Look deeper and you’ll see a robust approval process that puts consumer, environmental and animal safety at the forefront of an exhaustive examination of the scientific data on the use of gene-edited pigs as food. The approval by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) formally recognizes that pork from PIC’s PRRS-resistant pigs is as safe and nutritious to eat as pork from non-gene-edited pigs on the market. So, the same but different. But how and why?

Stuart Smyth has some thoughts about that. A professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Smyth’s areas of research include agricultural biotechnology and its intersection with regulatory processes, both here and abroad, and he’s very pleased to see Canada approve the PRRS-resistant pig. He advocated hard for it.

“Gene editing is the next wave for all agricultural innovation,” he says. “We’re seeing it in a wide variety of crops and it’s good to see the same scientific process applied in this case.”

As with any agricultural innovation, gene editing can be misrepresented or misunderstood. Context, says Smyth, is everything. Knowing why this gene-edited pig was developed, what problems it solves and, as important, what problems it does not create is key for consumer acceptance, not only of the technology, but of the process that approved it.

What goes into the regulatory decision

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is a devastating virus that has major economic and emotional problems for hog farmers around the world. PRRS infections can cause breathing problems in pigs, fevers, appetite suppression, stillborn piglets and death. There are no effective treatments and while there are PRRS vaccines, they’re only partially effective.

PIC used CRISPR gene editing technology to remove a tiny portion of DNA where the virus enters and infects the pig. Without that snippet, the virus has no way to enter the animal, making it effectively resistant to PRRS.

It’s worth taking a moment to look at what Health Canada and the CFIA considered when approving PIC’s gene-edited pig. As Smyth points out it’s not the first time Canadian regulatory agencies have reviewed and approved agricultural innovations made using this technology. But until now, only gene-edited crops have gone through the process. The PRRS-resistant pig was the first gene-edited livestock up for approval, and the question for him was: would an animal be treated differently than a plant?

Smyth didn’t think it should. He made a submission to the regulatory agencies advocating that the scientific process used to assess gene-edited plants should apply to animals, too. “As long as a plant had no foreign DNA in it, it was approved,” he says. “I argued on the merits that the same scientific system should also apply here. There is no difference.”

To be clear, Health Canada and the CFIA look at much more than whether foreign DNA is present in the gene-edited organism, although that is a key difference between traditional genetically modified (GM) organisms and gene-edited ones (the former typically involves DNA introduced from other species, while the latter typically involves highly targeted changes within an organism’s own DNA).

In the case of the PRRS-resistant pig, regulators looked at how the pig was developed (using CRISPR technology), the composition and nutritional quality of the meat compared to non-edited pigs, the potential for these pigs to cause allergic reactions and the health status of the pigs themselves.

It is, says Smyth, a thorough process that looks for chinks in the armour before saying yes. “They would have done research to look at what had been changed from a genomic perspective,” he says. “They’d have done some research into the actual edit, which gene was involved and how much was it changed. They’d have looked for unintended risks.”

Why it matters for Canadians

Canadian approval of the PRRS-resistant pig comes in the wake of approvals in Brazil, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay and the United States. Smyth says this is good news for hog farmers here in terms of competing on the world market. “It will cost us more to produce pork without this technology,” he says.

Indeed, economic modeling conducted by Jayson Lusk at Oklahoma State University shows increased productivity and lower production costs for those countries that adopt the PRRS-resistant pig. That’s important for the Canadian industry, a net exporter of pork that needs to stay competitive to be viable. On a farm level, he says the impact is no less important as it will save farmers the high costs of vaccinations, biosecurity measures, constant monitoring, and the truly devastating need to euthanize sick animals.

Smyth acknowledges that Canadian approval of the PRRS-resistant pig is a step change in agricultural technology in this country, but one consumers can have confidence in. Gene editing has been used to successfully to treat sickle cell disease in humans for years. A teenager in B.C. was recently cured of chronic granulomatous disease, a rare immunity condition, using CRISPR gene editing technology – the same technology used to make pigs resistant to PRRS.

Smyth says that kind of context is important to keep in mind when thinking about Canada’s recent approval of gene-edited pigs. It means less animal suffering and reduced antibiotic use without sacrificing food safety, nutrition or taste.

For more information visit https://www.prrsresistantpig.com/

The post The same but different: gene-edited pigs approved in Canada appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The technology Lusk is talking about is the gene-edited PRRS-resistant pig developed by PIC. And per Lusk’s economic model, we’re talking potentially big cost savings – porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS, is endemic to pig herds around the world and it costs farmers both financially and emotionally.

