As much as many loved to hate the Trudeau government’s climate change agenda, they flocked to the On Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF) and Agricultural Clean Technology (ACT) programs that, together, made about $1.2 billion available from 2021-28.

Related stories:

• Resilience is more than a buzzword
• On-farm emissions a dead topic in Ottawa
• Canadian groups still push net zero farming

It’s unknown whether this week’s federal budget will signal funding extensions, but third-party organizations that deliver OFCAF said the incentives to adopt best management practices around nitrogen management, cover cropping and rotational grazing were worth it.

Manitoba Association of Watersheds (MAW) executive director Lynda Nicol said OFCAF worked because it included education, environmental sustainability and economic well-being. Anecdotally, she has heard that farmers have sought out other funding.

“It’s been a real success story as far as the education and the adaptation of the specific BMPs that are covered through OFCAF, but also an exploration in how to further those efforts through other programs,” she said.

However some said there isn’t yet enough information to say whether the program worked as intended.

WHY IT MATTERS: The intense focus on climate change and emissions reduction seems to have lessened at the federal government level, at least publicly, but there may be a legacy from the incentive programs.

OFCAF and the ACT were introduced as part of the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.

The ACT features two streams of funding: direct contributions to producers through the adoption stream and a research and innovation stream. More than 535 producers have received money for greener technologies such as natural gas grain dryers, biomass boilers and solar panels.

OFCAF was initially funded from 2022-25 to reduce emissions and encourage carbon sequestration, but strong uptake quickly resulted in funding for another three-year period. In total, it is worth $704 million.

Lack of measurement of results

According to Agriculture Canada, more than 11,400 producers adopted the best management practices during the first three years and “improved” nine million acres.

One problem, according to an agricultural economist, is that no one measured how much emissions were reduced, given the initial intent of the program.

“We do know that practices are getting adopted, but what we don’t know is whether additional emission reductions actually took place because the infrastructure for measuring emissions reductions was never set up,” said Tristan Skolrud from the University of Saskatchewan.

“It’s not necessarily an oversight. It’s just a very, very expensive thing to do.”

The National Emissions Inventory Report calculates fertilizer emissions, for example, by using the amount of nitrogen sold in a province and multiplying it by an emissions factor.

“Using less nitrogen shows up, but changing how it’s applied … doesn’t change the number,” he said.

Skolrud said the most recent NIR report in April indicates there is still limited evidence on how much enhanced efficiency fertilizers reduce emissions. Farmers often use practices in combination, but studies mostly just measure each on its own, he added, and there isn’t consistent data over time on how many farmers use each practice.

Auditor General report raised issues

Agriculture Canada itself noted the lack of measurement capability. The Office of Audit and Evaluation in 2024 recommended the assistant deputy minister of the programs branch “refine performance measures of OFCAF to better reflect and assess the relationship building, knowledge gains and behaviour changes in the sector that result from OFCAF activities.”

An auditor general report in 2024 also found issues. It said Agriculture Canada lacked clear targets and had no strategy to guide its climate change mitigation programs, even though the government mandated specific action since 2015. Results were poorly measured and unverified.

OFCAF was initially expected to permanently reduce emissions by 4.29 million tonnes. That was revised a year later to 1.61 million tonnes.

The auditor report said that Agriculture Canada suggested reducing emissions from fertilizer would cut 3.5 million tonnes, but 2.07 million tonnes were unfunded.

The government’s target to cut emissions from fertilizer by 30 per cent became a flashpoint in the debate between economics and the environment. A plan to do this through voluntary agreements with farmers never materialized.

Incentives were popular

Still, there is no denying that farmers liked the OFCAF incentives. Some of the 13 third-party delivery organizations had to close application intakes early or were oversubscribed.

For example, Results Driven Agricultural Research in Alberta, which was allocated nearly $128 million to distribute over the six years, had to pause its 2026 applications.

“Producer response to this year’s intake has been exceptionally strong. RDAR has received more than 900 applications requesting over $21.2 million, far exceeding the $17.2 million available,” it said in a June 3 statement.

Similarly, the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association (CFGA), which will have 500,000 acres in its program by the end of this year, had applications for double the amount of money it had for rotational grazing implementation.

Skolrud said the federal government’s pivot toward messaging that focuses on productivity and competitiveness does fit with climate change programming.

