“As Canada looks to diversify trade and strengthen economic resilience, agriculture must be part of the solution,” said Erin Gowriluk, Canada Grains Council president in a Jan. 26 news release.

“Science-based, risk-based regulation is essential to maintaining market access and ensuring Canadian farmers can continue to innovate.”

WHY IT MATTERS: As Canada looks to diversify agricultural trade away from the United States, non-tariff barriers may hamper progress the Canada Grains Council says.

The council also recommended the Government of Canada use bilateral trade mechanisms to oppose the European Union’s strict pesticide regulations.

In the report, the council said Canada’s trading situation is shifting drastically since the United States is no longer a reliable trading partner. However, regulatory differences could make it harder for Canada to build its trading relationships.

This include trades rules from other countries that are not based on objective science, and do not follow internationally accepted risk assessments, the council said.

Non-tariff trade barriers are some of the most restrictive barriers for agricultural innovation, and they are increasing according to the report. Standards related to the regulation of agricultural innovations, e.g. crop protection products, put Canadian trade at risk.

For example, under the Canadian-European Union Comprehensive Trade Agreement (CETA), most tariffs were removed from Canadian agricultural imports. However, many countries in the EU have non-tariff trade barriers, which made trading more difficult for Canada.

The EU has taken a precautionary approach to agriculture innovations like crop protection products. Over the past 10 years, the EU has removed about half of the crop protection tools available to its own farmers. Because of this, the EU is under pressure to block farming imports using farming tools that are no longer allowed in Europe, even when those products have been proven safe.

Depending on how the EU implements so-called “reciprocity” rules, Canadian grain exports could be restricted or halted. Canadian trade could also be negatively affected as many countries around the world are influenced by EU trade policies.

The council said Canada should lead a coalition of like-minded countries to aim for systemic improvements in setting maximum residue levels. It should also work to prevent regulatory overreach for agricultural innovation in other countries.

Since Canada is engaged with trade at multiple levels, the country will be able to make the most of bilateral mechanisms within CETA to address the EU’s inclination to turn away from agricultural innovations.

Canada and its other trading partners can take on a strong objective to prevent non-tariff trade barriers, using diplomacy and scientific information, the council added.

The post Canada must resist EU non-tariff trade barriers says Grains Council appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Read more of our tariff coverage here

But it wasn’t all gloom and doom. In fact one of the key organizers, Erin Gowriluk of the Canada Grains Council struck a positive tone, noting that many of the key issues of the grain sector remain aligned throughout North America.

She spoke to Glacier FarmMedia’s Zak McLachlan from the floor of the event.

The post VIDEO: Canadian Crops Convention offers hope on trade appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“I am so proud to have been given the opportunity to serve as Vice-President of the IGTC during a critical time for the global grain trade,” Gowriluk said in a CGC news release.

Gowriluk was appointed to the role during the IGTC’s general assembly in Geneva, Switzerland last week.

Gowriluk said CGC, a founding member of the coalition, is a champion of “science-based, trade-enabling policies.”

“This role is pivotal as we tackle increasingly complex regulatory landscapes and work collaboratively to advance the global grain trade and ensure food security,” she said.

“The IGTC remains at the forefront of addressing the increasing complexity of the global grain trade. Recent shifts away from science-based regulatory frameworks pose significant challenges to cross-border grain movement.”

The IGTC general assembly focused on strategic planning, including for issues like non-tariff regulatory trade barriers, adoption of digital solutions for trade streamlining, and to foster stronger partnerships to support the global grain trade.

The post Gowriluk named vice president of International Grain Trade Coalition appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The film showing how their wheat was grown, harvested and shipped had high production values for the time, and audiences packed community halls and church basements to learn about farming in Canada and how Canadian wheat was best for making bread.

But there was a problem. Consumers don’t buy wheat. They buy bread. Shoppers who had seen the film would visit the local bakery and ask for a loaf made with Canadian wheat. This annoyed bakers, who don’t buy wheat either. They buy flour. Bakers complained to the millers, who do buy wheat, and they aren’t interested in specifying where it comes from or in saying that Canadian wheat is better. That wouldn’t go over well with British farmers.

Lesson learned. If you are in the wheat business, don’t annoy the customer.

