A. H. Cockayne. — Montane Tussock Grassland 163 



makariri river-basin has been continually utilized for sheep-grazing for 

 over half a century, and that comparatively nothing effective has been 

 done in the way of intentional sowing of grasses, &c., to improve the 

 feeding-quality, it is remarkable that the cariying-capacity should have 

 been maintained. From this it would ajjpear that in areas of fair 

 rainfall, provided rabbits are not present, the montane tussock grass- 

 land will retain its normal comparatively low carrying-capacity for an 

 indefinite period. If, however, any attempt at overstocking is resorted 

 to, the carrying-capacity becomes lessened; but after being stocked for 

 a few years beloAv the average the carrying-capacity again becomes 

 normal. 



7. 1'he Rival Theories of Burning. 



In the early times of the utilization of the montane tussock grass- 

 land it was recognized that the dominant fescue tussock, when in its 

 natural state, afforded but scant feed. Accordingly the practice of burn- 

 ing off the tops of the tussocks each year was resorted to in order to 

 stimulate a fresh young growth that would be readily fed off by sheep. 

 This practice of burning was general from the " sixties " onwards, being 

 carried out at all times of j'ear, including midsummer. After a while 

 it was decided that summer burning had an injurious effect, and this 

 practice was abandoned, but autumn and spring burning still remained 

 popular, and was generally carried out. During the past decade the 

 utility of burning at all has been largely questioned, and at present the 

 montane tussock-land runholders are divided into two distinct schools, 

 one asserting the necessity and the other the fallacy of burning. The 

 arguments adduced b}^ both sides have not been subjected to scientific 

 experimental investigation, so that the truth or otherwise of the pre- 

 mises laid down by both burners and anti-burners has never been 

 accurately determined. 



The premises on which the two schools base all their arguments may 

 be summarized as follows : — 



(A.) Arguments for Burning. 



(1.) The tussocks in their natural state afford no feed for stock, the 

 young growth being so protected by the older inedible leaves that it 

 cannot be grazed off. 



(2.) The burning results in the production of succulent fresh green 

 herbage readily eaten hy sheep. 



(3.) Non-burning results in the too rank growth of the tussocks. 

 This causes the leaves of adjacent tussocks to almost completely cover 

 the ground, and increases the difficulty of grazing the areas between 

 the tussocks. 



(4.) Burning in early spring and in early autumn does not kill out 

 the tussocks. 



(5.) The destruction of tussocks over wide areas can generally be 

 traced to summer burning, a practice now universally rejected. 



(B.) Arguments against Burning. 



(1.) The burning of tussocks results in their gradual weakening, and 

 final death. 



(2.) The continued healthy development of the tussock growth-form 

 as the dominant feature of the vegetation is essential for the welfare 



6* 



