It was an alfalfa field and Atchison, a cattle producer near Pipestone in western Manitoba, needed feed for his beef cows. So he cut and baled standing forage from the field, paid the neighbour for it, took the bales home and fed them to his cattle.

Atchison didn’t pay rent for the arrangement. The other farmer simply grew the forage and Atchison bought the hay standing.

It sounds straightforward but there’s more to it than that. More than just an ordinary swap, Atchison and his neighbour were carrying out an integrated crop/livestock system benefiting both farms.

“It allowed us to grow forages on somebody else’s land,” Atchison says. “It certainly allowed us to expand our operation. We were wintering 500 cows and now we’re at 800.”

Another benefit for Atchison was the added soil nutrients left behind by the grazing cattle in the form of manure.

Of course, there were benefits for the neighbour too. On top of cash for the forage, there was also erosion control from a perennial crop, and soil nitrogen when the forage stand was finally broken up and seeded to grain.

“It’s a win-win all round,” Atchison says.

Although the arrangement between the two is no longer in effect, Atchison says he’d do it again if the opportunity came along.

“It works for a producer who doesn’t have the forage base or the land base,” he says. “When you need excess feed, you have it secured. You know you’re going to get it if you’ve agreed in the spring to buy it standing. You don’t have to look for feed.”Atchison and a few other farmers are involved in informal partnerships as a way of adding diversity to their farms by sharing crops and livestock. The livestock producer grows a hay crop on a grain farm while the grain farmer gets the benefit of a multi-species hay mix on his land.

It’s a new concept and not many producers are doing it right now. Glenn Friesen, a Manitoba Agriculture forage specialist, had trouble finding enough participating farmers for a panel discussion at Manitoba Ag Days in Brandon last January (Atchison was one).

But even though numbers are small, Friesen believes mixed crop-livestock systems are an idea whose time has come.

“I think the tables are turning,” he says. “There’s more interest in it than there was five to 10 years ago.”

Although integrated crop-livestock systems are probably as old as farming itself, North American farmers today mostly tend toward specialization. But recent trends in agriculture are starting to rekindle interest in reintegrating the two, says Martin Entz, a University of Manitoba plant scientist and a supporter of integrated crop and livestock systems.

Interest growing

In a paper by Entz and two other colleagues in Agronomy Journal, the authors argue that concerns over natural resource degradation, farm profitability, long-term sustainability and increasing regulation of intensive livestock operations have sparked curiosity about integrated crop-livestock systems.

The potential benefits, both environmental and economic, are significant, the authors say.

“Integrated crop-livestock systems could foster diverse cropping systems, including the use of perennial and legume forages, which could be grown in selected areas of the landscape to achieve multiple environmental effects,” the article states.

“(F)armers should expect that adoption of integrated crop-livestock systems would enhance both profitability and environmental sustainability of their farms and communities.”

Integrated systems can occur regionally among several farms or within individual farms. Atchison says he knows of a producer in Saskatchewan who has grain farmers dump piles of chaff on his land for cows to feed on during the winter. Entz says another Saskatchewan producer, who has been intercropping for years, uses cattle to harvest biomass from cover crops.

There are stories about producers who actually swap land for a few years, thus co-operating to improve soil health and fertility. However, Friesen feels these examples are relatively rare. More often, a livestock producer will rent land from a grain farmer to plant his own hay on it.

Weed control

One agronomic advantage of an integrated system is that it changes the weed cycle. Hay fields have a lot of perennial weeds (e.g. dandelions) while annual fields contain annual weeds. Friesen says growing a perennial crop such as alfalfa in an annual field renders the annual weeds less able to compete. As a result, the annual weed seed bank gets depressed. According to Entz’s paper, 80 per cent of farmers surveyed in Manitoba and Saskatchewan saw fewer weeds after the forage phase of the rotation.

As for economic advantages, Friesen says growing a legume forage crop like alfalfa can add 50 to 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre to the soil — a boost for grain crops seeded after the stand is taken out.

Back on the livestock farm, the producer gains a nutrient advantage in the form of manure deposited by cattle feeding on the hay from the grain farm.

“Research has shown that if you really want to put things in overdrive, you need to put the hoof on the ground to apply the manure,” Friesen says. “That’s when you get the benefits of nutrient cycling, which multiplies the life of the soil.”

Entz, a longstanding proponent for organic agriculture, says organic farming could be a springboard for integrated systems. He sees organic farmers making arrangements with beef producers to custom-graze green manure instead of turning it into the soil. Entz says the cost of plowing down green manure can be $200 an acre. But, according to one economic analysis, grazing it instead can show a $30 an acre profit from the live weight gain of the grazing animal.

“This is integration,” says Entz. “The grain farmer stays the grain farmer and the livestock farmer remains the livestock farmer. But they’re sharing resources in a common purpose.”

Long-term commitment

The bottom line seems to be that adopting integrated systems can enhance not only the sustainability of farms but their profitability as well. So why aren’t more farmers doing it?

Friesen says one reason is that integrating systems requires a long-term investment. Moving perennial crops into a grain farm takes several years to see a financial and environmental return. Meanwhile, the average farmer these days is close to 60 years old and looking to retire.

“It’s tough for them to invest in a five-year perennial field if they know they’ll be out of it in a few years and they want to have buyers ready when they put their farm on the market,” says Friesen.

Advocates of integrated systems insist they’re not trying to recreate the past when most farms were mixed operations with both crops and livestock. Instead, they see integration as a practical approach to the problem of land constraints.

“We’re not trying to recapture something that’s long gone,” says Entz. “But there are grain farmers who want to increase the scope of their enterprises but find it hard to buy more land because of availability and price. So, how about integrating? You can get involved in the livestock sector, even if you don’t own the animals.”

The post Mixed farming without livestock appeared first on Country Guide.

The AWC is spending $100,000 to have Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada scientists at Lethbridge, Alta., isolate triticale cells that fix atmospheric nitrogen and then regenerate entire nitrogen-fixing plants from those cells.

The ultimate goal is to produce nitrogen-fixing wheat, said Alicja Ziemienowicz, one of the AAFC researchers.

“Once we obtain nitrogen-fixing triticale, we will transfer this trait into wheat, using inter-species breeding techniques,” Ziemienowicz said in an email.

If successful, the project could have a significant dual benefit. It would be a money saver for farmers who currently spend up to 20 per cent of their cereal production costs on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. (That’s not counting expenses for fuel, machinery and labour for applying it.) Also, reducing nitrogen fertilizer use would benefit the environment by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide (N20), a greenhouse gas connected to global warming.

“Generation of nitrogen-fixing cereal crops will contribute to increasing farmers’ income and agricultural sustainability,” Ziemienowicz said.

