Refusal to release wheat criticised

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32587, 22 April 1971, Page 10

Refusal to release wheat criticised

A decision by the Wheat Research Committee not to make Kopara wheat availble to farmers this year was criticised by the executive committee of the agriculture section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers yesterday and the Wheat Research Committee was urged to reverse its decision.

The wheat, also known as 1020,01, has been tested extensively by the Crop Research Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Lincoln. The Wheat Research Committee reached the decision not to release it yesterday, after members had discussed the matter at length in private and recommendations had been presented by the director of the division (Dr H. C. Smith). In a statement after the meeting the director of the Wheat Research Institute (Mr R. W. Cawley) said that more selection work woujd be carried out by the division with the aim of improving the milling- quality.

When the fanners’ executive committee was told of the decision the chairman (Mr A. L. Mulholland) said that this was a tremendous disappointment He saw no good reason why this strain of wheat should not be released and suggested that 10 years work had been wasted.

It was never envisaged that the Crop Research Division would not go ahead with improving the milling quality, he said. At this rate, release of the wheat could be three years away. Kopara wheat was a good wheat and its baking qualities were equal to those of Aotea.

Mr N. Q. Wright, who proposed that the Wheat Research Committee be urged to reverse its decision, said that farmers had scientific evidence that Kopara wheat was a better wheat than most others. The farming community wanted the wheat, which it had demanded last year. Mr R. Rivers said that fanners badly needed the new strain if, as was intended, Arawa was to be phased out.

Astonishment at the decision was expressed by Mr G. E. Rennie, who suggested that the Wheat Research Committee was not doing its job in withholding the wheat.

"I have grown some of this wheat on trial and it’s a jolly sight better than Arawa. The committee’s decision is just plain stupidity,” he said. Mr T. E. Streeter urged that the reasons for the Wheat Research Committee’s decision be obtained. Some background to this was essential, he said. The farmers’ money was used to pay for the wheat research unit and the staff which worked there and farmers had not had much return for their investment, Mr Streeter said.

“We ought to start again to have this body replaced by one which knows what it’s doing,” he said.