Management decisions, particularly around nutrients, may be playing a bigger role than many growers realize.

Canola yields across the Prairies have largely stopped climbing over the past decade, settling into an average in the low 40 bushels per acre range after years of steady gains.

Yield data since 2016 show similar flattening across spring wheat, barley and field peas, suggesting a broader constraint affecting cool-season crops. Weather is the explanation most often cited for the slowdown, and Jurke doesn’t dispute it.

“Weather caused the plateau,” Jurke told an audience at the Manitoba Agronomists Conference late last year.

“But why was it 40? Why was it not 42, 45 or 50? That’s where things become more interesting.”

Jurke, who previously worked with the Canola Council of Canada, said at a national level, fertilizer-use surveys show average fertility programs appear calibrated to maintain the plateau rather than push beyond it.

He stressed this is not a criticism of individual farms. Fertility strategies vary widely across the Prairies, and many growers are already managing for higher yield potential.

“But at a macro level, this is what we’re feeding,” he said.

“We’re at the 40 bu. mark because we’re feeding a 40 bu. crop.”

The complete package

That pattern is reinforced by long-term research.

A multi-year study led by Agriculture Canada in the 2010s compared canola systems using what researchers described as a “full package” and an “empty package” of inputs.

The full-package system combined strong genetics, higher seeding rates, adequate fertility and robust weed control. The empty-package system did the opposite, cutting seed quality, fertilizer and herbicide use.

The results were clear. Full-package systems produced the highest yields and the strongest profitability.

When inputs were dialed back, yields declined, but profitability often fell even faster. Cutting fertility caused the largest yield penalty of all.

“This is an important realization, and why I like to communicate this particular study,” said Jurke.

Reducing inputs can feel like prudent risk management, particularly when weather-driven uncertainty is high, but Jurke said the data suggest that approach often works against growers in canola, which responds best when best management practices are applied together rather than selectively.

Jurke said the contrast is evident when looking at how canola responded to hybridization and herbicide tolerance in the late 1990s and early 2000s, compared with its struggle to break out of the current range.

The tools that drove earlier gains are still in place, but they only deliver when growers are willing to invest across the full management package.

“Anytime we have growers considering dialing back, they’re potentially putting themselves in a situation where they’re reducing their productive capacity,” Jurke said.

Beyond fertility

Factors beyond fertility also contribute to yield drag.

National data suggest disease pressure, including blackleg and verticillium stripe, is trimming a couple of bushels from average yields. Tight rotations add further pressure because shorter breaks between canola crops increase stress and reduce resilience.

Managing for the plateau

Jurke said the broader lesson remains straightforward. Managing conservatively may reduce risk in the short term, but it can also lock the crop into a lower-yield, lower-return equilibrium.

The post Why canola yields may be stuck near 40 bu./ac. on the Prairies appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It’s an idea that’s been floating around crop research plots for years.

Now, trials from Bourgault have become the latest field research to throw weight behind the idea.

Today, the Canola Council of Canada advises farmers to plan for a target stand density of five to eight plants per foot. There are issues that complicate that equation though —things like drought, cool springs, soil crusting and the ever-present problem of hungry flea beetles that have plagued canola emergence and seedling survival.

Curtis De Gooijer, in-house agronomist with Bourgault, shared results from several side-by-side strip trials examining canola seeding rates during a presentation at Manitoba Ag Days in Brandon earlier this year.

All of the work was conducted at Bourgault’s research farm near St. Brieux, Sask., using full-scale seeding equipment.

Real farm knowledge

The trials are designed to combine the rigour of small-plot research with real farm equipment. Using a Bourgault 7550 cart and a 30-foot drill, fields are divided into replicated strips roughly 400 feet long and 30 feet wide.

“The big thing that I want to show today is the information we’re getting from side-by-side comparison trials,” De Gooijer said.

Each strip is harvested by taking the middle 25 feet of the pass. The grain is weighed and then adjusted for dockage and moisture to generate yield data.

Singulation offers little advantage

One three-year trial conducted at the site between 2020 and 2022 compared two different seed metering approaches:

Singulation, which uses a plate system similar to a planter.

