The Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA), Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA); Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC) and Canadian Seed Institute announced plans Tuesday to seek approval from their respective boards and memberships for a four-way amalgamation.

No longer in the Seeds Canada hopper is the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA), whose membership “did not vote in favour” of a five-way amalgamation proposal during a vote held over six weeks ending in late August.

The amalgamation proposal dates back to a 2015 brief from the CSGA and CSTA, followed by a 2017 “green paper” on the “core ideas and context for the next-generation seed system.”

A 2018 white paper from the five organizations pointed out that, among other issues facing the seeds sector, the groups have “overlapping memberships and even directors, creating a significant draw on member time and resources.”

The CSGA, which would have been the largest participating group in a five-way merger, represents pedigreed seed producers, with a membership made up mainly of farmers. It also has statutory power to certify pedigreed seed.

The CSTA, meanwhile, represents seed companies including major multinationals such as BASF and Bayer as well as smaller seed grower/retailers. CSTA president Ellen Sparry said last month it’s hoped the CSGA would co-operate with a separate Seeds Canada organization, possibly through a formal agreement.

The four other organizations said Tuesday they now plan to build on the momentum from their previous votes in favour, and update the Seeds Canada ratification package before undertaking a new membership vote.

“The goal is to ensure that members and stakeholders, including seed growers, will see value in the new amalgamation package,” they said in a release.

Implementation work on the new plan will take place “concurrently,” with the goal of bringing Seeds Canada into existence in February 2021 pending board and membership approvals, the groups said.

“While there may be one less amalgamating partner, the vision for Seeds Canada to become the voice of the seed sector, including seed growers, analysts and the seed trade, remains the same,” the groups said.

The new plan’s goal, they said, is for Seeds Canada’s membership to eventually include national and provincial seed associations, “as well as seed growers from across the country.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Second Seeds Canada merger vote to proceed sans CSGA appeared first on Grainews.

I initially contacted AAFC to find out what their annual budget for wheat breeding is and what portion of that would come from producers. Elizabeth Foster, director general at AAFC, responded that “Given the multidisciplinary and integrated nature of AAFC’s wheat science program, which includes variety development, we are not in a position to provide
a reliable estimate of spending for wheat breeding in Western Canada.”

Their annual revenue from royalties for 2017-18 was $4 million.

Starting in 2015, the Western Grains Research Foundation contributed $20 million over five years to core funding for wheat breeding at AAFC and $1.4 million per year for barley breeding. These agreements end in 2020.

In 2013 a five-year wheat science agreement between producer groups and the federal government was announced as part of Growing Forward II. This $25.2 million of project-based funding included $12.5 million from the AAFC budget and $12.7 million of producer money from WGRF, Alberta Wheat Commission (AWC) and the Canadian Field Crop Research Alliance, an Eastern Canada- based farm group.

Growing Forward II expired in 2018 and its replacement — the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) — will be announced early in 2019. Lauren Comin, research director of AWC, said she could not discuss specifics of the announcement, but said that her organizations contribution to the cluster under CAP “will be approximately double what they were under GFII.”

The wheat commissions from all three prairie provinces are contributing to the CAP wheat cluster under the banner of the newly formed Canadian Wheat Research Coalition. This organization will likely also take over the core funding of wheat breeding at AAFC and other institutions when WGRF’s core agreements end in 2020 and 2021.

Comin said AWC’s annual research budget is $2.82 million with about 75 per cent of that going to genetics projects. This includes the $1.3 million that AWC contributed to the Growing Forward II wheat science cluster and $766,500 over five years to a three-way partnership between AWC, Canterra Seeds and AAFC to specifically develop CPS wheat varieties.

In 2016, WGRF announced five-year agreements with the Crop Development Centre at the University of Saskatoon. Those total $5.2 million for wheat breeding and $2.4 million for barley breeding.

A 2016 report produced for the CDC by JRG Consulting indicated that the Saskatchewan government has contributed just over $100 million to CDC for research and development between 1984 and 2014. During roughly that same time frame, WGRF contributed $33.7 million and royalties accounted for $26.8 million of CDC revenues. The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers became a major funder of CDC in 1997 and by the time their current agreement expires in 2020 they will have contributed $53 million of producer money to pulse variety development.

