Canadian beef producers will no longer have to send samples to other countries to have genotyping done.

Read: More Agribition coverage.

GIFS and the Canadian Beef Improvement Network announced a new strategic partnership at Canadian Western Agribition. Funding for the state-of-the-art equipment came from Farm Credit Canada’s accelerated breeding program at GIFS, announced last year, and Prairies Economic Development Canada.

WHY IT MATTERS: Genotyping is expected to play a larger role in breeding improvements as the industry advances. Being able to do the work in Canada will eliminate shipment delays and extended turnaround times for testing.

CBIN’s Sandy Russell said the beef industry has been working on this for years, but in the last seven months everything came together. Until now, the tests and storage of the information have been done in the United States and Australia.

“It’s important we work with our partners around the world, but we need our data and our resources here within Canada to be able to help support Canadian beef producers to keep supporting those world class genetics, world class beef that we’re all used to,” she said.

Russell said producers have been genotyping for a long time and it’s a cost they are used to paying. A Canadian system will create efficiencies and value, she said, but not higher prices.

Genotyping isn’t likely to replace visual appraisal.

“This is one more tool to help us do a better job of predicting the production we’re going to make in the future,” she said.

GIFS chief executive officer Steven Webb agreed.

“When you look at the FCC breeding acceleration program at GIFS, it actually links the genotype or the letters and the DNA with what is actually looked at in the field — how does it perform, whether it’s a plant, a cow, a pig. It complements and augments what the phenotypes are and helps us understand what the genotypes are.”

Understanding both visual appearance and genetic makeup can help make prediction models to drive genetic gain.

GIFS’ role is to bring the technical expertise and turn the data into information producers can actually use to make decisions faster.

“Our role is kind of the trusted honest data broker and data security,” he said.

“The data that we generate can add additional value to the industry participants by being able to have it all in one place, to be able to scale it up and leverage it for new traits and technologies for the industry,” Webb said.

Sarah Van Schothorst, CEO of the Canadian Gelbvieh Association, said the partnership represents innovation that supports producers.

“Our support of CBIN reflects the shared belief that genetic progress is strongest when we work together,” she said.

“Through the strategic partnership with GIFS, CGA has access to high throughput genotyping, sovereign data storage and management and innovative advancements in data analytics.”

This will resonate throughout the sector as breeders, commercial producers and others are able to use accurate credible genetic information, she said.

Van Schothorst said having the information in Canada will eliminate risks and delays associated with cross-border shipments, ensure secure storage and management, improve decision making to align seedstock and commercial customer needs and support long-term breed management goals.

Canadian Simmental Association president Randy Noble said producers are excited about the opportunity.

“We’ve heard all the reasons why it makes sense for Canadian seed stock producers to get involved, and the value that brings us in security of data and not having to experience some of the challenges working with companies outside of Canada,” he said.

“It’s all about helping us make the decisions so that we’re confident the seed stock that we’re producing is the right product for the industry.”

There is increasing emphasis on data and how to manage and use it, and Noble said this is another step in a continuous improvement journey.

The post Beef DNA testing now available in Canada appeared first on Grainews.

The trials at the Ian M. Morrison Research Station in Carman, Man., come at a critical time. BLS isn’t new to Canada, but infections are being reported with increasing regularity across the Prairies.

“Bacterial leaf streak has been detected in Canada since the 1920s but we are seeing the re-emergence of it. And it’s worsening rapidly,” said Dr. Shaheen Bibi, a plant pathologist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Manitoba in Dr. Dilantha Fernando’s lab. Fernando and his BLS team lead the Carman trials.

Identification can be tricky

BLS often goes unreported because it mimics other cereal leaf diseases. Farmers may mistake it for tan spot or, in later stages, confuse necrotic lesions with natural senescence. Accurate diagnosis often requires lab expertise or a trained eye. That diagnostic challenge makes scouting all the more important during the growing season.

The disease is caused by Xanthomonas translucens, a bacterium with two pathovars of concern in Prairie cereals: pv. undulosa, which infects both wheat and barley, and pv. translucens, which primarily infects barley.

On leaves, the disease shows up as long, translucent streaks — hence the name translucens — that begin as small water-soaked lesions. Under wet conditions, lesions may exude a milky or yellow ooze — a key diagnostic feature that separates BLS from fungal leaf spots such as tan spot. As lesions mature, leaves lose photosynthetic area, and the flag leaf in particular, the part of the plant that contributes the most to grain fill, can be severely damaged.

Severe infections destroy photosynthetic tissue, and anecdotal reports suggest yield reductions of up to 50 per cent. The potential for loss is especially high because damage peaks at the flag-leaf stage.

But yield isn’t the only economic concern. The same bacterium can also infect heads, causing a symptom known as black chaff, which can reduce marketability by downgrading grain due to discoloration. Infected seed may also carry the pathogen, creating problems for seed use and resale.