That’s an appropriate lesson for the impending merger of the Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi) and Cereals Canada. Cigi’s main role has been to show customers how to use Canadian wheat and other crops in the products consumed in their countries. It’s also worked with Canadian industry staff and farmers to show them what customers are looking for when they buy grain.

Cereals Canada’s role has been vague. Set up with a board of various industry representatives after the end of the wheat board, it says it “brings a broad and diverse collaboration of partners from all sectors of the cereals value chain.”

Judging by a series of opinion pieces by CEO Cam Dahl, much of the focus seems to be convincing consumers that Canadian grain is produced under scientifically safe, modern production practices, and implying that sales are being hindered by customers who object to them.

“Canadians have been food secure through the pandemic because of modern agriculture that includes pesticides, chemical fertilizers, precision agriculture and science-based regulations,” says Dahl’s latest opinion piece.

“Further, Canada needs to use this time of a resurgence in the understanding of the value of science and research to push for a greater scientific foundation of the world’s trading system. After all, it is not just Canadian consumers who depend on the resiliency of a science-based food supply chain, but consumers in every country… ”

To their credit, Cereals Canada and Dahl have promoted the “Keep it Clean” initiative, encouraging farmers not to use products which can cause problems with buyers. But the new merged organization needs to continue to reinforce Cigi’s main purpose, which is to show buyers how Canadian grain can make the products that their consumer customers want. Given that some of those consumers do have concerns about some farming practices, the buyers don’t want to see public statements about how ingredients are made with “pesticides, chemical fertilizers, precision agriculture and science-based regulations.”

That’s an implied tag line of “Canadian grain — it won’t hurt you,” which is not appropriate for an organization for promoting sales. Dealing with real or imagined trade restrictions is the job for government, or industry organizations such as the Canada Grains Council, not for an organization working with customers.

The post Opinion: ‘Canadian grain — it won’t hurt you’ appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, speaking Wednesday at the CropConnect conference in Winnipeg, announced over $430,000 for the Canada Grains Council to develop a pilot insurance product for grain exporters.

Such an insurance plan would go to “address the risks they face of having their shipments rejected at the border of the importing country,” the government said.

Ottawa “wants to insure that grain farmers are protected against the unpredictability of the international market and the risks of regulatory trade barriers, particularly around the input residues on seeds,” the government said in a release.

The council will also get $789,558 toward developing a voluntary “code of practice for farm production of Canadian grains.”

The guidelines to be developed “will help farmers encode the best practices to follow to be considered sustainable, for both market and public trust purposes,” the government said.

The codes for crops would “cover a range of topics, including fertilizer management, pesticide use, soil management, farm workers and protection of wildlife habitat, as well as food safety and work safety.”

‘Market readiness’

The Canada Grains Council, in operation since 1969, represents the crops value chain nationwide and is tasked with spearheading efforts to boost sales and use of Canadian grain in domestic and international markets.

Public money for the CGC’s insurance project will flow through AgriRisk Initiatives (ARI), a five-year, $55 million program to support development of new risk management tools through the federal/provincial; Canadian Agricultural Partnership funding framework.

The code of practice project will be backed via the federal AgriAssurance program, budgeted for up to $74 million over five years to help ag sector groups develop “systems, standards and tools that enable them to make credible, meaningful and verifiable claims about the health and safety of Canadian agricultural and agri-food products, and the manner in which they are produced.”

Codes of practice for production aren’t new to Canada’s ag sector; similar codes for care and handling of various types and breeds of livestock are today being developed and updated by the National Farm Animal Care Council, which was set up in 2005.

The $1.2 million total funding envelope announced Wednesday for the grains council is expected to help address “two key issues facing the sector: better risk management tools and market readiness,” Bibeau said in the government’s release.

“Despite Canada’s solid reputation worldwide as a high-quality and trustworthy provider of grain and oilseed products, we cannot take this for granted,” CGC president Tyler Bjornson said in the same release.

“Exploring new ways to help producers and industry address market access risks, as well as maintain consumer confidence that we are doing the right things to produce sustainable and safe food, are an essential part of our long-term strategy as a sector.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Grains sector backed to develop export rejection insurance appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But after a lot of hard work in 2018 reviewing its operations and setting new priorities, the CCC is in good shape, outgoing chair David Dzisiak told reporters here March 7 after its annual meeting, which was part of the inaugural Canadian Crops Convention.

