GrainsWest Spring 2018

Spring

2018

grainswest.com

RAINWETTING BECAME A TOPIC OF FARMER

conversation this past fall after a story on the

diminished profit received for dry grains appeared

in a September issue of

The Western Producer

. “More to the

point, extremely dry grain was the issue that led to grain

wetting becoming a talking point at the elevator, the coffee

shop and in the ag press,” said Kevin Bender, farmer and chair

of the Alberta Wheat Commission (AWC).

Harvest 2017 was marked by, among other things, some

very, very dry grain being harvested. Dry grain would seem to

be the ideal, given its ease of storage and the length of time

for which it can be safely stored. “After all, grain is a food, and

safe storage of foods and food ingredients is a top concern for

everyone in the value chain, including farmers,” said Bender.

“There is a negative flip side to this for farmers, though, and

that is, overly dry grain means less grain weight at delivery.

Growers are essentially paid on delivered weight with quality

determining final net price after discounts.”

Growers also feel they are less than fairly treated when they

deliver very dry grain because there is the expectation that

the grain company will be able to extract additional value from

that grain at port by blending it with tougher grain. All of that

gain goes to the grain handler and marketer.

“All growers are asking for is to be fairly compensated for

the product they deliver,” said Bender.

When harvest produces tough or damp grain, farmers are

discounted according to moisture-discount schedules set by

elevator companies—the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)

sets ranges for dry, tough, moist and damp grain-moisture

levels. Growers can, and do, attempt to dry grain down to

safe storage levels. Grain can go out of condition very, very

quickly if it is put into storage tough or damp. “Grain put

into storage that is not dry is at risk of spoilage and at risk of

microorganisms producing toxins that can negatively impact

both human health and the manufacturing process. Growers

strive to protect the integrity of the crop they produce at all

times,” said Bender.

Geoff Backman, AWC business development and markets

manager, has also been fielding calls on the issue of overly dry

grain and then the obvious—but illegal—fix of grain wetting.

“There was a glaring difference between the harvest in central

and northern Alberta and southern Alberta,” said Backman.

“Guys up north were being discounted for tough grain, or

they had to pay to dry their grain, whereas their peers in

the southern part of the province were being penalized for

overly dry grain—penalized as in not getting any premium or

improved basis levels. That penalty was technically a price

discount due to weight reduction from grain that would be

considered dry at 13.5 per cent moisture content.”

Backman also relayed his experience on international New

Crop Missions with Team Canada during which end-users

have expressed concerns about rising moisture content in

Canadian wheat generally. “While the rising levels might be

due to late harvests and environmental factors, one can’t

help but wonder why growers are not offered premiums for

extra-dry grain that can go some way to reducing the overall

moisture content of a cargo,” explained Backman. “Food for

thought, at least.”

The CGC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the

laws and regulations that govern the storage, transportation

and handling of grain in Canada and has the organizational

responsibility to propose new laws and regulations that might

better serve the industry. Grain wetting may be seen as an

option to raise the moisture in very dry grain, but the practice

is considered to be in contravention of the Canada Grain

Act (CGA) by the CGC. Derek Bunkowsky, CGC program

manager, national inspection procedures and regulatory

compliance, monitors industry compliance under the various

regulations that govern grain handling in Canada.

“Adding water to grain after harvest—so-called grain

wetting—can potentially have a negative impact on grain

storability, quality and safety,” said Bunkowsky. “That is the

reason the practice is in contravention of the CGA.”

Pertinent to Bunkowsky’s point, section 58 states:

Except as required by order of the Commission, no operator

of a licensed elevator is required to receive into the elevator

any grain that has gone or is likely to go out of condition.

Moreover, section 104 states:

No operator of a licensed elevator shall …

c) except under the regulations or an order of the

Commission, receive into or discharge from the elevator

any grain, grain product or screenings that is infested or

contaminated; or

d) except with the permission of the Commission, mix with

any grain in the elevator any material other than grain.

There are two things at play here. Firstly, the elevator

operator is not required to receive grain he or she thinks

might go out of condition. And secondly, it is explicitly in

contravention of the CGA to deliver to an elevator grain

that has been “contaminated.” In the case of wetting grain,

the water used may be considered a contaminant. And the

elevator itself is very limited in what it can do with grain once it

is in the facility.

Getting back to why grain wetting is so maligned,

Bunkowsky explained the risks associated with adding water

to grain. “Not only do growers and grain handlers face risk

with wetted grain going out of condition and spoiling in

storage, they also are in a situation where the moisture content

of the grain is now not accurately discernible,” he said.

“Moisture meters are not designed or calibrated to work with