Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 11638 www.seed.ab.ca | Advancing Seed in Alberta disappearance of infested crop residues that can act as a source of Fusarium head blight.” While numbers haven’t been finalized as of yet, Michael Harding, research scientist, plant pathology with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, says they’re seeing more symptoms of Fusarium head blight this year. “This is likely due to the increase in rainfall and humidity in 2016, especially when wet conditions persisted at the time the cereal crops were flowering,” he notes. Is a zero tolerance policy realistic? While the goal of the zero tolerance policy is to keep Alberta Fusarium free, some believe it to be unrealistic, especially since the risk of transfer through seed is a lot less than what it is with cross residue. Alberta Seed Growers vice-president Ward Oatway doesn’t think a zero tolerance policy is logical. “Having to throw away 0.5 per cent-infected seed in Alberta when you could haul it to Saskatchewan and seed it – and there they will take it because there it is eight per cent [tolerance]. They were going to seed it, but now they’ll seed yours because it’s only 0.5, and you can’t do it at home,” he says. “I personally would think that with best management practices, up to a two per cent infection level is something that would be tolerable.” Oatway worries the policy puts Alberta farmers at a disadvantage, particularly when it comes to accessing new genetics. “Alberta farmers are going to find that they’re not going to have access to the new genetics as fast as Saskatchewan and Manitoba due to the Fusarium on the new varieties,” he notes. “It’s either going to go one way or the other. It’s either going to create an underground thing, or we’re just going to have to wait until they get a year out there when they can provide seed that’s Fusarium free.” Todd Hyra, business manager at SeCan, says there have been examples where Alberta growers have definitely missed out. “We had a general-purpose wheat a few years ago called Pasteur,” he explains. “But the only source had Fusarium in it, so the only source seed growers in Alberta could use was breeder seed. And so we started with fairly large quantities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Alberta had to start with breeder seed, so they were two years behind in the uptake of the variety.” Like Oatway, Hyra doesn’t think the zero tolerance policy makes sense. “When I talk to growers outside of Alberta, my Not surveyed No F. graminearum detected F. graminearum confirmed 2010 Alberta Distribution Map Fusarium graminearum 2015 Alberta Distribution Map Fusarium graminearum SURVEY RESULTS ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 2010 2015 Number of positive counties 13 22 % Positive (total) 11.1% TBD % Positive (wheat heads) 13.6% 5.6% % Positive (wheat stubble) 6% 27.8% % Positive (Corn) 48.9% 71.4% % 3-ADON (total) 9.7% TBD % 3-ADON (wheat) 9% 63.4% % 3-ADON (corn) 12.1% 9.5% “As Fg becomes more established on susceptible crop residues, there is an increasing risk of finding it more frequently in surveys and harvested grain.” —Kelly Turkington recommendation is if you don’t have Fusarium on the farm now, then do everything in your power not to build the levels,” he says. “But if you produce seed that has one per cent in it, then what’s the harm in planting seed that has one per cent in it?” Harding, however, thinks the policy still makes sense. “A small amount of Fusarium graminearum on seed will provide little or no improvement to Fusarium head blight management in the areas where the pathogen is firmly established and commonly found on cereal residue,” he notes. “However, there are regions in the province that we rarely find Fusarium graminearum in our surveys. So using seed that has non-detectable levels of Fusarium graminearum is still a sensible approach to delaying the spread or establishment of the pathogen to those areas.” As of yet, no date has been set for the consultation, and Oatway isn’t optimistic a date will be set. “I’ll believe it when I see it,” he says. “I hate to be pessimistic about it, but this is not the first time we’ve been down this road. Political will is not always very strong when it comes to things like this.” “That they’re even talking about it is a positive, though,” he adds. Melanie Epp