Archived content - The Pest Management Newsletter: News from the Pest Management Centre - Number 11
Archived content is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Inside the Pest Management Centre's Priority-Setting Workshop
Many have wondered though few can explain it. Yet the results can't be denied. The Pest Management Centre's (PMC) annual minor use priority-setting workshop works. But how?
It's the first day of the Pest Management Centre's (PMC) yearly priority-setting workshop, a surprisingly crisp, sunny March day in Ottawa following the city's coldest winter in 20 years. For the 12th year in a row, Craig Hunter, a crop protection specialist with the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, is sitting on the dais, hunched over "The Book", as it is affectionately called, calling out the names of crops and the pests associated with them.
"Potatoes. Line 76. Wireworm."
Below him, roughly 200 men and women follow along on their laptops or look up at the big screens to the right and left of Craig as he reads through a long list of crop and pest combinations.
A woman speaks up. "Keep it please."
A process of elimination
Participants of the PMC's 2014 workshop are whittling down the provincially ranked list of crops and pests in the first of three elimination rounds. The goal is to chop down the list of 1,810 entries to a final 10, known as "A" priorities, and identify the top two pest control solutions for dealing with each pest. The PMC will then carry out the residue, efficacy and screening trials to help move the chosen pesticide products closer to registration.
But before that, workshop participants must reduce the list of provincial priorities down to a wide swath of "C" or third-place priorities and then to a narrow 25 "B" or second-place priorities.
"Line 89, radish, cabbage maggot."
To an outsider it all looks spectacularly uneventful, even dull.
So you have to wonder, why do they do it?
And more to the point, how do the participants—a mix of growers, grower organizations, crop specialists, academics, provincial minor use coordinators, federal and provincial government staff, and pesticide and biopesticide companies—make it work year after year?
The only game in town
This is Kevin Gulay's second year attending the priority-setting workshop. He is back again because of his success at last year's meeting—he came wanting two pest control products selected by the group for testing in the PMC's trials and he got them.
Kevin is the research manager at the Manitoba Forage Seed Association (MFSA), a non-profit organization that represents forage seed producers in the province. "In my experience, it is difficult for organizations such as the MFSA to have these pesticides registered" says Kevin. "If it's not a large acreage crop, like your major grain crops, the pesticide manufacturers are unlikely to do the research and development."
Ocean Spray agricultural scientist, Brian Mauza, explains that it's a matter of economics. "The registrants do the work on major crops because they're getting a return on their investment. When it comes to minor crops, the cost-effectiveness is just not there".
So the best that these minor crop growers can do is keep a watchful eye on what pest control products the companies are developing for the large acreage crops.
That way they can come to the PMC workshop ready to say, as Brian puts it, "hey, product x, y, z from this company is really good and we think it will work for cranberries."
The name of the game is compromise
While each grower or grower organization comes to the workshop knowing what they want to try to get as a priority, there's room for give and take once the process starts rolling.
"If there are just some minor issues that really aren't going to affect our industry in a big way, and some other part of the industry has got a devastating insect or disease, well, by all means, look after that one," says long-time Ontario apple and blueberry grower Charles Stevens.
This willingness to compromise is what makes the process so unique. It's also the hardest part for outsiders to understand.
Craig – the man who has been chairing the PMC's minor use workshop since it started 12 years ago – calls it a minor miracle. "It's an amazing thing," agrees Tobias Laengle, the PMC's senior biopesticides coordinator. "The process just works to get consensus." In fact, that's why this year's biopesticide workshop adopted the same consensus-based format.
Room to work out any differences
A big factor pushing the group toward collaboration are the break-outs Craig calls at various times throughout the day. At that point, the meeting stops as participants huddle together to hear each other out and find out about each other's needs.
"It's an opportunity you don't get in any other situation," says Grant Keefer, a third-generation farmer who runs a small cranberry farm on Vancouver Island. "It might be a commodity that has nothing to do with you, but you've got to have discussions and work something out."
