Quality of western Canadian canola - grainscanada.gc.ca · Canadian Grain Commission 8 Quality of western Canadian canola - 2011 According to Statistics Canada’s estimates of provincial

ISSN 1700-2222

Quality of western Canadian canola

2011

Véronique J. Barthet Oilseeds Program Manager

Contact: Véronique J. Barthet Oilseeds Program Manager Grain Research Laboratory Tel : 204 -984-5174 Canadian Grain Commission Email: [email protected] 1404-303 Main Street Fax : 204-983-0724 Winnipeg MB R3C 3G8 www.grainscanada.gc.ca

Quality Innovation Service

http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/

Canadian Grain Commission 2 Quality of western Canadian canola - 2011

Table of contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................4

Summary .............................................................................................................................................5

Weather and production review........................................................................................................7

Weather review.................................................................................................................................................................................7 Production..........................................................................................................................................................................................7

Harvest survey samples .....................................................................................................................9

Quality of 2011 canola .....................................................................................................................11

Oil content .............................................................................................................................................................................................12 Protein content ....................................................................................................................................................................................13 Chlorophyll content............................................................................................................................................................................16 Glucosinolate content........................................................................................................................................................................18 Free fatty acids content.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Fatty acid composition ......................................................................................................................................................................20

Tables

Table 1 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Quality data for 2011 harvest survey ....................................................................................................................... 6

Table 2 – Seeded area and production for western Canadian canola............................................................................. 8

Table 3 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province - Oil, protein and chlorophyll contents ............................24

Table 4 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province - glucosinlate and free fatty acid contents......................25

Table 5 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province - fatty acid composition, total saturate content and iodine value of the oil ................................................................................................................................................26

Table 6 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Comparison of 2011 harvest survey quality data with recent export shipments...................................27

Figures

Figure 1 – Map of western Canada showing the 2010 production for canola per crop district............................... 4

Figure 2 – Historic distribution of canola grade in harvest survey, 2004-2011 ............................................................................................................................................................................................10

Figure 3 – Distribution of Canola, No. 1 Canada by crop district in western Canada samples received in 201110

Figure 4 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Oil content average, minimum and maximum of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011 ................... 131


Figure 5 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Protein content (in seed and oil-free basis) of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011 .............................15

Figure 6 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Chlorophyll content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011.........................................................................17

Figure 7 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Total seed glucosinolate content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011................................................18

Figure 8 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Free fatty acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011....................................................................19

Figure 9 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Erucic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011...........................................................................21

Figure 10 –Canola, No. 1 Canada -Linolenic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011 ................................................................21

Figure 11 –Canola, No. 1 Canada Oleic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011.............................................................................22

Figure 12 –Canola, No. 1 Canada Iodine value of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011 ........................................................................................22

Figure 13 –Canola, No. 1 Canada Total saturates fatty acids of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011 ..............................................................23

Acknowledgments

The Grain Research Laboratory acknowledges the cooperation of the canola producers, grain handling offices, and oilseed crushing plants in western Canada for supplying the samples of newly harvested canola. The assistance of the Industry Services Division of the Canadian Grain Commission in grading producer survey samples is also acknowledged. The technical assistance of the Oilseeds staff, Grain Research Laboratory is recognized. Seed images on cover are courtesy of Grain Biology, Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission.

Introduction This report presents quality data and information based on the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) 2011 harvest survey of western Canadian canola. Quality parameters included are oil, protein, chlorophyll, glucosinolates, free fatty acids and the fatty acid composition of harvest samples. Quality data are from analyses of canola samples submitted to the CGC throughout the harvest period by producers, grain companies and oilseed crushing companies. The map (Figure 1) shows traditional growing areas for canola in western Canada with the 2010 production data.

Figure 1 –Map of western Canada showing the 2010 production (data obtained from Statistics Canada) for canola per crop district

Source: Statistics Canada

Canadian Grain Commission 4 Quality of western Canadian canola–2011


Summary As in 2010, the 2011 canola crop showed regional differences in oil, protein, chlorophyll contents and in fatty acid composition. The 2011 harvest showed higher numbers of samples graded Canola, No. 1 Canada (85.0%) than the 2010 harvest (75.3%). However, grade distribution showed important regional differences - 87.8% of samples from Manitoba received the grade Canola, No.1 Canada versus 88.1% from Saskatchewan and 77.8% from Alberta (plus Peace River area of British Columbia) (Figure 3a and 3b).