“Maybe it was a little more sudden than what we would’ve hoped for, but we came through it very, very well,” he said. “(W)e got unanimous consensus around the board table and everybody is looking forward.”

The CCC, which represent the canola value chain from farmers and seed companies to processors and exporters, cut its 2019 budget by $3.5 million, or 40 per cent, to $5.2 million.

Market access and boosting canola production remain top CCC priorities, the CCC announced in December.

The CCC will shift consumer-oriented canola promotion from established markets in the United States, Mexico and Japan, to emerging markets in places such as South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand, in co-operation with the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

The CCC will reduce duplication between its agronomists and those with private companies through the CCC’s new Sustainable Supply Committee.

The council is also integrating staff with Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, which represents Canada’s canola crushers, and providing administration for the Flax Council of Canada.

To make things more efficient for members the CCC joined forces with the Canada Grains Council holding its annual meeting as part of the first Canadian Crops Convention, which incorporated the grains council’s annual Canadian Global Crops Symposium.

With around 350 registrants the joint convention attracted more participants than either meeting did on its own, said Dzisiak, who works for Corteva Agriscience.

Despite the CCC seemingly having addressed many of Richardson’s concerns, the company opted not to return as a core funder, Jean-Marc Ruest, Richardson’s senior vice-president corporate affairs and general counsel said in an interview in December.

However, Richardson having paid a $500-a-year fee, remains a CCC member, Dzisiak said.

Only core funders are represented at the board table and have a say in how the CCC operates.

Meanwhile, the CCC is committed to working to help Richardson resume canola exports to China, Dzisiak said.

“We’re really looking at it as an industry thing not a company thing,” he said, referring to China’s decision earlier this month to block canola imports from Richardson, alleging its shipments contained unacceptable weed seeds and diseases.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says it hasn’t found anything wrong with the samples it examined.

As difficult as it was to revamp the CCC, it was valuable and needs to be done regularly, Dzisiak said.

“There were certainly some tough discussions and frank discussions, but there was never a question on the future of the canola council,” he said.

“And we have 100 per cent unanimous consensus around the council board table about priorities and about funding. So I think we’re in terrific shape. It’s good to go back every now and then and do a good gut check.”

In addition to being optimistic about the CCC’s future, Dzisiak is upbeat about canola exports to China and the long-term prospects for Canadian canola production.

“The country still continues to grow and needs what we have, which is our agri-food production and production capacity,” he said. “Canada has a great historical reputation in China. It goes back to Prime Minister (John) Diefenbaker and (the first Canadian) wheat exports (to China when most western countries didn’t recognize the communist regime) and Norman Bethune (a Canadian who is a hero in China for treating wounded communist soldiers) and there’s a lot of goodwill and history, so we’ll get through this I’m sure.”

Canola will overcome other challenges, including clubroot and climate change, Dzisiak said.

“There’s a lot of technology being invested to keep us ahead of what nature throws at us,” he said. “There is a real, I think, appropriate mindset about being good managers, being good stewards. Nobody wants to lose what we have.

“Canola is amazing in terms of its adaptive capacity. We’ve got such an installed research base. A lot of money is being invested in canola.”

Looking back after serving 15 years on the CCC’s board the increase in canola yields and plantings stand out, Dzisiak said.

The production goal set was 12 million tonnes, which “we blew by,” he said.

The 2025 goal is 26 million. Last year 20.3 million tonnes were produced.

“Hybrid canola is not really that old,” Dzisiak said. “And there’s a broad set of genetics and germplasm from around the world that we can use to improve our yield potential and that’s just beginning to get mined. I tell people canola is like where hybrid corn was in 1965. So in a lot of ways it’s still a young crop.”

The value of CCC board consensus also stands out for Dzisiak.

“Whoever set that up in the beginning had great foresight and it’s terrific that it has been maintained because that really is the strength,” he said. “So everybody has to do some give and take. And especially through last year when we went through a tough kind of relook there was a lot of give and take.”

The post Canola council moving on without Richardson appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The organization is revamping its priorities to be more effective and efficient in growing Canadian canola markets and production.

The changes, which include a shift in canola promotion, the council’s role in agronomy and funding, received unanimous support from the council’s board of directors. But is it enough to get Richardson International to rejoin?

That company stunned the industry a year ago by dropping out of the canola council, citing concerns about high membership fees, unneeded market promotion and a duplication of agronomy services.