Volumetric metering, which is typical of air drills.

The goal was to see whether the more precise seed placement from singulation would justify the added cost. Both systems were tested at three seeding rates: high, mid and low.

“The advantage is that we can use the same equipment, keep the metering the same and keep the products the same, while changing individual components such as the drill or opener,” said De Gooijer.

Across the trials, singulation offered little advantage over conventional volumetric metering.

Plant stands and yields were broadly similar between the two systems across the different seeding rates. Instead, the most noticeable differences came from plant competition as seeding rates increased.

De Gooijer said interest in singulation systems for canola spiked several years ago as farmers looked for ways to reduce seeding rates. Around 2018 and 2019, some Prairie growers began experimenting with planters in hopes that more precise seed placement would allow them to cut seed costs.

Interest in that approach has cooled somewhat in recent years, he said, as trials show that conventional air drills can achieve similar results. However, the work still provides useful insight into how flexible canola seeding rates can be.

Lower populations change plant structure

Higher seeding rates produced denser stands but also increase the number of unproductive plants. At lower populations, plants had more space and responded by branching more heavily from the base.

That branching allowed plants to fill in gaps in the canopy, producing larger individual plants.

Lower seeding rates also tended to delay maturity slightly because the additional branches had to catch up with the main stem. That delay can carry some risk in shorter Prairie growing seasons.

De Gooijer said later-maturing crops may be more exposed if a killing frost arrives before the crop is fully ripe, something that did not materialize during the trials.

“That might have changed things significantly,” he said.

Emergence also shifted with population. In some trials, higher seeding rates reduced emergence, even though opener and fertilizer placement stayed the same.

For example, emergence in higher-rate treatments of 4.8 to 5.2 pounds per acre averaged about 59 per cent, while lower seeding rates reached about 72 per cent emergence under the same conditions.

A separate Bourgault agronomy trial in 2025 produced similar results when comparing three seeding rates using the same drill configuration.

The trial, also conducted near St. Brieux, tested seeding rates of 1.3, 2.6 and 5.2 lb. per acre, targeting plant populations of roughly 2.5, five and 10 plants per sq. foot.

Plant stands increased as seeding rates rose, but yield differences were less predictable.

In that trial, the mid-rate treatment produced the highest yield, followed by the highest seeding rate, while the lowest rate yielded the least.

Weather shifts the optimal population

However, De Gooijer noted that weather plays a major role in determining which population performs best.

The volumetric/singulation trials included years with very different growing conditions, including the widespread Prairie drought of 2021.

In dry years, lower plant populations can sometimes yield more. The larger plants produced at lower densities develop bigger root systems that help them scavenge moisture and nutrients.

In wetter seasons, higher plant populations may perform better because plants do not need to invest as much energy into building large root systems.

Across multiple years of trials, the optimal seeding rate shifted depending on growing conditions.

In the 2025 trial, the highest yield came from a seeding rate of about 2.5 lb. per acre, targeting roughly three plants per sq. foot.

Variable-rate seeding puts the principle to work

De Gooijer said the same principle can apply within fields using variable-rate seeding.

Drier hilltops may benefit from lower plant populations that encourage larger plants and deeper rooting, while wetter areas can support higher plant densities and better use available moisture.

“We tried it last year for the first time and it seemed to work,” said De Gooijer.

“Maybe it’s something you can look at and utilize on your farm.”

The post Lower canola seeding rates can cut costs without sacrificing yield, Bourgault trials show appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

During a recent Soy Canada webinar, industry representatives pointed to a roughly 70-cent-per-bushel difference between western Canadian soybeans and comparable U.S. supplies moving through Pacific Northwest export channels.

WHY IT MATTERS: Getting paid closer to full value for soybeans could make a meaningful difference to farm profitability.

In some cases, that gap shows up in stark terms and underlines its arbitrary nature.

Brian Innes, Soy Canada’s executive director, pointed to one producer farming on both sides of the Manitoba–North Dakota border who sees markedly different prices for soybeans grown only a short distance apart.

