At Ag in Motion in July, we spoke with two product reps on the show grounds about two things in particular that producers should watch for when it comes to grain storage: moisture and temperature.

“When Mother Nature doesn’t do her bit to dry the crop so they don’t need any additional attention, that’s when a grain dryer is an invaluable piece of equipment for farmers,” says Ron Kleuskens, technical sales rep with AGI.

Due to drier conditions, the past few growing seasons have seen less of a demand for on-farm grain drying added Kleuskens, but weather cycles often come with an element of surprise.

Kleuskens says deciding on a grain dryer shouldn’t be a last-minute decision as there is more to consider than the actual build, such as electrical work.

“The more forethought you put into it gives dealers and builders time to make sure everything is up when you need it,” he says.

“Just because they’ve got the equipment in it doesn’t mean the electrician can just snap to it. There’s other parts to it.”

READ MORE: Being proactive in storage, handling key to grain safety

Back in July at the show, Kleuskens said it was about a six- to eight-week lead time to set up a grain dryer once a sale is finalized.

Once your grain is inside the bin and dried to an optimal level, bin monitoring systems can offer an added layer of security and peace of mind.

Flaman was one exhibitor at Ag in Motion that offers bin monitoring equipment. Its product, Bin-Sense, is a remote grain monitoring device that keeps you in the loop about the condition of grain inside your bin by triggering an alert if the temperature or moisture of your grain rises above a set threshold.

“Once there is a rise in temperature, the system will send a notification to your phone or computer and it alerts you to a temperature spike,” says Kent Sackmann, grain monitoring manager wth Flaman.

Once an alert is received, a producer can take corrective action such as turning on aeration fans or moving grain as needed.

The Bin-Sense app (available for both Android and Apple) allows a user to monitor their grain from a smartphone or by logging into the website via a desktop computer.

Sackmann shared that producers with higher-value crops in their bins are more likely to use a remote bin monitoring system.

So, depending on where you may be in your crop rotation — and where you predict grain prices may be headed — may spur your decision to invest in a remote grain bin monitoring system.

The Canadian Grain Commission offers safe storage guidelines of all major crops to help producers avoid bin spoilage.

The post How to manage wet grains for storage appeared first on Grainews.

According to GSI’s product manager for grain conditioning products, Alan Lockwood, the new mixed-flow dryers offer a number of advantages compared to cross-flow or screened basket-style dryers.

“Mixed-flow dryers certainly have a benefit for customers. They’re generally more fuel efficient than a cross-flow, screened or basket-style dryer thanks to lower airflow rates. They are a little more flexible when it comes drying different commodities. You’re drying wheat sometimes. You’re drying canola sometimes. In a basket-style dryer you have to pick your screen size when you order that system.

“If you pick a dryer for canola, you’re going to lose capacity on corn, for example. With the mixed-flow dryer we don’t have any screens in that kind of a system.”

Screens in basket-style dryers can become caked with material such as chaff, particularly in cold weather, and that reduces their efficiency. Because a mixed-flow uses a unique ducting system rather than screens, that doesn’t become a problem, and it maintains a steady capacity and fuel efficiency.

RELATED: Agco to sell grain bin firm GSI

Mixed flow dryers also use a much lower airflow rate than other dryer types, which gives them ability to maintain high grain quality.

“If you look at a basket- or screen-style dryer, it’s going to be about 80 c.f.m. per bushel, which is a common airflow rate,” says Lockwood. “A mixed flow dryer is going to be closer to 60 c.f.m.

“With a lower airflow rate across that commodity, it will naturally dry a little bit slower, because airflow rate is directly related to drying rate. The faster you dry, the more likely you are to negatively impact quality. Each dryer can be adjusted to maximize quality from a customer’s perspective. The low airflow rate in a mixed dryer is one of the good ways to do that.”

That doesn’t mean the dryer uses smaller-capacity fans; the lower airflow-per-bushel rate is the result of a larger amount of grain in process at one time.

The GSI dryers are built on a modular design that allows a system to expand as farm needs change. The dryers ship from the factory ready to stack, so growing the system capacity is a simpler process.

“Our offering goes from eight drying tiers tall to 20,” Lockwood says. “We go in four- or five-tier increments.”

Each segment has the ability to operate at a different temperature to fine-tune the drying process.

“If they want to dry at 210 (°F) on the top and cool with no heat at all on the bottom, they can do that,” he adds.

