Cr131105

w w w.agcanada.com

$ 4.25

N O V E M B E R 2 0 13 E D I T I O N

PLANNING THE NEXT CROP — AND BEYOND

FOCUS ON

GRAIN LOGISTICS An open market hasn’t seen a wholesale shift in shipping patterns PG. 13 Will Churchill survive, thrive or decline in the new era? PG. 16

ALSO INSIDE

• THE LOWDOWN ON GRASSHOPPERS • FALL FERTILITY TESTING FOR CANOLA Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240

Get the N that delivers all seasoN loNG.

©2013 Agrium Advanced Technologies. ESN; ESN SMART NITROGEN; SMARTER WAYS TO GROW A SMARTER SOURCE OF NITROGEN. A SMARTER WAY TO GROW and AGRIUM ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES and Designs are all trademarks owned by Agrium Inc. 08/13-21782-01

ESN® SMART NITROGEN® is the best choice for your farm because timely nitrogen feeding enhances yield and crop quality. With a single application, ESN nourishes crops throughout the growing season, so you get everything you can out of your nitrogen investment. Get the facts from your retailer, or visit SmartNitrogen.com.

CROPS GUIDE

NOVEMBER 2013

CONTENTS

EVERY ISSUE

4 6 12 26 28

Editor’s note

Don’t count on hunger to drive better understanding of your business.

Gleanings

Notes from around the industry.

Crop protection

A new peace is brewing between chemical companies and biopesticide producers.

More than 1,000 words Baking up some goodies with some often-forgotten wheat flour.

Markets

Will strong cattle prices support feed grains?

FEATURES

8

Making introductions

Sometimes giving Mother Nature a helping hand pays control dividends.

18

Hopper headaches

22

Building better blackleg resistance

Everyone hates them, but few understand them.

Blackleg is a major challenge and resistance is failing.

24

Soil test right before freeze-up

Late-season soil testing gets the numbers while the clock is stopped.

FOCUS ON

GRAIN LOGISTICS

13 STATUS QUO… FOR NOW

Everyone expected that the elimination of the CWB’s single-desk mandate would mean a realignment of just how grain leaves the country.

So far, however, it hasn’t happened.

16 UNCHARTED WATERS

Manitoba’s Churchill is Canada’s lone commercial Arctic port. One of its major lifelines was always board grains. In the new era shipments have fallen, and nobody is sure if they’re going to get back up again.

COVER PHOTO: DAVE REEDE

OUR COMMITMENT TO YOUR PRIVACY: At Farm Business Communications we have a firm commitment to protecting your privacy and security as our customer. Farm Business Communications will only collect personal information if it is required for the proper functioning of our business. As part of our commitment to enhance customer service, we may share this personal information with other strategic business partners. For more information regarding our Customer Information Privacy Policy, write to: Information Protection Officer, Farm Business Communications, 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1.

Occasionally we make our list of subscribers available to other reputable firms whose products and services might be of interest to you. If you would prefer not to receive such offers, please contact us at the address in the preceding paragraph, or call 1-800-665-1362.

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

3

EDITOR’S NOTE

PL A N NIN G T HE NE X T CRO P — A ND BE YO ND

www.agcanada.com

Hungry won’t help

N

ot too long ago, I was at an open house at the University of Manitoba’s

research farm.

Among the assembled farmers were some visitors from one of the local Hutterite colonies, and over lunch I wound up striking up a conversation with one of the young fellows in this group.

It wasn’t anything particularly momentous. Just some polite chitchat while having a bite. However, we did talk a bit about how city people view agriculture, and in particular about how they have an expectation that they should be able to control activities on the farm through regulation.

I’ve had the same conversation with city folks, and I’ve found it equally frustrating, in particular because the typical urbanite’s understanding of agriculture is limited, to say the least.

So far we were pretty much in agreement, but then he made a statement that I have a bit more trouble with. “When people get hungry, they’ll figure this stuff out,” he observed.

Those who know me well might have trouble believing this, but I bit my tongue and opted not to have that discussion that day and ruin a pleasant lunch in the process. However, I think this attitude, which I have heard expressed more than once, from more than one source, ignores the stark realities facing agriculture, and in particular the export-oriented commodity agriculture of Western Canada.

Without delving too far into the facts and figures, let’s just say it’s pretty much impossible to imagine any of the residents of Western Canada ever encountering circumstances where they went hungry. It’s simply a question of raw numbers.

I live in Manitoba, a decent-

size agricultural province, with some growers who are pretty darned good at their jobs. So good that they produce enough food and fibre to support 17 million people — or at least according to some boilerplate I saw a while back on the provincial Ag Department’s website. That’s with a population of one million or so.

I won’t harp on the point too much, but the bottom line is that the citizens of these provinces enjoy fairly significant food security. The people who really depend on the food produced here aren’t here. They’re in countries far lower on the economic totem pole, with far greater agricultural constraints.

If you need to ponder this reality in action, recall the great food crisis of 2008. It was poor Haitians who were reduced to eating “cookies” baked from a combination of dirt, salt and vegetable shortening, not Winnipeggers.

That is the great disconnect that you, as a farmer, find yourself straddling. You have hungry mouths, on one side demanding cheap and readily available food.

You have wealthy urbanites, on the other side, demanding a pristine environment. And the political reality that poor Haitians don’t vote in Canadian elections, while wealthy urban residents do.

So what’s a farmer, or the agriculture industry as a whole, to do? I wish I had a straightforward solution right at hand. If I did, I would be getting rich consulting with major companies. Instead I’m a print journalist.

One thing is certain though — it’s not going to work just waiting for people to suddenly realize how vitally important crop protection products are to modern agriculture, driven by a new-found need for your produce. That might exist, but it won’t be anywhere near the ballot boxes that may determine your future. ■

G O R D G I L M O U R gord.gilmour@fbcpublishing.com

4

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

EDITORIAL STAFF Editor: Gord Gilmour (204) 453-7624 Cell (204) 294-9195 Email: gord.gilmour@fbcpublishing.com

Fax (204) 942-8463

REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS Brad Brinkworth Richard Kamchen Clare Stanfield

David Drozd Gord Leathers Jay Whetter

Ron Friesen Warren Libby

ADVERTISING SALES Cory Bourdeaud’hui (204) 954-1414 Cell (204) 227-5274 Email: cory@fbcpublishing.com Lillie Ann Morris (905) 838-2826 Email: lamorris@xplornet.com Head office: 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1 Advertising Services Co-ordinator: Sharon Komoski (204) 944-5758 Fax (204) 944-5562 Email: ads@fbcpublishing.com Art Director: Jenelle Jensen Contributing Photographer: Chris Procaylo Publisher: Lynda Tityk Email: lynda.tityk@fbcpublishing.com Associate Publisher/Editorial Director: John Morriss Email: john.morriss@fbcpublishing.com Production Director: Shawna Gibson Email: shawna@fbcpublishing.com Circulation Manager: Heather Anderson Email: heather@fbcpublishing.com President: Bob Willcox Glacier Media Agricultural Information Group Email: bwillcox@glaciermedia.ca Contents of this publication are copyrighted and may be reproduced only with the permission of the editor. CROPS GUIDE is published by Farm Business Communications, 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1. Head office: Winnipeg, Manitoba Printed by Transcontinental LGM-Coronet.

CROPS GUIDE is published 7 times a year.

Publications Mail Agreement Number 40069240.

Canadian Postmaster: Return undeliverable Canadian addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept, 1666 Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1.

U.S. Postmaster: Send address changes and undeliverable addresses (covers only) to: Circulation Dept., 1666 Dublin Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3H 0H1.

ISSN 1927-5382 (Print) ISSN 1927-5390 (Online) Subscription inquiries: Call toll-free 1-800-665-1362 or email: subscription@fbcpublishing.com U.S. subscribers call 1-204-944-5766

CROPS GUIDE is printed with linseed oil-based inks.

PRINTED IN CANADA Vol. 02 No. 06 website: www.agcanada.com The editors and journalists who write, contribute and provide opinions to CROPS GUIDE and Farm Business Communications attempt to provide accurate and useful opinions, information and analysis. However, the editors, journalists, CROPS GUIDE and Farm Business Communications, cannot and do not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in this publication and the editors as well as CROPS GUIDE and Farm Business Communications assume no responsibility for any actions or decisions taken by any reader for this publication based on any and all information provided.

With 8% more yield than other inoculants, it makes a welcome addition to any operation.

Chances are if you grow peas or lentils you’re already using inoculants.

What you may not realize is they’re not all created equal. That’s why you should insist on Nodulator® XL. With the most active strain of rhizobia, it improves nitrogen fixation for increased root biomass and top growth.

It all adds up to higher yield potential. So when you choose Nodulator XL, we suggest you think ahead to harvest time—and think big. To find out more, visit agsolutions.ca or contact AgSolutions® Customer Care at 1-877-371-BASF (2273).

Always read and follow label directions.

AgSolutions is a registered trade-mark of BASF Corporation; and NODULATOR is a registered trade-mark of BASF; all used with permission by BASF Canada Inc. © 2013 BASF Canada Inc.

110201375_NodulatorXL_Bin_Ad_CG_v1.indd 1

2013-10-07 4:06 PM

Gleanings g r a i n

i n d u s t r y

Industry Notes

Manitoba no longer clubroot free Tests on two unrelated canola fields in Manitoba in August and September have confirmed clubroot on both samples, Manitoba’s Agriculture Department said recently.

“Due to these results, the department says Manitoba can no longer be considered free of clubroot disease,” the department says in a special bulletin.

The discovery of clubroot symptoms in Manitoba had been considered likely, as clubroot DNA had been confirmed previously in soil samples unrelated to these fields, the province says. With awareness of the potential for development in Manitoba, growers and industry members have been monitoring canola more closely for signs of the disease.

The Ag Department reminded farmers to follow best management and disease prevention practices as they prepare for the 2014 crop year. The department said it plans to host workshops to discuss reduction of pest movement and biosecurity for crop producers.

Proper equipment cleaning, specifically to reduce the movement of soil on field equipment, is key to reducing the risk of spreading clubroot, a soil-borne disease. The use of clubroot-resistant crop varieties, proper crop rotation and good weed management of alternate hosts will help prevent heavier infestations from developing within a field where a disease may already be present at undetected levels, the province says.

Clubroot can cause economic yield losses in host crops including canola.

The disease survives in soil as hardy, resting spores, with a half-life of four years, but has the capacity to survive up to 20 years.

Once established in a field, clubroot requires long-term management.

The Agriculture Department, working with the Manitoba Canola Growers Association and Canola Council of Canada, is developing information for producers. Growers looking for more information can contact Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives.

6

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

n e w s

Bayer to scrap TraitGuard canola program for 2014 Calling the program a “bigger challenge” than expected, Bayer CropScience Canada plans to shut down its TraitGuard early-season establishment program for growers of its InVigor canola.

