The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section D - Other Issues for Triticale

Subscribe to our free E-Newsletter, "Agri-News" (formerly RTW This Week)Agri-News
This Week
 Other issues for triticale | Estimating the potential future acreage of triticale in W. Canada

Other Issues for Triticale

Minor use herbicide registrations for triticale
Several times in discussions, and in questionnaire responses, concern was expressed by growers of triticale that registered herbicides for this crop were few in number, and more registrations were needed. Therefore, since triticale behaves very similarly to wheat, some producers were applying herbicides registered for wheat, although this use is not approved. This is not an acceptable situation either from an environmental or food safety and health point of view. Discussion with Dr. Linda Hall (AAFRD) was entered on this topic, and she indicated that several minor use registrations do exist, likely enough for normal production circumstances. However, sufficient data likely exist for a number of other herbicides (minimum 3 site-years of data needed) for which the minor use registration could be applied, including some tank mix results. Interested producer groups can make these minor use applications if they are interested. Herbicide manufacturers and government agencies are not permitted to make applications for minor-use, but the perceived problem could likely be quickly solved by interested growers / organizations taking on this role.

In discussions with Dr. Mirza Baig (Editor, Alberta Herbicide 2001 ‘Blue Book’), the following weeds (not in priority order) are the ones most likely to be a problem in winter triticale:
Shepherd's purse; stinkweed; flixweed; narrow-leaf hawk's-beard; downy brome; yellow whitlow; common pepper grass; quackgrass; canada thistle; perennial sow thistle; foxtail barley (saline areas - mainly in the south); dandelion.

The spectrum of weeds for the spring triticale type will be similar to that for wheat.

The following lists indicate herbicides in each of several ‘current status’ categories, as indicated by Dr. Baig (Pers. comm., February 2001):

Chemicals presently registered for weed control in triticale
The chemicals presently registered for weed control in triticale are as follows:
For grass control (wild oats, green foxtail, yellow foxtail, barnyard grass and persian darnel):

    1. Achieve (tralkoxydim)
    2. Avenge (difenzoquat)
    3. Hoegrass (diclofob-methyl)
    4. Hoegrass II (diclofob-methyl + bromoxynil)
    5. Matavan (flamprop-methyl)
For broad leaf weed control (tartary buckwheat, wild buckwheat, night-flowering catchfly, chamomile, cow cockle, common groundsel, knawel, kochia, lamb's quarters, wild mustard, nightshade, pig weed, stink weed, smart weed, russian thistle)
    1. Hoegrass II
    2. Pardner (bromoxynil)
Note that Hoegrass II will provide broad spectrum control of both grassy and broadleaf weeds.

Some of the chemicals that can probably be safely used in triticale (but that are not currently registered) are as follows:
    1. Ally (Metsulfuron methyl)
    2. Refine Extra (thifensulfuron methyl + tribenuron methyl)
    3. Buctril M (bromoxynil + MCPA)
    4. 2, 4-D (amine and ester formulations)
    5. MCPA (amine and ester formulations)
    6. Achieve Extra Gold (tralkoxydim + bromoxynil + MCPA) - broad spectrum weed control
    7. Clovitox Plus (MCPB + MCPA)
    8. Tropotox Plus (MCPB + MCPA)
Information about the efficacy of some of the last mentioned chemicals is probably available through Agriculture Canada, or Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, who may already have on hand enough data to support additional minor use registration requests.

A proposal to counter negative effects of ‘brown-bagged’ triticale on the seed industry
The very negative effect of ‘brown-bagged’ seed on the current status and future of the pedigreed seed sales of triticale was seen as a high priority impediment to the future of the crop, as indicated by seed growers and others. This problem occurs for all varieties, not only those protected by Plant Breeders Rights. It results in a lack of incentive for seed-grower investment in triticale promotion. ‘Brown baggers’ likely do not expect any legal action against them either under PBR, the Seeds Act, or the Advertizing Act for illegal seed sales, because this is seen as a low value forage / feed crop of low unit value. There has been some pressure for the Alberta government to take action on some AAFRD varieties, but there is as yet no public action on this front.

