8 min. read
Bill Prybylski has been farming in southeast Saskatchewan for more than 40 years, but last year he did something he never thought possible.
“We grew roughly 75 bushels an acre of wheat on three inches of rain,” he says, noting that rainfall was far below average. “That shouldn’t happen.”
When he told his 96-year-old mother, she nearly fell off her chair — and for good reason. Not long ago, wheat in Saskatchewan would have required far more moisture, delivered at just the right moments, to achieve such high yields and quality.
Today, that math has changed. New farming practices and improved wheat varieties allow farmers to produce more with less, even under tough conditions. Prybylski credits one factor above all for making that yield possible: applied farm research, the real-life testing of new farming practices and products conducted at federally funded research stations embedded across the country.
That research, he says, gave him the confidence to adopt new practices related to seeding or fertilizer application techniques that improved efficiency, cut input costs (like fertilizer or herbicides) and helped him manage risk in a dry year. In his case, much of that information came from the research farm at Indian Head, Sask., about an hour and a half drive from his farm near Willowbrook, Sask.
Which is why Prybylski calls the announcement late last month that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will close seven agricultural research sites — including the one at Indian Head — a “head-scratcher.”
Research farms have long been a place to develop and test new varieties of crops and conduct agriculture research. “We’ve developed some of the highest-quality bread wheat and durum wheat varieties and we’re known for growing the best wheat in the world,” Jocelyn Velestuk, a Saskatchewan farmer and chair of SaskWheat, a farm commission that invests in research and market development, says. The stakes are high: Canada exports roughly 25 million tonnes of wheat each year, worth an estimated $11.5 billion, making it one of the country’s most valuable agricultural exports.
But the federal government says cutting research farms — and more than 650 staff, roughly 12 per cent of the department’s workforce — is strategic, and will allow it to put resources where they’re most needed. “These choices position Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to sustain strong scientific capacity, improve efficiency and concentrate resources where they will continue to generate scientific, economic and environmental benefits,” a spokesperson said in response to emailed questions from The Narwhal.
The closures affect research sites across the country, from Alberta to Nova Scotia and in between.
The impacts may extend far beyond the farm gate, says Stuart Smyth, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan and agriculture economist.
“This is going to contribute to higher food prices for all Canadian consumers.”
Across the Prairies — the heart of Canada’s agriculture industry — the reaction to the federal government’s cuts to research farms has been strikingly consistent. Farm groups say the sector once again feels sidelined, far removed from federal decision-making in Ottawa.
Prybylski is also a board member with the advocacy group Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, and says the lack of warning was as frustrating as the decision itself — and, unfortunately, a familiar experience.
“There have been several cases in the past where decisions have been made, and then we find out about them and start looking into the ramifications and start pushing back, and then the government takes a second look at it.” Given that they’ve walked things back before, such as announced changes to federal farm business management programs, he wonders why they wouldn’t learn from that and consult this time.
“That’s probably the most disappointing part — there was no forewarning and no consultation,” he says.
Fast cuts, slow consequences
For Velestuk, the news was also surprising.
“We didn’t know there would be direct cuts at research stations,” she says. “If we’d been told this was coming, we would have hoped to prepare differently.”
Velestuk says that while the effects of the cuts may not be immediately visible, the long-term consequences could be significant — particularly for the competitiveness of Canada’s grain sector. Beyond limiting applied research, she says the cuts reduce capacity for developing new crop varieties, a cornerstone of the wheat industry.
Several of the sites slated for closure or wind-down — including facilities in Lacombe, Alta., Guelph, Ont., and Quebec City — have historically housed crop science and breeding teams specializing in variety development and related research.
Along with other Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada breeding programs, these centres have spent decades developing many of the crop varieties most widely grown by Canadian farmers today, and now in demand from buyers around the world.
“We need both quality and yield from our wheat grown in the Prairies in order to be able to market our grain to different countries and remain viable on our farms.”
Beyond variety development, Velestuk says applied research carried out at regional research stations plays a critical role for farmers on the ground.
“One of the biggest strengths of having research stations spread across the Prairies was that research didn’t happen in just one set of conditions. Wheat breeding, other crop breeding and agronomy trials were tested across a wide range of ecozones, allowing researchers to see what actually worked, where and under which conditions,” she says.
“That kind of regional testing is critical when you’re dealing with challenges like drought, heat or disease — because a practice or crop variety that works in one area may not work the same way in another.”
The impact of this research is measurable. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, many of today’s most common — and valuable — farming practices, including direct seeding and no-till systems, were tested, proven and adapted locally through applied research and extension. These practices are largely credited with being beneficial to farms economically, but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions per bushel and improving the quality of Canadian farmland soils.
Climate goals, cut short?
For many in the agriculture sector, one of the most puzzling aspects of the announcement is how sharply it appears to conflict with the federal government’s stated climate priorities. In recent years, Ottawa has emphasized investments in climate-smart agriculture, precision tools and sustainable production practices — many of which rely directly on applied research, conducted on now-closed research farms, to help farmers reduce emissions while remaining productive.
“On one hand, they’re saying we need to improve our environmental footprint, we need to be more conscientious of things that we do that affect the environment,” Prybylski says. “But we can’t do that if we don’t have the research to show us what we need to do better … where we can make improvements that are beneficial to the environment, to the public good.”
Smyth says the cuts send a troubling signal about agriculture’s role in Canada’s long-term climate strategy — particularly at a time when innovation is increasingly critical.
“The message I took from last week’s announcement is that the federal government is not interested in having agriculture contribute to mitigating climate change,” he says. Smyth notes that advances allowing crops and livestock to produce more with fewer greenhouse gas emissions — through improved genetics, resilience and efficiency — are among the most practical tools available to help agriculture adapt to climate pressures while meeting emissions targets. Research has made crop varieties better able to withstand pressures from extreme weather and changing environments, and still turn a profit for farmers.
Smyth says the decision is especially difficult to understand given the strong return on investment historically delivered by agricultural research, not only for farmers but for Canadians more broadly.
“What it says to me is that science and empirical evidence on returns to investment don’t mean anything. These decisions were entirely political.”
Federal government stands by its decision
In response to the backlash, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spokesperson Cameron Newbigging said the cuts were part of a broader effort to reduce costs and refocus on core responsibilities. The department aims to do all of this without compromising the quality or scope of federally funded agricultural research.
“Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s decisions were guided by a careful review of the Department’s science activities, sector priorities, capacity and infrastructure,” Newbigging said in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal, adding that the department will continue to operate 17 research centres across Canada.
“We considered alignment with strategic priorities, capacity in other places, opportunities to strengthen support for the agriculture sector and ways to deliver science more efficiently while maintaining a presence in every province.”
Newbigging also reiterated the department’s commitment to remaining Canada’s largest agricultural research organization.
“[Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada] will continue to advance high-impact science across key areas, including crop and horticultural production, animal production, food processing, biodiversity and environmental sustainability to address emerging priorities and build a competitive and innovative sector.”
Despite those assurances, many in the industry remain unconvinced the decision makes sense right now, particularly as farmers face growing economic, environmental and climate-related pressures — and continue to rely heavily on field-level, region-specific research.
Velestuk says federal research and wheat-breeding programs “ultimately affects the sustainability of my farm and farms across Canada.”
For Prybylski, who is in the process of transitioning his family farm to his son, daughter and two nephews, the concern is what these decisions mean over the long term.
“There’s going to be some budget savings, no question about it, but the results of these decisions are going to be felt for generations. Once the cuts are made, it’s going to be really, really hard to bring this research back online.”