The 2011 Western Canadian canola (Canola, No.1 Canada) crop was also characterized by a sharp increase in oil content (45.2 versus 44.3%) and a lower protein contents (19.6 versus 20.1%) when compared to the 2010 Canola, No.1 Canada crop (Table 1). The average of the Canola, No.1 Canada chlorophyll content was much higher in 2011 than in 2010 – 15.9 mg/kg versus 12.6 mg/kg (Table 1). The 2011 canola crop was similar in oleic acid, linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid (ALA) contents when compared to the 2010 crop (62.1, 19.1 & 9.9 % versus 62.3, 18.9 & 10.0% for oleic, linoleic acid, and ALA respectively). Total saturated fatty acid content was also similar to what was observed in 2010 (6.8 versus 6.9 in 2010). This resulted in a similar iodine value when compared to 2010 (113.6 in 2011 versus 113.8 in 2010). The mean free fatty acid (FFA) levels in Canola, No.1 Canada seed was lower than the results observed in 2010 (0.12 versus 0.16%), however FFA were higher in Manitoba (0.29%) than in Saskatchewan (0.09%) and Alberta (0.08%) (Table 4).


Table 1 – Canola, No. 1 Canada: Quality data for 2011 harvest survey

Quality parameter 2011 2010 2009 2006-2010

Mean

Number of received samples 1749 1641 1482 1775

Number of Canola, No. 1 Canada samples

1492 1276 1355 1598

Oil content 1 (%) 45.2 44.3 44.5 44.2

Protein content 2 (%) 19.6 20.1 19.9 20.8

Oil-free protein2 (%) 38.8 39.0 38.7 40.0

Chlorophyll content (mg/kg in seed)

15.9 12.6 15.4 13.6

Total glucosinolates1 (mol/g) 10.3 9.9 9.6 12.8

Free fatty acids (%) 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.16

Oleic acid (% in oil) 62.1 62.3 62.2 62.3

Linoleic acid (% in oil) 19.1 18.8 18.9 18.9

-Linolenic acid (% in oil) 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.8

Erucic acid (% in oil) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04

Total saturated fatty acids3 (% in oil)

6.8 6.9 6.8 6.9

Iodine value 113.6 113.8 113.7 113.0 1 8.5% moisture basis 2 N x 6.25, 8.5% moisture basis 3 Total saturated fatty acids are the sum of palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), arachidic (C20:0), behenic (C22:0), and lignoceric (C24:0). Results were calculated using western Canadian averages for each grade; provincial averages were weighted using Statistics Canada production estimate and of the grade distribution for each crop district.


Weather and production review Weather review

May and June were characterized by excess of moisture, associated with cooler than normal temperatures for the southern part of the prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan). This resulted in late seeding or no seeding at all in some areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The northern part of the prairies (northern Saskatchewan and Alberta) was warmer and dryer in May than the southern part, allowing for earlier seeding in the north. Overall, seeding was approximately 2 weeks delayed in 2011 with only 70% of the normal seeded area actually seeded early June. By end of June 2011, about 20% of the normal seeded areas remained unseeded, this represented about 2.63 millions hectares (6.5 million acres, CWB data).

Weather conditions changed drastically in June and July. Excessive moisture and cool temperatures delaying crop development were then observed in the northern part of the Prairies (northern regions of Saskatchewan and Alberta) whereas warm and dry conditions were observed in the south (southern regions of Manitoba and Saskatchewan). August showed dry and hot conditions for the entire prairie region, these conditions continued into September.

The poor early season growing conditions delayed seed emergence and then plant development resulting in a delayed harvest. September conditions were very favourable, so harvest proceeded faster than last year. However, the northwest part of Alberta and the Peace River areas were not completely harvested by end of October. In spite of the warm day time temperatures, a killer frost was observed mid-September in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the central and northeastern parts of Alberta. Localized frosts were observed in the north-west part of Alberta and in the Peace River region. At that time, about 40% of the seeded areas were harvested; this early frost may affect the quality of the canola crop that was still maturing.

More weather details and maps dealing with the 2011 growing conditions were reported in the 2011 preliminary report on canola quality (November 2011). Weather maps for the whole growing season can be found at: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/DW-GS/historical-historiques.jspx?lang=eng&jsEnabled=true.

A summary analysis of the weather of the 2011 growing season can also be found at: http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/grain/crop/.

Production

Western Canadian farmers planted over 7.5 million hectares of canola in 2011 well over last year’s area (Table 2). Statistics Canada’s Field Crop Reporting Series No. 8 reported that the 2011 western Canada mean yield of 1,900 kg/ha, slightly lower than the records yields reported in 2009 and 2008, 1,950 and 1,945 kg/ha, respectively. This yield is above the 5-year mean of 1,823 kg/ha. The 2011 production was a record 14.06 million metric tonnes of canola, well above last year’s production (11.78 million tonnes).