Indeed, research from Iowa State University indicates that between 2016 and 2020, PRRS cost the U.S. pork industry $1.2 billion per year in lost production.[1] A 2020 report commissioned by Animal Health Canada estimated production losses to PRRS in this country to be $184 million per year (up to 2018).[2]

If the PRRS-resistant pig could lower, or even eventually eliminate those losses, what would that do to the global pork market and economy? What could happen to global supply and trade? To production costs and retail prices? To producer profitability? To pork’s place on consumers’ plates?

[1] Growing Losses from PRRS Cost Pork Producers $1.2 Billion Per Year, New Study Shows. Iowa State University News Service. July 30, 2024. https://research.iastate.edu/2024/07/30/growing-losses-from-prrs-cost-pork-producers-1-2-billion-per-year-new-study-shows/

[2] Inventory Assessment and Gap Analysis of Canada’s Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery from and Animal Health Event. NFAHWC report prepared for the Animal Health Canada Working Group. February 13, 2020. Page 15. https://www.ahwcouncil.ca/pdfs/AHC_Gaps%20Analysis%20Report_February%2013_EN.pdf

Lusk set out to answer these questions with an economic model that links the supply of market hogs to consumer demand in six major pork-producing regions.[1]What his research found is adoption of the gene-edited PRRS-resistant pig should be largely beneficial to producers and consumers alike, but there are some interesting tidbits in terms of how those benefits could roll out.

Increased productivity, lower production costs

The economic model Lusk built looked at retail-level demand for pork with farm-level hog supply in Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, the U. S. and an aggregated rest-of-the-world (ROW) as the sixth region. Model parameters included, among other things, current production and trade statistics, supply and demand trends, and PRRS prevalence rates in each region.

“The advantage of going through a modelling exercise is that it lets you work through some ‘what if’ questions,” says Lusk. “So, if there were tariffs or import bans or reduced consumer demand, what would happen?” Conversely, what would happen if adoption rates were very low or very high?

While there are many nuances in Lusk’s results, the top line of his research is this: the introduction of the PRRS-resistant pig will likely be positive for pork industries where this technology is adopted. Yes, pork supply will rise and that will result in lower prices, but these will be offset by the significant decrease in marginal production costs associated with a disease-free herd. And any trade or consumer resistance would have to be extremely high to dim these benefits.

[1] Lusk JL. Global adoption of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome-resistant pigs will have significant economic and market impacts. American Journal of Veterinary Research. August 2025.
https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/ajvr/aop/ajvr.25.05.0188/ajvr.25.05.0188.xml?tab_body=fulltext

But these will not be overnight changes, Lusk says. The model assumed a 70 per cent prevalance rate of PRRS-resistant pigs in the five countries by year 12 of introduction. That is not necessarily typical of all new technologies.

“Take GMOs in the late 1990s. That technology went from zero to 100 per cent in about five years,” says Lusk, adding that plant breeding and seed multiplication can be done fairly quickly compared to animal technology. “Breeding enough PRRS-resistant pigs to get into the supply chain takes time, so there is an underlying recognition of the biology at play in the premise of that adoption rate.”

So, if slow and steady wins the race, what will that race actually look like as this technology unfolds?

Productivity vs. production costs

Unsurprisingly, Lusk’s model projects that as pork production rises with the introduction of PRRS-resistant pigs, hog prices will fall. Indeed, his model projects prices to fall in the U.S. and Canada by about 25 per cent by year ten before they stabilize. But don’t panic.

“What people forget is the cost of production versus net profit.” He explains that as PRRS-resistant technology adoption grows, the cost of production significantly likely drops over time. Lower mortality rates, healthier pigs, more viable pigs per sow per year, lower antibiotic costs and no more de-pop/re-pop expenses all lead to a considerable drop in the marginal cost of production – that is, the cost of producing one more kilo of pork.

In Canada, for example, Lusk’s model projects that by year 10, hog production increases by 7%. While the resulting expansion in supply puts downward pressure on hog prices, marginal production costs decline even further. As a result, producers who adopt the technology are producing more pigs and earning higher profits per pig than prior to adoption, according to the research.

“Canada exports a much larger share of its production than other countries,” says Lusk. “Success is reliant on its ability to compete in the global marketplace, and cost of production is a key part of that ability.”

Consumer acceptance

New agricultural technologies have always faced some trade and consumer resistance but, according to Lusk, it would have to be extremely high to negatively impact the benefits that PRRS-resistance are set to bring to the global pork market and producers.

“Say the U.S. adopts the PRRS-resistant pig and consumers say no,” says Lusk. “How big a reduction in demand would offset those production gains?”

He says there would need to be a 10 to 20 per cent reduction in willingness to buy before an impact was felt at the farm gate, and that doesn’t seem likely given surveys that indicate consumer comfort with this technology, and the lower retail price it could bring. “It’s more affordable, high-quality pork at lower prices,” he says.

