Hursh Consulting & Communications Inc.

The noose continues to tighten around glyphosate as more companies refuse to purchase grain that has had a pre-harvest application. Three recent examples have materialized. These are in addition to the oat and pulse crop buyers that have been shunning crop treated with glyphosate for the past few years.

Roquette, the company building a $400 million pea fractionation facility at Portage la Prairie has announced the IP production system it will use for contracting its pea supply. Along with requiring certified seed, an environmental farm plan, three quick production reports through the year and no soybeans on the field for the past two years, suppliers will not be able to use pre-harvest glyphosate or diquat (Reglone).

Pre-harvest glyphosate isn’t supposed to be used as a crop desiccant, but pre-harvest use is a good control measure for many perennial weeds. Diquat, on the other hand, is a true desiccant for terminating crop growth.

You can’t blame Roquette for wanting to eliminate herbicide residues. The U.S. maximum residue limit is quite low for diquat and glyphosate is being demonized even when the residue is way below allowable limits.

Producers will weigh the production requirements against the price premium Roquette is offering, but the Portage location is working against their IP requirements. There are many drier regions of the Prairies growing lots of peas that have less need for pre-harvest products. Plus those areas aren’t growing soybeans, which are almost impossible to separate from yellow peas.

Example two in the recent glyphosate banning bandwagon is Barilla, the worldwide pasta manufacturer. Greg Viers of Barilla America talked about the company’s sustainability project at the Prairie Cereals Summit held in Banff back in December. He also referred to it during the January 30 Durum Summit held in Swift Current.

The company is offering a premium for durum that has low glyphosate residue. In future years, the residue limit will continue to drop as the company responds to consumer concerns. At least Barilla realizes that producers need to be compensated to change production practices. However, you have to wonder if no pre-harvest use will eventually become the norm.

Number three is Kellogg. Known for its breakfast cereals, the iconic company has reportedly bowed to a shareholder pressure group with a commitment to phase out pre-harvest glyphosate on its oat and wheat purchases by the end of 2025.

Disturbingly, Kellogg refers go glyphosate as a “pre-harvest drying agent” for wheat and oats. This is propagating a popular misconception. If glyphosate is used according to recommendations, crops are nearly mature before application and there is little or no crop dry down achieved. Correspondingly, there should be a minimal amount of residue in the seed.

Unfortunately, consumers don’t understand maximum residue limits. For them, any residue is wrong and they don’t differentiation between parts per million and parts per billion.

Sadly, some crops that never see a pre-harvest glyphosate application are going to show trace amounts. Testing has advanced to the stage where you can find minute traces of almost anything anywhere.

The Keep it Clean campaign urges farmers not to apply glyphosate until the seed is below 30 per cent moisture in the least mature plants in the field. Alas, the campaign is too little, too late.

While glyphosate may continue to be registered for pre-harvest application in the U.S. and Canada, buyers are steadily limiting our marketing options even when the product is used properly.

A new religion is sweeping the world – the religion of climate change. Like many of the ancient religious dogmas, it relies more on faith than evidence and also like traditional religions, it runs the risk of becoming fanatical.

For the firm believers, evidence of climate change devastation is everywhere. Every weather anomaly is now caused by or at least magnified by climate change. The world will end if we don’t take action. It’s a noble cause that particularly appeals to young urbanities.

People need a cause, something to believe in. While places of worship may have trouble filling their pews, there’s seems to be no shortage of people who want to attend climate change rallies. And like many religions, it’s your duty to attract others to the fold.

If you are a non-believer or even a sceptic, you are to be scorned and shunned. Being an agnostic or even an atheist is perfectly acceptable in modern society, but if you question any part of climate change theory, you’re an enemy to the human race.

Flexitarians are drawn to Beyond Meat burgers because they’ve been told it’ll help save the climate. No use getting into the intricacies of how cattle utilize land unsuitable for crops and feed unsuitable for human consumption, they’ve been told that meat production has a higher carbon footprint and that’s all that matters.

Beyond the trendy activities, most of the activists spend their time calling on governments to take action. “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions before it’s too late,” they lament. Somehow, many seem to believe governments can solve the issue without affecting how people live, work and play.

The majority of people are in favour of action to address climate change. Even for most sceptics, reducing fossil fuel consumption where feasible seems like a good plan.

