The Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain annual meeting is a major step toward the registration of crop lines in several key categories for the Canadian prairie. It also provides a window on the future of Canada’s crop industry.
For many of Western Canada’s new crop lines, the time to step up to the big leagues happens every year around the end of February.
This is when the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain convenes to evaluate new crop lines in several key categories for the Canadian Prairie, and decide which ones to recommend for federal variety registration. For researchers who spend years developing new crop lines, the meeting is like a draft day for their top prospects — the lines they hope will make the jump from Western Canada’s crop development system into the fields of Prairie growers.
The players represent a who’s who of Prairie crop production — the top crop scientists and extension, leading industry players and producer representatives, and marketing and quality experts on the front-lines of the industry.
The stakes are high. Most crop lines under scrutiny are the result of a decade or more of development and testing, and only those that consistently match or better the performance of standard varieties are recommended.
The PRRCG is comprised of subcommittees that cover four major crop groups.
The PRRCG decisions not only determine which varieties will fill Prairie fields for years to come, they put a spotlight on emerging issues in the crop industry. At the 2002 meeting in Winnipeg, the foremost issue was the future of Canada’s variety registration system, as it braces for major changes expected by spring 2003.
This PRRCG Report is an insider’s guide to the Winnipeg meeting. It includes highlights of the key developments and a preview of the top crop prospects recommended for registration.
The future of Canada’s variety registration system was the foremost issue at this year’s PRRCG meeting. The entire system is under federal review and major changes are expected in 2003.
Who should decide which crop varieties farmers can grow?
This fundamental question cuts to the heart of a debate swirling around proposed changes to Canada’s variety registration system, which provided the major focal point for discussion at this year’s Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain (PRRCG) meeting in Winnipeg.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which oversees variety registration, has proposed a major overhaul of the entire system, with changes expected by spring or summer 2003. For the PRRCG — a group of plant breeders, crop experts and industry representatives who recommend Prairie crop lines for CFIA approval — the 2002 meeting in Winnipeg provided its last chance to formally review and respond to the CFIA proposal, before the implementation process kicks into high gear this fall.
Currently, most crop varieties are recommended for registration based on merit in agronomic, disease and quality performance. Chief among the CFIA’s recommended changes is a proposal to remove agronomic merit as a requirement for variety registration. This would include major grains such as wheat and barley.
The proposals could dramatically reduce the role for PRRCG and other recommending bodies. Specifically, the recommended changes include removing a large number of crops from the variety registration “with merit” category and placing them into a mandatory listing system, where the main requirement for registration is providing descriptive information so varieties can be recognized for crop and seed certification purposes.
The proposed changes stem from a major review of the variety registration system commissioned by CFIA in 1998/99. Stakeholders, ranging from farmers to seed companies to public research scientists, generally concluded that the number of crops subject to the current merit system should be reduced and new ways found to make the system more cost-effective and less complex.
While the debate surrounding these changes continues, the process toward implementation is well underway. The initial review recommendations were revised based on feedback, which resulted in an updated proposal in fall of 2000. Since then the CFIA has been consulting with all interest groups to refine the proposal and carry out the process, expected to be fully completed soon after the PRRCG meets again next year — a meeting that will take place for the last time under the current system.
Despite the current state of flux, there is no doubt that the PRRCG currently holds a pivotal position in the variety development system, with broad impact on the multi-billion dollar crop industry in Western Canada.
On the surface, the PRRCG is solely a recommending body — it has no legal authority to register crop varieties. The PRRCG’s mandate from CFIA is to assess the crop lines forwarded for registration and make recommendations on which ones should be approved for registration. This includes administering pre-registration tests.
The CFIA’s Variety Registration Office has the ultimate authority for registering varieties. But since it relies heavily on the PRRCG in its decision-making process, the PRRCG has come to be viewed as the major gatekeeper for the registration of crop lines in several key categories for the Prairies. Its mandate covers four crop areas, represented by subcommittees:
(Canola is not under the auspices of the PRRCG, but has its own recommending body — the Western Canada Canola / Rapeseed Recommending Committee.)