Can cereals act like pulses?

At first glance, the idea of getting cereal plants to partner with bacteria to create usable nitrogen seems a contradiction in terms, like turning a sheep into a goat or putting photosynthesis into a cow.

But Ziemienowicz said the technology is partially available now and she believes additional technologies can be developed to produce plants with this new trait.

There are three biotech approaches for achieving biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in cereals. All require genetic engineering of bacteria, plants or both:

• Convincing rhizobia (nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil) to interact with cereals the way they do with legumes.
• Improving bacteria living inside cereal plants (endophytes) or in the vicinity of plant roots (rhizosphere) to form associations with cereals.
• Transferring bacterial nitrogen fixation (nif) genes directly into the plant.

Ziemienowicz acknowledges the numerous scientific challenges in generating a nitrogen-fixing cereal.

“The first one is to deliver and successfully express in plants at least 16 bacterial nif genes; usually we deliver just one to two genes,” she said. “Second, to make nitrogenase (the enzyme which converts atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia) active in plants.

“Third, cereals are not as easy to transform as (some other) plants, especially if we want to deliver nif genes to the place where nitrogenase will be active. Fourth, most gene-delivery procedures require regeneration of plants from cells or tissues. These procedures have been developed for many cereal crops but they don’t work equally well in all species.”

For that reason, researchers are working with triticale because these procedures “work better in triticale than in wheat,” Ziemienowicz said.

The GMO problem

Even if Ziemienowicz’s team manages to overcome all these barriers, there’s another challenge to nitrogen-fixing cereals involving, not science, but politics.

To achieve N-fixing cereals, scientists must use transgenesis (introducing a new gene into an organism to exhibit a new property). Transgenic wheat is currently not grown in Canada (witness Roundup Ready wheat) because of widespread opposition by customers. But Ziemienowicz hopes that may change by the time an N-fixing cereal gets generated and commercialized.

Nitrogen-fixing cereal crops have been a Holy Grail for plant scientists ever since the discovery in 1917 of the symbiosis (interaction) between nitrogen-fixing bacteria and legumes. The idea of weaning cereals off nitrogen fertilizer has intrigued researchers ever since, although progress in that direction has been limited.

Kevin Vessey, a professor of plant biology at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, did some research on N-fixation several years ago when he was at the University of Manitoba. He says scientists have learned a lot about nitrogen fixation in the last 50 years. The actual advances toward nitrogen-fixing cereals? Not so much.

“I’m not sure we’re any closer to achieving nitrogen fixation in cereals,” Vessey said. “But, like I say, never say never.”

There is, of course, a way for farmers to take advantage of nitrogen fixation right now through crop rotation. That involves planting cereal crops after alfalfa or other legumes to utilize residual soil nitrogen. This is a technology that has existed for centuries. Even the ancient Romans, without understanding what nitrogen fixation was, found that planting a cereal crop after fababeans helped the cereal grow better.

GM not a magic solution

The main reason for the slow progress in breeding nitrogen-fixing cereals is that the process is a lot more complicated than originally thought, said Vessey. When molecular biology was coming of age in the 1970s, people thought all they had to do was take genes from bacteria that fix nitrogen, put them in the plant, have them expressed in the plant and, presto… nitrogen-fixing wheat.

Turns out it’s not that simple.

“Back in the ’70s and ’80s, we thought all we’d have to do was a little genetic engineering and everything would work. Well, it doesn’t,” Vessey said.

Vessey did have some initially promising results back in 2001. He and his colleagues at the University of Manitoba looked at the potential of a nitrogen-fixing bacterium called Gluconacebacter diazotrophicus, discovered in sugar cane by Brazilian scientists in 1988. It was hoped that some strain of wheat might be able to adapt to that bacterium because sugar cane and wheat are both grass plants.

Vessey’s team used bacteria from sugar cane, including Gluconacetobacter. They learned a lot about how the bacterium worked. Ultimately, however, efforts to get it to work in wheat were largely unsuccessful.

Studies show that Azospirillium, another free-living nitrogen-fixing bacterium also found in many plants, can have some effect in wheat. Identified in the 1970s and widely used in South America as a seed treatment, Azospirillium can produce a yield increase of 9.5 per cent in summer cereals and up to 14 per cent in winter cereals.

A U.K. company, Azotic Technologies, is marketing the use of these so-called “associative N2 fixers” in a variety of crops, including cereals.

But although these bacteria have been shown to fix some amount of N2 in cereals, it’s nothing compared to the levels seen in legumes, said Vessey.

“So we do have nitrogen-fixing wheat but the benefits are small,” he said. “It makes some difference. It just doesn’t go the whole way.”

So what happens now?

Although progress is slow and success so far is limited, Vessey said research will definitely continue because the potential payoffs are major. Scientists will continue to look for different strains of associative fixing bacteria to find one that works efficiently on a range of plants.

“I can guarantee people will continue — and it’s happening today — to look for these plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria,” Vessey said.

The post The ‘Holy Grail’ in cereal technology appeared first on Country Guide.

The research project at the University of Manitoba uses electromagnetic imaging (EMI) to create a 3D profile of a bin, showing pockets of moisture which can overheat and spoil.

The system is the latest development for monitoring storage bins to detect potential spoiled grain, with the goal of helping farmers deal with the perennial problem of post-harvest spoilage losses, estimated to cost more than a billion dollars a year in Canada.

Developers call the 3D EMI system a step up from the current system of temperature-monitoring cables which measure heat levels at different locations inside grain bins.

Paul Card, CEO of 151 Research Inc., says the difference is that EMI is proactive. Sensor cables tell you when there’s a problem in the bin, but EMI tells you before the problem starts.

“Unlike a cable system, we’re detecting the pre-conditions to problems,” says Card, whose firm is partnering with the U of M in the project. “We can give an alert that we’re seeing something that may or may not turn into a problem, and we can give a rough probability of where we think this is going to happen and if something is going to happen or not, unlike a cable system where you’re already in trouble when you receive a detection.”

Card is working with Jitendra Paliwal and Joe LoVetri, U of M professors in the departments of biosystems and electrical and computer engineering.

The idea originated with a 3D microwave imaging system to detect cancer in human breast tissue, developed by LoVetri and his students. It works similarly to a CT scanner but at a much lower frequency.

Paliwal and LoVetri saw an opportunity for grain imaging, but knew it would have to be adapted because a grain bin is obviously very different from a human breast. PhD student Mohammed Asefi adapted the technology to grain imaging.

Generating a 3D image

The team began experimenting by placing small amounts of spoiled grain together with healthy grain in an 80-tonne bin in the U of M’s grain storage research laboratory and checked if the technology could find them. Early results proved encouraging, so they continued testing.

