In the latter, it determines whether calves weaned in the fall might be sold or held for further feeding.

It is does not always reap profits (or win post-game bets), but backgrounding calves still draws substantial benefits when marketing them. All it takes is a little homework, and its final assessment is always surprising.

What is not surprising is that hundreds of good backgrounding feeding programs are available. Plus, one of them should fit anybody’s operation. Consequently, I find that most cattle that are backgrounded fall into three categories:

Small-framed calves to be overwintered on all-forage diets to gain about one pound per head per day. They will most likely be returned to pasture during the next grazing season.

Lightweight calves that gain one to two lb. per head per day on all forage diets, which might be conservatively supplemented with medium-energy byproducts or grains. These calves are returned to pasture or go into a feedlot.

Medium to large framed calves that gain two to 2.5 lb. per head that are put on a high plane of nutrition and are put in a feedlot.

I set up my 2026 demonstration spreadsheet somewhere between above points No. 2 and No. 3.

I want to put 200 lb. of saleable weight onto 650 lb. steers to be sold at 850 lb. It is my goal to achieve such weight gain in 100 days, or two lb. per head per day.

An accompanied weaned heifer program is also set up, which targets the same 200 lb. goal, but in 110 days or at a lesser 1.8 per lb. per day.

In review, I can make a decent assessment of the Goldeye’s present playoff chances, but I don’t have that exact kind of foresight when determining the 2026 feasibility of backgrounding spring calves.

Notably, I must make a huge assumption that the selling price of 850 lb. steers in August is equal to the same animals sold 100 days later during December-January.

In doing so, my spreadsheet-backgrounded steers made a computer profit of $80 per head, while their heifer counterparts (sold at an $0.50 per lb. discount) lost $200 per head.

I must mention that a standard TMR diet is used for backgrounding the above cattle, which supports a two lb. per head per day weight gain.

It is made up of 30 lb. of corn silage, a couple pounds of straw, seven to eight lb. of grain screening pellets and a one lb. protein supplement.

I found its cost of $2.50 per head to be truly expensive to feed. Fortunately, there are cheaper feeding alternatives of equal nutrition.

Case in point, a friend of mine has just harvested this year’s pea crop, which has a lot of thick pea residue.

With the protein supplementation of 18 per cent cattle lick tubs, we are able to feed his 200 mixed steers/heifers (weaned at the beginning of October) until Christmas for $1.50 per head, daily.

Calculated into the above spreadsheet, a profit of nearly $300 on steers and breakeven value on his heifers is projected.

Another friend of mine who runs a 400 cow-calf operation told me that backgrounding is so much more than most computer/paper profits.

He is a late-calver (mid-May), in which he drylots his weaned calves from November to February in order to add more saleable bodyweight. By using this approach, he reaps the non-spreadsheet benefits of:

• More saleable bodyweight.
• Less body shrink on lightweight calves.
• More uniformity among the calf crop.
• Better health status, particularly on his lightest calves.
• Quick day-to-day feedlot adaptability.
• Calves can be sold in both grass or feedlot markets.
• Pre-conditioned replacement heifers.

To the best of my knowledge, this friend has never lost money on his background steers or heifers, mainly because he always studies the cash markets beforehand and implements whatever feeding and marketing strategy is necessary.

In this way, he simply increases his chance of turning his annual backgrounding investment into welcomed revenue. Plus, he batted over 0.300 and never did strike out on his high-school baseball team.

During a Sept. 2 Manitoba Agriculture Crop Talk webinar, crops specialist Lionel Kaskiw said he had spoken with Manitoba producers who were harvesting grain in the tough and very tough ranges before rain put the harvest on pause.

WHY IT MATTERS: Grain drying costs vary widely. Knowing the numbers can help farmers decide whether to wait or get the crop off, even if it means harvesting it tough.

While weather may influence the equation, it’s only one factor affecting grain drying decisions.

Darren Bond, farm management specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, said producers need to know what cost they’ll actually swallow by drying before deciding whether or not to move.

Costs vary widely

There is no single cost for drying grain. Fuel type and price, starting and ending moisture, outside temperature, dryer capacity, drying temperature, cooling time, labour and electricity can all affect the bill.

Capital costs also need to be included.

Bond compared two hypothetical dryer systems.

The first was a smaller propane batch system with about $100,000 invested in a dryer, wet and dry bins and augers. The second was a larger, natural gas continuous-flow system with about $500,000 invested in the dryer setup.

For wheat starting at 20 per cent moisture and dried to 15 per cent, with an outside temperature of 10 C, Bond’s calculations produced an all-in drying cost of about 80 cents per bushel for the propane system and 57 cents for the natural gas system.

Fuel accounted for much of the difference. Natural gas can be considerably cheaper on a per-unit-of-heat basis, Bond said, but accessing it may need big investment in infrastructure.

Larger, more automated drying systems can also carry higher capital costs that have to be recovered.

Starting moisture matters as well. Increasing the starting moisture in Bond’s wheat example from 20 to 22 per cent increased the estimated propane drying cost by about seven cents per bushel, while the natural gas example increased by about two cents.

Outside temperature also enters the equation.