Under TraitGuard, farmers who signed the program release would see per-acre refunds of the InVigor trait fee they paid to Bayer, on InVigor hybrid canola acres that failed to establish by the end of June each year.

TraitGuard will be replaced in 2014 by an “increased investment” in Bayer’s InVigor reseeding program, the company says.

Starting with the 2014 season, InVigor hybrid canola growers who have “early establishment issues” with their crop but reseed back to InVigor will qualify for a $40-per-acre refund from Bayer.

The new refund, Bayer says, will represent “a 60 per cent increase in the early establishment reseeding program to support growers continuing to grow InVigor hybrid canola.”

TraitGuard was introduced in 2010 with the company’s Liberty and Trait Agreement (LTA). In its first year out of the gate, however, the number of TraitGuard claims “surpassed all expectations” due to record spring rainfalls across the Prairies, Bayer said in 2011.

While TraitGuard “enjoyed some success,” Bayer says, “the logistics and resources of managing the program for all involved had proven to be a bigger challenge than had been forecasted.”

TraitGuard for 2013 had offered trait fee refunds of up to $12.50 per acre on a minimum of 100 InVigor acres that suffered an early-season crash and were either taken out of production (by spraying or cultivation

by July 15 at the latest) or reseeded to other crops or non-InVigor canola.

Growers who had such a crash on at least 50 acres, but reseeded their affected acres back to InVigor canola, received up to $25 per acre.

In any case, TraitGuard claims for the 2013 crop year had to be registered by June 28 or within 15 days of reseeding, whichever came first.

TraitGuard refunds were calculated based on the number of bags of seed used on the acres either reseeded or taken out of production, at a rate of 10 acres per 22.7-kg bag of seed.

Any areas that were deemed “lost,” but were kept for harvest, weren’t eligible for TraitGuard.

P+H in talks for Owen Sound port Winnipeg-based grain handler Parrish and Heimbecker confirms it’s in talks with Transport Canada to take over operation of the Port of Owen Sound, Ont., where it already operates a grain terminal.

The port, on Lake Huron’s Georgian Bay, is one of 34 “regional/local” ports in Canada now under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada’s port programs directorate, tasked with divesting such ports to other public- or private-sector management.

Owen Sound Mayor Deborah Haswell, speaking at a Sept. 9 council meeting, announced P+H had “stepped forward to discuss divestiture of the harbour” with Transport Canada.

Winnipeg-based P+H, Haswell noted, has been invested in the port for years as the owner/operator of Owen Sound’s Great Lakes Elevator Co. grain terminal.

P+H plans to advise both the Owen Sound and federal governments of its interest and position once the company has reviewed “technical and environmental information” from Transport Canada, Haswell was quoted as saying in council minutes.

If an agreement can be reached on divestiture, a town hall-style public meeting will be held with the port’s new owner and the city “for public dialogue,” she says, noting continued public access to the harbour is “paramount” for the community.

According to local media, the harbour bottom is filling with silt and needs dredging soon for Owen Sound to remain a viable commercial port. However, Haswell told council, Transport Canada plans to address the dredging issue only once the divestiture of the harbour, either to the city or another entity, has been finalized.

P+H has confirmed its talks with Transport Canada in local and regional media reports, but the company added it’s bound by an agreement not to discuss details of the negotiations.

P+H’s Owen Sound terminal has 93,000 tonnes of grain capacity and 11 truck loading bins and can accommodate ships up to 750 feet long including self-unloading ships and bulkers. The terminal can also load out to laker vessels and smaller ocean-going vessels (“salties”).

Ontario issues notice on seed treatments

By Ralph Pearce, Country Guide

The contentious issue of corn and soybean seed treatments has caused a flood of studies and opinions, but few clear answers.

At the heart of this hubbub are bee deaths.

Ontario has funded a one-year study of the issue, but the results have yet to be issued.

However, a recent blog on the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) website now asks growers and other industry stakeholders to be proactive in reducing risks, and to be mindful of their own needs.

The post, acknowledges assessments to date that indicate “fugitive dust” (the drift of neonicotinoid-contaminated dust from vacuum planters) to be the likely cause of bee deaths during the spring. However, it must be emphasized, ongoing research also indicates there’s no one singular cause in this unfortunate development and again, the final report from the joint OMAFUniversity of Guelph project is pending.

In the meantime — and with an eye on seed orders being made this fall — the word from OMAF is that growers consider all options available to them, and perform a basic assess-

ment of the need for neonicotinoid-based seed treatments.

“At what point does the risk have to be high enough to use this type of seed treatment?” says Peter Johnson, OMAF’s cereal specialist at Stratford, who’s been working behind the scenes to help provide insight on insecticide seed treatments.

It isn’t a matter of oversimplifying the situation and saying to growers, “You should,” or, “You shouldn’t,” he adds. What’s being suggested is that instead of blanket use, insecticide-based seed treatments come with acknowledged (if not historical) assessed risks.

“For instance, if I’m on sand soil at Rodney with European chafer or wireworm, then I know that I need Poncho 1250,” he says, noting the need for scouting and assessment.

“There are fields out there that must have this technology.”

Compare those cases to farms that are on loamier soils, where a fungicide-only treated seed should be sufficient.

“Eighty per cent of growers are somewhere in the middle and some will say, ‘Let’s

figure out whether we need it or not,’” says Johnson. “Growers just want this information to be able to make an informed decision.”

In all, the OMAF field crops team recommends eight different strategies, including these five: • Fields with a history of wireworm, cutworm, European chafer or other white grubs need to use insecticide-treated seed.

Scouting is an option with these pests.

• Sandy soils, fields with a history of chickweed, or fields within two years after sod (hay) are at higher risk, and insecticides are warranted.

• Soybean fields with a history of seed corn maggot or early-season bean leaf beetle issues should use insecticide-treated seed.

• Growers with no history of stand issues prior to 2004 (before neonicotinoids were registered) could be considered at low risk of insect problems. Fungicide-only seed is an option.

Growers planting second-year corn should use genetic corn rootworm control, not high rates of neonicotinoid seed treatments.

Cereal maker Post to buy Viterra’s U.S. pasta firm The maker of Shreddies, Honeycomb and Alpha-Bits cereals is set to take a major U.S. pasta-processing plant off Viterra’s hands.

Regina-based Viterra’s owner, Swiss commodity giant Glencore Xstrata, announced recently it will sell Dakota Growers Pasta Co. to Post Holdings for $370 million cash (all figures US$). The deal is expected to close in January 2014.

For Glencore, the deal marks another selloff of assets from Canada’s biggest grain handler, outside of its Canadian and Australian commodity grain-handling business.

Viterra assets that have either been sold or committed for sale since its takeover by Glencore last year include its Canadian and Australian crop input retail businesses, Canadian and U.S. oat-milling operations and Australian malting business among others.

For Dakota Growers, with durum wheatmilling and pasta-production operations at Carrington, N.D. plus production capacity in the Minneapolis area, the deal so far means business as usual under its existing management team, led by vice-president Ed Irion and managed “independently” from other Post businesses.

“With Dakota Growers, Post continues to expand its portfolio into segments of the overall food industry where it sees opportunities to grow and diversify its strong cash flow,” Post CEO William Stiritz says in a separate release.

St. Louis-based Post said the deal, to be funded through cash on hand and up to $200 million in debt financing, is expected to add about $300 million to annual sales and about $42 million to $46 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA).

Post, which spun off from General Foods last year as an independent publicly traded company, has set up the Dakota Growers deal as a stock purchase in which it will buy all stock in the processor’s Viterra-owned parent, Agricore United Holdings.

Viterra bought Dakota Growers for $240 million in March 2010. A Reuters report in July this year, citing unnamed sources, said Dakota Growers was up for sale and could be valued between $300 million and $400 million.

Dakota Growers’ production mainly goes to ingredients for other food companies but also to the food service and private-label

retail sectors. It makes the Dreamfields brand of low-carb pastas, among about 100 different shapes of pastas including whole grain, multi grain and “omega-3” varieties.

Dakota Growers started operations at Carrington, about 200 km northeast of Bismarck, in 1993, with the backing of about 1,100 U.S. Midwest farmers, using Italian-made equipment to process durum wheat into pasta. It later bought a second pasta plant at New Hope, just west of Minneapolis. n

Give us your input If you have a milestone you feel should be noted in our regular Gleanings column, please send the information, along with an electronic photo of any individual noted in the item, to Crops Guide editor Gord Gilmour at: gord.gilmour@fbcpublishing.com.

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

7

bioControl

Making introductions Introduced biocontrol agents are like hired guns brought in to ‘deal’ with a problem

I

t’s a brutal truth that there are some problems that can only be solved through the actions of a hired killer, especially if your problem is an insect pest.

If it’s cabbage root maggot that troubles you, there’s a beetle for that. If it’s wheat midge you find vexing, there’s a wasp that will look after that for you. Cold blooded and ruthless, they’ll do everything within their power to see that your crop won’t be eaten by a bug that’s not willing to pay fair market price for your produce.

This is an age-old technique called biological control where a booming population of pests is taken down with an application of their natural enemies. These enemies come in different forms. Some, like lacewings, are predators. Others may either be a parasite or parasitoid. In many cases a disease or fungal infection can bring the pest numbers back down.

“Biological control, the use of living organisms to control pests, is an idea that’s been out there for a long time,” says University of Manitoba pest management specialist Jordan Bannerman. “We’re actually introducing these species or manipulating the environment in some way to gain a benefit from these organisms that will kill or disrupt the pests we’re trying to target.”

The idea goes back almost 2,000 years. In the third century farmers near Canton, China could buy a nest of ants to control Tesseratoma papillosa caterpillars in the fruit orchards. This was the first documented case of deliberately releasing a predator to go after pests. The ladybird beetle was discovered and utilized around 1200 AD to control aphids and scale, another family of small insects.

Insect pests are particularly severe in North America because many of the crops that we grow are imports from other parts of the world. On their home turf they have natural enemies that prey on them and these are, in turn, preyed on by other organisms. In a wild ecosystem, there will be fluctuations in the population levels of pests and

8 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

their predators but, in the long term, they’re kept in check. Agriculture changes all that.

“If you look at a field crop in terms of the ecology of it, it’s predominantly a monoculture,” Bannerman says.

“When you look at it from an insect perspective, they have an unlimited and consistent food source with high nutrient inputs and low variability. It’s a very stable environment in which to grow.”

So that’s what they do and, since insects can lay a lot of eggs, it sets the stage for rapid and dramatic surges in their numbers. To make matters worse, when we imported our crop species we often imported their pests along with them by mistake. Not only do those pest insects have a ready and plentiful food source, they often don’t have their old enemies to keep them in check. If the right conditions line up, a sudden boom in a pest population can bring about a plague of voracious bugs that can eat a field right down to the soil. We have to bring back some form of balance by bringing in their predators.