Card explains that 24 antennae, acting as receivers and transmitters, are distributed around the inside walls of the bin. A sine wave (tone) is broadcast on one transceiver and received on the others to develop a 3D profile of the bin and its contents. Because grain’s ability to transmit electromagnetic radiation (called its dielectric property) depends on its moisture, it can be used to generate a moisture map like a 3D scan, much like a CT scan to detect tumours.

The information can then be relayed to a computer or cellphone so the producer can read the results without even having to go to the bin.

Card says the main advantage of the EMI system is that it gives a complete picture of what’s happening inside the bin. Sensor cables will indicate a rise in temperature but they won’t say if a hot spot is the size of a golf ball next to the sensor or the size of a beach ball four feet away. EMI pinpoints both the problem and its magnitude, so producers know exactly what they’re dealing with and where.

Another advantage is that the system can indicate exactly how much grain is in the bin. An unexpected drop in volume signals the possibility of grain theft.

Paliwal says there were some problems to overcome. One was the need to redesign the antennae to keep them from breaking during filling and unloading. LoVetri’s lab redesigned the antennae to withstand the forces caused by loading and unloading while still retaining the necessary electrical characteristics.

Paliwal sees a bright future for EMI in monitoring grain bins, especially as bins get larger and hold grain for much longer.

“When bins were smaller, it was easier to sample them,” Paliwal says. “You just opened the door and stuck your head in. But you can’t do that any more. That’s why monitoring grain has become extremely important. It cannot be done manually as we did in the past.”

The use of 3D imaging may not be restricted to farms either. Paliwal suggests the technology could also apply to railcars and ocean vessels — anywhere grain is moved in bulk and where maintaining quality is critical.

Prototype testing this fall

The project is in its final stages of development. Paliwal and Card expect to install up to a dozen prototypes in bins near Winnipeg this fall. A commercialized product is scheduled for release in time for the 2018 growing season. The cost will vary with the size of the bin, but Card and Paliwal expect their system will be competitive with cable monitors.

While acknowledging that the new technology isn’t cheap, Card says the cost has to be weighed against the value of the crop in the bin.

“If you spoil one bin, that would pay for instrumenting all your bins.”

Many steel bins exceed 20,000 bushels these days and the street price of canola earlier this year was above $11 a bushel — do the math and you get Card’s point.

There’s another advantage to the system which often gets missed. That’s farm safety. Time was when you had to enter a grain bin to check the condition of the contents. People have been known to get trapped in the grain and either suffocated or crushed. The 3D system avoids that danger because you do not have to enter the bin to check the condition of the grain. The system tells you remotely if grain is at risk.

Managing grain so it does not go out of condition is the best way to avoid accidents such as grain entrapment, says Glen Blahey, agricultural safety and health specialist with the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association.

“Out-of-condition grain is one of the predominant reasons why people go into the bin,” says Blahey. “If, during the unloading process, someone goes in to deal with a clog, bridged grain or grain stuck to the side wall, the grain can collapse, engulf them and fatalities have been known to occur.”

The post Detecting spoilage before it starts appeared first on Country Guide.

Today, there are scores of registered varieties and new ones every year. Crop protection guides are now thick volumes with dozens of brand names, and chemistries must be rotated to avoid resistance. New crops such as soybeans, pulses and corn require specialized management skills.

As a result, growers can have trouble keeping up with rapid advancements in technology. Even if they are up to date, they don’t always have the time to monitor thousands of crop acres using the new technologies.

The CCA program

This is where professional crop advisers come in.

A new breed of agronomists called Certified Crop Advisers (CCAs) provides fee-for-service crop management and production advice, backed up by the CCA designation to give growers the assurance they’re getting a recognized level of expertise in crop consulting, says Curtis Cavers, the new chair of the Prairie Certified Crop Adviser Board, which administers the program in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

“As farms get larger and larger in the amount of workload and number of acres to cover, it makes economic sense to have an expert fee-for-service provider for this kind of work,” says Cavers. “That way you’re getting the best available service at the right time, as well as the best recommendations to maximize yields and profitability.”

The CCA program originated in 1991 through the American Society of Agronomy. It was introduced into Western Canada by the Canadian Association of Agricultural Retailers (CAAR), whose members often represent U.S. companies. Today an estimated 950 CCA members advise farmers on the Prairies, although not all act as fee-for-service consultants.

The voluntary certification program qualifies agronomists to give farmers information about managing crops, soil, water, nutrients, and pests. It also provides assurance the information comes from a recognized, qualified professional, says Jim Weir, executive director of the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists.

“It’s in farmers’ best interests to make sure they’re hiring someone with some qualifications to give them crop advice,” Weir says. “I wouldn’t like to get legal advice from someone who isn’t a lawyer. I’d be at risk.”

Larry Durand, an independent consulting agrologist in Humboldt, Sask., says some growers want to be sure they’re at the cutting edge and not missing out on new developments. Some, especially large operators, don’t have time to monitor thousands of acres. Some just want to try out something new but lack the expertise.

“Sometimes, frankly, it’s hard to keep up with all the new technology that comes out,” Durand says. “They might want a professional with the time to look at these technologies and decide which ones are applicable to different farming operations.”

Do you need help?

The first step in selecting a crop adviser is to decide if you actually need one. According to Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, producers should decide if they are satisfied that their yields reflect the level of inputs, and whether they are satisfied with their own crop management knowledge. Questions producers should ask themselves include:

• Do you have a good knowledge of weed identification?
• Can you identify diseases and insects in your crops?
• Can you interpret laboratory results for soil testing?
• Do you know the best fertilizer management practices for different crops?
• Do you know what specialized varieties are best for your particular area?

If the answers to these questions are “no” or “not sure,” hiring an agronomist might be beneficial.

Now that you’ve decided to engage a crop adviser, where do you go to find one? Agri-retailers and chemical company representatives are good sources. So are crop production clubs and government extension personnel, and neighbours may be able to suggest names.

The best approach is to shop around because the field is limited, and everybody knows everybody else, Durand says. “If I were a producer, I would definitely ask other people in the industry.”

If you’re going to hire a crop adviser, you have the right — indeed, the responsibility — to question them first. Durand recommends an interview, either formal or informal, to sound out candidates and learn more about them. Questions could include: What is your experience? How long have you been in the business? What’s your education? And — perhaps most important — what’s your production philosophy? Compatibility is critical.

“You might be concerned about keeping input costs down but your agronomist may want you to swing for the fence (maximize inputs). It might not be a good match,” says Durand.