Black chaff appears as dark streaks or bands across glumes and awns, sometimes alternating with healthy green tissue in awned varieties. In severe cases, glumes may turn completely black, and exudates can give heads a water-soaked appearance.

Conditions matter

BLS thrives during warm days, cool nights and in moist environments. Wetter years tend to bring more problems than drier ones, and areas that are naturally arid are less prone to outbreaks.

“Last year at Carman, we saw more of it because it was so moist,” said Bibi. “This year, not so much.”

Moisture also drives how the disease moves within fields. Rain splash, wind-driven rain, irrigation and even mechanical activities can help spread bacteria from plant to plant. On the Prairies, irrigation is a particular concern, especially in southern Alberta, where irrigated acres are more common. That’s one reason Fernando’s BLS team uses sprinkler irrigation on their Carman plots: to create the humid canopy conditions that allow the disease to develop.

The bacterium is primarily seed-borne but can also survive in crop residue, volunteers and perennial grasses. Because it is bacterial, standard fungicides, whether seed treatments or foliar sprays, are ineffective.

Management today

With no resistant varieties thus far in Canada, and no chemical options, growers are left with cultural practices and careful scouting to reduce risk. To help farmers manage the threat, a group of Prairie cereal organizations, including SaskWheat, SaskBarley, Alberta Wheat, Alberta Barley and the Manitoba Crop Alliance, released a joint fact sheet in 2023 outlining key practices and scouting strategies to reduce inoculum levels and slow the spread of BLS.

Start with clean seed. Infected seed is the main source of inoculum. If BLS is suspected in a field, especially when black chaff is visible, harvested grain should not be used for seed. Certified seed is not routinely screened for Xanthomonas translucens in Canada, so growers are encouraged to ask about testing or send samples to independent labs.

Stretch the rotation. Extending the break between cereal crops to more than two years helps reduce inoculum in residue. Volunteers and grassy weeds should be controlled to cut down on secondary hosts.

Scout carefully. Begin at herbicide timing and continue through senescence, with extra passes after storms that might wound plants. The best time to distinguish BLS is at the flag-leaf stage, when translucent streaks are most visible. Avoid walking fields in wet conditions, since the disease can spread on boots and clothing.

Manage irrigation. In irrigated areas, water management can reduce risk. Practices such as irrigating in the evening when the canopy is already wet with dew, letting the canopy dry between sets, and avoiding unnecessary irrigation can shorten the hours of leaf wetness that favour bacterial spread.

Assume susceptibility. No Prairie varieties are currently rated for resistance to BLS. Some U.S. wheats (Glenn, Faller, Prosper, Bolles) and barleys (AAC Connect, AAC Synergy) have shown partial resistance, but local screening is still underway. For now, farmers should plan as though their chosen variety is susceptible.

Research directions

Fernando’s BLS team is running controlled trials in Carman with inoculated seed and irrigation to create conditions for infection. The aim is to better understand how much seed infestation translates into seedling infection, how moisture drives spread, and whether genetic resistance is possible.

Fernando’s lab is tackling several angles at once. One project is characterizing Canadian isolates of the bacterium — collecting strains from different provinces to see how diverse they are and how that diversity affects disease severity. Another is mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs), regions of DNA linked to traits such as disease resistance that breeders might eventually use. The team is also testing biocontrols that have shown promise in the greenhouse.

Most notably, they’re looking at cereal genes already known to confer disease resistance. The Manitoba team is focusing on two in particular — Lr34 and Lr67 — named for the leaf rust (Lr) resistance they provide. Both are broad-spectrum, meaning they protect against more than one disease. Lr67, for example, has shown some resistance to fusarium head blight and is most effective in mature plants.

Early trial results suggest Lr67 lines may show more resistance than Lr34. It’s too early to call, but the work could point to varieties with at least partial protection against bacterial leaf streak.

For now, clean seed, long rotations, careful scouting and mindful irrigation remain the most practical defences against a disease that is re-establishing itself across the Prairies. But resistance research offers a hint that the playbook could expand in the years to come.

“What we want to see is whether there are any lines showing resistance to BLS that could be used in breeding programs in the future,” said Bibi.

Article updated Nov. 6, 2025 to replace photo at top.

The post Researchers chase resistance to bacterial leaf streak in Prairie cereals appeared first on Grainews.

“What we have discovered very recently is that not only do these two pathogens cause disease, but they interact in such a way that the disease is increased, even when you grow a blackleg-resistant canola variety,” University of Manitoba plant science professor Dilantha Fernando said. “It appears blackleg resistance cannot be maintained in the presence of the verticillium.”

The finding — first seen in greenhouse trials and now being tested in the field in plot at Carman, Man. — suggests that even varieties carrying strong blackleg resistance genes might suffer heavier damage if verticillium stripe is also present in the field.