“What we do with these invasive alien species is work with international researchers in the area of these pests’ origin and look for their natural enemies,” said Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research scientist Owen Olfert. “We want to identify one that we can bring here and release without causing any harm to the ecosystem, other species and those sorts of things.”

It’s a rigorous process that can take several years and that’s not a bad thing. Ecology, even when your ecosystem is as relatively simple as a wheat field, is a subtle and complex thing. On the surface the introduction of a natural enemy seems like a good idea but the consequences can be equally severe. There are a few examples of predators introduced into a new country to control pests that made the situation even worse.

Norway rats were a big problem in the cane fields on islands throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans as well as the Caribbean. There were also several species of native snakes that caused trouble during the harvest season. In the late 1800s cane growers decided the islands needed a ferocious little predator with a legendary taste for both rats and snakes to bring down the rats and make the harvest safer. The Indian mongoose, the hero of Rudyard Kipling’s Rikki Tikki Tavi, was brought in to do the job. The mongooses took out the Norway rats but ignored the tree rats that moved in to take their place.

The mongooses didn’t climb. To make matters worse, they left the snakes alone and went after much easier prey like the local chickens. They also devastated native ground birds and lizards, many of which were already controlling pest insects in the cane fields.

The Australians had the same trouble with the cane toad, an enormous amphibian that eats anything it can

Wheat Midge: Walloon Agricultural Research Center

By Gord Leathers

get its mouth around. It was dispatched to the fields to deal with the native cane beetle. The problem is the cane beetle lives higher up in the plant where the toad can’t get it. The toads had no impact on the beetle but they certainly ate everything else. They can grow to enormous size and are poisonous to eat so the local predators stayed away from them. Needless to say today’s protocols for animal introductions are a lot more stringent.

“It’s not taken lightly,” Olfert says. “If the science proves that the risk is very low a natural enemy like a parasitoid or a predator will be released to help nature take its course on those critters.”

There are three different types of biological control.

There is restoration, classical and augmentative.

Restoration is simple enough. This is the reestablishment of native predators to their old range to control a native pest. Augmentative is importing a control species into an environment where they aren’t self-sustaining and, because of this, they need constant reintroduction. This is very expensive and is limited to high-value greenhouse crops.

The classical method is the best known and this means importing an old enemy into a new environment in the hopes that it will establish a self-sustaining population that will keep the pest

who’s still out on the family farm south of Swift Current. His sons are now involved and the stuff they have to know. It’s incredible,” Olfert says. “I think, given the tools that they have, there is a lot of room for producers to incorporate a lot of agronomic tools such as agronomy, cultural control along with biological control and then there is always insecticide as your backup insurance.”

Olfert recounted the wheat midge outbreak in Saskatchewan back in the 1980s. Wheat midge is a tiny fly native to Europe and the female lays her eggs on the florets of emerging wheat heads. On hatching, the larva crawl into the floret and feed on the emerging wheat kernel. The adults like humidity so they spend the day under the canopy and fly at dusk so they’re not easy to find and spraying is largely ineffective.

“We had a massive outbreak in the early 1980s and in that case there was one parasitoid of that insect pest that actually tagged along with the wheat midge,” he says.

“In addition to that they also did the search in Europe for other parasitoids because we weren’t quite sure how well this one was going to control it. If you only have one alternative you may want to look for a second one to help you out.”

The parasitoid in this case was a tiny wasp with the Latin name Macroglenes penetrans. It lays an egg on the larval midge. The larva grows to maturity in spite of the

From an insect perspective, they have an unlimited and consistent food source with high nutrient inputs and low variability. It’s a very stable environment.

cereal leaf beetle: Hania Berdys, Bugwood.org

— Jordan Bannerman, University of Manitoba

numbers below the economic threshold. The goal is to contain the pest, not to eradicate it because eradication is almost impossible.

In spite of a few disasters there are a number of really good examples of biocontrol in action. In the late 1800s a species of prickly pear cactus, Opuntia stricta, was brought into Australia where it was used as a hedge plant. It found Australia very much to its liking and, with no natural enemies and a habit of reproducing through seeds and segments it got away and became a serious pest. By 1900 almost 10 million acres throughout Queensland and New South Wales were covered with prickly pear. Livestock was stymied by the plant and many of the homesteads were subsequently abandoned.

In 1920, after a review of several potential control species, the Australians released an Argentinian moth, Cactoblastus cactorum. The moth lays about 100 eggs on the lobes and, on hatching, the larva burrow into the cactus opening it up to bacterial infection. The moth went to work and by 1933 the cactus was virtually eliminated. Occasional pockets pop up but the moth finds them and controls them. The cactus is now contained.

The key word in all this is contained. Agriculture took a dramatic turn after the Second World War when there was a revolution in chemistry. The first applications of DDT showed great promise for increased production because it seemed to eradicate pests completely.

But there was a double rebound with the high levels of residual DDT in the environment as well as booming populations of genetically resistant pests. It was clear by the 1970s that insecticides weren’t the only answer to the pest problem and that a more complex approach was needed — a need that continues to this day.

“I look at the producers these days like my brother

presence of the parasitoid and drops off into the soil in the fall to overwinter. In the spring the wasp larva eats the midge and emerges as an adult. While this might not help this year ’s crop it means there’s a potential breeding midge out of the system and another wasp in it to keep next year’s midge numbers down. The effort didn’t stop there.

“We went back to Europe and identified another parasitoid,” Olfert says. “After many years of lab work to see exactly what its biological and ecological requirements were we released it in Saskatchewan in the late 1990s to compliment the one we had. Now we have two species of parasitoids working on wheat midge and, on average in Saskatchewan, we get between 30 to 40 per cent control.”

In some instances the rates of parasitism may go up as high as 80 to 90 per cent. Once again, this isn’t going to eliminate the wheat midge but it’s enough to keep it below the levels where it does economic damage.

It’s estimated that these two wasps working in tandem saved Saskatchewan farmers $248.3 million in insecticide costs in the 1990s.

As long as we keep importing crops from other parts of the world we’re going to keep importing pest species.

Cereal leaf beetle and cabbage root maggot are a couple of others for which we’re looking for predators.

“These biocontrol agents are doing a very valuable job and they often get overlooked,” concludes Manitoba entomologist John Gavloski. “It’s important for farmers to be aware of the biocontrol because that’s what ultimately saves them a lot of money in reduced pest pressure on their crop. Whether they know it or not some of these biocontrol agents are the reason they’re not spraying for certain insects on an annual basis.” n CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 9

E C N A M R O

S L A E R H E G C I

H

PERF

CDC VR Morris, CDC Stanley and CDC Thrive were bred at the Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan.

Proven速 Seed is a registered trademark of Crop Production Services (Canada) Inc. CPS CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES and Design is a registered trademark of Crop Production Services, Inc.

10834B-CPS-High Performance Cereal 2PAGE_Ad-FIN.indd 1

S S O R C A T

T S E W

H G I R E TH

Part of your well-balanced farm business.

High yield potential and reliable disease packages make Proven® Seed’s High Performance Cereals the trusted choice for western Canadian growers. With popular varieties such as Xena, AC Navigator, and SY 985, growers continue to have a trusted source for proven success in the field. Contact your local CPS retail location to learn more about our complete High Performance Cereals line-up.

Book your 2014 cereals today and get the power to grow.

GROWING REGIONS CDC VR MORRIS

CDC STANLEY

5604HR CL

CDC THRIVE

5602HR

WESTLIN 71

5700PR

CHAMPION

AC BRIGADE

5702PR

AC MAJOR

2013-10-03 4:09 PM

CROP PROTECTION

Fussing and feuding Are biopesticides the future or a pipe dream?

M

Warren libby President of Savvy Farmer

ost people have heard of the infamous feud between the Hatfield and McCoy families who waged bloody war along the Kentucky–West Virginia border for over 150 years. Well, according to a new television series on the HISTORY channel, the battling clans have finally buried the hatchet and have decided to work together, share their “white-lightning” recipes, and will produce a legal version of moonshine whiskey.

No one thought this possible, but in the end they realized they would do better marketing a single whiskey under both family names than spending time disparaging the reputation of the other’s product.

This reminded me a bit of the history of the pest control business, although fortunately without the bloody consequences. For the past 30 years the traditional pesticide producers and the biopesticide producers have engaged in a verbal feud. The biopesticide clan has waged a war of fearmongering accusing the pesticide manufacturers of poisoning the environment, creating cancers, and producing Frankenfoods. For their part, the chemical suppliers have labelled the biopesticide companies as snakeoil salesmen whose products don’t work, are overpriced, and are hard to use. Of course, both are exaggerations.

The feud is beginning to calm with both sides toning down the rhetoric. The catalyst to this new friendship appears to be the wave of major acquisitions of biocompanies during the last year. In 2012 Bayer purchased AgraQuest, BASF acquired Becker Underwood, and Syngenta bought Pasteuria; all major biopesticide plays. When the three largest pest control companies in the world spend over $1.5 billion in one year to enter the biopesticide sector, it suggests a change in strategy.

Certainly it signals recognition by the chemistry companies that there is a future for biopesticides. It is also a reality check for the biopesticide companies who have been unable to capture a major share of the pest control market. In fact, although biopes-

ticides have been around for 50 years, global sales are just $1.5 billion.

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, the traditional and biopesticide companies have come to the understanding that each brings specific benefits to farmers, and rather than fighting one another, it is more profitable to work together. The Biopesticide Industry Alliance sums it up just about right when it says, ”Biopesticides in a program with traditional chemicals offer growers sustainable solutions.” It goes on to say that “… real world challenges often dictate that IPM systems use all control methods, including conventional chemistries, to optimize productivity and sustainability. Research, field trials and performance history prove that the most effective IPM programs typically consist of biopesticides used in combination or rotation with traditional chemistries.”

This merging of technologies is pretty good news for farmers as it adds some extra gadgets to our pest control tool boxes. While we already deal with most pest problems using traditional chemistry, biopesticides offer certain advantages not always available with synthetic chemistries.

• Biopesticides leave little or no toxic residues on the crop. This is obviously necessary for organic growers, and may soon become a requirement from the major food chains.

It is also increasingly important for any crop being exported.

• Biopesticides have minimal impact on non-target organisms. We have all heard of the bee issue lately, but preservation of natural pest predators only makes sense within modern agriculture.

• B iopesticides are less prone to pest resistance and can often help manage a resistance issue. As such, biopesticides can prolong the useful life of many traditional pesticides. Some chemical manufacturers like Bayer are already combining traditional chemistry and biopesticides.

• B iopesticides generally provide better worker and environmental safety. Who doesn’t want that?

