditions arrive that there is an opportunity to encourage diversification of\nagriculture and develop markets either for the original product or the live stock to which\nit is fed.\nWeed problems continue most acute in the Peace River area, with wild oats now one\nof the major problems. Except in areas where infestations of this weed is excessive, the\nproblem would appear to be one of farming methods rather than direct eradication. No\nchemical spray is economically effective against wild oats, and a grain-farming economy\ntends to aggravate the incidence of this weed. Intelligent use of weedicides should practically eliminate, over a period of time, such weeds as the mustards and stink-weed.\nA combination of weedicides and sound farming methods will control such pests as\nCanada thistle and sow-thistle.\nTable 1.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Crop Production,\nCentral British Columbia and British Columbia Peace River\nArea\nSpring\nWheat\nFall\nWheat\nOats\nBarley\nRye\nAlfalfa\nBu.\n1,600,000\n30,000\n3,500\n8,000\n7,500\nBu.\nBu.\n2,250,000\n160,000\n85,000\n70,000\n20,000\nBu.\n1,750,000\n45,000\n6,000\n5,000\n4,000\nBu.\n32,300\nLb.\n1,200,000\n2,000\n5,000\n12,850\n4,000\nBulkley Valley \u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n100\nArea\nAlsike\nClover\nRed\nClover\nTimothy\nMix\nSweet\nClover\nCrRePin8 Brome-\nF^scue \u00C2\u00ABrass\nLb.\n150,000\n222,000\nLb.\n150,000\n4,000\n25,000\n1,000\nLb.\nLb. | Lb. Lb.\n1.000 000 300 000 I 200.000\n50,000\n100,000\n4,500\n\t\n1\nBulkley Valley \t\n1,000 |\nNechako Valley and Lake District\t\n22,000\n10,000\nNorth Cariboo.\t\n1,000 ]\nMiscellaneous.-\u00E2\u0080\u0094Flax, 85,000 bushels (Peace River).\nWhile dandelions have always been considered \" susceptible \" to modern weedicides,\nin Central British Columbia and the Peace River this is not necessarily the case. It\nwould appear that there is room for study on the control of this weed, particularly in areas\nwhere regular cultivation is either impractical or undesirable.\nThe use of commercial fertilizer is becoming a \" must\" on many farms, especially\nfor cereal-crops. There is no question of this necessity in Central British Columbia. In\nthe Peace River, futher study is essential to determine both the soil types where fertilizer\nis most needed, the crops which give the best response, and the fertilizer adapted for each.\nGreatly increased sales of fertilizer have been noted at Prince George and Quesnel\nand significant increases in other areas of Central British Columbia.\nLIVE STOCK\nDairying\nMarkets directly affect the growth of dairying. The more or less stable sales locally\nand in Prince Rupert for whole milk produced in the Bulkley valley has built up a small\nbut healthy dairy business that will keep on increasing. The improved prices for whole\nmilk in the Peace River area south of the river are already having their effect on production. On the other side of the picture, the uncertain demand, grade, and prices for whole DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 167\nmilk in the Prince George and Quesnel areas have left dairying in those areas in a very\nunsatisfactory status.\nThe Giscome Farms up-to-date dairy recently built at Giscome promises to be one\nof the most modern dairy premises on the North American Continent.\nIn the Prince George area, of the 7,000 pounds of whole milk distributed daily\napproximately half is produced between McBride and Vanderhoof and the remainder\nbrought in from Fraser Valley or Edmonton. That brought in is reconstituted, either by\nrepasteurization or compounded from powdered skim-milk and sweet cream.\nIn the Quesnel area, with Wells, Barkerville, and Williams Lake to service, the\ndistribution is similar. The business is divided between the Northern Dairies and Co-op.\nat Quesnel and a local dairy at Williams Lake.\nThe Alberta Dairy Pool at Dawson Creek handles approximately 5,000 pounds of\nlocal milk daily and brings in an average of 800 pounds from Edmonton. Both production and imports have shown a considerable increase in the past year.\nMilk producers in the Bulkley valley, besides supplying local requirements, ship some\n3,800 pounds daily to Prince Rupert. This is close to a 10-per-cent increase over 1951\nfigures and is very gratifying in that most of this milk is produced close to certified\nstandards in order to keep during the long shipment to Prince Rupert.\nBeef\nThere is little change in the beef-cattle picture over the past year. District Agriculturists Johnson and Brown note a tendency to some reduction in beef herds due to lowering\nprices. Beef-raisers in the Cariboo hold a more optimistic point of view, and while not\nexpanding their herds at present are confident that there will be an upward trend soon in\nbeef prices. No return to the high prices of a year ago, however, are expected.\nMr. Tarves has reported fully on the cattle sale at Quesnel. A comparison of prices\nshows good steers selling for approximately $100 per head less than in 1951 and other\ngrades accordingly. The bull sale was slow, obviously due to lower prices received\nfor beef.\nIn the area from Prince George and McBride to Smithers, small herds of beef cattle\nare being carried, and it is apparent that there is an over-all improvement in quality during\nthe past few years.\nSwine\nIt is doubtful if it is profitable to raise hogs under present prices, with the possible\nexception of the Peace River. Cheap sources of feed-grain are essential and only in the\nlatter area is this available.\nPoultry\nSome increase in poultry production should be noticeable in Central British Columbia during the next year. A few premises have been enlarged, others built, and higher-\nthan-normal shipment of baby chicks reported. The Quesnel area is the only one which\ncomes near to supplying the local demand for eggs. On the other extreme, Prince George\nand Dawson Creek import from Edmonton and Vancouver some 85 per cent of their\nrequirements.\nHorticulture\nPotato-growing continues to be one of the main farm crops. The McBride district\nthis year produced 700 tons from 100 acres. The Bulkley and Lower Skeena contributed\n600 tons and the North Cariboo some 400 tons of commercial potatoes and some 135\nacres passed for seed, which will probably be marketed as seed and commercials and\nshould account for an additional 1,000 tons.\nThe seed-potato industry promises to be of importance in the McBride area as well\nas the Cariboo. Many farmers plant areas in tuber units to meet exacting seed require- CC 168 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nments and the main crop to Foundation A. The production from the latter may go into\neither the seed or commercial trade.\nVegetable production is up in all areas, with farmers in the Cariboo, Prince George,\nBulkley, and Skeena Districts being encouraged to try to meet local demands. Wholesalers and Marketing Board officials report this increase and particularly in the Prince\nGeorge district, where a large proportion of carrots, turnips, beets, cabbage, and cauliflower are grown locally.\nFruit\nIn the only fruit-growing area, Terrace, volume of tree-fruits and small fruits was\nagain below normal. Greater production of small fruits for home use is possible and\nshould be encouraged. It would appear, however, that further research is required on\nadapted varieties and general management. Mr. Hutton and Mr. Burns, of the Prince\nGeorge and Smithers Experimental Stations respectively, are securing some interesting\nresults, and we should have some reasonably sound recommendations to make for the\ncoming year.\nDiseases and Pests\nAnimal Disease and Pests\nIt is reported that a considerable number of tests in the McBride district and throughout the remainder of Central British Columbia have induced general freedom from Bangs\nDisease.\nDr. H. Lucht, of the Health of Animals Branch, is finding an exceptionally low\nincidence of tuberculosis.\nWarbles on cattle here reached an all-time low. There was practically no demand\nthe past spring for warble-control materials. Only those persons bringing breeding stock\nfrom other areas found use for the Government-supplied \" Rotox.\"\nAn outbreak of ha_morrhagic septicaemia among cattle in the Bulkley valley caused\nsome concern. Dr. George Clarke, Veterinary Inspector from Kamloops, visited the\narea during the fall of 1951 and diagnosed the trouble, and assisted with the first treatments and vaccinations. Mr. Jameson organized a campaign against this disease. With\nthe assistance of Dr. Lucht, of the Health of Animals Branch, some 250 head were vaccinated after the first outbreak.\nAll District Agriculturists were called upon many times during the year to advise\non calf scours, mastitis, foot-rot, poultry diseases and pests, swine troubles, and suspected\ncases of foot-and-mouth disease. When practical, these cases were turned over for\ndiagnosis to Dr. Fowler, Veterinary Inspector.\nField-crop and Garden Diseases and Pests\nOutbreaks of grasshoppers as well as garden and black army cutworms received the\nattention of extension workers in all districts.\nConsiderable amounts of Aldrin were used in the Peace River for grasshopper-\ncontrol. At times there was insufficient of this material, and old supplies of sodium\narsenite were used.\nIt would appear that heavier infestations of grasshoppers are to be expected during\nthe coming year. The Field Crops Department has supplied some Aldrin to be used for\nemergency either in Central British Columbia or the Peace River. The Shell Oil Company has promised to have supplies stock-piled at Prince George and Williams Lake for\nimmediate distribution, as required.\nA campaign to induce farmers to purchase spray outfits is urged. Regular low\ndelivery weed sprayers are adapted to applying either weed spray or Aldrin, so could\nbe used to advantage for weed-control, grasshopper-control, or cutworm-control. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 169\nBlack army cutworms and common cutworms caused considerable damage in a few\nareas, particularly adjacent to Prince George. A trial spray with the Government weed-\nspray outfit on Lot 1550 was a complete success. The rate of application was 4 pounds\nof 50-per-cent wettable D D T in 100 gallons of water to the acre. This method is generally impractical due to the large amounts of water required.\nIt should also be pointed out that this method would not necessarily work in all\nareas. Where the cutworms occur on the heavy clay soils, they feed above ground after\ndark and are then susceptible to contact sprays. We are confident that Aldrin applied at\nthe same rate as for grasshoppers will be equally effectual, provided it is applied after\ndark. In this way the foliage will be poisoned and the majority of the cutworms come\nin direct contact with the Aldrin.\nSnow-mould again took a toll of fall wheat. There is no question that grasses also\nwere affected, but it is impossible to date to estimate losses. There would appear to be\ngreater immunity among adapted species, such as timothy, brome-grass, and blue-grass,\nthan among less hardy grasses, such as orchard-grass.\nMr. Pelter estimates, in Vanderhoof District, that between 150 and 200 acres of fall\nwheat were ploughed up through snow-mould losses. A few plots of fall wheat at Vanderhoof were dusted in 1951 with micronized copper sulphate. There was not apparent\ndifference in the incidence of snow-mould between treated and untreated areas.