PCVT - Collosal waste of money

[wd9]

I can't believe they are resurrecting the old PCVT. What a waste of a million bucks. Any yield you want is on the web already as was demonstrated last year - and quick unlike PCVT which comes out long after all the good seed and programs are done.

The other comment, by saying PCVT uses protocols to ensure accuracy and tries to put themselves as leaders and innovators of statistical protocols is such a slap in the face of the highly educated, dedicated to accurate stats and science based protocols that the companies' staff are already doing.

[Francksaskfarmer]

Hello WD9,
As chair of the new Canola Variety Trial Committee I think I can answer your comments to clarify why the new trials are being implemented.
Being a farmer, I agree with you WD9, resurrecting PCVT as it was for $1 million would be a waste of money.
For one thing, even though we are approaching Easter, we are not resurrecting anything here. PCVT died an inevitable death at a good old age after suffering some serious health issues !) It served its purpose at the time but its flaws make it that we will gladly let it go down as a piece of history.
The need for a quality third party trial that gives fair (to the farmer and companies) and reliable data, representative of farmer practices, in a timely fashion, has clearly been expressed by a strong majority of producers. These characteristics are a tall order but I am confident we can deliver, and we definitely aim to keep improving the trials each year.
We are trying very hard to implement the trials in a way that they represent farmer practices. The main thing being herbicide specific. We are also going to be reporting separately the data from field strip trials conducted by companies on farmers' field by auditing the trial process. The varieties reported will be those that are also in small plots, and doing so, will clearly show if some varieties behave better or worse in strip trials vs small plot. (some say one way some the other)
On this last point, that is where great statistical analysis becomes of the utmost importance. Your last comment: " by saying PCVT uses protocols to ensure accuracy and tries to put themselves as leaders and innovators of statistical protocols is such a slap in the face of the highly educated, dedicated to accurate stats and science based protocols that the companies' staff are already doing" Let me explain, we have 3 representatives from the Canadian Seed Trade Association on our committee who are from Canola seed companies. They are fully supportive. There is no "slap in the face". Much to the contrary. This is an effort conducted by all interested parties modeled after the success of the Canola Council. The innovative statistical analysis that the committee is investigating will potentially be leading the way in variety trials.
By the way the 1 million figure was floated at the early stage of the proposed project. I am happy to tell you that the cost will be a fraction of that (When we have a precise number we will make sure it gets published). But let's say it is 1 million, (and it is NOT) divided by 52,000 registered canola producers, that is $19 per grower. That is the cost of one acre of fungicide. Having fair reliable information to assist in the choice of a canola variety for $19 can potentially pay back multiple times over what that acre of fungicide will. I know it will certainly be helpful canola acres.
Now, as you say, the reporting needs to be timely enough to make that decision, and on that we will be working very hard to process the data and report it as soon as it becomes available (web based and then condense and publish in the seed guide) along with the specifics of the trial location (weather, agronomics etc).

I hope that you will find our efforts useful to your operation, if not it is not by lack of trying. If you or anybody else have any questions, please bring them up. I will try to answer in the best of my ability. It will not be long till more details hit the press.

[dak7]

Thanks for the explanation.

WD speaks for a lot of us who want good
information but were not satisfied with the old
pcvt.

Please push the researchers to not do the same
old trials but to try new approaches to a complex
information challenge. What about gathering real
farmer harvest data by variety to increase your
database?

Don

Don

[wd9]

Point is that it is already all on the web and PCVT is unnecessary.

[Francksaskfarmer]

Hi Dak7,
Reporting strip trial data from the different companies' side by side trials will essentially do what you are asking for, in a reliable fashion. Some people are leary of strip trial data because of the perception of the handpicking that happens between the time the weight wagon leaves the field and the time the results are reported.
The proper auditing of that data will answer to that.

[ward.toma]

wd9

Like the PCVT system before it, participation by the seed trade in the new Canola Variety Trials (CVT) is voluntary. This is a key point as the level of participation is the indicator of the value being provided.

If the information that you point to was sufficient to meet the needs of the various CVT participants, logically no one would volunteer as there would be no value. Given the high level of voluntary participation amoungst the seed trade members, this appears to not be the case.

The Alberta Canola Producers Commission continues to receive strong feed back from farmers growing canola that this is something important. This obliges the Commission to work towards making it happen in a way that meets the farmers demand for information they can use and trust.

Ward Toma
General Manager
Alberta Canola Producers

[wd9]

Francksaskfarmer, so you are saying the companies are dishonest? Or the perception is they are dishonest?

[Francksaskfarmer]

wd9, I do not believe they are dishonest. Thanks for pointing it out if that is how you understood it.
At times in the past, they might not have been entirely fair in the data reporting from strip trials as it was pointed out to me by some side by side trial participants. And what is amazing is that the companies participating in the new CVT felt it was very important the strip trial protocols and data be properly audited. For some it was just about a deal breaker if it was not audited. So do they think that their competitors are dishonest? I don't think so!
As stated before we aim for reliable, fair and timely data production, collection and reporting that will be useful to farmers and companies.

[wd9]

Are all the major companies involved?