Fernando’s research suggests that interaction between the two diseases could hurt yields more than either disease alone.

“The work in the greenhouse has shown this interaction,” he said.

Other work has hinted at the same pattern. A recent study using blackleg-resistant hybrids (45H31 and CS2000) found that co-inoculation with the two disease pathogens increased blackleg severity and yield loss. In that case, the hybrids’ resistance mostly held. Fernando’s results point to a more complete breakdown.

Double trouble

Blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans), a serious fungal disease of canola, has been spreading through the Prairies since it was first confirmed in northeast Saskatchewan in 1975. Genetics are a key tool keeping the disease in check, although experts in recent years have noted virulence changes complicating some of those resistance ratings.

Verticillium stripe (Verticillium longisporum) is newer. The stem-degrading, yield-reducing disease was first found in Manitoba in 2014 and has since spread into Saskatchewan. There are no varieties registered as resistant to verticillium, although seed companies are playing with varieties that seem more tolerant, and recent Manitoba research may have a line on a physical plant trait that may make infection more difficult.

Both diseases are common in Manitoba. Last year, the province’s canola disease survey found basal blackleg infections in 77 per cent of surveyed fields, stem blackleg infections in 58 per cent of fields and verticillium stripe in 60 per cent of fields.

Greenhouse to farm

While in the greenhouse, Fernando’s team was able to methodically test the disease interaction with blackleg resistance genes commonly used in Canadian canola,

So far, he said, his team hasn’t seen a single Canadian R gene that performs well when verticillium is also present. And while Fernando admits the number of R genes in his collection is limited, he’s certain about what he’s been observing.

“In a fairly confident way, I can say that the R genes that are available are not standing up well,” he said.

Still, greenhouse trials and the reality of the field are different things. Fernando wanted a real-world test.

He got the chance this year. Since 2014, Carman’s research station had enforced strict protocols to keep verticillium out — boot cleaning, washing equipment and avoiding suspect fields. “This was very well followed. But as a plant pathologist, I knew that that is not going to be clean forever,” Fernando said.

The tiny microsclerotia on verticillium are as small as dust particles, and he suspects they could easily bypass biocontrol protocols by riding in on the wind.

“All of a sudden last year, almost every field had verticillium,” he noted. “We went and took samples and also collected DNA from soil. We found that the pathogen was present.”

It was “the best thing that could happen, happened, where now we have natural verticillium inoculum, we have natural black leg inoculum, and we can put the varieties that carry different R genes and now test for the interaction,” the researcher noted.

It would have been nearly impossible to run the experiment in the field if they had to inoculate plants themselves, he added. That would have required separate treatments for blackleg first, verticillium first, and then both in sequence. That approach works in the greenhouse. In the field though, natural inoculant provides a much easier way to study the interactions without researcher interference and under normal exposure pressures from a mix of pathogen profiles.

The team proceeded to plant varieties with different R genes in plots where both pathogens occur naturally.

The Carman station already had a qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction) testing method — a DNA-based tool that can detect specific pathogens in plant or soil samples — for both blackleg and verticillium. That let Fernando’s team quickly confirm that the two were often found in the same plant. They sent half the samples to an Alberta lab and kept half in Manitoba to further verify. They got identical results.

They’ll soon see official numbers from those field efforts. Fernando expects that by the end of August, when disease ratings are completed, they will learn whether any resistance genes were able to hold up under natural infection conditions.

Caution from the canola council

Chris Manchur, agronomy specialist with the Canola Council of Canada (CCC), was aware of Fernando’s preliminary results.

“It is too early to tell how significant of an impact this specific R-gene and verticillium interaction would have on yield in the field, but it underscores the importance of effective blackleg management to prevent any additive effects of both blackleg and verticillium stripe causing yield loss,” he said.

He added, however, that “these results are still early and I would look to waiting until results are replicated and verified through different tests before stating this as a significant development.”

Manchur advised farmers make sure they’ve brushed up on their disease identification skills. “Blackleg and verticillium can occur together, but the CCC has resources to help identify the diseases in the field. If you’re still unsure, there are options to send samples in for DNA testing,” he said.

While there are limited tools for verticillium, he said blackleg can still be managed with cultivar choice, seed treatments, and foliar fungicides at the two-leaf stage.

Looking ahead

Fernando’s work will continue through 2025 with more Carman trials, pathogen tracking and gene-expression studies. Assuming the team gets similar field results as their greenhouse trials, they face the future question of why the interaction is having such a result.

They’re already running tests in a controlled environment — inoculating with blackleg first, verticillium first, and both at once — and using fluorescently tagged strains to track how each pathogen moves inside the plant. They plan to use transcriptomic analysis (the study of all RNA messages a cell makes to see which genes are active at a given time) to see which plant genes are disrupted.