Farmers are seeing results

“When you talk to farmers, regardless of their feelings on mitigation, almost everyone can get behind adaptation because they see it on the farm,” he said.

“There are practices out there that will do everything. They will make operations more resilient and they will mitigate emissions without an associated decline in yield.”

Cedric MacLeod, executive director of the CFGA, said the goals may have been to reduce emissions and drive carbon sequestration, but the outcome has been more than that.

“Overall, productivity and efficiency we’ve seen on the farm has been pretty tremendous,” he said.

“When you look at the current administration’s focus on growth and resilience, productivity, I think this type of program is easily reframed within that context.”

Both he and Nicol said they’d like funding to continue.

They agreed measurement has been challenging, but Agriculture Canada did implement emissions factors and sequestration rates to get good estimates.

“I think this is something that we can take as a learning to say, ‘OK, let’s get that figure out now so that when we move into the next round of programming, we’ve got that locked in’,” said MacLeod.

Nicol said it’s critical that producers participate in next policy framework consultations to let the government know how valuable OFCAF and its financial incentives are.

She said the goal has always been to help farmers be more environmentally sustainable in an economically sustainable way.

“They want to do well on their land. They want to leave their land in better shape than where it currently is,” she said.

“When we can do that in a way that economically supports them to make those decisionsm we see them doing it.”

MAW’s Prairie Watershed Climate Program program will sell out fully for 2026-27, Nicol added, and she expects the same for its final year.

In fiscal 2025-26, it distributed $12.5 million for all three BMPs to 1,101 approved applications on 1,831 individual projects. Sixty-four per cent of those dealt with nitrogen management, 25 per cent with rotational grazing and 11 per cent, cover cropping.

“Soybean oil is the clear winner in the feedstock pool for biomass-based diesel,” Jacqui Fatka, CoBank’s lead economist for farm supply and biofuels, said in a recent analysis.

Canola oil volumes appear to be holding steady, while soybean oil consumption is on the rise, according to data supplied by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Fatka thinks that has a lot to do with the proliferation of soybean crush plants across the U.S.

Crush capacity is up 25 per cent over the past five years.

She also believes it has something to do with soybean oil’s more favourable treatment under the coveted 45Z production tax credit.

A renewable diesel plant that uses soybean oil as a feedstock can get a credit of US$0.55 per gallon compared to canola oil’s credit of $0.20 to $22 per gallon.

“(Canola) doesn’t have as good of a carbon intensity score,” said Fatka.

That $0.33 to $0.35 per gallon tax advantage comes on top of soybean oil’s existing price advantage over canola oil.

“That’s just one more hit for canola oil,” she said.

WHY IT MATTERS: The U.S. is Canada’s top export market for canola oil by a long shot, and a growing amount of that demand is coming from the biofuel sector.

And the hits could keep coming because more soybean crush capacity is on the way.

For instance, Louis Dreyfus Co. is set to begin production at a new plant in Ohio that is capable of crushing 1.5 million tonnes of soybeans a year.

Another example is the new plant that CHS Inc. is building in Wisconsin that will be able to crush 2.18 million tonnes of the crop once it opens in 2028.

Fatka also said American farmers planted three million acres of canola in 2026 ,and processors in that country will be producing 5.3 billion pounds of canola oil in 2026-27.

She said there is a concerted effort to boost canola production and processing in the United States, which could also restrict Canadian canola oil imports.

However, despite the challenges from soybean oil and U.S. canola, there is still plenty of opportunity for Canadian canola in the U.S. market.

That is because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the 2026 and 2027 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes 67 per cent above the 2025 level, creating massive, mandated demand for biomass-based diesel.

“We’re going to need every bit of feedstock we can get to be able to meet those really high targets,” said Fatka.

Brittany Wood, senior manager of transportation and trade policy with the Canadian Canola Growers Association, said Canada’s canola sector is pleased that its oil qualifies for the 45Z tax credit at all.

“We’re really happy that it landed that way,” she said.

Despite the lower credit value versus soybean oil, canola oil is still competitive in that market, and demand for the product appears to be picking up in recent months.

“We see it trending in the right direction,” said Wood.

“Volumes are looking better, and we hope that we’ll finish 2026 a bit higher than 2025.”

Kyle Korneychuk, a National Farmers Union member, disagrees with a Manitoba court’s rejection of claims seeking more than $91 million for producers who sold through CWB pool accounts in its final two monopoly crop years.