Lusk says adoption of this technology is key to the pork industry maintaining its place on consumers’ plates. “Pork is at a place today where it’s in competition with beef and poultry,” he says.

It comes down to being able to produce a protein that consumers find delicious, of high quality and affordable. If other protein producers adopt technologies that help them achieve that and the pork industry doesn’t, then consumers will likely choose those other products.

“If pork is the most consumed protein 10 to 20 years from now, it’s because this technology was adopted.”

More information on Dr. Lusk’s research can be found here on the PRRS-resistant pig website.

Source:

1. Growing Losses from PRRS Cost Pork Producers $1.2 Billion Per Year, New Study Shows. Iowa State University News Service. July 30, 2024. https://research.iastate.edu/2024/07/30/growing-losses-from-prrs-cost-pork-producers-1-2-billion-per-year-new-study-shows/

2. Inventory Assessment and Gap Analysis of Canada’s Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery from and Animal Health Event. NFAHWC report prepared for the Animal Health Canada Working Group. February 13, 2020. Page 15. https://www.ahwcouncil.ca/pdfs/AHC_Gaps%20Analysis%20Report_February%2013_EN.pdf

3. Lusk JL. Global adoption of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome-resistant pigs will have significant economic and market impacts. American Journal of Veterinary Research. August 2025. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/ajvr/aop/ajvr.25.05.0188/ajvr.25.05.0188.xml?tab_body=fulltext

The post Economic modelling shows few downsides to the adoption of PRRS-resistant pigs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Here’s a hypothetical for you. Say your bank is promoting a new credit card where certain purchases earn points of some sort. Eligible purchases can only be made in one specific chain store, and the card comes with an annual fee. Would you go for it?

No, you probably wouldn’t because the benefits seem weighted more toward the bank and the store than to you or anyone else. And that, according to Charlie Arnot, CEO of The Center for Food Integrity (CFI) in Gladstone, Missouri, is consumer behaviour 101.

“What we’ve found is that purchase decisions are about benefit,” says Arnot. “If it matters to the consumer, if the benefits align with their values, they’ll accept it.”

This holds true even when it comes to one of the most vital purchases we make: food. The word “values” does a lot of heavy lifting here. Arnot says CFI has been conducting consumer research about gene editing for over a decade and found that consumer acceptance of gene editing is strongly associated with values-based benefits, such as public health, animal welfare and reduced food waste, among other benefits.

This supposition was recently confirmed through two separate consumer research projects (one conducted by CFI and the other by U.S.-based Circana), which found that consumers, in Canada and around the world, have an above average likelihood of buying pork from gene-edited pigs if that means lower antibiotic use, along with other environmental and societal benefits.

“Historically, the thinking was that we need to educate the public about the technology first, and that’s just not the case,” says Arnot. “What gene editing means to them is: reduced need for antibiotics, less animal suffering and better environmental performance. And because they support those outcomes, they’re fine with the technology.”

The research done by CFI and Circana offers a fascinating insight into how consumers think about the use of agtech in the realm of food production. It should come as no surprise that it’s a complex, very human, values-driven process.

Two studies, one top finding

The larger of the two studies was conducted in the fall of 2025 by Circana and commissioned by PIC, developers of a gene-edited pig resistant to porcine reproductive respiratory syndrome, or PRRS.

Circana polled more than 5,000 fresh pork consumers across eight key countries (Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Japan, Mexico and the U.S.) as to the likelihood they would buy pork from gene-edited pigs. The study was extensive, encompassing multiple generations from 18 to 70 and across genders.

“It’s a robust, significant sample,” says Staci Covkin, Circana’s principal of innovation, consumer and shopper insight. She explains that participants were given a very short introduction to read outlining how farmers have battled PRRS for decades, how gene editing could be a fix for this problem, how animals could be healthier and that pork remains unchanged in terms of taste and safety.

“Then we tested five different messages about the likelihood of their purchasing this meat,” says Covkin. “They were: fewer antibiotics, better environmental sustainability, same pork as you know and love, safety, and cost.”

Covkin says that respondents identified the need for responsibly reducing antibiotic use as the top reason they’d purchase pork from PRRS-resistant pigs. “Not just in Canada, but around the world, this was the number one motivator,” she says, adding that Canadians indicated an above average likelihood of purchase.

This result is mirrored in CFI’s research, also conducted in the fall of 2025, only in the U.S., which looked at consumer acceptance of gene editing in four food products: pork, tomatoes, eggs and bananas. Of all four products, pork from gene-edited pigs statistically outshot all but tomatoes with a purchase likelihood of 84 per cent. “I was surprised by that,” says Arnot. “But it comes down to the things people care about, which are reduced use of antibiotics and reduced animal suffering.”