\nLand-clearing\nDuring the season, one land-clearing unit operated in the Smithers and Hazelton\ndistrict, one unit (with a breaking plough) in the Prince George district, and a unit at\nQuesnel.\nThe Smithers unit completed operations the end of October in that area and was\nmoved to Prince George to help clean up current applications. The Prince George unit\nstarted off with one machine. It was increased to a second and finally two machines\nclearing and one breaking. The increase in the size of the unit was necessitated through\nincreased demand for these services and can be attributed to these reasons:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) Quality of work improved.\n(2) Smaller land-clearing unit (two machines) gave farmers time to see how\nmuch work could and should be done.\n(3) Extended terms of payment now enable enterprising farmers to get some\nreturns before all payments are due.\nThe situation was similar in the Quesnel area. It was estimated in the spring that\ntwo months would take care of applications for the season. The outfit operated, however, continuously until the end of November. In the Quesnel area the District Agriculturist, Mr. Tarves, had particular difficulty in contacting the farmers to sign them up\nand later to make collections. Even greater numbers of farmers work part time in the\nwoods in the North Cariboo than at Prince George and in the Bulkley.\nIn all areas an improvement in the efficiency of operations was apparent, through\nthe fuller co-operation of the land-clearing personnel with the District Agriculturist.\nIt is estimated that 1,740 acres were cleared in the region by Department equipment.\nA further 450 acres were broken by the Nordheimer plough. In addition, considerable\nrepiling, dirt work, and other operations associated with agricultural development were\nundertaken. A substantial amount of work was done for the Public Works Department,\nmostly near Smithers.\nIn the Peace River area, Mr. Johnson estimates some 6,000 acres cleared and broken\nsouth of the river. Mr. Brown figures a similar amount north of the Peace. He also\nconsiders that a further 2,000 acres may be cleared if the present good weather holds. CC 170 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nExtension\nThe writer, as well as District Agriculturists at Smithers, Prince George, and\nQuesnel, has devoted a great deal of time to routine land-clearing work, supervision of\noperations, and discussion with foremen and the supervising foreman and others on these\noperations. We feel confident these efforts have been well worth while and for the most\npart are well satisfied with the season's operations. Particular thanks should go to Fred\nGreer, supervising foreman, who spent long hours daily in keeping the outfits working\nto best advantage.\nThe experimental land-clearing project on Lot 1986 took a good deal of time as well.\nMr. Zacharias and the writer were present the greater part of the time during the first\ntwo weeks of work on that project.\nIn Central British Columbia a review of activities by District Agriculturists shows\nmany farm calls. A large number of office or farm visits concerned health of live stock,\nassistance to locate sources of seed-grain, advice on specific farm problems such as dairy\nrations in the Bulkley and Cariboo, poultry housing in the Cariboo, farm management,\npastures in the Nechako valley, and pasture problems in the Fort George area.\nPrince George and Dawson Creek, being centres of travel, received an extra load\nof inquiries regarding farming locally as well as elsewhere in Central British Columbia\nand the Peace River.\nIn the larger centres, such as Prince George, Quesnel, and Dawson Creek, town\ngardens and related problems take much of the time of the District Agriculturist.\nMr. Brown, in the Fort St. John area, and Mr. Pelter, in the Vanderhoof area, have\ndirected their efforts mainly toward meetings and farm calls. Mr. Jameson considers\nthat the Smithers area still warrants much of his time on the farms. This is because\nencouragement of the dairy industry requires direct advice applicable to each place.\nWhile many of the direct farm calls in the Cariboo, Prince George, and Bulkley have\nbeen in conjunction with land-clearing calls, other phases of farming required attention,\nand District Agriculturists Jameson, Zacharias, and Tarves carried a heavy load this year.\nIt is felt that their total general extension efforts have been very much worth while.\nThe 4-H Club work took a smaller proportion of time than usual, but was more\nequitably divided than previously. New clubs were organized in the Peace River \u00E2\u0080\u0094\na Grain and Beef Club in Mr. Johnson's district and three Beef Clubs in Mr. Brown's\ndistrict.\nA Poultry and Beef Club was in operation in Mr. Zacharias' district and a Swine\nClub in the area served by Mr. Pelter.\nThe North Cariboo is down to four clubs (one Swine Club, two Community Clubs,\nand one Sewing Club).\nThe 4-H Club elimination field-day in the Quesnel district has much educational\nand social merit for the members and is a valuable means of publicizing club work to\nthe adults, who attend. Similar field-days could well be developed in other areas.\nConclusion\nAfter several years of land-clearing and development work in Central British\nColumbia, we see definite proof of added production, even though many of the farmers\nstill have insufficient acreage for an economic unit and for the development of home\npastures. This opens an opportunity for extension and research efforts directed toward\nincreased live-stock production and sound farming methods. Problems such as the use\nof extending of pastures in spring and fall, the establishment of community pastures, use\nof more productive hay and pasture mixtures, and the encouragement of general farm\nprogramme in line with present and potential markets are problems which require\nimmediate attention. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 171\n4-H CLUBS\n(Miss Echo Lidster, Supervisor)\nThe 4-H Clubs throughout the Province have had an excellent year. Despite the\ninducement from industry, with its higher wages, and the discouraging factor of higher\nfeed costs for live stock, club membership has held its own this season.\nOne of the most encouraging signs of increased interest has been the revival of club\nwork in the Peace River Block, where it has been dormant for some time. Grain and\nlive stock are the main projects.\nEnrolment\nClubs\nMembers\n1951\n1952\n1951\n1952\nBeef \t\nClothing ... \t\n15\n15\n3\n55\n17\n1\n1\n4\n1\n1\n1\n11\n17\n1\n11\n3\n18\n17\n9\n50\n18\n1\n10\n1\n1\n8\n14\n1\n9\n1\n2\n174\n146\n52\n571\n113\n8\n5\n30\n25\n8\n7\n103\n160\n10\n102\n34\n203\n178\n122\nDairy Calf \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\t\n535\n144\nDairy 2-Year-Old \t\n4\n156\n20\nHandicraft (Mesdames Thies and Bowehorn)\t\nLamb \t\nPotato \t\n7\n72\nPoultry .\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n142\n14\n79\n10\nTractor.- \t\n29\nTotals _ \t\n157\n160\n1,548\n1,715 CC 172\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nEaton Scholarship\nThe T. Eaton Company continued the agricultural scholarship inaugurated last year.\nFrom five British Columbia applicants, Rudolph Henry Moyer, of Kelowna, was selected\nto represent the Province in the National Competition. Nine contestants\u00E2\u0080\u0094one from each\nProvince, except Newfoundland\u00E2\u0080\u0094proceeded to Toronto at the expense of the T. Eaton\nCompany to be interviewed by a panel of judges. British Columbia is proud that Rudy\nMoyer was selected to receive the scholarship for .1953. He plans on attending the\nUniversity of British Columbia in the fall of 1953.\nRudolph Henry Moyer, Eaton Scholarship winner for Canada, 1952. department of agriculture, 1952\nPins and Crests\nCC 173\nPins in the form of a green four-leaf clover with the four \" H's \" and the word\n\" Canada \" in gold were available from the National Office of the Canadian Council on\n4-H Clubs at 50 cents apiece. Felt crests in the same colour, but with the words \" British\nColumbia \" in place of \" Canada,\" were available for 60 cents each. Two hundred and\ntwenty-five pins and 250 crests were distributed through this office this year.\nRichmond-Delta Potato Team, 1952\nRobert Gilmore (age 18), R.R. 2, Vancouver, B.C., and Archie\nMcNair (age 18), R.R. 3, Vancouver, B.C. Coach, Dr. N. S.\nWright, 781a Steveston Highway, R.R. 1, Steveston, B.C.\nLeaders' Certificates\nCertificates are awarded by the Canadian Council on 4-H Clubs as a recognition\nfor five years or more of 4-H Club leadership in their communities. Following is the list\nof those awarded in 1952: Frank J. Appel, Agassiz, B.C., leader eight years; Mrs. Ada\nAttridge, Mission City, B.C., leader seven years; Ralph J. Barichello, Langley Prairie,\nB.C., leader ten years; Fred Bartels, Moose Heights, B.C., leader five years; R. Kenneth\nBradley, Westview, B.C., leader seven years; Mrs. Gladys A. Caldwell, Salmon Arm,\nB.C., leader six years; G. J. Ferguson, Edgewater, B.C., leader five years; Lou Field,\nArmstrong, B.C., leader five years; Thomas Fowler, Armstrong, B.C., leader ten years;\nBro. Thos. Girard, Mission, B.C., leader sixteen years; Mrs. Vernon Green, Salmon\nArm, B.C., leader five years; C. E. Hagelstein, Langley Prairie, B.C., leader sixteen\nyears; Alex. Hall, Victoria, B.C., leader seven years; Eric R. Hamilton, Duncan, B.C.,\nleader eight years; E. M. Lowden, New Westminster, B.C., leader six years; William W.\nMacLeod, Courtenay, B.C., leader five years; Rev. C. McKiarmid, Ladysmith, B.C.,\nleader thirty-five years; Mrs. Greta C. Marples, Invermere, B.C., leader six years;\nWallace V. Mufford, Milner, B.C., leader twenty-five years; Jack Savage, Ladner, B.C.,\nleader five years; John H. Wood, Ladner, B.C., leader eight years. CC 174\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nQuesnel Swine Team, 1952\nlack Dobb (age 19), Box 1085, Quesnel, B.C. (five years in\nclub work), and Ray Susag (age 18), Box 1415, Quesnel, B.C. (five\nyears in club work). Coach, Mr. Fred Bartels, Moose Heights, B.C.\nSperry Phillifs Memorial Scholarship\nJohn Hilliard McCallan, from Armstrong, was the 1952 winner of the Sperry\nPhillips Memorial Scholarship, which provides $100 of the tuition fees for his first year\nin the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of British Columbia. John McCallan\nwas a member of the Swine Team representing this Province at National Club Week\nin 1950.\nProvincial Elimination Competitions\nThe Provincial elimination competitions for five projects were held in conjunction\nwith the Pacific National Exhibition on August 19th, 1952. The beef eliminations were\nheld at Armstrong in conjunction with the Interior Exhibition on September 16th, 1952:\u00E2\u0080\u0094.\nBeef (six teams competing): 1, Lumby\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bill Paterson and Art Jaik; 2,\nBridesville\u00E2\u0080\u0094Frances and Katherine Piedmont; 3, North Kamloops\u00E2\u0080\u0094Jim\nBedard and Jim Donchi.\nClothing (three teams competing): 1, Chilliwack\u00E2\u0080\u0094Marie Smith and Jean\nReist; 2, Invermere\u00E2\u0080\u0094Aileen Johnston and Wilma Jean Wolfe; 3, Armstrong\u00E2\u0080\u0094Marie Gollits and Lillian Dunn.\nDairy (eight teams competing): 1, Ladner\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sylvia and Bernadine Burr;\n2, Abbotsford\u00E2\u0080\u0094Margaret Shatford and Don Urquhart; 3, Chilliwack\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRobin Lister and Barbara Jones.