Progressive Seeds Ltd., the rights holder for AAFRD varieties, has proposed an alternative approach to prosecution, which rather focuses on finding a way to increase the amount of seed on which a levy is assessed, even on common seed. This proposal was presented to GrainTek for consideration, and is further presented here. It is an approach which could readily be developed for a small crop such as triticale, but the concept could be expanded to larger acreage crops if it proved successful.

This proposal was presented by Mr. Graham Ogilvie (January17, 2001) on behalf of Progressive Seeds Ltd., Red Deer, Alberta, as follows:
    "We feel that that it would be possible to collect royalties on all triticale cleaned in Alberta through municipal plants, seed-growers, and private seed cleaning facilities. There are many reasons why it would be difficult, but also many reasons why it should be attempted. Since triticale is a small volume crop, it would be a good test of a system devised to implement such a concept. We recognize that there would be leakage in the system, some people in the chain would not tell the truth, but a workable model for other crops may be developed. Such a process would put the ‘grown from’ trade on a more level playing field with the pedigreed seed system and it may encourage greater use of pedigreed seed. Plant breeding institutions would have better revenues from this system as the common seed would be contributing as well. The following statistics have been collected from the municipal and seed plant organization:
      1. Approximately 330,000 bushels was cleaned in these plants, some pedigreed
      2. 42 plants cleaned at least some triticale
      3. The largest amount at one plant was 28,000 bushels, the smallest 224 bushels
      4. Thirteen plants cleaned between 10,000 and 30,000 bushels
      5. Six plants cleaned between 5,000 and 10,000 bushels ...
    Plants forwarding royalties would retain a portion to cover their costs. We would like to see discussion of this proposal amongst appropriate organizations. Progressive Seeds Ltd. would be in favor of seeing such an approach used Canada wide on all pedigreed seed, but it can be tried first on triticale."
It is recommended that the Alberta government join with other triticale breeding organizations, marketers, seed industry partners, CSGA and CFIA, in a workshop to discuss the legal, administrative, economic and R and D implications of this approach, with a view to trying it as a test system for seed royalty collection in triticale. Such discussions should be open to all interested partners, including grain producers and grain buyers. The desired outcome from this approach will be lowered cost per unit of seed used by producers, compared to current legal seed costs, and a larger volume of grain on which the varietal levy can be assessed, at a lower levy level than now done. Returns to the breeding organizations would increase substantially. A secondary expected effect would be an increase in pedigreed seed use, because of a smaller price spread between pedigreed seed and ‘own, cleaned, seed’, and a reduced incentive for ‘brown-bagging’. The discussion of this approach is recommended at high priority, also because of the implications for possible implementation in other W. Canadian grain crops.

A proposal to lower the price of pedigreed triticale seed by eliminating the royalty on seed sales of publicly bred varieties: What effect would this have on promoting pedigreed seed sales, or on the public breeding programs?
From the questionnaires and other discussions it was learned that high price and volume of seed (especially for commonly used high seed rates) was a significant part of input costs, and that ways should be found to lower this. One way to reduce the cost would be for breeding institutions (all public) to waive future royalty levies on seed sales. It is estimated that this would reduce the income available for breeding by only an average $15,000 per year at AAFRD (data from P. Dzikowski, AARI), based on a levy of 7% on the market price of the seed. In 2000 the amount earned was much higher, at $39,000, based on release of new varieties. The equivalent figure for AAFC / SPARC is an average $5,000 royalty income per year (last five years) from triticale seed sales. These levied amounts (approximately 5% of sales), although put to good use, are small compared to the public line budget investment in the annual breeding costs at each institution (quoted by the AAFC / SPARC Station Director at 0.2 FTE, around $80K per year including support staff).