The determining factor is simply which side of the international boundary they are sold. That gap has become part of the industry’s broader argument that Canadian soybeans are not always being valued for what they are actually worth.

What’s behind the gap?

Much of the difference in price is said to be linked to protein.

Innes said western Canadian soybeans have long faced a reputation for lower and less stable protein than competing supplies. That affects how buyers view the crop before it ever reaches a vessel.

Soy Canada makes the case for looking at overall performance, rather than just one marker.

Lesley Nernberg, an animal nutritionist with Lighthouse Agri-Solutions, told webinar participants that crude protein, while still the main benchmark used in the market, does not tell the whole story when it comes to feed value.

“The difference between how nutritionists and purchasers think is potentially leaving a lot of money on the table for Canadian growers and processors,” he said.

Purchasers tend to focus on crude protein, moisture and other straightforward specs. Animal nutritionists, by contrast, are looking more closely at amino acids and energy — the components that determine how well a feed ingredient actually performs in a ration.

Nernberg argued those deeper measures can matter as much as protein. He pointed to U.S. and international work showing that amino acid availability, digestibility and sucrose levels can be attractive to customers.

“These start to create cost advantages for feed millers,” he said, adding northern-grown soybeans may offer nutritional benefits that are not being fully recognized.

Research is suggesting Canadian soybean meal may be more competitive on those deeper nutritional measures than systems based on crude protein alone indicate, said Nernberg. If that holds, not only is crude protein is an incomplete measure of value, but the market may be pricing Canadian soybeans on one measure, while end users are deriving value from another.

The challenge is getting the market to reflect that value.

Can better data close the gap?

Canada has far less publicly available compositional data on soybean meal than competitors such as the U.S., Brazil and Argentina. That means fewer Canadian comparisons in the literature and fewer tools to help buyers look past a simple protein number.

Innes said that is part of what Soy Canada is trying to address.

In a followup interview, he said there are really two parts to the issue. One is the actual quality and consistency of soybeans being delivered over time. The other is how the value of those soybeans is measured and understood in the market.

In other words, some of the discount comes from the reputation western Canadian soybeans have built over time. Some of it also comes from the fact that Canada has a thinner dataset to show what those beans are worth beyond crude protein.

That is why Soy Canada sees better data as part of the solution.

The organization itself does not directly fund research, but Innes said Canadian groups are building out Prairie-specific data, drawing in part on similar research in the northern U.S. Soy Canada has been working to connect different parts of the value chain and identify where new information could be most useful.

Innes pointed to the role of Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers, among others, in supporting work that could help better define the value of Canadian soybeans and communicate that to export customers.

Better data will not erase the price gap on its own, he said, but it could help ensure Canadian soybeans are being valued more accurately.

What it means on the farm

For farmers, the more immediate question is what that kind of gap means on the ground.

Darren Bond, a farm business management specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, said the difference is far from trivial.

At typical Prairie soybean yields, a 70-cent-per-bushel price gap works out to roughly $30 an acre.

“That’s definitely nothing to sneeze at,” Bond said.

In Manitoba’s latest cost-of-production guide, soybeans were the only major crop projected to show a positive return when fully costed, at roughly $2 an acre.

Add another $30 an acre on top of that, Bond said, and the picture changes quickly.

“That $30 an acre is pure profit.”

Bond said soybeans already benefit from lower fertilizer costs than crops like wheat or canola because they typically require little or no nitrogen. That has been one of the biggest reasons they looked more attractive this year. Higher yields, stronger genetics and better management have also helped improve the crop’s economics in Manitoba.

A better price would only add to that advantage.

Would that mean a major jump in acres? Possibly.

A stronger price signal would clearly improve the crop’s competitiveness, especially in a province where soybeans have already become an important part of the farm business mix. But Bond said there are other considerations, including freight, weather, rotation and market access. He also noted western Canadian soybeans are still relatively new in the broader market sense. Many Manitoba growers have only been producing them for 15 to 20 years, which means the crop still lacks some of the long track record and market familiarity seen in longer-established U.S. growing regions.

That relative newness feeds back into the same problem Nernberg identified: fewer years of data, fewer established expectations and fewer tools to show buyers what Canadian soybeans can deliver.