\nPotato (three teams competing): 1, Richmond\u00E2\u0080\u0094Archie McNair and Bob\nGilmore; 2, Edgewater\u00E2\u0080\u0094Ken Lautrup and Eric Rasmussen; 3, Mission\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRose Hutchins and Bill Ordog.\nPoultry (three teams competing): 1, South Burnaby\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sandy McCurrach and\nJim Sala; 2, Armstrong\u00E2\u0080\u0094Donald Moor and Laurie Shelley; 3, Abbotsford\u00E2\u0080\u0094Calferne Borglund and Sylvia Halikow.\nSwine (two teams competing): 1, Quesnel\u00E2\u0080\u0094Ray Susag and Jack Dobb;\n2, Langley\u00E2\u0080\u0094Earl Johannes and Jim Tattersol. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 175\nLumby Beef Team, 1952\nBill Paterson (age 19), Lumby, B.C., and Arthur Jaik (age 18),\nLumby, B.C. Coach, Mr. Ron Hill, Fieldman, B.C. Livestock\nCo-operative, Lumby, B.C.\nEaton Watches\nFor the second year the T. Eaton Company awarded gold watches to the high\nindividuals in each project. The 1952 winners were:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nBeef\u00E2\u0080\u0094Melba Field, Armstrong.\nClothing\u00E2\u0080\u0094Jean Reist, Chilliwack.\nDairy\u00E2\u0080\u0094Don Urquhart, Langley.\nPotato\u00E2\u0080\u0094Archie McNair, Richmond.\nPoultry\u00E2\u0080\u0094Sandy McCurrach, South Burnaby.\nSwine\u00E2\u0080\u0094Jack Dobb, Quesnel.\nPublic-speaking Competitions\nPublic-speaking competitions were again held in several clubs throughout the\nProvince during the winter and summer months. Three contestants were selected for\nthe finals, held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture in Vancouver. These were Miss Marie Cullen, representing Vancouver Island; John Duerksen, Langley Prairie, representing the Fraser Valley; and Don\nMoor, Armstrong, representing the Okanagan-Kamloops area. The winner of the silver\ntray presented by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture was Miss Marie Cullen.\nCheques were presented by the British Columbia Department of Agriculture to each\nof the three competitors: Marie Cullen, who spoke on \" Soil Conservation \"; John\nDuerksen, on \" Power of the Vote \"; and Don Moor, on \" The Place of the Farmer in\nSociety.\"\nAdditional Activities\nDuring the year, your Supervisor attended field-days and meetings in the Peace\nRiver, Central British Columbia, Cariboo, East and West Kootenay, Arrow Lakes, Boundary Country, Okanagan, Salmon Arm, Kamloops, Fraser Valley, and on Vancouver Island.\nAlong with A. R. Tarves, District Agriculturalist, Quesnel, Provincial teams were\naccompanied to National Club Week. While at Toronto, your Supervisor acted as CC 176\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\ncounsellor to the Junior Club Council, established from competing teams to arrange\nresponsibilities for votes of thanks, invocations, and chairmanship of meetings.\nIn March of this year the Canadian Council on Boys' and Girls' Club Work in\nBritish Columbia met for its annual meeting for the first time since it was organized in\n1931. A good representation from Departments of Agriculture, business firms, and breed\nassociations made the sessions very successful. The Secretary of State granted permission on March 1st, 1952, to change the name of this organization from Canadian Council\non Boys' and Girls' Club Work to that of \" Canadian Council on 4-H Clubs.\"\nChilliwack Clothing Team, 1952\nMarie Smith, 430 Trans-Canada Highway East, Chilliwack,\nB.C., and Jean Reist, 383 Reeves Road, Chilliwack, B.C. Marie\nhas been a member of Chilliwack Holstein Club for three years,\nand both girls are members of the Home Economics class at\nChilliwack High School. Coach, Miss I. Rogers, now at Langley\nHigh School.\nNational Club Week Results\nThe teams who placed first in the Provincial elimination competitions represented\nthis Province at National 4-H Club Week in Toronto. This was again held in conjunction\nwith the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, November 13th to 23rd.\nCompetitors in the 4-H Club contests come from every Province, except Newfoundland. There were 116 delegates registered. The judges remarked favourably on\nthe knowledge and conduct of the contestants and expressed the feeling that the quality\nof the competitors was better than ever. Eight of the nine cups came to the Western\nProvinces. In spite of stiff competition, the British Columbia teams did very well. For\nthe seventh time in the last eight years the Potato Trophy was won by British Columbia.\nThe placing of the Clothing Team was especially gratifying, because the British Columbia\nteam was the only one which did not receive training from a District Home Economist.\nResults were as follows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nPotato (three teams competing): First, Richmond, Robert Gilmore and\nArchie McNair.\nClothing (eight teams competing): Fourth, Chilliwack, Jean Reist and Marie\nSmith. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 177\nDairy (nine teams competing): Fourth, Ladner, Sylvia Burr and Bernadine\nBurr.\nPoultry (six teams competing): Fifth, South Burnaby, Sandy McCurrach and\nJim Sala.\nSwine (six teams competing): Sixth, Quesnel, Jack Dobb and Ray Susag.\nBeef (nine teams competing): Eighth, Lumby, Bill Paterson and Art Jaik.\nDelta Dairy Team, 1952\nSylvia Burr (age 18), R.R. 1, New Westminster, B.C., and\nBernadine Burr (age 17), R.R. 1, New Westminster, B.C. Coach,\nMr. D. M. Hamilton, Associate District Agriculturist, New Westminster, B.C.\nKamloops Christmas Fat Stock Show and Sale\nAgain this year, the Christmas Fat Stock Show and Sale was predominantly a 4-H\nClub show, with 116 of the 200 single entries being contributed by club members.\nThere were eight weight classes for the Boys' and Girls' Section, ranging from\n690 pounds to 1,270 pounds. Thirteen 4-H Clubs competed\u00E2\u0080\u0094Armstrong A and B,\nBarriere, Bridesville, Kamloops East, Kelowna, Louis Creek, Lower North Thompson,\nLumby, Nicola, Rock Creek, South Thompson, and Westwold. Bridesville and Rock\nCreek Clubs exhibited at Kamloops for the first time. The experience will be of great\nvalue to the members in developing future projects.\nThe quality of entries was much superior to that of other years, requiring much\ndeliberation on the part of the judge, Grant MacEwan, of Calgary.\nThe champion of the show was owned by Ronald Lyster, of Armstrong, son of\nJ. G. Lyster, Armstrong Beef Club leader. Ron has been nine years striving toward this\nachievement. During that time, he has acquired a herd of twenty pure-bred Herefords\nof his own, and in 1949 represented this Province at National Club Week on the British\nColumbia Swine Team. Ron's steer weighed 970 pounds and sold for 75 cents a pound.\nHe paid $130 in January, 1952, for this animal, which cost him $155 to feed. This was\nin contrast to the prices involved when he purchased his first steer in 1943 for $25 and\nsold it for 13 cents a pound.\nThe McMorran Trophy for the best-kept stall, combined with courtesy and\nbehaviour of club members, was won by the Barriere Club for the second time. CC 178\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nSouth Burnaby Poultry Team, 1952\nSandy McCurrach (age 16), 1474 Mary Avenue, New West-\n\u00E2\u0084\u00A2\u00C2\u00A3.te\u00E2\u0084\u00A2. ?LC (f\u00C2\u00B0Ur years in club work)> and Jim Sala (age 20),\n2967 Waltham Avenue, South Burnaby, B.C. (four years in club\nwork and likes boating and camping). Coach, Mr. George Bancroft, 1963 Twenty-first Avenue, South Burnaby, B.C., student at\nUniversity of British Columbia in Agriculture.\nClub members were entertained at a party Monday night under the soonsorshit. of\nthe D0uglas Lake Cattle Company, Safeway (Canada) \"Limited, and S arCmSotors\nWednX\u00C2\u00B00PS entertalned memb\u00C2\u00A3rS ^ le3derS at a W\u00C2\u00AB\u00E2\u0084\u00A2\nThe following account of the presentation to H. S. Cleasby appeared in the\nKamloops Sentinel, and is included in this report because of the reference by such a\ndistinguished cattleman to the value of club work:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 y\nHm\u00E2\u0080\u009E \"f!faty Ho\u00E2\u0084\u00A2\u00E2\u0084\u00A2ed> Briefcase Given.-Octogenarian H. S. Cleasby, of Merritt\ndean of the Nicola Valley and its cattle-raising industry's historian, was publicly honoured\nduring Wednesday afternoon's session of the Christmas Cattle Show non\u00C2\u00B0urect\n\" T. P. Wilson, of Vinsulla, past president of British Columbia Beef Cattle Growers'\nAssociation presented to Mr. Cleasby a handsome, zippered, hand-tooled native Sher\nbriefcase adorned with the cattle brands of British Columbia's leading ranches The\nbriefcase and Us ornamentation were the work of Jack Wilson of Vinsulla '\n\u00C2\u00A3\u00C2\u00A3\u00C2\u00A3rxsr Assoda,io\"-m ^ k* ssscSrz\n\" Mr. Cleasby made an excellent speech when accepting the gift. He noted the\nchanges in the industry and m the quality of British Columbia's cattle during hi\"Sine\nSumblattt12\u00C2\u00A3\u00C2\u00A3S\u00C2\u00A3$ ^^ *\u00C2\u00BB*\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 ta ^ * ^^ the \"\u00C2\u00AB.\nrnntrfh?SHTOmiiaHld-JaCk WUSOn ** former 4'H Beef Club members and have\ncontnbuted much during recent years to the organization of Club work in the Province DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 179\nEXTENSION AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING DIVISION\n(Report of G. L. Calver, Extension Agricultural Engineer)\nStaff changes dealt with in the report of the Director were responsible for a lack of\ncontinuity in the detailed work of the Extension Agricultural Engineering Division.\nDelay was incurred in the plan to have individual staff members specialize in separate\nphases of the work undertaken by the Division.\nCirculars and Bulletins\nThree new circulars were prepared and mimeographed during the year. The first\ndealt with one-way discs, their maintenance and adjustment. This is the initial bulletin\nin a series which would eventually constitute a Farm Machinery Handbook. The second\ndealt with stock water-tank heaters and the third with the use of the carpenter's level\nfor taking farm levels. The latter bulletin was drawn up to complement the information\npresented in Field Crops Circular No. 43\u00E2\u0080\u0094Dugouts and Their Use for Irrigation on\nVancouver Island, which we helped to prepare. As the Department of Agriculture of\nthe Government of Canada published a bulletin entitled \" Loose Housing of Dairy\nCattle,\" we dropped our plans to revise our circular on \"Loafing Barns and Milking\nParlours.\" However, it will still be necessary to prepare specific information on housing\nof this type suitable for the northern areas of the Province.\nCirculars have been used wherever possible to answer inquiries on various subjects.\nA breakdown of the inquiries received is as follows: Farm machinery, 25; farm structures (other than plans), 64; water-supplies, 15; drainage and irrigation, 43; and rural\nelectrification, 1. Assistance has also been given with the distribution of bulletins for\nthe Rural Housing Advisory Committee.\nPlans\nA total of 230 plans have been distributed through our free plan service. A book\nof plans is located in district offices of the Department of Agriculture. New plans are\nadded as available. Offices are kept informed of other sources of plans. Nine new\npoultry-housing plans, completed in our own office, have been added during the past year.