• Biopesticides are more acceptable to the general public and their inte-

gration into modern agriculture can improve the industry’s image.

Currently most biopesticides focus on insects, diseases and nematodes. There is almost nothing of consequence for weed control and it will likely be some time before there will be any broad-spectrum herbicides for major crops. Despite the impressive research budgets which the chemical giants will now devote to these greener alternatives, the growth in the number of truly novel biopesticides will be modest due to their inherent challenges. The key ones are: • Companies can only develop new products if profitable. Unlike traditional pesticides which kill many pests at once, most biopesticides are highly selective, targeting just one species of insects or diseases.

While this supports their environmental advantage, it means other chemical applications are often necessary to kill pests not controlled by the biopesticide. This relegates biopesticides to niche markets with lower sales and profit potential.

• Many biopesticides provide suppression or a reduction in pest numbers rather than control. While this might be adequate from a yield perspective, for fruits and vegetables the cosmetic appearance of the crop can be as important as yield.

Many risk-averse growers and their urban customers will not tolerate less-than-perfect control.

• A p plication timing is often more critical with biopesticides.

Many biopesticides, especially biofungicides, must be applied preventively and won’t work once pests are present, especially if infestations are severe. And since most have limited residual activity, frequent crop and pest monitoring, along with reapplication is often necessary.

In the future we will see a greater array of biopesticide products as the new R&D-based players in the industry inject their scientific expertise and big budgets into an area where resources have been limited in the past. Still, it is unlikely we will see any biopesticide “silver bullets” any time soon. However, biopesticides are here to stay. n

Do you have a crop protection issue you’d like Warren to write about?

Send any suggestions to gord.gilmour@fbcpublishing.com.

12 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

focus on

grain logistics

Status quo… for now Rail movement unchanged post-single desk; bumper crop could boost U.S. volumes

S

By Richard Kamchen

hipping patterns surprisingly haven’t shifted as dramatically as industry experts predicted in the post-single-desk era.

“I think it’s remarkable that outside of some increased shipments to the U.S., there hasn’t really been a change in the train flows,” says Blair Rutter, executive director of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

In 2012-13 (August-July), the first year minus the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly, wheat railed to eastern and western port destinations were little changed year over year.

“It’s quite amazing that the shipments east-west are almost identical to the previous years,” Rutter says.

“We’re at 62 per cent going to the West Coast in (2012-13) versus 63 per cent the year before. And if you look at shipments east, (identical at 24 per cent).”

One shift, however, was at Churchill, where only 294,000 tonnes of wheat were exported in 2012-13, down from 450,000 the previous year, or two per cent of the crop versus three per cent, according to Canadian Grain Commission figures.

As the CWB underwent monumental change, the prevalent theory went that greater volumes of Canadian grain would be sent to U.S. Pacific Northwest ports and along the Gulf of Mexico.

Wheat shipments to the U.S. did indeed climb higher, as Canada exported 1.35 million tonnes there in 2012-13, up over 41 per cent from the previous year, CGC reports.

In addition, Statistics Canada reported unlicensed exports to the U.S. of 755,916 tonnes, up from 481,822 the year before, making the actual increase closer to 50 per cent.

That boost, however, likely represented production shortfalls in the U.S. rather than the end of the single desk.

“The U.S. had a short crop for corn, so there was definitely a little more demand for some of the lower-quality wheat and feed wheat,” says CWB’s director of market research, Neil Townsend.

Additional demand came as a result of production problems with the 2013-14 (June-May) U.S. Hard Red Winter wheat crop, Townsend adds.

“We’ll have to watch further years to see if it’s a trend or just market factors. To me, it was just market factors,” Townsend says.

Rutter says U.S. companies that have set up shop in Canada like CHS Inc., Gavilon, Scoular and Lansing were noted participants.

“I think you’re seeing some U.S. players that have more niche markets and that the wheat board might not have served before, but because these U.S. players can now operate in Canada, they see some opportunities that weren’t here before,” Rutter says.

Some trains also went to the Pacific Northwest, but the amount likely wasn’t substantial.

“I would have thought that there may have been more through the (U.S.) west coast, but that’s not the case,” notes Rutter, who says the trade generally found it didn’t pencil out economically. “I don’t think there’s been largescale movement to U.S. ports, but there may be some.”

Continued on page 14 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 13

focus on

grain logistics

Continued from page 13

Bumper crop Even more Prairie wheat could wind up in the U.S. this crop year thanks to bumper grain and oilseeds crops coming off the combine, and some of that will be to their ports.

“No logistics system is built to handle the peak,” says University of Manitoba professor of supply chain management, Barry Prentice.

If the previous record for Western Canada’s six major crops was 54 million tonnes, the handling system is only built to deal with about 50 million tonnes, annually. Therefore, forecasts of wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and canola output to reach 61.4 million tonnes this crop year could be about 20 per cent above handling capacity, he says.

“This is exaggerated by the peak load problem because farmers want to deliver right after harvest.

Hence the actual demand for shipping this fall could be even greater. Already we can see piles of grain on the ground covered in tarps,” Prentice says.

Under the single desk, the CWB’s quota delivery system and price pooling reduced the panic rush to the elevators that would have come with the knowledge that prices for a bumper crop would likely decline as the crop year progressed. That, of course, is no longer the case, which will tax logistics.

“I think there’s the potential for more wheat to go over for re-export. Certainly that’s one option that people have to look at very seriously because there’s so much

grains and oilseeds in Western Canada that need to go out,” Townsend says.

The corollary to that, of course, is whether offshore nations want to buy: “There’s no guarantee that the world wants all of what we’re producing this year, because it is more than usual that we would be looking to export,” says Townsend.

Offshore demand would generally be for No. 2 midlevel protein, says Jeff Jackson, markets manager with the Alberta Wheat Commission. “If there’s a lot of quality that fits into that, I think we could see some more (exports).

If the quality isn’t there and people are trying to charge a premium for some higher quality, maybe not.”

Jackson believes that marketers that lack export facilities in Canada would show a real interest in making use of U.S. ports.

“If you were a company that did not have its own facility to f.o.b. a vessel in Canada and you’re going to pay third-party charges in Canada, I would think you’d find savings putting that through a port like Seattle.”

Rutter, however, points out that when it comes to turnaround times, it’s east-west movement that’s the fastest.

“If we’re really wanting to move a large crop, the more grain that gets shipped through the Canadian ports, whether it’s Thunder Bay, Vancouver or Prince Rupert, the more we can move,” Rutter says. “When you go into the U.S., there’s often a longer turnaround time. So for system velocity, it’s best to be going east-west.”

Some innovators may realize that they could store and ship excess grain in containers, Prentice adds.

More smiles per acre.

InVigor® has raised the bar again with the launch of four new innovative hybrids to continue their proud history of excellence. These include two high performing, mid maturing hybrids, InVigor L252 and InVigor L261, sclerotinia-tolerant InVigor L160S and the very first pod shatter reduction hybrid, InVigor L140P. See the entire high performing lineup for yourself at InVigorResults.ca.

Wes Papp SWAN RIVER, MB BayerCropScience.ca/InVigor or 1 888-283-6847 or contact your Bayer CropScience representative.

Always read and follow label directions. InVigor® is a registered trademark of the Bayer Group. Bayer CropScience is a member of CropLife Canada.

O-66-09/13-BCS12149-E

T:20”

E

“Most of the use of containers for grain has come from high ocean freight rates that pulled grain into containers.

This would be a supply side impetus that pushes grain into containers,” Prentice says. “Under the CWB, farmers and grain handlers did not have this option, but for some smart operators, containers might be a way of getting around an overloaded traditional supply chain.”

Trade action

T:20”

More Canadian wheat could also head to U.S. mills, and farmers may end up trucking more wheat over the border to avoid seeing the value of their grain decline because of inadequate storage and the potential for falling prices as a bumper crop is harvested.

“When there is a two-hour wait to unload at an elevator here, the southern market might look pretty interesting,” says Prentice, who adds large U.S. crops mean farmers there won’t welcome a flood of Canadian wheat.

With higher yields has come lower protein this year, and U.S. millers can’t make as good an argument that they need that unique quality attribute that Canadian wheat usually offers, Townsend says.

“The U.S. has a lot of wheat, we have a lot of wheat; we have a lot of low-protein wheat, they have a lot of low-protein wheat,” Townsend explains. “In terms of the American market, one issue is… this year because our crop isn’t going to be the greatest quality, there literally isn’t as much higher-protein spring wheat. The jury’s out on whether or not they’re going to demand it.”

If a good deal of Canadian wheat does end up flowing down south, it won’t help U.S. prices: “So depending on how bad prices get, you might see some rumblings later in the year if the Canadian wheat is flowing in there,” Townsend says.

Back in the day when bumper crop conditions arose, the CWB held back wheat and metered it out slowly to the U.S. “Notwithstanding NAFTA, there was always the concern that farm politics in the U.S. could disrupt the wheat trade. This brake on the system is gone,” Prentice says.

But because of tight fundamentals for the U.S. HRW crop and significantly declining stocks, there’s still potential for sales.

“Something like a 13 per cent spring wheat with otherwise good quality, in other words, nice clean No. 1s or 2s, there might be a market for that down in the U.S.,” says Townsend. “There’s a little bit stronger market than other years, because people are subbing out either more expensive HRW for cheaper Canadian spring wheat or northern tier spring wheat. So there’s the potential there.”

With more corn available, this year will see less U.S. demand for Canadian wheat for feed purposes, Townsend adds. Still, with Ontario’s wheat supply experiencing disease problems, some western Canadian wheat could end up being substituted.

“There might be some poor-protein western wheat that’s seeking a home, and maybe 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 (tonnes) of that gets into the U.S. that would have otherwise been Ontario wheat,” Townsend says. n

Unsung hero.

Mentor, trusted advisor, and the mainstay of the operation, he is also their forefather, uncle and friend. Within the next generation of the family, he has instilled a strong work ethic and taught them the rewards of perseverance.

InVigor® needs Liberty® the same way.

Because powerful Liberty herbicide is the backbone of the LibertyLink® system and together, they’re partners.

Pat Goodman, SWAN RIVER, MB BayerCropScience.ca/Liberty or 1 888-283-6847 or contact your Bayer CropScience representative.

Always read and follow label directions. InVigor®, Liberty® and LibertyLink® are registered trademarks of the Bayer Group. Bayer CropScience is a member of CropLife Canada.

C-61-09/13-BCS13105-E

focus on

grain logistics

Uncharted waters In the wake of grain-marketing deregulation, Churchill enters new shipping era

By Ron Friesen

W

hen the Denver-based railway company OmniTRAX announced plans for a test shipment of crude oil along the Hudson Bay Railway to the Port of Churchill this fall, it triggered a debate over whether oil should be transported by rail through such an ecologically sensitive region.

