Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T04:07:14.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analytical Yield Investigations on New Zealand Wheat: II. Five Years' Analytical Variety Trials.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

O. H. Frankel
O. H. Frankel
Affiliation:
(Wheat Research Institute, Christchurch, New Zealand.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The task of wheat growing in New Zealand is limited to providing for the needs of a population of 1½ million. Owing to the long distance from other wheat-growing countries it is considered essential for the Dominion to remain independent in its supply of wheat and flour. A sliding scale duty fixes the price of wheat at a level sufficiently remunerative to the grower to insure the production of approximately the required amount. Since 1927, when this duty was introduced, the area under wheat has varied between 236,000 and 302,000 acres, and the annual production between 6½ and 11 million bushels. The requirements for flour milling, seed and stock food being slightly less than 9 million bushels, shortages due to unfavourable seasons are covered by the carry-over from the previous season, and/or by importation. It is only in seasons of excessive yields that export of wheat becomes necessary. Under the compulsory pooling system in force since 1932·3, losses due to the difference between local and export prices are distributed amongst all the wheat growers in the Dominion.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 1935 , pp. 466 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boekholt, K.Fortschr. Landw. (1931), 6, 234.Google Scholar
Boekholt, K.Landw. Jb. (1933), 78, 123–146.Google Scholar
Boonstra, A. E. H. R.Meded. LandbHoogesch. Wageningen (1929 a), 33, 3.Google Scholar
Boonstra, A. E. H. R.Meded. LandHoogesch. Wageningen (1929 B), 33, 6.Google Scholar
Boonstra, A. E. H. R.Meded. LandbHoogesch. Wageningen (1931), 35, 2.Google Scholar
Doughty, L. R. and Engledow, F. L.J. agric. Sci. (1928), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L.J. agric. Sci. (1925), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, L. R.J. agric. Sci. (1926), 16.Google Scholar
Doughty, L. R.J. agric. Sci. (1928), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. and Ramiah, K.J. agric. Sci. (1930), 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. and Wadham, S. M.J. agric. Sci. (1923-4), 13, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. and Yule, G. U.The Principles and Practice of Yield Trials (1927). Empire Cotton Growing Association, London.Google Scholar
Forster, H. C. and Vasey, A. J.J. agric. Sci. (1931), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, H. C. and Vasey, A. J.J. Dep. Agric. Vict. (1932), 30.Google Scholar
Forster, H. C. and Vasey, A. J.J. Dep. Agric. Vict. (1933), 31.Google Scholar
Frankel, O. H.Rep. Wheat. Res. Inst. (1931), p. 42.Google Scholar
Frankel, O. H.Züchter (1932), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, O. H.N. Z.J. Sci. Tech. 16 and Bull. N.Z. Dep. sci. industr. Res. (1934), No. 46.Google Scholar
Heuser, W.Pflanzenbau (1928), 4.Google Scholar
Heuser, W.Pflanzenbau (1930), 6.Google Scholar
Heuser, W.Fortschr. Landw. (1932), 7.Google Scholar
Heuser, W. and Boekholt, K.Pflanzenbau (1931), 7.Google Scholar
Hilgendorf, F. W.20th Quart. Rep. Wheat Res. Inst. N.Z. (1934).Google Scholar
Hilgendorf, F. W.24th Quart. Rep. Wheat Res. Inst. N.Z. (1935).Google Scholar
Hudson, A. W. and Stafford, W. C.Emp. J. exp. Agric. (1934), 2.Google Scholar
Hudson, P. S.Z. Zücht. A (1934), 19.Google Scholar
Mcmillan, J. R. A.J. Courc. sci. industr. Res. Aust. (1935), 8.Google Scholar
Maximov, N. A.Herbage Publication Series Bull. (1934), No. 16.Google Scholar
Raum, H.Wbl. landw. Ver. Bayern (1930), No. 38.Google Scholar