\nTo augment our service, we obtained additional plans from the Midwest Plan Service in\nthe United States. Although some are not too applicable to British Columbia conditions,\nthey meet many requirements, and their cost is slightly less than that of plans prepared\nhere. At least two or three additional plans are needed to meet minimum requirements\nfor the poultry-housing series.\nAs some of our live-stock building plans do not make the greatest possible use of\nmany of the labour-saving devices recently developed, new plans will be required.\nWherever possible, plans from outside sources are secured to answer specific inquiries\nfor which we do not have plans of our own. The plan service being developed will, over\na period of time, have desirable results on farm buildings in the Province.\nField-days\nFewer field-days were held than in previous years. Of the seven held, five dealt\nwith farm machinery and two with irrigation and drainage.\nOne of the field-days arranged by Joe Awmack, District Agriculturist at Cranbrook,\nand held on the Coy Ranch in the Rocky Mountain Trench, proved most interesting.\nThis field-day combined farm machinery and specialized-crop production. All persons\ninvited were present. We will attempt to arrange similar occasions during the coming\nyear. The whole matter of field-days is under review and drastic changes in approach\nmay be necessary to make these most effective.\nJ cc 180 british columbia\nFarm Visits\nTwo hundred and thirty-six farm visits were made during the last year. These dealt\nwith farm machinery, farm structures, drainage, irrigation, dam problems, dugout construction, domestic water-supply, soil conservation, and miscellaneous problems. A subtotal of these figures shows that there were approximately ninety calls this year dealing\nprimarily with the use of water as opposed to sixty-three last year. This increase is due,\nto a large extent, to the keener interest being shown in the installation of irrigation\nsystems and in the necessary water development which must be carried out in many\nareas before irrigation can be made effective. The dry summers of the past two years\nhave speeded this type of development, but the results obtained through the use of\nsupplemental water will undoubtedly keep farmers interested in irrigation systems even\nif wetter summers are forthcoming during the next few years. Assistance with individual\ndrainage problems is still a fairly heavy demand on our services. Where any of these\nproblems extend beyond the individual farm, we have had very good co-operation from\nthe Water Rights Branch of the Department of Lands and Forests and also from the\nDepartment of Public Works.\nOther Projects\nA display booth was set up again this year in connection with the planned-farming\ndisplay held at Langley, Chilliwack, and Mission. A number of inquiries were obtained\nat the booth. A considerable increase in interest was shown this year in tractor-driving\ncompetitions. Assistance was given with setting up and judging a tractor-driving competition for 4-H Tractor Club members at the Pacific National Exhibition. Similar\nassistance was given competitions at the Haney, Cloverdale, and Courtenay Fairs.\nAssistance was again given the Dominion-Provincial Youth Training Course at the\nUniversity of British Columbia, nineteen talks being delivered on the following subjects:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(1) Water-supply and Water Measurement.\n(2) Design of an Irrigation System.\n(3) Design of a Drainage System and Use of Carpenter's Level.\n(4) Tillage Machinery and Plough Adjustment.\n(5) Haying Machinery and Mower Adjustments.\n(6) Oneway Adjustment.\n(7) Combines and Threshers.\n(8) Oils and Lubricants.\n(9) Farm-machinery Maintenance.\n(10) Dairy Housing and Equipment.\n(11) Ventilation of Farm Structures.\nThese talks were well received by the boys taking the agricultural-engineering section\nof the course and proved to be a worth-while part of our work. Talks were given at\nfive evening farm-machinery meetings, two in the Kootenay area and three in the northern\npart of the Province. Films were used to assist in the presentation of these talks.\nMeetings\nA brief paper on the mechanization of live stock and poultry was presented at the\nmeeting of the Western Section of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural\nEngineering. This Committee has made a complete list of all research projects in agricultural engineering being carried out in the four Western Provinces. A paper on the\n\" Trends and Requirements of Research in B.C.,\" as related to farm machinery, was\npresented to the British Columbia Agronomists' Association Conference. Two meetings\non irrigation were attended during the late winter. One of these was a joint meeting of\nthe Lower Mainland Soil Committee, the Lower Mainland Field Crops Committee, and\nthe British Columbia Agricultural Engineering Group. It was designed to bring together DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 181\nthe information which each of these groups had regarding sprinkler irrigation so that\nmore uniform recommendations could be made throughout the Fraser Valley. The formal\npapers presented at this meeting form a very worth-while reference. Members of the\nstaff also attended the Western Weed-control Conference held in Vancouver, and the\nPacific North-west Section Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers\nheld at Corvallis, Ore. These meetings are all definitely applicable to agricultural-\nengineering problems, and it is essential that a certain number be attended in order that\nwe can keep up to date with new trends in agricultural engineering and the work being\nconducted by our associates.\nOur work has carried us to practically every agricultural area in the Province during\nthe past year, and the demand for our services is steadily increasing as the knowledge\nthat they are available is becoming more widespread.\nLAND-CLEARING DIVISION\n(J. R. Caverhill, Assistant Director)\nOperations began this year with four tractors at the University Endowment Lands\nin Vancouver, two in the Courtenay district, three in the Quesnel district, two in the\nPrince George district, and three in the Smithers district. Movement between districts\nhas not been extensive. Weather conditions have been sufficiently favourable that\na longer-than-average operational season has been possible. A prolonged dry season,\nrequiring forest closure, prevented operations from August 6th to 26th on Vancouver\nIsland. Two tractors have been replaced by new ones and a new transport unit added\nthis year. Wages for operational employees have been adjusted to compare more\nfavourably with those of other comparable occupations. A maximum of forty-eight\noperational hours per week has been in effect for the first time this year; however, the\nturnover of operational personnel has again been high, due to the continued activity in\nconstruction projects. Operations have been confined primarily to clearing and piling\nwith earthwork for water-control or road-construction accounting for a small percentage\nof the total. Contracts for non-agricultural purposes have been undertaken only when\nnormal work was not available or impractical. Work on the University Endowment\nLands, begun in 1951, was terminated in May. A Public Works contract for clearing\nof road-location near Smithers was completed before other work was practical. Some\nexperimental work was conducted near Prince George to test the practicality of various\nclearing methods. The contract terms were changed this year to permit a minimum\ninitial payment of 25 per cent with the balance in four equal annual payments at 4 per\ncent interest.\nOperational Period\nLocation\nPeriod\nNumber\nof Weeks\nVancouver Island .\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nUniversity Endowment Lands and Salmon Arm..\nQuesnel..\nPrince George..\nSmithers\t\nMay 9 to November 12 _.\t\nApril 16 (moved) to November 29-\nMay 10 to November 27. _ \t\nMay 23 to December 10 \t\nMay 25 to November 4 \t\n26\n32\n29\n29\n23\nThis year's operations have brought the total value of work done on 3,226 contracts\nto $1,157,651.50. Estimates indicate that 32,000 acres have been cleared, although\na final summary for this year is not yet available. CC 182 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nBRITISH COLUMBIA FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL\nFARM-LABOUR SERVICE\nAlthough a mild winter and early spring permitted considerable field and orchard\noutdoor work, adequate supplies of labour were available at all points in the Province.\nIn the Okanagan Valley and in the small-fruit growing areas at the Coast and on Vancouver Island, operators who had suffered severe financial losses from the severe winter-\ndamage of two years previously were, in many cases, doing their own pruning and other\nwork for which help had ordinarily been hired. This reduced the demand for men to\nsome considerable extent.\nEarly estimates indicated better-than-average crops of all kinds, with a considerable\nincreased acreage of strawberries and raspberries in the Fraser Valley. Soft-fruit orchards\nin the Southern Okanagan had made strong recoveries from frost-damage. The apple-\ncrop was promising. Potato acreages were slightly higher. A new hop-yard at Creston\nwould provide its first harvest. Grain and hay crops were generally showing promise.\nLabour requirements for all phases were met without difficulty until the end of May.\nAn Acting Supervisor was appointed to co-ordinate the work of Placement Officers\nand to maintain an effective liaison with producer groups.\nTwelve temporary placement offices were opened.\nNational Employment Service operated jointly at New Westminster and at Vernon.\nSurveys indicated a large movement of Prairie women would be necessary to harvest the\nraspberries and strawberries. Orders were placed in clearance. However, after ninety-\ntwo had arrived, a strike of logging and sawmill operators released a labour force adequate\nto meet all requirements and the Prairie orders were cancelled.\nFor the remainder of the season, although there were a few tight spots, sufficient help\nwas obtained to supply producer requirements. Better organization at local levels\nhelped materially at many points. A movement of Hutterites from Southern Alberta to\nthe Creston and Wyndell areas offset an almost complete absence of Doukhobor workers.\nThose Albertans gave material assistance in harvesting soft fruits, hops, apples, and\npotatoes. In large measure, they accepted fruit in lieu of cash for wages. As workers,\nthey were highly regarded and growers are anxious for their return in future years.\nAt Interior points, Boards of Trade and School Boards and principals co-operated\nadmirably. There is a growing awareness that emergency situations must be met by\nlocal volunteers. This is particularly true where highly perishable commodities are ready\nto harvest. Four additional Placement Officers, on a part-time basis, were employed in\nCentral and North Okanagan to provide more efficient service at points distant from\ncentres of population.\nExcellent co-operation was received from the National Employment Service at all\nlevels.