The PRRCG includes nearly all the region’s crop development researchers, along with representatives from key segments of the industry. This group evaluates new crop lines, based on criteria such as agronomic performance, disease resistance and market quality, and then votes on which to recommend for registration.
The PRRCG was formed as a stand-alone committee at arm’s length from government and other organizations. Every five years the CFIA’s Variety Registration Office reviews the committee’s work, operating procedures and policies as a basis for continuing to recognize the group as a recommending body.
The role of the PRRCG could change dramatically with the CFIA’s proposed changes to the variety registraion system. These changes cover several key points.
Mandatory listing system. Mandatory registration would be required for seed of all agricultural crops, as well as for all agricultural plants with novel traits (PNTs). The registration requirement for all crops would include a complete listing of essential information on each variety - including variety name, pedigree information and description.
Agronomic merit no longer a requirement. Agronomic performance would no longer be a part of mandatory merit assessment for any crop.
Three crop schedules with different requirements. Crops would fall under three schedules.
Reduced role for PRRCG and other recommending bodies. Only committees with a mandate for Schedule A crops — which retain merit requirements for disease resistance and quality — would continue to be formally recognized by CFIA. This would result in the elimination of many recommending committees and dramatically reduce the scope of many others. The number of committees recognized by CFIA would be reduced from 20 to six.
Imports must continue to meet Canadian standards. Schedule A varieties from other countries could be imported only if they meet Canadian registration requirements.
Organics receive equal treatment. Varieties produced organically would be subject to the same registration requirements as crops produced under traditional crop management practices.
The 2002 meeting was the first chance for the PRRCG’s four subcommittees to formally comment on the CFIA’s proposed changes. Their responses will be considered by CFIA, along with feedback from other interest groups across the country, as time winds down to finalize the proposal and proceed with full implementation.
The major discussion point at the meeting was the CFIA’s recommendation to remove agronomic merit as a requirement for registration. In general, those opposed to the recommendation cited concerns that the change would reduce the availability of good agronomic data, making it difficult for both researchers and farmers to select the best crop lines. They argued this would lead to an overall weakening of agronomic performance in Canadian crops. Those in favour argued that removing this requirement will streamline the registration process, open up the market for new varieties, add flexibility for crop innovations, and ultimately give farmers more choice and more say in which crops they could grow.
In the end, several subcommittee motions were passed in support of retaining the agronomic merit criterion in some form, particularly for major Schedule A grain crops such as wheat, barley and oat.
The Senior Advisor, Seed Section, for Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on the proposed changes to Canada’s variety registration system and what they mean for researchers, farmers and the industry.
Q: What are the key arguments for removing agronomic merit as a requirement?
A: Obviously, we have more arguments for than against. We’re not saying stop testing for agronomics. We’re saying continue testing, but don’t use it as a criteria to support or not support a variety for registration.
It’s important to remember we are retaining merit for those aspects of crops that are considered important to the commodity as a whole, and from an overall marketing standpoint. For example, we’re retaining quality and disease requirements for wheat and barley.
This would allow varieties to enter the marketplace more rapidly. Under the proposed changes, we’re going from 30 crops subject to merit assessment down to nine. Fewer testing requirements would also reduce costs for the entire system.
Another benefit is more choice for farmers. Producers have been telling us that they want agronomic performance information, but they don’t need a committee to determine which varieties they’ll be able to choose from. No one tells a farmer which brand of pick-up to buy or which combine they can or can’t buy. It’s important for farmers to have agronomic information, but let them make their own decisions.
For example, under the current system, a variety may not yield well and therefore not meet the agronomic requirements, but it may have other advantages, such as quality, that make it attractive to the producer. The new system should also allow some of the lower yielding organic or heritage varieties to get registered — right now, a lot of these don’t meet the yield criteria.
There are other benefits as we look down the road. We’re going to see more crop types that are lower yielding but have great potential. A good example is a crop with pharmaceutical or nutriceutical value — right now some of these would have real trouble fitting into the system. The new system would allow for more flexibility.
Q: What arguments are you hearing against removing agronomic merit, and how does CFIA respond?