Agree on fees

Signed contracts spelling out terms and expectations, while not mandatory, are a good idea. That way, everyone knows what they’re getting. Per-acre fees are a fairly standard method of payment but the amount will vary with the service. Durand says a one-time consultation can cost as little as 50 cents an acre. But a cradle-to-grave service on a high-value crop such as potatoes, where the agronomist might be out in the field several times a week, can run up to $12 to $15 an acre.

On the other hand, some services such as diagnostics or forensics (e.g. spray drift damage) may be charged per hour.

Durand also recommends making sure incidental charges, such as lab fees for soil or tissue-testing, are spelled out in advance. Are they included in the fee or are they over and above that? A producer doesn’t want unexpected surprises when the bill arrives.

Even though the adviser will provide the best service they can, Durand stresses there is no guarantee for a successful crop. The producer has to know that going in.

“Personally, I make it clear with clients before I start with them that I’ll make recommendations based on the best information I have at the time. But nothing is ever guaranteed. Agronomy is never black and white. It’s many shades of grey,” Durand says. “Once you lay out these things up front, most producers understand that all the best intentions don’t necessarily make a crop.”

Durand compares hiring a crop adviser to making an investment. You hope the money you put in will give you more money later on. Good professional advice can result in a few more bushels an acre or skipping an unnecessary fungicide application.

Higher yields plus lower input costs equal financial benefits.

Dispute settlement

But sometimes complaints can arise. Producers may feel they didn’t get the right advice or the service was lacking. Should that happen, CCA boards have an established procedure to follow.

Brent Flaten, past-chair of the Prairie CCA board, says written complaints can be submitted to a local or even international board for examination. If the board finds the complaint is justified, disciplinary action can be taken against the crop adviser. Flaten says the Prairie CCA board has received a few complaints in the past, although none resulted in discipline.

Flaten says CCAs must follow a high level of standards and ethics which are spelled out on the association’s website. They must follow generally accepted practices and cannot offer misleading or detrimental advice. If they do, there can be consequences.

“A lot of it is based on reputation,” Flaten says. “If somebody’s not giving the right information, word gets out pretty quick.”

At the same time, Flaten stresses the CCA board does not have the power to force settlements. That has to happen through the courts. If there is a financial settlement, professional liability insurance may cover it.

CCAs and P.Ags

Although CCA is self-governing, it is not regulated by provincial legislation and does not have regulatory powers. That belongs to provincial agrology institutes. Institute members have a university education in agrology and possess a P.Ag (professional agrologist) designation. CCA is a training program certifying that members have passed examinations and have the necessary skills to do their job.

Although agrology institutes and CCA are separate, they complement each other. Agrology institutes are provincially legislated bodies ensuring standards and compliance. CCA is a voluntary program targeting agronomists. It is a means of showing they are current in their field and receive regular, ongoing training. To be a certified CCA in Western Canada, you first have to be a P.Ag.

“As soon as somebody starts providing knowledge and advice to a third party such as a farmer, the expectation under provincial law is that everybody is registered,” says the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists’ Jim Weir.

The post When you need great crop advice appeared first on Country Guide.

After changing into hospital scrubs in a locker room, Fetch and his team deactivate an alarm system and go through four doors to enter the laboratory. The Level 3 containment lab, certified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, operates under negative pressure so air cannot leave the room. The scientists work carefully with isolates from Africa obtained through CFIA import permits. Their work starts in November and lasts only during winter so cold will kill the agent should it accidentally escape from the lab. Before leaving, Fetch and his crew shower to wash away any spores that might be clinging to their bodies and hair.

Watching these extreme biosecurity measures, you’d think the scientists are dealing with a dangerous pandemic agent that, if it ever got out, could cause widespread devastation. And you’d be right.

Fetch leads a team of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research scientists racing against time to find genes with resistance to Ug99, a new race of wheat stem rust spreading through eastern Africa and central Asia.

Although Ug99 is currently confined to a distant corner of the globe, it has the potential to cross borders, even oceans, and infect wheat crops worldwide.

The stakes to develop resistant lines are high because, so far, over 80 per cent of the world’s wheat varieties have little or no resistance to Ug99.

The fungal disease is so virulent that crops, once infected, have been known to collapse completely in a few weeks.

Which means that Ug99, if it continues to spread, is a potential threat to wheat everywhere, including Western Canada.

“It’s almost like a forest fire,” said Fetch. “If it gets out of control, it just spreads so fast that, at that point, even with chemicals, it would be difficult to control if you had enough acres infected.”

On the move

First identified in Uganda in 1999 (hence the name), Ug99 is now present in 13 countries. Most are along Africa’s east coast from Egypt all the way down to South Africa. Ug99 has also been detected in Yemen and Iran.

Pathology experts worry Ug99, carried on the wind, could spread to Pakistan, India and China, where wheat is a staple crop. From there, spores could potentially ride trade winds over the Pacific Ocean to North America. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Dust particles have been known to blow across China to North America and a rust spore is no heavier than a speck of dust.

It’s also possible that spores could come over on the bodies of international travellers, which is how the SARS epidemic came to Canada from Hong Kong in 2003.

Even more worrying is the fact that new strains of Ug99 keep appearing, allowing the disease to stay one jump ahead of efforts to breed resistant varieties. Currently, there are 13 known strains of Ug99, including the original one. If a wheat variety contains only one resistant gene, a mutating Ug99 could pick it off and remain unchecked.

For that reason, Fetch and his colleagues are trying to use genes in combination to create multi-gene stacks of resistance. In that way, even if Ug99 overcomes one resistant gene, there are several others in the gene stack to counter it.

And there’s good news. Fetch said his group of roughly 15 scientists has found three new resistant genes and is currently identifying associated molecular markers to make sure those genes have actually been added to the lines they’re working with.

“The ideal system is to put multiple genes in a line so that, if Ug99 overcomes one gene, it still cannot attack the plant fully because there are other genes that are still effective,” says Fetch.

Resistant Canadian varieties

Currently, the two Canadian wheat varieties with the best resistance are AC Cadillac and AC Peace. Both are relatively old — Cadillac was registered in 1996 — so they may not be as good as the new high-yielding cultivars. But Cadillac is considered a gold standard for disease resistance and breeders have used it in crosses since 2005. In 2013, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada released AAC Tenacious, a hard red spring wheat with Cadillac resistance to rust and fusarium head blight. Fetch says Tenacious contains two resistant genes — better than most wheat but still not quite enough to satisfy breeders.

There hasn’t been an epidemic of wheat stem rust on spring wheat in Canada for over 60 years. The last major one occurred in 1955 and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Since then, breeders have achieved durable resistance by stacking resistant genes into wheat varieties. Annual surveys in Canada and the U.S. monitor for changes in rust populations.