Benefits and values

“Fun fact about Canada and Japan,” says Covkin. “They are the most price sensitive countries in our research.” Still, Canadians are willing to pay up to five per cent more for pork from gene-edited pigs, while all other nations would venture as far as 10 per cent.

As people learn more about gene editing, they appear to be more open to it. Covkin says Circana has been surveying people’s attitudes toward the technology for a while now and is noticing a trend. “It’s interesting that two and a half years ago, 37 per cent of respondents in the U.S. were familiar with gene editing. Today, it’s 57 per cent.” In Canada, 42 per cent say they are familiar.

“Gene editing technology is offering more consumer benefits than previous agricultural innovations,” says Arnot. “The majority of applications coming to market now are from public companies and universities who all agree on the science. Also, the fact we’re using gene editing in human medicine makes it easier to apply it to agriculture. It’s changed the entire dynamic of the conversation.”

For more information about the consumer research on gene editing and the development of PIC’s PRRS-Resistant Pig, visit the website here PIC PRRS-Resistant Pig.

The post Consumers say they would purchase pork from gene-edited pigs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But for livestock producers, biotechnology, in the form of gene editing for improved disease resistance, is still new. Two experts say that how we talk about it now matters for the future of animal health, innovation and the next generation of farmers.

“‘GMO’ is such a frustratingly nebulous term,” says Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, professor of cooperative extension in Animal Biotechnology and Genomics at the University of California Davis. “The trouble is with the letter O – ‘organism’. It could describe anything, really – a traditionally out-crossed apple, for instance, is technically a genetically modified organism. I’m a scientist. I like precision.”

She says what most people really mean when they refer to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are things that have been genetically engineered, such as Bt corn where genes from a soil bacteria were introduced to the corn genome. A feature of GMO technology is that it’s random where the introduced genes insert themselves into the plant’s genome.

While this technology has been beneficial for plant breeders, Van Eenennaam says genetic engineering in this form is prohibitively expensive for the animal industry. That’s why recent advances in gene editing technology are so exciting for this sector.

“Genetic engineering, or GMO, is where we introduce a construct randomly into a genome,” she says. “Gene editing is making targeted changes to the genome. It’s not using DNA from other organisms; nothing foreign is being introduced.” 

Known as CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), gene editing lets scientists precisely delete or change a small portion of an organism’s own DNA to achieve a specific, predictable outcome – such as resistance to a disease. That precision, that ability to alter a genome at a specific point, recently made gene editing a uniquely powerful tool in the field of swine health with the development of disease-resistant pigs.

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is a serious, deadly virus that affects pigs worldwide. While it can have major financial impact for producers, it can have a huge emotional toll on them, too, since an outbreak often means many animal deaths.

Using gene editing, scientists were able to remove a specific snippet of the pig’s DNA which is the binding site for the PRRS virus. No binding site, no PRRS infections – period. It’s nothing short of revolutionary.

Gene editing as medicine

The gene edit used to breed the PRRS-resistant pig was developed by PIC and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in early 2025. Full commercialization is waiting on other major pork producing countries, like Canada, Mexico and Japan to approve the technology in their markets. Dr. Jason Hocker, for one, can’t wait for that day. 

“Pre-commercialization, we’re still in the throes of PRRS,” says Hocker, a swine vet with Audubon Manning Veterinary Clinic (AMVC) in Iowa. “It’s an RNA virus, so it’s always mutating. It’s very challenging, and it can feel like a losing battle with Mother Nature being always one step ahead.”

Hocker says vaccines have been tried but aren’t very effective because the virus replicates in unpredictable ways. “All our vaccine technology today just can’t keep up with it. That’s why we’re very excited about this next frontier of medicine.”

And he’s very clear that gene editing to achieve PRRS resistance, is medicine. “PRRS is the most significant disease we deal with in terms of cost, pig health and mortality and the emotional tax on farmers. These are the therapies of the future,” says Hocker. “We have to be intentional about communicating that.”

It is easy to see how a gene edited pig can be seen as a potential solution because it’s not something that has to be done with every pig in every generation. Rather, a PRRS-resistant pig will pass that trait on to its offspring through traditional breeding.

“It’s a synergistic addition to conventional breeding, not a replacement for it,” says Van Eenennaam.

Hocker agrees: “Gene editing eliminates the receptor that the virus binds to, then we use selective breeding like we’ve always done to get PRRS-resistant herds.”

Why start with gene editing for PRRS?