For Soy Canada, that is where the opportunity lies.

“The goal is to narrow the gap between the actual value for the animal and what customers perceive that value to be,” said Innes.

The post Why the price gap against western Canadian soybeans? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In opening remarks, chair Rick Préjet said 2025 had been marked by “uncertainty, successes and optimism,” while highlighting the importance of export markets.

Those themes carried through panel discussions led by general manager Cam Dahl, who said Manitoba is particularly exposed because of its dependence on export markets.

“Trade really has become a key focus for Manitoba Pork,” he said, noting about 90 per cent of Manitoba production is exported either as live animals or pork products.

The discussion also swirled around tariffs and the increasingly protectionist tone of global trade. Canadian Pork Council executive director Steven Heckbert noted voluntary country-of-origin labelling (vCOOL) was introduced by Democrats, adding that both major U.S. parties have been moving in the same direction.

“We’re fighting a headwind of increased protectionism,” he said.

Trade concerns were also explored in a one-on-one discussion with Manitoba’s senior representative to the U.S., Richard Madan, who said that despite the rhetoric, there is still broad bipartisan support for smooth trade relations in agricultural states.

“Republicans, Democrats and stakeholders all understand the importance of integrated supply chains, and how Canada is part of a strong food supply system,” he said.

Biosecurity concerns also remain front and centre

Biosecurity was the other major focus. Speakers pointed to African swine fever preparedness, ongoing PED control efforts, wild pig eradication and the continued risk posed by senecavirus A. Recent low disease levels in Manitoba were attributed to stronger biosecurity, surveillance and coordination across the sector.

Dahl said protecting the sector depends in part on decisions made at the farm level.

“Don’t ship sick animals,” he said. “It’s not just your farm that you put at risk. It’s the entire Manitoba pork sector.”

The meeting also included discussion of Manitoba Pork’s public outreach and right-to-farm efforts. On the governance side, Margaret Rempel retired as board member at large and was replaced by Harv Toews.

Full coverage of the Manitoba Pork AGM will appear in the next edition of the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Tariffs, biosecurity lead discussion at Manitoba Pork AGM appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“It’s the only common sense ruling there was. There was nothing else (that) could happen,” said Lyle Lumax, owner of Carolyle Farms near Swan River.

The case got its day in court this March after having the trial date delayed last year.

The farm had faced a charge of failing to have a contingency plan during an air shipment of horses that was delayed due to weather. The new timeline pushed the shipment longer than the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s 28-hour travel time cap, after which point horses must be given food, water and at least eight hours of rest.

Lumax, however, argued that once the horses are on a plane, control shifts to other parties involved in the transport.

Manitoba provincial court Judge Sandra Chapman dismissed the case, finding there was reasonable doubt the company failed to meet federal animal transport requirements.

The judge ruled the exporter did have a contingency plan in place for the 2022 shipment and could not be held solely responsible for disruptions after the animals were transferred to air transport.

How the case got here

The shipment at issue was bound for slaughter in Kagoshima, Japan, and left Winnipeg by plane Dec. 12, 2022. The original plan included a stop in Anchorage, Alaska. A heavy snowstorm, however, made that impossible.

In consultation with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Japanese buyers, it was decided that the plane would instead reroute to Seattle. CFIA officials were involved in discussions and did not intervene, even though the revised route was expected to exceed the 28-hour transportation limit for horses without feed, water or rest.

Other involved parties included a freight forwarder and the airline responsible for different stages of transport, raising questions about who was responsible for contingency planning once the animals were in transit.

Animal Justice, the animal rights group that brought the charge, had been tracking the shipment and could see the time threshold would be exceeded, the group said in a 2024 release. Along with the Winnipeg Humane Society, the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition and Manitoba Animal Save, it filed a complaint with the CFIA. After no enforcement action was taken, the group proceeded with a private prosecution.

The group first floated three charges, including a charge of violating the 28-hour cap and distress to animals. In a 2024 pre-inquiry hearing, however, a Manitoba judge found that the CFIA’s involvement in the decision to go ahead with the shipment nixed the first charge, while the distress to animals charge was rejected on jurisdictional issues. That left only the charge relating to contingency planning to go ahead.