Most Canadian spring wheat varieties are resistant to current stem rust races in North America. But since Ug99 is not from North America, its arrival here could undo decades of progress in preventing rust outbreaks. Fetch says if Ug99 were to arrive in the southern U.S. in January, it could migrate northward along the so-called Puccinia pathway of spore movement into Western Canada within one growing season. Surveillance in the U.S. would give Canadian farmers advance warning. As a result, they could prepare for Ug99’s arrival by either planting the few available resistant wheat varieties or stocking up on fungicides.

Are fungicides an option?

But could chemical companies make enough fungicide available in such a short time to protect the millions of acres of wheat grown annually on the Prairies? It’s a big if.

“If you did not have fungicides available, it would cause some serious problems because (Ug99) is available on 80 per cent of our wheat,” Fetch says.

An added problem is that fungicides increase farmers’ input costs and their continued use could produce fungicide-resistant strains of stem rust.

Canada and the U.S. have one advantage over other countries in controlling the spread of Ug99. A common native shrub called the barberry, found throughout temperate and subtropical regions of Africa and Asia, acts as an alternate host plant, which allows rust spores to reproduce sexually. Normally, Ug99 reproduces asexually and releases spores that, for the most part, are genetically identical. However, when the barberry gets infected, sexual reproduction of spores can re-scramble the genes and produce new strains of the disease.

Widespread eradication programs throughout North America in the early 20th century largely eliminated barberry populations. But Fetch says eradicating the barberry in Africa and Asia is unrealistic, especially since its berries can be used for food or medicine.

Another concern is that the barberry is also present in South America, although it’s unclear if this shrub is the kind that gets stem rust. Fetch says a recently funded pro­ject in collaboration with scientists in Brazil, where barberry is native, will try to find out. If it turns out Latin America has rust strains which can infect barberry, that potentially brings Ug99 even closer to home.

Research into Ug99 is an international effort with scientific teams in various countries working co-operatively.

In 2011, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the U.K. Department for International Development announced a $40 million investment in a global project led by Cornell University to identify new rust-resistant genes in wheat and to distribute resistant seeds to farmers.

The post Heading off a stem rust pandemic appeared first on Country Guide.

From a centralized system administered by a single agency, the plan has splintered into six separate checkoffs and five different producer-run wheat and barley commissions in three provinces.

This patchwork will simplify a little on August 1, 2017, when some of the deductions are consolidated under the provincial commissions. But the greater question is about the future of the Western Grains Research Foundation as its current role in funding wheat and barley research switches over to the provincial commissions.

For its part, WGRF insists the work will continue but its role will be different.

“We will still be involved. We just won’t be involved in collecting the checkoff after July 31, 2017,” says WGRF chair Dave Sefton, who farms at Broadview, Sask.

Others say the change is part of an evolution in responsibility for collecting and distributing money to fund grain research.

“Now that these provincially elected commissions are in the game, it’s a logical transition in authority, making sure we don’t drop any of the good work that WGRF has done on our behalf,” says Brent VanKoughnet, executive director of the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association.

CWB fallout

Why is all this happening? It’s fallout from Bill C-18, the “Marketing Freedom For Grain Farmers Act,” which removed the Canadian Wheat Board’s central selling desk in 2011.

Previously, the CWB managed refundable checkoff deductions on wheat and barley delivered to licensed grain buyers in Western Canada. The rate was 48 cents per tonne of wheat, of which 30 cents went to the WGRF, 15 cents to the Canadian International Grains Institute and three cents for administration. Of the 56-cent checkoff on barley, 50 cents went to the WGRF, three cents to the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre and three cents for administration.

All three groups are non-profit organizations. WGRF, created in 1981, invests in research, and has assisted in development of more than 200 wheat and barley varieties. Cigi was established in 1972 to promote Canadian grain and provide training in production, marketing and processing. Since 2000, the CMBTC has provided technical support and market information to the malting barley value chain.

CWB forwarded the checkoff revenue to the organizations. In WGRF’s case, the foundation leveraged the money by cost-sharing the expense of public research for breeding programs.

That changed in late 2011 with the passage of Bill C-18. Stripped of its central desk, the CWB was no longer able to collect checkoffs. Suddenly, the industry realized there would be no one to collect the levies. Something had to be done to keep things going. And fast.

Multiple checkoffs

The result was the formation in 2012 of producer-elected provincially regulated commissions to handle the checkoffs instead of the CWB. They are: Alberta Wheat Commission, Alberta Barley Commission, Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission, SaskBarley Development Commission, and Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association. (Manitoba has only one commission because the province’s wheat and barley crops are smaller than the other provinces’, but the checkoffs are still separate).

Also in the same year, the federal government established the Western Canadian Deduction (WCD), a temporary transitional checkoff on wheat and barley. The rates are the same as under the CWB. Ottawa mandated the Alberta Barley Commission to administer the WCD. ABC in turn sub-contracted with Levy Central, a program operated by the Agriculture Council of Sask­atchewan, to handle the actual collection. (Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley last year decided to do their own deductions in-house. Levy Central still does the job for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.)

Besides the WCD, growers also pay additional levies to their respective provincial commissions. The result: two separate checkoffs for each crop in each province.

For example, wheat farmers in Alberta pay a total of $1.18 per tonne, consisting of the Western Canadian Deduction of 48 cents per tonne and an Alberta Wheat Commission checkoff of 70 cents per tonne. A similar situation exists for barley.

Moving to single checkoff

Not surprisingly, farmers wonder why they have to pay two levies per crop when they paid only one previously. This has led commissions in all three provinces to move to a single checkoff on August 1, 2017, when the WCD is set to expire.

“We think it simplifies the system to have one checkoff as opposed to two because farmers are going to quite rightly ask, ‘why do you need two separate levies? What do they all do?’” says Tom Steve, general manager of the Alberta Wheat Commission in Calgary.

“It’s designed to provide some clarity and efficiency in terms of administering the funds, as well as direct accountability back to the farmers who pay the levy.”

Commissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan this past summer were drafting single checkoff proposals for their producer members to vote on. Manitoba producers have already approved single checkoffs for both wheat and barley at their annual meeting in February 2016.

As a result, come August 1, 2017, growers in Western Canada will pay a single levy for wheat and another one for barley. It’s expected Levy Central will still collect the checkoffs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba while Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley will continue their own collections in-house.

Whither, or wither, the WGRF?

But the money collected by these levies will no longer go to WGRF. Instead, the commissions will have the authority for funding wheat and barley variety development, not WGRF.

This raises the question: whither WGRF? If it no longer receives checkoff money for wheat and barley, what will it do?

Sefton is quick to assure producers WGRF isn’t going away.

“We’re a federally incorporated charitable foundation in place to enhance crop production in Western Canada. It covers Western Canada. It covers all crops. That will continue to be the mandate under which we operate.”