Van Eenennaam says gene editing isn’t a panacea for all the things animal breeders might like to select for. PRRS happens to map to a single gene on the pig genome, so editing that one piece of genetic material is straightforward, or at least more straightforward than trying to edit for problems that are multigenic, like mastitis in cows.

“It’s been years of work sequencing the pig genome, narrowing the focus to the genes of interest and finding the right one,” says Van Eenennaam. “That investment is now beginning to pay dividends. PRRS kills a lot of pigs. I’m glad that disease resistance is the first cab off the rank when it comes to this technology.”

For Hocker, it’s about more than healthy pigs today, it’s about the future of agriculture.

“Farming is a noble profession,” he says. “We produce the food, fuel, pharmaceuticals, fibre – things that everyone needs but only two per cent of us are doing it. So how do we talk to the rest of the world about what’s important to us, so they understand? We have to find a value proposition that’s bigger than just for the industry. We have to show the next generation of farmers that we are here, we are relevant, we do care and want to be on the cutting edge of technology.”

He thinks the conversations about gene editing become more nuanced when human health is involved, and that’s something the ag industry can learn from.

“The victories in human therapies and medicine make me more excited about what could be in animal science,” he says. “It’s worth fighting for. Let’s embrace this then learn how to talk about it.”

For more information about gene editing and the development of PIC’s PRRS-Resistant Pig, visit PIC PRRS-Resistant Pig

The post Understanding the future of gene editing technology appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Especially when the name of the game is efficiency, leveraging on-farm data to identify areas of a dairy operation that need tweaking can make a significant difference in optimizing farm management and, of course, profitability.

Sustainability also plays a key role in managing a dairy herd for long-term profit. In this sense, data can help an operation determine if inputs are being used efficiently and that energy isn’t being wasted.

These days, there’s no shortage of data that can be collected to drive strategic decision-making. Sifting through all the available data, however, can be a challenge.

For instance, a typical dairy farm receives input about individual cow health and production as well as whole herd numbers. There’s genetic data, herd health monitoring, nutrition and feeding, and other data sets from a variety of farm management areas.

Determining the right data sources and sets are key to making those efficiency and sustainability linked decisions. It all comes down to making data easy to access.

Data-driven solutions are key

Dairy Data Warehouse (DDW) focuses on helping farms successfully navigate the rapid digital transformation of the dairy industry. Essentially, they turn masses of raw data into on-farm potential.

A commitment to provide farm advisors with a tool to optimize dairy farm data usage and to ensure data privacy for farmers has made DDW one of the largest global dairy databases for secure, high-quality data collection.

Through DDW, dairy data that varies in structure and data quality is transformed into consistent data sets through services such as Herdnet, Optiherd and Predicta.

DDW collects farm data from several types of herd management and other on-farm software, cleans the data and turns it into one standardaised data set to help farms benchmark best management practices and identify areas for improvement.

Unique to the dairy data market, the powerful artificial intelligence (AI) predictions component of DDW’s services is constantly improving farm operations. When cows, advisors and farm managers are sleeping, AI works through applications such as Predicta to identify cows at risk for transition cow disease or support replacement decisions.

Dairy farm consultants can use DDW services to help their farm clients monitor 140 key performance indicators, such as cow movement, feeding habits, reproductive health, culling management and milking equipment.

A growing industry needs the right support

As overall global demand for food increases and farmers feel the pressure from rising input costs, finding ways to manage a dairy farm efficiently and sustainably is critical.

Today’s farms need to react quickly to changes, and data can help them do that. For example, AI-based data can help a farmer or advisor forecast milk production, monitor udder health issues to avoid production and profit losses, and analyze risk factors for individual animals to identify those susceptible to transition diseases.

Since milk production is a long-term strategy, the primary data management tool an advisor or farmer chooses should be able to flag potential issues and predict which animals will give the highest production. It should help prevent diseases rather than treat them and it should help a producer proactively address culling and insemination strategies.

A complete and concise data set, such as those available through DDW, can help today’s dairy farms identify risks and plan their investments to create a more sustainable and efficient operation tomorrow. For more information on data-driven solutions for dairy producers and advisors visit dairydatawarehouse.com

The post Get the most out of your on-farm dairy data appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“If they’re looking to borrow money this fall, an Advance Payments Program cash advance from CCGA offers benefits for farmers that are worth a look.”

Gallant says a cash advance provides farmers with access to up to $1M in financing, including up to $500,000 interest-free. Any amount above that is at CCGA’s interest rate of prime minus 0.25 per cent, resulting in a blended rate that’s well below prime on every advance.

“A cash advance can save thousands of dollars in interest costs,” he says. “Through CCGA, farmers can apply on over 50 commodities including grains, oilseeds, pulses, honey, and large and small livestock.”

