Speaking from Beijing, canola council president Jim Everson emphasized the importance of the Chinese market for Canadian canola producers and processors.

“We are just at the end of what we think is a very successful mission for the canola industry and promoting canola here in China,” Everson said. “This agreement signals the start of a new relationship with Chinese importers based on co-operation to support mutually beneficial trade.”

• Read more: Canola Council of Canada completes successful China trip

The memorandum includes provisions such as communicating on regulations affecting trade and working together to facilitate industry meetings and exchanges. It was signed by the Canola Council of Canada and the China Chamber of Commerce of Import and Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce and Animal By-Products.

“The memorandum of understanding is one that is a co-operative arrangement to share information back and forth between the canola council and the CFNA… to co-operate in different events that we might be holding in Canada and they might be holding in China,” Everson said. “There were no commitments at all with respect to volume or any kind of guarantee from that point of view.”

The memorandum will also help the council and its counterparts in China fully understand the impact of Chinese policies, laws and regulations, he said.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Lawrence MacAulay witnessed the signing and participated in several of the canola industry events organized by the council, Everson added.

“We are very thankful for the leadership that Minister MacAulay has taken in bringing a large number of Canadian ag representatives here to China for our mission here and particularly for participating in a number of the events in support of the canola industry while he was here,” he said.

The trade mission included the first-ever Canola Dialogue, a half-day event bringing together more than 60 industry and government representatives, including the Chinese inspection agency, its Agriculture Ministry, Commerce Ministry, biotechnology regulators and major importers.

China’s crush capacity has increased in recent years, but Chinese buyers are still apt to favour soybeans over canola for livestock feed. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, China is expected to import 97 million tonnes of soybeans in 2017-18.

Bruce Jowett, vice-president of market development for the council, said the organization also held two events in Guangzhou during the trade mission, the first of which promoted canola meal.

“What they were able to do is share with the feed manufacturers… the role that canola meal can play in a ration for swine. I think it was pretty new news to those in attendance,” he said.

The second event in that city promoted the nutritional benefits of canola oil.

“It was primarily a media group that was in attendance, we’ve already seen up to eight stories being published on oil and the benefits of it, we also had the minister do some food preparation with a chef, just to show the ease and some of the attributes,” Jowett said. “It will increase the awareness of oil in this important market.”

While the perennial issue of blackleg was also raised during the trade mission, Everson said both Canada and China continue to research the issue and that trade will continue under existing terms until at least 2020.

“The subject came up, but really only in terms of going over again or repeating the commitment that we have each made… to taking efforts jointly to mitigate against any kind of concerns with blackleg being transferred from Canada to China,” he said, adding an additional memorandum of understanding is in the works regarding the issue.

The United States remains Canada’s largest export market for canola, but China is the second-largest export market for canola and canola products worth $2.7 billion in 2016.

China imported 4.8 million tonnes of Canadian canola in 2016, including 3.5 million tonnes of seed, 600 thousand tonnes of oil and 660 thousand tonnes of meal.

The post Organization in Canada, China, sign memorandum appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

While the plan includes a flat $25-a-tonne carbon tax starting sometime next year, it also says if Manitoba diesel pumps had to include five per cent biodiesel instead of the current two per cent, carbon emissions over the next five years would drop by between 360,000 to 431,000 tonnes.

• Read more: Mazier defends KAP’s approach on ‘made-in-Manitoba’ carbon tax

That would be the second- largest method of cutting emission behind the carbon tax, which is projected to reduce emissions by 1.07 million tonnes.

While the carbon tax is projected to reduce emissions by 40 per cent, adding more biodiesel would cut emissions up to 16 per cent, according to the plan.

“If we can convince the government that the biodiesel portion should be from canola, for example that’s a 1.9-million-tonne demand (based on five per cent biodiesel across Canada)…” Fossay said. “There’s a good chance we could see our (canola) prices go up.”

Someone suggested a higher biodiesel requirement could result in higher diesel prices, but Fossay noted “marked” farm fuel is exempt from the carbon tax.

In an interview later he said canola-based biofuel is cheaper to make than drilling for, extracting processing petroleum into diesel.