The post GSI introduces mixed-flow grain dryer appeared first on Grainews.

Producers can opt for aeration systems, in-bin drying or dedicated grain drying systems. Each of those options has its own capital costs, advantages and disadvantages.

“It comes down to understanding what you’re trying to accomplish and using the right tool for the job,” says Lorne Grieger, director of technical sales at the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI).

When grain needs only a small reduction in moisture, aeration bins used without additional heat could do the job. But there is a difference between just keeping grain cool and actually drying it down. A key difference is in the airflow rates.

“Aeration we would define as cooling only,” he explains, “but it doesn’t have the airflow rates that would be effective for drying grain inside a bin.”

When using aeration only for cooling, current airflow recommendations are 0.1 cubic foot per minute (c.f.m.) per bushel. But that jumps to a minimum of 1.0 c.f.m. per bushel for natural air drying systems.

“They are two different ways of doing things, and how you set up equipment is different,” he adds.

To ensure airflow rates are adequate, Grieger cautions that producers need to understand what their fan systems are capable of and how the contents of the bin could affect airflow rates.

“Grain like canola has a lot more back pressure on the fan,” he says. “You may not get the airflow you expect. You may potentially have to limit the amount of grain you have in the bin.”

A pressure gauge on the fan plenum can help in determining actual flow rates.

Ambient air conditions need to be warm and dry to accomplish natural drying without additional heat.

“It depends on what the weather is at the time to what you can accomplish in the grain bin,” Grieger says. “Adding heat allows you to turn a cool damp day into a warm summer day.”

Grieger points to a three-year Alberta study he was associated with that took a look at what was possible with adding heat to in-bin systems.

The study’s intent, he says, was to understand the details of the drying rate for in-bin systems that aren’t dedicated dryers and that apply lower heat to the grain — as well as the capacity of an in-bin system compared to a dedicated dryer. “They are two different ways of doing it and two different options.”

The study looked at the efficiency of adding indirect and direct heat to a bin. Direct heat uses a heater venting burned exhaust gases directly into the bin and out through the grain mass on top. An indirect heater uses a heat exchanger, and exhaust gases don’t go directly into the bin.

The published results of the study found an advantage to the indirect system.

“Although the indirect fired systems have a slightly lower combustion efficiency,” it reads, “the supply air has a lower relative humidity (combustion gases are exhausted) resulting in an overall lower specific energy when compared to direct fired systems. Therefore, the indirect fired systems condition grain more efficiently with shorter run times and have on average 65 per cent of the fuel consumption of direct fired systems.”

Grieger cautions that when using in-bin systems, heating temperatures that are too high can damage grain.

“Because of how they’re configured you want to manage your inlet air temperatures well. And recommendations are 15 to 20 C above ambient temperature before the risk of damage occurs. There are limitations of how much additional heat you want to put into the grain bin mass as a whole as part of that process.”

While in-bin systems provide a relatively low-risk way to dry down tough grain, the risk of spoilage goes up with the increased moisture content of the grain. Anything in the “damp” category would need to go through a dedicated drying system to avoid that problem.

“If your grain is damp you want to use a dedicated dryer system,” he says. “It’s a lower-risk approach to making sure you get the grain dried down before spoilage compared to putting it in a bin. There are limitations on the in-bin systems.”

Dedicated drying systems, with increased control and the ability to monitor results, provide options for speeding up the drying process, allowing for drying at higher rates.

“The advantage of a dedicated drying system is to minimize risk and allow drying to happen on a timely basis, compared to the in-bin system,” Grieger says.

So when growers consider which type of drying system to invest in, it really depends on their anticipated needs. How wet will the grain be when it comes off the combine? That will be a prime consideration.

“It depends on your growing conditions and management strategy,” Grieger says. “If you’re in the damp range, you definitely want to use a dryer system. If you’re tough then you can dry down in bin.”

Also: PAMI guidelines aid in calculating natural air drying effectiveness

The effectiveness of using natural air to dry grain is very dependent on the environmental conditions at the time. Knowing the relative humidity and temperature of the ambient air is key in determining if unheated airflow can help reduce the moisture content in stored grain.

PAMI has published a guide on its website to help growers determine when they would see a benefit from using natural in-bin air drying.

