“We share, as a sector, all the same attributes as the rest of the farming sectors from genetics to raising animals in pens and dealing with animal welfare issues and animal health issues,” said Tim Kennedy, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

WHY IT MATTERS: The aquaculture industry says demand is there for Canadian seafood but without sufficient support, its seeing more imported product moving into grocery stores.

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance and seven provincial aquaculture organizations wrote a letter to the federal, provincial and territorial governments. They called on them to use Canada’s Next Policy Framework for Agriculture to help their sector grow — and to class the industry under Agriculture Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

“Our lead department has been the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a habitat protection and fisheries management department. They deal with the wild capture sector,” Kennedy said.

Aquaculture is the farming of fish and seafood.

Aquaculture as agriculture for growth

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans isn’t growth oriented. AAFC is, Kennedy said.

“We have flat lined in Canadian production for aquaculture for 20 years, and we have the largest coastline in the world.”

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance has been asking to be classed under AAFC for the past ten years. The aquaculture industry could then be classed as agricultural and reap some of the same benefits as agricultural industries. For example, aquaculture farmers would have access to the AgriInnovate program.

The aquaculture sector would also like a collaborative insurance program for shellfish farmers and freshwater producers.

Aquaculture is a $5 billion sector in terms of economic activity — the equivalent of 1.4 per cent of farm gate sales in Canada.

“In terms of a relative comparison to the rest of the ag sector, that’s small,” said Kennedy. “One thing people should know is we’ve only been around as a commercial sector for 45 years. We’re young. Salmon production started 50 years ago.”

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance has about 65 members. Members include people who raise fish such as salmon, rainbow trout, Artic char, mussels and oysters.

Aquaculture farmers also grow a small amount of seaweed, which is largely used for animal feed.

Atlantic salmon farming biggest growth area

Atlantic salmon make up 80 per cent of the aquaculture sector. They’re farmed in British Columbia, New Brunswick, and the other Atlantic provinces. There is some rainbow trout production in Ontario and on the Prairies.

“Atlantic salmon is the most popular seafood product in North America and increasingly in Europe and around the world,” Kennedy said. “It’s like the rest of the farming sector, when you have an animal, a breed that is particularly good for production, like Holsteins or Herefords. Atlantic salmon are good to raise as farmed animals.”

Atlantic salmon are easy to raise in pens, unlike Pacific salmon, which are much harder to farm.

The demand for seafood is there, especially for salmon.

“I think because of the lack of overall support for the aquaculture sector, we’ve seen some declines,” Kennedy said.

There have also been some government-mandated shutdowns in British Columbia.

In 2024, the federal government announced it would ban open net-pen salmon farming by June 2029 and would require farms to transition to closed containment or other aquaculture systems.

“What we’re seeing is more product coming from other countries, especially Chile, into Canadian grocery stores. Canadians can’t buy the Canadian salmon they want to buy. This has been a real problem,” Kennedy said.

A deeper partnership between Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and aquaculture would produce a lot more salmon in Canada, for Canadians.

“I’d say globally as well. Aquaculture is the fastest growing food production sector in the world. There is an increasing demand for high quality animal protein. We’re low carbon footprint. We’re a very efficient product,” he said. “For instance, in the salmon sector, we’re basically about one kilogram of feed is producing 1 kilogram of fish.”

Benefits for the rest of the farming sector

In the letter, the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance and the seven provincial groups highlighted value-added opportunities for the rest of the farm sector. When the sector first started, a lot of the fish was fed entirely marine based products. Now the Canadian sector only uses about 20 per cent marine based ingredients. About 80 per cent of the ingredients are from land-based farms.

The aquaculture sector is using oils, grains and ingredients like chicken offal, that would otherwise be put in waste products.

“If we can increase production, we’re going to increase the value add in Canada for other farmers,” said Kennedy.

The Next Policy Framework will be completed by 2028. Earlier this year, the federal government it was starting consultations across the country.

The next federal, provincial, territorial meeting will be held in Halifax in July. Kennedy said the areas of focus and decisions of what sectors are included under the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food could be announced by then.

“We’re still a couple of years away, but now is the time for all of the considerations and planning,” he said. “This is a very important time for us.”