A: Some suggest the change will result in a large influx of inferior-yielding varieties. I’m not sure that’s the case. Plant breeders will continue to put their best varieties forward, and from my knowledge of the industry, any company that puts forward an inferior variety will soon find out that was a bad move when they don’t sell it.
Another concern is that removing agronomics as a requirement will have a negative impact on performance testing and make it more difficult to get good agronomic information. We hope this isn’t the case. We’re suggesting that agronomic testing should still be done and used by farmers to guide their decisions, and to help improve disease and quality analysis.
Q: Explain the role of PRRCG and other recommending committees in the decision-making process.
A: They’re a consultant to the process. The approach of a lot of committees, including PRRCG, has been to get feedback from their individual constituent members, who represent various organizations, and come back to us with their comments. Until this year’ meeting, the PRRCG committees as a whole hadn’t formally commented on our proposal. Now they have, and we’ll consider this along with all the other feedback we’ve been receiving.
It’s important to note there are many recommending committees across the country. Under the proposed changes, many of these committees will no longer need to be recognized by our organization. Right now there are 20 recognized committees, and we could be cutting down to six.
But one place where we’ll probably still be dealing with many of these committees is from a performance information standpoint. We want performance information that is from replicated trials, is scientifically valid, etc., and we’re suggesting that many of these committees should be involved in setting up the criteria.
Q: If the changes are implemented as proposed, what will be the bottom line for farmers?
A: From our standpoint, the new system would continue to afford protection. The system has decided that for crops where quality and disease merit is essential, merit assessment in these areas will still be required for registration.
At the same time, breeders and companies are still committed, from what we’ve seen, to developing performance information, or participating in performance testing, which farmers can use to help determine which varieties they should buy. If there isn’t sufficient performance information available at the time of registration — for example, if the farmer decides that more than one year of data is necessary — then my advice would be to not buy the variety from that company that year. It would be better to wait until additional information is available.
It all comes back to us not deciding for farmers. Farmers will be able to access varieties that were previously inaccessible, and make their own decisions.
The Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee evaluates lines based on agronomic performance, disease resistance and end-use quality. Here are highlights of key activity at the 2002 meeting.
Western Canadian farmers may have their first wheat variety with good resistance to Fusarium head blight within two years.
In a rare move, the PRRCG recommended Alsen — the hard red spring wheat from North Dakota — for one-year interim registration after only one year of pre-registration testing. Alsen will have to complete two more years of performance testing and meet the criteria of the Canada Western Red Spring wheat class, but if all goes well, it could become widely available to Canadian farmers in 2004.
If approved by CFIA, the interim registration will allow Canterra Seeds Ltd. to begin seed multiplication in Canada. Under most circumstances, Canadian seed companies can begin seed multiplication before registration. But because Alsen is a registered American variety, import restrictions and other seed regulations had prevented Canterra from beginning seed multiplication, prompting its request for interim registration.
Canterra does have the option of purchasing seed from the U.S. to sell to Canadian farmers at the time of registration in Canada, but rejected the option because of cost.
Alsen is not fully immune to Fusarium head blight, but has better resistance than current Canadian varieties. Alsen has several other valuable traits and is widely grown in spring-wheat production areas of the Western and Midwestern U.S. The line received 49 votes out of 64 cast to support the one-year interim registration.
If Alsen continues to perform well in the co-op trials in 2002, Canterra will ask for a one-year extension of the interim registration, giving it another year to continue multiplication.
Among those opposing the interim registration, one argument was that not enough quality information was available and no decision should be until the American variety has undergone all three years of pre-registration testing. Another argument was that a decision in favour of Alsen would condone farmers who have already been growing Alsen, thereby encouraging more production of unregistered wheat crops. Since Alsen meets the kernel visual distinguishability (KVD) guidelines for Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat, farmers will be able to deliver Alsen into the CWRS system in 2002 if the PRRCG recommendation is upheld by CFIA.
Members of the Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee voted overwhelmingly in support of keeping agronomic merit as a requirement for registration. The vote came in response to the CFIA’s proposal for revamping the variety registration system, which would remove agronomic merit as a required criterion.