Although it is recognized that this crop does not have any other method for raising funds for research or marketing support (notwithstanding periodic grants and efforts by the new commodity organization, members of the seed industry, etc.) the dominant cost center for development of this crop continue to be in the public sector, which is appropriate. This situation is unlikely to change in the near future, and it is unreasonable to expect the royalty revenues of a small developing crop to carry its own developmental costs. This has not been successfully achieved with any other crop in Canada, and is an ill-conceived strategy, in the opinion of this author. Certainly triticale is not yet well enough developed to stand alone and finance its own R and D future. Lowered seed costs by removing the royalty will help promote triticale use and pedigreed seed sales, help to reduce the price difference between pedigreed and ‘brown-bagged’ seed, and help increase acreage overall. As crop acreage increases, introduction of a checkoff or royalty could be considered at a later date, if the production economics allowed for this extra tax on triticale production.

Other recommendations in this report would require a very considerable additional investment in triticale R and D from the public sector, Federal and Provincial. If these are adopted, the additional revenue from royalties would certainly become less significant. To avoid inappropriate price competition for seed of different varieties, such a levy removal would have to be applied to all varieties, following agreement amongst all the affected parties that breed and market triticale varieties in W. Canada. It is recommended that these parties should engage with government and others in discussion of this proposal, to determine its possible merits and impact.

In the event that the royalty earning procedure remains in place, it is recommended that for a two year period following receipt of this report, all AAFRD and AAFC revenues from royalties be used only for crop promotion and technology transfer, not for breeding or agronomic research. These amounts would cover most of the costs for developing the proposed Triticale Manual, an improved public triticale website, and related materials, for ready user access throughout the Western prairies.

The recommendation to eliminate royalty levies is, of course, very different in nature to the one proposed by Progressive Seeds Ltd., which is levied at the seed cleaner, and is focused on retaining the royalty levy, and maximising fair receipt of royalty income from a larger volume of seed use. This recommendation, by contrast, focuses on lowering production costs for the pedigreed seed user. Both recommendations can be acted on if levies are moved to the seed cleaning operation, and removed from the pedigreed seed sale.

Producer oriented publications and other media about triticale
Most users / producers contacted indicated that this was a very limiting item for triticale, perhaps the most serious one, and that available materials were either generally poor, out-of-date, or unavailable. This view is confirmed by the author of this report, who found sources to be scattered, unfocused, or unavailable in many case. For example, several otherwise excellent forage publications do not even mention triticale as a forage (Alberta Forage Manual, ISBN 0-7732-6127-3, Pub 1981, reprinted 1998; Agdex 420/56-1 1998 Introduction to swath grazing in W. Canada). The most recent Alberta Triticale publication, 1993, is 8 years out of date, and includes no information on new uses for forage, annual silage, (alone or in mixtures), for grazing, or for grain use for swine or cattle feeding. Information about triticale silage digestibility is lacking, and there is no extension information about feed quality or rates of gain using triticale for different classes of animal. None of the publications make much (if any) reference to the advantages and applications of winter (or spring) triticale for erosion control or as a means of managing crop rotations and disease control in areas where heavy applications of manure are made, or indicate how the crop can be put to use in those situations. Thus, well-known positive features of this crop are not being presented to potential users in any complete or readily available form, and this must be remedied. A complete review of the kinds of extension materials needed, and their format for maximum accessibility and impact for producers, is needed.

Recommendations to achieve improved information about triticale
Several recommendations to improve the amount, quality and accessibility to available information are proposed:
    1. A production and utilization manual should be prepared for triticale, similar in scope and content to the Canola Grower’s Manual. It should be available in printed and electronic form, the latter at a Triticale Homesite, to be established within the Ropin’ the Web address. Progressive Seeds Ltd. has indicated interest in being the HomePage for triticale, but given that most of the available information of interest is in the public domain, it is more appropriate for the public sector to take the initiative in setting up the site, or expanding their current one. PSL could develop its own materials as needed, linked to Ropin' the Web. The site should contain detail, not generalizations, and present referable data to the fullest extent, especially about nutrient characteristics of the Canadian grown crop, for feed and forage. Emphasis should also be placed on the interactive advantages of triticale in farming systems, about which nothing is yet available in the extension literature. This would cover intensive livestock situations and analyses, and the forage value for recycling manure outputs (e.g. Cattle / manure / forage / silage system; Swine / manure / feedgrain for swine system; Grain production / local processing / poultry feeding / production system; Grain production for ethanol feedstock; etc.).