As of last week Richardson hadn’t reviewed the council’s new priorities, but is willing to, company senior vice-president of corporate affairs and general counsel Jean-Marc Ruest said in an interview Dec. 7.

“If they (council) feel they have addressed those concerns and have a proposal they would like to make to us, we’ll listen… ”.

The canola council would welcome Richardson’s return.

“As a value chain organization our goal is to include as many of the real participants in our industry as possible,” council president Jim Everson said in an interview Dec. 5. “It is valuable to have them (Richardson) as funders and supporters of the council. But our responsibility as the canola council is to the whole value chain… and not just any one part of the value chain.”

Why it matters: Canola generates more revenue for western Canadian farmers than any other crop. The canola council is credited with contributing to canola’s success and is charged with keeping the success going.

Market access and boosting canola production remain top priorities, says the canola council.

The council will shift consumer-oriented canola promotion from established markets in the United States, Mexico and to Japan, to emerging markets in places such as South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand, in co-operation with the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Everson said.

The council will reduce duplication between its agronomists and those with private companies through the council’s new Sustainable Supply Committee.

The council is also integrating staff with Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, which represents Canada’s canola crushers, and providing administration for the Flax Council of Canada, Everson said.

The council and the Canada Grains Council are holding a joint conference in Montreal in March.

“I think that’s a more efficient use of our members’ time and availability,” he said.

The council also has a new funding model. In the past canola farmers, exporters and crusher paid a per-tonne levy. As canola production, exports and crushing increased, so did the council’s budget.

Now the council is setting its priorities and then the budget, which in 2019 will be reduced to $5.2 million, a cut of $3.5 million from the $8.7 million spent in 2018.

“The focus is on what job has to be done and what do we do to adequately fund that job,” Everson said.

Future budgets may vary slightly, Everson said, but not by a lot “so each of the members of the council will have a more predictable, uniform, levy forecast.”

Farmers will cover 50 per cent of the council’s core spending, as they have in the past, through a checkoff on the sale of canola collected by their provincial canola association.

The other half will come from canola exporters, crushers and life science companies, Everson said.

“Each will have a formula on how they share that investment between them,” he said.

“There will be tweaking here and there but this is a new alignment and we’re really confident this is what we need for the foreseeable future. We’ve got a realigned set of priorities and unanimity on the board about pursuing it and a very strong value chain on our board.

“We’re really confident we’ve got it right here and we’re going to move ahead.”

The council will continue in canola agronomy, but to reduce duplication will work more closely with private agronomists, many of whom work for companies that belong to the council, Everson said.

“We think it’s important to have people in Western Canada in touch with what’s going on, on the land, but we are going to be doing less of the outreach and direct communications work,” he said. “It’s just a matter of the resources we have to do it. What I’ve been saying is we are not likely to be walking fields with three or four producers if we can pull together a group of a large number of growers and commercial agronomy people also. Then it makes sense because you are transferring information to a larger group of people.”

Everson said there has already been some reduction in jobs the last 12 to 18 months through attrition.

“I think what we will do in the future is make sure that we are resourcing the association to meet those priorities,” he said.

Market access is at the top of the list, given 90 per cent of Canada’s canola production is exported, Everson said.

China has been pushing Canada to cut canola dockage, ostensibly to reduce the risk of blackleg disease from Canadian canola.

American tariffs recently slapped on Canadian steel and aluminium imports illustrate how vulnerable exports of any product are, Everson said.

Increasing Canadian canola production also tops the list because it’s needed to meet demand.

“Our board feels that’s a very important responsibility — something that’s equally helpful to the producer and the processor and the grain company,” Everson said. “Those companies are really investing in growth and to do that they really need a crop that’s healthy, maintained and growing.”

That’s part of the council’s agronomy mandate. But council agronomists are invaluable when responding to phytosanitary issues.

“We draw very heavily on our crop production team and its credibility to help us with these regulatory issues that come up where we need credible, science-based, objective analysis,” Everson said. “Somewhere around 15 to 20 per cent of the work our crop production team does is not aimed at outreach to producers, it’s aimed at our market access and regulatory agenda.”

The post Canola council’s new priorities aim to be more efficient, effective appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But industry officials including Earl Geddes, then the executive director of the Canadian International Grains Institute (Cigi), and then Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) chief commissioner Elwin Hermanson, said the problem could be fixed.