Lack of clarity on contingency needs

Federal regulations require a contingency plan but do not clearly define what it must include or who is responsible. “Compliance will be evaluated on whether the contingency plan was available and implemented, not on its format,” the regulations state.

Animal Justice argued the exporter failed to meet the bar as set out under the Health of Animals Regulations.

Lumax argued that he had a contingency plan, though it was not written down, noting that plans can be verbal under the rules. He said 18 horses were returned to the farm before loading, but once the delay occurred, decisions had to be made quickly.

“This was about a 10-minute decision. When we found out [about the snowstorm in Alaska], the plane was half loaded,” he said at the time the charge was laid. “Not many airports are big enough to handle this plane.”

He also noted the number of needed pilots as another issue that limited which airports the shipment could have landed at.

The decision to proceed was “a no-brainer,” he said, adding that all parties involved believed it was the best outcome for the animals.

Who is responsible?

In her ruling, Judge Chapman found the evidence did not support a conviction, pointing instead to a more complex web of responsibility.

Chapman said responsibility for the animals is shared among multiple parties. Placing full responsibility on the exporter for all possible contingencies would be unreasonable, she found, particularly once control of the animals had been handed off.

Chapman’s reasoning focused on the question of control. While the exporter was responsible for preparing the animals for transport, responsibility became less clear once the shipment moved into the hands of other federally regulated entities. In that context, the court found it would not be reasonable to place the full burden of contingency planning on a single party.

Historic case

Animal Justice expressed disappointment with the ruling, but emphasized the significance of the trial itself.

“This case is historic,” said Kaitlyn Mitchell, director of legal advocacy at Animal Justice, in a media release. “It is likely the first time farmed animal welfare has been the subject of a private prosecution that reached trial in Canada.”

Mitchell said her organization is concerned the decision could weaken enforcement of animal transport laws and leave animals at risk during long-distance shipments.

“Today’s decision is disappointing and shows why Canadian horse protection laws are meaningless without proper enforcement by the CFIA,” she said.

The group is reviewing the decision and considering whether to appeal.

Horse for slaughter future

Carolyle Farms has since taken steps to reduce travel time, including establishing a feedlot near Winnipeg, Lumax said.

Lumax rejects the animal cruelty label that’s been levelled against him, saying, like most livestock farmers, he cares deeply for his animals.

“I’ve had horses my whole life. That’s all I’ve done. I speak horse more fluently than I do English,” he said.

Nevertheless, he expects he hasn’t heard the last of Animal Justice, who support the push to ban the air export of horses to the international meat market entirely.

That push extends into the policy arena. In 2021, the Trudeau Liberals pledged to end live horse exports by air. A private member’s bill to ban the practice passed second reading in the House and went to committee, but died when Parliament was dissolved ahead of the last federal election.

Mitchell said she’s unsure whether the issue remains a priority for the Carney Liberals.

“It’s a concern,” she said outside the court building after the recent ruling. “I know that the political landscape and the global landscape has changed since this promise was made in 2021, but we’re not backing away until the practice is banned.”

The post Farm praises ‘common sense ruling’ in Manitoba horse-for-slaughter trial appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Justice Sandra Chapman ruled the exporter had a contingency plan in place for a 2022 shipment of horses to Japan and could not be held solely responsible for disruptions that occurred after the animals were transferred to air transport.

In her decision, Chapman said responsibility for the animals is shared among multiple parties involved in the shipment, including the airline and other federally regulated entities. Placing full responsibility on the exporter for all possible contingencies would be unreasonable, she found, particularly once control of the animals had been handed off.

The charge against Carolyle Farms of Swan River, Man., had been brought by animal rights group Animal Justice in a rare private prosecution.

“We’re incredibly disappointed, of course, but mostly I’m concerned about what this means for animals,” said Kaitlyn Mitchell, director of legal advocacy with Animal Justice.