In this example, if the goal is to dry wheat down to 14.4 per cent moisture content, then all the environmental conditions in the red shaded area seen above would help achieve that.

If the relative humidity remains at 60 per cent and the temperature at 10 C, then grain would eventually dry to 13.6 per cent, as shown in the red circle.

PAMI’s website contains several information pages with expanded details on grain drying. They are listed under the “Resource Library” tab.

The post How to choose between an in-bin or dedicated grain drying system appeared first on Grainews.

“This marriage allows the opportunity to build upon the synergies between Shivvers’ established drying solutions and the cutting-edge technology Haber already offers in way of real-time remote grain storage monitoring and automated conditioning, ultimately creating a more comprehensive solution for farmers,” the two companies said in a statement.

The Haber business stemmed from an idea hatched in an ag engineering class at Iowa State University, out of which the company’s co-founders Eric Harweger and Dillon Hurd came up with what’s now known as the DRI-Stack aeration system.

STIG will market the DRI-Stack system and DRI-Stack hopper bins along with the Auto-Bin grain storage monitoring system. Auto-Bin allows growers to track bin temperature, grain moisture, grain inventory levels, carbon dioxide levels and their aeration systems’ power use through a smartphone app.

The post Grain drying firm Shivvers buys Haber, forms STIG appeared first on Grainews.

“Canadian farmers fully understand the need to take care of the environment and they are constantly innovating to find new solutions to reduce their emissions,” said federal agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay in a news release today.

“Our investment in the Agricultural Clean Technology Program will help keep our farmers and ranchers on the cutting edge, so they can make their operations more resilient today and for generations to come.”

The cash will fund 148 projects through the Agricultural Clean Technology (ACT) Program’s adoption stream, which prioritizes projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A further 14 projects through ACT’s research and innovation stream are also funded, the federal news release said. This stream supports research, development and demonstration of agricultural clean technology.

Among projects funded include 37 new grain dryers, 48 solar installations, and 31 purchases of “precision agriculture technology,” the ACT program’s database shows.

Other projects include anaerobic digesters, heat exchangers, and electric heating systems.

To date, 414 projects have been funded through ACT to the tune of nearly $170 million.

ACT first launched in 2018 with an initial promised spend of $25 million over three years and was later expanded to $495.7 million across the adoption and research and innovation streams.

The post Feds spend $97 million on agricultural clean tech projects appeared first on Grainews.

Thursday morning the Senate’s committee on agriculture and forestry heard final witnesses speak on Bill C-234, which would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand farm-related carbon price exemptions.

At the committee’s next meeting on Oct. 17, it will consider potential amendments before returning it to the senate chamber where they will debate the bill again before a third reading.

If the bill is amended, it will return to the House of Commons to be reviewed again before being given royal assent and becoming law.

In June, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) urged the Senate to pass Bill C-234 before Parliament’s summer break.

The bill, first introduced in the House of Commons in November 2021, passed its second reading in the Senate on June 13. The Senate rose for summer on June 30.

Witness statements

The Sept. 26 meeting heard from representatives of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which is a coalition of 15 farm groups, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Ontario Agri Business Association, the Climate Action Network, the David Suzuki Foundation and a professor from the University of B.C.

Two days later, the committee heard from representatives of the National Farmers Union, Saskatchewan’s general farm group (APAS) and an academic from the University of Ottawa. They also heard from civil servants regarding the cost of the proposed exemptions.

Proponents of the bill told the committee that farmers have no choice but to use machinery fueled by natural gas and propane to dry their grain, as viable alternatives don’t currently exist. Arguments focused mainly on grain drying, making little reference to heating farm buildings.

Russel Hurst, executive director of the Ontario Agri Business Association, made a bid to have grain drying at commercial grain elevators included in the exemption. He told the committee that, unlike in the West, many Ontario farmers pay to have their grain dried at the elevator. The elevator then passes on the cost of the fuel, including the carbon price, to farmers.
Senator Paula Simons said one could argue all businesses do that, and Hurst conceded this was fair.

Black asked if it was worth amending the bill to include grain elevators, at the risk of the bill not passing. Dave Carey and Scott Ross, co-chairs of the Agricultural Carbon Alliance, and Kyle Larkin, executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, said it was not worth the risk.

“We’ve been waiting for years,” Larkin said.

Hurst said they aspired to have legislation that suited all growers.
Other witnesses suggested that exempting fuels from the price on carbon would remove farmers’ and equipment manufacturers’ incentive to switch to cleaner technology.

