Cuts to agricultural research raise concern

“A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options,” said Prime Minister Mark Carney in his speech at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, on January 20, 2026.

Less than four days later, the federal government announced plans to reduce its workforce and shut down seven research stations across Canada operated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The decision includes slashing 665 positions – nearly 12 percent of its workforce – and closing seven research centres across the country.

The closures include three research and development centres (RDCs) in Guelph, Quebec City and Lacombe, as well as four satellite research farms in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald defended the budget cuts and structural changes as necessary for fiscal responsibility and strategic realignment. During testimony at the House of Commons agriculture committee in February, he said it was “too expensive” to keep all the facilities open. “In some cases, 45 percent of the budget goes into maintaining facilities.”

“Our goal was to reduce overhead while preserving scientific capacity and maintaining a presence in every province,” said Cameron Newbigging, a spokesperson for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. “As a result, we are strategically consolidating our science footprint to use our funds more efficiently to focus on areas where we can have the greatest impact.” He named field crop production, animal production, food processing and biodiversity as key areas of focus.

Staffing cuts

While the federal budget, rolled out in November, hinted at funding reductions, the scale of implementation has caught many off guard.

“These staffing cuts, and related impacts at AAFC research stations, represent a tremendous loss for Canadian agriculture,” said Jocelyn Velestuk, chair of the Canadian Wheat Research Coalition, in a statement.

“These labs drive crop innovation, climate resilience, pest control and productivity gains that farmers rely on. Shut them down, and Canada becomes less competitive, more import-dependent, and slower to adapt to climate and market shocks,” wrote Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Visiting Scholar at McGill University, on social media. “Closing AAFC research centres weakens Canada’s agri-food backbone.”

Nearly 1,050 employees received “workforce adjustment” notices on January 22. Through these measures, the AAFC aims to reduce its budget by 15 percent over three years, with estimated savings of roughly $112 million.

Agricultural organizations have cautioned that these cuts could hinder the development of new plant varieties, particularly in response to climate change, and weaken Canada’s overall agricultural research capacity.

Stalled discoveries

Paul Bootsma, a staff member at the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO), expressed concern about cutting off projects that have not yet reached their final stage.

“Our hope is that the government will allow these projects to come to full completion before the stations are closed,” he said in a public statement. “According to discussions with the department, that appears to be the plan. The full closure process is expected to take up to 12 months,” he added.

The CFFO represents over 4,000 farm families in Ontario but does not receive AAFC funding. Its members embrace a Christian perspective in farming practices and stewardship of land and livestock.

One of the centres known for its work in food safety and animal health is the Guelph Research and Development Centre, which is slated for closure. Opened in 1997, the centre houses a biosecure facility that works with industry partners to prevent food-borne disease outbreaks.

“When it comes to research, you need both basic and applied research,” Stewart Cressman told Christian Courier (CC). Cressman is the former chair of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario. “Basic research is about finding new information and expanding knowledge, while applied research puts that knowledge to use at the farm level.”

Cressman observed that until 2015, the government did not maintain a strong connection with producers. “They did what they saw as important, and much of the research did not get applied effectively but instead sat on shelves,” he said.

The decades-long farmer added that Canada has been weak in implementing applied research and that the recent government announcement means “less research and an even worse scope for innovation.”

Research in jeopardy

One of the AAFC’s oldest research centres slated for closure is the Lacombe Research and Development Centre in Alberta, which opened in 1907. Research conducted at the centre has helped cattle producers improve grazing practices, develop hardier forage crops and enhance pasture productivity.

“More than 100 employees and their families are affected, along with industry partners and research collaborators,” read the Lacombe County statement. “The Lacombe Research Station has served as a centre for agricultural innovation for 120 years and has benefited not only Central Alberta but all of Western Canada,” said Lacombe County Reeve John Ireland.

Lacombe was also home to Canada’s only major meat science and beef grading research program, which developed technologies now used worldwide to grade beef and ensure Canadian beef meets export market standards.

The Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) and the Beef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) have warned that the federal cuts could have far-reaching impacts, such as “potential loss of independent expertise in key areas such as forage breeding, beef quality, carcass grading and food safety.” The BCRC and the CCA have issued a joint statement outlining potential impacts and possible solutions.

New partnerships

The federal reductions have also affected the Livestock Research Innovation Corporation (LRIC). LRIC is a private organization which partners with universities and is supported by the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership, an AAFC program.

“Public investment plays an important role in advancing research in areas such as animal health, processing and productivity,” said Kelly Somerville, CEO of LRIC. “If research capacity is reduced over time, it could affect the pace and scope of innovation, but the sector is still assessing what this may mean in practical terms . . . At this stage, we are engaging with partners to better understand whether and how federal funding shifts may affect specific programs.”

The CFFO also told CC that they hope for new partnerships with colleges, universities and the private sector: “We believe a lot of this work suits our educational institutions well. Research and development is an important area for many industries, and so we will work on keeping this alive.”

The CFFO wrote to the Canadian Minister of Agriculture and Food expressing appreciation for the 15 percent cut: “for some time, we have expressed concern of how ‘large’ the government is in terms of expenditures. Our concern is also with the bureaucracy that costs taxpayers a lot and can also be cumbersome and time-consuming.”

While some farmers and organizations express appreciation for the federal government’s efforts to reduce spending and streamline operations, others warn that shrinking public research could carry lasting consequences for innovation, competitiveness and food security.

AI tools were used by the author to structure this article in its initial draft, but not for writing or researching it.