The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1938. Gross 7 Wheat

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22337, 26 February 1938, Page 16

The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1938. Gross 7 Wheat

The criticism of the payment for Cross 7 wheat made by members of the executive of the North Canterbury district of the New Zealand Farmers' Union is a little difficult to understand, as wheatgrowers have had from time to time ample warning that the premium paid in the earlier stages of the commercial use of the variety was merely to be temporary. Cross 7 has been so successful a wheat that last year it took third place among all varieties in point of the number of crops sown and showed an increase in area that left little doubt of the satisfaction it gave to growers. The variety was developed originally to be an improvement on Tuscan in quality and, if possible, yield; and after exhaustive trials over a number of years it appeared to satisfy well the requirement of quality and to have a yield that would be about the same as Tuscan. It also emerged, more or less accidentally, that Cross 7 showed very distinct advantages over Tuscan as a wheat to stand up to the windy conditions of certain growing districts. The Wheat I Research Institute, which completed the development of the new variety, has consistently made it known that the main claim for the variety was that it gave a better flour than Tuscan. Its trials have shown that it normally yields a little better than Tuscan; and in ordinary use it has shown definite advantages as a wheat easier than Tuscan to harvest, particularly with headers. This, with the cost of labour at its present level, is a most important consideration. In 1935, 14 crops of Cross 7 were grown in the Dominion. There were 85 for the 1936 harvest and 569, aggregating 12,150 acres, for the 1937 harvest. No estimate of the area grown for this harvest is yet possible; but the amount of seed purchased indicates that the area will be considerably bigger than last year, when the variety was, next to Tuscan and Hunters, the most popular wheat. It has been consistently stressed that Cross 7 has not been developed with the idea of displacing such wheats as Hunters. In his survey of the 1937 harvest, made for the Wheat Research l Committee, Dr. F. W. Hilgendorf said, " It cannot "too often be emphasised, to avoid future dis- j " appointment, that Cross 7 is not designed to be " a competitor of such wheats as Dreadnought " and Hunters, but only of Tuscan. It should " be grown only on Tuscan country, and then "it will yield as well on the average as its " Tuscan parent.'- And again in the same report: "It should be recognised that Cross 7 is " designed, not to replace Hunters, but as an " alternative to Tuscan. If it is grown on " Hunters country there is likely to be disappointment." Through the merchants last year, growers were warned that the 2d premium for Cross 7 might not again be available; and the j fact that the price of the seed was reduced indicated more directly that this was so. Growers, then, should have been under no misapprehension that the higher price had been guaranteed. Mr G. C. Warren, chairman of the executive, declared that there was no question of the superiority of Cross 7 over cither types. It was, he said, the best flour-producing wheat grown and an excellent wheat for header harvesting. Last year, Cross 7 yielded 5.13 bushels an acre more than Tuscan, probably because, being a new wheat, it was given better land, i It is not unlikely that with its manifest advantages, Cross 7 will continue to be a popular wheat in spite of the abolition of the premium. It is significant that the meeting had no word of criticism of the 1938 prices for other varieties.