The
Back Forty
October, 2020 ISSUE No. 94
Weed Control in Grass Seed Fields Fall applied herbicides are practical and effective Page 3
Contact Us
SARDA Ag Research Grain Conditioning Published “Forage potential of corn intercrops for beef cattle diets in Northwestern Alberta,” Page 6
780-837-2900
The process of increasing the storage life of grain and minimizing grain spoilage and quality loss. Page 8
or
The Conical shape of a Grain Bin – An Engineering Marvel The modern grain bin is an engineering marvel.
www.sarda.ca
Page 12
Page 2 October, 2020
Table of Contents Fall Spraying for Weed Control in Grass Seed Fields
Page 3
SARDA AG Research Published in Crop, Forage & Turfgrass
Page 5
Grain Conditioning
Page 8
Fall applied herbicides are a practical and effective means of managing weeds in grass seed crops. “Forage potential of corn intercrops for beef cattle diets in Northwestern Alberta,” was published in the Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management The process of increasing the storage life of grain and minimizing grain spoilage and quality loss.
Evaluating Energy Efficiency of On-farm Grain Conditioning Systems
Page 10
The Conical Shape of a Grain Bin – An Engineering Marvel
Page 12
FHB (Fusarium Head Blight)– Let’s Manage It
Page 13
History of Canola
Page 15
Clubroot Lifecycle
Page 19
WLPIP Helps Producers Minimize Risk in Volatile Marketplace
Page 21
Notices Contact information for Board and Staff
Page 22
Select in-bin supplemental drying systems and heated air drying systems in Alberta were monitored The modern grain bin is an engineering marvel with structural ingenuity you may not have fully appreciated during a busy harvest season. Fg was removed from the Pest Nuisance Control Regulation of the Agricultural Pests Act Canola was bred from rapeseed cultivars of B. napus & B. rapa at University of Manitoba Clubroot lifecycle and a recipe for management
The Western Livestock Price Insurance Program provides cattle producers a way to minimize risk in an often-volatile marketplace.
Page 24
ON THE COVER
A Beautiful Fall Day
Lavoie Harvest September 18, 2020 Photo credit: Dan Przybylski, Northern Horizon
Page 3 October, 2020 SARDA Ag Research News
Fall Spraying for Weed Control in Grass Seed Fields Fall applied herbicides are a practical and effective means of managing weeds in grass seed crops. A number of the more difficult to control winter annual, biennial and perennial weeds such as dandelion, narrow-leaved hawk’s-beard, volunteer clover, rough cinquefoil, stork’s-bill, scentless chamomile and flixweed tend to be more susceptible to herbicides in the fall than at other times of the year.
is no longer available but can be made by mixing Curtail M and the active ingredient florasulam. Cirpreme+MCPA ester is a relatively new herbicide mix from Corteva and has shown good potential for use on creeping red fescue and timothy.
Grass seed stands that are going into their first year of seed production are generally ideal candidates for a September herbicide application. These fields tend to have more weeds present compared to stands where a seed crop has already been harvested. Generally the weeds in newly established stands are also in better condition to spray.
Fall spraying can also provide more crop safety than spring or summer applications of herbicides such as Ally. Spring or summer spraying of Ally on a number of grass seed crops typically stunts the growth of the crop and may cause reduced seed head size, resulting in reduced seed production. Application of Ally in the fall usually does not result in long-term injury or reduced seed yields to grass seed crops such as timothy. Note that fall applied Ally has caused damage to crops such as perrenial ryegrass and tall fescue.
The herbicide selected will depend on what weeds are present and the tolerance of the grass seed crops to the herbicide. Products such as Curtail M, Prestige, Ally and Spectrum (MCPA ester+clopyralid+florasulam) are used. Spectrum
Many trials comparing products for fall spraying in grass seed crops have been done in the Peace Region. The table below shows a summary of what products work best on certain weeds when applied in the fall.
