An economic study of open-pollinated canola varieties
Key result: MCGA tested open-pollinated (OP) canola varieties against two hybrid canola checks. The OP average yield was 18-30 per cent less than the hybrid checks. Farmers will need to do their own economic analysis to see which is the better sustainability choice.
Project title, Principal investigator: “Evaluation of OP lines and varieties for suitability for commercial production in Manitoba,” Haplotech Inc.
Funding: Manitoba Canola Growers
Manitoba Canola Growers ran trials in 2016 and 2017 to evaluate open-pollinated (OP) canola varieties for commercial production. Trials included 10 varieties, including eight open-pollinated (OP) varieties sourced from different breeders and two hybrid check varieties that were used by the Western Canadian Canola/Rapeseed Recommending Committee (WCC/RRC). The WCC/RRC checks provide a relative comparison to commercial hybrids currently sold in Western Canada.
Three of the varieties from the 2016 trials were excluded due to poor performance or inadequate quality and were replaced by three other varieties supplied by the same breeders. Although it was intended to evaluate varieties for resistance to blackleg at two locations (Carman and Minto) in 2017, the disease pressure ended up being lower than allowable by the WCC/RRC (Westar rating of 2.6), so blackleg resistance ratings couldn’t be assigned.
Trials were conducted at seven locations, with four replications at each. One of the sites in 2017 (near Beausejour) was dropped and then replaced with another site location (near La Salle) in an attempt to maintain seven locations. But unfortunately one other site (in Winnipeg) had to be dropped due to a seeding error, leaving six trial locations for the 2017 growing season.
Yield results for the OP varieties ranged between 75 and 85 per cent of the check in 2016 and 65 to 79 per cent of the check in 2017, with the best yielding OP varieties yielding 82 per cent of the check (see Table 1). Performance of the OP varieties in 2017 was slightly poorer than in 2016, which could be due to the elevated environmental stress (drought/heat) in 2017.
Unfortunately only two of the OP varieties tested met the oil content requirements for registration in Canada. They all met the protein content requirements. Two varieties were just above the glucosinolates content requirements, while three of the varieties were above the saturated fatty acid content requirement for variety registration.
Relative to the checks, OP varieties ranged from -0.1 days earlier maturing to 5.6 days later. The highest-yielding OP was also the tallest and latest maturing. None of the varieties showed excessive lodging as compared to the WCC/RRC checks (5440 is outstanding, 45H29 moderate to strong). As mentioned above, the disease pressure was too low to make a definite conclusion about rating the varieties, but most entries scored similarly to the
resistant checks. None of the varieties had a claim on any value-added trait (e.g. clubroot or blackleg resistance, pod-shatter tolerance etc.).
A full economic analysis was not been carried out, but the two-year yield averages of the OP varieties in the study were about 70-82 per cent of the hybrid check varieties (approximately 18-30 per cent less than the yields of the check varieties). Based on this, if the Manitoba average canola yield is 40 bu./ac., for example, the OP variety average might be 28-33 bu./ac., which would be $84 to $144 less revenue per acre based on $12 per bushel canola.
Table 1. Yield averages for each of the 10 varieties over individual and combined years of the trials
| Entry | 2016 Yield (bu/ac, %chk) | 2017 Yield (bu/ac, %chk) | Avg (bu/ac, %chk) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Check | 5440 | 50.7 | 99.2 | 5440 | 56.0 | 100.7 | 53.9 | 100.1 |
| Check | 45H29 | 49.8 | 100.8 | 45H29 | 54.1 | 99.3 | 52.4 | 99.9 |
| OP | AC Excel | 35.9 | 72.9 | AC Excel | 37.4 | 68.6 | 36.8 | 70.3 |
| OP | A05-6NI | 37.8 | 78.0 | A05-6NI | 36.3 | 65.2 | 36.9 | 70.3 |
| OP | 72P01 CL | 36.5 | 74.5 | Bounty Gold | 42.4 | 76.6 | ||
| OP | Alfa Gold | 41.6 | 83.1 | Alfa Gold | 42.0 | 74.9 | 41.8 | 78.2 |
| OP | PSL 11 | 40.9 | 81.4 | PSL 11 | 40.4 | 73.0 | 40.6 | 76.4 |
| OP | PSL 385 | 42.5 | 86.1 | PSL 385 | 44.1 | 79.4 | 43.5 | 82.1 |
| OP | PSL 427 | 37.5 | 76.1 | PSL 215 | 39.2 | 68.7 | ||
| OP | PSL 120 | 38.4 | 76.9 | PSL 488 | 43.4 | 78.1 | ||
Intercropping peas and OPs
Lana Shaw, research manager at South East Research Farm in Redvers, Sask., has been testing a few intercrops – growing two crops at the same time in the same field. The idea is that a pulse and an oilseed together provide a symbiotic relationship that boosts overall profitability per acre. With peas and OP canola, the idea is that seed and nitrogen rates will be lower, with a strong pea crop supplying nitrogen to the system. Economic damage from flea beetles could be mitigated by having a non-host companion crop, which would lower the threshold for spraying insecticides, Shaw adds. But she hasn’t hit the right formula, yet. “So far I haven’t found a canola variety to go with peas that I’m really happy with,” she says. The SERF location also had bad aphanomyces in the peas in 2018. “The pea monocrops were a failure,” she says. “Pea-canola intercrops at least had some production, but not as much as mono canola with full nitrogen package. If we had top-dressed the pea-canola intercrop with nitrogen when it became apparent the peas were badly hit, I think it would have been a more productive intercrop.”