When seeding begins this spring, producer Glenn Young will have a reasonable assurance that he’s planting crop varieties that withstood a lot of scrutiny before getting registered for prairie production.
That assurance comes in part from a crop variety registration system established to critically assess potential new varieties, largely to protect farmers from paying good money for varieties that would perform poorly.
Young, a grain and oilseeds producer from Cypress River, Man., and vice-president of the Keystone Agricultural Producers, appreciates the need for the registration system. But he wants a more nimble system that will quickly produce varieties growers need to capitalize on emerging market opportunities while at the same time addressing agronomic needs.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
He may get his wish soon, if the events of the past year are a reliable indicator.
An effort is afoot to overhaul federal regulations governing crop variety registration. Some would describe that effort as painfully slow, but Young is among those willing to wait a bit longer, provided there are benefits to farmers at the end of the day.
“We don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water,” he said. “I think things will change and they’ll change for the better.”
While the Canadian Food Inspection Agency makes the final decision to register a variety, it is strongly guided by the advice of recommending groups across the country.
Each ghas its own guidelines. In some cases, such as hybrid corn and horticulture crops, there is no registration requirement.
But of prime interest to western Canadian farmers is the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain, which handles crops like wheat, barley, oats and canola.
Many people are frustrated by a system they see as encumbered by federal regulations that can take years to change. Increasingly, those with a stake in the seed industry want flexibility, said Barry Reisner, a Limerick, Sask., producer and pres<00AD>ident of the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association.
There’s a fear that inflexibilty in the process will stifle innovation in crop development in Western Canada, particularly in breeding new wheat varieties that do not fit the standards for existing wheat classes.
At a time when market signals and government policy are telling producers to tailor more of their production to niche markets, such as those desiring novel food traits, there’s a need for breeding innovations, Reisner said.
“More and more people are saying, ‘We have to have more flexibility. We have to remove barriers to innovations in a measured sort of way.’ “
Efforts to overhaul the variety registration began in 1998 but stalled a couple of years ago. Stakeholders failed to reach consensus on the scope of the overhaul.
A renewed effort began last year. A pivotal part was a seed sector review that began last June with funding support from Agriculture Canada.
It offered a way to start building consensus with<00AD>in the seed industry, not only on the topic of crop variety registration, but also on issues such as seed standards and genetically mod<00AD><00AD>ified crops and products.
“It was necessary to broaden the discussion to include the forest and not just the trees in it,” said Glyn Chancey, director of plant production for CFIA.
A report and recommendations from the seed sector review are expected this spring.
The next step could be formation of an interim consultative body, drawn from members of the seed sector, designed to provide the leadership and consensus needed to get the registration system streamlined, based partly on feedback already gathered through the seed sector review. That work could start as early as this summer, Chancey said.
The consultative body would carry a lot of the responsibility for getting consensus and leading industry consultations, Reisner said. “It appears as if the CFIA is planning to give that committee a fair bit of weight in the decision making process.”
Based on talk within the industry, the consultative body would collect ideas and opinions from regional or crop-specific groups and then forge agreement on changes that are needed. It would then work with the CFIA to see how those changes might be implemented.
One possible outcome is a shift in the registration process from federal regulations to more administrative directives, the latter being rules that could be changed without the need for cabinet approval, a complicated and time-consuming process. The result could be the flexibility wanted by many players in the seed industry.
Monty Doyle, project manager of the seed sector review, hopes a blueprint for change is emerging.
“There is definitely hope. Otherwise, I don’t think the various industry groups would have gotten on board with this.
“There seems to be a commitment on the part of government to hear the message from industry and to work with industry.”