Fernando is also interested in the potential of targeting what are known as susceptibility genes — plant genes that actually help pathogens infect. Knocking those out could make plants tougher, even without adding new resistance genes.

“It is going to be one step at a time,” he said, adding that “by the end of July next year, we should have a very good handle on what’s going on.”

The post Verticillium may undermine canola blackleg resistance appeared first on Grainews.

That’s according to Jordan Thomas, an assistant professor with the University of Missouri’s division of animal sciences. He challenged Beef Day attendees at Grey Bruce Farmers’ Week to approach heifer replacement as though they were hiring new employees to balance workforce retirements.

“What would it take to hire a replacement heifer into a commercial cow-calf operation?” he asks. Current costs are between US$390-$450 per calf, according to the fall and spring calving rates in the U.S., falling behind feed as the highest production expense.

Unlike most selection processes, genetic merit and visual phenotype are the final boxes Thomas checks. Instead, a calf must meet the minimum requirements of being structurally sound, in good health, with an easy disposition, and being an early conceiver with a low likelihood of calving difficulty.

READ MORE: First-calf heifers need to be prepared for rebreeding

“There’s some opportunity at birth to think about replacement heifer selection. I’m going to try to convince you today that, just like she can’t be BVD PI (bovine viral diarrhea, persistently infected), she can’t be a late-conceiving heifer.”

Studies show late-conceiving heifers exit the herd faster, increasing annual replacement costs, Thomas says. Early-conceiving animals generally produce higher weaning weights in subsequent years and reduce yearly cow replacement costs.

Seventy per cent of heifers born in the first 21 days of calving season will cycle before their first breeding session, with 81 per cent calving within the first 21 days in their first calving season.

In contrast, cycling before their first breeding season drops to 58 per cent for calves born in the second 21 days of calving season, with only 69 per cent of those calving early. For those born in the third 21-day calving season, early breeding season cycling drops to 39 per cent and early calving to 65 per cent.

“Some of it’s because (early-born heifers) are bigger and have more weight; they’re better developed. Because puberty is associated with age, the earlier-born heifer tends to conceive a little bit earlier and stay in the herd a little bit longer,” Thomas explains. “If you’re really limited on the number of heifers you can develop, it’s not a bad idea to emphasize keeping back the earliest-born heifers.”

A 2018 study on target weights for heifers, traditionally set at 65 per cent of mature weight, says U.S. cow size had increased 32 per cent since 1978 and that forage-based heifers bred at 55 per cent became profitable at three to four years old.

While this could lower conception rates by two per cent, it’s negligible considering feed savings and calf revenue — a development cost-reduction opportunity of US$574-$644 per heifer, compared to drylot animals raised to 65 per cent target weight.

Reproductive track scoring (RTS) performed 30 to 60 days before breeding could narrow heifer selection through pelvic measurement and puberty assessment of one, indicating an infantile pre-pubertal tract, to five for a cycling heifer.

The Show-Me-Select heifer replacement database of 44,500 heifers indicates high pregnancy rates for animals with four or five scores, improving fixed-time artificial insemination success and weaning weight.

Cow calipers

“A great component of that pre-breeding exam would be pelvic measurement,” Thomas says. “This is a tool to potentially minimize the incidence of dystocia.”

A Rice Pelvimeter measures the pelvis’s vertical and horizontal dimensions for a total pelvic area as a calving ease indicator in combination with calving-ease bull breeding, as both impact dystocia potential.

For example, a height of 13.5 cm by a width of 11.5 cm is a pelvic measurement of 155.25 square centimetres, slightly exceeding the 150 cm2 Thomas suggests as the minimum heifers should meet to remain in the herd.

Yearling pelvic growth is approximately eight to 10 cm2 per month or 0.25 to 0.3 cm2 a day, so those failing the initial exam can be remeasured during pregnancy diagnosis for accuracy, especially for later-born heifers.

A heifer with a super-large pelvis can experience dystocia with a 95-lb. calf and no issue with a 55-lb. calf, whereas a heifer with a small pelvis would.

“If you’re going to solve the dystocia problem in heifers, you can’t just do one thing,” he says. “It’s not going to manage the problem entirely to just use calving ease bulls. We have to do some management of the females.”

Screening out females with an unacceptably small pelvis area is an effective tool for early replacement heifer elimination.

Thomas says there are many methods of integrating genetics and phenotypes for fertility and productivity into replacement animal selection.

Each producer has a system for who stays in the herd. Some put bulls in 21 days earlier to see which heifers conceive — which works from a business perspective, rather than a genetic selection one. Others use a veterinarian to assess which conceived early and sell those that don’t, and others develop almost every heifer.

