ONE of Australia's biggest wool growers has criticised Australian Wool Innovation's research and marketing decisions.
Paraway Pastoral NSW general manager Tim de Mestre has written to Australian Wool Growers Association director Martin Oppenheimer congratulating him on his public opposition to AWI's decision to cease funding the genomic research Information Nucleus Flock and the direction of marketing programs.
- SHARE YOUR VIEW
- Do you agree with Paraway Pastoral's stance on AWI
- READ MORE: AWI told to boost research
- READ MORE: AWI not OK with DNA
- READ MORE: Flock trials crucial to wool future
- READ MORE: Call to restore research funding
- Have Your Say in the form below
AWGA recently wrote to 5000 major wool producers, calling on them to vote for the 1 per cent option for marketing and R&D in this year's WoolPoll levy ballot, which closes next Friday.
AWI is advocating a 2 per cent levy.
"Hopefully we can send a message to directors," Mr de Mestre wrote.
Mr de Mestre declined to elaborate his views to The Weekly Times.
According to its website, Paraway Pastoral runs about 240,000 sheep. It owns 30 properties, including the Pooginook and Mungadal Merino studs in the NSW Riverina.
AWI has come under fire in recent months for its refusal to fund the wool industry's share of $4.8 million over nine years for the Information Nucleus Flock.
AWI chief executive Stuart McCullough has previously said the proposal was rejected because "we could not see the results being delivered into the commercial arena on a mass scale".
AWGA's criticisms follow similar positions taken by Western Australia's Pastoral and Graziers Association and the WAFarmers.
The WAFarmers, which in the past has backed the 2 per cent levy option, is advocating 1 per cent this year.
WAFarmers wool council president Ed Rogister said his members were disappointed with the AWI decision to change the split between marketing and R&D from 50:50 to 60:40.
He said growers were also disappointed AWI would not allow producers to vote on the amount of wool tax they wanted to have spent on each of the areas of interest, and were concerned about how the organisation identified its priorities and conducted its approval process for project funding.
AWI failed to comment.