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/DW-GS/historical-historiques.jspx?lang=eng&jsEnabled=true

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/DW-GS/historical-historiques.jspx?lang=eng&jsEnabled=true

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/grain/crop/


According to Statistics Canada’s estimates of provincial production (December 3, 2011, Field Crop Reporting Series), Manitoba (MB), Saskatchewan (SK), and Alberta/British Columbia (AB/BC) accounted for 11.8, 49.9 and 37.9% respectively of the total canola production (Table 2). Yields were much lower in Manitoba (1,600 kg/ha) than in Saskatchewan (1,800 kg/ha) or Alberta (2,200 kg/ha) in 2011. Lower yields (1,600 kg/ha in 2011 versus 1,800 kg/ha in 2010) and a large unseeded areas (1.01 million hectares or 2.5 million acres) were responsible for the lower Manitoba canola production in 2011 when compared to 2010.

Table 2 - Seeded area and production for western Canadian canola

Seeded area Production1 Average production2

thousand hectares thousand tonnes thousand tonnes

2011 2010 2011 2010 2006-2010

Manitoba 1,102.8 1,363.9 1,655.6 2,215.8 2,232.1

Saskatchewan 3,957.8 3,156.5 7,019.3 5,034.9 4,807.2

Alberta3 2,523.2 2,246.0 5,385.7 4,525.8 3,716.1

Western Canada 7,583.8 6,766.3 14,060.6 11,776.5 10,755.4 1 Source: Field Crop Reporting Series, No. 8, Vol 90, December 6th, 2011; Statistics Canada 2 Source: Field Crop Reporting Series, revised final estimates for 2006-2010. 3 Includes the part of the Peace River area that is in British Columbia


Harvest survey samples and grade distribution Samples for the Canadian Grain Commission canola harvest survey were collected from producers, crushing plants and grain handling offices across western Canada. The samples were cleaned to remove dockage prior to testing. Individual harvest survey samples were analyzed for oil, protein, chlorophyll and total glucosinolates using a NIRSystems 6500 scanning near-infrared spectrometer. Industry Services grain inspectors assigned grade level based on the Official Grain Grading Guide for Canola and Rapeseed (Chapter 10) that can be found at: http://grainscanada.gc.ca/oggg-gocg/10/oggg-gocg-10-eng.htm. The preliminary report (prepared in November) was based on the NIR analysis of each sample whereas this report was based on the analyses of composite samples made of same grade samples per crop district and province. Composites were prepared by combining Canola, No. 1 Canada samples by provincial crop district; Canola, No. 2 by province, and Canola, No. 3 Canola and Sample Canada samples by western Canada.

The quality data of the 2011 harvest survey included samples received up to November 17th, 2011. Specialty oil samples such as high oleic acid, low linolenic acid, and high erucic acid, were excluded from this report. The quality data for this 2011 harvest survey report were based on the 1,755 samples, which is slightly more than the 1,641 samples analyzed in 2010. The harvest survey data were collected from producer and crushing plant samples that had been cleaned to remove dockage. Exports of commercially cleaned canola exports contained an average 1.79% dockage in December (ranging from 1.3 to 2.20%), which will affect quality factors such as oil content, chlorophyll and FFA. Canola exports containing over 2.5% dockage are considered not commercially clean (NCC) and will have even greater reductions in measured quality components. The composition of 2011 survey samples was compared to 2010 results and to long-term survey means (Tables 3 to 5). Comparison with the quality of Canadian canola exports shipments is provided in Table 6.

For the 2011 harvest, 85% of the canola samples obtained in the survey were graded as Canola, No. 1 Canada (Figure 2). Similar to last year, this year the main degrading factor was high green seed counts. The percentage of samples graded Canola, No. 1 Canada in the 2011 harvest was higher than percentage of Canola, No. 1 Canada observed in 2010 (75.3%), which was a cold and wet growing season. However, this number (85%) was lower than what was observed in 2009 (91.9%) and 2008 (94.7%). As in 2010, the grade distribution of the 2011 canola crop varied from crop district to crop district (Figure 3). The northern part of Alberta showed the lowest percentage of Canola, No. 1 Canada (from 65.5 to 80.0%) compared to Manitoba (80 to 100%). The northern part of Saskatchewan also showed some crop districts with low percents of samples grade Canola, No. 1 Canada (70 to 80%). The slow crop development due to wet and cold weather from June to July, plus the mid-September frost were some of the primary causes of the higher level of immature seeds present in the samples from these areas. These high counts of immature seeds were associated with higher chlorophyll contents in these samples - even the ones graded Canola, No. 1 Canada - when compared to other samples from other areas with the same grade. The average green seed counts were 0.58, 3.25, 10.68 and 14.25% in samples graded Canola, No. 1 Canada, Canola, No. 2 Canada, Canola, No. 3 Canada and sample, respectively.