Table 1. Herbicide options and weed control ratings for fall spraying of grass seed crops. Herbicide
NLHB**
NLHB** (Group 2 Resistant)
Curtail M
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
Poor to Fair
Excellent
Prestige
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Fair
Poor to Fair
Excellent
Spectrum
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Poor to Fair
Fair
Ally
Excellent
Poor
Very Good
Excellent
Poor
Poor
Cirpreme+MCPA
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Poor to Fair
Excellent
Clover
Dandelion
Canada Thistle
Rough Cinquefoil
Page 4
October, 2020
SARDA Ag Research News
A recent trial comparing fall applied herbicides shows similar results to previous studies (Table 2). Canada thistle in grass seed stands is difficult to control. Emergence of Canada thistle is later in the spring than many other weeds. Spring herbicide
Table 2. Visual percent control of dandelions and alsike clover the spring following fall applications of herbicides, Whitemud 2018/19. Herbicide Curtail M Prestige Spectrum Ally Cirpreme +MCPA
Dandilion 43 50 100 100
Alsike Clover 100 100 100 100
100
100
applications on grass seed crops are generally made in late May to early June. At that time there may be a few thistles present but there will be more coming. Unfortunately, controlling thistle in grass seed crops with fall herbicide applications is very inconsistent. Fall spraying grass seed stands is an effective practice to control a number of winter annual and perennial weeds that are often more difficult to control in the spring. Mid- September applications are ideal as temperatures are generally still good and weeds are actively growing. The herbicide used will depend on tolerance of the grass seed crop to the specific herbicide and the weeds present. If spraying timothy stands where hay or straw is being baled and sold into the export hay market check with the buyers to see which herbicides are okay to use as some herbicides will leave residue in the product. Calvin Yoder Forage Seed Specialist SARDA Ag Research/Peace Region Forage Seed Association
Tall Fescue
October, 2020
Page 5
SARDA Ag Research News
SARDA AG Research Published in Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Scientific journals are a collection of articles that have been subjected to a process of quality control known as “peer review.” Peer review involves subjecting researchers’ work to the scrutiny of experts in the same field. These experts evaluate the article with regards to validity, repeatability and originality. The paper is also judged on readability, logicality and whether the conclusions are well-founded and well-constructed. If the article falls within the scope of the Journal, it may be recommended to publication, usually after ensuring it meets the required format. There are many different Journals that SARDA Ag Research projects have been published in, such as the Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Journal of Agricultural Sciences and the Journal of Plant Nutrition, to name a few. The latest article, “Forage potential of corn intercrops for beef cattle diets in Northwestern Alberta,” was published in the Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management on behalf of the American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science
Most scientists regarded the new streamlined peer-reviewed process as ‘quite an improvement’
Society of America. The article was compiled with the cooperation of individuals from the Peace Country Beef and Forage Association, the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at the University of Saskatchewan, the Department of Renewable Resources, Faculty of Agricultural Life & Environmental Sciences at the University of Alberta, and SARDA Ag Research and published on July 4, 2020. The abstract and conclusions follow. To read the complete paper with the results and methodology, please visit https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1fJS64Wl6me4nvGZ5w1TNN0vpaeyFEFtV/ view?usp=sharing
Abbreviations: ACM
annual crops mixture
C-ACM CC C-CC
corn intercrop with annual crops mixture crimson clover corn intercrop with crimson clover
C-FB C-FP C-HV C-M C-RA C-SB FB FP HV RA SB
corn intercrop with fababean corn intercrop with field pea corn intercrop with hairy vetch corn monocrop corn intercrop with radish corn intercrop with soybean fababean field pea hairy vetch radish soybean
October, 2020 CP DE DM LTA NDFD TDN CHU Tmax Tmin
Page 6
SARDA Ag Research News
crude protein digestible energy dry matter long-term average neutral detergent fiber digestibility total digestible nutrients corn heat unit maximum temperature minimum temperature.
Abstract
Intercropping systems involving cereals with legumes provide several advantages such as elevated forage yield and improved forage nutritive value. This study was designed to assess viability of corn (Zeamays L.) intercrops to improve the forage crude protein (CP) of corn forage for beef cattle production. A corn monocrop (CM) was compared with seven corn intercrops (five annual legumes, a non-legume crop (radish (Raphanus sativus L.), C-RA) and an annual crop mixture (ACM)). The
Corn-Forage Peas Intercrop for Silage Photo Credit: Akim Omokanye, PCBFA
Corn-Annual Cover Crop Cocktail Blend Intercrop for Silage Photo Credit: Akim Omokanye, PCBFA
corn forage dry matter (DM) yield was significantly improved (P < .05) for CM than all intercrops. Of the seven intercrops, only corn-radish intercrop (C-RA) produced significantly lower total forage DM yield (corn + companion) than CM. Of the seven corn intercrops, only corn-hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) (C-HV) and cornâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;annual crop mixture (C-ACM) had significantly (P< .05) improved forage CP and digestible CP than C-M. Both C-HV and C-ACM exceeded the CP recommendations for mature beef cattle and also had adequate CP for young (growing and finishing calves) beef cattle, thereby eliminating the need for protein supplementation during the feeding of either C-HV or C-ACM beef cattle. Forage minerals were not significantly affected (P > .05) by corn intercrops. Forage total digestible nutrients (TDN) was significantly (P < .05) influenced by intercrops and varied from 65.9-71.2%. Results indicate that selected corn intercrops can improve nutritive value of forage for beef cattle production.