Case background

The case centred on a December 2022 shipment of 79 horses flown from Winnipeg to Japan. The flight was originally scheduled to stop in Anchorage, Alaska, but was rerouted to Seattle due to a snowstorm. The change extended the journey beyond the 28-hour limit for transporting horses without food, water or rest under federal regulations, prompting allegations that the exporter failed to have an adequate contingency plan in place.

Animal Justice pursued private prosecution after first noting the trip with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which did not take enforcement action.

The animal rights group had initially floated three charges against the Manitoba farm. In a 2024 pre-inquiry hearing, they presented a charge of exceeding the federal food, rest and water time limit; failure to have a contingency plan and causing distress to animals.

A Manitoba judge rejected two of those. On the issue of exceeding the limit, the judge noted that the federal regulator, the CFIA, was involved in discussions when it was decided the shipment would proceed. The judge also tossed the charge of distress to animals on jurisdictional issues. Only the charge of failure to have a contingency plan was allowed to go ahead.

Mitchell said Animal Justice is reviewing the decision and will consider whether to appeal.

A full analysis of the case will appear in the next edition of the Manitoba Co-operator.

The post Judge clears Manitoba horse exporter appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Artificial intelligence, automation and data systems dominated nearly every session, from crop protection to robotics to biotech discovery.

However, beneath all that, one quieter theme kept surfacing.

Soil tests, weather stations, satellite imagery, equipment data is familiar ground for agronomy. What is changing is how quickly and how consistently that information can be processed.

In one session about biotech discovery, speakers described AI systems that can design and refine experiments with minimal human input.

It’s a long way from a Prairie field, but it’s easy to imagine that same approach being used to improve plot trials or even guide on-farm decisions aimed at maximizing yield.

And it is already happening.

On the farm, that same capability is showing up in decision support — not perfect, not complete, but improving. These tools are getting better at taking large volumes of information and turning it into clear, actionable decisions.

From interpretation to action

And that raises a fair question. If more of that interpretation work can be done by a system, where does that leave farm agronomists?

The answer is not that they disappear. It’s that the job shifts.

Research agronomists are not really in the crosshairs here. They are still building the knowledge base. The question is what happens to the people turning that knowledge into decisions on the farm.

That kind of agronomy has never just been about reading numbers off a report. It’s about context: knowing the field, the farmer, the equipment and the risks they are willing to take.

A recommendation generated from data still has to be weighed against reality. Is the field fit? Does the timing work? What happens if the weather turns? Does it fit the rest of the rotation?

Those are not problems that go away with better models. In some ways, they become more important because more recommendations are coming, faster and with more confidence behind them.

What these systems may change is how agronomists spend their time. Less time pulling data together. Less time building base recommendations from scratch. More time stress-testing those recommendations, adapting them to local conditions and helping farmers decide what to act on and what to ignore.

There’s also a practical layer to this that didn’t get as much attention on stage. These tools do not just appear on farms fully formed. They need to be set up, calibrated and understood. Someone has to translate them from a product into something that actually works in a field.

One discussion on soil health touched on a more basic issue: even something as fundamental as soil testing is not fully standardized. Results can vary depending on how samples are taken, handled and processed.

That is an opportunity.

It suggests there is still a role for the local private agronomist — someone who knows the region and their customers, understands local soil conditions, along with insect and disease pressure, and someone who farmers know personally and trust.

The role doesn’t disappear, it changes

It’s easy to frame new technology as a threat to existing roles, but agriculture has a way of absorbing new tools and reshaping the jobs around them.

GPS did not eliminate the need for farm agronomists. Variable rate didn’t either. They changed the conversation.

This one feels different. These systems are starting to take on the interpretation work that has traditionally defined farm agronomy. However, the pattern is familiar.

The technology is moving quickly, that much is clear. However, it’s still being tested against the same reality. Fields, weather and economics have a way of exposing weak ideas.

On-farm agronomy does not sit outside that process. It’s part of it.

If anything, the need for people who can bridge the gap between what a system suggests and what actually works on the ground will only grow.

The post How AI is changing on-farm agronomy and decision-making appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The finding addresses a question that has surfaced in U.S. research and among Prairie growers managing high-pH soils: does choosing a low IDC score come at the cost of yield where chlorosis is not present?