Chinese officials complained to Cigi in early 2013 about poor gluten CWRS wheat and threatened “we’re going to have to use DNS” (Dark Northern Spring wheat) from the United States,” Geddes said.

“I don’t think there’s an irreparable problem, but I think we’re hearing some concerns expressed that we should take seriously,” Hermanson told reporters on the sideline of the Canada Grains Council’s annual meeting in Winnipeg April 2, 2013.

Hermanson announced a CGC-led wheat class review Dec. 11, 2014 while speaking to the Manitoba Seed Growers Association’s annual meeting in Brandon.

“We want to consult and ask the right questions and get the right answers and make the right decisions,” he said in an interview later.

Feb. 20, 2015 the CGC released a discussion paper proposing tighter end-use quality standards for CWRS and Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) wheats and a new class later named Canada Northern Hard Red. Industry participants were invited to submit their responses in writing.

The public record shows the industry was consulted. For example, the CGC discussed its proposals with wheat breeders privately in late February 2015 on the sideline of the Prairie Recommending Committee for Wheat, Rye and Triticale’s annual meeting in Banff, and later publicly with the committee.

“Our first key element of course is we want to improve and protect the quality and consistency of CWRS,” Dave Hatcher, the CGC’s program manager for wheat enzymes and Asian products, told the PRCWRT Feb. 26, 2015.

“One, we listened and heard very clearly from producers saying they wanted other opportunities. Two, we heard from marketers saying, ‘well, yes we want new opportunities (to grow and market high-yielding American wheats) as well and a new milling class will provide for that. So, I know it’s kind of hard to believe, but the government does listen and this is exactly what we are proposing.”

On May 8, 2015 the CGC said in a release: “Stakeholders expressed strong support in their responses to the Canadian Grain Commission proposal to protect the quality, consistency and end-use performance of the Canada Western Red Spring and Canada Prairie Spring Red wheat classes.

In September 2015 Cereals Canada, which supported dealing with the gluten complaints, released a summary of a report it and the Cigi hired LMC International to do on Canadian wheat.

“In order to preserve these (high-value) markets (for CWRS and Canada Western Amber durum), the first priority for Canadian wheat must be to maintain its quality and reputation,” the report said.

The CGC announced Jan. 15, 2016 it was moving ahead with the proposed class changes.

“These steps reflect feedback from consultations in early 2015, followed by discussions with stakeholders on a proposed plan, as well as a scan of international markets conducted by Cereals Canada and the Canadian International Grains Institute,” the CGC said in a statement. “The Canadian Grain Commission carefully considered all feedback from breeders, variety owners, grain companies, producer groups, marketing organizations and end-use customers.”

The post The wheat class review process appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

However, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool president E.K. Turner told his annual meeting that while some farmers might diversify into feed grains, specialty crops, livestock and poultry, “there simply isn’t enough income from the alternatives available for all of us to make a living on the farm today at existing costs and prices.”

At the annual meeting of Manitoba Pool Elevators, Canada Grains Council secretary-general Don Dever said farmers would have to tailor production to the market. “If we continue to produce wheat, or any other grain, without production guidelines, no marketing agency we can conceive will be able to merchandise our total production.”

In a major policy speech in Ontario, federal Agriculture Minister H.A. (Bud) Olson said that while there would be no rigid controls on agriculture, voluntary programs could be developed to compensate farmers if they agreed to limit production, similar to programs in the U.S.

Harvest had not gone well — in another report Olson announced a plan for cash advances against the large amount of grain left unthreshed by an early winter.

On the same page was a story that may not have gone over well with cash-strapped farmers — grain workers in Vancouver were seeking a $1 per hour which would result in an overtime rate of $9 per hour.

The post Carryover and low quotas lead to Chinchillas? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This year it was over before the morning coffee break at the annual meeting of the Prairie Recommending Committee for Wheat, Rye and Triticale (PRCWRT) in Winnipeg Mar. 2.

Many participants said they thought it was a record for the group, and in no small way former federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz is the reason why.

The process has been streamlined — one of several reforms Ritz asked the PRCWRT and 16 other recommending committees to do when he wrote them in 2013.