The post Canadian aquaculture should be classed as agriculture, industry groups say appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Projects like this are essential as we work together to lower greenhouse gas emissions and build a stronger, more resilient agriculture sector for Canadians,” said Heath MacDonald, federal minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in a news release.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced April 7 that Anodyne Chemistries Inc. will receive up to$1,236,310 through Ottawa’s AgriScience Program – Projects Component under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

Anodyne describes itself as a Canadian chemical startup on its website. It plans to use the funds to develop a bio-electric process to convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrogen peroxide and formic acid.

Hydrogen peroxide disinfects and sanitizes equipment, while formic acid’s uses include as a preservative for animal feed.

The processes to make these products would reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as the ag sector’s reliance on petrochemical feedstocks.

“We’re proud to work alongside AAFC to build the foundation for a domestic, decarbonized agrichemical supply chain in Canada,” said Anodyne chief executive Iain Evans.

The post B.C. agrochemical startup gets $1.2M in federal funding appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Most of those job losses, possibly 494, will be in the department’s science and innovation branch.

Those figures come from Agriculture Canada’s 2026-27 departmental plan, which was released in March.

WHY IT MATTERS: Deep AAFC cuts and closures, including the announced closure of AAFC Portage la Prairie in Manitoba, sparked sharp concern over the future of farm research in Canada earlier this year, although others have said there’s nothing wrong about trimming fat, if there was fat to be trimmed.

The 494 estimate comes from the Agriculture Union, which represents department employees.

Agriculture Canada is planning the following cutbacks, the plan says:

• 2026-27: $112,248,000

• 2027-28: $80,083,097

• 2028-29: $154,721,097

“It is anticipated that these spending reductions will involve a decrease of approximately 665 positions by 2028–29.”

The job losses are part of budgetary reductions at Agriculture Canada announced in late January.

At first glance, it seems like a high percentage of the job losses are directed at the science and innovation branch. The jobs being eliminated include lab/field technicians and the other staff who support the work done at the department’s research centres and farms across Canada.

Milton Dyck, national president of the Agriculture Union, confirmed that the majority of reductions are happening within the science division, but there’s a reason for that.

“Science and technology, by far, it’s the biggest group. It’s the largest holder of people in the branch.”

Therefore, if the federal government wants to cut costs at Agriculture Canada, it must reduce the number of employees working on science, research and innovation.

In 2024-25, Agriculture Canada employed 5,134 full time staff, says the departmental plan. Those people worked in four sectors:

• Domestic and international markets (563 staff).

• Science and innovation (2,621).

• Sector risk (412).

• Internal services (1,538).

By 2028-29, Agriculture Canada plans to have 2,125 people working in science and innovation, a loss of 496.

Most of the affected people will be support staff rather than scientists. The jobs eliminated will include technicians and field staff.

“(By) axing them, you’re ensuring that there’s no more science being done (in specific programs or locations),” Dyck said.

“You get rid of that middle group.… They’re not doctors, but they do a lot of the lab work and technical work and do the work for the scientists.”

As for cutting managers and administration and bureaucratic jobs, a bit of that is happening at Agriculture Canada.

The department plans to reduce the workforce in internal services from 1,465 this year to 1,297 in 2027-28, a loss of 168.

Cuts to international marketing?

The workforce reductions, closures of research stations and termination of other programs will allow Agriculture Canada to trim more than $650 million from its annual budget from 2025-26 to 2027-28.

Of those cuts, about $265 million will come from international and domestic marketing of Canadian agriculture and agri-food products.

Those cuts contrast with comments from Prime Minister Mark Carney, who frequently says Canada must diversify its trade away from the United States.

An Agriculture Canada spokesperson said the $265 million reduction can be attributed to a $131 million decrease in the Dairy Direct Payment Program, the Poultry and Egg On-Farm Investment Program and the Youth Employment and Skills Program.

As well, another $135 million decrease is from the end of Wine Sector Support Program and the Local Food Infrastructure Program, along with planned reductions to the Supply Management Processing Investment Fund.

The spokesperson said the government remains committed to trade diversification.

“The Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office (IPAAO) was opened in Manila, Philippines, in February 2024 and is a sign of our long-term commitment in the Indo-Pacific, along with the importance we place on building upon Canada’s reputation as a stable and trusted supplier for agriculture, agri-food and seafood products. The IPAAO will continue to operate.”