Opponents, with memories of last summer ’s train disasters in Quebec and Spain fresh in their minds, argued the risks of an environmental calamity from a possible spill were too great. Supporters pointed out the railway had been shipping diesel and other fuels to Churchill for years and a 50-million-litre fuel storage tank farm was already there.

The debate created more heat than light. But at least it generated discussion about the possibility of shipping commodities other than grain to Churchill in a post-Canadian Wheat Board environment. The future of the northern Manitoba port may very well depend on it.

Built in the 1930s, the Port of Churchill was intended to facilitate exports of grain and imports of industrial goods, plus acting as a northern community and supply centre. But, despite its presence as an Arctic deep-sea port, it never quite lived up to the possibilities people envisioned for it.

The future of Churchill with respect to shipping grain is going to be directed by the economics of doing that.

— Jean-Marc Ruest, Richardson International

Historically, the Canadian Wheat Board was Churchill’s primary supplier of grain, shipping several hundred thousand tonnes annually and keeping the port, if not sailing, then at least afloat.

That changed on August 1, 2012, when Bill C-18, the federal Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, came into effect. Suddenly, the CWB no longer had a monopoly on wheat and barley exports. It was now only one shipper of several vying for western Canadian farmers’ grain.

This raised a question no one had previously considered. Would grain companies ship through Churchill on their own volition when they never had to do so before?

The federal government tried offering shippers a carrot through the Churchill Port Utilization Program. A fiveyear program, it offers an incentive freight rate of $9.20 a tonne in 2013 up to a maximum volume of 500,000 tonnes.

The list of eligible crops has been extended beyond cereals to include a range of other commodities.

So far, grain companies appear to be responding positively. Early projections in this past summer called for 600,000 tonnes of grain to move through the port during the 2013 shipping season. That’s up from 421,000 tonnes in 2012 and above the port’s 10-year average of 498,000 tonnes.

16 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

But grain companies point out that unless you have a buyer willing to accept grain at dockside, subsidies to ship it there are largely irrelevant.

“We continue to say that the future of Churchill with respect to shipping grain is going to be directed by the economics of doing that,” said Jean-Marc Ruest, senior vice-president of corporate affairs and general counsel for Richardson International.

“If you don’t have a buyer at the end of the day who is in a marketplace that can be well served out of Churchill, then the subsidy doesn’t really mean anything. It’s one of the checkmarks that make it work but not the only one.”

Ruest said economic factors, such as the cost of shipping and the price customers pay, will determine whether exporting grain through Churchill has a long-term future.

“The name of the game is the open market. The decisions we make on every facet of our operations are based on what makes the best commercial sense.”

The need to diversify shipments to reduce Churchill’s heavy reliance on grain was a main focus of a recent federal-provincial task force on the future of the northern port. “The end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and the resulting changes to the grain industry in the West have provided the impetus to explore new directions with a greater sense of urgency,” the report, filed earlier this year, concluded.

The report suggested opportunities for other commodities, such as potash, minerals, liquefied natural gas, oil and bitumen. It also considered Churchill as a possible jumping-off point for increased trade between Manitoba and Nunavut, with the help of an all-weather road, power lines and fibre optic cables.

The possibility of moving crude oil north to Hudson Bay and shipping it out via tanker could appeal to petroleum companies. Not only would the oil feed refineries on North America’s east coast, it could also fuel increased trade with Europe.

The main advantage of shipping through Churchill is that it is strategically positioned to serve northern European markets. It is also shorter by up to three days than going through Thunder Bay. However, dreams for expanding business through Churchill run up two factors that have always limited the port’s use: a short shipping season and an unstable rail bed.

Shipping seasons in the Arctic and Hudson Bay are regulated by the federal Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. The system uses historical climate and ice data to decide when ships can enter the region, which is divided into 16 zones. For Hudson Bay, ships not reinforced against ice may enter on July 20 and must leave

by October 31. As a result, there are only 15 to 24 vessels outbound from Churchill in an average season.

Another disincentive is the fact that the international marine insurance industry considers the northern route risky because of weather and ice. Insurers such as Lloyds of London impose surcharges on premiums for non-icestrengthened ships headed to Churchill.

Port boosters hope that could change if global warming results in more ice-free days and therefore a longer shipping season. Lloyds of London is criticized for using

decades-old ice records which do not reflect current conditions. OmniTRAX, which owns the port as well as the railway line, plans to meet with Lloyds, underwriters and other insurers to show them shipping conditions have changed in recent years and premiums should be lowered as a result.

A recent study headed by David Barber, an arctic science researcher at the University of Manitoba, suggested climate change could extend Churchill’s shipping season by 15 days at the start of the season and another 25 days at the end.

But climate change is a double-edged sword. Although it may help access to the port by sea, it could make reaching it by train more difficult.

The rail bed is already highly unstable and much of it north of Gillam runs over permafrost. Barry Prentice, a transportation specialist at the University of Manitoba, says trains can travel at only 10 miles an hour on some stretches because of the unstable roadbed. Warmer temperatures could melt the permafrost, soften the bed and render it even more unstable — hardly conductive to increased rail traffic.

On the bright side, derailment at such a low speed isn’t likely to cause major environmental damage if the train is hauling oil, said Prentice.

“If there is a derailment, it’s not one that’s going to cause multi-car pileups and great spills of oil. At least, that’s not what we would expect during the time of year when the roadbed is soft,” he said. “The risk of an accident causing a large spill on the rail line isn’t that great.”

For its part, OmniTRAX says it is well aware of the state of the rail bed and is taking steps, together with government, to deal with it.

“Our first order of business when we took over the Hudson Bay Railway in 1997 was to address the condition of the rail line,” said Darcy Brede, president and chief operating officer of OmniTRAX, in an email to CROPS GUIDE. “Since then the line has benefited from over $100 million in capital improvements… The rail line is in the best condition it has been in decades and the service the railway provides is reliable and safe.”

That’s all well and good. But if grain shipments are unlikely to increase exponentially and if the rail line is unable to accommodate long, heavy oil tanker trains, is the outlook for Churchill any different now than it was pre-Bill C-18?

Maybe.

There’s one wild card in the mix that would make keeping Churchill open worthwhile, apart from commercial considerations. Prentice points out something most people are unaware of: the Hudson Bay Railway is Canada’s only all-season route to the Arctic. That makes it a military security factor. True, U.S. and Canadian military bases moved out of Churchill during the 1970s. But the route is still important to the strategic defence of Canada, especially since Arctic sovereignty is a federal government priority.

“I don’t think that the government of Canada is going to let Churchill cease to function, regardless of what happens to grain,” said Prentice. ■

Growing Confidence

A LEADER IN BREEDING. Results matter. Our advanced breeding techniques bring to market canola hybrids that represent unsurpassed yield gains year after year. That’s business as usual for us, because every seed matters to you. Fly with a Leader.

Talk to your DEKALB® dealer today, or visit DEKALB.ca ALWAYS FOLLOW IRM, GRAIN MARKETING AND ALL OTHER STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES AND PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Details of these requirements can be found in the Trait Stewardship Responsibilities Notice to Farmers printed in this publication. ©2013 Monsanto Canada Inc.

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 17

grasshoppers

Hopper headaches Many people have a visceral hatred of these pests, largely earned. But not every grasshopper is a pest By gord leathers

“F

or they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they entered into the land to destroy it.”

Thus reads the cheerful little quote from the Book of Judges in the King James Bible. Although what’s documented here is a Midianite invasion from the east, the marauders are uncharitably compared to the farmer’s iconic foe, the grasshopper.

Numerous, hungry and relentless, folklore is filled with tales of rapacious plagues of locusts, as grasshoppers are also known when they begin to swarm.

“They feed on crops and other commercially grown vegetation and in some unusual cases they damage trees, lawns and gardens,” says University of Lethbridge biogeographer Dan Johnson. “Furthermore they attract birds to airfield grass where they may threaten aircraft, or get into stored crops like lentils and grain, where their body parts lower the quality rating.”

Popular opinion puts grasshoppers on par with mosquitoes and biting flies. They don’t seem to have any redeeming virtues at all, save for the singing that endears them to some poets, and yet they exist.

Nature doesn’t keep things around unless they fill a

18 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

niche so when you consider how many animals depend on grasshoppers it becomes clear that a plague to us is bounty for others. To understand why we see grasshoppers as pests it may be useful to take a good long look at what grasshoppers are and why they behave the way they do.

In ecological terms grasshoppers are like cattle. Does that statement seem silly? Well, they’re just another way that nature takes rough forage and converts it into highquality protein, in this case relished by many birds, small predators and insects. In addition their frass, or feces, return fixed nitrogen, phosphorus and other fertilizing compounds to the soil so they help keep the nutrients cycling within the system.

“In the pre-European Prairies, they probably did well in grassland when it developed sudden growth or weeds, or after local destruction by bison,” Johnson says. “During ice ages, they lived in the present U.S. and then probably moved back to Canada around 5,000 to 8,000 years ago.”

They’re insects and they belong to the order Orthoptera along with their cousins: the crickets, the walking sticks, mantids, cockroaches and the ice-loving rock crawlers. Within the order Orthoptera grasshoppers come under the suborder Caelifera, the jumpers. They have chewing mouthparts and many are plant eaters although

some may be predatory while others will eat both plants and animal flesh.

“There are around 10,000 species worldwide, and about 100 in Canada,” Johnson says. “A typical hike over a Prairie grassland with a net will yield about 30 species without much trouble.”

That’s a respectable number of variations on a theme. A quick survey in an entomology text breaks the Caelifera into four distinct families, one of which is very important to farmers.

“The grasshoppers of concern to crops are all members of a family called Acrididae and we commonly refer to these as short-horned grasshoppers,” explains Manitoba Agriculture entomologist John Gavloski. “Four of these Acrididae species are considered potential pests to crops in the Prairies.”

Once there were five. One member of this family that’s no longer a potential pest is the Rocky Mountain locust, a voracious crop eater that decimated fields in centuries past.

One outbreak caused a living cloud larger than California to mow its way across the American Midwest. The last major swarms happened between 1873 and 1877 and the total damage through Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri topped $200 million.

Almost unbelievably, the Rocky Mountain locust suddenly went extinct around the end of the 19th century. The last living specimen was found in Manitoba in 1903 and there are still some preserved in a Montana glacier where they landed. It seems strange that such a numerous insect would vanish so quickly and we’re not certain why it happened, though one popular theory suggests breaking the Prairies disturbed the relatively small area where they existed between swarms.

Regardless, it left its mark on the people who settled the Northern Great Plains and considering the accounts of devastation these locusts caused, it’s no wonder that farmers feel a deep fear and hatred of grasshoppers.

Even though the Rocky Mountain locust is gone there are still hoppers that can do considerable damage when their numbers boom.