http://grainscanada.gc.ca/oggg-gocg/10/oggg-gocg-10-eng.htm

http://grainscanada.gc.ca/oggg-gocg/10/oggg-gocg-10-eng.htm

Figure 2 – Historic distribution of canola grade in harvest survey, 2004-2011

Figure 3 – Distribution of Canola, No. 1 Canada by crop district in western Canada samples received in 2011



Quality of western Canadian canola—2011 Tables 3 to 5 show detailed information on the quality of western Canadian canola harvested in 2011 whereas Table 6 compares the quality of 2011 harvest to the quality of recent canola exports. It is important to note that the numbers of samples in each grade or province may not be representative of the total production or grade distribution. However, there were sufficient samples to provide good quality information for each province and each grade. Provincial and western Canadian averages were calculated from results for each crop district, weighted by a combination of production by crop district using the 2011 total production (Statistics Canada production estimate) and the 2010 production distribution with an estimate of grade distribution using data presented in Figure 3.

All oil and protein content values discussed below are presented using the CGC’s historical 8.5% moisture basis in order to permit annual and regional comparisons.

Exports of commercially cleaned canola contained up to 2.5% dockage, which will affect quality factors such as oil content, chlorophyll and FFA. Canola exports containing over 2.5% dockage are considered not commercially clean (NCC) and will have even greater reductions in measured quality components.


Oil content For Canola, No.1 Canada, the 2011 mean oil content (45.2%) was much higher than the mean oil content observed in 2010 (44.3%) and 2009 (44.5%). This is well above (1.0% higher) the five-year (2006-2010) mean of 44.2% (Table 1). The oil content mean in Manitoba (43.9%) was lower than in Saskatchewan (45.4%) and Alberta (45.6%) (Table 3). Even if the overall oil content average was higher in the 2011 harvest than in 2010 harvest, the oil content ranges were very similar (Figure 4). For 2011 Canola, No.1 Canada, the oil contents of individual producer samples ranged from 39.6 to 49.5% in Manitoba (37.2% to 47.8% in 2010), 39.9 to 50.8% in Saskatchewan (39.2 to 50.3% in 2010) and 38.5 to 51.7% in Alberta (38.7% to 50.6% in 2010).

The oil content for Canola, No. 2 Canada (44.9%) was lower than to Canola, No. 1 Canada, (45.2%); the oil content for Canola, No. 2 Canada samples from western Canada ranged from 39.7% to 50.4% (Table 3).

Oil content is influenced by both genetics and environment. For any known canola variety cool growing conditions will give higher oil content when compared to hot growing conditions. The summer of 2011 was warm and dry (starting in June) in some parts of the Prairies (Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan) and cool and humid in the northwest part of Saskatchewan and the north and central Alberta plus the Peace River region in June and July. The 2011 oil content distribution pattern (province variations) agreed with the weather patterns/conditions observed during the growing season – higher oil in cooler conditions (Alberta) and lower oil in warmer conditions (Manitoba)..

In Manitoba, monthly mean temperatures for June, July and September were 1 to 2oC higher than normal in 2011 versus 1 to 2oC lower than normal in 2010. Manitoba oil content average in 2011 was 44.2% versus 43.2% in 2010, if day temperature is the only applied environmental theory to compare the results, then 2010 oil content average should be higher than 2011 oil content average, especially in Manitoba, which is not the case. It is also unlikely that genetics alone was responsible for the sharp increase in oil content observed in 2011 when compared to 2010 data since the main varieties grown in 2010 were still grown in 2011. Manitoba nights were cool in 2011 with temperatures as low as 9 to 10oC in some areas from July to September. It has been suggested that minimum temperatures could also play an important effect on oil content. It is likely that environmental factors other than temperature were responsible for the 2011 oil increase.

The mean oil content of canola exports was 45.2% in December 2011 it averaged 44.2% in the August-Novmeber exports for commercially clean Canola, No. 1 Canada (Table 6). The oil content averages were lower in not commercially clean exports (43.5 and 43.7%). The oil content means for the actual shipping season were much higher than what was observed for last shipping season (45.2% and 44.4% versus 43.6%). These export means reflect the high oil content observed in the 2011 harvest (Table 6).

It is expected that the mean oil content of the Canadian export will remain in the 44.0% range for most of the 2011-12 shipping season.