The CFIA proposal calls for milling wheat to be placed in Schedule A (i), which requires merit assessment for disease and quality performance, but not for agronomic performance. The agronomic requirement is simply to provide evidence that a minimum of one year of agronomic data has been collected, for the purpose of making this information available to farmers and other interested parties.
The subcommittee essentially supported the status quo, including the condition that all wheat lines, not just milling wheat, are subject to merit requirements in agronomy, disease and quality. Many argued that eliminating agronomic merit as a requirement would discourage rigorous collection of agronomic data, making it difficult for both researchers and farmers to select the best crop lines.
A motion for the Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee to break away from PRRCG and form its own recommending committee received overwhelming support by the subcommittee. The consensus among voting members was that the subcommittee would have more control over its operating procedures outside the PRRCG umbrella.
Since recommending committees derive their status from the CFIA, that body will have to approve the change before it can be implemented.
Every crop type is unique, and one of the main arguments for breaking away was that a recommending committee focused on wheat would be better positioned to deal with the intricacies of the evaluating the crop, including the strict quality requirements. If the breakaway is successful, the PRRCG will still include the Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee, Barley and Oat Subcommittee and Oilseeds Subcommittee.
Performance information from the 2001 Roundup Ready wheat co-op trials received a stamp of approval from the subcommittee. The decision means Roundup Ready wheat is on track to enter its second of three years of registration testing, and lines could be put forward as candidates for registration as early as 2004.
In 2001, Monsanto’s attempt to establish a private registration trial for its Roundup Ready wheat was initially blocked by the subcommittee over fears of pollen flow to commercial fields. After new guidelines were proposed, including larger buffer zones, the subcommittee approved the trial by a majority vote.
The Canadian Grain Commission presented its vision for shifting away from Kernel Visual Distinguishability, the long-established process for wheat identification. The system has served as a cornerstone of Canada’s wheat segregation system, but with an increasing number or registered varieties, along with the emerging potential for genetically modified crops, the Commission and others are preparing a new system.
The Commission reported that it has set up an industry committee, which will submit a report this year with the recommendation to implement an affidavit system. This means producers would be required to declare the variety makeup of their wheat shipments, and would then be held responsible for any misrepresentation. This affidavit system would include a stringent testing process.
Still, the affidavit system is not a long-term solution. The Commission said it would serve as an interim measure, until new, science-based testing systems are implemented. It expects several more years are needed to fully develop a science-based system that would quickly and cost-effectively identify the particular grain varieties in a shipment.
The Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee recommended these crop lines for registration. This listing includes crop type, name, key traits and where the line was developed.
BW758. This line features tolerance to the Clearfield line of herbicides. It was developed using conventional breeding techniques and is not a genetically modified organism. It has CDC Teal quality, and is slightly lower yielding than AC Barrie on the central Prairies. In Alberta regional trials, it out-yielded AC Barrie by 5 percent. University of Saskatchewan Crop Development Centre and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
PT205. This wheat matures earlier and is higher yielding than AC Barrie. It has stronger resistance to leaf rust than AC Barrie and AC Splendor, but is moderately susceptible to common bunt. The test weight of PT205 was intermediate to AC Barrie and AC Splendor, while kernel size was less than both. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre.
PT416. An early maturing, high yielding (similar to AC Barrie) wheat with excellent common bunt resistance and good leaf resistance. Its lodging scores and Fusarium Head Blight resistance are similar to AC Splendor. AAFC Cereal Research Centre.
BW316 (Alsen). This hard red spring wheat line is widely grown in the U.S. because of its good resistance to Fusarium Head Blight (FHB). It is well adapted to Southern Manitoba where FHB is endemic. The line is, however, susceptible to loose smut. The line received a recommendation for one-year interim registration to allow Canterra Seeds Ltd., to begin seed multiplication in Canada, while the line undergoes further testing north of the border. Canterra Seeds Ltd.
