What’s the Buzz on U.S. Wheat Varieties? Pam de Rocquigny Provincial Cereal Crops Specialist

What’s the Buzz on
U.S. Wheat Varieties?
Pam de Rocquigny
Provincial Cereal Crops Specialist
Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Initiatives
Crops Knowledge Centre, Carman
Outline
• Introduction
• Comparing Yields between Manitoba & North Dakota
• Variety Trends in North Dakota
• Other Considerations • Variety Registration System
• Summary
Introduction
• With the removal of single‐desk marketing, a number of changes have occurred ‐ with more changes to come
• There has always been interest by Manitoba producers to what varieties are grown south of the border.
• Perceived yield advantage?
2012 Manitoba Variety Acreage Report –
Wheat Feed
Variety
Pasteur
Faller
AC Andrew
Sadash
WFT 409
Howard
Jenna
Russ
Briggs
Alsen
Freyr
HY 644
Selkirk
WFT 411
Ivan
Albany
No Var
Traverse
%
27.6
25.4
10.4
8.7
7.6
3.8
3.3
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
Acres
13,336
12,273
5,025
4,204
3,672
1,836
1,595
1,305
1,256
1,208
1,208
435
290
242
193
145
97
0
KANE
Glenn
14.1
18.2
310,374
400,625
What We Do Know
• Western Canada is world leader in high protein, high quality milling wheat & durum
• Western Canada is behind in terms of our yield growth in wheat
• Growth rate, of 0.7% annually, is the worst among all developed nations
• Where does the United States stand?
Annual Increase in Wheat Yield Source: USDA, Wheat Science and Trade (2009), Strategic Vision Consulting Ltd, K L Nelson Associates Inc.
Audience Question:
Who generally has higher average spring wheat yields?
A. Manitoba
B. North Dakota
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Yield (bushels per acre)
Historical Red Spring Wheat Yields (1962 – 2012) 60
50
40
30
North Dakota
Manitoba
20
10
0
Spring Wheat Yields in Manitoba & North Dakota (2003‐2012)
60
Yield (bushels per acre)
50
40
North Dakota
30
Manitoba
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Average Yearly Yields of Spring Wheat Post‐
Registration Performance Trials
Yield (bu/acre)
Year
Manitoba
2008
63
2009
78
2010
60
2011
60
2012
55
Average
63
North Dakota
Eastern
Western
74
47
72
60
73
57
46
37
60
57
65
52
Note: Eastern Test Locations include Carrington, Casselton, Prosper & Langdon.
Note: Western Test Locations include Dickinson, Hettinger, Minot & Williston.
Audience Question:
• Which spring variety is the most popular in North Dakota?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Faller
Glenn
Barlow
Alsen
Steele‐ND
North Dakota Spring Wheat Varieties
Percent of Acreage Planted
Variety
Barlow
Glenn
Faller
Vantage
Brennan
RB07
Mott
Briggs
Jenna
Kelby
Freyr
Steele‐ND
Prosper
SY Soren
Howard
Alsen
Breaker
Brick
Select
WB Mayville
Developer
NDSU
NDSU
NDSU
WestBred
AgriPro
Minnesota
NDSU
SDSU
AgriPro
AgriPro
AgriPro
NDSU
NDSU
Syngenta/AgriPro
NDSU
NDSU
WestBred
SDSU
SDSU
Monsanto/WB
2012
17.2
14.4
13.1
5.5
4.9
4.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.7
2011
8.5
18.1
11.4
3.5
5.4
7.0
1.2
4.0
3.1
5.4
3.3
3.2
‐
‐
2.6
1.6
0.9
2.1
0.2
0.1
2010
0.9
25.0
15.0
1.1
1.9
4.9
0.1
4.9
1.1
6.4
4.8
3.6
‐
‐
4.7
3.0
1.4
0.8
‐
‐
2009
‐
23.6
17.2
0.1
‐
1.3
‐
7.6
‐
4.4
7.0
5.8
‐
‐
5.1
4.2
0.3
‐
‐
‐
2008
‐
27.9
2.2
0.1
‐
‐
‐
7.6
‐
4.1
8.6
9.2
‐
‐
5.1
7.6
‐
‐
‐
‐
Source: North Dakota 2012 Wheat Varieties - www.nass.usda/gov/nd
Are there regional differences?