WHY IT MATTERS: The ruling dismisses the last remaining lawsuit arising from the dismantling of the CWB’s single desk.

“I think the simplest thing to remember is the wheat board was a farmer’s selling agent,” he said.

“All revenues made were owed to that group, the farmers.”

Manitoba Court of King’s Bench justice Chris Martin dismissed the action Oct. 7, granting summary judgment to the federal government and G3 Canada Ltd., the CWB’s successor.

Farmer Edward Andrew Dennis brought the Manitoba action in 2017 on behalf of producers who sold through pool accounts between Aug. 1, 2010, and July 31, 2012.

The claims concerned up to $85.3 million in gains from non-pool marketing programs credited to the CWB’s contingency fund and a further $5.88 million in expenses charged to pool accounts.

The contingency fund protected against losses from non-pool programs. Gains exceeding its regulatory cap could flow to pool accounts and contribute to payments to pool producers.

The farmers alleged then-agriculture minister Gerry Ritz improperly increased the fund’s cap and directed money into it to help capitalize the CWB’s transformation into a private grain company. They also alleged the CWB breached contractual obligations to producers.

Martin rejected those arguments. He found the minister acted within his authority both to protect the CWB’s finances through its final monopoly year and to prepare it for subsequent operations.

“I also disagree the evidence shows bad faith, dishonesty or egregious intentional misconduct by the minister,” Martin wrote.

He found the grain receipts, on which the contractual claim relied, documented a statutory relationship rather than a contract. Even if there had been a contract, he concluded the CWB had complied with the legislation and had not breached it.

The farmers also challenged $5.88 million in employee-retention payments charged to pool accounts. They argued those costs arose from the CWB’s transition to a private company and that farmers should not be on the hook for them.

Ottawa considered the payments operating expenses and declined to pay. Martin ruled that, under the CWB’s governing legislation, those expenses had to be paid from farmers’ grain returns.

Martin also pointed to the board’s apparent lack of objection to the accounting treatment of the 2010-11 funds as somewhat telling.

“It is also incredible that the farmer-dominated board would allow this, let alone without any comment or objection, unless they understood it was proper.”

Korneychuk rejected Martin’s framing and said directors had sought to distribute contingency money to farmers but were blocked by a federal directive.

“We didn’t sit idly by. We fought minister Ritz tooth and nail,” he said.

Korneychuk said he did not know whether the plaintiffs would appeal.

“As far as I know, they’re still reviewing it,” he said.

Louis Century, counsel for the plaintiffs, did not respond to an email asking whether they intended to appeal.

The Wheat Growers Association, a strong advocate of ending the CWB’s single desk, did not respond to requests for comment.

The United Soybean Board (USB) had at one time established a target of 18 million acres for the crop by 2023.

You can find all the stories in this year’s Canola Yearbook here.

That would have been enough to produce four billion kilograms of high oleic soybean oil annually and provide a serious challenge to Canada’s high oleic canola.

The goal was to reclaim the 1.8 billion kilograms of annual soybean oil demand that had been lost to trans-fat labelling in that market.

However, the industry fell well short of those ambitious targets.

U.S. farmers planted less than one million acres of high oleic soybeans in 2025, according to the USB website.

WHY IT MATTERS: High oleic soybeans compete for market share with high oleic canola in the food sector.

Roger Theisen, specialty crops manager with Vylor (formerly Corteva’s seed business), said fragmented demand, regulatory hurdles, agronomic risks, limited processing capacity and insufficient economic incentives all contributed to the disappointing results.

“The original large opportunity in human food never materialized because these constraints were not resolved quickly enough.”

However, several converging factors are driving renewed growth and opportunity for high oleic soybeans such as Vylor’s Plenish soybeans.

“Beyond continued growth in edible oil applications, the adoption of Plenish in dairy cow feed rations has created meaningful new momentum,” he said.

Variety selection and improved agronomic performance have resulted in yields comparable to commodity soybeans. That, combined with access to the Enlist E3 herbicide trait platform in Plenish, has reengaged growers.

Grain premiums have moderated now that Plenish competes head-to-head with commodity soybeans on performance.

“That shift enables a more sustainable upstream offering while delivering a more competitively priced oil and feed product downstream,” said Theisen.

Theisen said those developments have restored confidence throughout the supply chain and laid the groundwork for acreage expansion.