“Everybody’s operation is a little bit different, right? You might have a comparative advantage of grass access and low-cost feed resource access, right?” Thomas says. “Some people’s comparative advantage is they’ve got a dry lot and cheap feed resources, and the economics may incline you to heavier development endpoints in that model.”

The post Reframing the view on heifer retention appeared first on Grainews.

While traditionally the realm of the seedstock industry, commercial DNA testing and changes in the way we manage cattle have led to some big changes in how we think about genetic selection. DNA testing, in broad terms, means using a DNA sample from an animal and performing laboratory testing on that sample to identify parts of the genome that animal contains.

A brief outline of the process: DNA testing starts by collecting a tissue sample or hair follicles from an animal. This sample is then sent to a laboratory where the DNA is extracted and “read.”

New tests will typically read 50,000 to 100,000 pieces of an animal’s DNA. While we have the capability to read millions or even billions of DNA pieces, with 50,000 to 100,000 we can do a really good job of identifying important genetic characteristics of the animal at an affordable price point. Some of the DNA pieces we read are “associated” with specific traits. For example, if a calf carries two copies of the polled gene, specific pieces of DNA will “light up.”

For another example: we may know specific pieces of DNA that are associated with longevity. By looking directly to see if these variants of DNA are present, we can assess the genetic potential of the animal being tested for longevity.

DNA testing can range from sire verification at a roughly $20 price point, specific characteristic testing such as horned/polled or colour at additional cost, or broader trait evaluation at $40 and up. This broader spectrum can include measures of longevity, growth, hybrid vigour, feed efficiency or other traits. Additionally, these slightly higher cost tests can also be used in genetic evaluations (calculation of EPD).

There are various ways we can use this information and incorporate it into our commercial operations.

1 – Use DNA-tested sires

One of the easiest ways for a commercial producer to benefit from DNA testing is to purchase sires that have been DNA-tested prior to sale. This has several benefits. First, the pedigree on the bull being purchased is confirmed with DNA testing, meaning you are getting the DNA you expect when you purchase a sire.

Secondly, high-density DNA testing can be used in genetic evaluation to increase the accuracy of the EPD on the sire you are buying. The inclusion of high-density DNA in a genetic evaluation is roughly equivalent to the knowledge gained from a full calf crop. In other words, DNA can increase the accuracy of EPDs and reduce the risk to a commercial buyer of ending up with the wrong bull for their needs. Finally, when a sire is tested, those DNA results reside in a computer, and we may not need to retest the sire if we wish to start testing in our own cowherd and learning about factors such as sire efficiency and parentage.

2 – DNA-test replacement heifers

A way to get into DNA over time is to focus on testing replacement heifers. In a perfect world, we would test all candidate heifers, then use DNA-derived information to aid in our selection decisions; however, if we’re really constricted on budget, the next best choice might be to test the heifers we choose to breed. Testing heifers allows us over time to develop a fully tested cow herd.

3 – Test the cow herd

This is a full-on commitment, to collect DNA from every cow and begin using the resulting information to inform management decisions. Again, if budget is a concern, there may be groups of cows more valuable to test than others. For example, if you have a set of cows used to generate herd replacements, then these may be a priority for testing over a terminal type set of cows.

4 – Test the calf crop

This approach involves testing all calves (steers and heifers) and can be used for determining management or parentage verification to track cattle through to harvest with full individual data. This results in heifers entering the cowherd over time that are tested, and may also enable tracking of feeder calves on an individual basis with accurate pedigree.

The balance of investment in testing versus the potential return to management is going to vary tremendously across operations and will also impact the number of cattle tested, which cattle are tested, and the types of tests used.

Sire verification is an example. We may want to run multi-sire pastures and determine both which sires are working, but also only keep replacement heifers from specific bulls. Or we may want to step up an extra level and obtain DNA marker test results for various traits we can use to select replacements.

We may further refine our use of the technology to develop a total genetic management program, in which we pre-emptively mate specific sires and dams and match DNA with targeted end points in mind.

DNA testing is continually improving and accelerating the pace with which we can advance our operations, and is a technology that likely fits your operation today, although at varying degrees for individual farms, even if it’s simply through purchasing tested sires.

The post DNA testing can have value in commercial beef sector appeared first on Grainews.

This has been happening for a lot longer in the purebred cattle industry and a lot of the reasons are the same.

If one is considering AI in cattle or increasing what you do, this article will review the pros, then outline some other considerations.

There has always been a very high percentage of dairy cattle bred with AI. Dairy farmers now use the best genetics for milk production with sexed semen and then on lower-end cows with beef bulls in an AI program.

There are also several marketers of beef bulls where the cost differs, depending if one is using semen in commercial cattle or purebred cattle herds.

Artificial insemination has always been a way to individually match the cow to a bull deemed to be the best fit. A producer who likes specific genetics and wants to steer the growth of his or her herd in a certain direction can accomplish their goals quickly with AI.

