| If Canada’s
quality assurrance system is so effective, why change it? |
|
| Several factors are
driving this process: |
|
| – |
the demand by some customers to be able to purchase on the basis of more specific
quality factors |
| – |
the imminent arrival of transgenic wheat varieties |
| – |
private plant breeding interests, and |
| – |
the potential to create several more wheat classes or types with new genetic
material (e.g., hard white wheats). |
|
|
| Of the four key
elements of the current system mentioned above, there isn’t much pressure to
fundamentally change three of them (i.e., grading system, uniformity and
cleanliness/safety). The main focus is on KVD. Obviously, alternatives to visual
distinguishability involve non-visual methods of quality segregation. Examples of the
types of non-visual quality segregations that may be desired include the following: |
|
| – |
Even within the narrow quality window of an existing wheat class such as CWRS,
there are some quality differences between varieties. In some cases, a customer may want
to select specific varieties, which are visually indistinguishable from the others in that
class. The CWB/Warburton’s Bakeries program is an example of this kind (in fact, it
is the only example of a customer of Canadian wheat selecting specific CWRS varieties). An
important feature of this type of program is that there are no concerns regarding the
impact of "leakage" from these shipments on the rest of the class. Because the
varieties selected by Warburton’s are fully accepted as conventional CWRS varieties
as well, other CWRS shipments do not have to be monitored to keep Warburton’s’
preferred varieties out (in fact, the same varieties comprise a large proportion of the
CWRS class). |
| – |
Periodically, a variety surfaces that is reported to have significant agronomic
advantages over registered Canadian varieties. If, however, it looks like one of the
Canadian classes but doesn’t possess the quality required for that class, it cannot
be registered for production in Western Canada. The reason for denying registration is
concern that some of the production of that variety will find its way into shipments of
the class that it resembles, thus damaging the consistency and uniformity of quality of
the class expected by the buyer. If acceptable methods of non-visual segregation were
available, the new variety could be grown while still maintaining the quality of the class
that it resembles. A possible example in this category would be a fusarium-resistant wheat
variety that doesn’t possess the same end-use quality as the class that it resembles. |
| – |
Sometimes, the end-use quality of a new variety is what makes it attractive,
rather than its agronomic advantages. For example, some wheat customers find the CWRS
class dough strength somewhat weak relative to most Dark Northern Spring (DNS) varieties
from the U.S. If Western Canada were able to grow DNS-type varieties while protecting the
quality of CWRS shipments - which DNS resembles – some additional sales may occur.
Note that many customers prefer CWRS quality to DNS, so CWRS of traditional strength must
be protected. Another similar example is the imminent introduction of hard white spring
wheat varieties. Wheat similar in end-use quality to CWRS or DNS, but with a white seed
coat, is expected to be popular in some markets due mainly to the potential for improved
flour or end-product colour at higher flour extraction. Some of these varieties have
already been registered in Canada for the purpose of market testing, but there are no
longer any distinctive kernel appearance categories left for them to occupy (the
newly-registered hard white spring varieties look like CWSWS). |
| – |
Transgenic* wheat varieties, when they become
available, may have agronomic advantages or quality differences that may be desired, even
if they don’t fit the requirements for KVD. It will be important to segregate these
and protect the existing classes from admixtures of trangenics, sometimes because of known
differences in quality and sometimes due to demands from customers for shipments with low
limits for transgenics. (This may also include exclusion of certain unapproved trangenics
but acceptance of other trangenics that are approved in the importing country or by the
customer). |
|
|
| Generally speaking,
as plant breeding technologies advance, agronomic and quality sacrifices are likely to
increase if strict KVD requirements are retained in all cases. Even with new breeding
technologies, it can be very difficult to introduce certain agronomic traits into a
specific kernel appearance. Furthermore, the variety of possible quality types will
increase beyond the limits of visual distinguishability (e.g., hard white spring wheat). |
|
 |
|
| * |
Various terms are used to describe the products of
biotechnology in grain variety development. The most common include transgenics and
Genetically Modified Organisms. Transgenic is the term used in this paper. |
|
|