2012 North Dakota Varieties
Percent Planted per Region
35
% of Area Planted
30
25
North Dakota State
20
North Central
15
Northeast
10
5
0
Source: North Dakota 2012 Wheat Varieties - www.nass.usda/gov/nd
2008 North Dakota Varieties
Percent Planted per Region
45
40
% of Area Planted
35
30
25
20
North Dakota State
North Central
Northeast
15
10
5
0
Source: North Dakota 2008 Wheat Varieties - www.nass.usda/gov/nd
2012 Yield of North Dakota Spring Wheat Varieties Expressed as % of Glenn
Variety
Barlow
Glenn
Faller
Vantage
Brennan
RB07
Mott
Briggs
Jenna
Kelby
Eastern
Locations
58.2
55.0
63.4
52.6
58.5
59.9
50.4
59.8
63.1
57.9
Yield
% of Glenn
106
100
115
96
106
109
92
109
115
105
Western
Locations
59.4
57.5
55.8
51.7
59.7
60.1
54.3
33.9
55.0
57.5
Yield
% of Glenn
103
100
97
90
104
105
94
59
96
100
Prosper
SY Soren
63.2
61.8
115
112
54.9
56.1
95
98
Source: North Dakota 2012 Wheat Varieties - www.nass.usda/gov/nd
Yield of Top 10 Hard Red Spring Wheat Varieties at 4 Locations in Eastern North Dakota ‐ 2012
Variety
Barlow
Glenn
Faller
Vantage
Brennan
RB07
Mott
Briggs
Jenna
Kelby
Carrington
50.2
45.9
48.8
45.1
52.1
48.2
44.5
50.4
51.3
44.1
Casselton
63.0
47.8
65.2
59.7
61.9
62.0
60.8
66.9
70.0
61.5
Prosper
47.6
58.1
54.6
38.8
50.2
55.9
45.9
51.0
56.8
56.9
Langdon
72.0
68.3
85.1
66.6
69.6
73.6
‐
71.0
74.2
68.9
Prosper
SY Soren
45.4
48.2
65.0
71.8
58.8
56.1
83.7
61.8
Site Mean
LSD
45.7
5.7
62.2
5.8
50.1
7.4
75.2
3.3
Yield is not the Only Factor!
• Regulatory Components
• The Seeds Regulations require that varieties of most agricultural crops be registered prior to sale of seed in Canada and prior to import of seed into Canada. (Seeds Act, 3. (1)(b))
• Exemptions:
 Seed imported for the purpose of:
• Conditioning
• Research
• Production of pedigreed seed
• Seeding by the importer (except wheat in the CWB Area)
Variety Designation Lists
• Grain produced from a non‐registered or deregistered variety is only eligible for the lowest grade of that type of grain
• Recommend using a combination of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s List of Registered Varieties (www.inspection.gc.ca) and the Canadian Grains Commission’s Variety Designation Lists (www.grainscanada.gc.ca) to determine registration and grade eligibility status of varieties.
AgriInsurance Coverage
• All spring wheat varieties not included in the CGC’s Variety Designation Lists under the CWRS, CPSR, CPSW, CWHWS and CWAD classes are only insurable as feed wheat • no grade guarantees & lower price value
• For more information, please contact your local MASC agent or http://www.masc.mb.ca/masc.nsf/crop_insurable_varieties.html
Agronomic & Disease Data
• There are key differences in how data is presented between Manitoba & North Dakota
 Maturity is measured as Days to Head in ND, as opposed to Days to Maturity (16 ‐ 18% moisture content ‐ kernels resist denting by fingernail)
• Glenn does provide a reference point
Fertility Considerations
• Need to consider how MB’s fertility programs may be different than those in North Dakota
• Higher yield potentials of newer semi‐dwarfs coming to market may necessitate further research on optimizing fertility program to realize those higher yield potentials.
Marketing Considerations
• To be eligible to be graded as a Canadian class of wheat, the variety you are growing must be on a variety designation list.
• If you deliver an unregistered variety of wheat or barley to a licensed elevator in Canada, your delivery is only eligible for either the lowest statutory grade of that class, or feed.
• However, nothing prevents a producer and a Canadian grain company from negotiating a contract based on quality specifications outside of the statutory grading system for the delivered grain, regardless of the variety.
http://canada‐usgrainandseedtrade.info/
Variety Registration System
• Does the transformation in Canada’s grain marketing system mean that Canada’s variety registration system should change to kick start cereal crop innovation? • Is the current variety registration system hampering innovation?
Discussions surrounding Variety Registration
• Is there potential to grow varieties that are best suited to individual farm operations?
 The variety registration system may need to allow greater flexibility for that to occur, i.e. more region‐specific varieties
• Speed up the registration process to allow new varieties to hit the market faster & make it more predictable
Discussions surrounding Variety Registration
• Does Canada’s grading & quality assurance system needs to change to accommodate the changes in the new era?
 Industry discussions have indicated to leave CWRS & CWAD classes as is but expand other classes, i.e CPS
Registration Process in Western Canada
PRCWRT
• NON‐Gov’t body established to provide science‐ and merit‐based variety registration recommendations
to CFIA for wheat, rye and triticale
• Governed by Operating Procedures written and approved by membership and approved by CFIA.
