BREAD QUALITY DEFENDED

Southland Times, Issue 24601, 25 November 1941, Page 6

BREAD QUALITY DEFENDED

REPLY TO JUDGES AT NELSON “SURPRISING ATTACK” ! (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 24. Representatives of baiters and flourmillers today disagreed in the strongest terms with the statement of two judges of the bread competition at the Nelson show that the quality of New Zealand bread was inferior because the flour the bakers were at present getting was a bad quality of New Zealand flour. They said it was very high and had never been higher than in the last two years. “This attack on the quality of New Zealand flour was most surprising because probably never before has it been agreed by so many of those in the trade that flour quality is so even and generally satisfactory,” said Mr R. J. Lyon, chairman of the New Zealand Flourmillers’ Society. The weather during the last two harvests was all that could be desired and wheat was received in excellent order, he said. It had been proved that header harvested wheat was fully equal in baking quality to stack threshed or stook threshed wheat, provided the wheat was fully ripe and the weather dry when threshing was being done. TESTS OF QUALITY “It has to be remembered that millers are subject to severe tests of quality every month and no slackness is tolerated by the Wheat Controller,” said Mr Lyon. “Actual experience shows that the tests this year are fully equal to any previous year. Tire best judges of whether flour and bread quality is satisfactory are the public, who are quick to perceive any lowering in the usual standard, but all our information shows that there is an almost entire absence of complaints. “With reference to the distribution of flour to bakers and their choice of brands, the same system has been in force for the last 30 years or so,” Mr Lyon said. “When the Government regulations came in in 1936 the same system of distribution was continued as had been in existence in the time of Distributors Ltd. (1922-36) and Government wheat and flour control (191822) and used by the New Zealand Flourmillers’ Association before that. I notice that one baker in Nelson, commenting on . the supposed fall in quality, puts it down to an absence of Canadian flour. The name of this baker is not disclosed, but it must be Rip Van Winkle, as Canadian flour has not been imported for the last five years. How could the absence of Canadian flour be responsible for a lowering of the | quality of New Zealand bread during the last year or so? j STRONG FLOUR 1 “Canadian flour is a strong flour and makes an attractive-looking loaf. It has no advantage over New Zealand flour as regards nutritional quality or flavour. As it turns out it was fortunate for New Zealand that Canadian flour was prohibited some years ago as there would be no possibility of securing any now because of the dollar exchange. One of the statements made by the Nelson judges was that some intending exhibitors had not competed because (the judges thought) they could not produce bread of a sufficiently high standard from the flour available, and yet the bakers have had no other choice of flour except that produced by New Zealand millers for the last five years.” “The remarks of the judges as reported are, in my opinion, definitely incorrect and definitely silly,” said Mr F. H. Hawker, chairman of the executive committee of the New Zealand Master Bakers’ and Pastrycooks’ Association and managing director of Stacey and Hawker, Ltd. “The quality of the | flour has never been higher than it is at present. This applies particularly to 100 per cent. New Zealand wheat meal, which is a very fine product indeed and compares favourably with any wheat meal in the world.

IMPROVED APPEARANCE “It is true that Canadian flour used some years ago gave a decided improvement in the appearance of bread, but that is now largely offset by good flour resulting from New Zealandgrown wheat, in particular the Cross 7 strain. In any case in war time it could hardly be expected that wheat could be imported from Canada in view of the shortage of shipping and other reasons. Possibly there were on exhibition a loaf or two which may have hardly been up to exhibition standard, and if so this may have impaired judgment over the whole exhibition. “I simply cannot understand the remarks reported as having been made by the judges and I am fully satisfied that an unfortunate mistake has occurred somewhere. I am satisfied that the loaves sent to the show by my own firm were of an excellent standard. INSTITUTE’S TESTS IMPROVED QUALITY OF FLOUR (P.A.) WELLINGTON, November 24. Replying to the allegations made at Nelson about the poor quality of New Zealand flour, the Minister of Industries and Commerce, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, said these statements were so alarming in their nature that he felt compelled to issue a statement on the matter. Dr F. W. Hilgendorf, director of the Wheat Research Institute, Christchurch, who was immediately communicated with, made the following statement, said Mr Sullivan. “The statement made by the judges at the Nelson show caused the greatest suprise to the Wheat Research Institute. The institute makes thousands of tests of New Zealand flour every year and found that the quality had progressively improved, especially during the past three years, a period during which there has been no importation of Canadian flour or wheat. The institute has been show a duplicate of one of the winning exhibits and there is no question that it is a very high-class loaf—evidence of high-quality flour and excellent workmanship. The statement of the judges was probably intended to refer to a matter in which the public have little interest, namely, the show quality of the loaf. This is indicated by their own words: ‘The exhibit could only be described as very poor from the show point of view.’ INDIRECT BEARING “But show points are not primarily concerned with several factors that are of interest to the consumer. Show points are concerned with bulk, fineness of crumb, structure, colour of crust, bloom of crust and so on, which are all important as indications of good workmanship on the part of the operative, but have only an indirect bearing upon flavour and palatability and none at all on the nutritive value. It is quite true that Canadian flour makes a bulkier, whiter loaf than New Zealand flour does, but it is also true that New Zealand flour is quite as palatable as Canadian and it is definitely superior in nutritive value, especialty in minerals and vitamins. The statement by a Nelson baker that the quality of New Zealand flour' has been adversely af-

fected by header harvesting is quite contrary to the results given by exact experiments. Before the Wheat Research Institute gave its support to the use of headers it made scores of baking trials of wheat headed and stookthreshed from the same fields and found there was no difference between the quality of the loaves baked from wheat harvested by the two methods.” Mr Sullivan added that bakers usually had the choice of a number of brands of flour. “Actually in Wellington bakers have the choice of more than 20 brands,” said the Minister. “The statement made by Dr Hilgendorf is, I think, ample evidence of the quality of our flour, and as far as the bakers generally are concerned it is understood they have no complaint to make.”