\nWhile the high level of industrial employment and wages seriously depleted the\nsupply of competent permanent workers, there has not been too serious a shortage either\nin dairying or in mixed farming. The situation is by no means satisfactory but appears\nless critical than it was.\nThe scarcity of good cattle-ranch help is causing concern. Sheep ranching also has\nbeen gravely reduced due in part to lack of herders.\nMechanization and better use of labour offsets much of the shortage of good permanent workers. While there is an improvement evident in accommodation and in working\nconditions, much still remains to be done to make farm and ranch work attractive to the\ntype of man employers want to employ and keep.\nSignificant factors this year were the greater evidence that grower groups were prepared to be actively associated with our programme; the increased supply of local labour\nat many points; appreciation of Boards of Trade that successful harvests directly affected\npurchasing power and local prosperity. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 183\nImmigration was not too potent a factor, though placements from that source helped\nmaterially. British Columbia, as might be expected, attracted considerable numbers of\nimmigrants who had originally been located in other Provinces. It is realized their stay\nin our agriculture will also be of a temporary nature, but nevertheless will help for a time.\nAll in all, we have had a very good season, with placements slightly over those of\nthe previous year and no complaints that crops were lost from lack of help.\nThe outlook for 1953 is not clear, but the supply of labour should not be less and\nmay be materially improved if logging declines further.\nCONCLUSION\nYour Director has had the opportunity of visiting most parts of the Province this\nyear, though it was not possible to reach some areas where important developments are\nunder way. It was particularly gratifying to be in the Peace River Block during the\nharvesting of the first good crop saved in several years. The people there have a resourcefulness, a confidence, and an optimism that could well be duplicated in other parts of\nBritish Columbia.\nYour Director wishes to place on record his keen appreciation of the great amount\nof excellent work done by the field staffs and by the clerical staffs throughout the Province\nthis past year. The value of any Department is measured only by the work of its staff\nin its particular field of activity.\nThe maintenance of the good work now being done in this Branch and the development of our services to meet rapidly changing conditions in the over-all expanding\neconomy of British Columbia will require that methods of extension approach be continually surveyed to ensure maximum efficiency of effort in the task in which we are\nengaged. CC 184\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAPPENDICES\nAPPENDIX No. 1\nInspected Slaughterings of Live Stock, December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nDate\nBritish Columbia\nCattle Calves Hogs Sheep\nAlberta\nCattle Calves Hogs Sheep\nTotals for Canada\nCattle Calves Hogs Sheep\nDecember 8\t\nDecember 15-\nDecember 22-\nDecember 31..\nJanuary 5\t\nJanuary 12\t\nJanuary 19\t\nJanuary 26\t\nFebruary 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFebruary 9\t\nFebruary 16\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFebruary 23\t\nMarch 1\t\nMarch 8\t\nMarch 15\t\nMarch 22\t\nMarch 29\t\nApril 5 \t\nApril 12\t\nApril 19\t\nApril 26\t\nMay 3\t\nMay 10 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nMay 17\t\nMay 24\t\nMay 31\t\nJune 7\t\nJune 14..\nJune 21-\nJune 28-\nJuly 5\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nJuly 12\u00E2\u0080\u009E\nJuly 19..\nJuly 26-\nAugust 2\t\nAugust 9\t\nAugust 16\t\nAugust 23\t\nAugust 30\t\nSeptember 6\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nSeptember 13-\nSeptember 20..\nSeptember 27-\nOctober 4_\t\nOctober 11\t\nOctober 18\t\nOctober 25\t\nNovember 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNovember 8\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNovember 15-\nNovember 22-\nNovember 29..\n1,452\n1,425\n1,068\n864\n714\n1,814\n1,820\n1,373\n1,321\n1,226\n1,184\n1,344\n1,422\n1,880\n1,986\n853\n1,261\n1,650\n1,285\n1,754\n1,445\n1,761\n2,075\n2,700\n2,803\n2,596\n2,778\n2,367\n2,609\n2,691\n2,394\n2,523\n1,909\n2,051\n1,516\n1,243\n1,583\n1,567\n1,921\n1,706\n1,988\n1,880\n1,754\n1,573\n1,839\n1,546\n2,224\n2,386\n2,404\n1,977\n2,297\n2,224\n234\n245\n155\n91\n30\n202\n187\n76\n141\n180\n173\n270\n164\n83\n130\n149\n185\n220\n348\n428\n439\n419\n203\n135\n426\n381\n405\n275\n336\n526\n327\n386|\n434 j\n302|\n418|\n572\n393\n491\n349|\n249 j\n4041\n593|\n633 j\n340|\n530|\n496|\n615|\n4691\n380|\n2411\n364 j\n450|\n6,520\n6,698\n5,510\n4,311\n1,720\n8,941\n4,146\n5,274\n9,281\n6,502\n7,365\n7,386\n6,135\n1,844\n957\n1,358\n8,158\n7,613\n5,019\n7,780\n8,741\n6,732\n4,730\n5,522\n7,199\n6,344\n7,022\n6,339\n6,130\n6,047\n6,252\n5,033\n4,870\n4,352\n5,395\n4,416\n5,062\n4,480\n4,554\n4,331\n5,247\n4,915|\n4,586|\n5,490|\n6,221 j\n5,801|\n7,306|\n7,938|\n7,335|\n8,008\n8,348\n8,220\n615\n502\n613\n591\n610\n763\n583\n935\n814\n744\n529\n932\n1,595\n193\n222\n3\n372\n516\n825\n113\n1,665\n2,075\n2,123\n1,579\n1,071\n1,882\n1,219\n1,236\n1,338\n966\n666\n1,009\n992\n536\n922\n1,470\n944\n2,177\n1,703\n1,691\n1,426\n1,963\n1,675\n1,670\n2,341\n2,397\n2,696\n2,444\n2,257\n1,078\n2,281\n1,028\n2,871\n2,675\n2,365\n2,300\n1,885\n3,785\n3,134\n3,065\n3,322\n3,150\n1,800\n2,622\n2,829\n1,785\n2,072\n1,748\n1,839\n1,728\n2,403\n2,104\n2,549\n3,813\n5,775\n6,965\n7,474\n7,317\n6,608\n6,4521\n5,230\n5,348\n3,941\n4,550\n3,925\n3,352\n3,681\n3,169\n4,020\n3,886\n3,073\n3,012\n4,005\n3,773\n3,456\n3,093\n3,400\n3,640\n4,760\n5,013\n5,281\n4,866\n4,627\n4,287\n459\n471\n446\n167\n301\n580\n399\n278\n646\n484\n321\n319\n505\n198\n220\n385\n516\n269\n352\n759\n624\n716|\n4481\n672 [\n7341\n8981\n1,014\n847|\n1,208\n886\n847\n857\n693\n911\n1,162\n1,193\n1,098\n860\n690\n759\n1,3761\n1,315!\n756]\n7661\n1,2201\n1,3231\n1,247|\n1,196\n9351\n846\n1,143\n1,081\n17,811\n20,322\n21,555\n9,008\n14,230\n20,504\n12,580\n13,946\n17,473\n13,582\n17,095\n15,475\n19,599\n11,541\n12,475\n19,926\n20,055\n13,132\n12,973\n21,338\n23,099\n19,193\n18,285!\n19,089\n18,939\n16,969\n18,033\n16,784\n15,791 j\n15,393\n13,920\n17,553\n14,330\n12,198\n13,101\n13,039\n14,038\n13,488\n12,154\n10,419|\n11,2051\n12,343|\n11,396[\n14,094\n13,625\n16,081\n21,936\n25,577\n27,366\n27,132\n32,833\n32,123\n677\n781\n882\n421\n437\n865\n959\n1,214\n820\n688\n1,086\n607\n498\n684\n2,018\n2,409\n1,361\n1,250\n616\n1,152\n1,131\n1,421\n521\n527\n595\n621\n712\n721\n269\n576\n597\n500\n623\n433\n734\n793\n843\n1,325\n978\n870\n1,281\n1,254\n1,082\n1,169\n1,646\n1,021\n1,792\n2,343\n2,062\n1,231\n1,868\n1,363\n19,702\n18,224\n13,316\n11,750\n13,262\n23,866\n19,929\n18,134\n20,041\n18,264\n13,638\n16,154\n20,229\n14,743\n17,269\n15,982\n17,059\n17,311\n17,637\n18,463\n19,029\n22,286\n24,726\n29,773\n29,722\n28,022\n27,776\n27,389\n27,263\n28,155\n22,351\n26,365\n24,579\n20,764\n22,972\n22,446\n26,796\n24,125\n21,192\n19,563\n26,894\n27,286\n25,829\n24,568\n28,651\n26,853\n34,755\n35,511\n32,232\n31,775\n32,788\n30,350\n5,677\n6,161\n5,384\n2,636\n3,358\n6,405\n4,700\n4,097\n5,460|\n5,732\n4,738\n5,563\n6,307\n4,541\n7,595\n10,823\n12,634\n15,397\n16,636\n17,009\n17,756\n19,768\n17,635\n15,935\n16,225\n15,464\n15,254\n12,841\n13,320\n13,406\n11,496\n12,765\n11,391\n9,426\n10,089\n10,736\n11,531\n10,610\n8,742\n9,2251\n12,766\n12,237\n9,962\n10,012\n12,649\n10,678\n13,357\n10,319\n9,795\n10,868\n11,190\n11,005\nI\n118,645\n122,676\n113,687\n78,346\n81,493\n129,699\n89,545\n111,064\n122,927\n119,973\n119,521\n112,507\n124,065\n85,520\n88,629\n112,500\n129,942\n123,050\n113,549\n137,357\n145,190\n129,047\n130,198\n121,231\n118,048\n111,487\n108,639\n103,358\n99,818\n95,011\n89,271\n97,357\n91,064\n86,140\n89,425\n87,188\n93,775\n92,484\n97,002\n86,247\n96,375\n96,098\n107,246\n110,893\n114,258\n113,363\n141,303\n148,414\n154,065\n155,237\n165,706\n164,973\n8,017\n6,770\n7,106\n3,881\n3,426\n6,907\n6,052\n4,958\n4,427\n5,466\n5,122\n4,656\n4,884\n3,082\n3,396\n3,443\n4,920\n3,681\n3,508\n3,024\n4,922\n5,089\n4,688\n4,969\n3,230\n4,930\n3,579\n3,521\n3,457\n4,109\n3,364\n4,360\n5,782\n5,011\n7,927\n8,258\n10,506\n13,387\n12,170\n11,232\n16,482\n17,914\n21,591\n23,032\n22,737\n20,839\n34,782\n32,890\n28,940\n19,387\n18,512\n13,560 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 185\nAPPENDIX No. 2\nBeef Carcasses Graded in British Columbia, December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nDate\nTotal\nKill\nB\nDi\nD2\nD3\nM\nDecember 8\t\nDecember 15..\nDecember 22-\nDecember 31..\nJanuary 5\t\nJanuary 12\t\nJanuary 19\t\nJanuary 26\t\nFebruary 2\t\nFebruary 9\t\nFebruary 16\t\nFebruary 23\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nMarch 1 \t\nMarch 8\t\nMarch 15\t\nMarch 22-\t\nMarch 29\t\nApril 5\t\nApril 12\t\nApril 19\t\nApril 26\t\nMay 3. \u00E2\u0080\u009E.\t\nMay 10 \t\nMay 17\t\nMay 24\t\nMay 31 \t\nJune 7\t\nJune 14\t\nJune 21\t\nJune 28\t\nJuly 5..\nJuly 12\t\nJuly 19\t\nJuly 26\t\nAugust 2\t\nAugust 9\t\nAugust 16\t\nAugust 23\t\nAugust 30\t\nSeptember 6\t\nSeptember 13\u00E2\u0080\u009E\nSeptember 20-\nSeptember 27-\nOctober 4\t\nOctober 11\t\nOctober 18\t\nOctober 25 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNovember 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nNovember 8_\nNovember 15...\nNovember 22-\nNovember 29\u00E2\u0080\u009E.\n1,452\n1,425\n1,068\n864\n814\n1,714\n1,820\n1,373\n1,321\n1,226\n1,184\n1,344\n1,422\n1,880\n1,986\n853\n1,261\n1,627\n1,308\n1,754\n1,442\n1,761\n2,075\n2,700\n2,803\n2,597\n2,777\n2,370\n2,609\n2,691\n2,394\n2,523\n1,909\n2,051\n1,516\n1,243\n1,583\n1,567\n1,921\n1,706\n1,988\n1,880\n1,754\n1,573\n1,839\n1,546\n2,224\n2,386\n2,404\n1,977\n2,297\n2,224\n277\n427\n209\n313\n267\n533\n449\n282\n366\n375\n377\n447\n461\n503\n528\n107\n530\n758\n476\n598\n451\n720\n917\n1,594\n1,617\n1,545\n1,596\n1,164\n1,253\n1,296\n1,299\n1,329\n919\n944\n626\n550\n640\n526\n565\n531\n480\n757\n614\n611\n497\n394\n651\n826\n664\n631\n666\n658\n231\n208\n181\n239\n245\n366\n350\n322\n255\n331\n280\n307\n381\n543\n517\n123\n365\n454\n365\n435\n401\n430\n521\n607\n714\n513\n578\n530\n615\n559\n453\n344\n317\n481\n301\n233\n308\n357\n477\n474\n569\n418\n442\n389\n515\n373\n616\n546\n503\n453\n| 604\nI 496\n326\n239\n197\n203\n194\n291\n409\n354\n293\n238\n285\n284\n302\n400\n433\n217\n232\n252\n291\n431\n334\n362\n397\n303\n306\n313\n326\n336\n324\n358\n325\n396\n300\n342\n285\n239\n299\n346\n381\n332\n497\n323\n352\n326\n526\n400\n593\n504\n641\n461\n572\n624\n78\n62\n39\n18\n16\n48\n76\n73\n74\n23\n38\n59\n43\n99\n122\n78\n33\n23\n35\n74\n69\n45\n48\n48\n32\n33\n36\n52\n35\n71\n33\n42\n59\n45\n34\n36\n58\n62\n54\n42\n33\n64\n46\n37\n48\n62\n58\n72\n89\n48\n85\n70\n112\n93\n81\n30\n23\n77\n130\n58\n61\n49\n37\n92\n59\n62\n69\n46\n35\n72\n44\n48\n63\n54\n48\n38\n20\n29\n34\n64\n99\n170\n119\n268\n172\n100\n171\n67\n62\n64\n135\n115\n186\n126\n124\n94\n96\n122\n116\n109\n162\n143\n93\n125\n107\n78\n75\n11\n15\n146\n137\n93\n69\n39\n21\n45\n35\n92\n112\n118\n23\n21\n27\n45\n38\n31\n30\n11\n24\n30\n31\n33\n37\n49\n38\n31\n37\n31\n29\n32\n37\n35\n39\n40\n56\n51\n48\n40\n24\n61\n43\n63\n98\n55\n51\n45\n222\n271\n226\n24\n41\n202\n206\n120\n132\n112\n64\n77\n79\n144\n188\n133\n22\n39\n61\n87\n51\n57\n65\n43\n56\n64\n76\n89\n110\n87\n61\n61\n64\n60\n37\n44\n86\n86\n103\n79\n73\n89\n79\n57\n79\n91\n108\n158\n163\n136\n154\n139\n99\n47\n60\n35\n13\n51\n63\n71\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A271\n59\n82\n33\n62\n37\n17\n31\n21\n8\n9\n36\n35\n62\n49\n56\n34\n70\n100\n102\n136\n101\n66\n52\n41\n48\n33\n42\n93\n91\n167\n93\n94\n52\n49\n19\n54\n43\n39\n108\n84\n50\n72\n67 