But that’s little comfort to Canadian farmers when the trade environment changes day to day.

“All of this creates a scenario where prices flatten out, there is less bidding for crops, the farmers have a lot on the farm right now looking for a home and the prices just aren’t where they want them to be while this uncertainty is going on,” says Greg Northey, Pulse Canada’s vice-president of corporate affairs.

In the beef industry, perhaps the clearest example of the degree to which the uncertainty has affected the sector has been the flow of live cattle exports, including categories of feeder cattle, in advance of the original tariff deadline.

“We saw an exceptionally elevated increase in exports just to take the risk off the table,” says Tyler Fulton, president of the Canadian Cattle Association.

“It was not consistent with the cost of production comparison between the U.S. and Canada at the time and exclusively related to the tariff threats.”

It has also meant that producers who background or feed cattle have had to purchase them at record-high prices, increasing their costs and eating into their bottom line.

Supply-managed sectors, such as dairy, egg and poultry, are somewhat better insulated from the threat of tariffs than producers in export-reliant sectors, but they are not immune from the uncertainty created by trade disruptions.

“The dairy system in Canada isn’t meant to have uncertainty and unforeseen things happening,” says Quebec dairy producer Jason Erskine, who is also a director with Les Producteurs de Lait du Québec (Dairy Producers of Quebec) and the Union des producteurs agricoles (Quebec’s farmers’ union).

“Because we always know how much milk is coming into the system and how much we need, it helps us lower our cost of production because we can run everything to maximum efficiency.

“It is the uncertainty that is driving up the cost of everything, because markets are going to price in the risk.”

How is the tariff situation affecting other decisions on the farm?

When it comes to major capital purchases of items such as equipment, land or infrastructure, some producers are delaying while others are accelerating those decisions.

“In some cases, people are pulling ahead a purchase — for example, equipment — that they know they will need in the short time horizon, and which are not currently exposed to a countermeasure here in Canada against some U.S. tariffs,” says Fulton.

“Others have delayed or are not making the purchase because they know that the lead time required could expose them to a tariff when it’s delivered.”

The tariff environment also affects farm transitions. As most farms across Canada are embroiled at various stages of the transition process, the current market uncertainty and shifts in global trade alliances are adding a whole new dynamic to an already complex process.

“There are differences across all agriculture simply because of where we are in each of the cycles,” Fulton says.

“In some transition plans it’s not uncommon to see the next generation specialize, so it’s difficult for those choices to be made when you have got such a stark difference in the projected margins in, for example, a crop versus a cow-calf operation.”

What’s the end game?

As the saying goes, “This, too, shall pass” but what will the lingering effects be, both positive and negative?

On the negative side, there will be short-term pain — and no one can be sure how long it will last.

Although buoyed by the fact that the dairy industry has long been ahead of the Buy Canadian trend with its blue cow branding of dairy products, Erskine is concerned that supply-managed sectors could be vulnerable to a change in the trade conversation.

“Tariffs are a tool, and the U.S. is using the tariffs to extract more out of us,” Erskine says.

“So, if they impose tariffs that are crippling, such as (with) steel and aluminum, then we begin to ask, ‘What do we need to do for you to get rid of these?’ There is huge danger for supply management if that conversation happens,”

It’s also important to learn the lessons of this tumultuous era.

“As a country we need to make sure we don’t waste the opportunities that present themselves and go back to business as usual,” says Kevin Auch, who grows cereals, oilseeds and pulses on his farm in Carmangay, Alta.

“When you have some good years in a row, we sometimes forget that these things can happen. One of the side benefits could be that farmers, and all businesses, will take more of a cautionary approach.”

Lots of opportunities

On the positive side, this tariff situation could lead to new markets. It’s also already provided the impetus for provincial governments to finally take action on removing interprovincial trade and mobility barriers and facilitate trade across Canada.

“Our domestic market, and having access to local supply chains, becomes an important piece so that we are not at the mercy of foreign supply chains,” says Yves Millette, CEO of Farm Business Consultants (FBC).

“The Buy Canadian movement has become more attractive for patriotic reasons but also economically, and now there is a collective will to get our resources to both coasts. That’s good for our farmers because we need to diversify as a country and ensure that there are programs in place that are good for us all in general.”

When it comes to supply-managed sectors, such as dairy, trade disruptions could translate into lasting benefits.

“I think people are better understanding the benefits of supply management because they realize the importance of having food available in the store all the time, and not fluctuating in price, or availability, especially in a more and more unstable world,” Erskine says.

And out of turbulent times comes opportunities for some. Many producers remain optimistic about the future of Canadian agriculture.

For example, in the beef sector, there is still phenomenal demand from consumers and a tight supply that should support the high prices cattle producers have seen over the past few years.

“I can’t help but be optimistic about how the beef sector is positioned for the next five years,” Fulton says.

“Although this uncertainty is unequivocally a net negative, maybe some of the other additional actions that we have seen in the U.S. over the last couple of months might, in the long run, bring more fiscal responsibility and focus economic growth than we were seeing previously.”

New markets and Canada first

Most sectors have been working on developing new international markets, and while that process may have a new urgency because of the current trade environment, it’s not necessarily a direct result of it.

The pulse industry, for example, has already been exploring new markets in the Indo-Pacific region and has been focusing on more food applications, such as meat and dairy alternatives.

“There is a huge opportunity for pulses because they are highly nutritious and high in protein,” says Northey.

“A lot of countries are adjusting their dietary patterns and looking for healthy alternatives, so there is a lot of interest and desire for pulses, and we are promoting that across the world.”

Millette also thinks that positive changes will come from these fraught times. He believes they will be the impetus for beneficial long-term change for farmers and for Canada, pointing to recent examples, such as the decrease in taxation burden for producers through the removal of the carbon tax and suspension of an increase to the capital gains inclusion rate.