But how many people are willing to support actions that cost them a significant amount of money or that force them to change their lifestyle?

Here’s a simple example. Reducing highway speed limits by 10 kilometres per hour would save a great deal of fuel and also save lives. The only cost would be more time to get from point A to point B. That would seem like a small sacrifice on the altar of climate action, but it would be wildly unpopular.

Interestingly, green is the new red. Saving the climate somehow aligns with sticking it to the rich and the big corporations. Just make the rich pay for whatever is needed to save the planet.

Canadian oil and gas is villainized and we shouldn’t have pipelines to export it. The world should use oil from Saudi Arabia instead.

There are some inconvenient facts that the climate change religion doesn’t like to hear.

Canada accounts for 1.6 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions so whatever we do in this country has a negligible impact. Try having a climate action rally in China.

The world’s climate has always changed and it would still change if human greenhouse gas emissions were dramatically curtailed. There are factors at play beyond the activities of humans. Any climate change comes with positives as well as negatives.

The warnings of impending doom are increasingly shrill, but has your life actually been affected? Farmers would seem to be the most at risk from climate change, but the weather risks faced by producers in this country don’t seem much more daunting than past generations.

How many acres do you farm?

It may seem like a straight-forward, natural question, but it isn’t always a comfortable question to answer. Plus the answer can be open to a lot of interpretation.

If you engage in conversations at farm trade show booths talking to vendors of anything from agronomic services and products to machinery, you’ve probably been asked the question repeatedly.

In many respects, it makes sense. Companies wanting to sell you something have a better idea of your needs if they can understand the scope of your operation. A 2,500 acre farmer is more likely to be in the market for a 40 or 50 foot drill than a 70 or 80 foot version.

But it often feels like you’re being judged. If you have a relatively small acreage, you’re not very successful and you’re not a good sales prospect. “Please keep moving so I can talk to bigger farmers with more money to spend. You probably can’t afford what I’m offering.” They may not say it, but you wonder if they’re thinking it.

Unless you can throw out an impressive acreage, it almost feels like you aren’t validated. Even the survey companies that call and email incessantly, desperate to meet their response quotas might disqualify you from answering because your acreage of a particular crop doesn’t meet the specifications.

Many small to medium sized producers are approached by large acreage farms asking if their land is for sale or rent. The prevailing opinion is that only big farms have a future and smaller operations are just wasting their time.

News flash. Small to medium sized grain farms can be profitable and progressive. While the trend to larger operations will continue, don’t judge a farm’s success simply by its acreage.

Consider a farm that’s 6,000 acres. That may sound like a pretty good size, but what if three families are trying to make a living from those acres? And what if most of the acres are rented rather than owned? What if the cash rent is exorbitant? And what if the family relationships are strained and everyone isn’t getting along?

What about that farm with less than 2,000 acres? Maybe the land is paid for and they’re growing some higher value crops, watching their costs and making a good living. Maybe they have some strong off-farm revenue streams which will give them a lot of staying power if the grain economy hits a rough stretch.

Some producers are absolutely driven to farm a larger and larger land mass. Their definition of success seems rooted in continual expansion. Some want to operate under the radar. Others like to flaunt their size.

A large gross income doesn’t necessarily equate to a strong net income. While some large farms are making boatloads of money, others aren’t doing as well.

For those with small to medium sized acreages (however you want to define that), there’s no need to apologize and no need to feel second rate. By the same token, there’s no reason to harbor resentment against others just because they farm larger acreages.

There’s a place for all of us and we have mostly common concerns and needs.

But the next time you hear ‘how many acres do you farm’ realize that it’s a loaded question carrying a great deal of baggage and probably a number of caveats.

Get ready for a heated debate over royalty payments on farm saved seed. This contentious issue will be a centre of attention for the Canadian grain sector over the winter.

All the players in the seed industry make a strong case for why more funding is needed for wheat and other cereals and the same model could end up being applied to other crops as well.

Canola is the exception. With canola, the vast majority of seed is purchased every year. Hybrids dominate, which eliminates saving your own seed even if you were allowed. On top of that, seed treatments for canola must be commercially applied.

Presto, there’s a lucrative revenue stream and companies tripping over themselves to come out with better varieties. Producers gripe about the ever increasing cost of canola seed, but they keep buying because the crop is typically a top money earner, even after paying dearly for the seed every year.