The USB’s new target is five to seven million acres of high oleic soybeans by 2035. It has invested US$136 million in high oleic soybean development over the years.

Theisen said Plenish competes with high oleic canola for the premium edible oil applications in foodservice frying, shelf-stable snack foods and industrial food manufacturing.

“Both oils deliver similar functional benefits — high oleic content, oxidative stability, zero trans-fat and extended fry life,” he said.

However, he sees the two products as more complementary than competitive.

High oleic canola fits northern-tier acres in Western Canada and the northern U.S. where soybeans don’t perform as well, while Plenish is well suited to the core U.S. soybean belt. They also serve different nutritional niches.

Theisen sees them as two pillars of a broader high oleic portfolio.

“Together they give customers supply diversification, geographic resilience and the ability to match the right oil and meal profile to the right application,” he said.

The company announced during the Farm Progress Show in Iowa in September that the 5S will now be available with the Agco Dyna-VT transmission. Previously, the Dyna-4 and Dyna-6 transmissions were the only options in the 5S.

The Dyna-VT is Agco’s continuous variable transmission (CVT) with automatic mode for smooth changes and easy control. It’s an ideal change for customers wanting to use the machine for loader work, and will be available in the horsepower segments of 115 h.p., 135 h.p., and 145 h.p. for North American markets. Each segment features the maximum lift capacity of 10,300 pounds.

“Operators are able to put the power to the ground when needed,” said Dan Nelson, tactical marketing manager of high horsepower tractors for Massey Ferguson North America.

“And make it for smooth, seamless speed control during loader work, any kind of hauling work, moving bales, anything like that.”

With the Dyna-VT, operators have the option of the accelerator pedal or lever whenever they choose, without the need to make changes to other operating controls. The automatic mode will automatically regulate the engine speed for total load and speed when the operator adjusts their forward speed.

The machine goes up to 25 m.p.h. (40 km-h), and 15.5 m.p.h. (25 km-h) in reverse. There’s also a brake-to-neutral switch that will operate the clutch when the brake pedal is pressed.

“It’s a very small, and nimble machine,” Nelson said.

The smaller, utility type of tractor is intended for production agriculture and the “professional farmer,” he added.

Keeping the well-known

Aside from the transmission changes, everything else with the 5S will remain the same.

A Stage V Agco Power engine with 2000 r.p.m. and maintenance interval of 600 hours is paired with rear and front linkage and rear and front power take-offs, with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 20,944 lb.

The cab offers 360 visibility with large windows totalling 64.4 sq. feet of glass and the option of up to 16 LED work lights to keep things bright for the early mornings and late evenings. To add to line of sight is the hood shape.

“The 5S is going to be taking that visibility step to the next level with the steep nose hood, so you can see everything in front of you from a cab perspective,” said Nelson.

The size and shape of the hood provides operators with visibility of 13 feet ahead of them. Additionally, the general size and shape of the tractor allows for work in tight spaces, making it a great option for livestock operations, dairies, commercial hay operations and feedlots and stockyards.

“It’s especially for the ones that have tight pins that need good access and ones that require good visibility,” Nelson added.

The tractor offers a tight turn radius of 13 feet (four metres) for simple maneuvering and ease of loader work.

Having been launched at Farm Progress 2026, dealer ordering for the 5S Dyna-VT is currently live and production is underway. Units are expected to arrive at the end of 2026 through to the beginning of 2027.

This occurs fairly frequently in cattle herds and can be a major welfare and economic issue. Calves that are not well mothered have poor survival.

They may consume less colostrum if the cow refuses to allow them to nurse. Without that vital first milk that provides them with immune protection and early nourishment, mismothered calves may be at high risk for disease.

These calves may also have increased risk of injury from the cow or predators.

As well, they have reduced growth compared to well-mothered calves.

Farmers experience increased labour and time trying to deal with these pairs.

Previous research on western Canadian cattle farms identified this lack of bonding in approximately 1.2 per cent of cow-calf pairs, and more than half of farms have at least one instance of mismothering.

A recent study by PhD student Emma Roux in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Calgary explored how cows fail to mother calves.

The research was published this fall in Applied Animal Behaviour Science and was supervised by senior cattle health and welfare researchers Dr. Jennifer Pearson, Dr. Maria Ceballos, Dr. Claire Windeyer and Dr. Ed Pajor.