CC 186\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAPPENDIX No. 3\nAverage Prices for Cattle, December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nVancouver\nCal\n?ary\nDate\nVancouver\nCalgary\nDate\nGood\nSteers\nCalves\nGood\nSteers\nCalves\nGood\nSteers\nCalves\nGood\nSteers\nCalves\n$33.00\n31.25\n32.75\n31.50\n31.60\n31.00\n29.00\n25.75\n30.50\n30.75\n30.25\n24.20\n21.15\n21.75\n$34.00\n34.00\n33.50\n32.00\n32.25\n34.45\n32.75\n31.25\n30.00\n32.40\n32.40\n32.25\n32.50\n33.50\n33.50\n35.85\n33.50\n31.65\n31.50\n29.75\n30.25\n30.75\n$33.60\n32.15\n32.32\n33.07\n31.64\n31.66\n30.58\n30.53\n28.43\n27.47\n27.61\n28.93\n24.53\n25.98\n25.01\n23.35\n23.02\n25.98\n23.42\n22.14\n22.47\n21.79\n19.67\n22.50\n22.55\n22.75\n$33.02\n34.45\n35.98\n34.64\n33.25\n34.63\n35.25\n34.63\n35.93\n32.98\n37.62\n36.46\n33.63\n33.96\n35.20\n33.66\n34.67\n36.08\n33.43\n33.11\n29.64\n28.91\n27.80\n30.41\n28.60\n28.67\nJune 7 -\t\n$22.90\n23.60\n22.50\n24.25\n24.60\n24.50\n23.25\n23.75\n22.75\n23.00\n21.00\n20.50\n21.45\n21.40\n21.45\n20.50\n21.40\n21.00\n21.75\n22.80\n$29.50\n31.40\n31.25\n29.90\n26.25\n24.50\n26.50\n27.75\n26.50\n26.00\n26.50\n23.50\n24.00\n26.75\n25.55\n20.50\n20.75\n21.25\n21.40\n18.00\n17.00\n18.90\n20.45\n23.00\n24.30\n$22.96\n24.28\n24.37\n23.94\n23.83\n24.74\n24.16\n24.46\n24.99\n25.56\n24.59\n22.98\n23.65\n24.04\n23.12\n21.41\n21.11\n20.93\n21.55\n22.05\n19.85\n19.76\n22.54\n22.09\n22.74\n23.36\n$29.40\n28.28\nJune 21 \t\n28.57\nJune 28 \t\n28.56\nJanuary 5 _\t\nJuly 5 \t\nJuly 12\t\nJuly 19\n28.37\n28.14\nJanuary 19\t\n27.97\nJuly 26 \t\n25.32\nFebruary 2 \t\nAugust 2\t\nAugust 9 \t\n25.42\n25.41\n24.31\n23.29\nAugust 30 .\n24.39\nMarch 8\nSeptember 6\t\nSeptember 13\nSeptember 20\nSeptember 27\nOctober 4\t\nOctober 11\t\n25.35\n25.47\n22.83\nMarch 29 \t\n21.72\nApril 5\t\nApril 12\n21.62\n19.27\nApril 19 _\nOctober 18\t\n19.79\nApril 26\nOctober 25 \t\n19.69\nMay 3 _.\nMay 10\nNovember 1 \t\n18.33\n19.99\nMay 17.\t\nMay 24\t\nNovember 15\t\nNovember 22\nNovember 29\t\n19.39\n19.57\nMay 31\t\n20.06\nAPPENDIX No. 4\nAverage Prices for Lambs, December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nDate\nVancouver\nCalgary\nDate\nVancouver\nCalgary\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0$32.75\n31.00\n$30.27\n31.14\n31.87\n32.00\n32.22\n30.74\n31.25\n30.00\n28.44\n27.75\n26.00\n23.50\n22.79\n20.00\n21.00\nJune 7 \t\n$21.39\n$26.05\n27.00\n20.84\n21.00\n21.87\nJuly 5\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nJuly 12 \t\nJuly 19\n23.01\n32.75\n24.34\n\t\n25.00\nJuly 26\n27.00\n28.15\n29.60\n28.30\n26.52\nAugust 2 \t\n26.34\n26.44\n26.47\nAugust 23 \t\n26.53\n26.50\n26.25\nMarch 8 _\t\n28.85\n22.97\nSeptember 13 \t\n27.00\n20.90\nMarch 22 \t\n19.86\nMarch 29 \t\n20.50\n21.50\n20.30\nApril 5 \t\n20.38\nApril 12 \t\n\t\n21.00\n20.65\n20.07\n20.30\n19.37\n19.88\n21.56\n21.82\n22.15\n19.82\nApril 19 _ \t\nOctober 18\n18.85\nApril 26\t\nOctober 25 \t\n20.05\n20.25\n20.50\n18.23\nMay 3 .\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n18.61\nMay 10\t\n18.52\nMay 17- \t\n25.00\n26.25\nNovember 15\u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\nNovember 22 \t\n18.53\nMay 24\t\n19.60\n21.70\n18 48\nMay 31 \t\n19.33 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 187\nAPPENDIX No. 5\nAverage Prices for Hogs, December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nDate\nVancouver\nCalgary\nDate\nVancouver\nCalgary\nDecember 8\u00E2\u0080\u0094 _\u00E2\u0080\u009E .\n$28.10\n$28.20\n27.20\n27.55\n28.35\n26.85\n26.10\n26.90\n27.05\n24.45\n24.22\n24.22\n24.25\n22.95\n23.35\n23.45\n22.40\n23.35\n23.35\n23.40\n23.35\n23.35\n23.35\n23.38\n23.60\n23.55\n23.80\nJune 7- -\t\n$25.35\n25.60\n$24.10\n24.30\nJune 21 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\t\n25.00\nJune 28\t\nJuly 5\t\nJuly 12 .\n24.90\n24.25\n27.35\n28.35\n25.30\n25.15\n24.85\n26.25\n25.90\n27.60\n24.75\n24.80\n25.10\n24.60\n25.10\n23.70\nJuly 19 _\u00E2\u0080\u009E\n23.65\nJuly 26 ... . .\n23.90\nFebruary 2 \t\nFebruary 9\t\nAugust 2 _ .\nAugust 9\n24.40\n25.04\n24.60\n25.85\n31.60\n25.70\n25.85\n25.85\n24.60\n24.60\n24.60\n24.75\n24.90\n25.85\nMarch 8 \t\n24.95\nSeptember 13 \t\n23.80\nMarch 22 \u00E2\u0080\u009E \t\n23.58\nMarch 29...\n23.58\nApril 5 .. \t\nApril 12 _ \t\nOctober 4 \t\nOctober 11 _ \t\n23.80\n23.45\nApril 19 \u00E2\u0080\u009E\nOctober 18 _ _\n23.38\nApril 26 \t\nOctober 25. \t\n23.41\nNovember 1 \t\nNnvemhpr S\n23.40\nMay 10 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n23.37\nMay 17\t\n23.45\nMay 24 \t\nNovember 22\t\n23.48\nMay 31\n24.75\n23.51 CC 188\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAPPENDIX No. 6\nDairy Herds and Premises Inspected and Graded under the \" Milk Act \" and Cattle T.B.-tested\nfrom December 1st, 1951, to November 30th, 1952\nCattle\nT.B.-\ntested\nReactors\nPremises\nVisited\nTotal\nCattle\nTotal\nCows\nGrade of Premises\nDistrict\nA\nB\nC\nU\nUP1\nCariboo\n17\n69\n3\n61\n200\n2,080\n59\n880\n106\n822\n42\n304\n5\n3\n3\n37\n2\n10\n7\n13\n26\n9\nKamloops\t\nLillooet \t\nQuesnel\t\n16\n1\n18\nTotals \t\n I ----- ! iso\n3,219\n1,274\n8\n52\n7\n39\n44\nCentral British Columbia\n4\n45\n2\n13\n93\n755\n58\n437\n43\n255\n32\n223\n2\n1\n6\n2\n5\n1\n5\n2\n4\n1\n5\n29\n1\nTotals..-..\t\n | | 64\n1,343\n553\n9\n13\n1\n5\n30\nFraser Valley\nChilliwack , \t\nCoquitlam \t\nDelta \t\n40\n42\n8\n11\n1\n39\n32\n10\n153\n2\n9\n12\n68\n32\n47\n1,109\n1,869\n277\n349\n41\n1,008\n911\n320\n2,360\n52\n401\n561\n2,252\n1,481\n1,033\n700\n1,067\n153\n205\n32\n564\n483\n175\n1,346\n34\n218\n319\n1,389\n823\n635\n4\n4\n2\n1\n1\n3\n2\n40\n37\n6\n5\n1\n32\n29\n8\n110\n1\n9\n11\n64\n32\n40\n1\n3\n1\n1\n7\n1\n35\n1\n5\n1\n2\nKent \t\nMaple Ridge . \t\nMatsqui \t\nMission \t\nNicomen \t\nPitt Meadows\t\nRichmond \t\nSumas -._\t\n5\n1\n 1 1 506\n14,024\n8,143\n17\n425\n4\n51\n9\nGreater Okanagan\nOsoyoos _\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nShuswap\t\n201\n30\n25\n3,649\n629\n768\n2,150\n338\n425\n4\n3\n1\n176\n23\n18\n5\n11\n3\n10\n1\n1\nTotals \t\n----- 1 1 256\n5,046\n2,913\n8\n217\n5\n14\n12\nKootenay\nCranbrook \t\nFernie\t\n9\n10\n13\n136\n185\n477\n409\n291\n1,159\n2,119\n296\n204\n141\n414\n1,001\n1\n4\n8\n4\n5\n3\n2\n47\n2\n1\n2\n19\n1\n2\n9\n31\n9\n1\n3\nKaslo \t\nNelson. \t\n97\n102\n\u00E2\u0080\u0094.. |\n353\n4,455\n2,056\n13\n61\n24\n52\n203\nNorthern British Columbia\nAtlin\t\n88\n61\n1,118\n455\n8\n21\n30\n2\nTotals \t\n88 | j 61\n1,118\n455\n8\n21\n30\n2\nVancouver Island\n23\n122\n13\n101\n33\n120\n40\n37\n541\n1,823\n312\n1,348\n684\n2,664\n561\n396\n327\n975\n171\n801\n392\n1,686\n329\n243\n9\n9\n6\n10\n9\n58\n9\n9\n9\n55\n6\n56\n17\n40\n15\n16\n1\n3\n1\n1\n1\n2\n4\n55\n35\n6\n4\n12\nWest Coast \t\nTotals \t\n | | 489\n8,329\n4,924\n119\n214\n9\n147\n88 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1 1.879\n37,534\n20,318\n174\n990\n68\n200\n447\ni Premises ungraded where milk is used for private purposes only. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 189\nAPPENDIX No. 7\nProvincial Cow-testing Associations\nCow-testing Association\nSecretary\nSupervisor\nChilliwack-\nRoute 1-\nRoute 2..\nRoute 3-\nRoute 4..\nComox Valley..\nCowichan\t\nDelta-\nRoute 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRoute 2\t\nDewdney-Deroche.\nLangley \t\nMatsqui\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nRoute 1-\nRoute2.\nOkanagan \t\nSalmon Arm-North Okanagan\t\nPitt Meadows-Maple Ridge and\nRichmond\u00E2\u0080\u0094Route 2\u00E2\u0080\u0094 _\nRichmond\u00E2\u0080\u0094Route 1 _.\t\nSumas\u00E2\u0080\u0094\u00E2\u0096\u00A0\nRoute 1 \t\nRoute 2. - _\nSurrey \u00E2\u0080\u009E _\nVancouver Island-\nCentre \t\nSouth-\nH. C. Clark, 214 Spadina Ave., Chilliwack.\nB.C.\nDitto\t\nDavid T. Jones, R.R. 2, Courtenay, B.C.\u00E2\u0080\u009E\nMichael Clegg, Box 241, Chemainus, B.C.\nDave Blair, R.R. 1, Ladner, B.C\t\nDitto _ _\nA. McDonald, Agassiz, B.C\t\nH. L. Davis, Box 103, Milner, B.C.\nJames Green, R.R. 1, Mt. Lehman, B.C..\nDitto - _ \t\nJ. J. Conroy, R.R. 1, Kelowna, B.C..\nD. Jones, Box 1384, Enderby, B.C....\nGordon Park, Pitt Meadows, B.C\t\nG. P. Crosby, 492 River Road, R.R. 1,\nVancouver, B.C.\nJ. E. Dayton, R.R. 2, Abbotsford, B.C\t\nDitto \t\nR. J. Livingstone, R.R. 3, Cloverdale, B.C.\nT. C. Tryon, R.R. 1, Parksville, B.C.\nJohn Pendray, 951 Falmouth Road, Victoria, B.C.\nJ. R. Hannam, 236 Corbould St., Chilliwack, B.C.\nFred Wiffen, 295 Maple Ave., Sardis, B.C.\nS. A. Blabey, 816 McElwee Road, R.R. 1,\nRosedale.\nR. E. Chapman, 6 Robson St., Chilliwack,\nB.C.\nH. de Blieck, Box 991, Courtenay, B.C.\nD. R. O'Brien, R.R. 1, Ladysmith, B.C.\nL. Craig MacNair, General Delivery,\nLadner, B.C.\nG. H. Bailey, Ladner, B.C.\nHarry Johnson, Box 1,R.R. 1, Agassiz, B.C.\nArne Colly, 613 Latimer Road, R.R. 3,\nCloverdale.\nV. A. Gill, R.R. 1, Matsqui.\nA. H. Maddocks, c/o C. G. Lancaster,\nMatsqui, B.C.\nS. Baehr, R.R. 1, Salmon Arm, B.C.\nDitto.\nR. Macgregor, Box 454, Pitt Meadows, B.C.\nD. S. Heelas, 1657 West 59th Ave., Vancouver, B.C.\nC. S. Lilties, Box 392, Abbotsford, B.C.\nPhilip Harvey, Mt. Lehman, B.C.\nFred Nagel, Sunnyside Road, R.R. 3,\nWhite Rock.\nW. T. Calbick, 516 Churchill Ave., Nanaimo, B.C.\nT. G. M. Clarke, 3449 Cook St., Victoria,\nB.C.\nAverage Production of All Milking Periods Completed during Each of the Following Years\nYear\nNumber of\nMilking\nPeriods\nMilk\nFat\nFat\n1921 \t\n500\n4,488\n7,309\n7,432\nLb.\n6,862\n7,857\n9,088\n9,363\nPer Cent\n4.47\n4.30\n4.32\n4.26\nLb.\n307\n1936 \t\n338\n1950 \t\n393\n1951 \t\n399\nThese figures indicate that the average cow on test now gives, in 305 days, twenty-five ten-gallon\ncans or VA tons more milk than her predecessor thirty years ago. This is a remarkable achievement\non the part of Cow-testing Association members in this Province, and shows what can be done with\nthe help of production records.\nAverage Production by Breeds for 1951 Milking Periods\nPercentage\nof Total\nBreed\nMilk\nFat\nFat\n3 6\nLb.\n8,548\n8,277\n11,544\n7,629\n8,691\nPer Cent\n4.08\n4.75\n3.66\n5.02\n4.49\nLb.\n349\n393\n36 9\n423\n26.6\n10.8\nJersey \t\n383\n390\n100.0\nTwenty-one per cent of animals tested are registered pure-breds with an average production of\n413 pounds of butter-fat. CC 190 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nAPPENDIX No. 8\nList of Licensees\nStock-dealers' Licences\nCariboo District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cariboo Cattlemen's Association (nominees, C. Dorin and W. W. Crosina),\nWilliams Lake; Circle \" S \" Cattle Co. Ltd. (nominees, Miss B. E. and Col. Spencer), Dog Creek; H. I.\nCripps (Big Lake Ranch), Williams Lake; R. C. Cotton, Williams Lake; T. A. Miller, Williams Lake;\nC. S. Overton, Williams Lake; M. W. Langton, Lac la Hache; R. L. Crawford, Buffalo Creek; E. F.\nFitzpatrick, Buffalo Creek; R. Striegler, 100-Mile House; F. J. Searle, Quesnel; J. S. Duncan, Lillooet;\nDiamond \"S\" Ranch Ltd (nominees, V. Spencer and I. Stacey), Pavilion.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094F. Butterworth, Kamloops; E. Butterworth, Kamloops; Geo. C.