Prairie farmers have many reasons to cheer a Saskatchewan government announcement that it plans to spend $10 million on wheat research over the next five years.
The spending is designed to spur greater public-private partnerships and should help restore some of Canada’s tarnished reputation as a leader in cereal research. Its possible benefits are wide-ranging and will reach beyond provincial boundaries.
But it is only a first step.
To restore Canada to its cereal research glory years, when Marquis wheat conquered the Prairies, the federal government, private companies and farmers together must step forward.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
The timing could scarcely be better. With the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly coming to an end, changes are afoot. What better time for new ideas and innovations?
Cereal research spending has lagged in recent decades and is still feeling the hurt from cuts inflicted by the federal Liberal government of the 1990s.
Canada’s wheat research budget today is about $10 million per year, just one-third of Australia’s, which is $30 million.
Our spending lags despite the fact that agricultural research has been shown to pay huge dividends.
A University of Saskatchewan study covering 1978-2001 showed that for every dollar spent on crop research the economy gained a $12 to $34 benefit.
But attracting private research dollars to wheat research has proven a tough nut to crack. This is mainly because only 25 percent of farmers use certified wheat seed, which makes it hard for companies to turn research dollars into profits.
When seed companies develop re-search plans, they have farmers’ needs in mind as the end customer, but they also must keep one eye on the company bottom line.
It can lead to a focus on projects with short-term commercial promise, rather than what’s in the best interests of growers.
This is where Agriculture Canada can provide incentive. The department recently stated it plans to shift its focus to early stage research, such as germplasm development, and then let private companies assume responsibility for further research into new plant lines and commercialize the successful ones.
The strategy has promise, but what about the farmer’s role? Key questions about licensing, how farmers can share in the profits of new variety developments and who should pay for the research in the first place have to be answered.
Farmers, as the main end-users of the research, must be given an opportunity to share in the key decisions and development strategies.
They will benefit through improved yields, disease resistance, stress tolerance and other agronomic factors that are likely to spring from new varieties, but they also deserve a more direct stake.
New partnerships should be explored to include farmers at the planning table. There may be opportunities for farmers to share in plant breeders’ royalties, new commodity organizations may arise to oversee checkoffs and to direct research, or the Western Grains Research Fund, which now looks after public research funds for cereal crops, might assume a more prominent role.
Producers could also look at different models for collecting checkoffs. The pulse industry bases its on the value of the crop, charging a levy of one percent of sales.
Whichever model farmers decide on, they and governments at all levels must find ways to take active roles in directing the research.
Only then will farmers be likely to get the crops they want, rather than being told to grow new varieties selected by someone else.