The post More major staff cuts planned at Agriculture Canada appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It produced wheat varieties that compete globally, barley that meets exacting malt standards and pulses that opened new export markets.

It has served us well.

However, systems built for one era are not automatically sustainable in the next.

The recent reductions within Agriculture Canada have sparked understandable concern across the farm community.

Behind every program are people, communities and decades of work. No one should dismiss that.

At the same time, reacting as though this is a temporary storm that will soon pass risks missing the larger reality.

Public budgets are tightening. Research costs are rising. Expectations for speed, commercialization and global competitiveness are increasing.

Those pressures are not cyclical. They are structural and exemplified by the news of Richard Cuthbert’s departure.

The question facing Canadian agriculture is not whether public crop breeding has value. It unquestionably does. The real question is whether the current delivery model is built to thrive under modern constraints.

For decades, farmers have been active contributors to this system.

Through check-offs, commissions and collaborative funding models, growers have helped sustain research capacity across cereals and diverse field crops.

We are not distant beneficiaries. We are co-investors, and that distinction matters.

Around the world, farmer-led seed organizations have emerged not out of ideological battles but out of practical recognition.

When growers hold meaningful ownership, three things tend to follow: clearer accountability to farm-level needs, reinvestment aligned with production realities and long-term stewardship insulated from annual political cycles.

“We are not distant beneficiaries. We are co-investors, and that distinction matters.”

Darcy Pawlik, Wheat Growers Association

This is not a call to dismantle public science. On the contrary, it may be the best way to protect it.

Governments are uniquely positioned to focus on foundational research, regulatory modernization, market access and large-scale innovation. But expecting them to indefinitely carry the full commercial burden of variety development may no longer be realistic.

If the pressures are permanent, then leadership requires a permanent solution.

That conversation will not be easy. It requires careful transition planning, respect for public servants and rigorous due diligence to ensure national assets are protected and strengthened.

It also requires farmers to move from a mindset of advocacy alone to one of ownership.

The choice before us is not between public and private. It is between passive dependence and active stewardship.

Canada’s crop breeding legacy deserves more than preservation. It deserves evolution into something strong, admirable and resilient.

Darcy Pawlik is executive director of the Wheat Growers Association.

The post Canada’s crop breeding system needs farmer-led evolution, not just preservation appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

In a March 9 letter to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald, the group called for an “immediate pause on closures and employee terminations for a minimum of 24 months” so the government can re-evaluate decisions and protect “irreplaceable components of the research system, or offer enhancements to Canada’s agriculture landscape that may have been overlooked.”

WHY IT MATTERS: The planned closure of seven federal research centres and farms across Canada has been widely panned by agriculture groups, which say Canada could be less innovative and competative as a result.

The letter also calls for full transparency on the decision-making process and disclosure of any impact analysis done.

The group includes groups like the National Farmers Union (NFU), Canadian Organic Growers, Alberta Federation of Agriculture and Canadian Seed Growers Association.

The groups say the research cuts, which included over 600 staff and seven research stations, were made without consultation with farm groups or proper cost-benefit analysis.

It also criticized the suggestion universities and the private sector could make up for research cut by the government.

Universities “are cash-strapped, and grant funding is short term, precarious, and often tied to commercial partners,” the groups wrote. “They do not have access to the secure, dedicated land base or provide the stability required for long-term studies and multi-site plant breeding trials or agronomic studies.”

Private sector research, it added, is “shaped by commercial priorities and cannot address the range of research topics needed by farmers or for Canada’s long-term food and agriculture sector’s success.”

It also said research at the shuttered stations are vital to combating complex issues like climate change and disease.

“It is increasingly clear to us that the decision to eliminate this critical public research infrastructure was made without considering its true value to farmers, the Canadian public and the future of our food and agriculture system,” the groups said.

In hearings before the House of Commons agriculture committee, federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald said it’s too expensive to keep all research facilities open. Operational costs had been allowed to get “out of hand,” he said in a February hearing, and the sites had substantial maintenance backlogs.

The cuts to AAFC research and staffing have also drawn criticism from opposition MPs.

The post Farm groups call on agriculture minister to pause federal research cuts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

AAFC projected total planted area for 2026/27 at 31.70 million hectares, slipping 103,000 from the previous year. Total harvested area was little changed at 30.71 million hectares.