Gallant explains a few ways that a fall cash advance could support the farm.

Get access to cash flow from unsold inventory

Farmers can hold onto grain or livestock until they’re ready to market, while still having the necessary cash flow to keep their operation running smoothly.

An advance is low-cost financing

With CCGA’s below-prime interest rates on an advance, it’s a smart financial choice to pay fall bills or take advantage of early-purchase discounts on next year’s inputs.

Manage seasonal expenses more efficiently

Farmers can use a fall advance to cover year-end payments, equipment maintenance, winter feed costs, or whatever their farm needs.

Options for newer farmers too

Just starting to farm? No problem. Farmers can apply as long as they own, store, and sell their inventory separately from others.

“Every farm is different, but post-harvest planning often means bridging the gap between this year’s work and next year’s plans,” says Gallant. “A cash advance can provide flexibility, helping farmers to make confident decisions as they prepare for the next growing season.”

To learn more about cash advances from CCGA, visit Cash Advance | Canadian Canola Growers Association 

The Advance Payments Program is a federal loan program administered by CCGA. It offers Canadian farmers marketing flexibility through interest-free and low-interest cash advances.

The post Bridge the seasonal gap with a cash advance appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“When growers are choosing their hybrid each year, they have a lot of information coming at them,” says Harold Brown, technical service specialist with BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada. “On InVigorResults.ca, growers have access to localized, data-driven information from an on-farm setting. They can click on the icon nearest their farm and get a detailed report on what was grown, how it was grown, including details on equipment used, growing conditions, and any unusual pest or moisture challenges and the results at the end of the season.”

InVigorResults.ca is an interactive platform that showcases the results from BASF’s extensive canola trialing program. Designed to be user-friendly and transparent, it provides the information growers and retailers have requested to help them make confident decisions. The map-based interface allows users to view trial sites closest to their operation and compare multiple years of data.

“On the user interface, growers can see data for the past three growing seasons to compare how products performed year-over-year,” says Brown. “It is very transparent with most things about the season reported.”

“I think canola growers should find our results very useful when it comes time to make decisions,” says Rob MacDonald, manager, Agronomic Excellence with BASF. “Our program is unique in the industry, using highly replicated trials that translate into statistically meaningful results. Replication across a field is critical, as it helps us separate true hybrid performance from environmental variability, giving growers confidence in the results.”

InVigor canola hybrids are tested alongside competitor canola hybrids through two robust trialing systems: Demonstration Strip Trial (DST) and Agronomic Excellence (AE) Trials. Together, these systems aim to deliver credible, region-specific insights under local farming conditions.  

Two decades of grower run trials

Demonstration Strip Trials have been conducted for more than twenty years. These trials are run using a cooperator grower’s own land, equipment and growing practices. Each DST contains a plot of five to eight hybrid strips grown side-by-side under identical soil, moisture and climate conditions. At one drill width, they are 500 feet long and replicated twice in the same field to help ensure accuracy.

At the end of the season, the crop is either straight cut or swathed at the optimal time using a calibrated weigh wagon for accuracy, with the net yield determined after dockage and moisture adjustments. Trials with excessive variability are flagged so that only statistically valid results are reported.

“InVigor hybrids don’t win every trial, and that’s okay,” says Brown. “What matters is that growers can trust the data. We publish all trial results on InVigorResults.ca, including those where competitors perform better. Even cancelled trials are posted with an explanation, so farmers know exactly why a trial was removed. Transparency is what makes the information credible. Our trials aim to generate useful, statistically valid data that translates into real world results on your farm.”

Seeking out best practices

AE trials are product advancement trials, managed by a BASF agronomist and grown in a cooperator farmer’s field as part of their typical rotation.

“These are more like replicated research trials,” says MacDonald. “They are mid-sized plots and narrower than a DST, using a section of a seed drill and harvested with a small commercial combine. AE trials also typically include more hybrids than a DST and evaluate factors like early-season vigor, maturity and harvest rating. Every hybrid is tested in four replicated plots, which helps give us statistical confidence in the results.”

While these trials are hosted on grower cooperator fields, they are managed directly by BASF personnel, who are focused on identifying best practices to help maximize yield performance and for consistency.

“The results provide much more than yield,” says MacDonald. “They also report on standability, lodging and other agronomic considerations. Being able to compare the performance and agronomics of one hybrid against several others, replicated across multiple locations, helps to give growers a clearer picture of what they can expect in their own fields.”

MacDonald adds that BASF works to get the results posted to InVigorResults.ca as quickly as possible for fall decision making. Usually, results are posted within a week of calculating final yield results.