Figure 4 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Oil content average, minimum and maximum of harvest survey samples, 2000-2011



Protein content

The 2011 crude protein content mean was 19.6% for Canola, No.1 Canada samples, 20.0 and 20.3% for Canola, No. 2 Canada, and Canola, No. 3 Canada samples. The average protein content for Canola, No.1 Canada was lower in 2011 (19.6%) than in 2010 (20.1%) and much lower than the five- and ten-year averages, 20.7 and 21.4%, respectively (Table 1, Figure 5). Protein content averages were 20.6, 19.4 and 19.6% in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively with protein content of individual producer samples ranging from 13.7 to 25.9% for Canola, No. 1 Canada samples and from 15.5 to 24.2% for Canola, No. 2 Canada samples (Table 3).

The 2011 protein content calculated to an oil-free meal at 8.5% moisture basis was 38.8% slightly lower than the 39.0% seen in 2010 and well below 40.0 and 40.9% calculated for the five- and ten-year averages, respectively. The calculated protein content of the oil-free meal (100% defatted) was much higher in Manitoba (39.7%) than in Alberta (38.9%) or Saskatchewan (38.5%).

In canola, it is known that oil and protein contents follow an inverese relationship – the higher the oil and the lower the protein content. Since higher oil contents were observed in 2011 compared to 2010, lower protein contents were expected in the 2011 canola harvest when compared to the 2010 averages.

Quality parameters, such as oil and protein contents, are affected by genetic and environment. Agronomic conditions, such as soil state, can affect seed quality parameters. It is known that nitrogen levels can affect canola and other grains protein content. It has been shown that canola protein content is affected by soil nitrogen level; higher nitrogen levels can lead to higher protein and glucosinolate contents and therefore lower oil contents. Similarly, high sulfur levels in soil, due to fertilizer, are known to increase the glucosinolate and the protein contents of canola seeds.

The excessive rains and the standing moisture observed during the 2011 growing season might have affected the soil nitrogen. Nitrogen levels were likely diluted in the soil reducing the plant access to available nitrogen. At the same time, the excess moisture occurred at the early stage of plant development. The canola plants did not develop an important deep root system leading to a limited access to the nutrients, especially nitrogen, that were diluted in the soil. It is likely that both the low nitrogen content of the soil and the less developed root system led to low available nitrogen levels for the plant to synthesize proteins leading to low protein contents and therefore higher oil contents.

The mean oil protein of Canola, No. 1 Canada commercially clean exports were 19.6 and 19.7% in December 2011 and Aug-to-Nov. 2011, respectively (Table 6). The protein content averages for the actual shipping season were lower than what was observed for last shipping season (19.6% and 19.7% versus 20.2%). These means reflect the lower protein content average observed in the 2011 harvest when compared to the 2010 harvest (Tables 1, 3 and 6).

The average calculated protein content of the meal was 38.8% for the December commercially clean exports of Canola, No. 1 Canada, this result is similar to what was observed last year (Table 6).

It is expected that the protein content of the Canadian exports will remain in the 19.5-20.0% range for most of the 2011-12 shipping season.

Figure 5 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Protein content (in seed and oil-free basis) of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011



Chlorophyll content Chlorophyll content averages of producer samples graded Canola, No. 1 Canada were 13.4, 15.8 and 17.2 mg/kg in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively (Table 3). The overall average for Canola, No. 1 Canada was 15.9 mg/kg, much higher that the 12.6 mg/kg observed 2010 (Table 3, Figure 6). Individual producer samples of Canola, No.1 Canada from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta had chlorophyll levels ranging from 4.0 to 37.2 mg/kg, 4.0 to 40.1 mg/kg and 4.0 to 66.3 mg/kg, respectively (Table 3). The mean chlorophyll content of each western province varied greatly, as last year, due to environmental conditions. Once again, location had an important effect on chlorophyll levels in samples. The cool and wet growing conditions observed in June and July, in northern Alberta and north-western Saskatchewan delayed seed developement. Daytime temperatures were higher than normal for early and late September but the first frost was reported mid-September (2nd week of September) when only about 40% of the grains were harvested. The seed moisture and the stage of the seed development/maturity affect the severity of the damage due to frost. These frosts can “lock” high levels of chlorophyll in not fully mature seeds leading to the green seeds with significantly higher chlorophyll contents. It is likely grains from north western Saskatchewan and northern Alberta were more affected by the frost than grains from other areas since grain maturity was delayed in these areas. This agreed with the Canola, No. 1 Canada distribution in the prairies, these areas having the lowest percent of Canola, No. 1 Canada compare to other regions.)