Related: USDA sees more soybean acres, less corn

“Seeding decisions are expected to be shaped by crop rotation needs, prevailing moisture conditions, anticipated price levels and input costs and availability,” AAFC wrote. “Under current market conditions and based on historical patterns, total seeded area for Canadian field crops is projected to broadly stable year-over-year.”

The agency also forecast yields to return to normal levels in 2026/27 from the unexpected increases in 2025/26. With overall production to decrease, ending stocks have been projected to decline significantly in 2026/27, despite slower exports.

Wheat

• All wheat area was projected to remain relatively steady at 10.94 million hectares. Of that total, durum area is to be 2.46 million hectares versus 2.64 million in 2025/26. Wheat (no durum) is to expand to 8.48 million hectares from nearly 8.30 million in 2025/26.
• AAFC kept all wheat production for the coming crop year at 34.98 million tonnes.
• Wheat ending stocks were kept at 5.700 million tonnes for 2026/27, with those for 2025/26 slipping to 7.35 million.

Canola

• Planted canola area for 2026/27 stayed at January’s 8.92 million hectares, up from 8.75 million the previous year.
• However, yields are to drop to 2.17 tonnes per hectare from 2.51 in 2025/26. That’s to lower production by almost 12 per cent at 19.20 million tonnes.
• AAFC kept its call for 2025/26 canola exports to 8.20 million tonnes and those for 2026/27 remained at 7.50 million.
• Canola ending stocks were nudged up by 10,000 tonnes each for 2025/26 at 2.76 million tonnes and 2026/27 at 1.66 million tonnes.

Barley/Oats

• AAFC kept its estimate on planted barley area for this spring at 2.64 million hectares, up from 2.48 million last year. Ending stocks are to drop from 1.60 million tonnes in 2025/26 to 900,000 in 2026/27.
• The agency also maintained planted oat area for 2026/27 at 1.24 million hectares, slightly higher from the year before. Based on a more average yield of 3.43 t/ha. production is to drop to 3.55 million tonnes from last year’s 3.92 million.

Soybeans/Corn

• There were no changes in AAFC’s corn data for 2026/27, and it was much the same for soybeans. The agency raised 2026/27 soybean ending stocks to 743,000 tonnes from 650,000 last month.

Peas/Lentils

• AAFC kept most of its January pulse numbers in its February report.
• Pea production stayed at 2.85 million tonnes for 2026/27, as did lentils at 2.25 million tonnes. In 2025/26 peas came in at 3.93 million tonnes with lentils at 3.36 million.
• Ending stocks were bumped up from January, with dry peas now at 845,000 tonnes and lentils at 1.57 million.

1 hectare = 2.47 acres

The post Minor tweaks in AAFC supply and demand report appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“It’s our work around the country to remind people that this is a fundamental pillar of the Canadian economy, whether at the farm gate all the way through to agri-food,” he said.

Blois is a former agriculture minister who serves as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

He spoke during the third annual Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network (CAAIN) fireside chat on Feb. 9, hosted by Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame member Kim McConnell.

One of the main problems, Blois said, is that “the industry does not just fit under one portfolio anymore. It is over a multitude.”

“If you’re in the agri-food business, you’re as worried about what (Employment and Social Development Canada) is going to do and (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) is going to do for your labor complement,” he said. “If you’re at the farm gate, you’re keeping an eye on (Environment and Climate Change Canada) and how they’re going to handle biofuel policy and used cooking oil.”

Agriculture and food part of the vision

Blois said agriculture and food are a part of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s vision for Canada, even if agriculture is not in his background.

“Let’s not pretend he’s in the granular,” he said. “He doesn’t know AgriStability, like broad level, but he’s a quick study.”

“Food is being talked a lot about in the House of Commons. Not your intricate policy questions the way you might like it … but there is a lot of conversation on affordability and food.”

The federal government recently announced a strategy on food affordability and security. Blois pointed to this as a sign of a new commitment to food, specifically the pledge to finance greenhouses.

“That could be a massive policy for Southwestern Ontario. 4,000 acres of greenhouses, if that’s how it’s defined, that’s a huge policy win.”

“But the most important (measure) was the National Food Security Strategy,” he added. “$500 million under the Strategic Response Fund, $150 million to the regional development agencies. That’s $650 million of federal government funding that is intended to support food outcomes in this country.”