The research was conducted at the university’s W.A. Ranches, a working ranch located approximately 30 kilometres north of Calgary.

The herd comprises 1,050 commercial Hereford-cross females.

Over two calving seasons, 71 cow-calf pairs had mismothering and were included in the study. These included cows that were aggressive to their calves, didn’t care for them (no nursing or licking), abandoned the calf or cared for another cow’s calf.

Cow-calf pairs were moved to an indoor pen and recorded. Researchers then assessed the videos for three hours after the calf stood to score behaviour.

Examples of cow behaviours included kicking, nursing, preventing nursing and stepping on the calf.

For the calves, examples included lying, attempting to nurse and standing.

For both, there was also a category for affiliative behaviour, which included nuzzling and/or licking of the head or body.

Using complex statistical tests, the researchers identified different types of mismothering cows:

• Inattentive cow with an inactive calf in 51 per cent.
• Inattentive cow with an active calf in 30 per cent.
• Aggressive cow regardless of calf behaviour in four per cent.
• Cow partially rejects nursing in 14 per cent.

The “Inattentive cow with an inactive calf” group featured calves that spent more time lying down and less time standing or trying to stand and nursing compared to other groups. The cows in this group were described as disinterested in their calves and did not engage in normal levels of nuzzling and licking.

This suggests that poor-doing calves may fail to stimulate appropriate maternal bonding.

A key result of this study was the potential role of udder condition in mismothering.

Cows that had low-hanging udders were more likely to be inattentive cows with active calves. These cows didn’t have udder infection or other concerns, making the anatomy the likely culprit.

Calves in this group may have had trouble nursing due to the low hanging teats and were therefore more active. Reduced nursing impacts the hormones required for bonding (oxytocin, the so-called love hormone).

Three pairs were described as cows that were aggressive regardless of the calf behaviour.

This group, while rare, represents a serious outcome because the cows were attempting to harm their calves. All three had assistance birthing, which may have impacted their bonding behaviours.

Finally, the group that partially rejected nursing occurred in cows that appeared bonded to their calves, displaying licking and nuzzling behaviours. However, they periodically blocked the calves from nursing.

These calves spent a lot of their time trying to nurse, which may have resulted in pain or irritation and subsequent rejection of nursing by the cow.

A better understanding of mismothering can support producers in decisions around selection of which cows and heifers to keep.

In particular, this study suggests that producers may consider culling cows and heifers with extremely low-hanging udders to help manage mismothering.

Future research could expand this work to a diverse range of cow-calf operations to determine if these categories are more universally applicable to beef herds. If we can reliably understand which cows mismother and why, that allows for prevention and management.

Not really, according to a survey that the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University conducted earlier this year, which found affordability is the main concern of Canadians when they’re at the grocery store.

Related stories:

• Resilience is more than a buzzword
• On-farm emissions a dead topic in Ottawa

Affordability is the top consideration for 46.5 per cent of people when buying food, the survey said.

Only 2.3 per cent of Canadians said “environmental impact” was their top consideration when purchasing food.

However, many groups and companies are still dedicated to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian farms, including the Canadian Alliance for Net Zero Agri-Food.

CANZA, based in Toronto, has a target of expanding climate smart agriculture to 14 per cent of Canada’s farmland by 2050.

That would represent one out six acres across the country, in which farmers follow regenerative or climate smart practices.

“Our focus is on developing and scaling solutions that can reduce emissions, improve environmental outcomes and create new value across the agri-food system,” said Ashley Honsberger, CANZA interim executive director.

WHY IT MATTERS: Cutting emissions from farms and net zero agriculture was a big deal when Justin Trudeau was prime minister and Joe Biden was president. Now, the USDA and Agriculture Canada are focused on production, exports and economic growth in agriculture.

The United States abandoned emission reductions in farming after Donald Trump became president in 2025.

In April of that year, U.S. agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins called climate-smart agriculture a “green scam.”

“The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative was largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers,” said Rollins, who cancelled the partnership.

Canada’s agriculture minister, Heath MacDonald, hasn’t used that sort of hostile language, but so far in 2026, cutting emissions from farms is rarely mentioned at Agriculture Canada

Priorities in government policy may have changed to agricultural productivity and agri-food exports, but CANZA is pressing on with its work.

The alliance, which includes corporate heavyweights such as RBC, Maple Leaf Foods, McCain and Loblaws, will continue to advance climate smart farming.