What has allowed more people to use this well-established technology is the fact that synchronized breeding of groups makes efficient use of labour and handling facilities. The labour of heat detection is somewhat gone, but not entirely. You can make the best usage of AI technicians and top-end bulls can be owned and utilized by several owners. One owner may have the walking rights and others can use semen collected from these bulls.

There is a lot more collection of bulls’ semen for owners’ use only by AI service providers and other CFIA-licensed veterinarians. If a bull has multiple shared owners, they all can use this owners’-use-only semen, as they are legitimate owners of the bull.

Synchronization protocols have improved over the years, whereby most in the beef world run what they call a seven-day co-sync program, which includes an intravaginal device that releases progesterone. These go by the name of CIDR or PRID and each have a different gun to gently and cleanly place them in the vagina of the female you are synchronizing.

The prostaglandins the veterinary community uses in these programs to bring the cattle into heat have not changed in decades, but there have been some changes to the GNRH products you use in the synchronization.

Most of the products, like Fertiline or Fertagyl, are the same. One with a different molecular formula has been out for a year, called Gonavet.

Whoever is helping set up your synchronization program, be it your veterinarian, embryo transplant veterinarian, AI specialist or even nutritionist, will have their preferences. The main drugs to set up the programs need to come from your veterinarian. All large-animal cow-calf veterinarians will have a specific protocol they follow, as timing with everything is critical.

It is extremely important that nutrition, including minerals and vitamins as well as energy and protein, are looked after in the diet. Lice and internal worms need to be at a minimum and of course cows should be vaccinated for the main reproductive diseases, IBR and BVD, and others if prevalent in your area.

Cows and heifer calves need to be in good body condition because if they aren’t cycling naturally, a synchronization program will not help them. Just like with natural breeding, all these nutritional and health factors must be looked after to get maximal conception rate.

You or your AI person need to be very up to date on the best way to thaw semen, get the gun ready, load the straw and get the cow/heifer clean in order for the dose to enter the vagina and thread the cervix.

A good handling system is imperative, because with the synchronized cattle, the third time through the chute is the one in which they are inseminated.

At breeding time, the team must be co-ordinated; I never set up more cows than the technician or technicians can process in two hours. That way there is no worry about getting your timing out — and it is critical, as the name “timed AI” would suggest.

Conception rates can be right up there with those from natural breeding, with better setups and AI education.

Remember, too, that when synchronize-breeding a large group, those that don’t conceive will be somewhat synchronized in their heats the next time around, so will still need a fair amount of bull power unless they are being bred with AI a second time.

It is great to see the enthusiasm with the next generation of cattle producers taking up AI.

Labour can be a bit higher with AI, but genetic gain could be higher and the individual mating plan can have advantages.

There can be cost savings on bulls and with the ability to freeze semen, the genetics of a bull can be retained and used long after that bull is gone.

Most producers put lots of effort and thought into the next breeding season. AI has really been rejuvenated and with all the new technologies of sexed semen and synchronized breeding, lots of options are available.

Whether using better-quality bulls or AI, the genetic gain in increased performance, health, feed efficiency and reproduction can yield better returns.

The post Increasing AI use has many advantages appeared first on Grainews.

The 23-year project started in the late 1990s, when a research group led by Jens Léon started an experiment into how farming conditions affect plant genetic material. Researchers first increased genetic variation by crossing high-yield barley with a wild form. They then planted the barley in two neighbouring fields so that both populations grew in similar soil under the same climatic conditions.

One field was farmed conventionally, with researchers applying pesticide and mineral fertilizers. The other was organic. Weeds were mechanically controlled and manure was applied as fertilizer. Each fall, they retained and planted some seed from each field, ensuring the seed from the organic field was re-sown in the organic field, and vice versa. Researchers didn’t look for any particular traits as they retained seed from the harvest.

They also analyzed the genomes of grain from both fields each year, looking at allele frequency to measure how the barley was adapting over generations. Alleles are paired genes that control specific traits, such as flower colour or plant height. As time goes on, alleles that help a plant survive in its current environment will be found more often.

For the first 12 years, allele frequency changed in the same way in both fields. Researchers interpreted this shift as an indication that the diverse barley populations were adapting to identical local conditions such as climate, soil and day length.

However, allele frequencies then diverged between the conventional and organic populations. The organically grown barley developed gene variants that influenced root structure and were less sensitive to water or nutrient deficiencies. Researchers think this is because of the greater variation in nutrient availability in organic farming.

The organic barley remained more genetically heterogeneous, while the conventionally farmed barley become more genetically uniform over the years. Allele frequencies of the organic culture also varied more widely.

Researchers believe greater variation in environmental forces in the organic system led to more genetic heterogeneity, allowing the plants to adapt to changes.