It has been reported that canola samples containing frost-damage chlorophyll derivatives might be more difficult to process than samples containing sound immature seeds. The frost damaged samples usually have higher chlorophyll levels than samples of sound seeds – even when immature seeds are present. Moreover, in these frost damaged samples chlorophyll derivatives other than chlorophyll a and b are present, these chlorophyll derivatives are more difficult to remove during processing than the normal chlorophylls a and b present in sound immature seeds.

Chlorophyll levels (Table 3) for Canola, No. 2 Canada samples averaged 37.0 mg/kg similar to the 2010 chlorophyll content (33.7 mg/kg) but much higher than what was observed in 2009 (27.9 mg/kg). Samples graded Canola, No. 3 Canada showed an average chlorophyll content of 72.3 mg/kg, also higher than the 2010 average (64.2 mg/kg).

To get the grade Canola, No. 1 Canada, the canola samples must contain no more than 2% distinctly green seeds. Distinctly green seed (DGR) averages were 0.67, 0.57 0.59% in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for Canola, No. 1 Canada samples.

The chlorophyll content of Canadian canola exports is affected by the distinctly green seed counts (DGR) - between 0.0 and 2.0 for Canola, No. 1 Canada – and the dockage content - no more than 2.5% for commercially clean exports. The dockage averages were 1.77 and 1.79% for commercially clean December 2011 and commercially clean August to November 2011 exports (2.84 and 3.18% for the not commercially clean exports for the same preriods). Since August 1st, 2011, the DGR contents for the individual cargoes of Canola, No. 1 Canada ranged 0.8 to 2.0%. Up to now, the DGR averaged 1.41 to 1.85% for the Canola, No. 1 Canada exports (Table 6) Chlorophyll content averages of the the Canola, No. 1 Canada exports ranged from 21.9 to 28.5 mg/kg, with the commcercially clean exports having a statistically lower chlorophyll content that the not commercially clean exports (Table 6). These chlorophyll contents are higher than the 2011 chlorophyll content average because the DGR averages are higher in the exports than in the harvest survey samples.

It is likely that the chlorophyll content of the Canola, No. 1 Canada shipments for 2011-2012 be similar to slightly lower than the chlorophyll content of the Canola, No. 1 Canada shipments for 2010-2011.

Figure 6 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Chlorophyll content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011


Glucosinolate content The 2011 total glucosinolate content averaged 10.3 moles/gram similar to what was observed in 2010 (9.9 moles/gram) but slightly higher than what was observed in 2009 (9.6 moles/g) (Table 1, Figure 7). This constant low total glucosinolate content is a direct result of the constant breeding efforts from the various breeding programs and the very little proportion of Brassica rapa grown in Canada. Since 2006, Brassica napus varieties represented more than 99% of the samples received by the Canadian Grain Commission in its harvest survey program.

The average level of total seed glucosinolates in the December 2011 canola exports was 12.7 mol/g of seed, similar to the average of the 2010-11 shipping season (Table 6). Glucosinolate contents of canola exports for the 2011-2012 shipping season will remain similar to the averages observed during the 2010-2011 shipping season (Table 6).

Figure 7 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Total seed glucosinolate content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011


Free fatty acids content The average free fatty acid content (FFA) of the oil for the 2011 canola was lower at 0.12% when compared to 0.16% and 0.15% observed in 2010 and 2009, respectively (Tables1 and 4). This level is lower than the long-term mean of 0.20% (Figure 8).

The presence of FFA in oil suggests that the seeds have been stressed or are not sound. Seed sprouting at harvest and bin heating are usually the main cause of high FFA – sometimes higher than 1.0%. We noticed that FFA in canola can be high if temperatures were high during the growing season – field heat stress. Average FFA levels in Canola, No.1 Canada samples from Manitoba (0.29%) were higher than in Saskatchewan (0.09%) and Alberta (0.08%). Manitoba day temperatures from June to October were in average 1 to 3oC higher than nomal (with low moisture), whereas northern part of Alberta and northwestern Saskatchewan temperatures were close to normal. June to September, hot and dry conditions were responsible for the higher FFA in 2011 when compared to 2010 in Manitoba. FFA levels may change after harvest during storage if seeds are subjected to improper storage conditions

In December, the average FFA level for commercially clean Canola, No.1 Canada exports was 0.25% (0.26% for the August to November exports). These averages were higher for the not commercially clean exports (0.39 and 0.40%). Last year’s average was 0.38% (Table 6).