“Drying at this time of year is a lot quicker and cheaper than drying in November,” Bond said.

What does waiting cost?

On the other side of the equation, Bond said, farmers must be able to weigh how much they’re losing if the grain stays in the field.

Farmers can compare those two trade-off costs to help guide their decision.

Getting the crop off earlier might preserve grain quality. If drying costs 50 cents per bushel, but allows a farmer to avoid a grade loss worth 25 cents, for example, the effective additional cost of the decision to harvest early is 25 cents/bu.

Weather can provide another incentive, Bond noted.

Farmers might harvest tougher grain when significant rain is forecast rather than risk leaving it in the field.

“We will see producers speed things up a little bit and take off more tough grain if there’s some tough weather in the forecast,” he said.

The silver lining is that a rain delay can also provide time to deal with grain already in the yard. If field work is likely to stop for several days, farmers may decide the extra handling involved in drying is the lesser of two evils.

Other harvest options

Some producers use alternatives to dedicated grain-drying systems.

Farmers considering custom drying need to count costs beyond the drying charge itself.

Bond said those can include hauling grain to and from another farm, additional handling and potentially cooling the hot grain in an aerated bin after it returns.

Other farmers use heated aeration systems rather than dedicated grain dryers.

Those can range from a burner attached to a bin fan to larger systems equipped with burners and grain stirrers.

Bond said feedback from producers suggests those systems can work well for removing a few percentage points of moisture, although the job becomes more difficult as grain gets wetter.

They also have a lower upfront investment than a complete drying system though, and the bin remains useful for ordinary grain storage in years when supplemental drying isn’t required.

Bond encouraged farmers to use Manitoba’s online grain drying cost calculator and substitute their own numbers rather than relying on generic estimates. Similar information is available through provincial agriculture departments elsewhere on the Prairies.

“Your numbers are much better than our numbers,” he said.

On one hand, panelists on the hastily convened Canadian AgriFood Policy Institute webinar last month acknowledged the futility of negotiating on quicksand. The U.S. has demonstrated that a deal made today might change tomorrow.

You can follow all our coverage of the tariff situation here.

But on the other, webinar panelists speculated with varying degrees of optimism over what it will take to get negotiators back to bargaining.

This isn’t unique to this cluster of analysts. We all suffer from the same disconnect to varying degrees. But it underscores the difficulty of coming to terms with the seismic shift in America’s attitudes towards Canada.

It makes perfect sense to want to restore the equilibrium behind four decades of economic co-operation that has served both sides of the border well and which was once the envy of the world. And in the face of catastrophic change, it’s human nature to go through a phase of denial as we absorb the new reality.

Most of us recognize that our relationship with the U.S. has changed. Where we’re having trouble is reconciling that with the unthinkable implications. U.S. attempts to rewrite the terms of trade are not driven by a commitment to mutual reward nor is it willing to stop pushing until it gets what it wants, over and over again.

Ancient legislation

The U.S. administration is currently using the 1930s-era Smoot-Hawley Act Section 338 to override provisions agreed to under CUSMA less than a decade ago.

Agricultural economist Al Mussell said although it appears there was progress on the dairy dispute before talks broke down, that dispute had already been settled by a tribunal under CUSMA. The Americans just didn’t like the answer.

“The apparent intent of the administration is to fall back on Section 338 as the stick for any and all issues,” Mussell said. “I don’t know how you negotiate a durable arrangement with somebody who’s prepared to do that.”

Lisa Raitt, former Conservative federal transport minister who is now vice-chair of global investment banking at CIBC, said the U.S. willingness to use Section 338 tariffs is a threat Canadian sovereignty that justifies the decision walk away from the talks.

“If they reserve the right to snap back those 338 tariffs and apply them should they not be happy with the way Canada dealt with immigration policy, or defence policy, or fentanyl, or any of those irritants that they brought up before … that to me is a greater pull on our sovereignty than anything else,” she said. “We don’t want to have the United States sitting out there and judging what’s happening in the House of Commons and determining whether or not they’re going to slap some tariffs on to punish us.”

Raitt said that while Canada can challenge how the U.S. is using the legislation in U.S. courts, the process will take years and would likely end up before the Supreme Court, which is now loaded with political appointees. If it rules the tariffs are legal, the president has a powerful weapon and a lot of latitude.

“They can claim discrimination on anything and then turn around and tariff something not even closely related to the discriminatory claim as punishment,” she said. “And that’s what’s happening here: complain about cows and cars and cocktails, but you’re going to tariff everything else.”

Direct and indirect effects

For now, at least, the latest tariffs target a handful of Canadian agricultural products including alcohol, dairy, honey, wool, and farm equipment parts. The impacts on individual operators within those sectors are profound and will ripple through the agricultural economy in multiple ways.

The sensitivity around food inflation on both sides of the border seemingly reduces the likelihood that either government will disrupt the highly integrated livestock sector, if rational thinking prevails. That’s not a given in this environment.

Joe Glauber, former chief economist and agricultural negotiator for the USDA, said he’s certain the Trump administration’s decision to allow the import of 300,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef into the U.S. tariff-free was made without consulting department officials.

The move might help keep a lid on soaring beef prices temporarily, but it undermines efforts to rebuild the U.S. cattle herd long-term.