“Reducing agricultural emissions requires action on farms, supported by collaboration among industry, government and other partners,” Honsberger said.

“How the new policy framework (for Canadian agriculture) translates into programs and investments remains to be seen, but the importance of collaboration among farmers, industry, government and philanthropy hasn’t changed.”

That trend accelerated sharply over the past few years as billions of dollars flowed into new and expanded canola crushing capacity in Saskatchewan.

You can find all the stories in this year’s Canola Yearbook here.

WHY IT MATTERS: More domestic crush means more competition for canola, potentially strengthening prices at the elevator.

Louis Dreyfus Company’s expanded Yorkton complex more than doubled the company’s canola crushing capacity at the site to more than two million tonnes annually.

That July opening followed Richardson International’s expansion of its Yorkton plant, which boosted annual capacity to about 2.5 million tonnes, and Cargill’s new one-million-tonne Regina crush plant.

Together, the projects are part of a rapid increase in Canadian canola crushing capacity, which has grown from roughly 11 million tonnes a few years ago to about 15 million tonnes today, according to Canola Council of Canada president and chief executive officer Chris Davison.

Asked whether canola had become one of Canada’s clearest examples of value-added agricultural processing working at scale, Davison said it had.

“I absolutely think so.”

The new crush investments are an example of that shift, with more Canadian-grown canola being processed domestically into oil and meal before entering food, feed and fuel markets.

Crush keeps growing

The additional capacity has been accompanied by a sharp increase in actual crush volumes.

Davison said Canadian crushers handled slightly more than 10 million tonnes annually on average between 2022 and 2024. That climbed to about 11.6 million tonnes in 2025 and roughly 12.9 million tonnes in 2026.

The canola council estimates that $2 billion has been invested in expanding Canadian crushing capacity in recent years.

At LDC’s Yorkton grand opening in July, company officials said the expansion reflected confidence in both Canadian canola production and demand for canola products.

Brian Conn, LDC’s head of country for Canada, said growers had responded strongly to the expanded plant.

“The seed supply has not inhibited our ability to produce what we want to produce,” he said.

That supply question could become increasingly important as more crushing capacity comes online.

Canada seeded a record canola area in 2026, but there are agronomic limits to how much farther acreage can expand.

Leigh Anderson, senior economist with Farm Credit Canada, said some areas are nearing their practical limits.

“I think in some regions, they’re already pushing their rotation,” he said.

There may still be room for incremental acreage growth, particularly in less traditional canola-growing areas, but Anderson expects future production gains to depend increasingly on improved productivity.

“I think the bigger gains going forward will probably come from yield gains,” he said.

Davison offered a similar assessment, saying future production growth will likely come from a combination of improved productivity on existing acres and some additional acreage.

“We’re not creating more farmland for sure,” he said, noting disease pressure and crop rotation limits will continue to constrain how intensively canola can be grown.

More crush, fewer seed exports?

More domestic processing does not necessarily require Canada to dramatically increase total production.

Canada remains a major exporter of raw canola seed, creating room for some of that production to shift toward domestic crushing instead.

Anderson said that is already part of the adjustment taking place.

“As we crush more, that number typically comes down,” he said of seed exports.

Expanded crush capacity effectively creates another bidder for Canadian canola, competing with exporters for available supplies.

Anderson said the new Regina plant has already helped improve basis in the surrounding region, encouraging some growers in less traditional areas to plant canola.

In a short crop year, that competition would become more pronounced.

“I think that’s where you see canola prices really increase, and then it’s what markets it goes to,” Anderson said.

“More of it probably stays for the crush markets. We export less seed.”

Regardless of where the canola ultimately ends up, increased crushing capacity is a boon for farmers, said Davison.

“One of the key benefits is obviously increased marketing options for canola growers,” he said.

U.S. policy underpins demand

The ongoing Canada-U.S. trade dispute adds uncertainty to a canola crushing sector that increasingly depends on renewable fuel demand south of the border.

Anderson said agriculture has so far remained relatively insulated from the broader tariff dispute, but uncertainty remains over future market access.

U.S. demand for vegetable oil is helping underpin the economics of new capacity, he said, and that demand south of the border is due, at least in part, to current U.S. policy objectives.

“Without that policy or mandate south of the border, the economics probably wouldn’t be there,” Anderson said.