“We didn’t know the answer to this question until just now,” U of M researcher Kristen MacMillan said during a recent presentation at Ag Days in Brandon.

WHY IT MATTERS: Understanding how variety selection affects yield helps farmers make more confident decisions in challenging soil conditions.

“It’s a highly visual condition,” said MacMillan, who is also Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers’ agronomist in residence.

“We’re choosing varieties based on their visual response, but what is the actual yield correlation to that?”

IDC is a common issue in calcareous, high-pH soils, where iron becomes chemically unavailable to the plant.

The condition causes yellowing between the veins of young soybean leaves, typically appearing in patches and lasting from mid-June into July. While symptoms may only persist for a few weeks, early-season stress can reduce yield potential.

How much yield does IDC cost?

To understand how IDC severity translates into yield loss, MacMillan collaborated with Manitoba Agriculture to analyze six years of data from single-row plots rated annually for IDC response near Winnipeg. Those plots were taken through to harvest to compare visual scores with final yield.

The analysis confirmed that yield declines as IDC scores increase in affected areas.

MacMillan reported a yield loss of roughly 1.5 to 2.8 bushels per acre for every one-point increase in IDC score. In practical terms, a two-point difference between varieties could mean a three- to six-bushel swing in IDC-prone zones.

Is there a yield trade-off?

The more pressing question, however, was whether selecting for low IDC scores sacrifices yield elsewhere in the field.

Many growers report IDC often affects only portions of a field, yet variety decisions are made for the entire field. Research in North Dakota and South Dakota has identified yield trade-offs in some soybean populations, where selecting for IDC tolerance reduced yield under non-IDC conditions.

To test whether that trade-off exists under Manitoba conditions, MacMillan established paired trials in IDC and non-IDC areas of the same field using identical varieties. She also identified a common set of varieties grown over three years to ensure consistency in comparisons.

“What we’re finding is that yield is also negatively correlated with IDC score or not related at all. So this is good news,” she said.

In other words, varieties with strong IDC tolerance performed well in affected areas without yielding less in unaffected parts of the field.

MacMillan also examined whether precision-planting different cultivars in IDC and non-IDC zones would provide an advantage.

Because no yield penalty was detected, splitting varieties within a field offered little benefit in most scenarios. Only in fields almost entirely affected by IDC did a particularly strong cultivar show a measurable advantage.

“If IDC is a constraint in your fields, continue choosing varieties with low IDC score and high yield,” she said.

For growers managing high-carbonate Prairie soils, the data reinforce current practice: selecting IDC-tolerant varieties remains the most reliable defence without sacrificing yield potential where chlorosis never appears.

The post Selecting IDC-tolerant soybeans doesn’t reduce yield, Manitoba study confirms appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“It’s not something you do expecting recognition,” Braden said. “It’s just your life and your story.”

That story, built on expansion, diversification and a return to the family farm, earned the Oakburn-area couple the honour at a banquet held March 14 at the Elkhorn Resort, along with a trip to Vancouver for the national competition this fall.

From ag degree to home farm

Braden Drul’s path back to the farm wasn’t automatic, despite an interest in agriculture instilled early by his farm kid upbringing.

While completing an ag business degree at the University of Manitoba, he also explored other parts of the industry, like summer jobs with chemical companies and retail experience.

“I really took a liking to that,” he said. “You get to work with growers and retailers. I got to wear two hats.”

But a part of him was always drawn to farm life.

“I still kept finding myself pulled back to the farm, sneaking back to help,” he said. “Once I graduated, the calling was there.”

Misty Drul’s path was different. Raised on a farm near Sandy Lake, she pursued a career in health care, training as an X-ray and lab technologist at Red River College. She still works casual shifts, but stepped back as the farm expanded and the couple started a family.

With two young children and a growing operation, balancing full-time hospital work with farm responsibilities became increasingly difficult. Stepping back allowed her to stay involved in health care while taking on a larger role in the farm’s day-to-day operations.

Today, the couple farms alongside Braden Drul’s parents in a multi-generational grain and oilseed operation. It’s something he doesn’t take for granted.

That perspective sharpened in 2023, when his father was diagnosed with jaw cancer. He said the diagnosis hit hard and made him realize how precious life is.

“It’s an awesome feeling to work hand in hand with your parents,” he said. “Watching them be able to step back and enjoy life is one of the biggest rewards for us.”

Diversification builds farm for two families

When Braden Drul returned to the farm, one of his biggest challenges was figuring out how to make the operation work for two families. With increasing land prices and input costs, expanding acres alone wasn’t the answer.

Instead, the Druls looked for ways to diversify. In 2019, they launched an equipment assembly business, building a heated shop and pitching their services directly to manufacturers before the facility was even built.

“At first we got some strange looks,” Braden said. “We didn’t even have a shop yet.”

But the approach worked. Once the shop was completed, those early conversations turned into contracts, including work with Meridian Manufacturing.

The business now provides an additional revenue stream and helps stabilize the operation in ways a traditional farm often can’t. It has also allowed them to bring on more employees without putting the full cost directly on the farm, helping address the need for a more stable and reliable labour force.

They later added a Pioneer seed dealership, further expanding the business and building on Braden Drul’s earlier experience working with growers.

Managing the expanded operation

Diversification has also created new demands, particularly on the management side. Running additional businesses brings more administrative work, co-ordination with suppliers and customers and added pressure on time.

For Misty Drul, that has meant taking on more of the office and organizational role, especially now that their youngest child is in school.

“It’s busy, but we manage,” she said.

Planning for the sixth generation

Looking ahead, the focus is on building a farm that can carry forward into the next generation. The couple’s children are already involved in the day-to-day activity of the farm, with an emphasis on sustainability and making sure they have a real opportunity to be part of the business.

The Outstanding Young Farmers recognition has given the Druls a chance to step back and look at how far they’ve come. It’s also opened the door to new connections within the industry.

“It was very humbling,” Misty Drul said. “We met other couples who are successful in different areas of agriculture, and we learned a lot from them.”

For her husband, the recognition carries weight because of where it comes from.

“Being recognized by your peers is the biggest thing,” he said.

The post Manitoba’s Outstanding Young Farmers built success through diversification appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Until recently, moving a digital prescription from Bayer’s FieldView platform to a John Deere display typically meant downloading files to a USB stick and physically transferring them to the machine. Bayer and John Deere say a new integration between FieldView and John Deere Operations Center eliminates that manual step.

The companies announced the upgrade at Commodity Classic in San Antonio last month.

With the new workflow, users create scripts in FieldView, select the relevant files and click “Export to Work Plans.” The jobs then appear in Work Planner within John Deere Operations Center, ready to run on connected equipment — all delivered remotely from one platform to the other.

For Prairie grain producers using both platforms, that means fewer steps between agronomic planning and field execution.

In an emailed statement, Bayer Crop Science said the goal is to simplify job execution and monitoring for customers working across both platforms, while eliminating the need for thumb drives and other manual steps that slow down field activities.

Chris Winkler, vice-president of digital software and solutions at John Deere, said the integration responds directly to customer feedback.

“Our mutual customers want streamlined workflows, not extra steps in the cab,” he said.

In practical terms, that affects both set-up time and accuracy. Removing manual file transfers reduces the chance of loading the wrong prescription, misnaming files or configuring monitors incorrectly — issues that can affect variable-rate seeding, fertility or crop protection passes.

The integration also changes how data flows back to the office.

Once jobs are completed, as-applied information moves back through Operations Center and into FieldView, allowing farmers and advisers to evaluate performance and adjust future prescriptions.

The companies say the capability is the result of feedback from farmers and advisers who wanted platforms to work together more seamlessly.

For Prairie growers, where variable-rate seeding and fertility programs are increasingly common in crops such as canola, wheat and corn, tighter integration between agronomy software and equipment displays could mean less time managing files and more time focusing on in-field decisions.

The capability is currently being introduced to select U.S. customers, with broader availability expected in the coming months. The companies have not yet outlined a timeline for Canadian rollout.

The post FieldView prescriptions can now move wirelessly to John Deere Operations Center appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.