Non-tariff barriers

There is also renewed posturing for mandatory country-of-origin meat labelling laws in the U.S. that the Canadian sector is watching closely.

Cam Dahl, general manager of Manitoba Pork warns in a recent column that the sector is vulnerable to non-tariff barriers such as the tightened provisions for using the voluntary “product of U.S.A.” label that came into force Jan. 1. If retailers now want to apply that label to pork products, suppliers will have to eliminate the three million weanlings the sector currently imports from Manitoba.

“Origin labelling for meat is back on the table, and because the WTO’s dispute process is broken, another challenge of U.S. legislation will not save our bacon this time,” Dahl said.

The U.S. Senate agriculture committee also voted Aug. 6 to incorporate mandatory origin labelling for beef into the U.S. Farm Bill. “We would be naive to think that the push for mandatory labelling will stop at beef,” he said.

Dahl is floating the idea of a North American product label, or a label that identifies meat as products of Canada and the U.S., which would make sense — if common sense was part of this process.

Dealing with uncertainty

Uncertainty is the insidious undercurrent to all this.

The agricultural sector can expect to see higher input costs. There is risk of higher interest rates. But the effects of continued uncertainty on business decisions is perhaps the most worrisome, said Craig Johnson, chief economist with Farm Credit Canada.

“Is that going to be a strong headwind to prevent us from capitalizing on some of these opportunities in front of us?” Johnson said. “That’s a real watch item as we move forward.”

So, what should Canada — and more specifically — farmers and the agricultural sector to do? Retaliate? Feels good, ticks off the Americans — but it won’t force them to capitulate.

Find other markets to serve? Check. Hunker down and wait it out? It might be awhile. Or get on and ride this through? But how?

Further diversifying markets away from the U.S. is a laudable goal, but Canada must overcome the fact that it lacks the scale in food production to compete globally based on productivity alone, said Mussell. Even though it is the fifth -largest grain exporter of grains world-wide, it is still a relatively small producer.

That screams for a renewed commitment to this country’s reputation as reliable supplier of consistently high-quality food and food commodities that are worth paying a little more to get. History shows that we know how to do this throughout our innovation pipeline.

The question becomes whether we are willing to double down and differentiate on premium terms or undermine our capabilities so we can compete with everyone else.

As for waiting it out, Raitt poured ice on hope that the upcoming U.S. midterm elections will bring relief.

“I think the midterms and the results of the midterms have zero impact on what’s happening,” she said. Even if the Democrats do well, their focus will be on impeaching Donald Trump and addressing domestic concerns, not rekindling good relations with Canada.

Glauber said he doesn’t understand the administration’s fixation with Canada, but it’s real. “There are voices within the White House that are just, …constantly looking to the north and thinking … enemy,” he said.

He thinks it could take another election cycle before practicality prevails. “It’s just a weird place to be,” he said.

So, we’re in a weird place, as a country and as a sector. Unless Canada can negotiate an end to setting tariff policy by social media, there is little opportunity for an outcome from any bargaining that businesses on either side of the border can take to the bank.

All that said, farmers are better qualified than most to ride this out because of their ability to manage the knowns amidst all the unknowns and still come out ahead more years than not. Managing through uncertainty is part of their DNA.

It’s not for the faint of heart. But farming never was.

The rain has put a pause on harvest and combines could be idle for five days or a week.

“Since the first of September, I’m hearing reports of over seven inches (of rain),” said Travis Wiens, an agronomist with MNP in Milestone, Sask., south of Regina.

Those reports of 175 mm of rain are from the area east of Regina, towards Indian Head, Sask.

Less rain fell south of Regina, down the U.S. border and southeast to Weyburn, but that region is also wet. Most combines were stationary for the first seven days of September.

“Very little harvest progress, last week,” Wiens said, who added about 50 per cent of cereals in the region and 20 per cent of the canola was harvested by September 8.

“It’s raining again today (Tuesday)…. So, I would say probably Friday afternoon (combining could resume) at the earliest.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Later than usual seeding this spring because of excess moisture, in combination with a major rainstorm in September, means harvest could be late or very late on the Prairies this year

Producers in southern Saskatchewan are ahead of farmers in the northeast, a region that received 50-75 mm of rain over the weekend.

That will put a stop to harvest, which was just beginning in the region, said Kim Stonehouse, a crops extension specialist with the Ministry of Agriculture in Tisdale.

Only four per cent of crops were harvested in northeastern Saskatchewan, as of August 31.

Producers were harvesting cereals the first week of September, but progress was slow.

“Harvest wasn’t in full swing around here, to start with,” Stonehouse said. “So (the rain) is going to push everything back and (farmers) are going to feel a little more pressure to try and get things off.”

On the positive side, minimal rain fell on northeastern Saskatchewan in August. Most fields should be capable of soaking up 50-70 mm of rain, which should allow farmers to resume combining sooner than later.

Minimal harvest around Yorkton

Less rain fell on Yorkton over the Labour Day weekend, which received about 25-35 mm, said Wade McNeil, an agronomist and owner of AgraTactics Agronomy.

That’s positive, but the harvest is well behind normal progress in east central Saskatchewan.