October, 2020
Conclusion
Page 7
SARDA Ag Research News
Corn growth (height) in the C-RA, C-FP and C-ACM intercrops did not grow as tall as C-M. In general, intercropping systems studied did not reduce total forage DM yield. However, C-RA, in particular produced lower corn stand forage DM yield over C-M compared with the other corn intercrops. Nutrients needs depend on the physiological state of the animal. In the study region, winter months make up most of the gestation period for calf–cow operations. Here, grazing standing will coincide to mid-pregnancy (or second trimester) of beef cows. Both C-ACM and C-HV intercrops greatly improved CP content (no supplementation necessary beef cattle). On the other hand, C-M was only able to meet the protein requirements of beef cows in the mid (7% CP) and late (9% CP) pregnancy stages, while all intercrops (C-FP just barely) met the 11% CP required by a lactating beef cow. Both C-HV and C-ACM intercrops were the only mixtures that sufficiently met the protein requirements beef cattle. The C-ACM intercrop seemed to have greater potential to improve forage Ca, P, K and Mg over C-M than the other intercrops. NASEM (2016) considers 0.58% Ca and 0.26% P adequate for mature beef cattle. In the present study, for a lactating beef cow, additional supplement will be needed for Ca
(in most cases) and P for all corn intercrops and C-M to compensate for their mineral deficiencies. All intercrops as well as C-M had sufficient TDN content for beef cattle. For improved protein in corn forage diets for beef cattle (direct grazing or silage), C-HV and C-ACM intercrops would be recommended in that order when grown in similar environments. In addition to the selection of C-HV and C-ACM intercrops, an appropriate production technology also needs to be developed to mitigate the effect of possible competition among the intercropped plants and it should be possible to produce a crop that will be high yielding, nutritious and palatable to most livestock (Ćupina, Mikić,&Krstić, 2009). Contributers: Akim Omokanye1,3 Buthaina Al-Maqtari1 Herbert A. Lardner2 Guillermo Hernandez3 Kabal S. Gill4 Lekshmi Sreekumar1,5 Alan Lee3 1 Peace Country Beef & Forage Association 2 Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan 3 Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta 4 SARDA Ag Research 5 Brooks Alberta
Page 8 October, 2020
Grain Conditioning Grain conditioning is the process of increasing the storage life of grain and minimizing grain spoilage and quality loss. The major conditioning operations are in-bin natural drying of grain to reduce the grain moisture, followed by aeration to cool the grain. Sometimes over-dried grain can also be rehydrated to acceptable moisture levels to minimize shrink loss. A conditioning strategy guarantees that you get the most from your grain. Grain bins equipped with a proper aeration system can be successfully used to dry grain using natural air. Natural air in-bin drying is the highest quality and most energy-efficient process. Appropriate and automated fan control strategies are required to optimize the drying performance with uniform drying, energy efficiency, and minimum under/ over-drying. Continuous fan operation may result in high operating costs (due to excessive energy
consumption) and significant spoilage and/or shrink loss. Grain aeration lowers grain temperature to increase safe storability and protection against mold and insects. Once the grain has reached target drying it must be cooled as soon as possible, and should be uniformly cooled to 1.7-4.4°C or 35-40°F for winter holding. Do not freeze the grain as it may result in significant condensation in the following spring/summer. It is important to ensure that grain temperature is uniform throughout the bin to avoid air current movement and potential condensation. In a typical bin, dry air passes through the grain from the perforated plenum located at the bottom of the bin and absorbs moisture before exiting through exhaust vents located at the top. A higher airflow rate will remove a larger amount of water from the
Page 9 October, 2020
grain, which results in the faster completion of a natural air drying cycle. The recommended airflow rate for natural air drying is 1.0 cfm/bu for 3-5 point moisture removal. Fans should be selected specifically to the bin size and grain type to achieve optimal airflow rate against the airflow resistance caused by the packed grain. Wheat and canola, for example, create higher resistance to airflow (static pressure) compared to larger seeds such as corn and soybeans at the same grain depth. How grain bins are filled has a significant effect on airflow rate and distribution. Immature, fine, foreign material and broken grain tend to accumulate near the central core of bins and block or reduce the intergranular space creating airflow resistance at the core. This resistance forces air to move up through the sides of the bin which causes a longer drying front at the core and excessive consumption of energy. Since the airflow rate is higher near the bin wall, the grain near the sidewall over-dries due to excessive airflow which may result in significant shrink loss. After filling, bins should be cored and leveled to provide uniform and sufficient airflow throughout. Fill the bin to a shallower grain depth if the moisture content is high or if the airflow rate is less than recommended. Shallower grain depths will reduce the airflow resistance/static pressure and the fan will deliver higher airflow for accelerated drying. Tall bins with small fans should not be used for in-bin natural air drying. Favourable weather conditions are essential for successful in-bin natural drying of grain. Running the fan in highly humid, overly dry, rainy, or cold ambient conditions will consume excessive energy creating poor drying results. When you are forced to harvest when the grain moisture content is very high, it may be necessary to use high temperature drying with subsequent cool down to achieve safe storage conditions. High
moisture grain often has quality concerns, leading to greater storage risks even after drying. Moisture content still needs to be carefully monitored as it is not unheard of for the moisture content of dried grains to rebound creating unsafe storage conditions. When harvest occurs under extremely dry conditions, grain shrink can greatly reduce the amount of saleable product. Physically adding water to the grain is illegal and considered adulteration. However, moisture can be legally added by blowing natural humid air through the grain bin. There must be sufficient airflow rate and the ambient air must not be too dry. For this strategy to be successful the relative humidity needs to be above 80% for at least 8-10 hours of a 24-hour daily cycle. Natural air drying is not energy efficient in winter months (mid-November to mid-March) due to cold weather (temperature below 4.4ºC or 40ºF), poor water holding capacity in air, and risk of major grain shrink at the bottom of bins. Avoid running fans in below-freezing temperatures to reduce the risk of condensation, vent freeze, and high moisture grain freezing together. Frozen grain blocks the airflow leading to potential hotspot development and subsequent spoilage. Team Alberta has a groundbreaking study evaluating the energy efficiency of different on-farm grain conditioning systems. Year 1 observations are now available for viewing. The following article will review the findings of this first year of study. Excerpts from http://www. advancedgrainmanagement.com/learn-grainmanagement/grain-conditioning/#criticalrequirements-of-successful-conditioning
Page 10 October, 2020
Evaluating Energy Efficiency of On-farm Grain Conditioning Systems Year-one observations from a groundbreaking study on the efficiency of in-bin supplemental heating and heated air dryer systems for grain conditioning. As part of a three-year study, select in-bin supplemental drying systems and heated air drying systems in Alberta were monitored during the 2019 harvest season to assess the typical energy consumption that farmers experienced. The long-term objective of the study is to fill the data gaps related to the efficiency of in-bin supplemental heating systems and heated air dryers that Alberta farmers use. This information will assist on-farm decision making and guide government programs and policies.
