A former federal wheat breeder is raising concerns about recent cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, arguing reductions to science programs risk undermining one of the sector’s strongest economic drivers.

Ron DePauw, science advisor with SeCan and former wheat breeder with AAFC in Swift Current, says while we know there’s a big deficit that has to be dealt with, where the cuts are being made within AAFC doesn’t really make sense.”

The following article was written by Glenda Lee Vossler with Swift Current Online. DePauw’s commentary is at the end of the article

Research shows strong return on investment

DePauw pointed to an economic analysis by University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray examining the benefit-to-cost ratio of wheat checkoff investments.

“They’re cutting the science that has shown a very high economic rate of return,” DePauw said, adding the analysis showed “a little bit more than 32 to 1” return. “So the farmers got $32 back for every dollar that they invested.”

When taxpayer contributions were included, he said the benefit-to-cost ratio was “slightly higher, but still, well, it would round it up to 33 to 1.”

“So investing in genetic enhancement in the case of wheat, it was the same with other ones, but it was a 32 to 1 benefit to cost,” he said. “So it doesn’t make any sense when the current government wants economic growth. It doesn’t make any sense to be cutting the science that is paying the bills.”

Concerns over shifting priorities

DePauw said collaboration in plant breeding has long existed among public institutions and private companies. However, he argues AAFC has shifted resources toward more upstream, fundamental research in recent years.

He said universities and the National Research Council already focus on fundamental research, while AAFC’s strength lies in its rural research network that validates new technologies under real-world prairie conditions.

“When you develop a new piece of knowledge, a new agricultural technology, you have to do the step of what you call validation,” he said. “Will it work in the brown soil zone under their drier conditions? Or will it work in the northern areas? Or will it work in the eastern prairies? Like you don’t really know.”

He pointed to research sites such as Scott, Indian Head, Lacombe, and Portage as critical for testing new varieties, adding, “And that’s what they’re closing.”

He noted farmers contribute significantly to varietal development through the wheat checkoff.

Wheat breeder vacancy raises concerns

DePauw also addressed concerns following the departure of a senior wheat breeder in Swift Current and whether such positions will be replaced amid staffing reductions.

“When a scientist retires, resigns, gets ill, whatever, it becomes an opportunity for AFC management to take that opportunity to not fill the position,” he said.

“About half of the cost of the development of varieties is paid for by farmers,” DePauw said. “So when you lose a significant breeder like Dr. Cuthbert, then yes, this will raise great concerns within the industry.”

He described wheat breeding as a large, integrated effort involving breeders, pathologists, biotechnologists, cereal chemists, technicians, and support staff.

“And the breeder plays a key role as being like the choir conductor,” he said. “How are you going to have an orchestra if you don’t have a choir director?”

According to DePauw, between 40 and 80 per cent of all wheat grown in Western Canada over the past 25 to 30 years has come from varieties developed in Swift Current. In the case of durum wheat, he said between 50 and 87 per cent of acreage in Canada over the past five decades has been based on Swift Current varieties.

In closing, DePauw said funding partners deserve a stronger voice in decisions.

“All of these, the announced closures or cuts that have been going on is a clear example that AAFC, Science and Technology Branch, has not been acting like a good partner, treating its funding partners, the farmers, very well,” he said. “They should not be cutting the science that is paying the bills.”

Don’t Cut the Science that Pays the Bills

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) plan to close research stations across multiple provinces targets the very infrastructure that underpins Canada’s agricultural competitiveness while leaving the department’s growing administrative overhead largely untouched. No one disputes the need for fiscal discipline. But cutting front-line science that consistently delivers some of the highest returns of any public investment is not fiscal responsibility; it’s short-term thinking. 

AAFC’s regional research network is Canada’s only coordinated system capable of evaluating new crop genetics and management practices across diverse agro-ecological zones. These sites generate the multi-location, multi-year data that determine whether a new variety actually performs under heat, drought, disease pressure, and variable soils. Without that validation, farmer risk increases and adoption slows. 

The proof is in the field. 

AAC Brandon, Canada’s most widely grown wheat variety for the past decade, was developed using data from Indian Head, Regina, Swift Current, Scott, and Lacombe, all part of the network now facing closure. AAC Coldfront, the highest-yielding winter wheat developed for western Canada, depended on testing at Lacombe, Indian Head, and Portage la Prairie. These varieties did not succeed by accident. They succeeded because they were rigorously tested across the environments farmers actually operate in. 

The economic case for preserving this capacity is overwhelming. Wheat breeding alone generates an estimated 32:1 benefit-cost ratio. Every dollar invested yields thirty-two dollars in returns to farmers, taxpayers, and consumers. Very few government programs can make that claim. Eliminating half of the Prairie research network does not increase efficiency. It removes the only national field-level system capable of producing the site-years required for credible validation. Consolidating research risks duplicating work already performed by universities and the National Research Council, while dismantling AAFC’s unique comparative advantage. This will result in 
slower innovation, diminished industry confidence and adoption, and a less responsive federal research system at precisely the moment when climate pressure and global competition demand agility. 

If savings are required, administrative imbalance deserves closer scrutiny. Industry observers have already raised concerns regarding the growing ratio of management to scientific expertise within AAFC’s Science and Technology Branch. Producers and industry partners recognize this and have consistently shown a willingness to contribute to sustainable solutions, but AAFC must be willing to meet them with a science-first approach rather than continued administrative expansion.

Cut the overhead if necessary. Don’t cut the science that pays the bills.