“I would say we were at five per cent (complete). I have lots of customers that just got started when the rain happened,” said McNeil, who explained that harvest is delayed because most fields around Yorkton were seeded in late May or early June.

“We had a lot of June seeding (around here).”

A portion of the spring wheat crop has not been desiccated, so it could be 10-14 days before farmers are harvesting wheat in the Yorkton region, McNeil added.

As for canola, in low spots of certain fields the crop is still blooming. Combines will not be in those fields for a while.

“At this point, unless we get some really hot weather, it’s going to be October (combining) for a lot of us,” McNeil said.

Late harvest around Battleford

Quentin Cubbon, a crops extension specialist with the province in North Battleford, recorded about 35-40 mm of rain in his rain gauge over the September long weekend.

That’s less than other parts of the province, but as of August 31 only four per cent of crops were harvested in northwestern Saskatchewan, says the provincial crop report.

That’s well behind the five-year average of 20 per cent for the last week of August.

Producers were combining cereals in the first week of September around North Battleford, but many crops had high moisture content.

“Guys were taking it off quite tough, at 20 (per cent moisture),” Cubbon said. “And throwing it in dryers or drying bins to try and (preserve) quality.”

There has been some progress, but Battleford is in northern Saskatchewan and farmers are getting worried about a fall frost.

As a result, some producers are “in a little bit of panic” to get their crops in the bin, Cubbon said.

September normally means cooler days, which is adding to the concerns.

“I was looking at the long range (forecast)… I think over the next 14 days we have one day over 20 degrees.”

Slow in southwestern Manitoba

Around Minto, Man. and the surrounding region, harvest is about two weeks behind normal, said Jake Ayre, who runs Southern Seed, a seed dealer, with his dad Andrew.

Their farm received 40-50 mm of rain over the Labour Day weekend, which will stop harvest for a few days.

The spring wheat harvest is about 50 per cent complete around Minto and almost all of the canola remains in the field.

Spring wheat yields will be lower than 2025, but the bigger concern is high levels of fusarium head blight, a fungal disease, Ayre said.

“With all this humidity and rain, you’re going to see that (quality) deteriorate, unfortunately.”

Back in Yorkton, McNeil is also worried about the quality and consistency of the canola crop.

Canola in many fields is in different stages of development, thus increasing the risk of harvesting green seed.

“One of my big worries is putting this multi-stage canola (seed) in the bin,” he said. “It’s going to be a bit of mess (for some producers).”

A 2021 article in the Canadian Veterinary Journal by Japanese researchers described an investigation into liver abnormalities in horses from Alberta.

The study examined 2,326 horses that were slaughtered for meat in Japan. About six per cent of the horses had small white areas in their liver that were further studied.

Researchers examined these white areas under a microscope and used genetic tests. In 10 horses, these tests detected a tapeworm parasite.

The parasite detected was an immature form of a tapeworm (Echinococcus multilocularis), which normally cycles between wild canids such as coyotes, foxes and wolves and the rodents they eat.

Eggs are passed in the feces of these wild canids and can infect other animals.

Horses, domestic dogs and even people who accidentally ingest these tapeworm eggs can get a liver infection with the immature form of the parasite.

A follow-up study found that the parasite was closely related to a European type strain that causes disease in people and animals.

In Canada, most infections have been detected in Alberta.

While the researchers of the Japanese study list the horses as originating in Alberta, it is unfortunate that there is no information on where the horses actually lived in the province or if their home farms were elsewhere in Canada before shipping.

The discovery of this parasite in Alberta-origin horses matters because infections in people and dogs are increasing.

The parasite forms cysts that invade and destroy healthy tissues and can spread to other organs. Untreated cases can be fatal.

While we know about many human cases in Alberta and 18 documented dog cases, the true number of infections may be higher. Discovering the parasite in horses from Alberta provides another clue that environmental exposure may be more widespread than previously recognized.

Based on the descriptions available, horses appear to be dead-end hosts, meaning they become infected but do not spread the parasite. It appears to grow poorly in horses, causing only small liver cysts with little or no spread.

While this is good news for horses, these infections show that tapeworm eggs are present in the environment.

The abnormalities in the liver of horses in the Japanese study were tiny, with the largest only 13 millimetres in diameter. This suggests that similar changes in horses in Canada may have been overlooked and probably more animals have this infection than we realize.

Dogs have a unique role in this tapeworm story because they can develop the serious liver disease and also carry the adult tapeworms in their guts.

Intestinal infections in dogs result in them shedding eggs in their feces. Owners of dogs that are outdoors unsupervised or that hunt or eat rodents should talk to their veterinarian about tapeworm-specific deworming.

Preventing horse infections may be more difficult.

Their environments should be kept clear of dog and wild coyote, fox or wolf feces.

The use of feeders may also reduce the risk of egg contamination compared to feeding directly on the ground.

As well, farms can make their areas less attractive to coyotes by securing compost and managing deadstock appropriately.

My research group at the University of Calgary is working to better understand this important parasite and how it circulates among wildlife, dogs and people.

We want to identify activities that increase the risk of infection and find practical ways to protect animals and people.