Sefton points out WGRF still has its endowment fund which it uses to fund a wide range of crop research for cereals, oilseeds, pulses and special crops. Currently at $120 million, the fund was established in 1981 when money was transferred from the discontinued Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Since 2000, it has received funds collected under the Canada Transportation Act in excess of the set railway revenue cap, assuring its continuance.

Sefton says WGRF has also signed five-year core agreements to ensure funding for wheat and barley research and development until 2020.

This means WGRF will still be in the game even if some of its role is shifted to the commissions, says Steve.

“The important thing for producers is that all of the commitments to funding variety development will be met,” he says. “That is the critical point because virtually all the wheat varieties that farmers grow in Western Canada come out of public programs at universities and Agriculture Canada. We need to ensure continuity is there, and it will be.”

However, Steve acknowledges decisions will eventually have to be made about WGRF’s exact function.

“We’re working with them on what the future model will look like. After August 1, 2017, we anticipate the funds will be administered by the commissions. The commissions will work on a collaborative basis to fund Agriculture Canada and university programs. The precise role of WGRF in that mix is what we still haven’t landed on.”

Three commissions, same direction?

While it’s full steam ahead for the commissions, there’s some concern about them going in different directions by focusing on local interests rather than regional ones.

That’s the case in Manitoba where producers worry they could be overshadowed by the other two provinces. Manitoba’s wheat and barley checkoffs together generate less than $2 million a year, depending on the size of the crop. Alberta collects between $5.5 million and $6 million annually for wheat alone. For that reason, Manitoba wants to make sure future research focuses on the interests of all western Canadian growers, not just those in larger provinces with deeper pockets.

“Our ability to create even a blip on the radar in research, if we were completely isolated on our own, would be so insignificant we could get left behind very easily,” VanKough­net says.

“We need to make sure we design working groups and processes to make sure the spirit of how we work together continues in a western Canadian capacity,” he says. “It takes more effort when we have three organizations to do that instead of one.”

The post Checkoffs to become a checkerboard appeared first on Country Guide.

Canada has only four major publicly funded programs for breeding tame forages, along with two smaller programs for native grasses. Research funding has been static for the last 10 years except for some from the Beef Cattle Research Council. It’s estimated that only about one-third as much forage research is being done nationally as in the 1980s. Research today concentrates on major species such as alfalfa, clover and grasses because there aren’t enough breeders to cover all the others.

“Considering the importance of the crop, that is a small breeding effort, especially when you consider the number of species to be worked on,” says Bruce Coulman, a University of Saskatchewan forage breeder who works on dryland grasses such as brome and wheatgrass.

Similar in the U.S.

In the U.S., the pattern is similar, despite more private companies involved in forage research. Mike Peterson, the global traits lead for Forage Genetics International in Janesville, Wisconsin, says variety evaluation is “way less” than it was 10 or 15 years ago. He recalls that an alfalfa-breeding group meeting in the U.S. used to draw 300 people. Now only about 60 attend.

“It’s crazy. It’s just eroding,” Peterson says. “We have almost as many acres of alfalfa and we’re just not doing the research that we used to.”

Peterson stresses the work that is being done is cutting edge and high quality. It’s just that the talent pool is so thin.

“The quality of the work has never been higher. There’s just not enough of it.”

Another problem is a lack of uptake for the research that is being done.

“The work that our breeders are doing is certainly very valuable. But we also don’t have a huge uptake from industry to use a lot of these new varieties,” says Cedric MacLeod, executive director of the Canadian Forage & Grassland Association.

“There is some reluctance by growers to adopt the newest technology. It’s hard for the public purse and private industry to justify the expense that goes along with breeding new varieties because the return on investment is a difficult case to make.”

• Read more: Making hay of environmental goods and services

No checkoff revenue

The nature of forages can make it difficult for breeders to target traits to select for. Because most forage is fed by farmers to their own cattle, their production tends to fly below the radar. Even basic data is sometimes lacking. Yields and value often have to be estimated because they are not actually documented, as they are for grains and oilseeds.

“The variability in itself makes it hard for us to get a handle on what really needs to be done,” MacLeod says. “And it makes it difficult for the breeders to pinpoint what it is they should be breeding for.”

Surya Acharya, an AAFC forage breeder at Lethbridge, Alberta, thinks breeding programs in the past placed too much emphasis on yields and not enough on quality. Part of the reason may be that beef producers, who use the bulk of forages, do not require the same high-quality forage that dairy farmers do. Acharya believes higher quality would give forages a market advantage for exporters

Enhanced management

Most in the industry agree forage producers need to take management to a higher level, given the escalating cost of farmland. Peterson does some work near Kitchener, Ontario where land can cost up to $20,000 an acre, making it hard for forages to compete with corn and soybeans.

“You really need to pretty much pull an annual grain crop off that land to make it pay. Or you need 10 tons of alfalfa per year.”

But Acharya believes there are ways for forages to be competitive through enhanced management. One way would be to stop growing forages as a monoculture in grazing situations. Acharya is currently working on sainfoin, a forage legume which can be grown in a mixed stand with alfalfa. Not only does this mixture reduce bloat, it produces greater yields with a higher quality.

“We should be working in a more innovative way to produce more from a unit area without only concentrating on genetic yield increases,” Acharya says.

This article first appeared in the “Forage & Grassland Guide” in the March 1, 2016 issue of Country Guide

The post Forage breeding faces funding challenges appeared first on Country Guide.

The potential enemy is a noxious weed called waterhemp, a member of the pigweed family and a cousin of Palmer amaranth, a glyphosate-resistant weed currently plaguing cotton and soybean growers in the southern United States. Like its pesky southern relative, waterhemp is increasingly resistant to glyphosate. And like other weed pests, its growing presence in the U.S. means it’s likely to eventually cross the 49th parallel. In fact, it has already been reported at Cando, N.D. just an hour’s drive south of the Manitoba border.

“It just seems to be growing and growing and moving north every year,” says Richard Zollinger, a North Dakota State University extension weed specialist in Fargo.

As happened with the varroa mite, zebra mussels, soybean cyst nematode and other invasive species which originated in the U.S., waterhemp will ultimately make its way into Canada.

“It’s probably not ‘if ’ we get the weed. It’ll be ‘when.’ So we should be prepared,” says Jeanette Gaultier, a Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development weed specialist.

Just how much damage waterhemp could do to Canadian crops is unknown. But Zollinger’s research is far from reassuring. His surveys show waterhemp is capable of reducing corn and soybean yields by anywhere from 15 to 44 per cent.

“There are fields in North Dakota where you can hardly find a soybean, it’s so thick,” Zollinger says.