The Carney government also recently cut jobs across Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and made plans to shutter some research centres across Canada as part of broad cost-cutting.

Blois urged agri-food stakeholders to take advantage this “window of opportunity.”

“Get your foot in the door,” he said. “Say ‘we’re here not only on what we can do to reduce costs, to maybe stabilize food costs, but how we can use this as a rural agenda to drive the country forward?’”

The lead-up to CUSMA

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) review this summer is top of mind for the agriculture sector.

Blois said a rational approach will be crucial in the lead-up to the negotiations.

“We have to be prepared and level-headed. Agriculture stakeholder groups can’t light their hair on fire the moment some tweet goes up, or some Truth Social, or whatever it is.”

He said many Americans may share Canadian goals and mentioned recent developments from the U.S. like the House Democrats pushing to remove the tariffs on Canada. U.S. producer groups have also recently expressed support for the agreement.

Blois later told reporters Carney has “been in regular contact” with U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of the renewal, scheduled for July of this year.

“There are obviously irritants that the United States has raised. We will work through those,” he said.

“I think it’s important that we continue to have this dialogue with congressional leaders alongside the administration, that this is a partnership that has benefited the United States and Canada both in a very significant way.”

The role of parliamentarians like him, Blois said, is to “reinforce across the spectrum the importance of the relationship.”

Getting involved in a new era for trade

One of the next important steps for Canadian agriculture will be finding new markets in an uncertain trade landscape. Business leaders can play a role in this.

“This is not a Liberal talking point,” Blois said. “This is, I think, unified across most of the political spectrum that we need to just not rest on our laurels. We benefited as a country having that relationship. But boy, it’s a big world out there.”

He mentioned Canada’s work in the Indo-Pacific, specifically the Indonesian market as signs of a new national trade focus.

Blois said exporters and commodity groups could begin taking advantages of the government’s new trade focus.

“One of the best values of the Government of Canada is our trade commissioners,” he said. “We have good civil servants all across as part of our diplomatic corps who are there to serve the needs of industry, whether that’s agriculture or otherwise.”

He encouraged those international businesses to consider following Carney’s upcoming trade trips to countries like India and Mexico.

“The Prime Minister … visited 44 different countries last year. I think it’s the right thing to be doing in this environment. Follow him.”

“Connect with individuals, follow where the Prime Minister’s going. If you do business there, leverage that goodwill. The trips have largely been positive,” Blois said.

The future of global trade

In an increasingly uncertain and volatile global market, Blois said Canada will have a part to play as a stable jurisdiction.

“Global trade is no longer a given,” he said. “Global trade is going to be country by country.”

Something he said Canadians should keep in mind is that Canada often sees itself differently than other countries see it.

Blois said colleagues who spend time with Canadian and global CEOs have noticed a difference in perspective.

“You go talk to the Canadian CEO, ‘ah geez, you know, we’re not doing so well.’ Talk to the global CEO, ‘My God, Canada’s a panacea.’”

“I’m not suggesting that we’re perfect,” Blois added. “We have challenges. We have work. This government is focused on delivering it. But I think if you were to take an objective view of what’s going on in the world, Canada has political stability, the difference between our two major parties, although I would suggest there’s some key ones, it’s not a gulf. And we have institutions that provide stability.”

The post Canadian agriculture must be seen as growth sector: Blois appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A total of $75 million over five years will be available under the AgriMarketing program’s market diversification streams, federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald announced in a news release on Feb. 10. The aim is to support Canadian agriculture and agri-food, including fish and seafood, to diversify markets in the face of current instability.

The programs will support all sectors but will focus on those most affected by trade barriers, such as canola, pulses, pork and seafood, the news release said.

The funds are divided between a stream for national industry organizations and one for small and medium-sized enterprises. This is separate from a $130 million AgriMarketing program announced under the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership.

The $75 million was previously announced on Sept. 5 and was included in the 2025 budget.

Applications open on Feb. 13.

The post New federal funding to open for agriculture, agri-food market diversification appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Greg Meredith, former deputy agriculture minister in Ontario, said trimming the bureaucracy and taking a hard look at what is working and what is not presents an opportunity for rebirth and renewal.

