Cancellation of this year’s prairie canola variety trials came as a surprise to just about everyone.
Seed developers had been unhappy for some time with the methods used for independent testing of new varieties, and the Canola Council of Canada was aware of their concerns.
The system was developed before the widespread introduction of herbicide tolerant hybrid varieties. Plans were underway to develop a new system but apparently when it became clear that changes would not be made for this season, several major developers pulled out of the trials and forced the council to cancel all canola variety tests.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Part of the problem causing delay was lack of consensus on how to improve the trials so they provide more or better data on various variety traits. However, there appears to be general consensus that changes are needed.
Farmers reacted to the news with dismay. Unbiased, reliable trials run by a third party are vital to farmers’ selection of the variety that best suits their goals and situations.
The greater the number of varieties – and there are a considerable number when it comes to canola – the more important the trials become in aiding selection.
Fortunately, the loud reaction will likely ensure that a new testing system will be developed and implemented next year. Farmers want it, the canola council wants it and, according to companies contacted by the Producer, the seed development companies want it too.
Among the desired changes are new regimes that will more accurately test competing herbicide and hybrid systems.
For example, Roundup Ready varieties could be tested using Roundup, Liberty Link varieties could be tested with Liberty, and so forth, rather than testing all varieties with the exact same protocols and comparing agronomic responses.
Though it would introduce a wider range of variables, such a regime would better reflect production practices commonly used by the producers who will grow and harvest the seed.
There is also a desire for larger plot sizes, which again introduces more variables and more expense.
Costs for the trials are borne by the seed companies that have varieties on test, by Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba grower groups, and by the canola council. Thus plot trials must remain affordable, while also being manageable and scientifically based.
It is in seed companies’ best interests to support an unbiased system of testing. Though they conduct their own tests, individual company results are likely to be viewed with skepticism by prospective buyers, given the self-serving nature of positive data.
Customers look more favourably upon companies with enough confidence in their products to place them in side by side comparisons with the competition.
From the company point of view, it must be rewarding on several levels to see new varieties do well in trials, justifying the effort and expense of development.
The canola council says it is optimistic that a new system can be developed and put into place for next year.
Presumably one year is enough for it to sort through the various criticisms of the current system and develop a new one that satisfies the most pressing concerns.
The council is also committed to provide a better explanation to growers about new system protocols so results will be readily understood.
It favours everyone’s interests to support a better system that remains unbiased, so co-operation can be expected.
The major lesson learned from this year’s collapse of the trials is that unbiased, reliable third-party tests are important and valuable to everyone in the canola business. It’s an excellent foundation on which to build a new testing regime.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