\nHay Ltd. (nominees, Geo. C. Hay and D. A. Hay), Kamloops; B.C. Live Stock Co-op. Association\n(nominees, J. F. Guichon and R. A. Devick), Kamloops; Kamloops Livestock Co. (nominee, L. Tur-\ncott), Kamloops; I. Gray, Kamloops; W. F. McLeod, Bestwick; Reg. Hook, Kamloops; J. A. Smith,\nKamloops; E. D. Campbell, Kamloops; G. A. Davidson, Kamloops; Geo. A. Sheline, Kamloops;\nR. W. Reese, Sorrento; L. Todrick, Westwold; T. H. Palmer, Barriere; M. Pozzobon, Monte Creek;\nA. Schamp, Rayleigh; H. Weightman, Birch Island; F. C. W. Gibson, Ashcroft; Gibson's Industries\n& Ranching Ltd. (nominees, A. W. and C. H. V. Gibson), Ashcroft; H. H. Gallagher, Ashcroft;\nW. A. Lancour, Merritt.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Salmon Arm Meat & Produce Co. (nominees, D. E. and G. Askew), Salmon Arm;\nS. S. Johnston, Salmon Arm; G. P. Jackson, Salmon Arm; R. G. Arnold, Salmon Arm; J. H. Green,\nSalmon Arm; Oliver Laws, Salmon Arm; W. O. Hopkins, Salmon Arm; W. P. Murphy, Enderby;\nFrank Evans, Armstrong; Mat. Hassen and Mat. Hassen, Jr. (Mat. Hassen & Sons), Armstrong; J. U.\nDe Leenheer, Vernon; A. M. Shannon, Vernon; Hunt's Auction Mart (nominee, S. I. Hunt), Vernon;\nJ. D. Miller, Falkland; G. Duncan, New Denver; John Powick, Kelowna; M. W. Marshall, Kelowna;\nA. W. Hyndman, Penticton; C. E. Albright, Oliver.\nSimilkameen-Boundary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094J. D. Currie, Princeton; C. A. MacKenzie, Tulameen; H. T. Tweddle,\nKeremeos; R. D. Nichalson, Grand Forks.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094G. O. Guise, Fruitvale; N. N. Davidoff, Thrums; F. Placsko,\nCreston; Cranbrook & District Farm Co-op. Association (nominee, H. C. King), Cranbrook; C. B.\nHarrison, Cranbrook; G. Roberts, Marysville; F. Pattinson, Wycliffe; R. R. Lynch, Fernie; T. Kucera,\nFernie.\nNorthern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094J. J. Watson, Smithers; R. W. Wiley & Sons (nominees, R. W. and\nA. J. Wiley), Southbank; Wm. Bickle, Grassy Plains; C. R. Creasey, Vanderhoof.\nPeace River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Dawson Creek Co-op. Shipping Association (nominees, E. Wilson and G. W.\nBennett), Dawson Creek; J. B. McFarlane, Dawson Creek; R. G. Stuby, Fort St. John; Central\nDepartment Store Ltd. (nominees, R. C. Pomeroy and G. G. Moore), Fort St. John.\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Baird & Co. Ltd. (nominees, T. H. Baird and A. E.\nMcClary), Vancouver; Max Merin, Vancouver; H. Brown & Sons Ltd. (nominees, S. and M. Brown),\nVancouver; H. Baker & Son (nominees, H. H. and H. Baker), Vancouver; Foster Hoy, New Westminster; H. Aldrich, New Westminster; T. F. Phillips, Vancouver; E. Steiner, Vancouver; N. Meltzer,\nVancouver; C. Silverman, Vancouver; F. W. Somers, New Westminster; S. G. Plummer, New Westminster; J. H. Bryde, Vancouver; B.C. Live Stock Producers' Co-op. Association (nominees, Ronald\nHill and K. R. Chowen), Vancouver; Harry Estrin, Vancouver; Andrew Sheline, Vancouver; D. A.\nMacLaren, Vancouver; J. K. Baird, Vancouver; Harry Slomen, Vancouver; Vancouver Dairy Cattle\nSales & Exchange (nominees, R. L. Horton and J. C. Thomas), Vancouver; A. Werner, Vancouver;\nAtlin Transport Limited (nominees, J. R. Simpson and R. Eslinger), Vancouver; Hay Bros, (nominees,\nKen A. and W. A. Hay), Vancouver; J. Stein (nominees, Jos. and David Stein), Vancouver; Bill\nWosk, Vancouver; Dave Simpson, Langley Prairie; J. Bros, (nominees, Jas. MacKie and John\nAzanza), Langley Prairie; Joe Azanza, Langley; E. W. Carson, Aldergrove; Mission Meat Ltd.\n(nominees, F. A. Johnstone and J. A. Campbell), Mission; C. C. Johnstone, Chilliwack; A. E.\nMcConnell, Chilliwack; Seed & Pitts (nominees, H. Seed and A. F. Pitts), Pitt Meadows; J. F. Staffen,\nLangley Prairie; J. E. Wellman, Langley Prairie; W. Wrayton, Surrey Centre; Gibson's (nominees,\nJ. and J. B. Gibson), Langley Prairie; J. Harold Smith, Matsqui; F. N. Cindrick, Abbotsford; Wm. A.\nBannerman, Cloverdale; W. F. Ganz, Ruskin; S. R. Reid, Aldergrove; D. P. Wiebe, Morrison Road,\nMount Lehman; W. G. White, Haney; Frost Auctions Ltd. (nominees, G. Frost, Langley, and S. G.\nFrost, Abbotsford); Morris Wosk, Chilliwack; Mission Auction Stables (nominee, Harry H. Schneider), Mission; G. I. Nowell, Agassiz; D. Fainstein, Vancouver.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094W. O. Maki, Nanaimo; J. A. Haslam, Nanaimo; J. W. Lock, Chemainus; H.\nKohler, Duncan; J. L. Saville, Duncan; M. D. Fisher, Glen Lake; F. J. McGrath, Victoria; H. W.\nHubbard, Victoria; Arthur Lock, Victoria; H. Y. Chung, Victoria; D. Thomas, Victoria.\nOutside British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. D. Eales, Calgary; H. Snider, Calgary; Rex Ireland, Edmonton;\nMair Madorsky, Calgary; N. Davidoff, Jr., Pincher Creek, Alta.; L. B. Reiber, Edmonton; Frank R.\nLoudon, Oroville, Wash.; Howard Evans, Okanogan, Wash.; R. E. Neal, Nespelem, Wash. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952 CC 191\nSlaughter-house Licences\nCariboo District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cariboo Cold Storage Ltd., Williams Lake; Circle \"S\" Cattle Co. Ltd.\n(nominees, Miss B. E. and Col. Spencer), Dog Creek; H. J. Cripps (Big Lake Ranch), Williams Lake;\nC. Allertson, Bella Coola; M. Nygaard, Bella Coola; Quesnel Packing Co., Quesnel; L. L. Hill,\nQuesnel; Diamond \"S\" Ranch Ltd. (nominees, V. Spencer and J. Stacey), Pavilion.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Guichon Cattle Co. Ltd., Quilchena; Douglas Lake Cattle Co. Ltd.,\nDouglas Lake.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Salmon Arm Meat & Produce Co. (nominees, D. E. and G. Askew), Salmon Arm;\nC. Horrex (Enderby Meat & Lockers), Enderby; R. Gaven, Vernon; J. U. De Leenheer, Vernon;\nMrs. Bailey and M. Fraitzl, Nakusp; G. Duncan, New Denver; Rutland Locker Ltd., Rutland; John\nPowick, Kelowna; M. W. Marshall, Kelowna; Gordon Meat Market Ltd., Kelowna; W. C. Bennett,\nKelowna; T. W. Marriott, Kaleden; L. F. White (Quality Meats & Lockers), Oliver.\nSimilkameen-Boundary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094S. Talarico, Grand Forks; Crown Meat Market, Grand Forks.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Trail Meat Market, Trail; Leo. Whitelock, Nelson; J. B.\nVecchio, Nelson; E. Pratt, Thrums.\nNorthern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Gosse Cold Storage Ltd., Prince George; Sam Tenbaum (Caribou\nMeat Packing Co.), Prince George.\nPeace River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. L. St. Dennis, Pouce Coupe; J. T. Lafond, Dawson Creek; D. Spittal, Dawson\nCreek; W. O. Harper, Dawson Creek; R. G. Stuby, Fort St. John; E. F. Cuthill, Fort St. John.\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Alberta Meat Co. Ltd., Vancouver; Burns & Co. Ltd.,\nVancouver; Canada Packers Ltd., Vancouver; Foster Hoy, New Westminster; Pacific Meat Co. Ltd.,\nVancouver; Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., New Westminster; E. A. Butler, Abbotsford; Clappison Packers\nLtd., Haney; Chas. R. Goodchild, Mission; W. J. Pym, Cloverdale; S. J. B. MacKay, Cloverdale; J.\nBros, (nominees, J. MacKie and J. Azanza), Langley Prairie; Ladner Meat Co. Ltd., Ladner; A.\nWrayton, Surrey Centre; E. L. Jones, Langley Prairie; D. D. Smith, Huntingdon; C. C. Johnstone,\nChilliwack; W. B. Nelmes, Rosedale; M. Borsato, Langley; W. F. Ganz, Ruskin; Seed & Pitts, Pitt\nMeadows; S. Shepherd, Cloverdale; P. C. Hunniford, Surrey; Wm. Klontz, Abbotsford; B. McGivern,\nCloverdale; F. and W. Cohrs, Surrey; J. L. McLeod, Cloverdale; Sam Skov, Aldergrove; A. T.\nWeymouth, Matsqui.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094W. A. Shepherd (Wilcock's Market), Courtenay; H. H. Schulz, Black Creek;\nW. O. Maki, Nanaimo; H. Adshead, Ladysmith; J. W. Lock, Chemainus; C. J. Quist, Westholme;\nH. Kohler, Duncan; J. L. Saville, Duncan; A. Doney, Saanichton; Mouat Bros. Ltd., Ganges; D. H.\nRuckle, Beaver Point; M. D. Fisher, Glen Lake; H. W. Hubbard, Victoria; B. F. Nikkels, Victoria;\nF. J. McGrath, Victoria.\nHide-dealers' Licences\nCariboo District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Cariboo Cattlemen's Association, Williams Lake; C. S. Overton, Williams\nLake; C. Allertson, Bella Coola; Quesnel Packing Co., Quesnel.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. Lambirth, Kamloops; J. P. Gallagher, Kamloops; D. M. Askew\n(Salmon Meat & Produce Co.), Kamloops; T. H. Palmer, Barriere; H. Weightman, Birch Island; A.\nCameron, Ashcroft; M. A. E. Floyd, Lytton; G. A. Rebagliati, Lytton; Alex. Gammie, Lytton; D. E.\nBelshaw, Merritt; Armstrong's Department Store, Merritt.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Salmon Arm Meat and Produce Co. (nominees, D. E. and G. Askew), Salmon Arm;\nA. J. Reader (Cariboo Meat Market), Salmon Arm; Enderby Meat & Locker Ltd. (C. Horrex),\nEnderby; J. Staples, Armstrong; T. Philips (Armstrong Lockers), Armstrong; Sauder's (Mrs. Tyler),\nVernon; Vernon Locker Service & Meats, Vernon; McClaunie's Department Store Ltd., Falkland;\nJ. O. Harper, Nakusp; Mrs. Bailey and M. Fraitzl, Nakusp; John Powick, Kelowna; M. W. Marshall,\nKelowna; C. W. Reinertson, Summerland; L. F. White, Oliver; W. Hocksteiner (Pioneer Meat\nMarket), Osoyoos; H. E. Compeau (Howards Meat Market), Osoyoos.\nSimilkameen-Boundary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A. C. Bloom (Quality Meat Market), Princeton; S. A. Wilson, Princeton; L. G. Almas, Princeton; O. Wheeler, Rock Creek; C. G. McMynn, Midway; S. Talarico, Grand\nForks.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Trail Meat Market (M. L. Cole), Trail; Fruitvale Locker\nStorage Ltd., Fruitvale; J. P. Morgan, Nelson; L. S. Bradley (Bradley's Meat Market), Nelson; E.\nPratt, Thrums; R. Henson( Creston Valley Lockers), Creston; G. H. Carr, Creston; Creston Valley\nCo-op. Association, Creston; W. H. Richards (Meat Market), Cranbrook; G. I. Biddlecombe,\nKimberley.\nNorthern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094J. J. Watson, Smithers; Watson's Store Ltd., Smithers; K. L.\nKeithman, Telkwa; G. R. Hawker, Vanderhoof; C. R. Creasey, Vanderhoof; Gosse Cold Storage\nLtd., Prince George; R. Pinko (Swede Creek Ranch), Prince George; Sam Tenbaum (Caribou Meat\nPacking Co.), Prince George.\nPeace River.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. L. St. Dennis, Pouce Coupe; J. T. Lafond, Dawson Creek; D. Spittal, Dawson\nCreek; Northern Meats, Dawson Creek; R. G. Stuby, Fort St. John.\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Bissinger & Co. (agents, M. Gilmore, M. Miner, and P.\nBarazzuol), Vancouver; Burns & Co. Ltd., Vancouver; J. Leckie Co. Ltd., Vancouver; Paris Tannery CC 192 BRITISH COLUMBIA\nLtd., Vancouver; Martin & Stewart (B.C.) Ltd. (agent, R. B. Henderson), Vancouver; J. Bros,\n(nominees, J. MacKie and J. Azanza), Langley Prairie; E. L. Jones, Langley Prairie; J. L. McLeod,\nCloverdale; Dave Simpson, Langley.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. H. Schulz, Black Creek; N. Adirim, Nanaimo; Mouat Bros. Ltd., Ganges;\nM. D. Fisher, Glen Lake; H. W. Hubbard, Victoria; B. F. Nikkels, Victoria.\nOutside British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Halford Hide & Fur Co. Ltd. (agent, Wm. Sorochan), Edmonton;\nMair Madorsky, Calgary; J. E. Love & Sons (agents, J. R. Johnson and G. R. Ironside), Calgary;\nSimpson & Lee, Calgary; A. Wyman & Co. (agent, H. Myshyniuk), Edmonton.\nHorse-slaughterers' Licences\nCariboo District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. G. Knauf, Fawn.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. W. Reese, Sorrento.