In contrast, industry estimates put certified seed use at only 20 or 25 per cent for wheat. Producers will buy certified seed of a new variety and save their own seed for a number of subsequent years before trying out a new variety.

According to researchers and seed companies, there just isn’t enough money to fund good breeding programs. This has spurred the development of proposals on how to collect royalties on farm-saved seed.

Newer varieties covered under the updated Plant Breeders’ Rights Act would be covered. The money would flow to both private and public plant breeding institutions.

Two potential models have been forwarded to focus discussions. Model one allows for a national non-refundable levy on all the newer varieties. These royalties would then be forwarded to the breeders based on their market share.

The proposal calls for the existing provincial check-off systems to be leveraged for collection. Many wonder about check-off fatigue.

It’s interesting to note that while the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act allows for end point royalties, you can’t have an end point royalty in a year when you’ve charged a royalty on the certified seed.

Model two is royalty collection enabled by contracts. When buying seed of a new variety, a producer would have to sign a contract agreeing to pay a trailing royalty on farm-saved seed. Part of the contractual obligation would be reporting the annual use of the farm-saved seed.

This sort of contractual arrangement could be done without any amendments to the regulations of the act. However, many in the seed sector believe it would be best to have regulations to bring about some consistency and standardization.

When Canada updated its Plant Breeders’ Rights Act to be compliant with the international standard called UPOV 91, the right for farmers to save their own seed was enshrined in the legislation. In fact, the provision was used to diffuse opposition.

The seed sector should expect the opposition to be reinvigorated and broader now that there’s money at stake.

The federal government has continued to put money into wheat breeding and hopefully that will continue. However, it’s naïve to believe that public money will greatly increase in the years ahead.

There’s no free lunch.

Private companies will only invest in wheat and barley if they have a way to generate sufficient revenue. Unfortunately, for farmers who feel that everyone has a hand in their pocket, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

It has become fashionable to complain about the high price of farmland and how it’s difficult or even impossible for young people to get a start in farming these days. However, if you look at the selling price of older farm equipment, this is a great time to start farming. You can be very well equipped at a reasonable price.

At a recent consignment auction sale in my neck of the woods, I watched a 2002 Morris Maxim 11 39 foot air drill with a 240 bushel two-compartment tank sell for a mere $7,000. The unit appeared to be in great shape, the one knock against it being that it was single shoot.

Older units that are 15 or 20 years old sell relatively cheap whether they are Morris, Flexicoil or Bourgault, even if they have double shoot capability.

And cheap horsepower is available to pull older drills. If you’re willing to run something that isn’t fancy, but still has years of life left, you can find a seeding tractor for under $25,000.

Most producers have moved to high-clearance sprayers and as a result pull type sprayers are a dime a dozen. At this particular auction, some very serviceable rigs sold for under $1,000.
There may be jobs for which you would want to hire a custom high clearance operator, but on a small to medium acreage, you can get by without the expense of owning one.

And if your budget allows, there are smaller and older high clearance sprayers for under $30,000. They won’t be as fast as your neighbour’s newer model, but it will still cover a lot of acres in a day.

Used combines are available to fit almost any budget. They might not have the newest technology, but the basic principles of thrashing grain haven’t changed.

Of course, equipment needs don’t stop there. You’ll need another tractor for the pull type sprayer, a grain truck or two, augers, water tanks, tools and a bunch of other stuff. However, a 2,000 acre farm can be quite nicely equipped for less than the cost of one brand new combine.

We’re in an era where the biggest tractors hooked to the biggest and best new air drills have a price tag in the range of $1.5 million. You can look at that and say beginning farmers don’t have a chance, but in reality good used equipment is available at a wide range of price points.

This doesn’t overcome the record high price of buying farmland, but many get their start by renting land. You always hear about the sky-high rental rates. In Saskatchewan, there are cash rents in the $100 to $130 an acre range, but there are also areas where the cash rent on good farmland is less than half those amounts.

Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t cheap or easy to build a farming operation from scratch. Almost all farmers get their start within a family operation. That’s the way it’s been since this region was originally homesteaded.

But there are enterprising individuals who continue to develop very successful farms with hard work, good budgeting and incremental growth.

There’s no shame in running older equipment, but it is a shame to run into financial trouble because you want to run the newest and best when you can’t afford it.