Observations from the 2019 grain conditioning study
• Variable efficiencies among in-bin supplemental heating systems. There were a wide range of efficiencies discovered for in-bin supplemental heating systems. The most efficient systems had an efficiency three to four times higher than the others. • Indirect-fired in-bin supplemental heating systems had high efficiencies in year one. The indirect systems had higher efficiencies than expected. Producers using indirect heated systems consumed an average of 42 per cent less energy per tonne of moisture removed. • In-bin supplemental heating systems that ran higher supply temperatures than suggested displayed higher efficiencies. The overall amount of energy consumed with higher temperatures during the drying cycles was lower, resulting in higher efficiencies. • Some heated air drying systems had higher efficiencies than specified. Setup and operation can affect the overall efficiency experienced when drying.
This study is monitoring a total of 36 in-bin systems and five continuous grain dryers. Next steps for the grain conditioning study Years two and three will focus on increasing the data in order to better understand the variables and impact on efficiencies. Next steps include: • Additional measurements of in-bin systems to better understand variables impacting efficiencies. More testing is needed to quantify the differences in setup and control methods to identify the factors that have the greatest impact on efficiency (control method, temperatures, heater setup, air flow rates, etc.). • Testing differences between indirect and direct-fired systems to understand the impact on efficiencies for in-bin supplemental heating systems. The amount of moisture added to the grain through direct-fired systems is relatively small, however, the difference in efficiency was noticeable. Additional testing is needed to quantify the changes. • Understanding the impact on grain quality with higher in-bin supply air temperatures. Although producers experienced greater efficiencies with higher supply temperatures, the overall impact on grain quality is not fully understood at this time. Additional work is needed to assess the overall potential for higher supply temperatures.
October, 2020 Regardless of the type of in-bin supplemental heating equipment and operating method, there are several practices producers should consider for their setup: •
•
•
•
Monitoring. Understanding the condition of the grain moisture content and temperature will help guide management decisions for fan and heater control strategies. Ventilation. Ensure adequate headspace ventilation is available to allow the warm, moist air to be escape. A “rule of thumb” for the minimum required area is one square foot of vent space for every 1000 cfm of air flow. Cooling. Grain should be cooled to less than 15°C after drying for safe long-term storage. Cooling will also remove some moisture, so drying may be complete when moisture is within 0.5 per cent of target. Turning. Consider turning the bottom grain once the average bin moisture is dry to even out the moisture content in the bin.
The complete document is available at https:// www.teamalbertacrops.com/wp-content/ uploads/2020/08/Evaluating-On-FarmGrain-Conditioning-Systems.pdf?utm_ source=AWC+Newsletter+Email+List&utm_ campaign=977f807ae1-EMAIL_ CAMPAIGN_2020_08_26_08_53_COPY_01&utm_ medium=email&utm_term=0_fb59c50307977f807ae1-303663453
Page 11
About Team Alberta’s grain conditioning project Team Alberta is working with 3D Energy Limited and the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute to assess the energy consumption of grain drying in Alberta. Funded in part by the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, this three-year study will result in the development of a guide for farmers who are seeking efficiency improvements on their drying systems. In addition, the information gathered will be used to direct policy and programming such as quantifying the impact of the carbon tax and recommendations to reduce these costs for farmers. A total of 36 in-bin systems and five continuous grain dryers are being monitored for this study. However, only 32 in-bin systems and three continuous dryers were utilized in 2019. Of the 32 in-bin systems, 22 are direct-fired natural gas systems, seven are indirect-fired diesel or natural gas-fired (four are diesel and three are natural gas), and three bins are heated using solar air collectors. Energy consumption per tonne of moisture removed (specific energy) was the chosen energy performance metric. This metric allows for an easy comparison between different types of systems regardless of initial grain moisture, final grain moisture and the volume of grain dried. Team Alberta is a working collaboration between Alberta Barley, Alberta Canola, Alberta Pulse Growers and the Alberta Wheat Commission.