“I believe we are going to start to see friendlier legislation when it comes to farming, producers and entrepreneurial businesses,” Millette says.

“We have a country that has abundant natural resources, and we should be one of the wealthiest countries in the world if we simply made sure that we have the infrastructure in place to do that and optimize our own economic interests.” CG

The post Producers aren’t panicking over tariffs and trade threats appeared first on Country Guide.

But the current geopolitical windstorm is something else entirely.

On his cattle operation near Birtle, Man., Tyler Fulton is making good use of livestock price insurance and has filed his annual application for AgriStability, a margin-based, federal business risk management (BRM) program that helps Canadian producers manage large income declines. He has seen growing interest in these programs from livestock producers this year as a result of the increased market risk in the sector, which is heavily integrated with the U.S. beef industry.

“It doesn’t matter whether or not tariffs actually happen, the uncertainty remains,” says Fulton, who is also president of the Canadian Cattle Association.

“We have moved to a new level of understanding of the importance of risk management across all of Canadian agriculture because we are so reliant on export markets.”

Some producers, however, aren’t certain that farm risk management programs are robust enough, especially for farmers who are highly reliant on export markets.

“If this is the new world we are going into, if we are going away from free and open trade, then all these sectors relying on exports need better income assurance programs that provide adequate coverage and can react fast enough,” says Jason Erskine, a Quebec dairy producer and director with Les Producteurs de Lait du Québec (Dairy Producers of Quebec) and the Union des producteurs agricoles (Quebec’s farmers’ union).

“If you leave farmers too long without help you are going to burn the next generation, or the current generation, from doing the investments that they maybe would have done otherwise,” he says.

Many farm groups have been advocating for BRM tools that are bankable, predictable and functional.

“The challenges that farmers are facing right now is why organizations like Manitoba Canola Growers Association (MCGA) exist: to support farmers when they need to come together as one voice to influence these complex issues,” says Delaney Ross Burtnack, executive director of MCGA.

Insurance has become a strategic tool

While the first line of defence is often government-backed BRM programs, there are also various private insurance options.

“We have certainly seen a renewed focus on the overall risk profile landscape for some of our farm customers,” says Ryan Johnston, vice-president national practice leader, agriculture, at BFL Canada.

“We are noticing a unique change in viewpoint where insurance has become a strategic tool versus just a cost centre.”

It’s a shift that isn’t just driven by the current trade situation, but one that has been gathering momentum as farms become larger and the value of their operations increases.

“Farmers are becoming more sophisticated in their understanding of how insurance can provide adequate protection as they expand and grow,” Johnston says.

“But they need to also understand how the insurance terms and conditions apply. ‘If this were to happen to my elevator or my dairy barn, how would the policy apply?’ Walking through those live scenarios with your insurance professional can be beneficial to understand ‘we’d be okay if that happened’, or ‘this would be catastrophic to our business’.”

What about investment decisions?

Financial clarity and sound management also become increasingly important when there is more risk.

“We have the ability to mitigate some of the risk, but with the political uncertainty that is happening around the world right now, being a little bit diverse, and not overextending if you can help it, are also important,” says Kevin Auch, a grain, oilseeds and pulse grower from Carmangay, Alta.

“Try to keep some cash reserve or some ability to absorb some of these market shocks that we are seeing.”

Against this backdrop of extreme uncertainty, Canadian farmers are adopting a new growth strategy of strategic self-reliance, says Yves Millette, CEO of Farm Business Consultants (FBC), which offers accounting and tax services across Canada to various sectors, including agriculture.

What does that mean?

For starters, farmers are going to think long and hard about where and how they make the most efficient use of their capital.

“There are risk management programs, but cash-flow management becomes really important,” says Millette. “Things like big equipment purchases, we’re not going to see that, but what we will see is used equipment purchases and more repairs.

“There is self-discipline around all of that, and when you are in a business that is already squeezed and cyclical, and there is increased risk — which tariffs create — you need to be more conservative financially.”

At the same time, farmers are going to be looking for ways to get a higher return on their investments.

“They are going to delay with just plain old growth investment and be more focused on projects and investments that have a high return on investment potential,” Millette says.

Being self-reliant, though, doesn’t mean that farmers are alone in figuring out how to weather these turbulent times. Perhaps more than ever, this is the time to seek out some external expert advice.

“Farmers are extremely sophisticated and one of the biggest risk-takers in our economy, and they have to manage all these things,” Millette says. “They are largely self-reliant but there are people that have expertise in planning, succession and financial matters that they can and should access.” CG

The post Riding the tariff roller-coaster appeared first on Country Guide.

He says it’s not only the high cost of farmland that’s affecting young farmers’ ability to grow their land base, but strong competition in the rental market, which has elevated rental rates.

Lean years aren’t helping either.

“Lower grain and oilseed prices, and elevated input costs could result in negative margins on rented land or recently purchased land for most producers this year,” says Anderson.

Older farmers with strong balance sheets and sufficient cash flow might weather low profit margin years, but such margins are a far greater threat to farmers just starting out, he says.

Crop sharing option

Crop sharing could be a good option for young and beginning farmers, Manitoba Agriculture’s Darren Bond says.

Although unable to benefit from land appreciation, crop sharing does provide lowered upfront capital costs of land, while sharing the downside risks associated with below average crops with the landowner, says the provincial farm management specialist.

Of course, the producer also must share the upside potential of above average yielding crops.

“However, this is often a quite acceptable trade-off considering the other options of trying to be competitive with more established farms with acquiring cash rents and land purchases,” Bond says.

Levi Derksen, senior manager with Buckberger Baerg & Partners LLP, demonstrates how farmer and landlord split the rewards and risks with his example that compares $100/ac. straight cash rent versus a 20 per cent crop share.

