THE CAWTHRON INSTITUTE AND FRUIT RESEARCH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22065, 22 September 1933, Page 8

THE CAWTHRON INSTITUTE AND FRUIT RESEARCH

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At the recent Dominion Conference of Fruitgrowers a remit was brought forward by the Henderson association asking the federation seriously to consider making a substantial contribution to the Cawthron Institute. In commenting upon the remit, Mr J. Campbell, director of horticulture, led the fruitgrowers to infer that the Cawthron Institute was not in close touch with the fruit industry, that, its work had little practical value, and that there was a lack of continuity in its investigations. Furthermore, as a reason apparently for the withholding of financial support to the institute, he stated that the Cawthron Institute was not under the control of any central authority and that there were difficulties over which the institute had no control. The statements made by Mr Campbell are so misleading and so inimical to the welfare of the institute that the Cawthron Institute Trust Board has deemed it advisable to refute them, and to give fruitgrowers and the public a brief resume of the more important contributions made by the Cawthron Institute in the development of the fruit, tomato, and tobacco industries. The statement supplied by the board referring to the activities of the institute in the industries specified above leaves no room for doubt as to the valuable help which has been given by the institute. It is very difficult to assess in monetary terms the value of the institute’s work, but it cannot be disputed that it represents many thousands of pounds yearly to these industries.

The investigations have not only had a great practical bearing on the welfare of the industries, but the very diversity of the problems successfully attacked by workers at the institute shows conclusively that the officers of the institute have been in close touch with orchardists, fruit, and tomato growers. Not only has the institute devoted much attention to the problems of these industries, but has actively the establishment of a New Zealand fruit research organisation with a view to the extension of research, the augmentation of staff, and the attack of problems connected with the industry. The Cawthron Trust Board as far back as March, 1928, approached the New Zealand Research Council and th 6 Department of Scientific and Industrial Research pointing out the desirability of establishing a fruit research station, and stating its willingness to co-operate with the council in the establishment of such a station in the Nelson district. It was largely as a result of the representations made by the Cawthron Institute and its willingness to co-operate in the establishment of a fruit research station that the Research Council was successful in obtaining a grant from the Empire Marketing Board for fruit research in New Zealand.

The Fruit Committee established by the Research Council to co-ordinate research activities under this scheme has representatives from the New Zealand Research Council, the fruitgrowers, the Department of Agriculture (Mr Campbell being one of the representatives), and from the Cawthron Institute. Several officers of the Cawthron Institute have been actively engaged in research work under this committee since its inception, showing clearly the desire of the Trust Board so co-operate in fruit research and prevent overlapping. On the other hand, Mr Campbell states that the Cawthron Institute is not under the control of any central authority. If he infers by this that the Cawthron Institute is not under the control of _ the Department of Horticulture he is right, and in the interests of. research in New Zealand any suggestion as to the control of the Cawthron Institute by the director of horticulture or by any Government Department will be resisted to the utmost, and in this the board'feels it-will have the approval of primary producers throughout New Zealand and the support of all scientists who have fought continuously for freedom in research. The attitude adopted by Mr Campbell strikes a damaging blow, not only to that freedom which is essential to the conduct of scientific research, but his antagonism to the Cawthron Institute nullifies to a large extent the excellent work which has been done by the New Zealand Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research towards the coordination of fruit research activities in New Zealand. , The Cawthron Institute Trust Board has taken in the past no parochial view concerning the relation of the institute to New Zealand as a whole. Several officers of the institute are co-operating with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in New Zealand-wide researches, among which may be mentioned the soil survey of the volcanic soils of the North Island, mineral content of pastures investigations, the biological control of noxious weeds and insect pests. In view of the large area of land devoted to fruit,, tomatoes, small_ fruits and tobacco at Nelson, it is inevitable that many investigations must bo conducted in the Nelson district. This does not, however, prevent the application of information gained as a result of Nelson investigations to similar problems in other parts of New Zealand. In conclusion, the Cawthron Institute Trust Board assures the fruitgrowers of New Zealand that the _ institute will actively pursue its investigations in connection with fruit research, and that as opportunity permits its activities in this important branch will be extended despite the obvious desire of the director of horticulture to oust the institute from this important field of its activities.—l am, etc., W. J. Mofeatt, Chairman, Cawthron Institute Trust Board.