AC Navigator. This wheat represents the forefront of a new type of "extra-strong" Canadian durum. It features stronger gluten than all presently registered varieties in Western Canada. It has shorter, stronger straw than Kyle or Plenty, but is more susceptible to leaf spot diseases and loose smut than Kyle. During the past four years, AC Navigator has been grown in Canada under interim registration to allow for market testing. The variety has become established in the marketplace and received support for registration. AAFC Semi Arid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre.
SWS285. This line out-yielded AC Reed by nine percent and AC Phil by seven percent. It is adapted to irrigated areas of Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan and is targeted for premium quality markets. Like most cultivars in its class, SWS285 is susceptible to bunt. AAFC Lethbridge Research Centre.
The Barley and Oat Subcommittee evaluates lines based on a combination of agronomic, disease and quality performance. Here are highlights of key activity at the 2002 meeting.
The Barley and Oat Subcommittee voted nearly unanimously in a motion to support retaining agronomic merit as part of its “holistic” approach to evaluating new crop lines.
This decision was made in response to the CFIA’s proposed changes to the variety registration system. Currently, barley and oat lines are recommended for registration based on merit in agronomics, disease and quality. But the CFIA has proposed dropping agronomic merit as a requirement, as part of a major overhaul to the system expected in 2003.
The Barley and Oat Subcommittee’s holistic approach means lines are evaluated based on the entire package of agronomic, quality and disease performance. The vote reaffirmed its goal to keep agronomic performance as part of this overall evaluation. A key argument was that evaluating lines without knowing agronomic performance is a blind judgement that could lead to weaker lines moving through the system.
The Subcommittee affirmed the dramatic rise in importance of the new forage barley class for Western Canada’s expanding cattle industry, with a show of support for a new Forage Barley Co-operative Trial to begin this crop year.
Co-op trials are a series of field tests across the Prairies that evaluate how new lines perform under a variety of conditions. Information from the tests is used by the Subcommittee as part of its decision-making process for choosing which lines to recommend for registration.
The Subcommittee’s support is the latest indication that forage barley has reached a new level of demand. As Western Canada’s cattle industry expands, producers want multi-purpose varieties that are suitable for silage, greenfeed or grain. Barley breeders have responded by developing a new class of forage barley varieties with greater flexibility and feed quality for western cattle producers. These varieties feature high biomass for silage, along with good grain yield and quality.
The Barley and Oat Subcommittee recommended these crop lines for registration. This listing includes crop type, name, key traits and where the line was developed.
TR262. This two-row malting barley is particularly well adapted to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is higher yielding than the checks and has lodging resistance similar to Harrington. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Brandon Research Centre.
TR166. This two-row malting barley yields higher than Harrington and Manley, with similar straw strength to Harrington. Peeling is better than Harrington, but worse than two other check varieties. University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Crop Development Centre.
TR 359. This two-row feed barley targets the eastern Prairie, where it significantly outyields the check varieties. It features very strong straw, early maturity and very high test weight — higher than CDC Dolly. The line’s spot blotch resistance is the best available, but its susceptibility to Fusarium Head Blight is higher than most two-row barleys. U of S Crop Development Centre.
TR 361. This two-row feed barley is a companion to TR 359 and features many of the same attributes — high yield, good straw strength, early maturity and high, plump test weight — but it is a bit later maturing. Its disease highlights are a flip-flop of TR 359 — lower susceptibility to Fusarium Head Blight than most barleys, but susceptible to spot blotch. The breeder plans to withdraw one of the two lines based on performance this year. U of S Crop Development Centre.
TR 651. Improved lodging resistance is a key advantage of this two-row feed barley, targeted at high-yielding areas. Highlights include earlier maturity and equal kernel weight equal to CDC Dolly, along with higher yields than check varieties. Moderately susceptible to scald. Developed by Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) Field Crop Development Centre.
BT 478. This six-row white malting barley yields higher than CDC Sisler, and has better test weight than check varieties. Susceptible to net blotch. U of S Crop Development Centre.
BT 954. This six-row white malting barley was recommended for a three-year interim registration. Its main selling point is a very high level of enzymes, which is in demand for American-style light beer. Susceptible to scald and net blotch. It outyields CDC Sisler. Agricore United.
BT 965. This six-row white malting barley is also known as Lacey, the name it is registered under in the U.S. This barley features strong straw. It matures earlier and is shorter than CDC Sisler. Disease profile similar to other six-row barleys. University of Minnesota.
HB 513. Dairy producers in Alberta need a replacement to the six-row feed barley Falcon, and this lines promises to fill the bill. It features higher grain, seed and silage yield than Falcon, along with strong straw. AAFRD Field Crop Development Centre.
OT2009. This oat line performs very well in the black soil zone. It features good disease resistance and very high frozen kernel weight. AAFC Cereal Research Centre.
OT7008. High yields across Western Canada are the main selling point of this oat line. It yields considerably better than Beaumont and also features good stem rust resistance. AAFRD Field Crop Development Centre.
The Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee evaluates lentils, beans, field pea and other special crops grown on the Prairies. The Subcommittee’s response to proposed changes to the variety development system highlighted key activity at the 2002 meeting.
Field pea varieties shouldn't be subject to merit requirements for quality and disease. This was the message from the Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee, in response to the CFIA proposal to overhaul the variety registration system.
The CFIA has proposed to place field pea in Schedule A (i), which requires prior merit assessment for disease and quality, plus evidence of collection of agronomic data. The subcommittee recommended a different course, voting to place field pea in Schedule B of the new proposal, which simply requires evidence of collection of agronomic, disease and quality performance as appropriate.
The move would put field pea, the highest acreage pulse crop, in the same category as other pulses and special crops, including field bean, buckwheat, lentils and fababeans. The CFIA will consider the subcommittee’s feedback as it moves to finalize its proposal.
The Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee recommended these crop lines for registration. This listing includes crop type, name, key traits and where the line was developed.
1048-8R. A small green line with improved anthracnose resistance and good yield. University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Crop Development Centre.
1066-4. This small green line features good yield and anthracnose resistance. U of S Crop Development Centre.
1038-L-18. A medium green line with improved ascochyta resistance and good yield. U of S Crop Development Centre.
1156-2-17. A medium green line featuring improved ascochyta and anthracnose resistance as well as good yield. U of S Crop Development Centre.
938-87. This French green line has solid yield potential and improved ascochyta resistance. U of S Crop Development Centre.
Arikara Yellow. A heritage variety with a yellow seed coat. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Lethbridge Research Centre.
Onyx. This black bean line features improved lodging resistance. Syngenta.
Voyager. A navy bean with good yield. Syngenta.
ROG361. This early maturing navy line has good yield. Syngenta.
Sponsor. A yellow, early maturing line with solid yield. Johnson Seeds.
CDC0001. This green line features improved lodging resistance and seed quality. U of S Crop Development Centre.
CDC0007. Good yield, improved lodging resistance and powdery mildew resistance are characteristics of this yellow line. U of S Crop Development Centre.
CDC0009. A yellow line with good yield, improved lodging resistance and powdery mildew resistance. U of S Crop Development Centre.
SB2000-2. This yellow line is characterized by solid yield potential and powdery mildew resistance. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
SW975504 (SW Circus). A yellow line with good yield, earlier maturity and improved lodging resistance. Svalof Weibull.
SW965210 (SW Prize). This yellow line is characterized by good yield, earlier maturity and improved lodging resistance. Svalof Weibull.
SW975514 (SW Belfield). An earlier maturing yellow line with solid yield potential. Svalof Weibull.
MP1807. This yellow line has a small seed size and powdery mildew resistance. AAFC, Morden.
NZ4L08. A green line featuring earlier maturity. Canterra Seeds.
The Oilseeds Subcommittee is responsible for oilseed crops such as flax, mustard seed and sunflower. The Subcommittee’s response to proposed changes to the variety development system highlighted key activity at the 2002 meeting.
The Oilseeds Subcommittee strongly supported keeping agronomic merit as a requirement for registering sunflower, oilseed flax and mustard varieties. The decision was in response to the CFIA’s proposed changes to the variety registration system.