The big four are: the two-striped grasshopper, the Packard grasshopper, the migratory grasshopper and the clearwinged grasshopper.

The two-striped grasshopper is one of the first to hatch in the spring and the nymphs may be seen in late May. They feed on a wide variety of crops, both grasses and broadleaf including certain pulses and canola. They reach maturity in July through August when they lay eggs that hatch the following spring.

The Packard is not as common but it does have the same cosmopolitan tastes in crops.

The migratory grasshopper was responsible for the swarms that did considerable damage during the Dirty ’30s. Again, it has a varied diet and enjoys both grasses and broadleaf crops. The clearwing is a very serious pest of grasses but it doesn’t care for pulse crops. It may hide in pulses or canola but moves out in favour of wheat and barley where it can do considerable damage.

Outbreaks can be unpredictable and the

biggest factor is the weather. Grasshoppers this far north like a warm, dry spring because the eggs incubate well and the nymphs thrive. They don’t like droughts though and prefer a season with enough moisture to keep the plant growth lush. Sunny summer weather is ideal for mating and egg laying where the female will lay between 50 to 200 eggs. There is only one generation per year.

“Declines in their populations result from a cool, moist spring that slows hatching and kills very small hoppers,” Johnson says.

“There are also a number of natural enemies.

Bee flies lay their eggs and their maggots actually feed on grasshopper eggs. There is also a tiny wasp called Scelio calopteni that

does the same thing by parasitizing the eggs.

Flesh flies and some other related flies attack the living hoppers. In some rare years, disease may wipe them out.”

So it seems that there are several predators, parasites and diseases that make a good living off grasshoppers. We also know this includes many different animals from birds to rodents who enjoy the gangly grasshopper because, as insects go, it’s fairly large and it provides a lot of meat on the hoof. There’s also that variety, all those different species whose populations will rise and fall in their own time and place.

When one crashes another rises.

Continued on page 20

DestineD for greatness

Excellent

Harvestability

6060 RR realize your yield potential with 6060 rr In three seasons, 6060 RR has established itself as a yield-leading variety in any herbicide system. 6060 RR has shown market leading performance and consistency of performance in a variety of growing conditions. In addition to the BCT and CPT trials, in over 40 dealer and strip trials conducted between 2010 and 2012, 6060 RR out-yielded the competition by 3%.

for best

yield PerforMance

Plant Me

First

6060 RR produces a heavily-podded impressive crop with excellent standability and is rated R for Blackleg. With an early seeding date and top tier fertility management, 6060 RR shows how great your canola yields are destined to be.

In the end, it all comes down to performance and BrettYoung brings a new standard of excellence to the field.

brettyoung.ca • 800-665-5015

cHeering for Jon in 2014

Jon MontgoMery 2010 Olympic Gold Medalist – Skeleton 2008 World Championship Silver Medalist

BrettYoung is a trademark of BrettYoung seeds Limited. genuity® and roundup ready® are registered trademarks and used under license from Monsanto Company. always follow grain marketing and all other stewardship practices and pesticide label directions. Details of these requirements can be found in the trait t stewardship responsibilities notice to farmers armers printed in this publication. 13022 09.13

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 19

grasshoppers

Continued from page 19 “We did a study years ago on songbirds and we were looking at which insects the parents bring back to the nest and feed to the nestlings,” Johnson says. “One year we were shocked to find out that more than half their food was one particular grasshopper species. The next year we repeated the study but there was different weather and that species was just about eradicated. But another spe-

Trait Stewardship Responsibilities Notice to Farmers Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto’s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product.

Excellence Through Stewardship® is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready® crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides.

Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Acceleron® seed treatment technology for corn is a combination of four separate individually-registered products, which together contain the active ingredients metalaxyl, trifloxystrobin, ipconazole, and clothianidin. Acceleron® seed treatment technology for canola is a combination of two separate individually-registered products, which together contain the active ingredients difenoconazole, metalaxyl (M and S isomers), fludioxonil, thiamethoxam, and bacillus subtilis. Acceleron and Design®, Acceleron®, DEKALB and Design®, DEKALB®, Genuity and Design®, Genuity Icons, Genuity®, RIB Complete and Design®, RIB Complete®, Roundup Ready 2 Technology and Design®, Roundup Ready 2 Yield®, Roundup Ready®, Roundup Transorb®, Roundup WeatherMAX®, Roundup®, SmartStax and Design®, SmartStax®, Transorb®, VT Double PRO®, YieldGard VT Rootworm/RR2®, YieldGard Corn Borer and Design and YieldGard VT Triple® are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC. Used under license. LibertyLink® and the Water Droplet Design are trademarks of Bayer. Used under license. Herculex® is a registered trademark of Dow AgroSciences LLC. Used under license. Respect the Refuge and Design is a registered trademark of the Canadian Seed Trade Association. Used under license. ©2013 Monsanto Canada Inc.

10801A-Gen Legal Trait Stewardship-CropsGuide.indd 1

cies was out early in the season so the birds focused on that instead and still got what they needed.”

The birds aren’t discriminating and work under the one rule that if it hops then eat it. Farmers, on the other hand, need to part company with the birds on this point. Just because it hops it doesn’t necessarily mean you should spray it and while there are quite a number of different grasshoppers out here most members of the tribe are relatively benign. Some of them are even beneficial because they like to eat certain weed species.

There are two courses of action that farmers and crop scouts may follow. The first is to learn what the immature forms of the big four look like and understand their habits.

This is fairly complex and takes some experience. The other course is to consider the seven “rules of thumb” that Johnson prescribes for grasshopper scouting (see sidebar).

“I think in general people can reduce the use of chemicals by knowing more about the lives and the natural history of these insects,” Johnson says. “I think the most rational way that people can manage grasshoppers is to wait until you’re sure you are having damage and then spot treat them and spot control them. Spraying large areas that don’t need it is a bad idea and it’s expensive as well.

Spraying the wrong species is also a bad idea.”

Johnson has published a booklet on grasshopper ecology and management in collaboration with Pulse Canada, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food as well as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It’s called Grasshopper Identification & Control Methods to Protect Crops and the Environment and it provides a lot of very useful information on the different species, what they look like and how they behave. n

How to tell if a grasshopper is a pest or not — basic rules of thumb As reprinted from Grasshopper Identification & Control Methods to Protect Crops and the Environment • Any grasshopper flying before June is not a pest.

• Crop pest grasshoppers hatch in late May and early June, are brown or black, and always have tiny triangular wing buds, not large wings that can be folded back when examined closely.

• Any grasshopper with hind wings highly visible in flight (red, yellow, orange or black) is not a pest. Grasshoppers have four wings; the hind wings are the flying wings, folded under the leathery forewings when not in use.

• Any grasshopper that sings, calls, clacks, clatters or makes other similar sounds, either in flight or on the ground, is not a pest. The pest species (and some non-pest species) are silent.

• Any grasshopper that inhabits a crop on a warm day without feeding on the vegetation may be a temporary resident that is moving to more preferred vegetation.

• Grasshoppers that remain in rangeland, headlands, or other grassland without moving into crops are likely to be species that do not damage crops (monitoring during warm weather will allow this to be determined), and do not require control actions.

• Grasshoppers that appear lethargic and hang on vegetation in mid- or late summer may be infected with naturally occurring pathogens that will help reduce their numbers.

• The full booklet may be obtained online at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/ deptdocs.nsf/all/rsv13511/$FILE/Mar11_2008_ grasshopper_book_DJ.pdf.

7/29/13 3:54 PM

Learn more by visiting

www.savvyfarmer.com

Canada’s source for complete up-to-date pest control information Every treatment, including newly registered products, to control every weed, insect or disease in any crop Let Savvy Farmer simplify pest control on your farm

20 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

NEWS Crop sales to yield equity stakes in privatized CWB

By Allan Dawson, Manitoba Co-operator

Western Canadian farmers can expect to get $5 of equity in a privatized CWB, for every tonne sold to CWB this crop year.

The offer was recently posted on CWB’s website, Gord Flaten, CWB’s vice-president for grain procurement, stated in an interview. Details were issued to grain companies recently and information is also being sent directly to farmers.

“This is a unique way for farmers to own a piece of the value chain,” Flaten says. “Farmers do not have to write a cheque to pay for the opportunity. It really is cost free for the farmers who are going to own that equity. I think that’s an attractive part of the plan.”

Flaten says the privatized CWB will develop “a network of grain-handling assets (elevators) across Western Canada,” but the structure of the new company will be announced later.

“The concept is that farmers would own a piece of the company,” Flaten says. “We expect them to be minority owners, but they would own an important portion of it.

“The farmer-ownership piece is something we decided really needs to be rolled out oper-

ationally now… because we want them to be aware of that information as they make their marketing decisions this fall,” he says.

CWB is the government-owned grain company created by amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 2012 ending the board’s marketing monopoly. The amended act also requires CWB to prepare a privatization plan for federal government review by 2016.

The plan, to be implemented no later than 2017, must first receive government approval as well as the blessing of securities commissions in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

“It is our intention to complete the process sooner than that five-year time frame,” Flaten says.

The privatized CWB will continue to have a “Canadian focus,” its website says.

The Farmer Ownership Disclosure document posted on CWB’s website says the value of the equity allocated to farmers is not guaranteed, nor is it a sure thing that CWB will be privatized. Flaten says those are standard statements required by securities regulators.

CWB has said since its creation that it wants farmers to have a stake when the agency is privatized, but it hasn’t spelled out what form it would take.

Presumably options could include a private shareholder company, a publicly

traded company, merging with an existing firm or forming a co-operative. The latter seems unlikely if farmers are minority shareholders.

Flaten says farmers will have a minority stake because of the high value of the privatized CWB. “After privatization we would make details available how farmers would be able to extract that value,” Flaten says. “So the intention is they would be able to extract the value through a mechanism but exactly how that’s going to be worked is going to be part of the plan.”

There’s been speculation the Farmers of North America (FNA) might try to join forces with CWB. A farmers’ buying group, FNA’s goal is to get farm inputs cheaper for its members.

FNA has also been acting as middleman for farmers interested in contracting grain to CWB. When asked if FNA is part of CWB’s privatization plans, Bob Friesen, CEO of FNA’s Strategic Agriculture Institute, stated: “At FNA we are focused on making the farmerowned fertilizer-manufacturing project (proposed for Western Canada) a success.”

CWB had scheduled a news conference Sept.

5 to “unveil CWB’s initial plans for privatization,” but cancelled the event without explanation. Flaten blamed “technical issues.” n

raising livestock:

More about being a Cattleman, less about being a cowboy.

Canadian Cattlemen invites you to subscribe to our free enews service.