For example, this time, the process of sorting through the priorities progresses fairly smoothly, at least until the late afternoon when it's time to agree on the final 10. Then, the long-simmering issue of how to solve the spotted-wing drosophila, an invasive pest wreaking havoc on berry crops, bursts into the open.
"This is probably the worst fruit bug growers have seen."
"We're way behind our US friends on product choices."
"We're coming here to the group saying we've got to find a better way."
Craig lets participants continue to voice their concerns before stepping in. "Listen, you've reduced the list of B priorities down to 23 plus agreed on two set asides for spotted wing. Let's take a 20-minute break and discuss. We need to get these down to 10."
And the group complies. Sure, a few head out into the foyer to grab a coffee or tea, but most remain in the meeting hall, deep in conversation.
The outcome of these discussions won't be known until Craig reviews the final list of A priorities at the end of the day, but it's easy to see why, keeping the lines of communication open is a vital part of the process.
"Then we can have frank discussions without bashing each other," explains Charles. When you have that type of relationship, you can move mountains."
It's who you know
The fact is, the growers know that the pesticides market for their crops is small. They also know that it's tough to convince the crop protection manufacturers to go to the expense of registering their products for new uses since the return on investment just isn't there. And they understand that the PMC doesn't have bottomless pockets.
Given those constraints, "the PMC's process of prioritizing is an excellent way to get the best bang for our buck because none of us has enough dollars to do everything we want," says Charles.
Still, at the end of the day, some participants will leave the workshop empty handed. It's not exactly a lottery, but not everyone who comes to play will score that coveted A priority. So what drives them to return year after year?
They will tell you that a big reason is the participants themselves—a who's who of the horticultural and specialty crop industry in Canada.
"What I find most valuable from this meeting is the networking," says Peter Isaacson, a pest management expert with the Canadian Nursery Landscape Association who has been attending the workshop since year one.
"Sure we have our very small place in the sun where we get to talk about our own priorities. But the big thing for me is that there aren't a lot of opportunities to access the expertise available here – all in one place and all at the same time."
Get the inside scoop
More than expertise, the workshop also provides a chance to hear about products that other commodity groups are using or about new registrations coming down the pipe.
"All those things that you would normally not hear about for another three years," says Grant.
And when they do hear about them, it's like a light goes off. "All of a sudden you start thinking about whether it might have value for your industry as well," says Peter.
And the next thing you know, an organization like Grant's, the BC Cranberry Growers' Association, is inviting researchers to come out to their research farm in Delta, BC, to do pesticide screening. Or growers like Charles are volunteering to run registrant trials on their orchards to gain a competitive edge.
"In the end, it ties you in with these new products. You find out how to use them best, ahead of everyone else, because it takes time to learn how to use them, when to use them, what to mix it with. And if I can learn how to use a new technology – and crop protection materials are technology – I'm going to do well," says Charles.
Playing the long game
It's near five o'clock and the group has finally settled on its top 10 priorities.
Kevin is smiling.
Most people are grabbing their coats or heading to an informal reception hosted by CropLife Canada. But Kevin is making his way to a closed-door meeting with the other growers and registrants who made the final cut. They're going to meet with PMC staff and the provincial minor use coordinators to discuss next steps.
That's because, just like last year, Kevin succeeded in getting a valuable product, Lorsban, a Dow Agro insecticide, selected for testing.
As for Grant and Brian, they didn't get their A priority for their pest, cranberry tipworm. But that's okay, says Brian on his way to the CropLife reception room.
"We're happy. We got it on the B list."
He adds that they needed to be able to propose two pest control solutions that might work on their particular pest, but when it came to cranberry tipworm, "we only had one. So we knew we weren't going forward with it. The main thing is we got it on the list and it will stay there. If the US does something, maybe we can partner with them. And then we have another year to work at it."
That's right. For Brian and Grant and the other growers in their situation, there's always next year. Because if there's one thing growers know how to do, especially with a program where demand exceeds supply, it's play the long game.
Partnership Paves the Way to Up-to-Date Crop Profiles
Three years ago, the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP) and the Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC) agreed to work together to keep PRRP's 21 publicly available horticultural crop profiles up-to-date and relevant.