B.C. researcher Kathryn Harrison argued that exemptions undermine the effectiveness and fairness of the price on carbon and added that she was concerned that this wouldn’t be the last exemption.

Tom Green, who represented the David Suzuki Foundation, argued that “every sector can come up with their own reason for why they deserve relief.”

Carey rebutted that farmers want to innovate, and the eight-year sunset clause currently built into the bill would give a deadline to farmers and equipment providers, pushing them to develop new solutions.

University of Ottawa associate professor Nicholas Rivers said that while, “there are legitimate concerns that the carbon price puts Canadian grain farmers at a [competitive] disadvantage,” completely exempting fuels from the carbon price would remove the price signal that incentivized improvement. Murray Jowett, who represented the National Farmers Union, agreed.

Simons questioned whether returning money to farmers was the right tactic at all. She asked the witnesses if it would be better to put the money toward green technology development.

The senators also considered if the current rebate program needs to be more targeted. It currently pays out farmers based on their farm expenses, which aren’t necessarily tied to grain drying or heating buildings.

The rebate program has been panned by agriculture groups for being inequitable.

Senator Yuen Pau Woo asked whether the rebate could be targeted toward farms more affected by the carbon price on natural gas and propane.

Rivers said a better rebating system, such as an output-based system similar to those for large industrial emitters, would alleviate the cost to farmers while still providing some incentive for innovation.

The committee also met Oct. 3 where it heard from representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

During the Oct. 5 meeting, senators heard from a professor from the University of Guelph’s engineering department, and the senior research chair for agricultural engineering and technology from Lethbridge College. Both were questioned about available clean grain drying technology.

–Geralyn Wichers reports for the Glacier Farmmedia network from Steinbach, Man.

The post Carbon exemption bill nearing close of Senate deliberations appeared first on Grainews.

C-234, a private member’s bill sponsored by southwestern Ontario Conservative MP Ben Lobb, appeared before the Commons’ standing committee on agriculture and agri-food on Monday and was reported back to the Commons.

According to Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), the bill — which had its first reading Feb. 7 and second reading May 18 — is now expected to come up for third reading during the House’s winter session before moving on to the Senate.

C-234 carries amendments to the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act which expand that legislation’s definition of eligible farming machinery to include grain dryers as well as barn heating and cooling systems, and which extend the exemption for farming fuels to include farmers’ purchases of natural gas and propane.

“This exemption is needed to reflect the realities of the entire Canadian agriculture industry and the undue financial burden the carbon tax places on all the necessary practices undertaken by farmers and ranchers like drying grain, irrigating crops, or heating and cooling livestock barns,” Conservative MP and opposition ag critic John Barlow said in a release Wednesday.

The standing ag committee on Monday did pass several amendments to Lobb’s bill, tightening its scope.

Those include a sunset clause — which Barlow said is a reflection of Canadian farmers’ confidence that new and sustainable technologies will come forward to replace the gas- and propane-fired options they now use to dry grain and heat barns.

That sunset clause will see the exemption brought back in a set period of time for review, allowing whatever government is in place at that time to let it lapse — or to amend or extend it if the available technologies don’t yet warrant ending the exemption.

Barlow’s original amendment called for a 10-year sunset clause, but committee members later voted to shorten that period to the bill’s eight-year anniversary — citing testimony the committee heard suggesting such technology would be available sooner rather than later.

Another approved amendment will limit the exemption’s use in farm buildings, to only include those structures directly involved in crop or livestock production, such as barns or greenhouses.

‘Critical issue’

Grain and livestock producer groups have since lined up to cheer the bill’s return to the Commons, urge MPs of all parties to approve its passage and call for Canada’s Senate to do the same.

“It is clear that (ag committee) MPs understand the lack of current alternatives for grain drying and the need to provide an exemption until viable technological solutions are developed,” GFO chair Brendan Byrne said Tuesday in a separate release.

With “no viable fuel alternatives” available for the practices covered in C-234, imposing carbon pricing on those activities “does not provide a signal to lower emissions from these sources,” Grain Growers of Canada said Wednesday in another release.

Instead, GGC said, C-234 “will put money back into the hands of farmers so that they can continue to invest in practices that drive innovation, further efficiencies and reduce fuel usage.”