As its name implies, waterhemp likes wet conditions to germinate and grow in. Northern U.S. states have been in a wet cycle for several years, encouraging the spread of waterhemp seeds overland and along major waterways such as the Red River. Although there are other ways of spreading the seeds (e.g. by machinery), high water and overland flooding are the main methods.

In Manitoba, the situation is similar. “We’ve been in a very wet cycle. We do have the same flooding issues. We’re going to see that plant here at some point,” says Gaultier.

Besides being water-borne, another reason for waterhemp’s rapid spread is its heavy seed set. Studies show waterhemp can produce more than a million seeds per plant. Zollinger says scientists have detected up to five million seeds per plant in some cases.

Yet another reason is the weed’s unique biology. The male and female flowers are on separate plants (a characteristic known as dioecious). The male plants produce pollen and the female plants make the seed. This outcrossing creates huge genetic diversity, which can produce biotypes resistant to certain classes of herbicides, including glyphosate.

The classic reason for glyphosate resistance is the continuous use (and overuse) of glyphosate, especially on Roundup Ready crops such as sugar beets, corn, soybeans, cotton and canola. It’s hardly surprising that glyphosate resistance is on the rise in North Dakota and Minnesota, since the first three crops are grown extensively there. That’s particularly true for soybeans, which are expanding rapidly in those states as the American soybean belt moves gradually northward. Zollinger says North Dakota now has the fourth-largest soybean acreage in the U.S. behind Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota. It is also the fifth-largest in total production.

Compare that to Manitoba, where, within the last 10 years, soybeans have grown to become the third-largest crop in the province behind wheat and canola. Nearly all those soybeans are glyphosate tolerant. With soybeans increasing in popularity, the last thing growers in the Keystone province want is a new glyphosate-resistant weed.

Multiple resistance

It’s not just glyphosate, either. Zollinger says waterhemp in some U.S. states is also starting to exhibit resistance to other classes of herbicides, including Group 2 ALS/AHAS inhibitors.

“Every population that would appear in Canada would be ALS Group 2 and glyphosate resistant,” Zollinger says.

Although it is a pigweed, waterhemp is a summer annual that germinates much later than other pigweed species, from mid-June to July. Zollinger says flushes can appear as late as August. A herbicide application may control the first flush, but any sunlight getting into the crop as the season progresses will stimulate new flushes. Waterhemp is a tall weed and, once established, competes well with annual crops. Herbicides tend to work best on weeds when they are small, and can be less effective on tall ones. So controlling waterhemp is a never-ending battle during the growing season.

Zollinger says glyphosate-resistant weeds such as waterhemp are a growing economic problem in North Dakota and Minnesota. To control them, producers have to double or even triple their herbicide costs. Although resistance makes fewer post-emergent options available, growers are slow to adopt pre-emergent herbicides because they are expensive and commodity prices aren’t as high as they were a few years back.

Getting ready

So what should farmers do to prepare for waterhemp’s arrival?

Gaultier encourages growers to get to know waterhemp’s biology, scout fields and monitor them for signs of a weed that looks different. Identifying waterhemp in its early stages can be difficult because most pigweeds appear similar at the seedling stage. However, Gaultier says the cotyledons of waterhemp are a little smaller than redroot pigweed and the leaves tend to be longer and more lance-shaped than other members of the pigweed family.

Zollinger agrees surveillance is key to stopping waterhemp before it spreads. He encourages farmers to map their fields and identify weed patches.

“Sitting on a combine is the perfect place to map your fields. If you see some areas where waterhemp is in patches, that is where you can concentrate your herbicides. You can map the fields and, in the coming spring, put on appropriate herbicides.”

Zollinger urges producers to exercise both crop and herbicide rotations to keep waterhemp in check. Wheat is an early emerging crop and its canopy can help limit flushes. Wheat and other cereals also offer options for herbicides that are not available for genetically modified corn and soybeans.

Then if you do spot a few waterhemp plants from the cab, get out and pull them up. If you have a field-full in three years, you’ll wish you had.

It’s an open question if waterhemp could spread to other parts of Western Canada. Gaultier says it prefers wet conditions, such as in the eastern Prairies. But Gaultier says waterhemp appears able to adapt to different conditions, so don’t be complacent.

“I wouldn’t recommend that folks further west be any less vigilant in their scouting than folks in the Red River Valley.”

The post Waterhemp knocking at Canada’s door appeared first on Country Guide.

It is also the question that producers and industry officials are pondering now that soybeans in Manitoba are well over the million-acre mark.

The doubling of soybean acres in Manitoba in the past four years has drawn inevitable comparisons with Iowa, which, until recently, was the largest soybean-producing state in the United States.

The truth is, however, that Manitoba is no Iowa. While Manitoba’s 1.3 million acres of soybeans planted in 2015 are impressive, they are dwarfed by the estimated 10 million acres seeded by Iowa growers.

As for the differences in growing conditions, just ask an Iowa farmer.

John Heisdorffer planted his 44th soybean crop near Keota in southeast Iowa this year. Earlier this summer, he expected to meet his average annual yield of 48 to 50 bushels an acre.

Heisdorffer estimates average soybean yields in Iowa range from 45 to 50 bushels an acre in northern regions of the state to 50 to 60 bushels in the south.

By contrast, the 10-year average provincial yield in Manitoba is 33 bushels an acre.

Heisdorffer, 63, normally starts planting soybeans in late April or early May and harvests them in late September or early October. In a phone interview with Country Guide, he said he hardly ever has to worry about frost. “Very seldom do we ever have beans frosted off. Once in a great while, like anything else, we’ll get caught. But I don’t remember in my lifetime it ever hurting the beans.”

Heisdorffer also doesn’t need to worry about cool nights during ripening, since daytime highs during the growing season average 30 C or more.

Dry conditions are seldom a problem. According to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, the state’s average annual precipitation is 43.35 inches, double the Manitoba average.

Admittedly, Iowa’s wetter climate can produce plant diseases not known in Manitoba. One of the big ones is sudden death syndrome, one of the most important soybean diseases in the U.S. Midwest. A fungal disease, SDS places plants in high-moisture areas at risk and causes yield losses of over 20 per cent in some fields.

For that reason, Heisdorffer, who sits on the Iowa Soybean Association, the American Soybean Association and the U.S. Soybean Export Council, thinks Manitoba may have an advantage.

“Maybe your yields aren’t quite up there but beans like dry heat. They’re more of a dryland crop. If you can get the rains in August or so, that’ll make your beans.”

Maybe. But judging by the statistics, Manitoba isn’t about to become the Iowa of the north any time soon.

This article first appeared in the October 2015 issue of the Soybean Guide

The post Is Manitoba the new Iowa? appeared first on Country Guide.