To see results and to learn more about the trials, visit InVigorResults.ca

The post Growers get an in-depth look at the latest canola hybrids appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

To keep up with these demands, BASF Agricultural Solutions Canada (BASF) is introducing new seed technology as part of the InVigor® canola hybrid lineup to keep pace with what farmers are seeing in their field.

“There has never been a better time to find the right hybrids to manage your canola challenges,” says Mark Alberts, senior brand manager, InVigor. “We now have a lineup that can help meet most needs of canola growers. Whether you are looking for early to later maturing hybrids, strong disease resistance, harvest flexibility, high yield potential – including health or dual herbicide trait hybrids – you can look across the InVigor lineup to find your fit.”

Alberts says the latest introduction to the lineup is InVigor L355PC, a mid-maturing hybrid that helps protect against both new and established soil borne diseases. Farmers can see how it performs at Demonstration Strip Trials (DST) across the Prairies this summer.

“This hybrid assists farmers to help reach their yield potential while still managing disease through superior genetics,” says Alberts. “Together with three new early maturing hybrids launched in 2025, our lineup targets local concerns while still offering high yield potential for a strong return on investment.”

Managing clubroot threat in Alberta

Clubroot is established across the Prairies, but it is primarily most predominant and severe in Alberta where it has caused a varying degree of problems of across the province. While genetic resistance is an important tool to help control diseases, growers should use an integrated pest management strategy.

InVigor L355PC has been bred with first-generation clubroot protection which is resistant against most clubroot pathotypes impacting farmers. First-generation resistance is appropriate in most fields, but for growing areas where that resistance has started to breakdown, second-generation resistance has been bred into InVigor L341PC and InVigor L343PC to make a great option.

“When it comes to first-generation resistance concerns, we are primarily seeing the newer 3A and 3D pathotypes for which these hybrids are able to help tackle these concerns,” says Clint Jurke, regional technical services manager with BASF. “These hybrids also have the complete package of InVigor genetics to help farmers reach high yield potential, easy to harvest crop.”

Staying on top of an emerging threat

Not yet widespread in Alberta, verticillium stripe is another emerging disease that has been confirmed across the province but is currently more of a concern in the south. First identified in the Red River Valley in Manitoba a little over a decade ago, the disease seems to associate with blackleg, which may have masked its identification in the past.

“A soil-borne disease, verticillium moves up the stems of the plant and is easily distributed when harvesting the crop,” says Jurke. “Right now, there is no perfect management solution. However, our breeding team has identified some ways to reduce the severity.”

BASF has begun identifying which of their hybrids provide some partial resistance to verticillium. While nothing yet has that coveted “R” rating, there are some hybrids that will help manage it. InVigor L355PC, InVigor L358HPC and InVigor L356PC will offer some needed protection for farmers concerned with the disease.

Harvest flexibility

Jurke says the proprietary pod shatter traits in the InVigor portfolio mitigate harvest risk and offer the flexibility for optimal pod fill. All InVigor hybrids are now bred with this trait.

“This innovation is of very high value to farmers,” says Jurke. “The longer you leave the crop attached to the ground in the field, the higher yield potential at harvest. When we first introduced this technology over ten years ago, farmers immediately saw its value, first in straight cutting and later when the flexibility advantages for swathing were determined.”

Pod drop reduction is also becoming more important to farmers. Primarily related to extreme weather events, which have become more common at harvest, all InVigor hybrids have strong pod drop protection.

Prairie trial results show regional performance

Farmers can view Prairie-wide trial results from this season and seasons past by visiting InVigorResults.ca. The trials take a close look at InVigor hybrids along with those from their competitors. Each trial is replicated four times and is managed by a farmer cooperator using their equipment and agronomic practices, under local growing conditions.

“One of the great features of InVigorResults.ca is seeing the hybrid lineup perform locally in real time as harvest progresses,” says Alberts. “Farmers can visit the website to see how this year’s hybrids are performing across the Prairies, including the results of InVigor L355PC posted shortly after harvest.” For information on InVigor’s 2026 hybrid lineup, visit MostTrustedCanola.ca.

The post New InVigor hybrid helps manage clubroot and other soil-borne diseases appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Geisel, the senior agronomist and representative of Koch Agronomic Services (KAS) in Regina, explains while all companies will promise product performance, there are many that don’t provide enough active ingredient to be agronomically effective.

“So, farmers need to ask questions about active ingredient loads when you’re choosing a nitrogen stabilizer,” he says.

Understand the loss type you need protection from

“As we go into spring, we have to be concerned with nitrogen loss pathways,” says Geisel. He notes those pathways can differ by nutrient source, application method, timing and weather, to mention just a few factors. All nitrogen is subject to loss one way or another, so protecting it is key.