The results underline the need for varieties that are adapted to organic growing conditions. Such varieties will be more robust and deliver higher yields. Researchers also saw value in crossbreeding plants with older or even wild varieties, even when developing cultivars for conventional farming. Read the release online here.

The post Science Brief: Plants adapt genes to farming methods appeared first on Grainews.

“The most yield potential a crop has is when the seed goes into the ground,” says Paul Sullivan, CCA with Sullivan Agro Inc. “After that, stresses like emergence, weather, nutrient availability and timing all pull back on the total genetic potential of the seed.”

READ ALSO: New corn hybrids for 2025

Selecting the right hybrid with the most genetic potential to meet yield goals while managing local production stressors can be achieved, but Sullivan reminds farmers that they need to invest time in researching, discussing seed options and consulting advisors, such as seed representatives and agronomists.

Here are three considerations to help select the right hybrids for your farm:

Maximize ROI

Hybrid selection is one of the biggest determining factors when it comes to yield. And in many cases, yield is the greatest determining factor of a farmer’s return on investment (ROI).

“Selecting a hybrid that is appropriate for your farm and growing region is the first step,” says Ben Rosser, an Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness (OMAFA) corn specialist. “Public and private corn trials are conducted across the province, so do your research, ask your neighbours about their experiences and your seed rep for the most local information on performance and yield.”

Not only should bushels be considered as part of economic potential, but other economic factors need to be considered too, such as drydown capabilities to decrease potential drying costs; seed cost; and pest or disease tolerance that can reduce quality and production performance.

“Hybrid maturity and end use markets also need to fit into the selection criteria, especially when it comes to managing risk tolerance for weather and field conditions,” says Rosser, who notes that soil conditions, planting and target harvest timing also need to be considered for each field when selecting the right maturity.

Marty Vermey, senior agronomist with Grain Farmers of Ontario, also points out that, since corn is driven by heat, selecting the appropriate heat units and relative maturity go hand-in-hand. “Maturity will differ across growing regions and between hybrids, so be sure to select appropriately for your farm,” he says.

Match your management style

“Every hybrid is different and requires a different management approach to maximize genetic potential,” Vermey says.

Knowing more about hybrid genetics allows farmers to take advantage of seed strengths and farm around the weaknesses. Management considerations such as population, planting window, soil type, fertility, crop protection products and harvest timing all need to be accounted for.

“Ask yourself what problems you want to solve through seed traits,” says Vermey, who recommends farmers make a list to help evaluate their risks and how their management approach will support selected hybrids.

Problems, or risks, can include weed control, insect pressures, standability, emergence issues, soil conditions, desired planting and harvesting windows, and nutrient concerns.

“Farmers need to match hybrids to overall management styles and equipment,” Vermey says. “Individual field conditions also need to be accounted for when it comes to aligning corn seed with crop management too.”

Trait resistance is something else farmers need to consider, especially in areas where corn rootworm resistance has emerged. Vermey reminds any farmers who are growing corn-on-corn follow OMAFA recommended management practices — and use trait technology wisely.

While resistance to European corn borer, for example, hasn’t been identified in Ontario yet, (though it has been confirmed in the Maritimes and Quebec), Vermey reminds farmers in that province to “monitor your fields diligently and be aware of any breakthrough insects you think you are controlling with traits.”

Ear flex can also be a consideration when researching corn hybrids. Sullivan explains that all hybrids will flex in at least one of three ways: ear girth, ear length and depth of kernel. Understanding the ear flex timing can also be factored into a management approach, especially when considering plant populations. For farmers using variable rate planting equipment and leveraging field nutrient based soil mapping systems, Sullivan recommends paying extra attention to ear flex and working with an adviser to select corn genetics to maximize crop potential.

Review and research

Hybrids can change quickly from year to year, but that’s no excuse not to take the time to learn more about them.

“Use all available resources when deciding hybrid selection and placement,” Rosser says.

Rosser reminds farmers of the importance of data when it comes to selecting the right corn hybrid, and the more data, the better. He recommends reviewing performance data over multiple growing seasons to get the best picture, and preferably data that has been collected across various growing conditions and environments.

“Look for hybrids with consistent performance across large data sets and multiple conditions,” Rosser says.

Vermey also recommends farmers talk to their neighbours to find out what works for them. “But understand your neighbour’s management – their time of planting, soil, nutrients and fungicide control – will be different from your own, so be sure to carefully research how a hybrid will perform on your own farm too,” he says.

Consulting one’s own trusted advisors, such as local seed representatives and agronomists, can also help farmers identify the strengths and weaknesses of hybrids being considered, Vermey says. And ideally, advisors should be local to help a farmer select the best fit for their growing region, heat units and disease and pest pressures.

