Q&A: Grant Watson

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.

Print complete report

Download PDF file (803K)

© 2002 Meristem Land and Science
Meristem® is a registered trademark of Meristem Information Resources Ltd. All rights reserved.
Legal Disclaimer