“Volatilization is the biggest loss pathway in the West,” he says. “It happens only with urea and UAN, and losses can be as much as 40 to 45 per cent in extreme cases, but 10 to 25 per cent is pretty standard for most farmers.”

Volatilization occurs when urease, an enzyme found in all soils, converts N into a gas. Geisel says Prairie soils, with their higher pH and plant residue loads, almost seem built for it. “Volatilization should be a concern for all farmers.”

While the other two loss pathways, leaching and denitrification, are less frequent concerns for western farmers, Geisel points out that all forms of N are subject to loss if conditions favour the microbial activity necessary to kick them off.

“Leaching isn’t a major issue in Western Canada – yet,” he explains. “But with more tile going in, it’s becoming a bigger concern. Denitrification, on the other hand, is common with spring snowmelt or heavy rainfall events.”

The role of N stabilizers

Nitrogen stabilizers contain two key active ingredients: urease inhibitors, which slow urea conversion to ammonium, and nitrification inhibitors, which delay ammonium’s conversion to nitrate. Geisel emphasizes that an effective stabilizer should have strong levels of both – backed by solid performance data.

Nitrogen loss follows an S-shaped curve,” he explains. “It begins gradually, then accelerates as urea converts to ammonia before tapering off. Stabilizers help regulate this process, extending nitrogen availability over time. Since nitrogen is often applied before the plant needs it, the goal is to slow its conversion to nitrate, ensuring availability when the crop needs it most.”

Effective levels of AI are key to achieving that goal and Geisel says KAS’s N stabilizers have been designed and extensively tested to ensure they deliver just that.

ANVOL™ protects against volatilization with AIs Duromide, a patented technology, and NBPT, the combination of which provides the longest-lasting protection over a wide range of environments.

“Apply ANVOL with urea or UAN,” says Geisel. “It’s an excellent choice for spring applications, particularly for crops like canola that require early nitrogen. Whether you’re broadcasting, or shallow or streamer banding, ANVOL helps extend nitrogen protection, ensuring greater efficiency and availability.”

“TRIBUNE™ is just for use with UAN,” he says. “It has NBPT and our patented AI, Pronitridine, to protect N from all three forms of loss.” He notes this technology means TRIBUNE binds to the soil, keeping the inhibitor close to the N that needs protection.

“SUPERU™ is a 46-0-0 urea fertilizer with NBPT and DCD built into it,” says Geisel. “The reason we do this is to ensure the right rate of DCD needed to be agronomically effective is on every granule.”

Geisel says there’s a time and place for each product. “Go to your four Rs,” he says. “If you’re putting N more than two inches down in bands, you may not need a stabilizer. But if you’re broadcasting, shallow or dribble banding – protect it. Think responsibly about it. Why pay for N if you’re just going to lose it?”

For more information, visit DefendYourN.ca.

The post Why active ingredient levels matter when it comes to nitrogen stabilizers appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Owen Loos, General Manager of Marmit Plastics Inc., is proud that the tanks have been locally manufactured in Grande Prairie, Alberta, since 1990. “We also source the food-safe polyethylene resin and petrochemicals used in production locally, ensuring that the entire process, from start to finish, is fully Canadian-made,” he states.

Loos adds that they pride themselves on their low carbon footprint and dedication to being eco-friendly providing sustainable solutions that will protect the environment for future generations. “The benefit of using polyethylene resin is that it is totally recyclable, so any extra product from production is recycled and reused,” Loos says.

Marmit Plastics’ industrial-grade cylinder tanks offer a lightweight, corrosion-resistant and cost-effective storage solution for a wide range of liquids and chemicals. Loos explains that these tanks are typically molded as a single piece, eliminating the risk of leaks or cracks along seams or joints which creates a stronger unit with a longer lifespan. These plastic tanks are also resistant to UV radiation, allowing them to be used outdoors without the need for additional protection or coatings. Their versatility, ease of installation and low maintenance requirements make them a popular choice, especially in the agricultural industry.

MPI provides a diverse selection of plastic tanks in various sizes, designs and configurations, tailored to meet the needs of industrial, agricultural and residential applications for storing or transporting liquids and chemicals. Loos says, “We have a skilled team with plastic welding expertise that is capable of creating unique solutions for you.” An additional advantage is that each of these tanks is equipped with top-grade lids, fittings and valves, guaranteeing optimal performance. Marmit Plastics is dedicated to delivering liquid management solutions that meet the highest standards of quality and safety, all while being cost-effective.

Visit marmitplastics.com/products to explore their extensive selection of high-quality plastic tanks and discover how they can meet your unique needs.

The post Marmit Plastics: Industrial-Grade Tanks appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.