Having to write something to justify the return in 9 weeks means you have created a problem, not solved one.

This objection appears to be 'it's silly that this spacefaring empire needs food', which might be true if that was the Admiral was desperately in need of food, but it's clear enough he isn't. He wants it anyway. There are any number of reasons why he might want some wheat (making sure they can't sell it to rebels, it tastes nicer than field rations, maybe he just likes organic food). So what's being said here is 'it's stupid that the admiral needs food, even though I really know he doesn't need it'

. It's visible from the very opening shots - there's a giant interstellar empire with combat spaceships and there's also farmers growing their crops using seemingly medieval-level farming technology. These two things do not belong together.
Why not? We have lots of farming tech on earth, but just because it exists doesn't mean it's available, affordable, or wanted by everyone. There are plenty of farms on earth still worked by hand,

This particular planet is very remote, a long way from the Empire's heart. The technology level being different is not so unlikely, especially as it seems to be some kind of religious commune. There are different farming methods in Afghanistan than there are in Idaho. It is not a worldbuilding problem that this might be the case.

There can be problems thoughtlessly mashing genres together, it happens all the time in Mandalorian or Clone Wars. There isn't any similar problem here, it's just making a faulty assumption (the primary reason the starship is doing this is that it needs food), and then complaining that the assumption doesn't fit the text because it was an incorrect assumptiuon to begin with.