“If departments come out of it smaller as a result, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing,” he said during a recent webinar hosted by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute and RealAgriculture.

WHY IT MATTERS: Steep cuts to AAFC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have been panned by a list of farm groups, who worry the cuts will be extremely detrimental to agriculture and agricultural research capacity.

Soon after he was elected, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that almost all government departments would be required to cut 15 per cent of their budgets by 2028-29.

AAFC has already started announcing some of the cuts it will be making.

“I really do believe that the kinds of pressure that these departments and agencies are facing will stimulate innovation in the bureaucracy,” said Meredith.

For instance, he thinks the food safety system has been sclerotic for a long time and could benefit from a review.

Canada’s ability to examine and approve new agricultural technologies is behind virtually all other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

He said it has become hugely expensive and time-consuming for creators of new technologies to get regulatory approval in Canada, to the point where they’re not even trying anymore.

“A trimmer, faster-moving, more agile CFIA is probably a good thing,” said Meredith.

Patching the patchwork

He also noted that provinces and the federal government need to take another look at the “hodgepodge, patchwork quilt” of food safety inspection rules and better harmonize with one another.

Francis Drouin, senior adviser with Capital Hill Group, agreed with him, noting that the CFIA has a shortage of inspectors, yet it continues to duplicate services in provinces such as Ontario and Quebec which have their own provincial inspectors.

“You mean to tell me that eating meat from a provincially regulated plant is not as safe as eating meat from a CFIA plant?” he said.

Drouin thinks the federal government should focus its work on provinces that don’t have their own inspectors.

“That’s the kind of innovation I want to see,” he said.

However, he doesn’t think those types of recommendations will come from the public service. They will have to be politically driven.

Drouin also agreed with Meredith’s comments about Canada’s burdensome food safety regulations.

“We need change because it costs too much money to do business in the food industry in Canada right now,” he said.

Backlash to cuts

Cuts to agriculture research announced in late January drew concerned glances from agriculture after the announced termination of not only 665 staff, but the closure of seven research farms and centres.

The three Prairie provincial canola grower groups jointly called the cuts “alarming,” and called for urgent consultation with research funders to explore the impacts and possible alternatives.

Reynold Bergen, science director of the Beef Cattle Research Council, said that while all knew cuts were coming, they were disappointed “that it appears as though the cuts were made without much consideration of industry priority.”

Keith Currie of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture called cuts a “necessary evil,” but also noted the CFA’s repeated concerns about lack of publicly funded research, while Canadian Wheat Research Coalition (CWRC) chair Jocelyn Velestuk called them “a tremendous loss to Canadian agriculture.”

On Feb. 5, the Manitoba Seed Growers’ Association also criticized the cuts.

“The cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada threaten the foundation of our nation’s food security, rural economies, and environmental resilience,” the association said in a release. “These reductions are not simply numbers on a balance sheet—they are cuts to the programs, research, and partnerships that sustain Canadian consumers, Canadian farmers, Canadian agri-entrepreneurs, Canadian value-added opportunities, and the Canadian communities that depend on them.”

The association went on to argue that “While it is true that private research capacity could pick up some of the vacuum left behind from AAFC cuts, there is concern that they won’t in every case.

“Research on organic production, agronomic pest reactions, forage, minor crops and soil health are not alluring, nor are they likely to appeal to private interests that are accountable to shareholders.”

An AAFC organic and regenerative research program out of Swift Current, Sask., is one of the programs known to have been cut.

Drouin said the devil will be in the details as to how damaging cuts will be to Canada’s agriculture sector, noting that bricks and mortar are the biggest expenses at those sites.

“Are they able to reorganize that research somewhere else without having to lose what research was done in that particular centre?” he said.

The post A bright side to AAFC farm research cuts? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

What he didn’t expect was the pending closure of seven AAFC research facilities throughout the country, including the research centre in Portage la Prairie, Man. And he’s still not sure what to make of it.

“We knew there was cuts coming,” he said.

“We didn’t know where they were targeted within agriculture, but it’s pretty concerning when they start closing research facilities and and laying off staff.”

WHY IT MATTERS: Steep cuts at AAFC have raised questions about the future of public research and extension services provided by the department that farmers have come to rely on.

Mowbray was primarily concerned about losing research capacity and what that means for the long-term effectiveness of investments Manitoba producers have made into public research.