“Don’t be afraid to try something new. Try adding one or two new hybrids every year to see how they work on your farm,” says Sullivan, who advises adding new hybrids in small increments, or on limited acres to reduce risk. He also recommends on-farm strip trials to measure performance and inform future hybrid selection.

The post Select the right corn hybrids for your fields appeared first on Grainews.

The text for so-called new genomic techniques (NGT), which would be the foundation of negotiations with the European Parliament before the law could take effect, was withdrawn from Wednesday’s agenda after it emerged in preliminary talks that there was insufficient support to reach a qualified majority, according to an EU official.

Poland and others declined to back the modified text despite efforts to assuage concerns that the patenting of seeds produced using NGT would not provide equal access to the technology for small- and medium-sized producers.

The new draft rules by Belgium presented this week sought to separate NGT technology from regulations covering traditional GMOs and also wanted any patented NGT seeds to still fall under the strictest GMO rules, according to an EU source.

Poland’s government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The EU parliament endorsed NGT technology in February but for the proposal to relax regulations to go ahead, lawmakers and governments would have to align their respective texts first.

Unlike GMO, NGT can edit the genetic material of an organism without introducing foreign DNA.

Its proponents say it effectively accelerates mutations that can occur naturally over time, and can develop varieties that could reduce pesticide use and make crops more drought-resistant and nutritious. Critics say it is no different to GMO and could damage fragile ecosystems and affect people’s health.

Cesar Gonzalez of Brussels-based Euroseeds, an association representing European seed businesses, said the failure to reach a consensus would imply a delay of at least a year in approving any legislation since the EU’s rotating presidency will be led by Hungary and Poland, both of which oppose the legislation.

In the meantime, the EU may struggle to identify imported products developed using NGT because they won’t have foreign DNA that can be used to identify them.

“It’s a disadvantage for those here and an advantage for the others,” Gonzalez said.

—Reporting for Reuters by Charlie Devereux; additional reporting by Philip Blenkinsop

The post EU governments fail to agree on gene-editing rules despite patent exception appeared first on Grainews.

Nationwide, it covered nearly 22.1 million acres last year, more than 99 per cent of it on the Prairies. The Canola Council of Canada puts its economic contribution at nearly $30 billion a year.

A University of Alberta researcher, backed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Bayer Crop Science, is betting it can be even better.

The project is based on Habibur Rahman’s hypothesis that Brassica oleracea (B. oleracea), the family that includes broccoli, kale, cauliflower and other crucifer vegetables, carries genes that can benefit canola, which is also a brassica.

His previous research, in which canola lines were developed from crosses between Brassica napus canola and B. oleracea, have already proved the potential for improved seed yield. However, the specific genes influencing that improvement and many other traits are still unidentified.

Research backbone

Canola’s forebearer, rapeseed (B. napus), is the result of B. oleracea and another family, B. rapa, hybridizing in the wild about 7,500 years ago. Canola is the result of selectively breeding rapeseed for very low levels of erucic acid in oil and of glucosinolates in seed meal, which are undesirable in rapeseed products.

Both of canola’s scientific parents are highly diverse brassica groups, said Rahman, and “not all these diverse B. oleracea and B. rapa have been crossed in nature to capture the whole spectrum of diversity of these two parental species in B. napus.”

Rahman’s previous research, the foundation for his current work, involved crossing B. napus canola with cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and kale.

Although there is a range in flowering windows for those species, most flower late. Researchers were surprised by the resulting canola crosses. Some of the progeny flowered earlier than either B. oleracea or canola.

The same research demonstrated that B. oleracea, which does not include oilseed crops, carries genes that increase oil content in canola.

Current work

The new research employs a similar process to find the genetic regions of B. oleracea associated with bigger seed yields in canola, Rahman said.

His team will use DNA mapping techniques to identify the chromosome regions in B. oleracea that contribute to high seed yield and other desired traits. Eventually, they hope to find specific genes that could drive those traits in canola.

Rahman’s current work may also lead to new canola lines, using those developed in the previous project as a baseline to create hybrids. The hope is that new hybrids will carry fewer undesirable traits.

Researchers will then test the hybrids in field trials across the Prairies for characteristics like seed yield, days to flowering and maturity, disease resistance and oil and protein content.

Of course, that is a highly condensed version of Rahman’s research. Producers may not see the new hybrids for years.

The team has just passed the first year of the new project and hopes to single out chromosome regions associated with high canola yield in B. oleracea by the end of the fourth year.

“It takes many years to develop superior hybrid canola cultivars, but the genetic research we are doing is important to maintaining the profitability of this crop at the farm level,” Rahman said.

He considers this project “fundamental research” that is working toward crop improvement while focusing on what can be achieved in the longer term.

“We need some research that’s just for tomorrow, but we also need to carry out research which can give results the day after tomorrow to take the crop to the next level of improvement,” he said.

The post How broccoli may give canola traits a bump appeared first on Grainews.