Page 12
October, 2020
The Conical Shape of a Grain Bin – An Engineering Marvel
Still, it’s worth thinking about from a practical standpoint. For instance, you may intuitively know that “round” is a better grain bin shape; but have you ever wondered exactly why? Of course, a round grain bin is easier to clean out and simple to empty when it doesn’t have corners that need to be shovelled and swept. Do you know what shape has the maximum holding capacity per unit of building material used in its construction? The light, thin metal walls of conical grain bins have truly amazing weight holding ability. The conical shape allows the metal buildings to contain tremendous weight because contents are distributed evenly. The conical structure is the best shape for ventilation. Warm and cold air currents inside the bin are distributed evenly through the grain mass. A round or conical grain bin can be quickly loaded through a top center portal without the additional conveyors and handling equipment required inside a rectangular or square structure. When loading and unloading inside a building, two conveying systems are required, and gravity assists of the grain
movement are not obtainable. The conical grain bin with a hopper bottom can be quickly unloaded with gravity’s assistance to move the grain into a transport vehicle. https://www.wallgrain.com/grain-bins/the-conicalshape-of-a-grain-bin-an-engineering-marvel/
Page 13 October, 2020
FHB (Fusarium Head Blight) – Let’s Manage It Alberta has a very diverse geography and a crop growing area that spans a wide range of climates. Milk River, Alberta is closer to Winnipeg, Manitoba than it is to Fort Vermillion, Alberta. It is 1,246 kilometres from Milk River to Fort Vermilion. Milk River is nearer to Vancouver via the Crowsnest Pass than it is to Fort Vermilion. I grew up in Manitoba, and I know that growing wheat “back home” is different than growing wheat in Alberta. Thus, it is understandable that climate, pests and other factors affecting wheat production differ between Milk River and Fort Vermilion. Different conditions exist from one side of the Peace River to the other side of the Peace River. What works well in Winnipeg or Milk River may not be the best option in Fort Vermilion or Rycroft. What worked well in 1928 in southern Saskatchewan did not work well in 1929. The bottom line is things change. Over time, between different climates, and even between other geographic regions in the same province. I remember when Fusarium graminearum (Fg) became established in Manitoba in the late 1980s, nobody knew what to do or how to manage it. It was not a new disease in Canada, having been identified in Eastern Canada as far back as the 1940s. It was still new to Manitoba, and best management practices were hard to find without ubiquitous internet access. It was a disaster! But it is
not any longer. Farmers in Manitoba still grow a lot of wheat and have adopted best management practices to limit losses and keep the disease at bay. The disease slowly moved northwest over the ensuing decades across Saskatchewan and into Alberta. A regulatory approach was implemented to delay the introduction and spread of Fg in Alberta. Alberta declared Fg a pest in 1999. Farmers were unable to acquire, sell, use or distribute seed containing Fg. To further attempt to limit the spread of the disease, the Alberta Fusarium graminearum Management Plan was rolled out in 2002 by the Alberta Fusarium Action Committee; a committee formed to address the management and mitigation of the pest. Whether or not the regulatory approach to Fg in Alberta can be quantifiably proven to have slowed disease spread is open for debate. Once a pathogen is established in a region and its’ pathology is understood, a singular regulatory approach is no longer effective in managing a pest. Fg is a slow-moving, air-borne disease, and our understanding of Fgs’ spread has evolved. Fg can be found across Alberta and has become endemic in many regions. Times change. On June 3, 2020, Alberta’s Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Devin Dreeshen, issued a ministerial order to remove Fg from the Pest Nuisance Control
October, 2020 Regulation of the Agricultural Pests Act. Alberta wheat and barley growers can access a broader range of varieties, benefit from research and remain competitive with other jurisdictions. It will allow farmers in areas most effected the freedom to make decisions that make the most sense for their operations and their ability to manage risk. Despite the regulatory change, individual counties still retain the ability to implement their own Fusarium management plans, which works for farmers in their area. Under the Municipal Government Act, Municipalities may enable policies to manage the pest according to what works for the realities of their region. Southern Alberta farmers are now free from regulatory rules that were no longer effective because Fg is prevalent in their areas. Other counties can introduce regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of Fg in the areas where Fg is rare. Support for this change does not mean Alberta is throwing in the towel, taking a foot off the gas, giving up and not worrying about this devastating pest any longer. The importance of Fusarium
Page 14
graminearum management has only gained a heightened focus. The Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions have supported the regulatory change but only hand-inhand with the need to emphasize best management practices, continued surveillance and monitoring, and a heightened focus on plant breeding research efforts and agronomic best management practices. All to reduce the risk of Fg infestations for all farmers in Alberta. In collaboration with industry stakeholders, the commissions have developed a website called “Let’s Manage It!”. This website contains information aimed at FHB mitigation and provides a roadmap for an industry-wide FHB management strategy. Management starts at harvest but is a year-round consideration. The website offers management plans for the entire year in farmers’ fields and a long-term industry strategy to support mitigation. Visit the news website at https://managefhb.ca/ Brian Kennedy, Grower Relations and Extension Manager | Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions
Symptoms of Fusarium head blight (FHB) of wheat. (a) Symptomatic heads with bleached spikelets. (b) Premature bleached head with pinkish-red mycelium and spores on infected spikelets. (c) Fusariumdamaged grain showing pink and white discolorations (bottom) compared to healthy grain (above).