Another industry report compiled by JRG Consulting in 2015 concluded that producers and private industry each contributed about $6.2 million to wheat breeding each year, while the government and public universities contributed about $33.7 million per year. These numbers appear to have changed quite a bit in the last four years. WGRF alone contributed $8.3 to $9.9 million annually to wheat breeding between 2015 and 2018. According to a study by the Canadian Seed Trade Association which looks at private investment in plant breeding, their members are now investing $20.8 million annually in wheat breeding.

Since 1995 WGRF has contributed $96.9 million to wheat breeding in Western Canada and $16.4 million to barley breeding during the same time. Provincial wheat and barley commissions in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have also contributed directly to variety development, but those specific numbers were not readily available. Since those organizations are fairly new, their contribution to date is relatively small, but set to grow.

The post Producer contributions to variety development appeared first on Grainews.

It’s a question that’s generated heated conversation this fall. As a non-farmer, I’m hesitant to tell any producer groups that they’ve got a problem, because frankly I don’t know what the climate is like on these boards.

However, I do have a few thoughts.

There is no doubt that there are more male primary producers than female. But it’s also well known that there are many women who do farm alongside spouses or family. And the number of solo female operators under the age of 35 is a fast-growing demographic, according to the latest Census of Agriculture. There were over 1,000 farms run by female sole operators in that age group, versus over 8,700 run by solo men.

The number of women farming does vary by sector. However, I’d suggest that producer groups with an eye to the future should make sure they’re doing something to foster leadership potential in both young women and men. Many are doing just that with their young leader programs.

You may have heard of the study declaring that men are much more likely to apply for a job if they don’t meet all of the posted criteria. This is based on an internal personnel survey by Hewlett Packard. Whether this is due to gender differences in confidence, a female tendency to adhere to rules, or some other cause is up for debate.

But it’s something female friends and I have talked about over the last two or three years, and it generally matches our own experiences. And it’s something Leeann Minogue brought up when we were discussing the women on boards issue recently.

It’s likely that women with no board experience might need more nudging to step up than their male counterparts. Board orientations or other programs to initiate new board members can help (and benefit new male board members, too). A chance to help out with committees, event planning, or other activities before committing to the board could also be useful.

Another thing to think about is how the organization recruits new board members. In many organizations, much of this is done informally. Incumbent board members keep an eye out for people they think would be a good fit for the board, and then try to talk them into putting their names forward.

This is a practical approach, and helps ensure board succession. It sure beats the cricket chorus that sometimes greets the call for nominations during the general meeting. But critics of this approach say it often means incumbents recruit people just like them, which is a problem if you’re looking for diversity. Personally, as a board member, I’m not ready to chuck it from my toolbox yet, but I will be aware of the potential problems. And I think it’s important to encourage nominations from the floor during the general meeting.

I also think good governance is key to recruiting people to a board. Governance is one of those things most of us don’t fully appreciate or even think about until we witness a train wreck.

Many years ago, I was invited to step up to the board with a non-profit I’d regularly volunteered with. I attended one board meeting, where I witnessed a board member standing over the executive director, yelling at her. At the end of the meeting, this same board member shook my hand and said he looked forward to sparring with me.

It was not an effective recruitment strategy.

I hope that is an extreme, and rare, example of bad behaviour. But it happens. Most of us don’t have any desire to spend our spare time embroiled in that kind of board drama.

I don’t think solid policies and bylaws prevent every problem, but they can at least help a board deal with issues when they arise.

Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame Inductees

Speaking of women in leadership positions, all of the 2017 inductees into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame were women. Congratulations to Robynne Anderson, Patty Jones and Jean Szkotnicki.

Anderson was nominated by the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association, Canadian Seed Trade Association, SeCan and Stokes Seeds for her work in the seed industry. She worked as a legislative assistant to the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office, working on the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act. From there, she founded Issues Ink, an ag publisher and consulting firm that worked with the Canadian Seed Trade Association. Issues Ink had with several magazines in its stable, including Spud Smart and Seed World. She now runs an ag consulting firm called Emerging Ag. Anderson was also involved in the campaign to declare 2016 the International Year of the Pulses, along with several other achievements. Anderson is based in Calgary, Alberta.