Under the CFIA proposal, these crops would fall under Schedule A i), which includes a merit requirement for quality and disease only. For agronomics, those supporting a line for registration would simply be required to provide evidence that a minimum of one year of agronomic data had been collected, for the purpose of making this information available to farmers and other interested parties.
In a related move, the subcommittee supported a motion in favour of the CFIA’s placement of fibre flax in Schedule A iii), which requires that a crop must undergo disease merit assessment and show evidence of collection of agronomic data.
CFIA’s placement of safflower and soybeans into Schedule B also met with the subcommittee’s approval. Schedule B requires evidence that agronomic, disease and quality performance data was collected, as appropriate. As well, the subcommittee voted to recommend that the responsibility for safflower and soybean crops be moved to another recommending committee — members felt they do not have the expertise to assess these crops.
The Oilseeds Subcommittee recommended these crop lines for registration. This listing includes crop type, name, key traits and where the line was developed.
FP2024. This linseed flax line is adapted to Western Canada. In comparison to the check Flanders, FP 2024 is substantially higher yielding, with greater lodging resistance, but similar maturity. Seed quality attributes include a significantly higher oil content and slightly higher oil quality compared to Flanders. In addition, it has a similar seed size and similar protein content as Flanders. FP 2024 is immune to rust (race 371) and has similar Fusarium wilt resistance as checks Flanders and NorLin. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Morden.
FP2044. A linseed flax line adapted to all areas of Western Canada. It is significantly higher yielding than Vimy across the region and is considerably higher yielding than the checks Flanders and Vimy in the Black soil zone. FP 2044 has substantially better lodging resistance than both checks and is considerably shorter in height than Vimy. It features significantly better oil content than Vimy, appreciably better oil quality than Flanders and Vimy, as well as significantly higher protein content than Flanders. FP 2044 also has a substantially higher linolenic acid content than Flanders. Disease resistance to Fusarium wilt is equal to that of NorLin and Flanders and FP2044 is immune to flax rust race 371. University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Crop Development Centre.
SP 2047. A Solin flax line that is adapted to all areas of Western Canada, and performs particularly well in the Black and Black and Grey Soil Zones. In comparison to the check Linola 947, SP 2047 is substantially higher yielding in the Black Soil Zone, similar yielding in the Black and Grey Soil Zones, and similar yielding in Western Canada. It matures significantly earlier, has considerably better lodging resistance than Linola 947 and has a significantly larger seed size. Seed quality attributes of SP 2047 include notably more oil content than the check Linola 949, with significantly more protein content. Seed coat colour is yellow, and SP 2047 has 2.0% linolenic, and 72.0% linoleic fatty acid. SP 2047 is 100% immune to rust (race 371) and has similar Fusarium wilt resistance as the check Linola 949. Agricore United and AAFC, Morden.
SA98RNA1. A yellow mustard line that is significantly higher yielding than the check Ochre with similar maturity and height. It is well adapted to the mustard growing areas of western Canada. It represents a major improvement in seed mucilage content and has a higher thousand seed weight than that of Ochre. Protein and hydroxybenzyl glucosinolate contents are similar to Ochre and oil content is slightly lower. Disease reactions of SA98RNA1 are similar to Ochre for blackleg and white rust severity. AAFC, Saskatoon Research Centre.
J97-149. This brown mustard line represents an increase in yield over the Common Brown check and is well adapted to the brown mustard growing areas of western Canada. It has a significantly lower fixed oil content with a similar volatile oil as Common Brown, with an increased protein content and reduced green seed and chlorophyll content. It is slightly taller and one day later maturing than Common Brown. It has similar disease reactions to white rust race 2a and 2v and blackleg as other brown mustard cultivars. AAFC Saskatchewan Research Centre.
The Prairie Regional Recommending Committee for Grain (PRRCG) at present is a major gatekeeper for the registration of new crop lines for the Canadian prairie. It administers pre-registration trials for several crop categories and makes recommendations on which lines should ultimately be approved for federal variety registration.
The PRRCG is the major variety registration recommending body for several key crop categories in the Canadian prairie. It plays a large role in determining which crop varieties are grown in the region, giving it significant influence over the region's multi-billion dollar crop industry.
