Forage Updates 2017

Overview Changes to Mechanical Impurity Standards Circular 6 Modernization Forages Working Group

Changes to Mechanical Impurity Standards Prior to 2017, inspectors were required to report Couchgrass in counts. 2016 Standard Operating Procedures: Number of Couchgrass Plants Found in Counts Action Taken 1 Warning printed on Crop Certificate 2-6 Grower asked to remove Couchgrass prior to certification 6+ Field declined pedigreed status HIstorically, the presence of Couchgrass has been a thorn in the side of many forage growers. Remedial action due to the presence of couchgrass was burdensome on growers Seed crops often destined for markets where Couchgrass is not a concern

Changes to Mechanical Impurity Standards 2017 Standard Operating Procedures: Inspected Crop Kind Difficult to Separate Weeds – Report by Frequency (SWI 142.1.1) Standard/Standard Operating Procedure Bromegrass, Fescues, Needlegrasses, Ryegrasses, Wheatgrasses, Wild Rye Couchgrass Warning on crop certificate if there are more than Few (20-100 weeds/100 m2) Bromegrass Downy Brome Timothy Ox-Eye Daisy Last year, we applied almost 150 warnings of couch grass, which was applied if there were trace amounts of Couchgrass present ((<20 weeds/100 m2)). This year, we only applied one warning. Downy Brome and Ox-eye daisy are uncommon.

Circular 6 Modernization

Circular 6 Modernization The CSGA has worked with various levels of the Canadian government for over 100 years to ensure that Canadian agriculture has access to quality seed of new and improved varieties. The CSGA’s core mandate is to provide an officially recognized, third- party service that establishes and administers standards for the production of pedigreed seed crops. Over the next two years, CSGA will conduct a review of Circular 6 to make revisions and improvements so that it is clear, realistic, and reflective of changing technologies.

Circular 6 Modernization Three guiding principles for this activity: Strive for Harmony Adopt New Technology Achieve Effective Standards -Strive for harmonization with other jurisdictions in order to facilitate trade without placing Canadian seed producers or crop exporters at a competitive disadvantage; -Adopt the use of technologies to verify compliance with applicable standards, where possible; and -Consult with end-users to ensure that seed crop certification standards contribute to achieving crops that are fit for purpose and not impose standards that are costly and for which the market is unwilling to pay.

Circular 6 Modernization Two Phases for Modernization: 1) Identification of straight-forward changes. Agreement on these changes by December, 2017 for implementation in the 2018 growing season. 2) Identification of difficult issues requiring more discussion. Continue work on potential changes through 2018 for implementation in the 2019 growing season. Identification of changes is being done through the use of working groups

Working Groups* Cereals (incl. Buckwheat, Canaryseed, Flax) Pulses Soybeans Canola and friends Forage and Turf Hemp (and other crops) “General” “All Crops” or “Generic” working group to work on cross-cutting issues such as format, style, language, etc. Always looking for more input/opinions to inform these working group discussions – if you have any thoughts on any of these topics, please let CSGA know. *In no particular order

Forage Working Group Composition Forage Seed Growers Forage Seed Production Companies Forage Seed Processors Forage Seed Exporters Forage Seed Breeder Licensed Seed Crop Inspector CFIA representative CSGA Staff First meeting October 26th, very productive, very ambitious Over the next few slides, will present some of the topics we are specifically examining (not exhaustive).

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics Previous Land Use Requirements Discussing (For example): Whether previous crops of the same variety should be allowed Whether the years specified makes sense

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics The 10% Rule Applies only to Alfalfa and Red Creeping Fescue, Certified production only. Apply to other Section 6 and 7 crops? Isolation correction if 10% rule is not met? In red fescue, if 10% rule is exceeded, can do border removal in lieu of isolation. In alfalfa, if 10% rule is not met, 50m of isolation must be provided.

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics Border Removal in Lieu of Isolation Currently only available for grasses, not leguminous forages. BUT Grasses are wind-pollinated – greater risk for cross-pollination. Should this option to correct isolations be available for fields of leguminous forages?

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics Age of Stand Are these lengths sensible? Should be part of variety description?

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics Isolation Requirements and Reporting Circular 6 isolation requirements are described as “from a crop of a different variety or non-pedigreed crop” BUT Often the sources of contamination are plants in ditches or volunteers in adjacent fields and not entire crops. Should CSGA require full isolation to sources of pollen contamination that are not present as an complete crop? What is the risk in defining a threshold density for corrective action? Does it make sense to describe varying required isolation distances based on the density of contaminants? Right now, we consider the area, density, stage of maturity, and location of sources of contaminating pollen. For example, if there is asynchronous flowering between the crop and contaminant, there is no risk and no corrective action is required. In Section 6, indicated that “Under optimum conditions, not more than 3 plants per square meter of harmful contaminants should be in the required isolation adjacent to an inspected crop” – informal threshold.

Forage Working Group – Discussion Topics