Figure 8 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Free fatty acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011



Fatty acid composition The average level of erucic acid in the 2011 crop was 0.01%, which was very similar to what was observed for the last two yeas (0.01%), lower than the five-year average of 0.04% (Tables 1 and 5, Figure 9) and well below the ten-year average of 0.08%. These low values are a direct result of the breeding efforts of the Canadian canola industry.

For Canola, No.1 Canada samples the mean -linolenic acid (C18:3) was 9.9% similar to the means observed in 2010 and 2009 (10.0%) and the five-year average (Table 1, Figure 10). The -linolenic acid mean in Alberta (10.4%) was higher than the Saskatchewan (9.8%) and the Manitoba (9.4%) averages (Table 5).

For Canola, No.1 Canada samples the mean oleic acid (C18:1) content of the 2010 crop was 62.1%, similar to the averages observed in 2010 and 2009 (62.2%) (Table 1, Figure 11). On average, oleic acid content was slightly higher in Manitoba (62.5%) than in Saskatchewan (62.1%), and much higher than in Alberta (61.7%) (Table 5).

In 2011, there was a similar average for linoleic acid (C18:2) when compared to 2010 (19.1 versus 18.9%) (Table 1). The similarity in average results for oleic acid, linoleic acid and -linolenic acid resulted in a similar iodine value when compared to 2010 (113.6 in 2011 versus 113.8 in 2010) (Table 1, Figure 12).

The mean level of saturated fatty acids was 6.8% in 2011, similar to 2010 (6.9%) and 2009 (6.8%) (Table 1, Figure 13). The mean saturated fatty acid levels were similar for the three provinces (Table 5) in 2011 (6.8, 6.8 and 6.7% for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively). Variations between the three provinces were expected since samples from the southern prairies have significantly higher saturated fatty acids than samples from the northern regions due to the higher temperatures in the south compared to the north, however, it was not really the case this year.

For the first couples of months of the 2011-2012 shipping seasons, the -linolenic acid averages (for clean and non clean samples) ranged from 10.0 to 10.3% (Table 6), similar to what was observed for the last shipping season (10.4%). When compared to last year’s average, the iodine value averages were lower this year (113.9 to 114.2 in 2011 versus 114.6 last year). The level of saturated fatty acids in the December 2011 canola exports remained very similar to the 2010-11 means (6.84-6.94% versus 6.78%). As last year, it is expected that the levels of erucic acid will remain low for the new shipping season (below 0.1%) since erucic acid contents were very low in the 2011 harvest survey.

No important variations are expected for the fatty acid averages in the 2011-2012 shipping season.

Figure 9 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Erucic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011

Figure 10 – Canola, No. 1 Canada -Linolenic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011


Figure 11 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Oleic acid content of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011

Figure 12 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Iodine value of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011


Figure 13 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Total Saturated fatty acid of harvest survey samples, 2000–2011


Canadian Grain Commission 24 Quality of western Canadian canola–2011

Table 3 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province – Oil, protein and chlorophyll contents

Number

of samples Oil content1

%

Protein content2 %

Chlorophyll content

mg/kg

mean min. max. mean min. max. Mean min. max. Canola, No. 1 Canada Manitoba 375 43.9 39.6 49.5 20.6 15.7 24.5 13.4 4.0 37.2 Saskatchewan 721 45.4 39.9 51.0 19.4 13.7 24.5 15.8 4.0 44.3 Alberta3 396 45.6 38.5 51.7 19.6 15.2 25.9 17.2 4.0 66.3 Western Canada4 1492 45.2 38.5 51.7 19.6 13.7 25.9 15.9 4.0 66.3 Canola, No. 2 Canada Manitoba 37 42.7 40.2 46.1 21.2 19.0 24.2 25.6 6.1 63.0 Saskatchewan 68 45.2 39.7 50.4 19.6 15.5 23.4 35.3 5.5 71.7 Alberta3 62 45.0 41.7 48.9 20.0 17.0 22.7 39.9 9.9 74.1 Western Canada4 167 44.9 39.7 50.4 20.0 15.5 24.2 37.0 5.5 74.1

Canola, No. 3 Canada

Western Canada4 65 44.7 39.9 49.0 20.3 17.2 23.7 72.3 8.5 140.9

Canola, Sample Canada

Western Canada4 31 43.2 32.6 48.5 19.5 15.6 24.2 73.7 6.5 158.21 8.5% moisture basis 2 N x 6.25; 8.5% moisture basis 3 Includes part of the Peace River area that is in British Columbia 4 Values are weighted averages based on production by province as estimated by Statistics Canada


Table 4 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province – glucosinolate and free acid acid contents