During a good year, if a farmer under such an agreement grosses $650/ac., the landlord would receive $130/ac. But during a poorer year, during which the farmer is only able to gross $350/ac., the landlord would receive only $70/ac., Derksen explains.

“With rising rental rates, a form of crop share or bonus rent based on revenue targets helps the farmer pay higher rental rates to access land, without being locked into a long-term cash rental contract that is unsustainable,” Derksen says.

Hammond Realty founder Tim Hammond says that crop sharing could be an option for a young farmer, but an expensive one.

He helped an investor purchase land at $400/ac. and secure a crop share arrangement in 2007. The next three years were good ones, and the landlord’s crop share came to around $100/ac. At the end of those three years, the tenant wouldn’t do another crop share.

“It was way cheaper just to guarantee the landlord $60/ac.,” Hammond remembers. “He was thankful for the acres and opportunity, but once that arrangement served its purpose — helping a young farmer get going — he switched.”

How it works

Under a crop sharing agreement, the percentage that the landowner receives typically ranges from 20 per cent to 33 per cent, Derksen says. This also depends on the crop mix and the quality of the land, he adds.

He says crop share deals are more common on poorer land, so that the risk of a poor crop is shared. Crop sharing is also more common in southwestern Saskatchewan, where the crops are more variable due to drought.

But Derksen says crop shares are less common in the black soil zone that has more consistent crops.

The actual split of the crop produced occurs at the country elevator, which writes a cheque to the landowner.

“There are a lot of variations,” Derksen says. “Some farmers pay out their crop shares directly to the landowners without splitting grain at the elevator.”

Hammond says that the logistics of splitting grain produced on crop-shared land can be challenging.

“Does it go across a scale or do you ‘eyeball’ it in a bin?”

Hammond says tenants aren’t required to pay until either their crops are sold or harvested, and notes some landlords take actual physical delivery of the grain.

“Cash is typically tight with a young starting farmer, so this is attractive. He can use cash in spring for inputs instead of rent,” says Hammond.

Another feature of crop sharing are the contributions both tenant and landowner make toward growing a season’s crops.

Anderson explains that the landlord provides the land and a portion of the crop inputs — such as seed, fertilizer, chemicals and crop insurance —– while the producer supplies all the machinery, labour and remaining inputs.

Trust and “good, open and honest communication” are vital for a crop sharing agreement to work effectively, according to Bond.

“If superior communication and trust can’t be established, simple cash rental agreements are preferred,” he says. “Many farmers feel simple cash rents to be easier to understand and administer, making them much more popular.”

The kind of trust landowners extend to their tenants crosses some significant variables.

“If the farmer contracted some grain at a lower price and some at a higher price, which price will the landowner receive for their crop share?” asks Derksen. “Does the crop share land get less fertilizer, no fungicide application and is combined last?”

Who’s doing it

Crop sharing remains almost a niche part of farmland rentals.

Anderson notes the last Census of Agriculture pegged the percentage of rented land in Canada that was farmed under crop sharing at only 8%. He says crop sharing can be complex and boils down to an individual’s risk preferences.

“Rental agreements must be tailored to the needs of both the producer and the landlord. Explore using crop share leases as another tool to mitigate risk,” Anderson says.

Perhaps surprisingly, it’s not just young farmers getting into crop sharing arrangements.

“Historically, some retiring farmers wanted to still maintain some farm income and connection to the land after they retired from day-to-day farm work,” Anderson says.

Adds Derksen: “I see it across all age groups. Retiring farmers are more likely to want a crop share as they understand the risks and rewards of a crop share arrangement.”

The post Could crop sharing be a viable option for your farm? appeared first on Country Guide.

Breanne Tidemann, an Alberta-based researcher with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), says boots on the ground remains one of the most effective strategies when it comes to weed control.

“Don’t rely, especially in the spring, on the 80-kilometre-per-hour drive-by. Get out and get those boots on the ground,” says Tidemann, a weed management specialist who works at AAFC’s Lacombe Research and Development Centre.

“With something like cleavers, it’s notorious for popping up in the spring and being a purplish-brown colour. You’re not going to see that greening up as you drive by, but there could be a lot of cleavers already up and growing. Get out and get boots on the ground … to see what’s truly there. You really need to be tailoring the pre-harvest and post-harvest management decisions to what’s there (in the field).”

Kim Brown-Livingston, a provincial weeds specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, agrees. She says that’s especially true when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of any kind of in-crop spraying.

“We need to do that post-spray scouting to see if we were successful. Did we miss something? Did anything get away on us? Did some of those perennial weeds start to regrow after an in-crop spray?” she says.

“It’s always important to follow up after any herbicide treatment. You need to be coming back to see how successful you were. You don’t want to waste a herbicide pass. You have to be successful with the herbicides you pick because with growing resistance we can’t be spraying herbicides and (them) not working because that weed is not on the list of weeds it controls.”

Battle plan followup

Brown-Livingston says having the right battle plan is a critical part of weed control, but following up on that plan is just as important. In some cases, she says, that could mean learning that a second in-crop herbicide isn’t required, which not only saves time and money but also saves that herbicide use for later.

Still, Brown-Livingston says a weed control plan should be adaptable since circumstances in the field can change quickly.

“You can have a battle plan, but you have to be able to adapt and adjust because things change all the time. That’s Mother Nature,” she cautions. “That’s why it’s really important to have that relationship with your agronomist and your retailer. Sometimes things change on the fly. That happened last year when some (fields) were too wet to get into to seed, so seeding plans had to change. You have to be able to adapt.”

Record keeping

Glyphosate resistance is a growing problem for farmers in Western Canada and elsewhere. As a result, many are now relying on an increasingly intricate blend of products in their tanks for both pre- and post-harvest weed control.

Brown-Livingston says because of this trend, it has become even more important for farmers to keep accurate and detailed records of what herbicides are being used in these mixes.

“We’re doing more tank mixes. We’re rotating through our herbicide groups more frequently. We’re putting a lot more and different products on the same field every year,” she explains.

“That’s great from a herbicide resistance standpoint, but we’ve got to do some really good record keeping then. When we’re looking at growing sensitive crops in that rotation, it’s important to have good record keeping, especially as things get a little more complex and we’re spraying more products in the field more often. It’s becoming crucial as we see more and more herbicides in those mixes.”

Sizing up the problem

Another suggestion Tidemann has for effective pre-harvest weed control is to size up any potential issue accurately. For example, where there is a well-defined patch of weeds, consider the potential effects of combining that section.

“What are you doing to that patch of weeds if you take the combine through it? Chances are you’re going to be spreading it. And chances are, if you have a very defined patch, there’s something about that patch that’s giving it a competitive advantage, whether that’s resistance or late emergence. Those are probably not weed seeds we want to be spreading around the field and making (the problem) bigger,” she says.

“If you have a kochia patch that is solid kochia and really not much grain in there, is it really worth taking that combine through it? Maybe that area should be mowed down. That’s something I highly recommend thinking about. Take the time (to think) about where your weeds are and what you are doing to them if you go through them with a combine.”

Electric weeders are among the more recent innovations in weed control. First, a product is sprayed onto the weeds to increase conductivity followed by an electrical charge to electrocute the weeds. Tidemann says while preliminary results have been promising, timing is important when using the device. It should be used before seed heads mature.

“The idea is not to hit (the weed) when those seeds are fully formed because at that point you’ve already missed that opportunity,” she says. “We don’t know yet if an electrical weeder affects seed viability. We know they can stop weeds from forming, but there’s less work done on the viability of mature seeds hit with an electrical weeder.”

Water quality

As herbicide mixtures have become more complex, the one constant has been good old H20. That’s why it’s important producers take note of the quality of water they are using in those mixes, says Clark Brenzil, a provincial weed control specialist with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture.

“With glyphosate being a little bit dodgy as far as supply goes and prices being a little higher, you want to get every bit of efficacy out of that application. A good thing to do is to check your water quality (going into the tank),” he explains.

“It’s not about whether the water is clear or murky. What you are looking for is which positively charged ions make up any salts in your spray water because calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese, to some degree, will antagonize glyphosate activity. You want to make sure if you have salts with those ions at a relatively high level, you are counteracting that with ammonium sulfate.

“When glyphosate was relatively cheap, it wasn’t as big of a deal because people would put in a little more glyphosate and that would be fine — it would take care of the problem. But when you are trying to shave the glyphosate rate as close to the (lowest) rate possible, you have to have good water quality,” he adds.

Brenzil suggests growers have water sampled at a local lab that will conduct a broad spectrum ion evaluation, which is also called a hardness test.

Some farmers use a reverse osmosis system to improve water quality. It employs a semi-permeable membrane to remove unwanted dissolved materials. Brenzil says capacity and cost are the most important considerations when determining whether the system is a good fit for a farm operation.

Post-harvest weed control

Timing is an important consideration for post-harvest weed control. That’s especially true with some perennial weeds like Canada thistle because they require four to six weeks to regrow and be big enough to hit with a post-harvest application, Brenzil says. This can make things difficult in areas that receive an early snowfall, he adds.

“There’s lots of unpredictability when you have post-harvest weed control.”

Brenzil also suggests growers consider the effect lower temperatures can have on the efficacy of some products when used as part of a post-harvest weed control strategy.

“(Cooler temperatures) will limit the activity of some of the more systemic products like glyphosate and Group 2s. In that kind of a situation, you are looking at trying to keep your applications to late September at the latest. Beyond that it starts getting pretty dodgy for overnight temperatures,” he says.

Brown-Livingston says tillage might become a more popular post-harvest weed control option in parts of the Prairies. It involves stimulating weed germination with light tillage and then destroying those weeds.

“We’ve come off of some dry years (in parts of the Prairies) where we didn’t want to do any of that tillage in the fall because we didn’t want to waste any soil moisture,” she says. “We seem to be in a … wetter cycle now, so that makes tillage much more attractive from a weed control standpoint. We’re not as worried about losing that precious soil moisture like we are in dry years.”

Tidemann urges growers to make sure they use a systemic herbicide product as part of their post-harvest weed strategy that will kill the entire plant by spreading though its vascular system.

“You really want to make sure that systemic product gets down into the weed’s roots like the root system of Canada thistle or something like that,” she says.

Walk the walk

Tidemann says it’s important to remember that pre- and post-harvest weed management isn’t just about herbicide application. There are other options growers can consider and they shouldn’t be afraid to “think outside the box,” she adds.

However, the best strategy to inform management decisions continues to be boots on the ground.

“We need to do more scouting,” Brown-Livingston explains.

“In the past we were able to get away without having to do that. But times are changing, and we have to make sure we’re doing a lot more boots-on-the-ground scouting, and making sure we know what we’re up against and pick the right products. We have to make sure these products work as best they can. A huge part of that is knowing what our weeds are and what we’re up against.”

– This article was originally published at Grainews.

The post Tips and strategies for pre- and post-harvest weed control appeared first on Country Guide.

To be clear, these are proposals at this stage. Nothing has been implemented by the CGC nor is there a timeline for the commission to enact such changes. Instead, the commission has asked for public input and is in the process of evaluating what it’s heard. (For the original proposal, its specifications and goals, check the grainscanada.gc.ca website.)

There is an incorrect perception that this is a western Canadian issue, based on the notion that visual characteristics and the proposed changes will mainly affect the export market for Canadian grains. Added to that is the reality that the CGC is not involved in purchasing grain for domestic use, which is the common destination for eastern cereals. Yet depending on if or how these changes are implemented, they could encompass both eastern and western cereal production under the banner of traceability or sustainability.

Part of what makes these proposed changes such a challenge is the number of organizations, business and interests that would be affected. The ultimate impact would be on the quality of finished products, but there are three specific concerns for farmers and for many in the trade. They include the accuracy of tests, the time taken for testing, and, of course, who pays. Several stakeholders have characterized the concept as “just another excuse” for downgrading grains and decreasing payments to farmers.

Country Guide approached a number of organizations, including the Cereals Canada, Canadian Grain Commission, Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Western Grain Elevators Association. Three individuals representing the groups responded.

The CGC opted against participating.

Cam Dahl

Cereals Canada

The accuracy of tests, the time it takes to carry out a test, the infrastructure required and the cost involved are foremost questions for Cam Dahl. As president of Cereals Canada, he believes shippers and farmers share the goal of objective grading versus a reliance on visual factors. However, this goal can only be achieved if the new procedures are accurate and cost-effective and can be carried out in country facilities.

“The more you can move to objective measures, the more accurate the grading system,” says Dahl. “I think everybody would like to see that as much as possible, but the trade-off on the other side comes in three key questions, one of which is accuracy — because these kinds of tests have a margin of error surrounding them.

The second is time, where if it’s a laboratory test, it could take significant amounts of time. And the third is the cost. That cost can be subdivided under equipment, allotting space inside of facilities and the value of time taken: if producers could have the test done while they wait to unload, it’d be better and more time-efficient than waiting for results from the lab.

“It can be done on-site, but again, you’re making sure the grain is ground properly, and it’s that accuracy of the process,” says Dahl, noting the same concerns exist for testing DON. “DON is the issue — not the fusarium itself but the toxin. Yet some of the strip tests and the accuracy of those tests are sometimes in question.”

There is also some discrepancy in the claims by the CGC, specifically that falling number can be linked to sprouting and that DON can be linked to fusarium. There is a relation between the factors but it’s not a straight line. Falling number measures the alpha-amylase activity that reflects sprouting but it’s not a visual “tell.” The same applies to lab results indicating DON concentrations and the physical manifestation of kernel visual distinguishability (KVD).

“There’s a direct link to the functionality on the other side — what kind of bread will come out of that, where flour made from sprouted grain has very different functional qualities compared to flour made from grain that has not begun to sprout,” says Dahl.

On the DON side of the equation he adds that there is a relationship between the different species of the fungus and the toxin it produces. In the past, there was only one major species of fusarium in wheat, but recently, more species have been identified, with different species producing different levels of DON. Although there’s a relationship between fusarium and DON levels, the increase in forms of the fungus makes a visual determination much harder than 10 or 15 years ago.

One aspect that Dahl highlights is that this is more of an issue for both Eastern and Western Canada. He points to the DON situation in Ontario corn in late 2018 and a fusarium head blight infection which ruined the P.E.I. wheat crop in 2010. In spite of the proposal to add falling number and DON seemingly affecting only exports, Dahl has asked for clarification from the CGC.

“Some of my questions to the Grain Commission are, “how does this apply to Eastern Canada?” he says. “How does it apply to corn? Have those kinds of questions been considered when this was being put together?”

Jim Wickett

Western Canadian Wheat Growers

Working with proposed changes to grading factors can translate into a lot of speculation, and that’s troubling for Jim Wickett, chair of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers (WCWG). His primary concerns focus on including falling number and DON levels because they’re parameters that growers don’t deal with, and determining who will pay for the implementation and operation for such testing.

“There’s a lot of suspicion that this will be one more reason to downgrade, instead of trying to achieve the value that it’s really worth,” says Wickett, who also farms near Rosetown, Sask. “I don’t know where they’re headed with this — the entire grading process really needs to be examined.”

That’s a contention based on the current version of the Canada Grain Act and its visual grading parameters, which predate the invention of the automobile, according to Wickett. Compared to the technology that’s already in use on most farms, the grading methods need to be upgraded to the 20th century, if not the 21st.

As farm costs rise and commodity prices remain relatively low (even as corn, soybean and wheat prices begin to climb in 2019), it’s unreasonable for consumers to insist that associated costs for traceability and sustainability be borne by the farmer, he says.

There can be no sustainability (and the same should be true for traceability) without profitability for the farmer.

“That’s an issue that a lot of farmers have, where a regulator sets its own rates and benefits from the regulations that it puts out to make things mandatory to suit their own budget,” says Wickett. “In the U.S., once they have enough operating money saved up, they stop charging. But we’re still charging and we’re still accumulating a surplus, but we have bureaucrats and other groups looking at $130 million and asking, ‘How can we spend that?’ And that’s not right: we should simply cut the fees and move on.”

Another point Wickett makes refers to the difference between Western Canada, where there isn’t the relationship between farmers and the mills, and Eastern Canada. This, he adds, is definitely an export-related issue which makes it more of a challenge for western Canadian growers. Yet the piece-meal approach of just adding more parameters to an outdated process will not make Canadian grains more competitive.

What’s more frustrating for Wickett and others is that the Grain Commission had technology which made a so-called “driveway test” economically feasible. It was eight to 10 years ago that the commission tested the Read-Rite machine and although it was shelved, the blueprint for it exists, with the potential for augmenting the system with sensors now available.

Instead, the CGC is proposing to add two factors to the grading system without justifying costs or the process of conducting the tests. There’s also no guarantee that any two tests conducted with the same methods or equipment will yield the same results.

“In my time on the Western Standards Committee six or seven years ago, they were testing those Read-Rite machines and we talked about DON and falling numbers,” recalls Wickett. “One of the scientists for the commission kept mentioning that if two different people are testing the same sample of wheat, they can get a different number. If there’s a different source of water than the elevator down the road, you can get a different number. There are all kinds of variables.”

Wade Sobkowich

Western Grain Elevator Association

The concept behind adding falling number and DON levels is a noble goal, improving and ensuring grain quality, says Wade Sobkowich of the Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA), but it’s not a practical approach. Any failing in that chase can be costly to those who can least afford it.

There is an “order of operations,” Sobkowich adds, that needs to be respected when considering the introduction of new factors.

“This includes the determination that the technology exists to produce repeatable, accurate, timely and cost-effective test results upon delivery to an elevator,” says Sobkowich. “To date, we are not aware of technology that would meet an acceptable threshold in each of these categories.”

The WGEA response to the CGC proposal is a seven-page write-up including several clarifications on statements made by the commission in its outline, as well as the association’s position opposing changes without due consideration.

Sobkowich emphasizes that added costs to the system to support DON and falling number factors would likely be borne by growers. He also cites the impact of something like the basis and the effects of tying-in falling number and DON tests, with “Company A” involved in grain exporting and investing in an on-site laboratory, while “Company B” sends the sample to a lab for testing. The on-site sampling would provide results at the time of delivery with added costs; the off-site testing would result in lower added costs but a better price to the farmer than the other company.

“Since it’s a competitive environment, Company A will only be able to pass as much of their costs to the farmer as the producers will bear before they make the decision that the risk of deferred settlement is acceptable for a potentially greater return,” says Sobkowich. At that point, they’ll choose to do business with Company B. “Company A still needs the grain, so they’ll have to narrow their basis and absorb a portion of these costs to attract the grain.”

Also part of the WGEA’s opposition is the fact that wheat buyers from outside Canada already purchase wheat based on the specifications they require.

If they already need certain minimum falling numbers and DON levels, those would be specified in the sales contract. As a result, Sobkowich says making falling number and DON part of the grade will have no impact on sales contracts, nor will it help increase wheat exports from Canada — and it would be invisible to the customer.

“Most customers want to know the class of wheat, like is it CWRS, the grade — number one or two — plus a number of other quality specifications such as protein, falling number and DON,” says Sobkowich. “The move is to try to reflect how customers already buy back to the farm level. However, we cannot accurately, reliably and cost-effectively measure falling number and DON in a timely way.”

The post Guess who’s paying for new grain grading? appeared first on Country Guide.

When it launched a year ago, Climate FieldView was billed as a platform that would simplify the process of aggregating on-farm data generated from planter, sprayer or combine. It was launched in February 2017 in Eastern Canada, with a limited number of growers using it to gather their data and to get a better sense of what exactly they might do with that information.

The overall goal with this technology is to simplify, making it easier to access all associated information from one field and then to use the data to make better-informed decisions.

It’s worth noting that since its launch, FieldView now covers more than one million acres in Canada

It’s the simplicity that attracted John Kapteyn, a producer who operates Arbor Lane Farm, a broiler-breeder farm near Barrie, Ont. He has 40,000 hens producing hatching eggs, and together with his wife Tammy, and his parents Cor and Ricki, cash crops about 900 acres of corn, soybeans and wheat. He also provides custom work for a few of his neighbours. Kapteyn actually started using FieldView 2016 as one of the testers of the unit.

“It’s a great platform for capturing all the data at planting and harvest,” says Kapteyn. “Plus you can enter all of the other operations in between, such as fertilizer and spray applications. I find it very valuable — I now have all of my records in one easy place to see.”

Another feature he likes is the Rainfall Report, an app that lets a grower know how much rain falls on a given field. There’s also a function that provides field imagery maps during the course of the growing season to help with scouting. He also used it for a corn seed plot for DeKalb, tracking hybrid changes through the plot, which show up in different colours. At harvest, the system provides individual monitoring of each hybrid.

Asked if he believes there are limitations with the platform — size, complexity of a farm, livestock versus straight cash cropping — Kapteyn doesn’t see any real disadvantage. It will work for all sizes of operation and the current pricing structure is a flat-rate fee, regardless of the number of acres.

“It was very easy to set up an account with the different pieces of equipment for recording operations,” he adds. “I had one problem last fall when my iPad updated to a new version: I called the customer support line and received excellent service from a very knowledgeable representative. They actually had to call me back a couple of times, and they followed through until they knew I had everything running again.”

Sharing of information once it’s gathered is yet another of the benefits promoted by Climate Corporation. For instance, Kapteyn is also satisfied with its ability to share data gathered from his fields with his seed dealer or his fertilizer supplier. In keeping with his custom work, he can also send yield results to his clients.

Many benefits

In the course of the past year of FieldView’s availability, Denise Hockaday, climate commercial lead with Climate Corporation, notes there have been three primary benefits that have “risen to the top” among users. There’s the ease of collecting and navigating through their data, since ease of use promotes learning more about the platform and how to use more of its capabilities. There’s also the system’s “all-in-one-place” feature so growers can see what they want or what they need wherever they are, be it in the tractor, the sprayer or the combine. And there’s also the availability of data and information in real time — no waiting to gather and interpret information. If the grower wants to begin mapping out fertility plans after harvest, they can, without switching out and relaying thumb drives.

At the end of 2016, after the testing stage, one of the things Hockaday remarked on was the kinds of questions she was getting from growers, particularly how to plumb more information out of the platform. They liked the simplicity, they liked the real-time information — and they wanted more.

“That question still remains, and I think it always will because as creatures of ‘the more you know, the more you want to know’ approach, the more data you get into, the more you want to dissect,” says Hockaday. “We still get those questions, especially from those folks who are always driving for more information. They want to drill down and understand the ‘why’ even more.”

For others who haven’t been collecting data or who have been collecting it but not doing anything with it, Hockaday suggests they’re likely making better progress now.

“Some might say, ‘This makes sense for a corn grower,’ yet for the same reason, it makes sense for a soybean or wheat farmer, or an edible bean farmer, or a canola or vegetable farmer,” says Hockaday. “That’s actually some of the feedback we’ve had, is that it’s very versatile and it’s not specific to just one crop.”

One of the questions she’s fielded recently from several non-users is, “Why should I use this?” Beyond the evolutionary aspect of agriculture and the growing prevalence of precision ag systems, Hockaday concedes she has been asked challenging questions. For some farmers, they want the imagery to make it easier, whether that’s for their own interpretations or for scouts and agronomists to identify conditions in-season.

“In another case, it’s a matter of measuring and performance, or the grower wants to check whether a fungicide application paid off or not,” she says. “That’s been very difficult, if not impossible, to do in the past.”

It might also be a challenge that this still isn’t a silver bullet or one-size-fits-all solution. Every customer is unique in the challenges they’re facing and the needs that they have, says Hockaday. It takes a little bit longer to help them understand how the FieldView would work for them.

“For some who’ve been collecting data or actively managing things on their farm, or trying different things, they’ve been doing it for a while, so they’re asking us the questions that push us to the next level,” explains Hockaday. “Then you have the other spectrum of farmers who say, ‘I’ve never collected anything,’ or ‘I’ve collected it and I’ve overwritten it because I’ve never taken anything off the monitor.’ They’ve used it purely as a monitor in the field and never bothered to measure the environmental data or looked at imagery.”

Sometimes the conversations with those individuals can be overwhelming for them. But Hockaday starts right at the beginning, with collecting data. Get that visual representation and then let things begin to evolve.

In the spirit of realizing that learning encourages more learning, the most pleasant surprise in the past year has been how farmers have used the FieldView platform beyond its original training. On their own, they’ve engaged in new methods to generate more information about their fields. From a scouting and functionality perspective, some growers are mapping rocks in the field, or identifying tile drainage issues.

“Those are things that we don’t talk about broadly, but those are things that producers are coming back to us and saying, ‘This makes my life so much easier,’” says Hockaday.

As margins continue to tighten and costs increase, the challenge before growers is to maximize their efficiency, and Hockaday hears talk along those lines. Growers are saying they’re not expanding their acreage or that the cost of investment in capital to accommodate growth is not an option. As a result, more growers are increasingly open to the idea of using precision ag, perhaps to improve their efficiency by 10 or 15 per cent versus buying 10 or 15 per cent more land.

Kapteyn also sees an increasing adoption of precision ag. It’s easier to improve on 10 or 15 aspects on a farm by one per cent each, rather than trying to raise efficiency with one facet by 10 or 15 per cent.

“Precision ag will continue to become more prevalent,” says Kapteyn, talking changes coming to Arbor Lane Farm. “As we get more data, the challenge will be how to use it to better our operations. Our next step will be to use our yield data to allow us to use variable planting rates to try to cut our seed costs.”

The post Simplifying data management appeared first on Country Guide.

Western bean cutworm (WBC) is now the most economically damaging pest in Ontario corn. It feeds on the tassel and ears of corn and doesn’t particularly affect yield, but the feeding allows in disease that affects the quality of the crop.

“You need to time scouting for at least tasselling,” according to Tracey Baute, the Ontario agriculture ministry’s field crop entomologist in Ridgetown. If WBC moths lay eggs before tasselling, the larvae will die. Target scouting for pretassel and full tassel; the larvae will feed on the tassel, then migrate to the ear.

This year, with the corn crop mostly planted later than usual, “we will have ideal growth stage at the same time as peak moth flight and egg laying,” Baute said. Peak moth flight is usually in the last week of July, which will line up nicely with the tasselling of a good proportion of the Ontario corn crop.

This year’s long planting season also translates to corn on the same farm at drastically different maturity levels — which could mean more time spent scouting in the province.

Corn fields need to be scouted over about three weeks, starting with early tasselling. The threshold is five per cent of plants with eggs in order to spray. But that doesn’t mean you spray right away.

“I’m worried everyone’s going to spray too early,” Baute said. “All larvae can’t survive on tassel all season, so some have to push way down to the ear.”

Delaying spraying until the ears have some silk has the added bonus of being able to combine a fungicide application with an insecticide application in one pass, she said.

The sprays have no residual for WBC — another reason that the spray needs to be timed correctly, Baute noted. Some of the sprays have translaminar properties, or systemic action through the leaf, but as the WBC are not foliar feeders, there’s no control on the insect that way.

There’s an extensive network of WBC traps across the province, the data from which feeds into the CornPest.ca website. Maps show moth spread across the province.

Moth traps, however, only show the potential for a problem. Fields have to be scouted and eggs identified at the right timing to justify a spray pass.

Not every field will be at risk from WBC, a relatively recent arrival in the province. Hotspots, on sandy soils where the pest can overwinter, include the Tillsonburg and Bothwell areas, but moths are now being found in a much wider area.

Biotech traits provide little control, as the WBC has resistance to all Bt traits other than the Viptera trait.

Growers of corn with the Viptera trait are encouraged to check to see if corn ears have had feeding in the fall, and to let Baute know if they do.

Among sprays, Coragen is the most popular, but Baute encouraged rotation with other products such as Matador or Voliam Express in order to help stave off resistance to Coragen.

“Just don’t panic and pull the trigger too soon.”

The post Scouting, spray timing critical for western bean cutworm control appeared first on Country Guide.

Farmers have been harvesting the crop for two weeks in the southwest of the province, but are just getting going in other areas.

“I think the wheat’s looking pretty good,” said Don Kabbes, general manager of Great Lakes Grain.

“Test weights have been quite good,” he said, although if rains continue as the wheat gets riper, test weight could fall a bit.

The wheat is of good quality, with little evidence of fusarium or sprouting at this point.

In the furthest south of the province, Essex and Kent counties, the wheat harvest could mostly be wrapped up by the weekend, he said. Combines are moving in Lambton, Middlesex and Huron counties as well.

“I think we dodged a bullet with the fusarium,” he said. “When wheat was heading, we thought there could be huge fusarium infection. Farmers have done a good job of protecting the head.”

A lot of wheat, with good yield potential and risky rains, received fungicide applications this year.

“Guys sprayed diligently,” said Gary Bauman, a field marketer with Hensall District Co-operative, based in Mitchell, Ont. Farmers who had not sprayed in other years, “I told them this year to go do it, the wheat looked so good.”

“Yields are average to slightly above average, maybe not quite as high as last year,” said Joanna Follings, cereals specialist with the Ontario ag ministry (OMAFRA) in Stratford.

In eastern Ontario, there could be more challenges with fusarium, Follings said, as that region received even greater rainfall, making it more difficult for farmers to get onto the fields to spray a fungicide. Fusarium is showing up in some of the eastern Ontario wheat.

Wheat has rallied nicely since June 22, following the market for spring wheat up with the droughty conditions in wheat growing areas in the U.S. The market gave back some of the gains last week, but the price means there’s opportunity for farmers, said Kabbes, including that there might be value in drying the wheat.

Lodging has also not been an issue in the southwest. However, in the area further north, in Perth and Wellington counties where there has been greater rainfall, farmers are just testing the fields, Bauman said, with moisture at 16 per cent.

“We’ve got a good looking wheat crop up here, no doubt about it,” he said.

There is some lodging, especially in fields where farmers pushed the fertility. Bauman said some looking for a big crop this year put down 140 lbs. of nitrogen.

“Those are the fields that couldn’t stand. They had nice plump heads and the pounding rains started taking them down,” he said.

Stands with lighter heads and stalks are standing better.

Bauman estimated about 20 per cent of acres in his area have some form of patchy lodging.

“It’s not a severe problem,” he said.

Do a preharvest check, he said — and some might have to slow down while combining.

Soybeans look great and the corn has come along well, he said, despite hard rains in his area.

The post Ontario winter wheat crop yielding well, quality good appeared first on Country Guide.

Canola fields affected by clubroot were first found last year in Ontario. With some diligence, Orchard said, the problem should be able to be controlled.

The post VIDEO: Curbing clubroot in Ontario canola appeared first on Country Guide.

The provincial environment and climate change ministry, the body to which spray drift problems are reported in the province, has heard of some anecdotal cases this year, but nothing significant, according to Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson for the ministry.

Since 2002, the ministry has investigated 10 dicamba-related incidents, with two of those related to crop spraying.

Three U.S. states, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee, have restricted the sale and use of dicamba herbicide due to drift issues affecting crops and other plants. There are reports of dicamba drift across other major soybean-producing states.

Peter Sikkema, professor of field crop weed management at the University of Guelph’s Ridgetown College, said he has been told by herbicide companies that there are some cases of dicamba drift in Ontario this year.

“It’s not that we don’t have cases, just not to the same extent (as the Americans),” he says. “I think Ontario farmers have done a good job. I think that’s really encouraging.”

Jason Deveau, OMAFRA’s application technology specialist at Simcoe, said there are several reasons why the issue hasn’t arisen here, including fewer soybean acres, different weed pressures and communications which encouraged pre-emergent spraying.

However, unlike the more transparent pesticide committees in some U.S. states, there isn’t a highly public place to report pesticide drift issues in Ontario. Drift cases are reported to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

In the U.S., crop advisors, university extension agents and farmers are writing, speaking and posting on social media about the issue. In Ontario, there’s barely a whisper on the subject.

Deveau said he likes to think the extensive communication campaign by academia, government and the industry to make cautious use of dicamba on dicamba-resistant soybeans helped minimize potential problems.

The message from companies making new dicamba formulations was that the more green tissue in a field being sprayed, the more likely it is to be volatile.

That’s why the message to Ontario growers was to spray dicamba as a pre-emergent spray, with some residual weed control. That way the herbicide would help control glyphosate resistant weeds, but wouldn’t be applied when the crop was actively growing.

“I think BASF and Monsanto have done quite a good job educating growers on off-site movement,” Sikkema said. “Ontario farmers have consequently used appropriate equipment to apply it.”

The Monsanto Roundup Ready Xtend system was developed to help manage weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate by putting a dicamba-resistance trait into its Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybeans. Monsanto is selling Xtendimax, a new-generation dicamba herbide to go with the system. BASF also developed a new-generation dicamba called Engenia.

Palmer amaranth is an aggressive weed that is increasingly glyphosate-resistant. It is not yet a significant problem in Canada. Knocking out glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth would be a reason U.S. farmers would spray dicamba on more mature soybeans than has been done in Canada.

As the system becomes more established in Canada, and other glyphosate-resistant weeds grow more of a problem, there may be more temptation to spray later here.

The heat in some areas of the U.S. could also have an effect on volatility of the spray, Deveau said.

There also isn’t the sheer volume of soybean and cotton acres in Ontario that there are in the U.S., which would naturally generate more complaints. The U.S. also has more, older dicamba chemistries still on the market. Their use in-crop makes for even more volatility than newer formulations.

There still are other old dicamba formulations, such as Banvel and Distinct, available in Canada, Sikkema noted, but added “I think growers are using the appropriate formulations and applying it correctly.”

It will take time to sort out how hundreds of thousands of acres were damaged in the U.S.

“Who knows what the No. 1 factor will be, or is it cumulative?” Deveau asked. “Or are there one or two major causes?

“For now, up here, let’s continue to play it safe and by the rules. If someone deems spraying might be too risky, bail. It is not worth the risk.”

There are other options to manage glyphosate-resistant weeds in Ontario, Sikkema said.

“I think with the herbicide options we have today, I do think we can manage the glyphosate-resistant weeds we have today with alternative chemistry and I don’t think we are forced to use dicamba.”

The post Minimal issues reported with dicamba drift in Ontario appeared first on Country Guide.