• Authority extends to recommendation only. CFIA and Variety Registration Office approve and issue the registrations.
http://pgdc.ca/committees_wrt.html
Governance and Membership of PRCWRT
CFIA – Variety Registration Office
PRCWRT
Chair: AET
Secretary: AET
AET
Agronomy Evaluation Team
Chair: 3 yr Term
Secretary: 3 yr Term
Breeders
Agronomists
Seed reps
Producers
DET
Disease Evaluation Team
Chair: 3 yr Term
Secretary: 3 yr Term
Pathologists
Molecular Biologists
QET
Quality Evaluation Team
Chair: 3 yr Term
Secretary: 3 yr Term
Cereal Chemists
Milling Reps
Seed Reps
Marketing
• Mix of government, academia, and industry
• Membership open to anyone that has interest AND the necessary
expertise to contribute.
Process for Registration Recommendation
• Agronomic, disease and grain quality data generated in the region of the prairies where commercial production would occur.
• PRCWRT conducts cooperative or ‘C’ level trials to generate this information. In most cases, 3 calendar years (~24 site‐
years) of data required.
 Candidate cultivars are promoted to this trial from pre‐registration trial data
 Promotion into and yearly advancement within coop trials involves consultation across all ET’s and between coop Coordinator and sponsor agency
 Limited space ~30 to 36 (includes 1st, 2nd , and 3rd year entries)
• Private registration path allows Sponsor to generate prerequisite data without accessing the traditional coop ‘C’ level trial
Requests for Support and Consideration of Request by PRCWRT
•
•
If line is promoted to 3rd year and possesses desirable merit ‐ a request for support is prepared by breeder‐agency.
PRCWRT meets annually in February to consider Requests for Support
 Prior to Main PRCWRT meeting, Evaluation Teams meet and vote on the request for support ie. Support, Do Not Object, Object, Abstain
 PRCWRT Main Committee meeting meets the following day and a secret ballot is used to vote on lines
 Proposer is given the opportunity to make presentation of merit/rationale for requesting support
The Present System ‐ Issues
• Do members represent all players along the wheat value chain?
• Structure of teams  Does Quality have too much influence?
 Do we need agronomic merit? Yield? Winter Survival?  Do we need disease priorities? Are they specific to w. Canada?
• Are there mechanisms to evaluate lines outside the cooperative testing system?
 Pvt registration allows anyone to participate and is a mechanism for special trait candidates.
•
Is the current system is a ‘bottle‐neck’ to the release of superior varieties and increased production per hectare?
 Only to the extent that a candidate with inferior agronomic, disease, or quality performance is defeated. Priority diseases like stem rust have to be respected.
Registration Recommendation Per Year
Trend of Annual Wheat Registration Recommendations
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Foreign Cereal Variety Registration in Canada
• There are no restrictions to foreign variety developers to register their varieties in Canada.
• US variety access to Canadian markets is not hindered by the registration system per se
 The limiting factor for US is often grain quality characteristics that don’t align well with the Canadian grain classification system.
What is hampering innovation?
• Look to the US:
 Private breeding exists, no CWB, no KVD
 Public varieties dominate market share
• Little or no means for private investor to capture return on investment – need effective intellectual property protection
• Large amount farmer saved seed
• Increased funding for R&D
• However – there is room for modernization and efficiency in the current system Look to Australia
• 95% wheat breeding in Australia in the year 2000 was in the public sector • Year 2012 • 100% of wheat breeding in private sector • 6 wheat breeding companies Audience Question
• In 2012, what percentage of acres were grown to publicly (Cdn) bred varieties?
A. 50%
B. 60%
C. 70%
2012 Commercial Red Spring Wheat Market Share by Breeding Institution
0.2%
4.3%
5.3%
7.8%
AAFC ‐ Winnipeg
AAFC ‐ Swift Current
43.7%
NDSU
Syngenta Seeds Canada
18.2%
Crop Development Centre
AgriPro/Agricore United/SWP
Unknown
20.5%
Source: Manitoba Agriculture Services Corporation (MASC) 2012 Market Share Report for commercial red spring wheat production.
• Please note that the MASC dataset represents acreage reported by insureds – the acreage of non‐insureds is not included. •Non‐insured acreage averages 10‐15% provincially but can be even more in some regions and for some crops.
Summary
• Yield potential to date is comparable for spring wheat in Manitoba & North Dakota
• However, yield potential shouldn’t be the only consideration
 END MARKET, agronomic & disease package
• Will likely see changes to the registration system which may facilitate innnovation
• Discussions taking place at the Prairie Grain Development Committee meeting in February 2013
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?
Pam de Rocquigny
Provincial Cereal Crops Specialist
Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Initiatives
204.745.5676
[email protected]