“We think it (canola-based biodiesel) will go a long ways to helping reduce carbon emissions that come from diesel fuel,” he said.

“By going to the B5 level (five per cent biodiesel) the carbon emissions will be reduced I believe by three to four megatonnes a year. So that goes a long ways to achieving the 80-megatonne targets that the (federal) government has… by 2022.”

The MCGA has not taken a position on Manitoba’s plan, but will discuss it at an upcoming board meeting, Fossay said.

The MCGA does favour more biodiesel, he said.

“Certainly any time we can find a new market for canola seed it’s a benefit to producers across Western Canada,” Fossay said.

KAP also supports regulations requiring more biodiesel be used, KAP president Dan Mazier said in an interview after the meeting.

“It will make a huge difference,” he said.

The post Carbon tax could translate into more demand for canola appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But a Canadian study shows biotechnology, which includes genetic modification and new hybridization techniques in canola, boosted yields and put billions of extra dollars into farmers’ pockets.

“We calculated the cumulative benefit of this adoption at $30 billion from 1996 to 2012 and it has been on an upward trend for most of that period,” agricultural economists Stavroula Malla (University of Lethbridge) and Derek Brewin (University of Manitoba) wrote in a paper published last year in AgVio Forum.

“For the 2012 crop year, we estimated the net benefits at $726 million,” their paper reads.

Most of those benefits came from genetic modifications to different varieties of canola resistant to the herbicides glyphosate (Roundup) and glufosinate (Liberty) as well as resistance to Clearfield herbicides developed through mutagenesis.

Farmers gain about $100 a hectare more with canolas developed through biotechnology versus conventional canola, Brewin said in an Oct. 21 interview.

“There are a lot of acres of this happening and that is why we are close to $1 billion in gain,” he said.

Brewin said there was only a brief period, right after the introduction of herbicide-tolerant canolas, when farmers were worse off because higher seed costs ate up all the gains.

He also said stronger plant breeders’ rights are helping farmers because some of what they pay for seed is being reinvested in new canola by private canola-developing companies.

“In the long run farmer-saved seed is undermining private sector investment (in new varieties),” he said.

The New York Times said it concluded GM crops haven’t boosted yields or reduced pesticide after comparing GM crop yields and pesticide use in Canada and the United States against those of conventional crops in Western Europe.

“An analysis by the Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany,” Danny Hakim wrote. “Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that ‘there was little evidence’ that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

According to the New York Times pesticide use in the U.S. hasn’t fallen as much as in France.

“Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 per cent,” the New York Times story says. “By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 per cent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 per cent.”

The story triggered a lot of criticism on social media and charges of biased reporting.

Andrew R. Kniss, associate professor of weed biology and ecology at the University of Wyoming wrote on weedcontrolfreaks.com that in crops such as corn and soybeans, genetic modification hasn’t had a dramatic impact on yield because there are other ways to control pests. However, modifying sugar beets to be herbicide tolerant has boosted yields because weed control options were limited.

Although Kniss didn’t comment on canola, it probably applies there too.

Where the New York Times article falls short is on pesticide use, Kniss wrote.

“The NYT provides a few charts in the article, one of which supports the statement about France’s reduced pesticide use. But the figures used to compare pesticide use in France versus the U.S. are convoluted and misleading. First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the U.S.), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the U.S. has over nine times the amount of farmland that France does. It would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way.”

Kniss acknowledges GM crops may not have lived up to the hype, but wrote the debate is detracting from more important agricultural issues.

“GMOs have not and will not result in an agricultural panacea,” he wrote, “but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.”

The post New York Times findings on GM crops disputed appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A single heavy harrow pass is sufficient for incorporation in minimum- and zero-till fields.

Good soil contact is necessary for these herbicides to work. That means ensuring crop residue or lumps of soil don’t prevent the herbicide granules from reaching the soil.

Avadex and Fortress shouldn’t be applied to burned fields for 12 months because the carbon prevents them from working.

A shallow harrowing will ensure good soil contact and is recommended for both fall and spring applications. Snowpack will help push the granules down to the soil.

A second harrowing operation in the spring will help redistribute the herbicide and “sharpen” control of both herbicides. Farmers should avoid sweeping their fields by moving piles of straw, which can pull the granules into concentrated areas leaving other areas untreated.

