Crop breeding debate needed, no matter how difficult

Research has always been a fundamental part of the Canadian agriculture success story.

This was recognized early on in the country’s existence, with five research farms established in the 1880s: Ottawa, Nappan, N.S., Brandon, Indian Head (in what was then the Northwest Territories and now Saskatchewan) and Agasssiz, B.C.

You can find all our coverage of the proposed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada cuts here.

The planned closure of two of those farms, in Indian Head and Nappan, was part of Agriculture Canada’s recently announced intention to significantly reduce its research footprint.

In all, seven research facilities are to be closed and 655 positions cut across the country.

The news was generally met with shock, anger and in some cases, resignation.

Farmers and their leaders rightly pointed out that the danger of a move such as this is that it won’t be seen immediately and could easily be ignored.

Existing research projects will continue to proceed, but new initiatives won’t. Like a garden hose, they argue, the water will continue to flow for awhile after the tap is turned off but eventually, possibly decades from now, farmers will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

A number of different approaches are being taken to address this problem.

Some plan to fight tooth and nail to convince the federal government to change its mind and keep the research centres open.

One can applaud their dedication, and you never know what will happen if you don’t try, but the writing truly seems to be on the wall in this case

So then what?

For his part, federal agriculture minister Heath MacDonald hopes the government will do as much agricultural research as it did before, just not at the research centres that are being closed.

He recently said he is going to challenge his department to do as much research as possible and better co-ordinate it with stakeholders so the work being done is what farmers need.

Post-secondary education seems to be a big part of MacDonald’s focus when looking at who can fill the gaps his department has created.

He mentioned several times at a recent meeting of the House of Commons agriculture committee that he thinks the future includes more collaboration with universities.

This sounds great, but universities have their own funding problems, especially since the federal government throttled enrolment of international students and the revenue they once brought with them.

If universities are expected to fill the research void, they can’t be expected to fund those efforts out of thin air.

Another option, which also makes sense on the surface, is for farmers to pick up the slack and contribute more research funding.

After all, if farmers benefit from the research, why shouldn’t they help pay for it?

Farmers, through the checkoffs they contribute to their commissions, are already initiating more research than they once did.

Asking them to pay even more, especially when margins are tight, could be a hard sell.

The more controversial proposal that has been made recently, and the one where the debate could really turn ugly, is reviving the notion of seed royalties, either end-point royalties or trailing contracts on the use of farm-saved seed.

In 2018, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency launched Canada-wide consultations to determine if new seed royalties are needed and supported by stakeholders in the Canadian agriculture sector.

The backlash was intense.

Prairie meetings attracted hundreds of commercial grain growers, many of whom expressed strong opposition to the notion of collecting additional royalties on farm-saved seed.

Those suggesting that the industry revisit the idea make strong arguments.

They say that whether it’s levies to producer organizations, end-point royalties or variety use agreements, farmers will need to eventually start paying more for variety research.

However, if that’s the route the industry decides to take, then we will have to prepare for a debate that is likely to be as divisive as it was in 2018-19.

If we want agriculture research to remain healthy in this country, someone is going to have to pay for it.

Ottawa has decided it doesn’t want to do that as much as it once did.

This will likely leave the task to farmers, and that isn’t going to be easy.

Let the soul searching begin.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Robin Booker, Paul Yanko and Laura Rance collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.