What’s the Buzz on U.S. Wheat Varieties? Pam de Rocquigny Provincial Cereal Crops Specialist
by user
Comments
Transcript
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 pamela.derocquigny@gov.mb.ca