“AAFC is, no question, the key partner for MCA and, of course, by extension, Manitoba farmers,” he said.

“Over the years, we’ve provided a significant amount of time and effort and money to AAFC on behalf of our farmers through both the core breeding agreements and the cluster funding research.

“So it’s a little concerning that way, because we have put in an awful lot of time, money and effort over the years to work with them on this, and it’s showed. There’s been lots of studies that have shown that money generated significant returns for farmers and for the general public in Canada.”

To an extent, he can see the fed’s perspective. The need to cut government spending and waste is a big talking point, but many don’t like it when it’s time for them to make sacrifices, he said.

“Nobody ever likes it when it’s in their backyard, (when) it’s in there area of of need,” he said.

Government is “getting pushed to streamline and reduce bureaucracy and all that sort of stuff,” he added. “Everybody thinks, ‘Oh well, it won’t affect us,’ but ultimately it ends up affecting everybody.”

The Keystone Agricultural Producers was also trying to parse how closures will impact things, especially given the absence of official confirmation on the morning of Jan. 23, although social media messages and coffee shop talk pondering which stations were getting shutters was spreading widely.

It wasn’t until later in the day that it was confirmed that AAFC Portage la Prairie was on the list, along with Nappan, N.S., and both Scott and Indian Head in Saskatchewan. Research and development centres in Guelph, Ont., Quebec City, and Lacombe, Alta., are also closing.

KAP’s general manager Colin Hornby said his first concern was farmer impact.

“We want to make sure that there’s no funding cuts that negatively impact the services programs or whatever value it is that producers get from AAFC,” he said.

Keith Currie, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) called the cutbacks a “necessary evil” and said Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald and Deputy Minister Lawrence Hanson have their “fingers on the pulse of the ministry.”

“There’s nothing wrong with efficiencies,” Currie said. “And if … there were hirings that didn’t make sense, taking a look at it and getting leaner and meaner, I think that’s what we do in business. That’s what you do on our farms.”

He added there have been jobs added in the last decade that some producers have “kind of scratched our head at.”

“Having said that, it depends where these cuts are going to happen,” he continued. “We’ve been clamouring for probably 10, 15 years about not enough public sector research.”

In a Jan. 23 release, Canadian Wheat Research Coalition (CWRC) chair Jocelyn Velestuk called news of the cuts “a tremendous loss to Canadian agriculture.”

“It is a loss of not only expertise and people who have contributed to farmers’ success, but also of agricultural research capacity that is crucial to fuelling innovation and maintaining progress throughout the industry,” Velestuk said.

Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI), said the cutbacks, particularly the closures of research sites, were a predictable development. AAFC has not been investing enough in its research infrastructure for decades, he feels.

“It is inevitable, if you don’t invest, that at a certain point in time you will need to start to close facilities. And that appears to be where we’re at today,” McCann said.

Politicians were likely responding to the signals from the broader agriculture community, which McCann said has not always championed science and research among other issues like trade and business risk management.

“Hopefully this reminds everyone else in the ag ecosystem that research and development and innovation is critical to competitiveness, and we need to double down on making that a priority going forward.”

One upside of the cuts is that they could provide an opportunity for a renewal point in agriculture research in Canada, McCann argued.

“Hopefully (AAFC) will start to show some leadership on this and engage with the other stakeholders who have significant skin in the game, other R&D funders, other R&D performers, in what that renewal looks like,” he said.

It could also be a chance for the AAFC to do more with less. McCann said there is an argument to be made that the department had too broad of a research footprint for the research funding it had.

“What will determine whether or not we can be competitive at a time of cuts is whether or not they’re going to make other changes to how they fund and do research to streamline and improve the efficiency of the work that they do,” he said.

Currie and McCann agreed it would be important to keep on those with roles to play in the recently announced Next Policy Framework, which will cover 2028-2033.

McCann called it an opportunity to double down on innovation and “to say, yes, we know that (AAFC) shrank its footprint, but in the Next Policy Framework, for the next five years, governments are going to commit more resources and more energy and more focus to innovation.”

Currie also pointed to the agriculture trade file and the temporary foreign worker/seasonal agriculture worker programs as areas he hoped would remain steady.

The post Manitoba farmers wary of research hit after AAFC cuts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.