Under the terms of their agreement, CHC, an umbrella organization of over 150 horticultural organizations in Canada, canvassed its members and provincial crop specialists to collect the data needed to update different horticultural crop profiles each year for the past three years. Since joining forces, PRRP has succeeded in updating crop profiles for potatoes, greenhouse vegetables (cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, and tomatoes), high- and low-bush blueberries, asparagus, rutabaga, sweet corn, carrots, allium crops, and crucifers.
As a result, says PRRP manager Leslie Cass, horticultural growers have been getting the latest information about the crops portrayed in the profiles, including the types of diseases, insects, and weeds that threaten the crops and the methods currently available for managing these pests.
Renewing a Long-standing Partnership
The crop profiles bring together information from a number of sources—production data from Statistics Canada, pesticide registration information from Homologa™, an international pesticides database, and available resources from provincial ministries of agriculture. But at their heart is first-hand information from growers and crop specialists about the occurrence and management of pests and pest management issues affecting crops.
Such information, project coordinator Marilyn Dykstra explains, is the most difficult to obtain. Because the information highlights key pests and what growers are doing to treat them in the three most recent growing seasons, it can also quickly become outdated. For this reason, she says, "the success of the profiles depends on the participation of growers and grower organizations, as well as crop consultants and crop specialists, in keeping them up-to-date."
With CHC's help, PRRP is getting the information it needs. According to Ms. Cass, "The staff at CHC is closely connected to the representatives of the grower community of the horticulture sector across Canada. By partnering with them, we're able to take advantage of the networks they have in place and get the good, robust data needed."
Looking for a Better Way
Since its inception in 2003, PRRP has produced 30 crop profiles. The profiles provide a snapshot of the crop production and pest management status of a crop on a national basis for use by pesticide regulators, pest management specialists, and other stakeholders. This information helps stakeholders make decisions when registering a pesticide product or expanding an existing label.
PRRP recognized the need to update the profiles from the outset. Keeping the information current through regular updates is the only way to ensure the profiles remain a valuable resource for users over time. Over the years, program staff tried a number of ways to get the critical data, including polling experts through focus groups. Although they succeeded in publishing a number of updated crop profiles, it was a time-consuming and labour-intensive process.
A Workable Idea
A program review in 2008 gave staff a chance to take another look at how best to deliver the crop profiles. The result was an ambitious production schedule that aimed to update the time-sensitive information (such as statistics, pest occurrence, integrated pest management practices, pesticide registrations, and grower resources) in the 30 profiles every three years, and to revise the entire text every six years. As Ms. Cass explains, "Once the process is running at full capacity, it will mean that in any given year, we should be collecting information from commodity organizations for 10 crops, plus revising the text for five crops."
The first step to implementing the new plan involved developing a database for managing and storing the information. While still being fine-tuned, the new database and electronic data handling system compiles data on a provincial or national basis and generates the final, colour-coded information tables seen in the profiles. Staff no longer have to manipulate the data manually.
In March 2010, PRRP developed and piloted the electronic forms used to collect pest management data on apples. Feedback from the growers led to further changes to make the forms more user-friendly. The forms were used again in late 2010 to collect data on rutabaga and spring and winter wheat. Though Ms. Dykstra and her team were pleased with the results, the work involved in coordinating the data collection was still highly time-consuming. PRRP realized that it didn't have the resources to sustain the effort over time.
That was when PRRP decided to turn to the stakeholder community for help. With about two-thirds of the profiles focused on horticultural crops such as vegetables and fruits, PRRP approached CHC for help in collecting critical information from growers about the occurrence of diseases, insects, and weeds affecting their crops and the measures they are taking to manage them. "Establishing a partnership with CHC to help with the horticultural crop profiles was a way of getting the biggest bang for our efforts right off the top," explains Ms. Cass.
The Way Forward
With the participation of its members, CHC collected information on seven crops in key production regions in 2011, 2012, and 2013. The raw data was then sent to Ms. Dykstra and her team, who processed the information electronically and converted it into table format for easier reading in the crop profiles. The PRRP team is now updating the other information in the crop profiles.