October, 2020
Page 15
History of Canola Canola was bred from rapeseed cultivars of B. napus and B. rapa at the University of Manitoba, Canada, by Keith Downey and Baldur R. Stefansson in the early 1970s. The name was originally a trademark name of the Rapeseed Association of Canada, and was a condensation of “Can” from Canada and “OLA“ meaning “Oil, low acid”. Now it is a generic term for the edible varieties of rapeseed oil in North America and Australasia. The change in name serves to distinguish it from natural rapeseed oil, which has much higher erucic acid content.
Canola belongs to the Brassica genus of mustard family (Brassicaceae). The brassica genus includes over 30 species. Six Brassica species (B. carinata,,B. Juncea, B. Oleracia, B. napus, B. Nigra and B. rapa) have been the subject of much scientific interest for their agricultural importance. The B. rapa (Polish) and B. napus (Argentine) species form the basis of canola industry in Canada. Following is a chronicle account of the developments of the canola crop and industry in Canada.
Page 16 October, 2020
1940’s 1936 1942
1945
1948
The first rapeseed (Polish, B. rapa) was grown in a kitchen garden in Canada T.M. Stevenson informs the Wartime Agriculture Supply Board that rapeseed can be successfully grown in Canada
1964
‘Echo’, the first B. rapa (Polish) variety introduced by Agriculture Canada
1967
The Rapeseed Association of Canada is established. Low glucosinolate B. rapa variety ‘Bronowski’ was identified by Agriculture Canada
1968
ORO, the first low erucic acid (LEAR) B. napus introduced by Agriculture Canada
Rapeseed production led to the Prairies Vegetable Oils crushing facility in Moose Jaw Rapeseed production reaches 80,000 acres
1950’s
1970’s 1970
Canadian government encourages movement toward low erucic acid varieties
1971
SPAN, the first LEAR B. rapa introduced by Agriculture Canada
1950’s
The first rapeseed (Polish, B. rapa) was grown in a kitchen garden in Canada
1952
New markets found in Europe and Japan
1980
1954
‘Golden’, the first B.napus (argentine) variety introduced by Agriculture Canada
The Rapeseed Association of Canada becomes the Canola Council of Canada
1984
The first triazine tolerant B. napus, OAC Triton’ introduced by the University of Guelph
1985
The first triazine tolerant B. napus, OAC Triton’ introduced by the University of Guelph
1986
Canola trademark amended to < 2% erucic acid, meal < 30 micromoles of glucosinolates
1987
First canola with altered oil profile (low linolenic acid) B. Napus variety ‘Stellar’ introduced by the University of Manitoba
1957 1957
Dr. Keith Downey assumes responsibility for rapeseed breeding Domestic edible production begins
1960’s 1963
Futures market for rapeseed established on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange
1980’s
Page 17 October, 2020 1988-1989 Canola oil receives the American Health Foundation’s Health Product of the Year award and the American College of Nutrition’s first ever Product Acceptance Award 1989
Hyola 40, the first commercial B. napus hybrid released by Advanta Seed
1990’s 1991
Hyola 401, the first B. napus hybrid introduced by Advanta Seed
1994
Hysyn 100 and Hysyn 110, the first synthetic B. rapa varieties introduced by Advanta Seed
1995
The first Blackleg R-rated B. napus variety, ‘Quantum’ was released by the University of Alberta
2000’s 2000
Aventis introduces the first Bromoxynil tolerant varieties but were withdrawn by 2002
2002
The first canola quality B. juncea varieties ‘Arid’ and ‘Amulet’ introduced by Agriculture Canada and the Sask. Wheat Pool
2003
Clubroot is discovered in commercial canola fields on the Prairies
2004
The first high stability canola is introduced, containing high oleic and low linoleic oil introduced by Cargill and Dow AgroSciences
2006
USDA authorizes a qualified health claim for canola oil based on high percentage of unsaturated fats
2009
The first clubroot resistant B. napus hybrid canola cultivar, 45H29, bred by Pioneer, became available to farmers Canola growers average 35 bu/ac
Innovator, the fist transgenic B. napus variety tolerant to Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) introduced by agriculture Canada and AgrEvo The first glyphosate tolerant (Roundup Ready) canola RT73 (later Quest) received interim registration; first full registration in the following year Limagrain LG3295 1996
The first herbicide tolerant Clearfield canola ‘45A71’ introduced by Pioneer
1997
Synbrid 220, the first synthetic B. napus, introduced by Bonis and C, bred by NPZ / Svalof Weibull
2010’s 2010
Sclerotinia tolerant varieties introduced
2013
Canola Council of Canada hosts the International Clubroot Workshop Canola growers produce a record crop averaging 40 bu/ac
2014
Bayer introduces shatter tolerant variety L140P
Page 18
October, 2020 2016
The first clubroot resistant B. napus cultivar, PV 580 GC, carrying two resistant genes, bred jointly by Crop Production Service and the University of Alberta became available to producers
Canola and its oil
2020’s 2020’s
Canola growers looking to produce 52 bu/ac Shatter proof? Drought tolerance? Frost tolerance? Nitrogen fixation? Winter canola? Insect Immunity? Disease free?