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094D. Fuller, Salmon Arm; G. T. Turner, Salmon Arm; D. Schubert, Salmon Arm;\nRobert Dawson, Kelowna; A. W. E. Morris, Kelowna.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. Avis, Perry Siding; H. Yerbury, Lister; A. Hosko, Natal;\nF. Lipovski, Natal.\nNorthern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A. Charbonneau, Fort St. James.\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Foster Hoy, New Westminster; Vancouver Rendering Co.\nLtd., Lulu Island; E. A. Butler, Abbotsford; E. W. Carson, Aldergrove; E. J. Jacobsen, Haney; A.\nJonson, Dewdney.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094M. D. Fisher, Glen Lake.\nBeef-peddlers' Licences\nCariboo District\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. J. Cripps (Big Lake Ranch), Williams Lake.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094R. W. Reese, Sorrento; H. Weightman, Birch Island; Q. R. Wash-\ntock, North Bend.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094J. U. De Leenheer, Vernon; G. Smalley, Vernon; Mrs. Bailey and M. Fraitzl,\nNakusp; G. Duncan, New Denver; T. W. Marriott, Kaleden.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094E. Pratt, Thrums.\nHorse-meat Dealers' Licences for Animal Consumption\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Foster Hoy, New Westminster; Vancouver Rendering Co.\nLtd., Vancouver; E. A. Butler, Abbotsford; E. W. Carson, Aldergrove.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094M. D. Fisher, Glen Lake.\nHorse-meat Dealers' Licences for Human Consumption\nCoast District and Lower Mainland.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Best-Bi Food Co., Vancouver; Vancouver Rendering Co.\nLtd., Vancouver; W. H. Burrows (Thriftway), Vancouver; F. Cillis, Vancouver; Kingsway Best-Bi\nLtd., Vancouver; R. S. Robinson, New Westminster; J. Thom, Vancouver; G. E. Tracy, Vancouver;\nAndrew Waugh (Lonsdale Best-Bi), North Vancouver; C. R. Marsden, Abbotsford.\nVancouver Island.\u00E2\u0080\u0094John A. Muckle (Rodeo Meat Market), Victoria; W. J. Gallaugher (Derby\nMeat Market), Victoria.\nPermit to Transport Horses for Range Purposes\nCariboo District.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Circle \"S\" Cattle Co. Ltd. (nominees, Miss B. E. and Col. Spencer), Dog\nCreek; Studdert & Skelton, Gang Ranch; F. N. Sutton, Williams Lake; Lord M. Cecil, 100-Mile\nHouse; Cariboo Land & Cattle Co. Ltd., Hanceville; D. C. Dorrell, Clinton; J. H. Pollard, Clinton.\nKamloops-Nicola-Ashcroft.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. P. Humphrey, Knutsford; D. Corbould, Rayleigh; T. A. Bulman,\nKamloops; F. A. Devick, Heffley Creek; Kamloops Livestock Co., Kamloops; Kamloops Indian\nSchool, Kamloops; Bostock Ranch Ltd., Monte Creek; G. J. Bowers, Cherry Creek; S. B. Morrison,\nKnutsford; N. E. Conner, Heffley Creek; R. W. Marriott, Kamloops; R. H. Johnson, Kamloops;\nW. A. Palmer, Kamloops; P. A. Parke, Cache Creek; J. W. Lauder, Quilchena; Nicola Lake Stock\nFarm Ltd., Nicola; Douglas Lake Cattle Co., Douglas Lake; R. Steffens, Merritt; Guichon Cattle Co.\nLtd., Quilchena.\nOkanagan.\u00E2\u0080\u0094J. A. Cavers, Armstrong; T. A. Thorlakson, Vernon.\nSimilkameen-Boundary.\u00E2\u0080\u0094B. (Pat) Wright, Princeton; G. E. Willis, Keremeos.\nSouth-eastern British Columbia.\u00E2\u0080\u0094H. J. Olmstead (for Forestry Branch), Nelson.\nGolden-Invermere.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A. Cooper, Invermere; L. Thompson, Edgewater. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 193\nAPPENDIX No. 9\nCattle and Hide Shipments, 1952\nDistrict Cattle Hides District Cattle\nCariboo\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Central British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nWilliams Lake - 11,707 335 Prince George, Vanderhoof 807\nAlexis Creek, Quesnel, Soda Creek, Smithers, etc 296\nLac la Hache, Clinton, 100-Mile Burns Lake 479\nHouse, Graham Siding 6,742 497 \t\nLillooet, Pavilion, Bridge Lake, Lone 1,582\nButte - 846 45\nBella Coola _ 104 Okanagan\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n Vernon, Lumby 2,256\n19,295 981 Armstrong, Enderby __ 1,995\nKelowna \u00E2\u0080\u0094 _ 898\nPenticton, Summerland \u00E2\u0080\u0094 313\nKamloops, Nicola, etc.\u00E2\u0080\u0094 Oliver, Osoyoos 1,782\nKamloops, Chase \u00E2\u0080\u0094 9,366 1,031 \t\nNicola __ _. - 6,442 471 7,244\nAshcroft, Lytton, etc. - _ 4,236 162\nSalmon Arm 635 172 South-eastern British Columbia\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n Rossland, Crescent Valley _. 154\n20,679 1,836 Nelson, Creston, etc 505\nCranbrook, Fernie, etc _ _ 1,772\nInvermere, Golden _ - 308\nSimilkameen\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\nPrinceton, Keremeos, etc. 1,927 293 2,739\nGrand Forks, Greenwood 763 707 Peace River\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n Pouce Coupe, Fort St. John, Dawson\n2,690 1,000 Creek 1,145\nHides\n988\n343\n65\n1,396\n1,071\n423\n1,575\n207\n714\n3,990\n1,250\n1,153\n774\n64\n3,241\n1,814\nTotals Compared\nDistrict\n1952\n1951\n1950\nCattle\nHides\nCattle\nHides\nCattle\nHides\n19,295\n20,679\n9,934\n2,739\n2,727\n981\n1,836\n4,990\n3,241\n3,210\n20,609\n25,799\n13,437\n5,238\n4,680\n1,590\n2,641\n4,498\n3,289\n1,823\n15,419\n24,659\n12,720\n7,042\n6,146\n1,012\n3,513\n6,835\n5,416\n4,094\nTotals _ \t\n55,374\n14,258\n69,763\n13,841\n65,986\n20,870 CC 194\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\nAPPENDIX No. 10\nLime Products Used for Soil-amendment Purposes under Transportation Subsidy Policy\nTable No. 1\nFiscal Year\nTotal Number of\nApplications\nApproved\nTotal\nAmount of\nSubsidy Recommended\nTotal\nTonnage\nUsed\nFiscal Year\nTotal Number of\nApplications\nApproved\nTotal\nAmount of\nSubsidy Recommended\nTotal\nTonnage\nUsed\n1935-36 \t\n277\n394\n416\n529\n352\n259\n208\n205\n327\n$1,110.30\n1,208.37\n1,411.79\n2,355.50\n1,390.91\n1,440.86\n1,259.49\n1,393.24\n3,435.50\n2,220.10\n2,416.74\n2,825.58\n4,711.00\n2,781.83\n2,881.73\n2,247.00\n2,510.75\n4,287.64\n1944-45 \t\n427\n407\n315\n721\n775\n974\n1,810\n1,827\n$5,007.59\n4,506.16\n4,468.23\n9,100.63\n13,400.29\n20,188.47\n42,589.93\n55,387.51\n5,554.71\n1936 37\n1945 46\n4,747.41\n4,646.13\n9,329.24\n8,958.59\n1937-38 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 .\n1938-39\t\n1939-40 \t\n1946-47 \t\n1947-48 -\t\n1948-49\t\n1949-50.\t\n1950-51\t\n1951-52 \t\n1940-41 \t\n1941-42\t\n13,722.26\n26,235.06\n1942-43\t\n1943-44-\t\n31,154.17\nTable No. 2\nFiscal Year\nGround\nLimestone\nHydrated\nLime\nMarl\nCarbide\nResidue\nGypsum\nPulverized\nOyster or\nClam Shell\nTotal\n1935-36 \t\nTons\n2,210.10\n2,416.74\n2,591.08\n4,108.46\n2,474.62\n2,257.43\n2,247.00\n1,802.50\n1,370.00\n3,053.65\n2,332.35\n3,016.43\n8,319.72\n7,380.26\n9,396.53\n8,412.20\n6,125.402\nTons\nTons\nTons\nTons\nTons\nTons\n2,210.10\n1936-37\n2,416.74\n1937-38 \t\n232.50\n358.50\n204.08\n399.30\n272.00\n697.25\n1,157.05\n1,326.65\n1,516.05\n915.45\n143.78\n119.76\n7.00\n42.50\n131.175\n2,823.58\n1938-39 \t\n70.04\n31.13\n174.00\n72.00\n125.00\n4,711.00\n1939 40\n2,781.83\n1940-41\n2,881.73\n1941\u00E2\u0080\u009442\n2,519.00\n1942-43\n11.00\n1,708.59\n1,074.06\n822.01\n701.25\n865.74\n1,404.57\n4,318.73\n17,746.11\n22,051.05\n2,510.00\n1943-44.... \t\n52.00\n80.00\n10.00\n4,287.64\n1944-45\n20.25\n67.00\n13.00\n5,554.71\n1945-46\n4,747.41\n4,646.13\n1946^17 \t\n1947-48\t\n9,329.24\n1948-49.\t\n54.00\n8,958.59\n13,722.26\n26,235.06\n1949-50 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n1950-51\u00E2\u0080\u0094 \t\n34.25\n150.55\n1951-52 \u00E2\u0096\u00A0\n2,637.00\n59.00\n31,154.17 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1952\nCC 195\nS K\nm\nSI\no\n5\n:-\ncn\nO\ng\nz\nw\n-\ng\nCO\nO\nOh\no\nH\nz\nBJ\nPh\no\n>-\n\u00C2\u00A7\nS3\nD\nGO\n- Cfl\nO O o c\nO O vo w\"\nOC\ncs\ntH\nSI'S\nHo 2\n____ *-\"SS\n.0\nl4\nTtmNomooomfnt\u00E2\u0080\u0094m\nCS !\n\"5\n,o\noo t;'*tN',^.Noa\" !\nincsr-w-cnNONciNOffru-.\nt- !\nH\no\nH\nmincscSr-iaNinoint--\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* :\nr-oocso^oo\0.cscn.-<\n* !\nsg.3\n\d Tf in rt m cs \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* Tt-\" no vo\nm '\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\nO O .OOOOO\nCO I\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0a\nj_\nOn On ! m in CS o m\nm !\nmm \ rt m m rt m\nc\nrt\nomoNOoocoTfr-o\nNO O\n(J\nc\no\nH\nTfincni-iONcncSTj-f-i\nno cn\n!3\nTH CA TH\nt-\no o o o\nO\nj_\n-1\ncn o O O\ncn\n. in OO *H On\ncn\nOOOOOOr-NC-<*rf\ncs o\ns\no\nTj-NOOOOocSCSONCSincS\nO m\ntS'-'dcsmr-i-icscScn\nTf rH\nH\nCS cs\"\n: o\no\nO O\nO O\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\ni o\nOO\n** r-\nOn O\no S\nBi.H\nj_\n! o\nVO\nt-\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0096\u00A0* O\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BAJ\n1 T-I '\nTH\ncot~*THmmOsmmrtm\nm On\nII\nc-\nHMa^rtOitsr-nn\nm cs\ni\n0\VO(0(|(0 On NO rf rn t-\nNO \"*\no\nW\no\nH\ncn\" cs\" cn\" cs i-h cs cs\" cn cn\nSO CO\ncs cs\n\u00E2\u0096\u00A0Ss\ns\ni \u00C2\u00B0\nCN\n3 3\n2 <_\n: i o o o o o\no o\nc\no\ni >, as t~~ as so m\nno in\no\u00C2\u00BB$\nrf th th th\nC3 CS\nH\n1-1\nu\nU\nPh\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BAJ\no\no\no\no\nO\no\no m o on co o\nO ON\nCS o\nc\no\nH\n00 C\u00E2\u0080\u0094 i cn On th tJ\ncs t-\nTT CS\nd\nno en\nS6\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\nu\nJ=\nCO\no\no\nu\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BAJ\n1\n1\noooinooooo<-\nNO On\n|\no\nOOCSi-HONOOTfi-H^tNOOO\nTH O\n6\nNOOOOOONONOO>DcnON\nCO NO\nz\nH\nTH tH\noo in\nOOOOO 1 o\nO O\nj_\ncs oo o On m : o\nCS TH\nno o m o\ m \ m\nO m\n\"\"SB\ngB.O\n>-)\nY-Tt-h\" |\n\u00C2\u00AB-T\u00C2\u00BB-T\n1\t\nOTfOCOO\ncn o ;\nr- oo\nu\na\no\nt- NO 'O ^t CS\n*-. CS j\nOn r4\nen oo\nH\n1\n: ! o\nm i\nin o\nj_\n3\no\n00 ! f\noo O\na>\no^\nO !\nO\nrt\n1\nTH th 1\nTH\n\u00C2\u00A3\n3\no\nr.i/.Tf ^(*ir.OOmo\nm oo\nE\no\n(N'-iri.HV.HO'toor-\ntJ- cn\ntf\nNOP-H^mNtH mm\n00 On\n\"3\nO\nH\nm\"r.\nOOOOOO^OOOOcS\nNO 00\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\nmNO\OT-.oooOcnNo\nNO H\nV\n,d\n\oooNcnNONoc-cnNots\nt-\na\nCO\nu\nhJ\n,_r ,__r ,-r ^_r -_r ,-4\" --T\nr-T\nrsON\u00C2\u00BB-iooinr-Noi>r~-o\nOO 00\nm\n3\nw\nTj-t^ONt>ir.cncscnTj-m\nCS On\n5\nd\nin t~-\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2a\n\u00C2\u00A7\n0\nH\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2o\ns\nO\nO\nCO o\no o\n3\n$\nEh\nc.\nd\nin\nin O^\nth no o o r-\n*- ti\nOn t-\n0\n1\no\no \u00E2\u0096\u00A0* rj- r- cn\ncs cs :\ncn t\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nno cn\n15\nH\n1-1\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2o\nj\nV\njd\nPh\n\u00E2\u0096\u00BAJ\noooomoo\u00C2\u00BBn\u00C2\u00A9N\u00C2\u00A3>\nNO OO\no\nH\nininOTrNCi-TtTtmm\nt> m\n55\nin in\nM\nT-\nj_\nm m\nas o*\ne\no\ns\nof u\nH \"3\nO 0\n>\nC\nrt\n>\nI-.\nu\nHH\n3\n%\nX\nu\na\nS>\n1\n>\n>\ne\n3\nE\n3\n<\nE\nf\nO\n0\ng\n3\nB\n^6\n0 o\n-oO\n73 *c\n1.S\nO 3\nso*g\nS\n0\ns\n3\nU\na>\n1 1\n3\nm\n0\n<\n\u00C2\u00AB\n\"\nOn\n0\nH\nU\n\u00C2\u00A3\n1\n0\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2o\n.5\ni "@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1953_V03_08_CC1_CC195"@en . "10.14288/1.0348182"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Victoria, BC : Government Printer"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia"@en . "Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "Department of Agriculture FORTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 1952"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .