In Canada, the most promising PGR is chlormequat chloride, marketed by EngageAgro under the trade name Manipulator. The product has been registered in Canada since 2015, but until a maximum residue limit was established in the United States last spring, many producers opted not to use it due to potential cross-border marketing problems.

Taller plants are more vulnerable to lodging from heavy rains or strong winds. Manipulator contains a gibberellin inhibitor that helps regulate plant height, explains Pam de Rocquigny, general manager at Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association (MWBGA).

“There are these auxins, or growth hormones in plants, that tell plants when to flower or increase plant height. This inhibitor blocks a pathway that tells the plant when to elongate its stem,” she says.

Other plant growth regulators are available in Canada, but Manipulator has an important advantage in that its application window is wider.

Manitoba trial

De Rocquigny, who worked for Manitoba Agriculture at the time, was part of a team that conducted side-by-side trials with Manipulator in spring wheat between 2015 and 2016.

“Manipulator was newly registered and with that came questions from producers about how and whether it works,” she says. “In terms of the science-based regulatory system, the product is registered to decrease plant height. The work we’ve done shows that it does do that. But producers were asking if there are differences between varieties, and how much they should reduce nitrogen applications to reduce lodging risk.”

Trials were conducted at crop diversification centres in Portage la Prairie, Melita and Arborg in 2015 and Melita and Arborg in 2016. Spring wheat varieties Waskada, AAC Brandon and AAC Penhold were planted at each site, and Prosper was also planted in 2016. Treatments compared the use of Manipulator at an ideal timing (growth stage 31), a split application of Manipulator at growth stages 12-30 and at growth stage 31, a non-registered PGR, and a check treatment with no PGR.

Manipulator reduced plant height, in all varieties in both years of the trial, by seven centimetres on average in 2015 and eight centimetres in 2016. But a PGR application didn’t increase yield for any variety in 2015. In 2016, a single application of Manipulator resulted in a four-bu./ac. yield increase for Waskada but no other varieties.

In fact, averaged across all varieties, yield decreases with PGR application were noted in both years of the study.

De Rocquigny says these results could be due to several factors.

“These were small-plot trials. Perhaps in a field situation where there is variability in the field and big weather events come through and there is lodging potential, you might see more of a benefit in terms of a positive yield response,” she says.

New trial

MWBGA is funding a new two-year small-plot research study that will take a broader view of how PGRs can be used along with other management strategies to minimize lodging.

Amy Mangin, a PhD candidate in the University of Manitoba’s plant sciences department, is the study’s lead.

“The project looks at using agronomic management strategies to decrease the risk of lodging rather than waiting for new genetics to come out. So PGRs are just one component of this project,” Mangin explains.

Trials at two Manitoba locations began in 2018 to determine how agronomic management through variety selection, the use of PGRs, N management and plant density will affect crop canopy development and resulting lodging, grain yield and quality. MWBGA is also running an on-farm trial corresponding to this study that will look at a farm’s normal management plus or minus PGR.

There was no lodging potential at either site due to dry conditions, says Mangin. But PGR application increased spike counts, shoots per plant and grain yield (decreased kernel weight but more kernels per area).

“In my 2018 trial, I did see a small but significant yield increase of about two bushels per acre with Manipulator in my small-plot trials, even though there was no lodging,” says Mangin. “We’re not sure why we’re seeing that yield increase, but we’re looking into what, physiologically, is changing in the plant. If growers are seeing increases in yield it helps them justify that application even if there is no lodging.”

Application timing critical

One draw for some producers who tried Manipulator for the first time in 2018 was the potential for ease of harvest due to straw management, says Mangin.

But she cautions producers not to expect every variety to respond similarly to PGRs. In addition, application timing is critical to get a consistent response in height — ideally, application should happen just at the start of stem elongation, or during growth stages 31 to 32, after herbicide application and before fungicide application in a typical year, says Mangin.

“Lastly, I really don’t think this is a product that is meant to be applied on every acre every year. It’ll offer value to high-input acres at high risk of lodging, manure land or where more N is applied, or acres where producers are really pushing yield, or if producers are using a variety that isn’t the strongest in terms of lodging,” she says.

Updates on Mangin’s research will appear on MWBGA’s website periodically, she says.

The post Shorter straw, higher yield? appeared first on Country Guide.

Co-founder Adam Gurr says that’s exactly the point. “There’s definitely a fit for on-farm research within the whole research community,” he says. “I think sometimes there may be somebody who’s grown up and only ever done small-plot research. They can’t necessarily comprehend that there are differences on a field scale, or maybe see some of the benefits of doing some of these things on a field scale.”

In the two years since its launch, Agritruth Research has expanded into increasingly complex questions spurred both by industry and customer feedback, but it began with Gurr’s own need for data. A trained agronomist who has almost completed his master’s degree, Gurr wanted more concrete answers on farm management. What was the best balance between seed cost and yield? Could he save money with a lower seeding rate while maintaining profit? What kind of nutrient application would work best on his specific farm?

The solution, he decided, was to start trials himself.

Alongside his father Barry, and brother-in-law Stephen Vajdik, Gurr began planning multi-year, field-scale studies, using randomized plot plans and replicated experiments to enhance accuracy. Results were run through statistical and economic analysis to determine any meaningful implication for farming.

The research caught the eye of other producers and researchers in Manitoba. The three partners were soon fielding requests for their results, eventually leading them to officially found their research company.

“We were doing a lot of on-farm research as it was and we just thought that this would be a way to deliver that data to interested parties and potentially generate some revenue off of it,” Gurr says. “There wasn’t anything really like that out there.”

In 2015, after a long line of test runs and user feedback, the company launched the Agritruth website, including data dating back to 2012, although 2015-16 results come with a $500 price tag for full membership.

Saving on seed

Some of the farm’s first studies, those spurred by Gurr’s curiosity on seeding rates, found more profit with less seed. In 2012, canola seeded at 2.5 pounds per acre yielded 39.4 bushels per acre, only slightly below the 40.1 and 40.6 bushel-per-acre yields at four and 5.5 pounds per acre, respectively. In contrast, cost per acre fell to $27.50 at the lowest seeding rate compared to $44 at four pounds per acre and $60.50 at the highest seeding rate. The yield gap widened in 2013, with crop seeded at 2.5 pounds per acre yielding 59.5 bushels per acre. Fields seeded at four and 5.5 pounds per acre yielded 63.1 bushels per acre and 63.7 bushels per acre, respectively.

A similar 2013 test in soybeans found that 210,000 seeds per acre at planting averaged $22.50 less profit per acre than a crop planted at a 170,000 seeding rate.

However, the trial noted, though, that weeds were harder to control at lower seeding rates.

That same year, Agritruth tested the commonly held concern that high speeds at seeding might have an impact on canola yield. The resulting trials found little difference between seeding at 4.5 and six miles per hour.

Other research has called yield monitor accuracy into question. The company compared 250 loads of canola on both a grain scale and a yield monitor.

“There was no correlation between what we were dumping on the grain cart scale and what we were recording on the yield monitor for canola, so how could you use that to measure results of a research trial? You’re just going to end up making bad decisions,” Gurr says.

More recently, Agritruth has turned its gaze to nitrogen management in both canola and wheat. This year’s plots compare enhanced-efficiency fertilizers to regular side-banded urea, as well as testing split applications and location of fertilizer (e.g. side and top dressed).

“After the first year, it looked like there was maybe potential for split applications and enhanced-efficiency fertilizers in canola, but we didn’t really see a response in wheat,” Gurr says.

The nitrogen trials will return for one more year next season.

By popular demand, the company has also teamed up with Marla Riekman, a land use specialist and soil health expert with Manitoba Agriculture, to put cover crops to the test this year.

Other recent Agritruth trials include pod shatter variety trials in can­ola, early-maturing soybeans, Canada Northern Hard Red wheat and wheat fungicides.

Putting Ag products under the microscope

Products such as Proline, PollinAID, and Agrotain have increasingly found themselves put to the test as Agritruth expands further into product testing.

“There are a lot of products that get brought out to market and it’s hard to test them all,” Vajdik says.

Looser regulations have also contributed to that shift, both Gurr and Vajdik say.

As of April 26, 2013, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency backed down on monitoring fertilizer quality, so it would no longer verify product performance. Instead, the agency announced, products would be assessed only on safety.

The result, Gurr and Vajdik note, is that while many effective products are released every year, ineffective ones may also find their way onto the shelves.

Agritruth’s product testing has earned them a role as third-party research and companies have tapped the company to test their products independently. Contract research makes up an increasing part of Agritruth’s research and owners have indicated they would like to expand contract research even more.

“I think we’re able to fit a certain market where industry is looking to have questions answered, but there might not be funding,” Vajdik says. “Because we’re private, we’re able to fund our own research and answer questions that might be financially unanswerable for other people.”

A second voice for on-farm research

Lori-Ann Kaminski, research manager with the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association, describes Agritruth’s work as “amazing.”

“It’s a very, very strong program,” she says. “He has a particular approach because of the equipment he has that maybe doesn’t apply to other farmers, but other farmers can do it with their equipment.”

All of Agritruth’s trials use RTK-guided equipment and Gurr has spoken positively on the potential of controlled-traffic agriculture.

Kaminski is no stranger to on-farm field-scale research.

The Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association has invested in a list of on-farm projects in recent years, often paired with smaller plot-based studies.

One such study targets fusarium risk. The $10,000 project will re-evaluate Manitoba’s fusarium risk model in both wheat and barley and hopes to hone in on ideal fungicide application timing.

The association completed another on-farm project last year, testing nitrogen management in high-yielding and high-protein wheat. The almost $78,000 project tested three nitrogen management systems on 30 farms.

“Plot scale is great for those kind of detailed questions where you need to control the statistics quite a bit, or you have a number of interactions that you’re trying to understand and so you need a lot of replicates,” Kaminski says. “On-farm, or field-scale, is better for questions where it’s either an either/or kind of a question or a new practice versus what you’re normally doing.”

On-farm research also uses a farm’s own equipment, allowing more farm-specific study, she says.

“It’s not one is better than the other, but one is better at a different kind of question,” she says. “On-farm research done well has so much strength in statistics in comparison to a small plot where one small anomaly can throw your statistics off.”

Gurr has also noted the lack of volatility in his studies. The mathematically larger sample evens out outliers while also emphasizing any differences that occur throughout the test area.

“I think some of the researchers that we’ve worked with have been astounded at how consistently low our variability is,” he says. “If there is a treatment effect, we have a high probability of picking it up on a field scale. Sometimes, what might happen on a small plot is that small plot research trials are conducted and there’s too much variability within that that trial.”

Do-it-yourself research

A full Agritruth membership will allow farmers to do their own on-farm research later this year, Gurr says. The company is preparing an updated website, including an interactive on-farm research tool.

The tool will allow members to customize crop type, number of replicates, analyze results, explore economic benefits and costs and provide a randomized plot plan.

“That’s definitely something where we thought maybe there was a need for a tool like that because the average farmer or even agronomist… really doesn’t understand why you need to replicate or why you have randomized plot plans and why you statistically analyze,” Gurr says.

Kaminski warns, however, that overambitious producers may unintentionally overcomplicate trials, making it harder to get accurate results, or overload themselves with complicated measurements come harvest when time is at a premium.

“Make it simple,” she advises. “That’s not a comment on anybody’s skill, but it’s a comment on how to get the strongest statistics you can get and how to be very certain of your results. Don’t confound your question with a lot of different possibilities.”

The post Going big with on-farm research appeared first on Country Guide.

As for the formerly touted qualities of barley-fed pork, feeders have had to cut rations because barley and hogs are both susceptible to fusarium.

Consequently, over the last 20 years annual Prairie barley area has dropped by about half to roughly six million acres, about half of which is in Alberta.

Now, has it stabilized, or is feed barley still in decline?

Still a staple ration

Across the Prairies, feed barley is still the cornerstone of most feed regimens.

In Alberta, an estimated 60 per cent of varieties planted are feed varieties and 40 per cent are malting barley varieties, according to Alberta Barley, the provincial promotion organization. Nearly two million acres were planted to feed barley varieties in 2015.

In Saskatchewan, 2.7 million tonnes of barley were grown in 2015. “Roughly 70 to 80 per cent of that we estimate to be feed barley,” says Brent Johnson, vice-chair of Sask Barley and chair of the organization’s feed barley committee.

Most of Manitoba’s acreage consists of malting varieties, but there’s momentum in the province to discourage competition from U.S. corn, says Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association chair Fred Greig.

“Anything we can do as producers to displace other countries’ grain from our market, we for sure want to do,” says Greig.

Breeding priorities

Most feed barley varieties are still much higher yielding than malting varieties, says Aaron Beattie, barley breeder at the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre.

Feed barley is attractive to producers thanks in large part to good genetics, and Beattie’s team is ahead of the curve in breeding new varieties with strong agronomic qualities and disease resistance.

“When we think about feed barley we have a couple of main objectives in mind in terms of characteristics we’re trying to incorporate into those varieties — high yield is of primary importance, and good lodging resistance to ease harvest operations,” he says. “We’re also going for really high test weight in those samples and trying to incorporate some good disease resistance.”

Beattie’s program is responsible for some of the most widely grown varieties in Western Canada, including two-row varieties CDC Austenson and Xena — the former is prized for high yields and test weights, the latter for its good fusarium head blight tolerance.

Beattie says there are new feed barley varieties in the variety registration trial process right now, one of which has shown better fusarium tolerance than Xena, although more data is needed before the “resistant” label can be formally applied.

In Western Canada, because any variety can be used for feed, Beattie’s program uses two tactics in its approach to breeding feed barley. The first is to make specific crosses for feed-type barley, while the second makes use of existing breeding resources.

“We also have varieties that are initially intended for malting, and if they have good agronomics but lack malt quality they’re perfectly suitable for feed barley,” Beattie explains.

Although the yield of malting varieties is catching up to feed types, Beattie says he’d still give an edge to feed varieties when it comes to lodging.

Asian exports?

Domestic demand might be on a gradual decline, but there’s some evidence that new export markets could be opening.

Beattie says Canadian feed barley is prized in China for its naturally high protein levels (often 12 per cent and higher) compared to Australian feed barley, where protein levels can often drop below 10 per cent.

Johnson says feed barley is attractive to Asian markets because barley-finished pork has superior fat quality. SaskBarley is putting research into whether the same principle translates to barley-fed beef.

The organization is also interested in health benefits of barley for both animal and human consumption. “There is work in hogs showing that feed barley has use as a pre-biotic, reducing antibiotic use,” Johnson says. A large body of research also points to its health benefits for human consumption.

For the present, the feed barley market is still healthy in Western Canada — but the jury is still out on the future.

“I think feed barley will remain the main feed grain in Western Canada but U.S. corn will limit any upside and keep the market under pressure. And with increased wheat feeding we’ll see a slight year-over-year decline in domestic consumption for feed barley,” says Jerry Klassen, manager of the Canadian office for Swiss-based grain trader GAP SA Grains & Produits Ltd. Klassen is also a long-time feed grain and livestock market analyst.

Last August, Klassen was hoping the 2016 crop would come off well, with trade estimates between about 8.2 and nine million tonnes.

Feed prices in the major feeding region of southern Alberta were about $170/tonne delivered to the feedlot in mid-August, though those numbers had dropped to $130/tonne in Saskatoon. In Manitoba, feed barley prices were hovering around $175/tonne, close to corn, and demand had dropped overall.

Klassen said the western Canadian hog complex, along with the cattle herd, has remained stagnant or dropped slightly in numbers since 2010 — and with it, feed barley demand. Through the fall, the feed barley market was under pressure in Western Canada due to seasonally low cattle-on-feed numbers and aggressive farmer selling of old-crop supplies. For 2016-17, the industry is anticipating a year-over-year increase in domestic feed wheat usage along with potential imports of U.S. corn and corn gluten, he said. Alternative feed grains will displace barley in feedlot rations.

The post Halting the feed barley decline 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.

Even many of those in favour of an open market conceded that there were a lot of moving parts, and it was going to be necessary to proceed with caution lest very important issues get missed, lost or dropped.

As August 1, 2012 loomed closer, policy wonks of all stripes furrowed their brows and got down to business.

More than three years on, it seems they’ve been largely successful. The sun continued to rise and set and wheat and barley found their way to world markets. That’s not to say it’s been a seamless transition, but it’s seemed at least manageable.

What is a little difficult is keeping track of all the changes.

Agricultural economist Richard Gray of the University of Saskatchewan says it’s a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to how things have reorganized following deregulation, as one might expect, but there are plenty of positives to focus on.

“A lot of the really important pieces did get picked up,” Gray says. “Cigi (Canadian International Grains Institute) remained intact, for example, and there was a recent study conducted by the Australian Export Grains Innovation Council that compared the two countries. It was pretty positive on the Canadian system, and identified a number of areas that we were doing better, including Cigi, and that’s an outside look at the system.”

Gray adds that other important agencies like the Western Grains Research Foundation also successfully weathered the transition.

Hiccups

That’s not to say there weren’t hiccups. During this period of deregulation, the Canadian Grain Commission moved from guaranteeing the protein level of each hold of a ship to guaranteeing the protein level of the entire shipment, Gray says. That meant variation from hold to hold which revealed itself in less consistency as the ships were unloaded on the other end and millers struggled to maintain the efficiency of their mills with a constantly changing end product.

“This was causing havoc on the other end, so the grain companies found they needed to revisit this,” Gray says.

Gray adds both Australian and Canadian wheat sectors are struggling with similar challenges in deregulated markets when it comes to extracting premiums for certain products. In Australia multiple sellers have made it much harder for growers to receive any premium for a certain type of wheat prized by Japanese buyers who are making udon noodles. Likewise, Canadian CWRS milling wheat is likely to face future challenges. In both cases the problem is that production is higher than the premium demand.

“We produce far more CWRS than the world needs,” Gray says. “Can we capture a premium in one sector of the market and not another?”

However, most of these issues are relatively minor  compared to the 800-pound-gorilla problem — transportation in Western Canada, Gray says. It’s the industry’s greatest challenge compared to other growing regions. The trip to salt water is longer, over rougher terrain and frequently through harsher weather than in any other major grain exporting region. This outsized challenge makes for outsized problems when they arrive, Gray says. “I think one of the most significant gaps is grain transportation logistics. They’ve never really solved this issue.” (See High Velocity, page 22.)

In the country, that meant plugged elevators a couple of winters ago when the system creaked under the massive load of a bumper crop. At port, it meant ships line up awaiting cargoes and racking up penalty fees.

While the CWB is a thing of the past, it did play a central co-ordinating role in ensuring that grain shipments met sales at port, something that hasn’t been replaced in any meaningful way.

Grain companies will probably object to sharing their commercial information with a third-party co-ordin-ator, but Gray notes that there are relatively recent precedents. The Grain Transportation Agency functioned as a referee and co-ordinator from the early ’80s to mid-’90s.

That role extended to mixing and matching available supplies at port elevators owned by various companies — a function that was always meant to be replaced by a cash market at port that allowed the various grain companies to make similar transactions. However that particular market has never functioned, Gray says.

“There needs to be the same sort of vision that established the Winnipeg Grain Exchange,” Gray says.

Value Chain

One hole that definitely needed to be filled was a value chain organization that represented all the stakeholders in the newly deregulated cereals sector.

It’s a model with a proven track record in other sectors, as evidenced by the Canola Council of Canada and Pulse Canada.

Cam Dahl is the inaugural president of Cereals Canada, and he lays out the new organization, its mandate and key goals.

“While not specifically modelled after the Canola Council or Pulse Canada, there are similarities,” Dahl says. “Cereals Canada is specifically formed to be a value chain organization that represents all parts of production.”

That includes farmers from all regions of the country, as well as shippers, exporters and processors plus organizations involved in variety development and research. Those three membership groups all sit at the board table, but no one group holds the balance of power.

“By specific design, no single membership pillar has a majority of board seats,” Dahl explains. Funding is split in a way that does reflect the balance of board seats, with growers picking up 39 per cent of the tab, buyers and processors a further 39 per cent and variety development and research organizations a further 22 per cent.

Cereals Canada has three key areas of focus: market development, innovation and industry leadership.

The market development includes new-crop missions to showcase that season’s harvest.

When Dahl spoke to Country Guide, he was travelling on one of these missions to North Africa, the Middle East and West Africa, and says it was the last leg of the annual effort.This year it covered more than 20 countries and reflected a “Team Canada” approach Dahl says.

“It includes Cereals Canada, Cigi, the Canadian Grain Commission, exporters and producers,” Dahl says. “The purpose is to provide technical support for current customers, technical information for prospective customers and feedback to the entire Canadian value chain.”

Research priorities

Innovation will revolve primarily around working to develop national research priorities for wheat, Dahl says. The model aims to bring together all the stakeholders to build a national strategy. Cereals Canada’s specific goals will include working to ensure the needs of end-use customers are incorporated into research objectives.

Industry leadership is a large and somewhat vague title, but Dahl says the two key pieces will be fostering common goals for the cereals sector and ensuring a common message to both international customers and various levels of government in Canada. Specifically that’s meant advocating positions in the wheat class review, variety registration reform, “Team Canada” trade missions, and representation on industry round tables.

Grower groups from around the country have signed on, including the Atlantic Grains Council, Les Producteurs de Grains du Quebec, Grain Farmers of Ontario, Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association, the Alberta Wheat Commission and the B.C. Grain Producers Association.

“The one exception to date is the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission which has not yet accepted our invitation to join,” Dahl says. “The door has, and will, remain open to them.”

In the meantime Dahl says a board member from Saskatchewan represents their interests at the national level.

Research focus

One of the newest grower groups is the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association. Executive director Brent Vankoughnet says the organization, and others like it in the other provinces, will be the voice of farmers and will advocate for farmer interests. So far the MWBGA has focused mainly on research, which members have identified as needing more work.

“We’ve gotten set up over the past couple years, and set up the checkoff, which has given us a revenue stream to commit to what we feel are a number of well-focused research projects,” Vankoughnet says.

A full list is available on the organization’s website, but major projects include looking at variables that may influence gluten strength in CWRS, developing new genomic tools to accelerate wheat breeding, fusarium head blight research and fusarium testing.

While much of the work and the model will be familiar to growers who are long accustomed to industry associations, Vankoughnet says the new cereals groups differ in one key way.

“Most of these associations were formed for new crops that were growing in acreage,” he says. “In this case, they’re for a sector that’s already established and won’t be growing at 15 per cent a year. If anything, some would say our challenge will be ‘How do we halt the exodus?’” he says.

One key will be varietal development, which for wheat is challenging. Vankoughnet says the organization would be working with other organizations like the WGRF and the groups from other provinces to optimize the role of producers in varietal development in order to ensure future varieties are meeting grower needs.

Market Development

The Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi) was established in 1972 to promote Canadian field crops internationally and was jointly funded by farmers through the Canadian Wheat Board and the federal government.

As deregulation loomed, many worried the organization might become one of the unfortunate casualties of the shift. However, it actually became one of the agents of change, as it took on a larger role and garnered interim funding, mainly from farmers through the Western Wheat and Barley Checkoff.

Cigi executive director JoAnne Buth says the organization acted much like a placeholder in the three years following deregulation. During that time the main objective was to ensure that market development work didn’t get missed in the inevitable uncertainty as the industry charted new waters.

That meant “new crop missions” — annual visits to buyers to give them information on the quality of the latest Canadian crop, as well as continuing Cigi’s traditional role in providing milling, baking and processing expertise to buyers. It’s also meant growing into a new and more independent role in establishing and expanding relationships with other players in the grain industry.

“I always tell people that it’s an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one,” Buth told Country Guide recently.

On her watch the organization has continued to work with industry stakeholders like Pulse Canada and the new Cereals Canada, offering technical expertise as well as insight into industry trends in various parts of the globe.

“I hope we’ll continue to work closely with these organizations,” Buth says. “Pulse Canada really has the whole value chain at their table, which is very valuable for the industry, and Cereals Canada is working very hard to get the whole chain on board. We think they’ll be a very strong partner to keep working with.”

Buth says that what’s still needed is a funding formula that recognizes that growers aren’t the sole beneficiaries of Cigi’s work, and shouldn’t be the sole funders. Cigi is talking to industry about what form its support may take.

“This is a message we’ve heard very clearly from producers, and have taken to heart,” she says.

Buth also says the organization wants to continue to offer training and information for growers in the form of programs like the popular Combine to Customer course, which brings farmers to Winnipeg to see Cigi’s processing facilities.

“The program is so popular there’s a waiting list, because farmers have told us they value the information they get through it so much,” Buth says. “We want to keep offering them valuable insight into how things are structured and work together, and also feedback from customers on how their crops are used and what’s important to the end-users.”

This article was originally published as “Making change” in the February 16, 2016, issue of Country Guide

The post Making change for cereal crop development appeared first on Country Guide.

“Our association wants to get answers to the question of where minor classes of wheat are headed,” says Brent Vankoughnet, executive director of the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association. “First, we want to make sure there is market development investment. How do we continue to make the connection with our customers?”

Vankoughnet says there are also the agronomic considerations.

“Does (a minor wheat class) earn a place in my rotation? Is it competitive? Sure, yield times price equals profit, but there’s more than that to consider. Are there long-term consequences like excess straw or access to your field as in the case of getting a canola crop off to plant your winter wheat?”

Vankoughnet says wheat acres in Manitoba have been relatively stable over the years, with 90 to 95 per cent falling in the CWRS class and only “ebbs and flows” of the minor classes going in the ground.

“With so much of our wheat in the CWRS class, we don’t want to drop a stitch there in terms of agronomy and market development,” says Vankoughnet. “But we want to encourage options for farmers.”

Area steady or declining

Ethanol plant demand helped increase soft white spring area to 1.2 million acres in 2013, but it dropped to under 800,000 acres in 2014.

Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) acreage has kept near the million-acre mark, but Canada Western Extra Strong wheat area has dropped to under 100,000 acres Prairie-wide in 2014. Most of this wheat is now grown under contract for specific domestic and European markets.

After peaking at 1.245 million acres in 2012, winter wheat area plummeted to just over 600,000 acres last fall. G3 (formerly CWB) weather and crop analyst Bruce Burnett attributes the drop to disease and to later harvests in recent years, which affects farmers’ ability to get winter wheat in the ground. However, Burnett says yield and quality of the 2015 harvest look good and an earlier harvest this year means the crop is likely to rebound.

Harvey Brooks, general manager of the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission, agreed and says winter wheat is “on the cusp of moving forward.” He also sees potential for CPS.

“There’s lots of excitement surrounding CPS Red wheat. If we can demonstrate end-use demand and if farmers can get a good price, good things will happen.”

Todd Hyra of SeCan says there are new CPS varieties that have improved stature and better lodging resistance. But new varieties need to be further developed by the marketing chain in order to create the critical mass for long-term sales success.

Segregation costs

Brooks says the transition from a single desk to multiple sellers has prompted a re-examination of markets and customers’ desires.

“Wheat needs to be competitive. There must be value to the end-user as well as value to the farmer. There must be high enough volumes to satisfy collection and transportation profitability. Velocity is everything in transportation. Grains are costly to segregate.”

Andy Klippenstein of G3 says the Canadian marketing and collection system is a critical factor in the success of minor wheat classes, since terminals may be reluctant to take ownership of a smaller amount of grain that needs to be segregated and may not fill an entire silo.

“All grain companies want to turn their capacity as often as possible and with the smaller classes, they may be tying up a large silo that is partially filled for quite some time until they actually get the opportunity to ship the product to the end-user,” says Klippenstein.

Ready markets

“CPS wheat and winter wheat, from a baking perspective, have seen a significant improvement in varieties over a number of years, delivering superior milling and baking attributes,” says Yvonne Supeene, head of baking technology for the Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi). “CPS has good water absorption, fermentation tolerance and volume. It makes excellent pan and hearth breads.”

Supeene says Canada’s winter wheats are perfect for baking baguettes because they contribute the “burst” in the loaf when it is baked to a golden crust and torn in two.

Esey Assefaw, Cigi’s head of Asian products and extrusion technology, says these wheats have the unique medium-protein qualities that buyers in these markets are looking for to produce Asian noodles and steam bread. CPS Red, in particular, delivers the correct elasticity needed in many types of noodles. For Japanese udon or ichiban noodles, CPS Red provides elasticity that allows the manufacturer to reduce the need for starch, which improves the profit margin for the manufacturer.

Despite having red bran, red winter wheat separates cleanly during milling and produces a white flour, which is prized in the production of Asian bread and steam buns.

Assefaw says the challenge is not quality, but consistent supply. “If we get production, we have sales. If we have sales, we get production. Somebody has to support red winter wheat or it’s all going to go to the U.S. for other purposes.”

Cigi offers programs and courses designed to attract buyers of Canadian grains and show them how the various Canadian wheat classes can improve the quality and profit margin of their products. This summer, Cigi hosted or attended events reaching out to about two dozen buyers from eight Latin American and Caribbean countries to describe the characteristics of CPS Red and other Canadian wheat.

Alberta Wheat Commission chairman Kent Erickson agrees that adequate production is needed to deliver consistent quality and show buyers that Canada is committed to supply.

“Farmers benefit from higher-yielding varieties of CPS and winter wheat, and they are trying to get more consistent demand from handlers for their production,” Erickson says. While some growers’ agreements with grain companies do exist, “identity-preserved contracts haven’t reached into winter wheat yet.”

SeCan CEO Jeff Reid says recent regulatory changes are allowing for new and exciting varieties of minor classes. “The grain commission is sorting out the wheat classes. Industry is unified about making sure CWRS is tightened up and doing the job that customers want. CPS Red is a great alternative milling wheat and the yield has upside potential.”

The post The future of minor wheat classes appeared first on Country Guide.