As evidence and awareness continue to grow, horses may prove to be an important early warning sign for areas where exposure is more likely.

This creates significant opportunity for producers in areas less affected by drought or those with ample feed supplies. Those chances include herd expansion and deciding whether it’s best to retain, sell or purchase replacement females.

Producers may choose to capitalize on strong market prices by selling females at a premium and purchasing lower-cost replacements, capturing the price spread while continuing to grow their herd and introduce new genetics.

Alternatively, if their cost of production is lower than the market price of replacement females, they may choose to raise their own replacements. These females can be retained to support expansion or marketed at a later, and potentially more opportune, date.

Cost of raising replacements

It is important for cow-calf producers to understand the cost of developing a replacement heifer and how that compares with its current and potential future market value. This comparison can help producers decide if purchasing, retaining or marketing heifers offers the greatest economic advantage to their operation.

Several factors, including both cash and opportunity costs, contribute to the total cost of development associated with raising a heifer from the time it is weaned to the time it is bred one year later. Producers can use this framework to evaluate their own situations and support informed decision-making.

The example uses average prices observed in Western Canada in May 2026, where available. These values should be adjusted to reflect the current market conditions in your region.

The Beef Cattle Research Council has made a similar online calculator available to those interested in calculating their own cost of raising replacements. It can be found at beefresearch.ca/tools/replacement-heifer-calculator/.

Under the conditions highlighted in the table, a producer can decide to sell or retain their replacement heifer calves. For example, producers may decide to sell 550 pound calves at $3,664.25 and purchase 950 lb. bred heifers at $4,300 if their cost to develop replacements into a bred heifer on farm were $4,615.36. This would give them a cost savings of $315.36 per calf.

How many weaned calves are needed to recoup your investment?

These figures can be used to estimate how many years it would take a producer to recoup their investment in a developed heifer; that is, when the profit from the future number of calves weaned from that heifer reaches a break-even point with the dollars spent on her development.

Long-term beef calf price projections reported in February 2026 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture highlight U.S. calf values up to 2035. These values can be used as a baseline for determining the value of future calves weaned from a developed heifer.

The most recently published Canadian Cow-Calf Cost of Production Network highlights the simplified average yearly cost to maintain one cow in 2022 as $1,123 in cash and depreciation costs.

Applying a two per cent annual inflation rate through 2028, along with an additional year of development costs before the heifer produces its first calf, brings the estimated annual maintenance cost to $1,257.76. the table shows the estimated number of calves required before a break-even point is reached.

Using this information, a home-raised heifer will need to wean five calves to recoup development costs.

There are, of course, other factors to review when deciding whether to sell, purchase or retain heifers aside from economics. A few of these considerations may include:

• Quality and genetics of available heifers versus ones raised on farm.
• Specific production and management systems may affect future productivity, especially related to factors such as feed and water quality.
• Vaccination status of the animals and herd of origin.
• Potential biosecurity risks of purchased heifers.

These considerations emphasize the importance of reviewing operation-specific economics and production goals.

The decision to retain, purchase or market replacement heifers will depend on each operation’s unique combination of costs, resources, risk tolerance and long-term goals.

While today’s strong cattle prices present opportunities to generate immediate revenue, they also increase the value of strategically expanding productive cow herds when feed supplies and management capacity allow.

By evaluating development costs, projected returns and the non-economic considerations highlighted above, producers can make informed decisions aligned with their operational goals. In a period of historically tight cattle supplies and elevated market volatility, understanding the true cost and value of replacement females has never been more important.

For more information on this topic or other livestock-related inquiries, producers in Saskatchewan can contact the Agriculture Knowledge Centre at 1-866-457-2377.

Ferguson is growing 250 acres of Churchill this year, but said the variety has performed well enough that he could increase that to roughly 1,200 to 1,400 acres if he switched his malt barley program completely.

That would be a significant change for the nearly 5,000-acre farm, but Ferguson’s approach to new varieties is deliberately gradual. He starts small, watches how a variety performs and then expands what works.

“That’s the way we try to implement new ideas. We like to start making changes on a small scale and then act on them further if the changes work for us,” he said earlier this summer during the Canadian Malt Barley Tour.

Organized by the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre (CMBTC), the annual western Canadian tour gives international and domestic buyers a preview of the coming crop while connecting them with producers, breeders, seed companies, grain exporters, maltsters and brewers.

“Canadian barley and malt are regarded as a premium product by our international customers due to its cleanliness, high quality and excellent malting and brewing performance,” said Peter Watts, CMBTC managing director.

Research plots on Ferguson’s northeastern Saskatchewan farm were showcased during the tour. The work is part of the Rack’s Ultimate Yield program, which is evaluating Churchill under different environments and management systems.

Aron Cory, a Rack Ultimate Yield research scientist, said Churchill has been tested for five or six years, beginning when it was still a numbered variety. It has generally finished first or second for yield and has shown good malting characteristics.

That repeated performance is what has moved Churchill into a different category for Ferguson. He said its yield is higher than AAC Synergy on his farm, but yield alone does not determine which variety earns more acres.

“On our farm, we’re going for profitability,” said Ferguson.

He said a lower-yielding crop can still be the better choice if it brings a higher price.