Stay up to date on the latest news from the livestock industry, from your region and across the nation. Visit our website for details.

www.canadiancattlemen.ca

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 21

WGRF RESEARCH UPDATE Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF) is a farmer-funded and -directed non-profit organization investing primarily in wheat and barley variety development to the benefit of western Canadian producers. Through investments of over $57 million, WGRF has assisted in the development and release of more than 100 new wheat and barley varieties over the past decade and a half, many of which are today seeded to large portions of the cropland in Western Canada. WGRF also invests in research on other western Canadian crops through the Endowment Fund. In fact, since 1981 the WGRF Endowment Fund has supported a wealth of innovation across Western Canada, providing over $26 million in funding for over 230 diverse research projects.

Building better blackleg resistance

BY CLARE STANFIELD

I

f you’ve been perusing the 2014 seed guides for a new canola variety to try out next year, chances are you’re not paying much attention to the “blackleg resistance” column.

The fact is that just about every new canola variety released these days carries an R rating for blackleg resistance, and that’s working for us… for now.

“Blackleg has been quite effectively controlled with resistant cultivars and crop rotations for many years,” says Gary Peng, research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Saskatoon. “But now there’s a change; the pathogen is adapting and our rotational practice is being shortened.”

The reality is that farmers and researchers alike have been seeing increased cases of blackleg resistance breaking down. In 2012, Peng says, many fields in Western Canada planted to R- or MR-rated canola varieties were found to have severe blackleg infestation. The question he’s trying to answer is: what’s happening?

As Peng explains, the relationship between the blackleg pathogen, Leptosphaeria maculans, and the mechanisms of resistance are not well understood. “I think this is the key,” he says. “There is debate about which is the best strategy to use in Western Canada: specific resistance or quantitative resistance, and which one gives the strongest and most durable defence.”

To unpack that a bit, specific resistance (SR), or majorgene resistance, is when a known blackleg resistance gene is matched to a specific race of the L. maculans pathogen.

Quantitative resistance (QR), or adult plant resistance, is more of a scattergun approach where blackleg-resistant genes of unknown specificity are bred into a cultivar that tends to be effective against a wide range of pathogen races.

“We know of 15 races so far, and there are 15 major SR genes to match them,” says Peng. Interestingly, most of the known SR genes have not been used in Canada. “It looks like we may have some quantitative resistance here, but we don’t really know how they work under varying pathogen race and environmental conditions.”

It is a hugely complicated situation that even researchers are still grappling with. Here’s a quick snapshot (see if you can keep up): of the known SR genes, Rlm1 and LepR2 are unlikely to be effective anywhere on the Prairies based on the pathogen race composition, says Peng.

Rlm2 and Rlm3 are not effective in southern Manitoba, which seems to be a blackleg hot spot in recent years, while Rlm4 does appear to be useful there. Rlm3 still has value in Saskatchewan and some parts of Alberta, while LepR3 seems to be moderately effective just about everywhere.

Complicated? Yes. But that’s what Peng and his team are trying to figure out. “At a research level, we really need to understand how things work so we can provide the industry with specific information,” he says. “We want to get a picture of the dynamics at work here.”

22 CROPS GUIDE

|

Sorting the puzzle pieces Peng, along with colleagues from private and public institutions across Western Canada, has launched a four-year research project, funded in part by the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF), to figure out what’s happening on the Prairies when it comes to blackleg incidence, pathogen adaptation and disease management.

“The research has three objectives,” he says. “The first is to monitor the change in the pathogen population, the second is to understand why R-rated canola cultivars are losing resistance and aren’t working anymore in specific cases, and third is to develop some tools to understand the relationship between the host resistance and the pathogen population.”

The research is timely: the 2012 spike in blackleg infection, especially in R-rated cultivars, suggests that virulent races of the pathogen are present and likely accumulating in fields, and our tight canola rotations are not helping.

The goal is to provide information for better ways to breed more robust blackleg resistance into canola varieties, and to help farmers manage their own resistance strategies with more accuracy.

The research focuses on gathering information about blackleg races and their populations across Western Canada. Peng began planting “trap fields” of Westar (which carries no resistance gene to blackleg) last year to understand the occurrence and distribution of specific races of blackleg. Isolates will be taken from these fields and tested for aggressiveness on canola lines carrying different R genes.

Along with the trap fields, commercial canola fields that are seeded to R or MR cultivars and that experienced severe blackleg infestation, will also be sampled and tested to detect highly virulent races — if they are present, that is.

“In the first year, we’ll have a benchmark of race populations, and then we’ll track them for several years, particularly in infested fields,” says Peng. He wants to know what the race composition is in those fields, and which races in particular are capable of overcoming the resistance genes in the cultivars, and how the crop rotation and residue management have influenced the disease situation.

That knowledge, he says, could eventually help producers select appropriate canola varieties for specific field conditions and allow them to more proactively manage for the disease.

It all sounds very good, but Peng urges caution. “We need to be really careful to not push too fast into this,” he says, explaining that there are many pieces to this puzzle and no one knows quite how they fit yet.

“We need to learn from our successes in the past,” he says. “Learn why things have been working well in Western Canada and why other things have not.”

Our short growing season, compared to Europe and Australia, does have a bearing, as does our short

NOVEMBER 2013

WGRF

rotational practice. So far, says Peng, a QR strategy has worked reasonably well here but, as 2012 revealed, there are some chinks in the armour.

In Australia, by contrast, canola varieties are given not just a simple R rating for blackleg, but an R rating for a group of specific races of blackleg pathogen. Would that kind of SR strategy work here? Maybe, maybe not. “Australia has more regular and severe blackleg issues to deal with because of the often high disease pressure and a longer growing season, so the QR strategy there is generally less effective,” says Peng.

The point is that we still don’t know enough about the interaction between the blackleg pathogen and canola resistance, or about how blackleg races are evolving and adapting under our current management practices, to do more than take educated guesses at which approach is best, or if indeed a combination of different types of resistance genes or SR and QR is the right way to go.

“We’re really collecting the fundamental information to help us refine the strategy,” says Peng, “SR or QR, as well as how race population changes, and what causes R varieties to break down. This research will help us make more informed decisions.” ■

The power of collaboration “I’d like people to appreciate how much work will go into this,” says Gary Peng. Studying blackleg resistance across the Prairies is an enormous job requiring many research hours, and many people on the ground to monitor sites and collect and ship samples. “There are so many funding agencies involved and WGRF was instrumental in forming a consortium to make this happen Prairie-wide,” he says, adding that from his perspective one of the best benefits of this co-ordination is that he needs to produce one report.

Those agencies are: • Alberta Canola Producers Commission • Alberta Crop Industry Development Fund • Manitoba Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative • Manitoba Canola Growers Association • Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission.

Cultivating Growth Increasing Endowment Fund expenditures for the benefit of western Canadian crop producers

$15 million

in new funding to crop research over four years

More than

100 new projects

Research

priorities identified by producers

Leveraged to $30 million by co-funding

New research funding examples:

Weed Management

Blackleg & Clubroot in Canola

Improving Oat Nutrition

Pulse Disease Management

Graduate Student Scholarships

Fusarium Resistance in Cereals

WGRF is committed to utilizing the Endowment Fund for the benefit of western Canadian crop producers by managing and investing the fund in order to provide future long-term benefits to producers. To find out more, visit us online.

www.westerngrains.com WGRF Endowment Fund Half-page Ad_final.indd 1

2013-09-12 8:34 AM

canola update

Soil test right before freeze-up Average crop yields took a big jump this year across the Prairies. Will soil nutrient levels be enough to allow a repeat in 2014? You need a soil test to find out. Late fall is an ideal time to take a soil test to see what reserves are left and set nutrient rates for next year B y J ay W h e t t e r

W

arm sunny afternoons in November are a good time to soil test. Soils are not completely frozen, so the probe can still get into the soil. And by November, microbial processes that break down nutrients have slowed or even stopped. That means nutrient levels in November can be an accurate predictor of nutrient levels in the spring.

Growers could just wait until spring to soil test, but spring is a busy time. “Fall soil sampling gives growers and agronomists time to analyze results and come up with a fertilizer strategy,” says Dan Orchard, agronomy specialist with the Canola Council of Canada. “With a strategy in place in the fall, growers have more time to order fertilizer, and to take advantage of typically lower fall fertilizer prices.”

Time to update fertilizer rates Orchard recommends growers reassess their fertilizer rates at least once every three or four years. “Growers have an idea what the best rates are for their farm, but those rates will change — especially when crop yields are increasing.”

In order to achieve a yield of 50 bu./ac., a canola crop needs 150-175 lbs./ac. of nitrogen, 115-125 lbs./ac. of potassium (K2O), 62.5-75 lbs./ac. of phosphorus (P2O5), and 30-40 lbs./ac. of sulphur. Some of this will come from soil nutrient reserves and mineralization of organic matter. Soil nutrient analysis will consider these factors in coming up with a recommended fertilizer rate.

Carry-over nitrogen can be difficult to predict, but after a year of higher-than-expected yields, this level may be very low. A soil test will confirm how much is left.

If phosphorus levels are less than 20 to 25 pounds per acre, canola will benefit from a seed-placed application of 15 to 20 pounds. This rate will ensure that each canola seed has a phosphate prill or droplet close enough to provide the benefit of early pop-up, which is especially important when seeding into cool soils.

Soil tests are not as valuable for setting sulphur rates.

That’s because sulphur is highly variable across a field — it might be 10 pounds per acre in one corner and 2,000 pounds in another. Therefore, the safe recommendation is to apply some sulphur for each canola crop no matter what the soil test recommends. If the soil test actually shows the field to be deficient, fertilize to make up the difference.

24 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

Many fields do not show a potassium response because soil reserves are high, in general, across the Prairies and 75 per cent of uptake is returned to the field in the straw. But if soil tests show less than 300 pounds per acre (150 ppm), then canola may benefit from a potassium application.

Soil labs provide fertilizer rate recommendations based on several factors, including available nutrient levels from soil tests, crop rotation, soil type and historic yields.

“Growers who haven’t updated their fertilizer rates for a few years may see the recommendations and be encouraged to try higher rates on some of their acres to compare yield and returns,” Orchard says.

Sampling tips The key with soil tests is to be consistent. If you usually test in the fall, continue testing in the fall, and sample in similar locations in the field. If you have GPS-marked co-ordinates, you can sample the same places each time.

Then when you get the results, concentrate on the trends and use the trend line to reassess fertilizer rates.

It may take several years of testing to see trends emerge, but it’s never too late to start collecting the data.

Growers getting into soil testing are reminded to avoid sampling areas that may exaggerate the soil test readings.

These areas include low spots, sandy ridges, old yard sites, hilltops, saline areas and old burn piles. If hiring a custom soil sampler, advise or accompany the person taking the samples to be sure those areas are avoided.