While the entire process for updating the profiles continues to evolve, the practice of relying on CHC for input from its members has proven its worth in the process improvements made each year.
As for the future, Ms. Cass explains that, because efforts to update the horticultural crop profiles have been so successful, PRRP plans to establish new partnerships with the ornamentals and field crops sectors to update their respective crop profiles.
In the meantime, she says, PMC wishes to extend special thanks to CHC staff and the many growers, provincial grower organizations, consultants and provincial crop specialists who have contributed their time and expertise to provide the much needed information for the profiles.
The Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council Works to Eliminate Trade Irritants
If you're a minor-crop grower whose crops are targeted for export, you've probably been celebrating the tentative free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU). After all, by removing 98 percent of the EU's import tariffs, the agreement will swing open the doors to more than 500 million EU consumers.
But while tariffs and import quotas are the first targets to be removed during trade negotiations, what about maximum residue levels (MRLs), the maximum concentration of pesticide residues allowed in crop products?
The fact is, MRLs, or tolerances as they are known in the United States, could differ substantially across countries and crops. What's worse, inconsistent MRLs act as trade barriers.
If, for instance, Canadian growers apply a pesticide according to the label so that they are within the Canadian MRL limit, they can still have their crop rejected in a foreign country because of residue violation.
That's one reason why the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), its counterpart in the United States, since 1994 to harmonize regulatory systems, first under the Canada–United States trade agreement, and then, from 1996 onwards, through the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Yet, even with its head start, much more can be done to harmonize regulations and, as a result, minimize costs to business and eliminate delays in moving crop products across the border. Recently-created Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council will do just that by helping better align Canadian and American regulatory systems.
Making It Easier for Growers to Do Business
In February 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama, issued a joint statement, announcing the Council and committing Canada and the United States to boost North American trade and competitiveness by better aligning regulatory systems in four major industry sectors.
In consultations with stakeholders, the Council developed an action plan that outlines 29 specific initiatives for regulatory cooperation in agriculture and food, as well as the transportation, health and personal care products, and environment sectors.
Working groups were created to implement the initiatives in the action plan including a Crop Protection Products group led by PMRA and EPA with the help of the Pest Management Centre (PMC) and the United States Department of Agriculture's Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4).
The Crop Protection Products group focused on finding ways to help both Canadian and United States growers to access pesticide products and, where possible, to align MRLs to eliminate trade irritants.
Hopes were high that the group would make significant progress since it was building on long-standing relationships between both, the PMC and IR-4 as well as the PMRA and EPA. And in that regard, no one was disappointed.
The Regulatory Cooperation Council Proves its Mettle
A stakeholder consultation in June 2013 provided the various Council working groups the chance to report on their progress to the industry representatives and government officials in attendance. The Crop Protection Products group shared the success of all four of their action items, which showed that the Council has been an ideal vehicle for moving Canada and the United States beyond trade agreements and toward ongoing alignment and the prevention of unnecessary regulatory differences.
Action Item 1: Encourage joint submission of use expansions and fully aligned labels
Working with Bayer Crop Science, PMRA and EPA conducted a joint regulatory review for a use expansion of Movento Insecticide using data generated by PMC and IR-4 on crops such as onion, sweet corn, globe artichoke, blueberries, and cranberries, as well as by IR-4 on crops not grown in Canada. The agencies identified many commonalities, resolved differences in data interpretation and determined a methodology for setting common MRLs with small data sets during the review, setting the stage for continuing joint use expansion submissions in the future.
PMRA and EPA also agreed on the criteria for what makes a field trial in a particular study unique. This was an important breakthrough because trials must be different enough to be scientifically valid. Moreover, the clarity on how to distinguish field trials from one another will enable field researchers to make the best use of their limited time by conducting several trials in one study without fear of rejection by the regulatory agency.
Action Item 2: Develop joint guidelines for residue trials
Few involved in the Crop Protection Products group expected the need for cooperation to end when the Council's mandate came to a close. This was certainly the case for developing a field trial guideline, on which the PMRA and EPA are still working. During the Council's timeframe, the agencies took an important first step when, after looking at residue results for a number of crops, they agreed to use residue trials conducted in one country for use expansions in the other where possible.