    2. The primary focus on extension (producer meetings, travelling workshops, etc.) should be on use for forage where the special advantages of triticale are already known, and on swine feed where advantage is just starting to be recognized (although many years in recognition behind other countries). Considerable effort has been made on this during 2000/2001 by the Agronomy Unit at AAFRD, Edmonton, and many thousands of producers have heard presentations about the completed project. The two areas of forage use and swine feed use offer a prospect for at least doubling triticale acreage within three years, if responsible and effective technology information transfer can be continued and expanded, using limited extension budgets strategically, in collaboration with federal resources and with those in other provinces.

    3. Alberta forage extension literature needs to have information about triticale presented within it. If these publications will not be reprinted soon, then this information should be assembled and released in some new triticale forage pamphlets, also put on the website. Organised and accessible information about triticale forage potential and use is very sparse in extension materials.

    4. Triticale should be the subject of a 2 day professional update workshop for Alberta grain and forage specialists (1 day on grain, 1 day on forage, each including feed considerations). This is necessary to bring a focus onto triticale potential and to increase staff knowledge on the topic. Provincial staff from Saskatchewan and Manitoba should also be invited to this workshop, to gain a prairie wide re-focus on the crop. Technical presentations by Canada-wide experts can be captured for use in the Triticale Homesite and the Triticale Manual.

    5. There is little capacity for the private sector to absorb the costs of this technology transfer program, because of the small size of the crop at this time, and the special shortage of private sector funds for promoting forage crops. It is recommended that AAFC and AAFRD should be the primary funders for this triticale extension initiative, which logically completes the process started by their investment in the breeding programs. A special two year effort on this is strategically desirable at this time, given expanding demands for forage and feed. Additional support from the livestock sector should also be sought.

    6. In the case of triticale for feed use of all kinds, a special workshop should be developed focused on the feed attributes of triticale in all classes of feed use. This workshop would be repeated at key locations in the prairie provinces, to serve prairie-wide needs. Feed formulators (and private feedlot operators) should be the primary target audience, but the workshop must focus on how triticale can be used in rations. For silage applications, harvesting and processing information would be covered, and differences from barley silage stressed as appropriate. Different parts of the workshop would focus on the different animal classes. Presentations would be by feed nutrition experts (national and international) who have research experience with triticale, and their presentations would also be entered into the Triticale Manual and the website. The main purpose of this workshop is to gain the attention of feed manufacturers and formulators who currently generally ignore triticale as a potential ingredient in their rations, or indicate only medium to low knowledge levels about it, or only medium interest. If they were to express more interest in using this crop, there could be a correlated acreage response for feed grain as well as forage use.

    7. There is a need for a high content website that contains detailed information about triticale. This can best be done at the Ropin’ the Web site of AAFRD (which turns up very often when ‘triticale’ web searches are done), and should also be linked to the Infoharvest site, which handles seed related matters. There could also be a role for Progressive Seeds Ltd and/or other collaborating organizations to develop seed related or other aspects of this information at their own (linked) website, using financial assistance in the short term from Alberta government sources. PSL also wishes to develop a comprehensive seed + management promotion package, to assist in its role for promoting this crop, and it may be advantageous for a private sector group to take on at least some aspects of this role under current conditions (eg. information about the seed business / seed availability aspects). A comprehensive electronic information site about triticale could also serve as a model for establishing similar sites in other grain crops. It is strongly recommended at this time with triticale because of the need to achieve information transfer and information access very quickly in this crop, whose potential is under-realized because possible users do not know enough about it. ‘Run-on’ publicity about triticale can also be achieved by widely publicising the ‘electronic extension information’ approach that will be used to make updated agricultural information more widely available, more quickly. Such a site could also include feed mixture model calculators, for individual farmers to use on-line, for example, and have links to animal, forage and grain commodity sites.