With malt barley, profitability also depends on quality and whether maltsters are prepared to accept the variety.

Ferguson said Churchill’s malt quality is as good as or better than other varieties from his perspective, although the malting characteristics differ somewhat among varieties.

The farmer produces the barley, but the maltster ultimately determines how those characteristics fit its processing system and market.

“When we put malt barley in the ground, our goal is to harvest malt quality barley and not feed barley. We manage it throughout the season with the same perspective,” he said.

That distinction is important because the market for malt barley is smaller than for crops such as wheat and canola.

Ferguson tried Churchill on a small acreage a few years ago, but there were not enough buyers at the time. More maltsters are now using and accepting the variety, making the market outlook more attractive.

“As long as there’s an end user, and the agronomic package, the yield and the price are reasonable, then that’s a benefit for my farm,” he said.

Ferguson also sees agronomic advantages with Churchill. It has higher yield potential than Synergy, the variety he’s used for several years. Churchill’s disease package is stronger, but height, maturity, standability and harvestability are similar between the varieties.

Cory said the longer-term Rack results help explain why Ferguson is taking Churchill seriously.

The variety has repeatedly ranked near the top as testing expanded across different environments and management systems, rather than producing one strong result in a single field or year.

That performance is also showing up in the broader barley market.

Churchill accounted for 9.6 per cent of the area seeded to malting barley in Western Canada in 2025, up from 7.1 per cent in 2024 and 3.1 per cent in 2023, according to the Canadian Grain Commission.

Rack’s earlier work also changed how researchers approached barley fertility.

Cory said the group concluded it was probably over-fertilizing barley, prompting more work on how nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur interact with newer varieties.

For Ferguson, that kind of testing fits the way he farms. Besides Rack, he has 16 other trials underway this year, including other industry partners as well as some on his own. They’re all covering crop varieties, seeding rates, row spacing, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizer and tillage.

“We want to try it to challenge everybody in the area to try and do something better and more efficient,” he said.

The goal, he said, is not to try everything for the sake of experimentation, but to test ideas with a scientific basis and prove them before adopting them across the farm.

That approach is also reflected in the Churchill decision. Ferguson can compare the variety under his own conditions, while the Rack trials provide controlled comparisons across varieties, fertility programs and environments.

Cory said the combination matters because farmers must balance economics, quality and environmental considerations.

In the Churchill research, he said newer genetics have also shown greater nutrient-use efficiency, with Churchill among the strongest performers.

For Ferguson, however, a strong research result is only part of the decision. Churchill has to continue delivering the yield and quality he wants, make economic sense and have a buyer willing to take the crop.

That is why a variety that began as a small test on Ferguson’s farm is now being considered for as much as 1,400 acres, but not yet guaranteed those acres.

“The biggest thing out of anything … you need to have a consistent market in order to sell it into,” he said.

“We notice that when the filling is happening of the grain,” she said at the Northeast Agricultural Research Foundation field day near Melfort, Sask.

“That overlaps with the drought period, with the high heat and drought usually in mid of July and towards end of July.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Ultra-early seeding could reduce heat stress and disease of barley and improve malt quality.

This study is in addition to the breeding research, where Badea and her team are working to develop drought resistant malt barley varieties.

Variety development is a long road, and as a result they’re looking for other ways to support barley growers.

Badea’s barley trial is based on the research and trials conducted by Brian Beres on ultra-early seeded wheat.

“So, we thought, how about barley?” said Badea.

“I was very hesitant because our barley, it’s not very cold or frost resistant because we work only on spring barley.”

Winter barley isn’t hardy enough for Western Canada; it is found only in Ontario and British Columbia.

Badea’s project is in its second of four years, focusing on comparing different seeding times but not based on date. Like Beres’s trial, it’s based on a soil temperature measure at five centimetre depths to find the seed “trigger.”

A key priority is malt barley, but there is a range of varieties in the trial. The check is a wheat variety, AAC Stettler — to be compared with Beres’s work — and there are malt varieties (AAC Synergy, CDC Copper, and AAC Connect) as well as feed (CDC Durango, AAC Lariat).

Alongside the main focus of stressors such as weather, Badea hopes that by seeding earlier, they might reduce disease pressure on the crop.

“Maybe we will be able to also avoid fusarium head blight,” she said.

“But as always, you run from something, you run into something else.”

When building the project, a pathologist colleague warned Badea that when dealing with cooler temperatures, they might run into scald. This is what resulted in the pick of CDC Copper, which has good scald tolerance, along with AAC Connect, which is moderately resistant to fusarium.

Trial findings

The trial had two experiments regarding temperature. Both took place at Scott, Sask., Melfort, Sask., Melita, Man., and Lethbridge, Alta., to represent the Prairies.

The first experiment used trigger temperatures of 0 C, 2 C, 4 C, 6 C, 8 C and 10 C, with the barley being seeded in the top five cm at a rate of 35 seeds per sq. foot (350/m²). Actual days between the temperatures for seeding vary a bit, but the largest wait was from 0 C to 2 C at 10 to 12 days.

This year, the trial faced challenges with late snow, especially at Melfort, but also the cold. Depending on the locations, there could be seeding differences of roughly three days when following soil temperature measurements.