Canola Variety Registration in Western Canada •
•
• • • •
Varieties intended for sale in western Canada are entered into trials coordinated by the Western Canada Canola/Rapeseed Recommending Committee (WCC/RRC). Registered commercial varieties have two year of data—one year of private data trials conducted by the seed company, and second year trials are public data trials. Common check varieties are used in all year of testing. Current checks are InVigor 5440, and Pioneer brand 45H29. For private data trials, varieties are tested in all season zones, with at least 12 sites total before going into public data trials. Quality parameters must be met, including analyses of oil, protein, glucosinolates, and fatty acids before registration Each plot is swathed or direct combined individually, according to maturity throughout all reps of the trial.
Canola Performance Trials
The Canola Performance Trials (CPT) represent the next generation in variety evaluation for Western Canadian canola growers and provide: Relevant, unbiased and timely performance data reflecting actual production practices. Comparative data on leading varieties and newly introduced varieties. The CPT system included both small plot and large field scale trials. It also covers short, mid and long season zones. Site distribution is based on seeded acres in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. For more information and the latest results on the Canola Performance Trials, please visit www.canolaperformancetrials.ca Excerpts from displays at Canola Palooza, June 28, 2016
Page 19
October, 2020
Clubroot lifecycle a plasmodium, a naked mass of protoplasm with many nuclei. The plasmodium eventually divides to form many secondary zoospores, which are then released into the soil. These second-generation zoospores re-infect the roots of the initial host or nearby plants. They then invade the cortex (interior) of the root. Once in the cortex, the amoeba-like cells multiply or join with others to form a secondary plasmodium. As this plasmodium develops, plant hormones are altered, which causes the infected cortical cells to swell. Clusters of these enlarged cells form â&#x20AC;&#x153;clubsâ&#x20AC;? or galls. Clubroot galls are a nutrient sink. Severely infected roots of canola cannot transport sufficient water and nutrients for aboveground plant The life cycle of Plasmodiophora brassicae, the pathogen that causes parts. Symptoms will vary depending clubroot. (Source: Ohio State University). on the growth stage of the crop when infection occurs. Early infection at Resting spores germinate in the spring, producing the seedling stage can result in wilting, stunting and zoospores that swim very short distances in yellowing of canola plants in the late rosette to the soil water to root hairs. These resting spores are early podding stage. Clubroot infection that occurs exceptionally long-lived, with a half-life of about at later stages may not show plant wilting, stunting four years, but they can survive in the soil for up to or yellowing. However, infected plants may ripen 20 years. For example, Swedish research in clubroot- prematurely, and seeds will shrivel. Infected plants will infested spring rapeseed fields found that 17 years reduce the yield and quality (oil content) of the crop. were needed to reduce the infestation to nonRecipe for Clubroot Management (excerpts detectable limits. The longevity of the resting spores is a crucial factor contributing to the seriousness of the disease. A substance secreted from the roots of host plants stimulates resting spore germination. After the initial infection through root hairs or wounds, the pathogen forms an amoeba-like cell. This unusual cell multiplies and then joins with others to create
from clubroot.ca)
1. Vigilantly scout all canola fields (early) for symptoms, even if growing a CR (Clubroot Resistant) variety. Clubroot disease symptoms are most noticeable late in the season and remain visible during and after harvest. Producers are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with clubroot symptoms
Page 20
October, 2020 (https://www.canolacouncil.org/canolaencyclopedia/diseases/clubroot/identifyclubroot/) and start scouting now before the galls degrade. Infected plants, removed from the soil late in the season, may have galls that appear brown and peaty. These galls may even detach from the root if they are too degraded. Scout heavy traffic areas (entrances, exploration, gas wells, etc.), low areas/water runs and areas where dust/snow tends to drift and settle. It is good practice to pull plants and examine roots whenever you inspect later-stage canola. 2. Keep a minimum two-year break between canola crops. This crop rotation is crucial in the stewardship of genetic resistance. With a 2-year gap between clubroot hosts, we see a rapid decline in living resting spores. Longer breaks may be required when spore loads are high. 3. Seed CR varieties and understand if/when to deploy different sources of CR. Planting CR varieties before identifying clubroot or it becomes established will keep resting spore loads manageable. Rotation of resistance genes could also be essential to maintain resistance efficacy. With repeated use of varieties with the same resistant traits under high spore loads, virulent races can multiply. The effectiveness of resistance may be seriously compromised.
4. Limit activities that can introduce foreign soil or cause erosion. Minimum tillage and equipment sanitation (as simple as knocking off visible dirt before leaving a field) will significantly reduce the risk of moving infested soil around. Note that wet soil conditions increase the amount of soil that clings to equipment. 5. Control host weeds. Common host weeds include stinkweed, shepherdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purse, flixweed, all mustards and volunteer canola. They need to be controlled within three weeks of emergence to prevent a new batch of spores. 6. Isolate field entrances and hot spots. Use patch management strategies to reduce spore loads, such as grassing the affected area and limit soil movement. Diseased patches that are visibly worse than the remainder of your field may have billions of more spores per gram of soil than elsewhere. These patches are often the first place where clubroot resistance breaks down. Removing these hot spots from cultivation for a few extra years significantly reduces clubroot spread and decreases resistance breakdown. Having separate field entrances and exits could reduce the amount of infested soil leaving the field on machinery. excerpts alberta.ca
Clubroot galls on stinkweed and shepherdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purse
Clubroot Photo by Saskcanola
Page 21 October, 2020
WLPIP Helps Producers Minimize Risk in a Volatile marketplace The Western Livestock Price Insurance Program provides cattle producers a way to minimize risk in an often-volatile marketplace. When a producer purchases a policy under the program, it protects their investment on calves, feeders and fed cattle and hogs.