“If you lost any of those markets, what happens?”

He said with any luck, the trade tensions are short-lived and a deal will be hammered out soon.

Davison noted that companies making these investments are looking beyond short-term uncertainties such as the current trade dispute and toward longer-term demand.

“When you’re talking about the scale of the investments that have been made, these are not short-term plays,” he said.

Testing can help them manage the crop without unnecessarily sacrificing feed quality.

Frost can disrupt a plant’s ability to process nitrogen, allowing nitrates to build up in the forage.

“When those light frosts happen, the roots are bringing out more nitrates, but the plant isn’t able to process them,” said Tessa Thomas, a livestock and feed extension specialist with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture.

Nitrate levels may peak three to four days after the first frost, so harvest timing depends on the extent of the damage and whether the crop will recover.

WHY IT MATTERS: High nitrate levels in forage and drinking water can threaten livestock health, but testing and careful feed management can help producers use affected forage safely.

Frost complicates harvest decisions

If frost damage is light and the plant is expected to recover, Kristen Bouchard-Teasdale, a livestock and feed extension specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, advised waiting 10 to 14 days before cutting, provided no further frost is forecast.

As growth resumes, the plant may process nitrates again, reducing their concentration.

If the crop is unlikely to recover or a killing frost is expected within that period, harvesting sooner may be preferable.

“In this situation, a crystal ball would certainly come in handy,” said Bouchard-Teasdale.

Thomas said nitrate levels may decline as plants resume growth, provided they experience no further stress. Another frost can prolong elevated levels.

Because nitrate concentrations can change after frost, producers should consider when they sample and harvest.

A test reflects feed conditions at the time of sampling, and further stress can change nitrate levels before the forage is harvested or fed.

Testing provides a starting point

Nitrate accumulation can occur when plant growth is restricted by drought, hail, frost, prolonged cloudy weather, herbicide injury, disease or insect damage. Annual crops such as oats, barley, wheat and corn are generally more susceptible than perennial forages. Weeds such as pigweed, kochia and lamb’s quarter can also have high nitrate levels.

Recent applications of nitrogen fertilizer or manure applications can increase nitrate accumulation in forage.

Testing is needed to determine nitrate levels in crops, bales and silage because they cannot be judged by appearance alone.

“My recommendation is always if you’re concerned about nitrates in your feed, then absolutely test for them,” said Bouchard-Teasdale.

“More information is better than not enough.”

Thomas also encouraged testing when producers suspect nitrate accumulation in fall grazing or regrowth.

“Knowing your numbers is always important because you can’t manage what you can’t measure,” said Thomas.

Thomas cited testing costs of about $17 to $26 per sample, depending on the laboratory and analysis requested.

Test each field or lot of concern separately to avoid obscuring differences between samples.

For silage stored in a pit, Thomas advised collecting six to eight samples from different areas. For baled feed, she suggests sampling about 10 to 20 per cent of the bales in a lot.

For pasture, Bouchard-Teasdale recommended sampling forage down to the lowest level cattle are likely to graze, paying particular attention to dry knolls, drought-affected patches and shaded areas.

“Test areas of the pasture you feel are at highest risk for nitrate accumulation, so you’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” she said.

Consider feed and water together

When reviewing laboratory test results, consider the units used and how the feed fits into the animal’s overall diet.

Bouchard-Teasdale identified less than 0.5 per cent nitrate on a dry matter basis as a general guideline for forage considered safe for most livestock. The concentration in a feed sample does not necessarily reflect the total ration, so producers should seek advice if results are elevated.

Nitrate levels in drinking water should also be considered when assessing livestock exposure.

High nitrate levels can reduce the blood’s ability to carry oxygen. Lower-level exposure can affect appetite, growth and milk production, while severe poisoning can be fatal. Pregnant cattle, young stock and animals in poor health may be more susceptible.

Manage elevated levels

High nitrate levels do not always mean forage must be discarded. It may be safe to mix it with lower-nitrate forage or other suitable feed.

“Dilution is the solution to pollution,” said Bouchard-Teasdale.

Calculate proportions for the complete ration and mix feeds thoroughly. A livestock nutritionist or extension specialist can help determine whether blending is appropriate and how much higher-nitrate feed to include.

If blending is impractical, she advised feeding lower-nitrate hay first, then offering the higher-nitrate bale once cattle are mostly full. This can help limit how much higher-nitrate feed they consume at once.