And whether or in what form the Council might continue, the regulatory agencies are still working on harmonizing which crops they think should be grouped together and which will serve as the representative when establishing MRLs for the entire group. This is important since grouping crops ultimately reduces costs because less data is needed to support even more major and minor crops. Ensuring each country agrees on the commodities to be included in a crop group will also remove trade irritants since it will eliminate differences in MRLs for the crops in the group.
Action Item 3: Address obstacles to joint registration
Pesticide manufacturers will be pleased to know that PMRA and EPA have looked at ways to make it easier to submit data packages electronically. As a start, the agencies agreed to test out a joint Confidential Statement of Product Specifications form in which companies provide the pesticide's ingredients. The agencies are also looking at ways to collaborate on other forms and parts of the submission process.
Action Item 4: Align data collection processes/procedures for residue trials
PMC is working closely with IR-4 to align the documents field researchers use when conducting residue studies, collecting the data, and reporting the results. Following the success of a pilot project to harmonize report templates, field staff can expect a new look to the study protocols and raw data field notebooks they will be using in the 2014 season.
In the meantime, PMC's Vineland laboratory is conducting the residue analysis of Canadian-led joint projects and finalizing their summary report based on IR-4's template. As well, in eight studies on the control of downy mildew and Phytophtohora blight, PMC and IR-4 prepared final residue reports using an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report format. These reports have been submitted to PMRA and EPA with the cooperation of product developer DuPont for a joint regulatory review of a new active ingredient.
Stakeholders Keen to See Cooperation Continue
Participants at the June 2013 stakeholder consultation agreed that the Council's action plan was a good starting point for regulatory cooperation, and unanimously supported continuation of its efforts. So from August to November 2013, the Council invited additional input from stakeholders into how the two countries could build on their efforts. While the results of these consultations will ultimately determine future role and scope of the Council, the demand for more efficient and effective regulations, especially health and safety regulations like MRLs that act as non-tariff barriers to trade, will ensure that the two countries continue to look for ways to increase regulatory cooperation.
Program Update: Pesticide Risk Reduction
As part of the Pest Management Centre's (PMC) efforts to improve efficiency and streamline program delivery, the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP) made changes to the process by which stakeholders selected biopesticide priorities for support under PRRP in March 2014.
The key change is that the Biopesticide Priority Setting Workshop was not held on a separate day, as has been the case for the past four years. Instead, stakeholders selected the priorities during the three days of the Minor Use Pesticides Program's (MUPP) Workshop and sorted them under MUPP categories of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. In addition, stakeholders selected only product-based priorities for first-time or major new-use site registrations.
In the meantime, work is underway to start new biopesticide projects in 2014 to address the eight priorities selected at the 2013 Biopesticide Priority Setting Workshop. Work also continues with processing the efficacy data generated from field trials conducted in the summer of 2013. The data from these field trials, which addressed previously selected biopesticide priorities, are being used to prepare regulatory submissions to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) for the new uses.
PRRP continues to work on ongoing strategies aimed at reducing the risk to human health and the environment associated with pesticide use in agricultural crops. Following stakeholder consultation to implement three strategies started in 2012, five new priority projects were identified. Lab and field work to address these priorities will begin in the spring of 2015.
New tools and Information
Recent PRRP accomplishments include a number of biopesticide submissions, new tools and information for growers, as well as new research and development projects:
- Value packages submitted for five biopesticides (Organocide, Grandevo, Naturalis L, SuffOil-X, Rhapsody) to support regulatory submissions by respective registrants for their new uses
- Ten new uses registered for the biopesticide Timorex Gold (tea tree oil), including the whole cucurbit crop group in both field and greenhouse production
- Release of Diadromus pulchellus for biological control of leek moth
- A new technical factsheet developed on sustainable grasshopper management
- 13 new projects are starting in spring 2014 to support priority pest control solutions identified through risk-reduction strategies (5) and the 2013 Biopesticide Workshop (8).