Jones, nominated by Semex, is a well-known photographer in the dairy industry. She has snapped over 70,000 photographs of dairy cattle in the last 44 years, a feat that has changed the way livestock genetics are marketed. Jones is a regular at the Royal Winter Fair, taking photos of every dairy breed champion. She also lends her photography skills to 4-H shows, from the regional to the national level. Her photos of proven sires and daughters have been used as marketing tools by the Canadian artificial insemination industry. Jones also breeds dairy cattle on her own operation, Silvercap Holsteins, at Puslinch, Ontario.

Szkotnicki was nominated by the Canadian Animal Health Institute and Byron Beeler. She is a leader in antimicrobial resistance issues, helping ensure antibiotics are used properly. Over two decades, Szkotnicki helped close legislative loopholes that allowed medications and veterinary pharmaceuticals to be imported and used in Canada that weren’t approved by Health Canada (the release notes these loopholes were being abused). She’s also active on several boards, including the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity, and chairs the animal health product regulatory advisory committee to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Szkotnicki lives in Moffat, Ontario.

Szkotnicki, Jones, and Anderson join more than 210 inductees in the Hall of Fame. Since the Hall of Fame was established in 1960, five other women have been inducted. They include Cora Hind (inducted in 1963), Jessie Donalda Dunlap (1963), Adelaide Hoodless (1963), Ellen McLean (1967), and Helen McKercher (1978).

The post Reporter’s Notebook: Getting women on board(s) appeared first on Grainews.

Seed treated with fungicides or insecticides should never be allowed to enter the feed or food chain. In a recent blog, Lizabeth Stahl, an extension educator at the University of Minnesota wrote: “Treated seed is not to be used for food, feed or oil processing, and care must be taken to not contaminate grain going into the food or feed market. There is ZERO tolerance for treated seed in the export market, meaning that a single seed could result in the rejection of an entire load.”

Farmers should cover up treated seed spills with soil to ensure that birds and other wildlife don’t consume them. For unwanted, leftover seed, there may be several options for farmers to dispose of it both on and off-farm. One of the most important things is that farmers read the seed bag label so they know exactly what the seed has been treated with and the recommended practices for disposal.

One of the best disposal options is to plant the treated seed on fallow or unused ground, but Stahl advised, depending on the seed treatment, there may be restrictions on planting rate and depth. Some seed may be suitable for burial (again check the label) but should not be buried close to any water source.

Treated seed should never be composted or burned in a heating stove used inside a building (home, shop etc) because it can give off toxic fumes.

There may be a number of options for producers to dispose of treated seed off-farm, including disposal at a landfill site (depending on provincial regulations — see below). Some power plants and ethanol plants may also take treated seed as a fuel source.

The following is taken from the Canadian Seed Trade Association’s Guide to Treated Seed Stewardship, which includes guidelines about how to dispose of unwanted seed that has been treated with fungicides or insecticides.

Small quantities

For small quantities of unused, treated seed, the guide recommends:

1. Return excess treated seed to its original seed lot containers if the seed is intended for storage and subsequent planting.

2. Plant in fallow or other non-cropped areas of the farm in accordance to the seed treatment product label.

3. Unless restricted by label language, excess treated seed may be double planted in the turn rows at the end of the field or within a portion of the field.

Large quantities

For larger quantities of treated seed not acceptable for planting, the guide says:

1. Large quantities of treated seed in sealed and undamaged packages, bags or totes, in many cases, may be returned to your supplier.
2. Consult with your provincial authorities to ensure your disposal plan is in compliance with all appropriate regulations.
3. Disposal facilities will be required to have a Ministry of the Environment (or similar) permit to accept pesticide treated material (such as treated seed). Whether a waste management facility, power plant, cement kiln, ethanol plant, or municipal landfill is permitted to dispose of seed treated with a particular pesticide can only be confirmed by contacting the facility.
4. Your seed supplier may also be aware of permitted disposal facilities in your area. Treated seed can be land filled at a Class I or II landfill if it is classed as non-hazardous waste according to Provincial waste control regulations. If it is classed as hazardous waste by provincial regulations, check with provincial waste disposal regulations and agencies to determine if it can be disposed in a Class 1 landfill, and to determine locations of Class 1 landfills.

Remember, there is zero tolerance for treated kernels in the commodity grain channel when the treated seed tag states the seed is not for food, feed, or oil purposes.