Soil sampling techniques follow four main categories, each with benefits and shortcomings. They are: • Random sampling. Collect at least 20 soil cores at random from a field and mix them to produce a single representative composite sample for analysis. While this is the simplest method, it does not provide an estimate of how nutrient levels vary in a field and does not rely on the same sample sites, which is important for trend watching.

• Benchmark sampling. Select one or a few small representative areas in the field. Take 15 to 20 soil cores from

each area. Use GPS to return to the benchmark location from year to year to get a better indication of soil nutrient trends over time. These trends can be used to assess whether fertilizer application rates for crops throughout the rotation are adequate, excessive or deficient.

• Grid sampling. Collect samples from a systematic pattern of sites across the whole field. While this method is the most expensive means of sampling a field, the large number of samples provides an accurate measure of field variability, which can be used for variable-rate nutrient application.

• Smart sampling. Separate the field into distinct management units based on soil type, topography, and/ or yield map history. Sample each management unit separately, which will mean three to five samples submitted for each field. Smart sampling is an improvement over single benchmark sample, and it can provide enough information for site-specific fertilizer rates based on management units.

No matter which system you choose, submit two or three samples for each sample location, based on soil

depth. Submit one sample for zero- to six-inch depth, and others for six to 12 inch and 12 to 24 inch or just six to 24 inch. If providing only one sample depth, submit zero to six inch.

Combine 15 to 20 probes to make each composite sample. This will provide a good average sample for the test location. “Soil test results are only going to be as good as the sample you send in,” Orchard says.

When choosing a lab, keep in mind that each lab has its own techniques. Results for the same sample will vary from lab to lab. Once you find a lab you like, stick with it. Using the same lab and sampling the same locations each year (using GPS) will make year-to-year comparisons possible, and make soil tests more valuable. n Jay Whetter is communications manager with the Canola Council of Canada. For more on this topic, search for the article “How much fertilizer does canola need” at www.canolawatch.org.

Sign up for the CCC’s free and timely Canola Watch agronomy updates at www.canolawatch.org.

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 25

MORE THAN 1,000 WORDS

baked goods

W

hen most people think of western Canadian wheat flour, they immediately begin thinking of the region’s famed high-protein wheat flour.

But there are plenty of bakers out there who can’t wait to get their hands on other flour, made from a more utilitarian but still excellent-quality lower-protein wheat.

This issue photographer Chris Procaylo visited well-known Winnipeg bake shop Goodies to document just what can be made with this often overlooked wheat flour.

11

1 1 I t all begins with weighing out the

2

4

3

5

flour, as commercial baking always measures by weight, not volume.

2 T oday they’re making a number of products, including pastry, the starting point of the shop’s well-known cream tarts.

3 S ifting the flour is the crucial first step, ensuring good mixing and no lumps. In the background another baker rolls out a finished batch of dough.

4 I ndividual rounds are then cut, which will form the crust of a single tart.

5 T he empty shells are then placed in a pan that forms them into a cup, pierced and baked while still empty.

6 & 7 Here the finished crusts are being filled with a lime cream filling, and then left to cool.

26 CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013

12 6

13 8

8 I t doesn’t stop with just pastry… the same grade of flour also makes their trademark lemon cake batter.

9

Here the batter is being portioned into baking rings and placed on baking trays lined with parchment paper.

9 & 10 After baking, the crust is trimmed and the cake is stacked and iced.

1 1 The end result is a mouthwatering creation, perfect for celebrating a special occasion.

7

1 2 & 13 Also on the menu are

10

traditional Italian pastries called cannoli. They’re made with a specialty pastry that’s rolled into a tube, baked, lined with melted chocolate and then painstakingly filled with a cream filling.

CROPS GUIDE

|

NOVEMBER 2013 27

MARKETs

Will strong livestock markets support feed grain values?

W

ith U.S. cattle and calves inventory at a 61-year low, is it any wonder feeder cattle are at record-high prices?

On Friday, September 27, 2013 the monthly nearby feeder-cattle futures contract at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange posted a new historical high of $164.90 per hundredweight.

This exceeds the previous high of $160.50 in June 2012. At that point in time, corn had declined $2.50 per bushel to a marketing year low of $5.50 per bushel.

This reflects the inverse relationship that often exists between the feed grain and livestock sectors. This also occurred in April 1996, when for the first time in history corn rallied to $5.54 per bushel and feeder cattle prices collapsed to $46 per hundredweight, which I’ve illustrated as “A” in the accompanying chart.

Today, corn is $4.40 and feeder cattle are $164, which is a huge relief to those in the livestock industry.

Corn values are trending lower and they’ve already slipped to a three-year low with USDA forecasting global corn production at a record 957 million tonnes this year. World corn ending stocks for 2013-14 are estimated to be 157 million tonnes, a carry-out number not seen since the beginning of the new millennium.

In their September supply-and-

By David Drozd Senior analyst and president, Ag-Chieve Corporation

demand report, USDA increased corn yields and forecasted a 13.8-billion-bushel U.S. corn crop. If realized, this year ’s production will prove to be record, far exceeding the previous record of 13.1 billion bushels in the 2009-10 crop year.

USDA estimates U.S. corn ending stocks will build to 1.85 billion bushels in 2013-14. This is a billion bushels more than the 824-millionbushel carry-out they are forecasting for 2012-13. The last time the U.S. had a similar-size stockpile at the end of the crop year was in 200910, when a 1.7-billion-bushel carryout kept corn prices contained to a $3.25- to $4.25-per-bushel trading range. It wasn’t until crop production problems occurred in June 2010 that the price of corn exceeded $4.25 per bushel and rallied to $8 for the first time in history.

Just as the grain markets realigned to a new higher trading range in 2008, cattle prices began trading at a higher range in December 2010, followed by the hog industry in February 2011.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) indicates the total number of cattle and calves in the U.S. on January 1, 2013 was 89.3 million head, down 1.6 per cent from 2012 and 7.5 per cent lower than at the last cyclical peak in 2007. This is the smallest January cattle inventory since 1952.

CME Feeder Cattle vs CBOT Corn Monthly Nearby Chart as of September 30, 2013 170.000 163.825 160.000

Historical High

750

140.000

700

130.000

650

120.000

600

110.000

550

100.00

500

90.000

440

80.000

400

70.000

350

50.000 40.000 30.000

|

800

150.000

300

60.000

28 CROPS GUIDE

850

20.000

250

A

1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

NOVEMBER 2013

200 150 100

As of January 1, 2013 all cows and heifers that calved totalled 38.5 million. This is the lowest January 1 inventory of all cows and heifers that have calved since the 36.8 million head in 1941.

The 2012 calf crop was estimated at 34.3 million head, down 2.9 per cent from a year earlier and is the smallest calf crop since there were 33.7 million born in 1949. The size of the calf crop has declined each year since 1995.

Although cattle prices were record high in 2011 and 2012, a severe drought in the southern plains in 2011 and in the Midwest in 2012 forced a lot of cattle to slaughter. Going from herd liquidation to expansion is a slow process. Ranchers will need to see an end to the drought and improved pasture conditions before the herd size begins to stabilize. There are areas that have seen some improvement in moisture levels, but it takes time to fully recharge depleted subsoil with adequate moisture.

There are other factors that may hinder the expansion process. Given the weak economy, beef will have to compete with less expensive protein such chicken and pork.

Faced with escalating operating costs, ranchers may be less inclined to expand their business without first seeing an improvement in the long-term outlook, as it is a longterm commitment to invest in or finance a herd expansion.

Therefore, if anyone is reckoning the livestock industry will resurrect the languishing feed grain market, I wouldn’t count on this happening any time soon.

Despite the expansion of the ethanol industry which uses approximately five billion bushels of corn annually, domestic consumption including feed usage in the U.S. remains fairly inelastic, making the export market the only viable alternative for excess corn stocks in the short term.

However, this will come at a price, as U.S. corn destined for the export market will have to compete with lower-priced corn coming out of countries such as Argentina. n

VT530 G PROVEN

®

More

BUSHELS

More EFFICIENCY Top yielding and easy to grow.

Proven VT 530 G, the new high performance, Genuity ® Roundup Ready ® canola hybrid. With resistance to Fusarium Wilt, medium maturity, and excellent standability, you’ll swath faster and combine more efficiently, while putting more bushels in your bin.

Contact your local CPS retail location and get the power to grow with Proven VT 530 G and the entire Proven Seed portfolio.

Monsanto Company is a member of Excellence Through Stewardship® (ETS). Monsanto products are commercialized in accordance with ETS Product Launch Stewardship Guidance, and in compliance with Monsanto’s Policy for Commercialization of Biotechnology-Derived Plant Products in Commodity Crops. This product has been approved for import into key export markets with functioning regulatory systems. Any crop or material produced from this product can only be exported to, or used, processed or sold in countries where all necessary regulatory approvals have been granted. It is a violation of national and international law to move material containing biotech traits across boundaries into nations where import is not permitted. Growers should talk to their grain handler or product purchaser to confirm their buying position for this product. Excellence Through Stewardship® is a registered trademark of Excellence Through Stewardship. ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready® crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate. Genuity and Design®, Genuity®, Roundup Ready® and Roundup® are registered trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Canada, Inc. licensee. ©2013 Monsanto Canada Inc. Proven® Seed is a registered trademark of Crop Production Services (Canada) Inc. CPS CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES and Design is a registered trademark of Crop Production Services, Inc.

Seek Treatment

is available on select canola varieties from:

The treatment of JumpStart on canola, that is. ®

Order your seed pre-treated with JumpStart to

InVigor L120 InVigor L130 InVigor L150 InVigor L154 InVigor L159

InVigor 5440 InVigor L135C InVigor L156H InVigor L252 InVigor L261

45H29 RR 45H31 RR 45S52 RR 45S54 RR

46S53 RR 46H75 CL D3153 RR D3154S RR

1012 RR

2012 CL

V12-1 V12-2

v2045

discover quicker emergence, improved vigour and higher yields.

When you start out right, the results are more rewarding.

For the love of canola, don’t forget your JumpStart. Seek treatment from your local retailer and order your seed pre-treated today.

For the love of canola

®

73-75 RR 74-44 BL

VT 500 G VR 9560 CL

Novozymes is the world leader in bioinnovation. Together with customers across a broad array of industries we create tomorrow’s industrial biosolutions, improving our customers’ business and the use of our planet’s resources.

Read more at www.novozymes.com.

6060 RR 6056 CR 6050 RR

©2013 Novozymes. 2012-28074-03

www.useJumpStart.ca | 1-888-744-5662

® JumpStart is a registered trademark of Novozymes A/S. All others are trademarks of their respective companies. All rights reserved. 13016 09.13

74-54 RR

VR 9562 GC

6044 RR 6040 RR 5535 CL

CANTERRA 1970

CANTERRA 1990

Colours are matched to jpg file - do not know what the pantone colours are

Scan here for the latest information on varieties.

5525 CL