Program Update: Minor Use Pesticides
Between March 31 and November 6, 2014, we completed and submitted 25 projects either to Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency or directly to the registrants for use in future submissions. The submissions cover pest issues in all three disciplines - insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. For a complete list of submissions and registrations by year, see the MUPP's Submissions web page. MUPP Submission and Project Status by Crop reports are updated about every two months. More recent versions are available by contacting email@example.com.
Since being established in 2003, MUPP has initiated 1058 projects and made 559 submissions, resulting in 408 registrations and over 1529 new labelled uses for growers.
MUPP Priority Setting Workshop
In March 2014 over 200 representatives from growers, manufacturers, provincial and federal government departments, and the American Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), participated in another successful Priority Setting Workshop and selected 42 new research pest control priorities.
The workshop also successfully integrated the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP) into its daily activities by setting aside a two-hour time slot, at the beginning of every day for PRRP biopesticide priorities.
Message from Executive Director of the Pest Management Centre
In recent years, harmonization frequently comes up in discussions about improving access to effective pest control products for Canadian horticulture. In this issue of the Pest Management Centre (PMC) Newsletter, we explain the efforts underway to improve harmonization of regulatory requirements of crop protection products while maintaining our high standards and principles of protecting the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. Quite simply, we live in a period where recognized practices in science have evolved to the point where there is little or no value in duplication of studies and of regulatory submissions and reviews of new pesticide uses. PMC and United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4) have worked effectively on developing a common technical language to ensure our work is harmonized, so data generated meets the requirements of regulatory agencies of both countries.
Under the Canada/United States (U.S.) Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), PMC and IR-4 have further aligned crop protection product expanded use reviews, establishment of maximum residue levels (MRLs), and tolerances in both countries. As well, under the Global Joint Reviews PMC and IR-4 are working closely with registrants on new products and development of data for minor uses to be submitted for the first time registration of the product.
Collaboration between PMC's and U.S. IR-4 Project already resulted in significant savings for both countries through sharing, collecting or generating data, and by jointly submitting to the regulator in each respective country. In addition, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Joint review/Work share initiative, which started in 2006, has evolved to become a regular way of doing business. Simultaneous submissions also mean concurrent review and decision making by regulators, which means even more savings in time and resources. Harmonization of MRL's, particularly for minor use crops, reduces trade barriers while ensuring health and safety are not compromised.
PMC is also making significant contributions to global harmonization efforts by participating at the CODEX and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) meetings where PMC submits applications in support of global MRLs harmonization. The applications are made to the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), an expert evaluation committee of the CODEX Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). PMC was also an active participant at the last Global Minor Use Summit held in 2012. As a result of this summit, a Steering Committee was established to coordinate activities and ensure the implementation of the five year work plan. The PMC is part of the Steering Committee and is involved in various working groups including the Global Needs Database and data sharing.
The regulatory climate for crop protection tools has been very conducive to pursue greater harmonization and that is one of the reasons we have focused so much of our PMC talent in this regard. Ultimately, the greatest benefactor of these activities are Canadian growers and by extension, all Canadians.
Until next time... .
About the Pest Management Centre
In 2003, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) established the Pest Management Centre (PMC) as a unique partnership between growers, grower associations, federal and provincial governments and the crop protection industry to deliver two national programs:
- Pesticide Risk Reduction Program (PRRP), a joint initiative of AAFC and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which focuses on the development of risk reduction strategies for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector; and
- Minor Use Pesticides Program (MUPP), a joint initiative of AAFC and Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which responds to the needs of Canadian growers for increased access to new minor uses of pesticides.
PMC operates from its headquarters in Ottawa and conducts field, greenhouse and growth chamber trials at seven research sites located in Kentville, Nova Scotia; Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec; Vineland, Ontario; Harrow, Ontario; Scott, Saskatchewan; and Summerland and Agassiz, British Columbia.
For additional information about PMC, please visit our website at www.agr.gc.ca/pmc.
For more information about any of the items in this issue of the newsletter, please contact PMC via email at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 613-694-2457.
Follow AAFC on Twitter @AAFC_Canada.
- Date modified: