Hilgendorf (1961) Wheat Variety With Promise

Press, Volume C, Issue 29513, 13 May 1961, Page 6

Hilgendorf (1961) Wheat Variety With Promise

Last week the Wheat Research Committee announced the release of two new wheats—Hilgendorf (1961) and Cross 7 (1961). To all intents and purposes these two new wheats are very similar to the Hilgendorf and Cross 7 which are well known to farmers except that mildew resistance has been added to them.' In the process, however, they have gained significantly in yield.

In one year’s trials Hilgendorf (1961) has yielded much better than the old Hilgendorf and at the same time it has retained the high quality characteristics of Hilgendorf unimpaired. Naturally one year’s trials are not sufficient for final judgment to be passed on the new variety, but it seems likely that if the yielding characteristics it has shown thus far are sus-

tained next season very much more will be heard of this wheat and New Zealand may be in the happy position of having a.wheat that has the twin virtues of high yield and high quality. This is something that millers and bakers have been whiting for for a long time. Mr L. G. Copp, senior cereal breeder at the Crop Research Division, is naturally cautious about the performance of Hilgendorf (1961). He is, however, prepared to say that in one year’s . trials it has yielded “much better” than old Hilgendorf —now Hilgendorf (1947)—and has so far been “very promising.” In these trials it has proved sufficiently promising to have the seed increased as quickly as possible for farmers’ use. Cross One of the interesting aspects of the new wheat is that it is derived from a cross between the original Hilgendorf and a wheat from India—S 1894—which, in Mr Copp’s words, is “an apparently miserable wheat that is not high-yielding under New Zealand conditions.” The effect of this crossing seems to have been to have given a higher yielding characteristic to Hilgendorf though in fact S 1894 is not really a high yielder. S 1894 was drawn from the division’s world wheat collection where it has been for the last 30 years. The collection is representative of unselected and unnamed varieties from almost all wheat growing countries in the world. It has been augmented from time to time with further unselected material as well as many named varieties

imported specifically for use as parents in crosses with New Zealand wheats. The collection, now containing about 3000 lines, is a valuable potential source of disease resistance as has been illustrated on this occasion. But Hilgendorf (1961) is very similar indeed to old Hilgendorf. It has been backcrossed to Hilgendorf seven times. “It is about 98 per cent Hilgendorf. It is really Hilgendorf plus a little mildew resistance,” says Mr Copp. Weaknesses And though it has impor. tant yield and quality characters Hilgendorf (1961) has two weaknesses. It is not quite so strong in the straw as old Hilgendorf. It does not lodge but it tends to lean a little. It is also a little more susceptible to stem rust but as rust does not affect wheat in Canterbury so far this is meantime not a matter of vital importance to local growers. Rust is. however, a menace to wheatgrowing in the North Island and may also be a factor in- Marlborough. "I can assure you that in a very short time we will have on our books a mildew resistant and rust resistant Hilgendorf for Marlborough,” Mr Copp told members of the Domin. ion Agriculture Section Council of Federated Farmers who visited the division last week. ,

The new Hilgendorf may also be useful on country where Hilgendorf has not usually been grown. Some 150 bushels of the new wheat is being allocated to growers through grain merchants in Marlborough, North and Mid-Canterbury this season. These are areas where Hilgendorf has been grown in the past. But over and above this quantity the division is holding some more seed for growing in further trials, not only in traditional Hilgendorf areas, but also in other areas to determine whether it may also be suitable there. Balclutha will be one of these trial areas. Indian Wheat Cross 7 (1961) has also been derived from the crossing of an Indian wheat, S 2303, from Bijawa in India, with Cross 7—now called Cross 7 (1935). S 2303 is also from the world collection and like S 1894 it is an unpromising looking wheat in New Zealand with no high yielding characters, but it has conferred yield as well as mildew resistance on Cross 7. As with Hilgendorf (1947) the new variety is very similar to the old Cross 7, having been backcrossed to Cross 7 eight times. In two years' trials it has not only yielded consistently better but it has also retained the good baking quality of Cross 7.

meat of Cross 7 (1961) would have been a notable achievement. When the work which has led to the development of Cross 7 (1961) and Hilgendorf (1961) began 10 to 12 years ago about 80 per cent, of the area under wheat in New Zealand was in Cross 7, but today when the mildew resistant Cross 7 is making its debut Cross 7 makes up rather less than 4 per cent of the crop. • Stem Rust lake Hilgendorf (1961), Cross 7 (1961) is also more susceptible to stem rust and tends to lean more than its parent. More Cross 7 (1961) than the new Hilgendorf will be available to farmers this season through their merchants but it will only amount to 200 to 300 bushels. In this case distribution will be over a wider area than in the case of Hilgendorf. [Dr. Harvey Smith, plant pathologist of the Plant Diseases Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Lincoln, who is at present studying cereal viruses in Canada, had a hand in the production of the new wheats. In writing a thesis for his master’s degree at Lincoln a few years ago on mildew resistance in wheat," he selected the Indian wheats. S 2303 and S 1894, as being the best parents to use in crossing for resistance to mildew.]

It is not, however, likely that Cross 7 (19611 will replace Aotea as the main wheat variety in New Zealand. It has certainly performed very well in areas where mildew is a real problem particularly in South Canterbury—and here it has outyielded Aotea. But in 35 trials over two seasons in areas from Takapau in the north to Winton in the far south, while outyielding Cross 7 (1935) by an average of 14 per cent., it has fallen below Aotea by an average of 5.3 per cent. Nevertheless had Aotea and Arawa not been available to growers, the develop-