WINNIPEG — Some farmers and producer groups would like the federal government to restore testing of non-fertilizer supplements to prove they work before the products are commercialized.
That’s unlikely to happen, says a fertilizer expert who has been in the industry for decades.
The federal government stopped regulating non-fertilizer supplements in 2013, and efficacy testing isn’t coming back, said Rigas Karamanos.
Read Also
Cattle smuggling worsens outbreak in Mexico
Cattle being smuggled across Mexio’s southern border are making a screworm outbreak much more difficult to control.
“It’s sad, but that’s the reality,” said Karamanos, who has worked at Koch Fertilizer, directed the Saskatchewan Soil Testing and Environ-Test Laboratories Saskatoon and is a member of the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame.
“The bottom line: we’re not (going back to that).”
On Oct. 21, the National Farmers Union published a report on non-fertilizer supplements, urging the federal government to resume efficacy testing.
The current system, where it’s unknown if products are effective, is a cost and a risk for growers, the NFU said.
“ ‘Farmer buy-and-try’ should no longer be the norm for non-fertilizer supplements,” said James Hanna, an NFU policy analyst.
“Farmers should not bear the costs of testing non-fertilizer supplements, nor can farmers deliver statistically significant results to prove that they work.”
The NFU report comes at a time when hundreds of novel supplements are now available to Canadian producers.
There are bio-stimulants, bio-fertilizers, seaweed extracts, humic acids and many other products on the market, with more being introduced every month.
Along with the hundreds of products, there are dozens of claims on the benefits of non-fertilizer supplements. It’s difficult for farmers to make sense of the claims and all the noise.
“Biologicals like nitrogen-fixing bacteria can … reduce the need for applied N fertilizer without reducing yields, a solution that can help farmers with their productivity and sustainability goals,” says the website of one firm, promoting its bio-fertilizer.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency used to require efficacy testing. Companies had to conduct nine trials of a product.
“You had to prove in six of them that it works. It wasn’t a big deal,” said Karamanos, who has spoken at hundreds of agricultural conferences and events across North America over the last 40 years.
The old system did have problems.
In some cases, it took years before the non-fertilizer supplement went through the process and entered the market.
The federal government decided to axe the testing, arguing it was “infringing on innovation,” Karamanos said.
There could be truth to that, but the current Wild West approach isn’t ideal.
The burden of proof has shifted to growers, who must do their homework, look at the publicly available data and decide if Product X is effective and worth its cost per acre.
On-farm testing and public data is available on the efficacy of non-fertilizer supplements, but producers must search for the results.
The Western Applied Research Corp. (WARC), a non-profit in Saskatchewan, has tested nitrogen fixing biological products and their efficacy on spring wheat.
The results are available on the WARC website.
The Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers has also looked at the efficacy of biological products as part of its on-farm research network.
The findings have been presented publicly and can be found on the MPSG website.
The on-farm research does produce good results, but it’s difficult to get the information to growers.
“The research part is relatively easy, compared to extension,” said Daryl Domitruk, MPSG executive director.
“The on-farm network is one of our signature programs that generates real information that is useful to farmers … but we have to work hard (on extension).”
As well, on-farm trials are not a replacement for efficacy testing, Domitruk added.
It’s a verification that a practice or product is useful for farmers, “as opposed to proving efficacy.”
For instance, a fungicide may be effective against a particular pest in soybeans, but the cost per acre might be excessive.
“The question is: how does it work on a real farm under labour, equipment, time and money constraints?” he said.
“And how does it respond to varying environments…. That’s really the role of on-farm testing…. We want to verify its usefulness.”
There is a distinction between on-farm trials of a bio-fertilizer and efficacy testing that follows a different protocol.
Nonetheless, on-farm research can show if the bio-fertilizer provides a return on investment for growers.
If a farmer in southern Saskatchewan wants their levy dollars spent on such research, there is a process to make that happen.
They can attend a meeting and ask a cereal, oilseed or pulse group for more testing of non-fertilizer supplements.
