Short-term savings, long-term costs

As public research capacity shrinks, farmers face potential limits on future crop development, prompting calls to protect Canada’s seed innovation system and maintain competitiveness.

The nature of agriculture demands two key traits of participants: optimism and the willingness to accept change as part of the business of farming. The two are related, with the former commonly seen during the length of the growing season while the latter is a year-round influence.

Conditions in the middle of 2026 are enough to stress anyone’s optimism while challenging a grower’s ability to adapt to conditions beyond their control. Global conflicts have shifted the short-term outlook on energy and fertilizer supplies. And earlier this year, the closure of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) research stations added long-term uncertainty to the ministry’s role in plant breeding, varietal registrations and agronomic research.

Amid any confusion or disdain the two situations have created, there is a need for calm reflection and maintained diligence within the agri-food industry, especially in sorting out the long-term implications. The situation in the Middle East is beyond the control of anyone in Canada and is also at the forefront of most growers’ attention. Yet industry stakeholders note there are greater implications for the future from the federal budget cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

In January, AAFC announced the closure of three research and development centres in Guelph, Quebec City and Lacombe, Alberta. Also listed in the news release announcing the closures were four satellite farms at Nappan, Nova Scotia, Indian Head and Scott in Saskatchewan, and Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, all to be shuttered within 12 months. A few days before that, the federal ministry announced job cuts affecting 665 AAFC personnel.

Following the announcement, there were comments about the need for “efficiencies” and “getting leaner and meaner”, yet the loss of long-term research deserves greater scrutiny. Some of the work will be moved to other research centres, and some researchers will be relocated. However, according to Doug Miller, former executive director with the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA), there are concerns that plant breeding efforts for non-traited crops, particularly cereals, could be negatively affected.

“When we look at stations like Indian Head or Scott or Lacombe, the closure of these sites means we’re losing critical capacity to test varieties where farmers are producing them,” says Miller. “You can’t just do the work in Saskatoon or other sites. What makes them special is where they’re located – the soil types and long-standing trials. That’s critical capacity that we’ll never get back once it’s interrupted.”

Miller acknowledges the government’s goal of saving $4 to $5 million annually by closing the seven stations. But it’s the long-term effect of losing the specific work carried out at those locations, especially where cereals are concerned. Wheat, oats, barley and others mostly arise from public-sector breeding programs, and the work carried out today will affect the varieties farmers grow in those locations five to 10 years from now.

“We’re interrupting that innovation pipeline where we’re going to wake-up 10 to 15 years from now and say, ‘Where did our productivity go? Where did our new disease package go in wheat?’” poses Miller. “This is foundational to our ag sector and I’m looking at a government that wants to be able to diversify trade. But if you don’t have new genetics of varieties that are going to yield better, have better agronomics and disease packages, it’s going to be hard to drive a lot of exports.”

SPIRIT OF COLLABORATION

In spite of any perceived divide between public and private sectors – where the former handles cereal or non-GMO soybean breeding and the latter develops traited varieties and hybrids – no one is celebrating the cuts to AAFC by the federal  government.  In  fact,  before stepping down from the CSGA, Miller never encountered anyone from the private sector who said, “These cuts are great news for our business!” Instead, there was concern voiced that registration trial capacity at research farms could be limited.

Research and breeding into public varieties of wheat, he adds, will probably be fine. But oats, barley, triticale, pulses and forages will face significant barriers against developing newer varieties to deal with climate change or emerging disease threats.

“We still have producers in this country growing forages from the 1950s,” says Miller, contrasting the budget cuts against the resilience built into publicly-bred seed.

“In the last two years, I’ve spent more time trying to replenish breeder stock of varieties bred in the 1950s and ‘60s because they are still economically viable for Canadian producers. What does that tell you about the state of investment in those crop kinds?”

OPTIMISM BRINGS OPPORTUNITY

From his position as the new chief executive director with Seeds Canada, Dan Wright views the nation’s seed sector as a “bin-half-full” scenario. He acknowledges the challenges of the AAFC cuts and the upcoming negotiations tied to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and he believes challenges have a habit of creating opportunities.

“Whenever there’s a challenge, it creates an opportunity to solve the challenge – and that is not unique to agriculture,” says Wright. “The awesome thing about agriculture is that every year, there are challenges. Of all industries, agriculture’s ability to flex and deal with challenges – be it weather or anything else – is in the DNA of people in the industry.”

As for defining opportunities and referring and thinking only of expansion or growth, Wright notes that innovation isn’t bound by large investments or infrastructure; it may come in adapting different management practices. Innovation can be a new business model or a tweak to conventional thinking or a shift that creates value for consumers. Even though it isn’t always easy or with outcomes that are immediate, the changes that result may be for the better.

Echoing Miller’s comments about a perceived public-private division, Wright agrees the AAFC research station closures could hurt both sides. A lot of Seeds Canada members sell AAFC varieties or benefit from research into disease traits and agronomics, he adds.

“As we work with government on these changes, it’s important to focus on the output of the work,” says Wright. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s public or private; we represent the seed industry and it’s important to have an environment that creates choice. Choice means more competition and more competition for farmers is a really good day.”

One certainty for public-sector research and development is the need for diligence moving forward. Little can be done to dissuade the federal government from the decision to close the seven research stations. But Josh Cowan, director of research and innovation with Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), believes the entire agri-food sector must guard against further erosion of public sector research programs.

“This round of cuts is just one of the things that’s happened within AAFC but there are also shifts within the department concerning the role they play in plant breeding, depending on parts of the country,” he says.

“The reality is, producers need seed and continually improved seed. We need to make sure the research ecosystem exists to continue to deliver that appropriately in Canada.”

From the Grain Farmers of Ontario’s perspective, it’s the significance of the need for funded research to address farmer priorities that has to be the focus, yet that strategy and vision for the future is not always clear in the public sector, particularly as funding programs begin to “cap-out”. A better-funded research community is required to ensure Canadian farmers and the agri-food system get to a next level.

“We need a properly-funded research ecosystem in Canada,” adds Cowan. “That includes plant breeding. Seed is really important and we need to make sure we prioritize it appropriately.”

IN OTHER SEED SECTOR NEWS

To follow on the “challenges-lead-to-opportunities” outlook, Miller notes one of the key enhancements during his time at the CSGA was digitizing the certification process. When he started at the Association in 2011, it was 109 years old and its paper-based system meant a three- to four-week process from inspection to certification. Within two years, that turnaround was streamlined to two days, and now with the CSGA’s AI tools – seconds.

Other advances Miller has overseen is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) seed regulatory modernization initiative, redefining the CSGA’s partnership with the federal agency. There’s also the modernized governance model at the Association, creating a more open and inclusive organization, and helping to encourage sustainability and traceability throughout the food value chain.

Looking ahead to another challenge for the seed sector, Wright points to the upcoming CUSMA negotiations and their potential impact on Canadian growers. An example is how corn and soybeans are intertwined in a North American research and development effort, and ensuring Canada’s seed sector is connected with the U.S. is important, given the cross-border exchange of seed. It’s understood that both Canada and the

U.S. want the current system to remain as is, which doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be certain challenges that must be highlighted. There have been issues the U.S. negotiators have raised as “trade irritants” and those require a proactive approach to ensure Canadian negotiators understand the needs of the Canadian and North American seed sector. •