The second experiment had less differences of temperature, with seeding temps of 0 to 3 C, 5 C, 7 C and 10C. It also included dormant seeding with soil temperatures of 0 C to 2 C between November and January.

In addition to temperature, this experiment also compared seeding rates of 30 seeds per sq. foot (300/m²) and 45 seeds per s. foot (450/m²).

The dormant seeding is included as a comparison to the other temperatures.

Results of the first year of experiments was more dependable because growth conditions were more favourable. From the first year, Badea was optimistic but cautious in her hopes of seeing a yield increase. Sadly, there wasn’t one.

“We could say that by seeding earlier, we were able to shift to help barley to avoid that heat,” said Badea.

“And while we didn’t have a yield increase, we didn’t have a yield penalty, and for malting barley we didn’t have malt quality penalty.”

Soil temperature trigger didn’t effect yield, meaning the first year results would indicate that Canadian spring barley would be suitable to earlier seeding. If not for yield boost, then for grain stability. The reults are consistent with the trials Beres conducted on spring wheat and durum.

Dormant seeding was riskier, effecting plant establishment, yield and overall performance. The spring barley performed about the same as winter barley under dormant seeding, but it does show that Canadian spring barley varieties are hardy with a good degree of cold and frost tolerance.

Badea also noted that the warmer seeding temperatures tended to have higher concentrations of deoxynivalenol (DON), the mycotoxin produced by fusarium.

“Strict DON thresholds are enforced for both feed and malting barley markets; this observation is of practical importance,” she said in an email.

“Although these findings are preliminary, they may indicate a potential benefit of earlier seeding in reducing DON accumulation.”

More encompassing results will have to come with the next two years of research. The trial is set to end in 2028.

Breeding efforts

In the indoor breeding facilities, Badea has been testing different barley germplasm from different countries. She’s been testing them for cold and frost, as well as using them for breeding crosses.

So far, the researchers have developed new crosses using promising parental lines, and several breeding lines have already been identified and advanced for further evaluation.

Through double haploid technology, they are advancing genetics quickly. She believes that next year some of the genetic material will have improved levels of scald, cold and frost tolerance.

The light brown, yellowish-orange insects are turning black and gooey and found hanging off stems and pods of canola. They’re also being spotted in pulses, such as peas and lentils, as the season ends on canola and bertha armyworms move into other crops looking for food.

But not to worry, this is just nature doing its job — and benefiting farmers.

“Berthas, they’re a native species,” said Ian Epp, an extension agronomist with Saskatchewan Oilseeds.

“There’s a lot of things that kill them because they’re a native species. They evolved here, and things evolve to eat them, kill them.”

One of which is the nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV), which will infect the bug and then, over the course of about 48 hours, will kill it and turn it to goo.

Tyler Wist, a field crop entomologist at Agriculture Canada, calls it “free biological control.”

NPV is a soil-borne virus, which will sit dormant in the soil until there’s something in high numbers to infect and something “kicks up” the virus onto plants, such as late summer rain. This year has had both, with maps and traps indicating an outbreak year.

“Every time we get a bertha armyworm outbreak, and then you get a bit of rain … the rain kicks up these viral particles, and they land on the plants, and then the bertha armyworm comes along, and they eat the viral particles,” Wist said.

Last year’s trap numbers were higher than 2026, particularly near Outlook, Sask., and in pockets east of Saskatoon.

According to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture’s monitoring program, the moth capture numbers for this year were high across the province, though some areas were higher than others, providing indication of the high risk locations.

Wist said rain is the most likely cause of the virus gaining contact with plants, making it more likely that producers who received later rain will be seeing infected caterpillars.

This summer, the largest outbreak seemed to be in the area of Saskatoon south to Outlook, as well as a few other hot spots.

Epp said he was quite busy in early August, receiving calls and texts with photos and questions from producers and agronomists looking for confirmation of the pest, strategies for management and reminders of economic thresholds. The calls were from “all over” the province, not just the hot spots, as there were low levels of berthas widely spread across Saskatchewan.

“The berthas are kind of on a cycle, and so we did see a bit of beginnings of outbreak last year,” said Epp.

“Outbreaks are usually two to three years, so this is not exactly shocking.”

The last bertha armyworm outbreak was in 2016, which was a smaller one compared to others historically. It fall into the pattern of outbreaks occurring every 10-ish years, with Epp adding, “heavy on the ish.”

Late season benefit

Berthas are vicious with canola, eating pods and even hanging out in swaths.

Wist said NPV’s progression can be too slow to halt major damage, but it is still important to monitor.

A key sign of infection is caterpillars climbing up to the top of plants and hanging out there. Typically they like to hide during the daytime.

“The virus changes their behaviour,” he said.

“And it’s more advantageous for the virus to be up on the top of the plants for dispersal into the wind when the caterpillar starts to melt.”

While the “melting” virus reduces populations, it can occur too late in the season to make a big difference for the crop year.

Bertha populations continue to build throughout late June into July, getting to ideal damage size in August.

This year, the caterpillars had the perfect conditions. A dry, warm July kept fungal infections down, reducing early NPV risk. As well, the adult moths weren’t rained on, letting the population grow.