Application rates for both Avadex and Fortress are based on soil organic matter. Fields with higher organic matter require higher rates.

Avadex controls wild oats in barley, canola, spring and durum wheat, flax (not including low linoleic acid varieties), peas and canary seed.

Fortress controls wild oats, green foxtail and yellow foxtail in canola, flax (not including low linoleic acid varieties), mustard, barley and spring and durum wheat.

It also provides suppression of broadleaf weeds such as lamb’s quarters, kochia, redroot pigweed, Russian thistle and wild buckwheat.

For more information visit managewildoats.com.

The post How to fall apply Avadex and Fortress appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Canada exports 90 per cent of the canola we produce, and shipments containing even the smallest amount of unacceptable residues or deregistered varieties can be rejected, causing millions of dollars in losses and placing future business at risk,” the CCC says on its Keep it Clean website.

“Don’t spoil the bunch. Produce export-quality canola and protect Canada’s reputation as a quality supplier by following these guidelines closely.”

Here’s some of what the CCC recommends:

Use acceptable pesticides only

Only apply pesticides registered for use on canola in Canada. Talk with your grain buyer before you spray to ensure the pesticides you’re using are acceptable to your customers.

Do not use:

• Accord, Facet, Clever (Quinclorac) and Masterline Quinclorac.
  Western Grains Elevator Association-member companies and the Canadian Oilseed Processors Association will not accept delivery of canola grown and harvested in 2016 that has been treated with quinclorac.
• Venture L and Fusion
  Fluazifop-p-butyl is the active ingredient of grass herbicides Venture L and a component of Fusion. The United States has no tolerance levels established for fluazifop residues in canola.
• Ronilan
  Canola tolerances for vinclozolin (the active ingredient in Ronilan) are no longer in place for the United States. Any canola treated with Ronilan is no longer acceptable for shipment to the United States.

Consult your grain buyer before using:

• Quash
  Some grain companies have indicated they will not accept canola treated with metconazole (the active ingredient in Quash) in 2016. Consult your grain buyer.

Use pesticides correctly

• Follow the label. Stick to the pre-harvest interval (PHI). The PHI (or Spray to Swath Interval) is the number of days that must pass between the last application of a pesticide and swathing or straight combining.
• Control blackleg. Blackleg is initiated by spores from infected canola residue or stubble.
  Plant only canola varieties rated R (resistant) or MR (moderately resistant). Rotate varieties to bring a mix of blackleg resistance. Plant certified treated seed.
  Scout fields regularly to help determine the effectiveness of your blackleg management plan.
  Maintain a break between canola crops so crop residue can decompose. If blackleg is established, a minimum break of two to three years is recommended.
  Consider applying a fungicide if the disease shows up early.
  Control volunteer canola and other brassica weeds (stinkweed, shepherd’s purse, wild mustard, flixweed) to prevent blackleg buildup during non-canola years.
• Store canola properly
  Ensure storage bins are free of treated seed (which contains pesticides) and animal protein like blood and bone meal.
  Clean bins thoroughly prior to storing canola.
  Never use malathion to treat canola bins. Keep canola cool and dry to avoid spoilage and insect issues.

Do not grow deregistered varieties

• Signing the mandatory Declaration of Eligibility affidavit at the elevator is a legal assertion that your canola is registered. If it isn’t you can be held liable for the costs associated with contamination of a bin or shipment.
• Do not seed these deregistered varieties or any seed produced from them:
  — Roundup Ready Polish (B. RAPA): Hysyn 101RR;
  — Bromoxynil tolerant: 295BX, Armor BX, Cartier BX, Zodiac BX, Renegade BX;
  — Liberty Link (B. NAPUS): Exceed, 2631 LL, Swallow, SW Legion LL, SW Flare LL, LBD 2393 LL, Innovator, Independence, HCN 14, Phoenix, 3850, 2153, 3640, 3880, 2163, 2273.

The post Canola most sensitive to potential trade disruption appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

There are a number of growing issues that could be a disaster tomorrow, but growers can prevent them if they’re committed to doing the right thing now.

The best example, and the one that’s a threat to the most farms in Manitoba, is weed resistance to herbicides.