“The migration of the Corn Belt to the Canadian Prairies could be a double win for Canadian farmers. By switching to corn (and other cash crops like soybeans), farmers would significantly increase the cash flow from their acreage, setting the stage for marked appreciation in farmland values,” writes Rubin in his recent book The Carbon Bubble.

“Rising temperatures and drought should reduce corn yields and hence production in the U.S. Midwest, with some prime growing areas becoming unsuitable for corn cultivation. Given how important the U.S. is to world production, any reduction of U.S. supply is almost certain to put upward pressure on world corn prices, making the crop all the more valuable for those who can grow it.”

Mind you, Rubin has been spectacularly wrong before. His previous book, Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller, predicted world oil prices would top $200 a barrel by 2012, profoundly affecting economic drivers in industrialized countries. We all know how that turned out.

But something is happening which makes you wonder if the agri-industry isn’t anticipating Rubin’s prognostications. Already, major seed-producing companies are announcing bold plans to develop corn hybrids suitable for Western Canada with the goal of expanding corn acreages significantly.

First out of the gate was Monsanto Canada in June 2013 when it raised eyebrows by launching a 10-year, $100-million program to develop earlier relative maturity corn hybrids adapted to Western Canada. “Taking into consideration crop rotations, this could result in an estimated annual western corn market of eight to 10 million acres by 2025,” a Monsanto news release stated.

Not to be outdone, DuPont Pioneer announced on July 30, 2014 it would construct a multimillion-dollar research facility in Lethbridge “focused on developing ultra-early-maturity corn products for growers in Alberta and Western Canada,” according to a company statement.

All this activity gives the distinct impression of companies trying to turn a currently marginal crop on the Prairies into a major one.

While they don’t say directly that a warming climate is one of the motivators for their research efforts, they imply it.

“It’s certainly something that we’re thinking about,” says Dan Wright of Monsanto Canada. “We certainly believe it’s not going to get cooler in Western Canada. It will continue to get warmer.”

To call corn a minor crop in Western Canada right now would be an understatement. Monsanto estimates the current annual acreage ranges between 300,000 and 500,000 acres, much of it confined to southern Manitoba. That’s barely a sliver of the 16.64 million acres of canola that Prairie farmers were expected to seed this spring.

For Monsanto’s 10-million-acre dream to come true, corn would have to expand far beyond a small corner in Manitoba. This raises an important question: where would all that corn be grown?

“I would say the logical area for it is in the southern half of our growing areas where the combination of shorter season varieties and time to maturity could result in reasonably sized production,” says Bruce Burnett, a CWB weather and crop specialist.

The main reason why southern Manitoba is home to most of the corn currently grown in the West is climate. The region generally receives more precipitation and has a longer growing season. Take corn out to semi-arid regions in Saskatchewan and Alberta and you could see it looking like onions shrivelling in the dry ground, especially this year when the western Prairies experienced some of their driest growing conditions in years.

“Corn will not perform well under drought conditions. There’s no doubt about it,” says Burnett. “We can’t become the new Corn Belt without reliable rainfall.”

Climatologists generally agree the long-term trend on the Prairies is toward warmer weather and a longer growing season by perhaps 10 to 15 days. But the outlook for moisture is less certain. “We shouldn’t expect a large increase in the amount of precipitation we have, even with a longer growing season,” Burnett says.

That said, Burnett acknowledges Monsanto and DuPont are both very market-savvy companies and may be on to something if they are willing to plow millions of dollars into developing corn hybrids suitable for all of Western Canada, not just part of it.

Monsanto’s Dan Wright says he is “extremely excited” about the progress his company has seen in its corn program after only two years. Wright says Monsanto had nearly 90 test plots this year, with locations ranging from Manitoba’s Red River Valley (the heart of the province’s Corn Belt) to Saskatoon, down to Lethbridge, up to Edmonton and as far north as Grande Prairie, Peace River and “the edge of failure,” just to see if it’s possible.

While admitting this year’s drought was hard on Monsanto’s test plots, Wright says the company is making progress on lowering heat unit thresholds from 2150 to under 2100. A new variety released this year, DKC23-17RIB, is at 2075 heat units. Wright says the goal is to get down to 2000 heat units, which would be a breakthrough for an early hybrid.

Another goal is to produce hybrids consistently yielding 100 bushels an acre or more, generally considered the threshold for a commercial corn variety. Here, too, Monsanto is making progress, says Wright. “We’ve found lots of areas across Western Canada where we’ve put our test products in and said, you know what? We’re close.”

Morgan Cott, a field agronomist with the Manitoba Corn Growers Association, is skeptical about corn expanding into non-traditional areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, despite shorter-season varieties. She believes most expansion will come from existing growers increasing their own acres.

“I would expect producers just to be growing more of their own acres, not necessarily growing much farther north or in areas that might not be great for corn,” says Cott.

“It wouldn’t be a quick growth geographically,” Cott believes. “It would be a slow sort of thing.”

However, Burnett believes corn could have a future outside Manitoba, depending on how effective companies are at getting varieties to yield well in a shorter growing season.

“You could conceivably grow it in a large portion of the Prairies if you got the length of the growing season short enough,” says Burnett. “(But) I don’t know whether you can do that with acceptable yield results for corn.”

Another factor to consider is frost. Even if prospects are favourable for expanding corn acres, Western Canada is not Iowa or Indiana.

The growing season is shorter. No matter how you cut it, corn takes longer to mature than cereals do and the threat of damage from an early frost is always real.

“You can see an increase in your growing season but if your climate still remains quite variable and you still occasionally get these frosts on August 20, that’s another thing to consider,” Burnett says.

Still another potential problem is the fact that corn is a high-residue row crop. As a result, it is not always suited to parts of the Prairies where minimum- and no-till cropping systems predominate. Breaking up corn residue after harvest can require special tillage equipment.

Would corn force producers to open up no-till systems? It’s a question worth asking.

“There are a lot of areas that are no-till production as you move farther west,” says Pam de Rocquigny, a Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development cereal crop specialist. “How does corn fit into that in terms of a high-residue crop where we need to incorporate that residue?”

But you never say never when it comes to new crops on the Prairies. There was a time when growing winter wheat in Western Canada was considered doubtful. No one expected Saskatchewan to become one of the world’s largest lentil producers. And look what happened with soybeans, which used to be the preserve of the U.S. Midwest but now are the third-largest crop in Manitoba.

“There are risks, but there are risks with growing any type of crop,” says de Rocquigny. “It’s up to each individual producer to pencil out what makes sense for their farming operation.”

This article was originally published as “Moving North” in the September 2015 issue of the Corn Guide.

The post Corn crops point their compass north appeared first on Country Guide.