The little rainstorms in July and August will benefit producers, but the biggest positives may not be seen until next year.

Since the virus infects the insect during peak population, if a field is at or above threshold, the damage may already be done.

“If you hit the threshold, you have hungry berthas that are still eating,” Epp said.

“They’re alive. You’re still hitting that live threshold. We’re still going to have to make a control method.”

Under threshold, the plants will compensate a bit and it doesn’t make spraying worthwhile. In that case, he recommends letting nature step in, which includes not only NPV but also fungi and natural predators such as other insects or birds.

Over the threshold, there’s no gaurantee that the natural enemies will clean up the outbreak.

The prime time to spray for berthas is mid-August. Getting to the end of August, there may be the odd field that wasn’t on the radar, but most should be taken care of by then. In the cases of missed fields, get in quick and consider the available spray window.

“You do have to be careful on the pre-harvest interval,” Epp said, so, the time between you make major insecticide application and swathing or harvest timing, it really depends on the product you’ve used.”

Available products have one, seven, and 30-day intervals — the 30-day products may still be within the harvest or swath timing so producers need to be aware.

Reporting and monitoring

Wist and Epp encourage producers to keep an eye on reports from the Prairie Pest Monitoring Network to stay up to date. They should also watch the plant tops.

In addition to the network, Agriculture Canada has developed the Insect Risk Intelligence System (IRIS), which conducts surveys and enables real time pest monitoring through producers’ first-hand reports. It’s available for anyone and applies not just to bertha armyworms but to any insect.

“You can just open up IRIS and be like, ‘I have an English grain aphid infestation here, I’m really concerned about it,’ ” Wist said.

There’s a four-point scale to state concern and from there it is automatically uploaded onto the IRIS website.

Producers can also report incidents to SaskOilseeds via its textline at 1-877-241-7044 or phone the commodity group with specific questions.

With NPV, the hope is that next year bertha armyworm numbers will be lower, but Wist and Epp both said it’s too early to tell what 2027 has in store.

Here is one sent in from long-time Western Producer reader, Robinne Hurt from Crossfield, Alta.

This year will be my 48^th harvest. I started out helping my mother-in-law with the meals. She managed to have a hot meal ready for lunch and another for supper. I am still in awe of what she accomplished, sourcing much of the meal from her garden. She always packed an ice cream pail of warm water, soap and a towel, so that the men could wash up. She thought they felt better after they cleaned themselves up for supper.

Today, I make the fellas a lunch: a hearty meat sandwich, veggies, pickle, fruit, cookies, potato chips and a treat. If they are going to be far from home that day, I will add a granola bar and a lunch pudding.

I take supper out to the field if they are not close to the house, another hearty meal with meat, potatoes, a veggie and salad. Save room for dessert!

I also carry on the tradition of taking water with me for the guys to wash up.

Some fields are 25 miles away. I make supper in the crock-pot on the days I must go that far and put hot water bottles around pots to keep them warm. I pack everything up in boxes with The Western Producer newspaper in the bottom, then lay towels out in the box and wrap the pots up in the towels. This way, if there are any spills, I can wash up the towels and change out the paper. I also use disposable plates and cutlery when we go to the field. It’s not great for the environment, but time is an important factor.

Below are two of my favourite recipes that pack well for the field.

Beef Stroganoff

• 1 ½ lbs steak (cut into ½” strips) or hamburger
• 3 tbsp. oil for frying
• 1 envelope dry onion soup mix
• 1 c. hot or boiling water
• fresh, sliced and/or 1 can, drained mushrooms (optional)
• 1 c. sour cream
• 1 pkg. egg noodles

Brown meat with oil in an electric frying pan until browned. Reduce heat to low (225 F), add onion soup mix, water and mushrooms. Cover and simmer for an hour, until meat is fork tender. Cool for 5 minutes. Add sour cream and serve. I like to prepare one package of egg noodles (cook according to package directions), but this stroganoff can also be served over rice. If necessary, you may need to add a little water as the meat simmers since the water can evaporate. You want the sauce to be gravy consistency. Serves 6.

Blackforest Cheesecake

• 1 ½ c. vanilla wafer crumbs, crushed (I use Peak Freans Nilla wafers)
• 1 c. finely chopped pecans or mini chocolate chips
• 2/3 c. butter, melted
• 8 oz. cream cheese, softened
• ½ – 2/3 c. sugar
• 1 tbsp. lemon juice
• 1 ½ c. whipped cream
• 1 box of Dr. Oetkers milk chocolate mousse mix
• 1 c. milk
• 1 can cherry pie filling

Mix vanilla crumbs, pecans and butter until blended. Press into a greased 9 x 13-inch pan. Bake at 350 F for 15 minutes. Cool.

In a separate clean bowl, beat cream cheese, sugar and lemon juice until smooth. Gently fold in whipped cream. Spread over cooled crust in pan.

Spread cherry pie filling over cream cheese mixture.

Prepare Dr. Oetker mousse according to package directions using 1 cup milk. Spread over cherry pie filling. Cool in fridge for 4 hours.

** If you like a strong cream cheese flavour, use 12 oz. cream cheese.