We’ve known for quite some time how resistance develops and the role that overuse of herbicides can play. Back in the 1990s, when I started as a reporter for the Co-operator it was one of the first lessons the agriculture faculty at the University of Manitoba very patiently taught me.

In each weed population, a very small proportion will be immune to any given control method, it explained. After a single application, there won’t be much difference, as the seed bank in the soil still contains plenty of susceptible seeds. After a number of years of applying a single product, however, that population turns over and you’ll have a real problem on your hands.

This is not just an issue for in-season applications, but also for the precious glyphosate that is at the foundation of zero-till farming. Farms assume the scope and shape they do because of a number of things, not least of which are the tools at the disposal of farmers.

It’s is not coincidental that farms grew dramatically in size with the advent of this new technology and system — it made field operations so much more efficient, allowing farmers to cover more ground in a more timely manner, especially during the crucial seeding season.

But consider what the farm of today will look like if some or most of these tools become ineffective. Do you think a 20,000-acre farm, sown the old way, with tillage and a press drill, would in any way be efficient?

That’s an exaggeration of course, but some of the steps growers have been forced to take in other areas are every bit as limiting. In Australia, they’re collecting and burning chaff. In the U.S. Cotton Belt they’ve been forced to hire crews to undertake the painstaking work of hand weeding glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.

This isn’t the only case where a similar dynamic appears to be emerging. Clubroot isn’t a huge issue yet here in Manitoba, but Alberta canola growers have struggled mightily with this soil-borne disease. They’re undeniably in the forefront globally of understanding and fighting the problem. Clubroot is primarily a disease of vegetable crops that are grown on relatively small acreages. In Canada we’re growing canola, which is closely related to those vegetable crops, as an oilseed crop on millions of acres every year. We’ve introduced a susceptible host to a disease that is, in the words of University of Alberta plant pathologist Stephen Strelkov, “highly adaptable.” The result is in hindsight predictable.

Clubroot figured out canola. Then it began destroying canola. Researchers developed resistant varieties, which clubroot promptly figured out in just a couple of seasons. Despite herculean efforts on the part of the research community, extension agents and farmers themselves, the march of the disease has barely slowed, much less halted.

It’s not all doom and gloom, however, because knowledgable people such as Canola Council of Canada agronomist Dan Orchard, who first discovered the disease in a canola field, point out there are farmers right in the midst of the worst of it who are proceeding on with the business of farming without any major issues.

They’re doing so by acknowledging it’s a problem and altering their management practices accordingly. They’ve lengthened canola rotations and moved to resistant varieties. They’re actively seeking out hot spots before they’ve spread throughout a field and planting them down to non-host crops.

They’re planning their field operation to work on infected areas last, lessening the risk of spreading the disease, while also limiting the amount of time-consuming equipment hygiene that is necessary.

This isn’t a question of more management just for the sake of it, it’s a fundamental question of protecting what they’re currently doing and ensuring their farms remain viable. By making small changes today, they’re avoiding having to make drastic and wholesale changes later.

It would seem other issues are starting to loom as well — fungicide resistance, for example, in some of our common crop diseases. This is a bit more of a community issue since the disease is wind-borne, but again, the solution is rotating control products and growing varieties with higher levels of resistance.

Nobody likes to make work for the sake of work, but getting this right is going to be the difference between success and failure over time.

The post Editorial: Long-term plans essential appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Clinton Jurke, director of agronomy for the Canola Council of Canada, says it’s been a moist spring, yield looks good in much of the province and dense canopies abound. That’s prime conditions for the development of sclerotinia issues in any canola crop. Junke says it’s a case of taking the bad along with the good.

“If a farmer likes the way the canola crop is looking, unfortunately so will the disease,” Jurke said in a recent interview.

With higher yield potential comes the elevated crop risk and it also means growers have something to lose, making spraying for sclerotinia almost a default position.

“This year I’m telling growers they should be looking if there might be any reasons not to spray, rather than wondering if they should,” he said.

As the crops flower, they are susceptible to infections, and the moist spring conditions means the pathogen is likely present in the fields, Jurke said.

“It’s only if something suggests there’s a reason not to spray — say for some reason they’ve got yield potential below 30 bu./acre or their canopy has dried right out — that they should consider not making an application,” Jurke said. “Otherwise it really looks like a season where sclerotinia will thrive.”

Sclerotinia has a strong correlation with weather, and in particular wet weather. If a field experiences regular rains, high humidity, or both, in the two weeks prior to flowering and through flowering, the Canola Council says infection “will likely occur.” If the conditions persist after flowering the disease severity will be high and there will be “significant” yield loss.

Flowering is a key time for infections because the tiny wind-borne ascospores that move the infection can’t directly infect a healthy plant. They need dead tissue, such as fallen petals sticking to leaves and stems, to continue their life cycle. The decaying petals give the ascospores energy to produce the compounds such as oxalic acid, which makes infecting the living tissue possible.

Once inside the plant, the fungus grows up and down the stem, eventually cutting off moisture and nutrient flow and killing the plant.

When conducive conditions are present and the yield potential is above the 30 bu./acre mark, a fungicide application should be made at 20 to 30 per cent flowering, unless the control product specifically states on the label that it should be applied closer to 50 per cent flowering, according to the council.

Jurke is also cautioning growers to take steps to ensure resistance to fungicides doesn’t become a problem. He said there are some signs it’s becoming an issue, and rotating to a different type of chemistry will help combat this problem.

“If you’ve been using a single brand for a few seasons now, it’s time to change to something else,” Jurke said.

Like weed resistance, resistant diseases will develop after enough selection pressure of a single chemical group is applied to kill all but the very small proportion of naturally resistant members of the population being treated. Using different chemical groups slows or prevents this from happening.

Canola Council guidelines also state that an earlier application is usually better because early infections on the main stem are what tends to cause the most yield loss. However the organization also adds that if conditions are borderline early in the application window, or it starts to rain, a late application may be a better option.

Timing may be an issue for some parts of the province this year with wet conditions. In recent weeks the Manitoba Agriculture crop report has stated that farmers in a number of regions throughout the province have been struggling to complete field operations in a timely manner because of the wet conditions.

The post Is there any reason not to spray? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Until these questions are resolved, growers should use other options to control cleavers on their farms,” the Canola Council of Canada says on its website.

“It’s a very serious issue,” council president Patti Miller said in a news release issued by BASF last week. “Our export customers test shipments regularly to make sure their standards are met and the tests are becoming more and more precise. If a shipment is turned back because of an unacceptable residue, it can mean millions and millions of dollars, not only to the exporting company, but to farm revenue.”

Three herbicides containing quinclorac have been registered for use on canola in Canada — Clever by Productierra, Facet from BASF and Masterline Quinclorac, a Univar product. They all control cleavers.

“More information about herbicide and agronomic solutions can be found by contacting a canola council agronomist,” the council’s website says. “If growers have used quinclorac on their canola in 2015, they should contact their local elevator or processor to discuss options.”

Data from 2015 confirmed that quinclorac leaves detectable residues on canola seed and in the processed oil and meal, the canola council says.

“When samples were tested from canola fields that had been treated with quinclorac according to label directions, residues were found most of the time. Therefore, the value chain believes there is a significant risk to Chinese exports if quinclorac is used on canola.”

China, which buys about one-third of Canada’s canola exports, has no maximum residue limit (MRL) for quinclorac on canola and no history of accepting imports of canola where the presence of quinclorac residues has been detected. There is also no MRL for quinclorac in the CODEX Alimentarius, the international standard-setting body of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which is considered by Chinese authorities in assessing whether imported products meet Chinese requirements, the council says.

“It’s a market where we need to proceed very cautiously,” Brian Innes, the council’s vice-president of government relations, said in an interview March 11.

“This growing season we have a very strong commitment from members of the value chain to be very clear with growers about what’s accepted and what’s not.”

In December, Japan approved MRLs for quinclorac and China is expected to do so by 2018, Innes said.

“I can assure you the value chain does want farmers to have access to new tools but to do so in a way that protects our export customers,” he said.

Canola is the top revenue-generating crop in Canada, contributing $19.3 billion to the economy annually. It creates almost 250,000 jobs, according to a study prepared for the council in 2013.

About half of Canada’s canola production is exported as seed, oil and meal, with 90 per cent of it going to four countries — the United States, China, Japan and Mexico. The United States is the biggest customer with imports in 2014 worth $3.5 billion, followed by China at $2.3 billion and Japan and Mexico at $1.2 billion and $772,400, respectively. However, China was the top seed importer at 4.3 million tonnes.

Jeanette Gaultier, Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Development’s weed specialist, says farmers should heed the council’s warning.

“The last thing you’d want to do is put all this effort into your crop, get it into the bin and then you can’t get it anywhere else,” she said.

There aren’t a lot of good short-term options for controlling cleavers in canola, she said. The first thing is to scout for the weed both in the fall and spring.

“If it comes up in the fall you’re going to want to control it in the fall,” she said.

Glyphosate can be tank mixed with several other herbicides to control cleavers. However, be aware that many cleavers are resistant to Group 2 herbicides.

Also, glyphosate shouldn’t be applied alone because cleavers are thought to be prone to developing glyphosate resistance.

“So you definitely want to be looking at different modes of actions,” Gaultier said. “Maybe some Group 4s. The Distinct mix, a Group 19, can also offer some control.

“Tillage is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it can break up plants that are there, but it can also stimulate germination of seeds in the seed bank. Crop rotation is probably one of the best things. It can be a problem in crops that aren’t very competitive or in crops that don’t have a lot of herbicide options. Cereals, and winter cereals especially, throwing those into the mix is a good longer-term strategy for dealing with cleavers.”

The post Canola growers asked not to use quinclorac herbicide this year appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This regrowth cannot be sprayed. Once canola is cut, no product can be applied. Pre-harvest intervals are closed for all products, and spraying swaths mean residues will end up in or on the seed resulting in an increase risk of exceeding allowable test levels.

Spraying regrowth in the windrow wouldn’t work that well anyway. Herbicides need to make contact with what they are to control. With most of the target area buried in the swath, there would be an insufficient dose to control regrowing plants.

The only canola fields that can be sprayed are standing crops. Yet because they’re still standing, regrowth from cut stems will not happen. This could be seen as another factor in favour of straight cutting.

The post Canola regrowth under swaths can’t be sprayed appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Through the Canola Council, the industry has announced a “Keep it coming” initiative — 26 million tonnes and 52 bushels (1.18 tonnes) per acre by 2025. But to achieve that, there would still need to be a one-in-three-year rotation in Western Canada, contrary to the recommended maximum of one in four. At that level, average yields would need to more than double to 70 bushels by 2025. At the current rate of improvement, they’ll only be at 38 bushels.

So farmers and their agronomic partners need to get to work, especially since canola might have problems finding a home on even a quarter of Western Canada’s 65 million crop acres over the next few years. Some of those same agronomic partners have other ideas for those acres. In 2003 Monsanto announced a $100-million breeding program for corn in Western Canada, saying it could occupy eight million to 10 million acres by 2025. And as we reported last week, Pioneer has the same idea, and has launched six new corn hybrids for the Prairies, of which three are ultra-early. Both those companies are also looking to introduce soybean varieties across the Prairies.

Where are those acres going to come from? Clearly, many will — and should — come from canola. In discussing the launch of the new corn and soy varieties, DuPont Pioneer vice-president Neal Gutterson noted that they will give growers the option of managing canola rotations more sustainably.

And no matter the crop — or its management practices — the word “rotation” is one that we hear more of these days. At one time farmers only needed to rotate crops. Today the need to rotate herbicides, insecticides and fungicides has to be factored into the rotations. In part because crops are now so heavy and high yielding, disease pressure is higher than ever, and new diseases are emerging — especially clubroot, which is a particular threat to canola.

It’s also becoming apparent that just rotating annual crops and their inputs may not be enough to fend off herbicide resistance, so winter cereals and even perennial forage may need to be brought into rotations.

So there’s going to be lots of competition for acres, and canola yields will need to get much higher in order to reach the Canola Council’s ambitious goals. The council and others in the industry have been providing some excellent agronomic support to growers, but to meet those goals, they will need to provide a lot more.

The post Editorial: We might need 100-bushel canola appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.