Under the program, producers pay a premium for forward price coverage, which packages the risks of price, currency, and basis into one product. If the market price falls below the coverage price, in the timeframe selected, the producer receives a payment.
Currently, few effective risk management options exist that allow producers to manage their risk. The Western Livestock Price Insurance Program (WLPIP), which is available to producers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is market-driven to reflect the risks a producer in Western Canada faces.
“Significant payouts were made during the height of the COVID-19 uncertainty as volatility in the financial markets, changes in retail and food services demand and slowdowns at the nation’s packing plants played out in the local market,” said Hagen.
“Livestock producers are typically price takers,” explained Brenda Hagen, WLPIP Product Owner with Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC). “The many factors impacting the market mean prices vary greatly year to year. “Having a tool available to help protect against the unknowns of the market and associated price volatility can help producers make their operations more profitable.”
WLPIP-Calf Calf insurance is offered in the spring and covers the price risk a cow-calf producer faces selling calves in the fall market. The settlement index is based on the average price of a 600 pound steer.
“In total, $107 million was paid to Alberta producers to offset the losses they were experiencing on their cattle sales.”
COVID-19 & WLPIP premiums In addition to leaving many policyholders in a payment position, the pandemic also affected WLPIP premiums. Market uncertainty, compounded by delays in the slaughter industry driven by COVID-19 related slowdowns, closures and changes in consumer and food service demand, drove premium rates to unprecedented highs in early spring.
WLPIP-Feeder
WLPIP-Fed
WLPIP-Hog
Feeder insurance covers the price risk a cattle feeder faces when marketing.
Fed insurance is offered year-round for cattle being finished in Western Canada.
The settlement index is based on the average price of an 850 pound steer.
The settlement index is based on the weekly Alberta fed cattle price, using Canfax data.
Hog insurance is offered year-round and offers hog producer’s protection against a decline in prices over a defined period of time. Hog producers choose from a range of policy lengths and price coverage.
Who is eligible? Participation is voluntary and will be available to cattle and hog producers in Western Canada.
Page 22
October, 2020 Premiums are priced on risk factors, said Hagen, with the most impactful being the volatility underlying the futures market. “COVID-19 created uncertainty for all commodities, and cattle and hogs were no exception and experienced significant spikes in volatility in March and April,” said Hagen. “As a result, premiums escalated during those months as the future was uncertain. Volatility for the cattle programs hit a program high since the inception of WLPIP.” This increased uncertainty and volatility led to a threeweek extension to the calf policy purchase deadline. The extension gave producers more time to analyze the program and decide if WLPIP coverage fit their operation. Unlike feeder, fed cattle and hog policies, calf policies are only available for purchase in the spring.
“Fortunately, the volatility did subside into May and June as the markets took into consideration the industry’s response to COVID-19, and this is reflected in a reduction of premium costs.”
What’s next The Western Livestock Price Insurance Program is currently undergoing a thorough review to make sure it aligns with producer’s risk management needs. “We want to ensure WLPIP continues to meet the needs of producers now and into the future,” said Hagen. “We are looking to find ways to enhance delivery and affordability of the program.”
Calvin Yoder, P.Ag., Forage Seed Specialist calvinyoder123@gmail.com or 780 864 7663
Page 23
October, 2020
Thank you to our program sponsors
Shelleen Gerbig, P.Ag., Environmental Plan Technician Extension@sarda.ca or 780-837-2900 ext.3
Page 24
October, 2020
2020 Board of Directors
Simon Lavoie -Chair
St. Isidore
Leonard Desharnais - Vice Chair
Falher
Audrey Gall - Secretary
Northern Sunrise County
Mathieu Bergeron
St. Isidore
Kenny Stewart
High Prairie
Lionel Gauthier
McLennan
Alain Anctil
Girouxville
Jesse Meyer
Grande Prairie
Whitney Boisvert
Giroxville
Dale Smith
MD of Greenview
Neil Maisonneuve
Valleyview
Donald Bissell
Big Lakes County
Peter Harris
County of Grande Prairie
Luc Levesque
MD of Smoky River
Staff
Vance Yaremko
Executive Director
manager@sarda.ca
Shelleen Gerbig, P.Ag.
Extension Coordinator
extension@sarda.ca
Calvin Yoder, P.Ag.
Forage Seed Specialist
calvinyoder123@gmail.com 780-864-7663
Megan Snell
Research Coordinator
research2@sarda.ca
Victor Gauthier
Field Technician
field@sarda.ca
Amber Fennell-Drouin
Administrative Assistant
admin@sarda.ca
Contact Us
780-837-2900 or www.sarda.ca
Sign up for our emails at www.sarda.ca We send 2-3 emails per week on agronomy, research, events, and agricultural interest articles geared towards the Peace Region agricultural producers.