    8. Support establishment of a triticale ‘Users Group and Chatline’ linked to the triticale website, where triticale growers and suppliers can share information and experiences about the crop. This would probably best be managed in the private sector, and could also be an extension of activities in this area already started by Progressive Seeds Ltd.. The site should be button linked to the Triticale Homesite and all other significant triticale sites in W. Canada and elsewhere (eg. Winter Cereals Canada). PSL has expressed interest to this author about its desire to take on the central role for future agronomic extension about triticale, currently assigned to the Alberta government. This would be achievable if they were running the chatline, and became the de facto industry centre for discussions and developments about this crop.

    9. Consistent with the Triticale network proposal recently submitted to AARI, the network group should meet immediately and determine extension and research programs and budgets as now needed, combined with a determination of the best approach to disseminating information to growers, grain users and feeders in the most effective manner. A single W. Canadian approach to the needs is needed, involving all parties. To accommodate development of potentially multiple and new crop uses prairie-wide, additional members to the network should be considered as needed.

    10. In view of the novel use of triticale as a breaker of disease cycles in crop rotations, as a novel source of high quality, high yielding silage and forage, and because of other potential uses (industrial, nutraceuticals etc), it is strongly argued that triticale be considered as one of the crops that would be eligible for new and additional funding through the Alberta New Crop Development Fund, starting in 2001. If the necessary continuing research for this new grain crop use is not done by Alberta with its partners, useful sustainable agricultural and environmental benefits from this crop will not be available to Alberta producers.

    11. Very useful and extensive agronomic research about triticale production and use is ongoing in AAFRD both at Lacombe and at Edmonton. Both groups were very useful sources to this reviewer, and farmer oriented extension activities by the Edmonton group about triticale have been very extensive during the 2000/2001 winter. What is less obvious to the author is the extent to which the extension and research activities of the two groups are internally coordinated, or priorities jointly set for the crop. In addition, research linkages to feed quality research and the feed industry sector appear so far to have been limited to a project basis, rather than to any longterm coordinated feed industry/government planning approach to the needs for triticale feed research. AAFRD is encouraged to hold a working session to evaluate these issues within the context of the many other recommendations made in this report. It should also determine the optimum joint operational mode that will best use joint research and development resources for the maximum benefit of this crop. How will the new ‘Feeds Institute’, for example, fit R and D needs of the triticale crop into its mandate?

    12. With the exception of specific recommendations that are not intended for wide release, the author recommends that any information in the report which is already in the public domain be made available in an edited form in printed or web media format for the general public, to gain the widest benefit from this review process. All respondents in this review have expressed a wish to have access to the contents of this report, although at the time of submission it will still be confidential to the Government of Alberta. Such interest also underlines the industry demand for any new information about triticale and its potential.
Estimating the Potential Future Acreage of Triticale in W. Canada

A number of methods for estimating what this might be were considered based on possibilities of projecting feed, forage and other demand. This approach was finally considered of low benefit, largely because data on even the current triticale acreage and its use in different markets are very limited, and potentially unreliable. Instead, the approach is taken of projecting the future based on the already known advantages and now-emerging strengths of the crop. Most of the discussion about this took place with parties in Alberta, since current adoption, and/or interest and knowledge about triticale potential in Manitoba or Saskatchewan appears very limited. Certainly Saskatchewan and Alberta dominate the current acreage of triticale, with only minor adoption in Manitoba so far.

In overall consideration the following mega-factors all contribute to a favorable outlook for considerable acreage expansion potential for triticale.
    1. Greatly increasing demand for forage and silage for an expanding W. Canadian beef herd in all provinces, especially in Alberta. Triticale is a crop which can offer better buffering against droughty conditions than other forage crops, and it responds well under high moisture conditions. This aspect is of increasing importance to feeders trying to establish sustainability in their enterprises. The higher yields of triticale can offer an increased size of silage crop, without use of additional land base. In the 1997 Alberta Government review of 'Resources for beef industry expansion in Alberta' the following conclusions were set out. An ability to double the 1997 feedlot capacity in Alberta was seen. Expansion of triticale clearly fits into the needs that were seen, although the role for triticale as a new forage source seems not to have been considered by that review team:

    ‘ ...Expansion opportunities are limited to improved pasture’ ...because... ‘native range pastures are stocked at capacity’ ‘Tame pasture management should be a priority for the cattle industry and government. Substantial areas in cow/calf production do not have enough pasture if conventional pasture management practices are used. Techniques like rotational grazing, grazing alfalfa, fertilizer applications and forage species management must be adopted to reduce the current risk and provide resources for expansion. Alternative feeds like straw and chaff could be important winter feed substitutes’.... ‘Drought or high hay prices can significantly pressure cattle operations in key cattle production areas’.... ‘Maximum haul distances for silage .... are around 6 miles’ silage must be grown where the cattle are fed.... ‘Silage production can be increased on cropland adjacent to feedlots’.

    2. Silage costs are a significant part of the feed cost both for feeder cattle and for backgrounders. The Alberta Government website gives an example for feeder cattle starting at 400 lb weight, fed for 228 days, and gaining 2.3 lbs per day. In this example the silage cost is $61.56 (plus $254.79 for the barley), constituting around 20% of the feed cost. For backgrounders, the silage cost is $43.75 (plus $65.19 for the barley), constituting 40% of the total feed cost. Thus, if triticale silage can be produced at lower cost than barley silage, this can improve the margins for feed cattle production. At least several large Alberta feeders have already recognized this advantage, and have incorporated it in their cattle rations. In discussions with Progressive Seeds Ltd., a figure of 1.6m acres of total silage production in Alberta was circulating, and it was felt very reasonable as a target that 25% of this should convert from barley silage to annual triticale silage, which would be a total of 400,000 acres per year in Alberta alone. Much of this increase in Alberta would be located in the drier, southern part of the Province, where barley silage is relatively less productive, but triticale silage production is suited to all parts of the W. Prairies. Don Milligan (Beef specialist, AAFRD, Red Deer) also agreed that a target for triticale to constitute 25% of all Alberta silage was reasonable, and that this would have a major effect on breaking serious disease infestation cycles that are now evident in barley for silage and grain.

    3. Following on favorable preliminary work in Alberta on silage use for dairy, winter triticale silage could be adopted for dairy herd use, to provide a high yielding, high quality silage for dairy in the early spring period, when other forage may be less available, especially during droughty years. More dairy herd research is needed before this adoption can be realized, but its use in this way could add security and sustainability to the silage supply for the dairy industry.

    4. Special adaptation of spring and winter triticale for forage (grazing and silage) in farming systems where heavy manure applications are made to the soil, thus contributing to a more sustainable farming system, and improved environmental response, especially as affecting groundwater quality. This activity and use of triticale will occur in close proximity to feedlots.

    5. Expectation that the Canadian swine industry will continue to (newly) recognize the special nutritional advantages of triticale compared to other grain feeds used in the past, and that significant adoption will be seen for the grower-feeder enterprises for swine.

    6. Potential (after some more research) that the poultry broiler industry may also start to adopt some triticale use, by grower-processor-feeder operations.

    7. Subject to successful plant-scale pilot-run trials and economic studies (potentially at API), the ethanol industry could consider triticale use to replace CPS wheat use in central Alberta, to make a contribution to the value-added goals of the Government of Alberta in the cereal sector, also achieving crop diversification. Low grain prices combined with high fuel prices make for favorable economics in this sector in the short-term, at least, and the potential for replacing CPS wheat use with triticale needs to be established.

    8. Continuation of the two W. Canadian triticale breeding programs, to further improve the agronomics and market value of triticale varieties suited to W. Canada, for use in the niche applications where triticale has a clear advantage over other cereal grains.