“With rising input costs, inflation and supply chain shortages, carbon surcharges on necessary farm activities adds an additional burden and pulls capital away from critical investments,” GGC chair Andre Harpe said in the same release.

The Agricultural Carbon Alliance, a body representing the GGC and 14 other national-level grain, livestock and general farm groups, said Wednesday that with the bill approaching third reading, it now plans to launch a public advocacy campaign “that will call for a bipartisan consensus on this critical issue.”

Fram group representatives appearing before the ag committee echoed many of the same concerns. “We understand that the carbon price is a market signal for producers to adopt low-emission energy alternatives wherever possible, but over the past year that signal has been dwarfed by skyrocketing costs for inputs such as fertilizer, gasoline and diesel,” Canadian Federation of Agriculture vice-president Todd Lewis said at the committee’s Oct. 24 meeting.

“Even when fuel prices aren’t at record highs, farmers constantly seek to increase fuel efficiency wherever possible.”

However, another speaker, University of Saskatchewan associate professor Tristan Skolrud, cautioned the committee at the same meeting that C-234 runs the risk of further drawing out the timeline for development of viable alternatives.

With “limited changes in producer behaviour, there will be limited reductions in (greenhouse gas) emissions from grain drying before greener alternatives become available,” he said.

“The development of greener alternatives will require significant private capital, and if grain drying is unregulated, the signal to private capital will be lost. Previous testimony on this amendment suggests that sufficient alternatives are at least 10 years away.

“Keep in mind that this estimate is a function of the carbon price. A higher price will shorten that time frame if private capital senses a profitable opportunity.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post New farm fuel carbon tax rule to return to Commons appeared first on Grainews.

Vancouver Island MP Paul Manly, the Green Party’s caucus critic for agriculture, announced the party’s position Monday.

“We support the grain producers of Canada in their appeal to the federal government to waive the carbon tax on fuel used for grain drying during last year’s harvest,” he said in a release.

“The disruption and expense of last year’s weather-plagued harvest is already causing widespread hardship. Carbon tax relief is justified and necessary.”

“Farmers are always looking for efficiencies and would certainly adopt energy efficient grain dryers if they were available,” Kate Storey, the Greens’ non-sitting shadow cabinet agriculture critic, said in the same release.

“For now, we have few choices. If nature fails to provide the sun and wind required to dry the grain in the field, we are forced to use grain drying equipment which adds cost to food production… In a wet year, the carbon tax on fuel needed for grain drying just adds insult to injury.”

The Greens on Monday also called on the federal Liberal government “to invest in the development of energy-efficient grain drying technology and short-season crop varieties, and to promote farming techniques for early maturity and quick harvest,” Manly said.

Green Party policy calls for a “revenue-neutral” price on carbon pollution through a fee and dividend system, but also calls for federal assistance for farmers and “others in vulnerable sectors” to further adapt to climate change.

Ag groups calling for carbon tax relief for grain drying include, among others, the National Farmers Union, which in mid-December passed a resolution seeking a rebate for farmers for fuel used in on-farm grain drying.

“More grain is being dried all over the Prairies than we have ever seen, and producers have been very startled at the extra cost of the tax when they get their bills,” Todd Lewis, president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, said in a separate release in November following the re-appointment of Marie-Claude Bibeau as federal ag minister.

On some bills, he noted, the carbon tax is a surcharge of 40 per cent on the commodity cost of propane and natural gas — bills “that are going to be hard to pay in a difficult year.”

Markus Haerle, chair of Grain Farmers of Ontario, in November described the tax as one “farmers cannot afford to pay when markets and harvest conditions are so challenging… Burdening grain farms with this tax means that farmers cannot invest in technologies that can combat climate change.”

Bibeau, for her part, recently said she plans to seek out more information on carbon pricing’s effects on farms.

“This is the case that I am building right now, to see if, in fact, I do have a case to present in front of the minister of environment and the minister of finance,” she said earlier this month.

“I cannot go just on feelings, I have to go with a case built on evidence and this is what I’m building right now, with the collaboration of my provincial colleagues and the collaboration of the industry that is affected.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Green Party backs grain drying exemption from carbon tax appeared first on Grainews.

The Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (TCRC-CTY), which represents over 3,000 CN staff in Canada who walked off the job Tuesday, said some trains are still running and “the fact that these trains are not transporting propane is a business decision by CN.”