The PRRCG gets its mandate from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Variety Registration Office, which makes all final decisions on which crop lines are approved for federal variety registration. The PRRCG's job is essentially to assess the candidate lines beforehand and advise the CFIA on which ones it believes should win approval. Part of this includes administering pre-registration tests across the region.
The CFIA relies on many recommending bodies across the country. The PRRCG's specific mandate covers crops targeted at Prairie production in four major areas: wheat, rye and triticale; barley and oat; pulse and special crops; and oilseeds. Crop lines that fall under this mandate are required to go through the PRRCG system before they can advance for consideration by the CFIA.
The PRRCG mandate is not permanent. The Variety Registration Office reviews the committee's work every five years before deciding whether or not to grant another five-year mandate.
The PRRCG consists of an executive committee, main committee and four subcommittees: the Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee; Barley and Oat Subcommittee ; Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee; and Oilseeds Subcommittee. (Canola is not under the auspices of the PRRCG, but has its own recommending body — the Western Canada Canola / Rapeseed Recommending Committee.) Each subcommittee has three evaluation teams responsible for assessing merit in one of three areas: 1) breeding and agronomy, 2) disease, and 3) quality.
The PRRCG includes both full voting members and non-voting associate members. Voting members are those with the expertise to properly assess crop varieties, such as plant breeders and quality experts. Non-voting members typically include farmers, research centre administrators, extension specialists and others with a legitimate interest in committee activities.
The PRRCG meets annually, usually in February, to perform the recommending process. This includes several steps.
Evaluation teams assess the candidates. The process begins at the evaluation team level, where each team assesses the candidate crop lines for performance in its particular area of expertise — breeding and agronomy, disease, and quality.
The evaluation teams judge the candidates based on a vote, with four choices available.
Subcommittees vote to recommend. The evaluation team assessments are discussed at a meeting of the full subcommittee, as a basis for the formal subcommittee vote to recommend the candidates for registration or turn them down. Abstentions are expected only in the case of an openly declared conflict of interest. At this level, the voting is based on an overall assessment of the candidate, and is typically performed by a show of hands. However, each subcommittee can decide on an appropriate voting method. For instance, the Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee used a secret ballot in 2002.
Option to appeal. If a sponsor objects to the decision of the subcommittee, an appeal can be made to the PRRCG executive committee, whereby the executive votes and majority rules. A further appeal is also available, by which a three-person appeal panel is selected; one panel member is selected by the subcommittee chair, another by the sponsor and a third by the registrar of the Variety Registration Office. In both scenarios, the sponsor must pay a fee for the costs of the appeal.
Recommendations approved by PRRCG are forwarded to CFIA. Once the subcommittee has made its recommendations for registration and the general membership has approved the subcommittee's actions, the secretary of each subcommittee sends the registration recommendations to the CFIA's Variety Registration Office.
An alternative to the usual variety registration process is contract registration. Five-year contract registrations are available for crops that fall outside the normal traits of a particular crop class, but have a specific end use. The sponsor must show that 1) an end-user exists for the crop and 2) that a closed production system is achievable, to prevent the crop from negatively affecting other crops in the system.
The PRRCG Report 2002 was reviewed for technical accuracy by this review team of experts representing each crop category. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
Dr. Mario Therrien, PRRCG Chair
Dr. Scott Duguid, Oilseeds Subcommittee Chair
Dr. Michael Edney, Barley and Oat Subcommittee Chair
Dr. Robert Graf, Wheat, Rye and Triticale Subcommittee Chair
Dr. Tom Warkentin, Pulse and Special Crops Subcommittee Chair
For media, industry, extension and others interested
Sections of this PRRCG Report 2002 may be reprinted, provided the source is clearly acknowledged at the front of the document.
For further information on this or other Meristem Land and Science reports, contact Meristem Information Resources Ltd.
Meristem Information Resources Ltd.
12 - 3109 Palliser Drive SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
T2V 4W5
Phone: (403) 543-7420
Email: info@meristem.com
Web: www.meristem.com
© 2002 Meristem Land and Science