She also recommended introducing higher-nitrate feed gradually over one to two weeks, offering smaller amounts more frequently and providing grain to support rumen microbes.

Cattle that go several days without higher-nitrate feed may need to adjust to it gradually again.

Nitrates tend to accumulate in the lower stalk. Raising the cutter bar and leaving the bottom third of the plant in the field can reduce nitrate concentrations in harvested forage, which generally decline as plants mature.

Silage fermentation may reduce nitrate levels, but producers should not rely on poor fermentation to make high-nitrate forage safe.

Thomas suggested prioritizing good-quality silage and testing after fermentation to determine how it can be used.

Bouchard-Teasdale said to allow at least 21 days of fermentation before sampling. Producers should confirm the appropriate timing with their feed-testing laboratory or extension specialist.

Producers can test forage before harvesting or grazing it, and again after storage if conditions change.

“Once we know what we have in that feed, then we’re able to manage it appropriately,” said Bouchard-Teasdale.

Scattered rains in May provided some beneficial moisture, but also caused additional seeding delays. Seeding was generally two weeks behind normal by the end of May.

You can find all the stories in this year’s Canola Yearbook here.

Heavier rain fell in the central and northern Prairies during June, which resulted in significant acreage losses due to flooding.

Above-normal temperatures pushed into the Prairies in July, which stressed crops, especially in the southern growing areas. The combination of flood damage and heat stress reduced yields for all crops, including canola.

Snowfall during the winter of 2025-26 was mostly above normal in the central and northern Prairies. The heaviest snowfall was reported in the northern areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan over the winter, which resulted in delayed seeding in the region.

The southern Prairies received below-normal precipitation over the winter, which left the region vulnerable to hot, dry conditions in the summer. Overall, winter precipitation was normal to slightly above normal across most of the central growing regions.

The slow start to spring seeding was primarily due to delayed snowmelt and cool soil temperatures across the Prairies.

Seeding started slowly in the northern regions, where snowpack was still on fields in early May.

Southern areas of the Prairies were also delayed but did manage to get most of the crop planted by the end of the month.

Canola seeding was only 60 per cent planted in Manitoba at the end of May. Saskatchewan was 73 per cent planted at the end of the month while Alberta was 89 per cent complete.

Heavy rain in June caused continued seeding delays and resulted in significant area losses in the northern grain belt.

June precipitation was mostly 150 to 200 per cent of normal in northeastern Saskatchewan, western Manitoba and northern Alberta. Amounts during June were mostly in the 125 to 175 millimetre range.

Some northern locations reported record rainfall (more than 200 mm) during the month.

The remainder of the Prairies received close to normal totals ranging from 50 to 75 mm.

Cooler conditions prevailed over most of the Prairies in June, with monthly temperatures averaging 1 to 3 C below normal. The exception was Manitoba, which reported temperatures slightly above normal.

Heat returned to the Prairies in July with high temperatures exceeding 30 C for most of the month. Average temperatures for the month ranged from 1 to 4 C above average. The hot temperatures in July caused stress to filling crops in the southern growing regions. These areas ran out of soil moisture reserves before the crops were mature.

Temperatures remained above normal in August, with most locations reporting values 1 to 3 C above the long-term averages.

Precipitation was moderate across the Prairie region in August, with most locations reporting close to average amounts. This changed abruptly in September when a major system dropped 15 to 40 mm on parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The heavy rain came just as harvest was getting underway and caused significant quality degradation in vulnerable crops.

There was also a significant frost in eastern Alberta and northern and central Saskatchewan in the second week of September, which brought the growing season to a close. Of most concern were the late-seeded crops in the north, which were still not yet mature. This event likely caused some yield and quality loss to both oilseed and cereal crops.

The canola harvest began at the end of August in most regions, with southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan the furthest advanced. The Saskatchewan harvest was 26 per cent complete by the third week of September, while Alberta was 24 per cent finished. The Manitoba harvest was 36 per cent done by the third week of September.

Statistics Canada expects canola production to drop to 22.1 million tonnes this year, which is down from the 22.2 million tonnes last year. Yields were forecast by the agency to drop to 2.34 tonnes per hectare, which is down from 2.55 tonnes per hectare.

These estimates are based on satellite crop models and are expected to increase significantly when the final surveyed yield estimates are released in December.