“While CN is nowhere near operating at full capacity, we think enough trains are running to allow CN to supply Ontario and Quebec with propane,” TCRC president Lyndon Isaak said Friday in a release.

“We wonder if CN is choosing not to ship goods like propane in order to manufacture a crisis and force back-to-work legislation.”

The House of Commons isn’t scheduled to resume sitting until Dec. 5, but several industry leaders and politicians have urged an early return to Parliament to deal with the CN strike.

“Recalling Parliament and tabling emergency legislation would show both sides of this dispute that the government is serious about ending the strike,” Andrew Scheer, leader of the opposition Conservatives, said in a statement Wednesday. “That could result in an agreement being reached much sooner.”

That said, the governing Liberals haven’t yet proposed to use back-to-work legislation to end the work stoppage.

Over 1,800 CN locomotive engineers and over 600 supervisors are “free to cross picket lines and continue to operate freight trains every day,” the TCRC said.

Negotiations with CN are ongoing, the Teamsters said Friday, and the union “continues to work closely with federal mediators.”

For its part, CN said in a statement Friday it has “a small pool of qualified managers that only allows the company to operate at approximately 10 per cent of normal service across its extensive 22,000-kilometre-long Canadian network safely.”

That means “very limited amounts of various commodities are moving across the country,” CN said, including container traffic “to keep Canada’s ports fluid to be able to return to normal operations after the strike.”

Some rail traffic, propane included, is already moving, Grain Farmers of Ontario noted in a separate statement Friday, quoting federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau as saying a train with 100 propane cars “has left Edmonton for Quebec.”

However, GFO said Friday it wants to “ensure that there is propane being delivered to those who need it in Ontario as well.”

“We are all looking at huge losses in our businesses if we are not able to dry these grains,” GFO chair Markus Haerle said in a release. “We want the government to extend this support across the country. That is not unreasonable.”

CN on Friday also reiterated its call on the Teamsters “to accept voluntary binding arbitration by an independent third party selected jointly by CN and the TCRC,” or by federal Labour Minister Filomena Tassi, “as a means to end this labour dispute.”

One farm group, the National Farmers’ Union, urged CN to continue bargaining rather than press for arbitration to end the strike. The NFU, in a statement Friday, said it “reject(s) the company’s efforts to use farmers’ hardships as a pressure tactic to avoid bargaining in good faith.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Union says propane shortfalls may be CN’s own making appeared first on Grainews.

The late harvest in the Midwest has been further hampered by wet conditions, forcing farmers to dry their grain before putting it in the bin. As many dryers use propane, there has been an increased demand.

Media reports stated the infrastructure system to move propane around the region has been largely at fault. The system of pipelines, rail and trucks has been unable to keep up with the unusually high demand.

Further exacerbating the situation has been increased demand for home and commercial heating. Some Midwest states have temporarily lifted transportation restrictions on propane in hopes of improving the supply.

For farmers in the U.S. Midwest, propane is primarily sourced from Kansas, Texas and Western Canada, according to the U.S. National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), which emphasized the issue is not a shortage of the fuel itself.

Instead, the challenge is getting propane to the right place at the right time, the NPGA said, adding the supply issues are caused by “limits on the safe transportation of propane from supply points, as well as limits on pipeline capacity.”

In Canada such supply bottlenecks haven’t been an issue, according to Nathalie St-Pierre, CEO of the Canadian Propane Association (CPA).

“With the challenging wet and cold weather, propane demand for crop drying has been strong and steady this fall. CPA members say that although it was one of the busier years for propane demand, it was less than it was last year,” she said.

“Snow and freezing rain has all but shut down harvest in the country at this time, so demand is transitioning to construction heaters and home heating.

“Our industry anticipates demand for propane to be strong during the winter and is ready to serve their customers’ needs,” she added.

Preventing future issues in the U.S. Midwest will mean taking a closer look at propane storage needs, CHS Propane vice-president Adam DeLawyer said in a release Monday from that company.

“Continued expansion of retailer storage and on-farm storage will be critical to meet the farmer’s ability to harvest crops at today’s increased yields and rates.”

— Glen Hallick reports for MarketsFarm, a Glacier FarmMedia division specializing in grain and commodity market analysis and reporting. Includes files from GFM Network staff.

The post U.S. propane bottlenecks not affecting Canada appeared first on Grainews.