| |
| |
Variety registration in the big picture
Crop-by-Crop Highlights
Background
|
Date posted: March 30, 2004 Variety registration in the big picture
New thinking on wheat quality assuranceTerry Harasym of the Canadian Grain Commission updated progress toward KVD alternatives and outlined key elements of Canada's emerging wheat quality assurance strategy. Canada's quality assurance system for wheat has long relied on Kernel Visual Distinguishability (KVD) as a segregation tool. Different classes of wheat are bred to have features that make them distinguishable by the human eye, providing the basis by which different classes of wheat are kept separate in the grain handling system. But increasingly, relying on KVD as a segregation tool is proving inadequate to uphold the system's integrity and to meet a broader array of farmer and market demands. Under a segregation system based on KVD alone, visually indistinguishable, non-registered varieties of wheat have potential to compromise the Canadian quality assurance system if they are misrepresented. This can cause significant financial losses for grain handling companies and marketers, which can work its way back to producers. KVD also limits the ability of plant breeders to rapidly incorporate improved disease resistance, agronomic and quality characteristics into new wheat varieties, and it can impede the handling of non-milling wheats, such as high yielding feed varieties or wheat used for industrial purposes such as ethanol production. In response to these concerns, the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) established an advisory committee in 2001 to consider alternatives to relying on KVD for grain segregation. The committee was representative of producers, grain handlers, marketers and other key industry players. A major recommendation by the committee was the development of a proposal for a comprehensive traceability and liability transfer system, and to put this proposal forward for discussion. The CGC responded by developing and seeking broad feedback on a proposal to use a Variety Eligibility Declarations (VED) system to segregate grain in the handling system. The VED approach would require declaration and sampling of western grain at every point in the handling chain, beginning with deliveries at primary elevators. The VED approach showed some potential benefits. However, extensive stakeholder consultations, an operational feasibility assessment, and independent cost and benefit studies identified concerns costs and other practical hurdles to widespread reliance on VEDs. The CGC concluded that the potential benefits of a mandated VED system are not sufficient to justify implementation at this time. At the 2004 PRRCG meeting, Terry Harasym, Assistant Chief Commissioner of the CGC spoke on these findings. He also provided a preview of how the Commission will continue to address the wheat quality assurance issue, outlining three major elements of the CGC's Wheat Quality Assurance Strategy (WQAS). Harasym's viewsKey excerpts from Harasym's presentation: On variety eligibility declarations (VEDs)Terry Harasym: The concept of VED was intended to address two primary issues: 1) visually indistinguishable, non-registered wheat varieties that potentially can enter our handling system and compromise the quality of our premier milling wheats, and 2) the constraints that KVD imposes on the development and handling of non-milling wheats. If this concept was to have moved forward, it would have required legislative change to require producers to declare the class of their grain upon delivery to an elevator. Samples would then be taken, and declarations signed, each time grain changed handling in the handling system. Theoretically this would make it possible to trace non-registered and potentially misrepresented varieties back to their source. Those responsible for this misrepresentation could then be held accountable and be subject to penalties or other sanctions. The decision was made that we are not prepared at this time to go forward with a government mandated VED system. The benefits to producers and other industry stakeholders, in our view, are not sufficient at this time for us to do that. However, this view does not apply to the use of declarations in commercial transactions. We support this - we think it's a very important part of the evolution of our system. There are already, for example, declarations that are in use by primary elevators and producers with respect to Alsen wheat. I think it is quite likely that declarations will form an integral part of the grain production, marketing and handling system as we move forward. More detail on this is available on our Web site, www.grainscanada.gc.ca, including detail on the comprehensive analyses and a more expansive explanation of the CGC's decision and plans. On new technology for variety identificationFor the future, I think the ultimate solution lies in technology. A driveway test is quite a few years away, but we at CGC and others have made some very significant advances in variety identification research, and we're continuing to do that. The CGC will behave as a catalyst in mobilizing more resources and in moving toward an industry technology strategy in a collaborative fashion. If we believe that technology is the solution, we need to figure out collectively how we're going to solve this, so that five years from now I'm not standing here again saying that maybe we will have a technological solution five years out. We need to mobilize resources, and to find ways to do the variety ID technology research in a faster, more defined manner. The quality assurance problem is an industry problem, and a technology solution will only come if the industry collectively decides it wants to move forward. On increased variety monitoringOn another front, we at the CGC are going to increase our monitoring of rail car shipments in order to deal with the non-registered variety issue. If we find shipments that contain non-registered varieties in excess of grade tolerance, we will downgrade them. I think these instances are then going to be dealt with by the system participants in a commercial way. On wheat class restructuringLastly, we have not stopped thinking about how we might be able to address the constraints of KVD on the development of non-milling wheats, such as high-yielding feed wheats. We are developing a proposal to adjust the western wheat class structure in order to accommodate such wheats. Our thinking is in preliminary stages, but I think there are some ways to produce a very positive effect. If the crop development community is willing to be a little bit creative, we should be able to figure out a way of allowing for greater flexibility in the ability of our system to handle non-milling wheats for specific markets. Overall, in the short term, we are going to deal with the challenges surrounding this issue to the best of our ability, within the system that we have. Solutions are not likely to be found very easily. Ultimately, it's going to boil down to everyone in this room and the rest of the industry getting involved from a leadership perspective. Everybody has to come to the table and be prepared to play in the game, to try to find solutions. |
|
 |
© 2004 Meristem Information Resources Ltd. | |
Kick-starting a new era