The post Getting rid of that treated seed appeared first on Grainews.

Wright has been involved with the CSTA for a number of years. In that time, he has served on the board of directors for two years and on the executive for three years.

Wright has a strong connection to agriculture, a foundation that was laid in childhood at his family’s cash crop farm and farm equipment dealership. During his career he has held several roles with Monsanto Canada since 2000.

Currently, he is the Canada corn and soybean portfolio lead, which includes introducing new traits and the expansion of corn and soybeans in Western Canada.

The CSTA board includes: Todd Hyra, SeCan, 1st Vice-President; Georges Chaussé, La Coop Fédérée, 2nd Vice-President; Brent Derkatch, Canterra Seeds, Past President; Doug Alderman, Pride Seeds; Darrell Dziver, BrettYoung Seeds; Wayne Gale, Stokes Seeds Limited; Bruce Harrison, Crop Production Services Canada; Bob Hart, Sevita International; Duane Johnson, Syngenta Canada; George Lammertsen, Bayer CropScience; Brian Nadeau, Nadeau Seeds; Roger Rotariu, NuFarm; Ellen Sparry, C&M Seeds; Marty Vermey, Dow Seeds; and Jim Schweigert the American Seed Trade Association representative.

“I have the pleasure of working with the group of tireless individuals who make up the CSTA board of Directors” Wright said. “While we have a lot of work to do over the next year, I’m confident that this is the group that will continue to bring our mission into action”.

The post CSTA welcomes its 66th president appeared first on Grainews.

The database is a joint initiative of CSTA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Variety Registration Office (VRO) and the Plant Breeders Rights Office (PBRO). It will combine data from the Database of Varieties Registered in Canada (accessed from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website) and the PBRO in one location. The database will include information on agricultural varieties, versus horticultural or ornamental varieties.

Brought in by demand

The new database was developed this spring as a response to requests from seed sector stakeholders — seed growers, producers, grain handlers and retailers, seed treaters and cleaners — for easier access to variety registration and plant breeders’ rights information on crop varieties.

“It came together out of necessity,” says Anthony Parker, commissioner of the PBRO. “Those in the value chain wanted information about the status of varieties. CSTA offered to take a monthly data dump from the PBRO. They synthesized that information and created an easy tool for those interested in varieties that have variety registration and also those that have PBR protection.”

Previously, users had to separately search the PBRO and VRO websites for relevant information about varieties. Now, users will be able to search the new database by crop kind, variety name, and the type of PBR protection.

“All the information that we provide is publically available on both websites — the PBRO and the VRO — but CSTA has packed it into an easier format,” says Parker.

UPOV 91

The landscape of the Canadian seed industry is changing under the Agricultural Growth Act, which became law on February 27. This Act included a significant update to Canada’s Plant Breeders Rights Act (PBRA). As part of the new PBRA, Canada subscribes to the newest convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV 91.

Since the Act became law, the number of new applications for agricultural crops has significantly increased, says Crosby Devitt, executive director of CSTA.

“Just prior to the introduction of the Bill, the PBRO received approximately 80 new agricultural varieties per year,” says Devitt. “This past year, as the legislation moved through the last stages of Parliament and came into force, the PBRO received applications for 148 new agriculture varieties. This trend is only expected to continue.”

Devitt says the new PBR legislation has brought opportunities for investment and new varieties for producers.

“However, with opportunity comes obligation,” he says. “We wanted to make sure that timely and important information is available to CSTA members, farmers, and everyone across the value chain.”

CSTA has been leading an outreach campaign to update stakeholders on the changes to Plant Breeders’ Rights in Canada. “We have been working with the Partners in Innovation, a group of 20 diverse farm organizations and value chain groups from across Canada, our members, and other partners to get the word out as widely as possible,” says Devitt.

Parker says Canada’s adoption of UPOV ’91 makes it especially key for stakeholders to have easy access to information about their rights and obligations. “Varieties that were granted protection until UPOV ’78 continue to live out that law until they have expired or been surrendered. Everything that was pending in the system will be under UPOV ’91.”

In the database, the type of PBR protection for each variety is indicated by the certification marks “UPOV 1978” or “UPOV 1991.” Devitt urges anyone interested in the system to visit the database at cdnseed.org.

The post Plant breeder’s rights info online appeared first on Grainews.