    9. As a presumption, that the Alberta Government, in collaboration with others, will significantly invest in an information transfer program about triticale, for potential growers as well as feed and forage users. This will bring the advantages of this crop for specified uses (particularly for forage and silage use) much more into the view of potential users prairie-wide, using recent research results based on the newest W. Canadian varieties. The general knowledge level about triticale for those who could produce it, and those who could use it, is rather poor, but can be improved very quickly by using a targeted crop use profiling approach, one that at the same time does not oversell the potential.
A realistic acreage target for triticale in the next 3 to 5 years
Forecasting the future, especially in agriculture, has always proven to be a very risky business. This report nevertheless strongly recommends adoption of the following target acreages for triticale in W. Canada, on the presumption that the most important recommendations in this report are acted on, particularly the prairie-wide technology and information transfer activities proposed. If this expansion did occur, the seed industry will have no problem in servicing the supply of seed that will be needed for crop use, especially in the expanded annual forage market. This projection does not include potential triticale sales to the USA, which up to this time appear to have been mainly spot market seed sales, often without repeat business. The projection also ignores the reported Statistics Canada leveling off of acreage that occurred in 2000, as it is believed that these figures do not take into account the large acreage of ‘home-grown’ seed used for the forage industry. Consistent sales to the US market (mostly a seed market for forage establishment) would be more readily achieved in the future when the Canadian production base it is at a much higher threshold level. To avoid brown-bagging in the USA, only seed sales of PBR varieties should be encouraged, which do receive protection there. A larger crop base in Canada would offer improved continuity of supply and access to seed from a more active and stabilized Canadian triticale seed marketing supply.

Goals for W. Canadian triticale production
By 2004- Double the 2001 acreage (mainly from forage use increase)
By 2007- At least triple the 2001 acreage (as triticale feed grain use increases, displacing some barley use)
- Triticale constitutes 25% of all silage use in W. Canada
- Triticale becomes a significant W. Canadian feed for swine, competing with hulless barley, and it gains some Canadian use for poultry
By 2011- Triticale becomes the grain of choice for production of ethanol based fuels (depending on Canadian political approaches to fuel and pollution issues)
- Significant value-added potential develops in the human food market, plus use(s) of fractionated grain components, some for non-food industrial applications
Notes about potential acreage increases, and Statistics Canada reported acreage:
    1. Most persons contacted during this review indicated a poor confidence level in the reported acreage provided by Statistics Canada, in many cases suggesting that the current acreage may be as much as 50% under-reported. Manitoba figures in particular appear very ‘rounded’.

    2. Reasons for under-reporting include high triticale use for forage, and a known but unquantifiable amount of ‘brown-bag’ acreage and seed market. Many (including the author) were surprised and skeptical that the acreage leveled off or dropped in 2000, and attribute the discrepancy to those factors.

    3. Other factors that could combine to limit achievement of the future triticale acreage goals set out include:
      a. Inability to displace other annual crop acreage (silage and other) that offer better returns.
      b. Insufficiency of suitable land base for triticale forage expansion, close to feedlots, especially in S. Alberta.
      c. Emergence of other competitive silages (eg. forage barley varieties).
      d. Slow or limited development of a triticale grain supply stream, matched with a ready supply of alternate grains for protein feed, such as peas etc.
      e. Ergot occurrence in triticale feed grain, as a real or perceived problem.
      f. Uncoordinated W. Canadian approach by industry, Federal and Provincial Governments to developing and using extension information for targeted user clientele for triticale.
      g. Reduced or minimal research investment in triticale, particularly in the forage and feed processing aspects of this feed source, for grain or forage and silage use. Expansion of feed quality assessment work is an essential key item at this time, to capture triticale’s role in supporting the value-added goals in the animal production sector, with cattle, dairy and swine.
Report prepared March 2001

Other Documents in the Series

  The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada - Introduction
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Report Summary
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section A - Scope and Purpose
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section B - Genetic Basis, Breeding and Varietal Performance of Triticale
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section C - Experience-based, End-user, Evaluations of Triticale
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section D - Other Issues for Triticale - Current Document
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: References
The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Appendix
Share via
For more information about the content of this document, contact Lori Oatway.
This document is maintained by Erin Collier.
This information published to the web on June 4, 2002.
Last Reviewed/Revised on August 23, 2017.