Number of samples

Glucosinolates1 mol/g

Free fatty acids (%)

mean min. max. Mean

Canola, No. 1 Canada Manitoba 375 10.9 5.6 16.7 0.29 Saskatchewan 721 10.3 4.9 17.0 0.09 Alberta2 396 9.9 4.3 14.5 0.08 Western Canada3 1492 10.3 4.3 17.0 0.12 Canola, No. 2 Canada Manitoba 37 11.1 7.4 13.6 0.97 Saskatchewan 68 10.1 7.6 16.0 0.13 Alberta2 62 10.5 6.5 13.2 0.12 Western Canada3 167 10.4 6.5 16.0 0.20 Canola, No. 3 Canada Western Canada3 65 8.8 5.5 13.6 0.45 Canola, Sample Canada Western Canada3 31 11.6 5.2 18.2 0.35

1 8.5% moisture basis 2 Includes part of the Peace River area that is in British Columbia 3 Values are weighted averages based on production by province as estimated by Statistics Canada


Table 5 – 2011 harvest survey Canola quality data by grade and province – fatty acid composition, total saturate content and iodine value of the oil

Relative fatty acid composition of the oil (%)

C18:0 C18:1 C18:2 C18:3 C22:1Total saturates3

(%) Iodine value4

(Units)

Canola, No. 1 Canada Manitoba 1.8 62.5 19.1 9.4 0.00 6.85 112.7 Saskatchewan 1.8 62.1 19.1 9.8 0.01 6.82 113.5 Alberta1 1.8 61.6 18.9 10.4 0.01 6.73 114.4 Western Canada2 1.8 62.1 19.1 9.9 0.01 6.80 113.6

Canola, No. 2 Canada Manitoba 1.9 62.3 18.9 9.3 0.01 6.92 112.3 Saskatchewan 1.8 61.7 19.2 9.9 0.01 6.85 113.6 Alberta1 1.7 61.1 19.2 10.4 0.00 6.83 114.6 Western Canada2 1.8 62.1 19.1 9.8 0.01 6.82 113.5

Canola, No. 3 Canada Western Canada2 1.8 60.9 19.3 10.2 0.02 7.04 113.9

Canola, Sample Canada Western Canada2 1.8 60.7 19.4 9.9 0.20 7.01 113.6

1 Includes part of the Peace River area that is in British Columbia 2 Values are weighted averages based on production by province as estimated by Statistics Canada 3 Total saturated fatty acids are the sum of palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), arachidic (C20:0), behenic (C22:0), and lignoceric

(C24:0) 4 Calculated from fatty acid composition


Table 6 – Canola, No. 1 Canada Comparisons of quality data for 2011 harvest survey with data for recent export shipments

Exports

Canola, No. 1 Canada - only December 2011

August to November 2011

Previous year

2010–11

Quality parameter

2011 survey

CC4 NCC5 CC NCC CC

Oil content1 (%) 45.2 44.4 43.5 44.2 43.7 43.6

Protein content2 (%) 19.6 19.7 20.0 19.7 19.7 20.2

Oil-free protein content2 (%) 38.8 38.3 38.2 38.1 37.7 38.5

Chlorophyll (mg/kg seed) 15.9 21.9 28.5 23.2 24.9 25.0

Total glucosinolates (mol/g seed) 10.3 12.7 13.4 12.9 14.0 12.7

Free fatty acids, % 0.12 0.25 0.39 0.26 0.40 0.38

Erucic acid (% in oil) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

Oleic acid (% inoil) 62.0 61.4 61.3 61.8 61.6 61.5

-Linolenic acid (% in oil) 9.9 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.4

Total saturated fatty acids3 (% in oil) 6.80 6.90 6.94 6.84 6.87 6.78

Iodine value 113.6 114.2 114.1 114.0 113.9 114.6

Distinctly Green seed (DGR, %) 0.60 1.43 1.85 1.6 1.41 1.13

Dockage (%) 0.0 1.77 2.84 1.79 3.18 1.88

Loading moisture (%) ND 7.3 7.7 7.16 7.4 7.68

Number of export samples ND 22 3 60 20 169

Tonnage ND 637,101 85,077 2,438,895 636,825 5,161,053 1 8.5% moisture basis 2 N x 6.25; 8.5% moisture basis 3 Total saturated fatty acids are the sum of palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), arachidic (C20:0), behenic (C22:0), and lignoceric (C24:0). 4 CC = Commernically Clean 5 NCC = Not commercially clean

Documents

Quality of western Canadian canola - grainscanada.gc.ca · Canadian Grain Commission 8 Quality of western Canadian canola - 2011 According to Statistics Canada’s estimates of provincial