“I am challenging you to think about the future of variety registration and how best to ensure that Canada has an approach going forward that encourages innovation in variety development and balances the interests of producers and the entire value chain,” Ritz wrote.

Some saw the letter as the beginning of the end for recommending committees, which its critics alleged were bureaucratic and an impediment to getting new, higher-yielding varieties to farmers faster.

• Read more: Just two varieties subject of polling

This year there were just 18 candidate cultivars before the PRCWRT, and a dozen weren’t up for voting because they’d already been supported for registration by the agronomic, disease and end-use evaluation teams, which results in an automatic registration recommendation, just one of the streamlining measures introduced since Ritz threw down the gauntlet. Before they’d come back to the full committee for further discussion and voting.

This year only six varieties came before the cultivar voting panel (CVP), a subgroup of the PRCWRT, whose members represent the entire wheat value chain including farmers, breeders, agronomists, plant pathologists, exporters and end-users. Up to 23 of the PRCWRT’s members serve on the CVP.

The CVP’s creation is another streamlining measure. It reduced the number of people voting, while still allowing all PRCWRT members to give expert insight.

The CVP also addresses Ritz’s concern that the process reflect the industry and its needs.

At the PRCWRT meeting in 2013, Fairfax, Alta., seed grower Henry Vos said farmers and end-users should decide what varieties to grow, not a committee. But this year Vos said creating the CVP and having wheat commission representatives on it, is an important change. He said in the past, farmers had little formal involvement or voice on the committee. Today he represents the Alberta Wheat Commission’s 14,000 farmer members on the CVP.

“I like the committee structure,” Vos said. “I like the input of all the individuals. On varieties where there are concerns we have the cultivar voting panel, which represents the whole value chain. That is the most important part.”

Much of what Ritz sought has been accomplished, said Brian Beres, a former PRCWRT chair and member of the ad hoc committee working on reforming the PRCWRT, following this year’s meeting. He said the group worked very hard along with the PRCWRT’s outgoing chair Curtis Pozniak, who is a durum breeder at the University of Saskatchewan, to streamline the process.

“We wanted to get ahead of this and complete it well before the (February) 2018 deadline,” Beres said.

Another improvement is a spreadsheet-based decision-making tool developed by Rob Graf, an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada winter wheat breeder at Lethbridge. First used four years ago by the agronomy team, it automatically assesses whether a new wheat meets the agronomic standards for its intended class.

The latest version flags varieties that don’t meet the standard. Shortcomings are later presented to the PRCWRT and discussed. There’s an opportunity to weigh what’s substandard, against a variety’s attributes. For example, a new wheat might have a poor yield, but outstanding resistance to a major disease such as fusarium head blight.

Having heard the discussion, CVP members vote in a secret ballot to support the “flagged” varieties for registration or not.

A version of the decision tool, has been designed for, and is being used by, the disease team. A similar tool is being considered by the quality team.

This addresses Ritz’s stated desire to make merit assessment more transparent, objective and predictable. But sometimes there are nuances, which is when the expertise of PRCWRT members comes into play, Graf said. If every decision regarding the merit of a new variety was black and white there would be no point in having a recommending committee, Graf has said in the past.

The recommending committee, especially for wheat, has had its critics, including the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA). It claimed the process was subjective and political.

“It will be the marketplace, farmers and end-use customers that decide on a variety rather than its fate being determined by a room full of competitors,” Cherilyn Nagel, a past WCWGA president, said in 2012 during a panel discussion at the Canada Grains Council’s annual meeting in Winnipeg.

Farmers have been frustrated when higher-yielding wheats, some of them from the United States, failed to be recommended because they didn’t meet the standards of the intended class. But recent changes to the wheat class system, including the creation of the new Canada Northern Hard Red, now means most new wheats have a class to fit in if they meet agronomy and disease standards.

Ritz’s letter reflected critics’ concerns. And while in 2013 some PRCWRT members said the criticism was based on misconceptions, its members quickly agreed to work on improvements. Several said in recent interviews the possibility that Ritz’s real goal was to scrap the PRCWRT, was a strong incentive.

While Ritz deserves credit because he got the ball rolling on reforms, one PRCWRT member said the PRCWRT deserves credit too. Instead of pushing back, it pushed forward, while preserving the integrity of the registration process and its value to the industry.

The post Wheat recommending committee reforms paying efficiency dividends appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.