There has been a lot of discussion recently in the agricultural press and on social media about whether breeding contributes to industry and national sustainability goals. To those involved in the seed sector, this may seem absurd. The contribution of genetic and variety development to sustainable crop production is well documented.
Lauren Kamin, Policy Director, Seeds Canada
The goal of breeding is to provide progressive improvements in varieties. This means increasing yields to produce more crops on less land, improving nutrient use efficiency to reduce inputs required per unit yield, and increasing biotic and non-biological inputs to better adapt. Improved resistance to biological stress. Responds to changes in production conditions with minimal intervention. Furthermore, even within a single operation, crops can be tailored to the environment and production area, ensuring optimal utilization of resources and profits. Isn't this the essence of sustainability? How to do more with less?
Some researchers are working on giving non-legume crops the ability to fix nitrogen, a trait that, if successful, could one day be packaged into varieties and have a major impact on nitrogen emissions. Researchers are working on optimizing root structure to improve drought tolerance and increase soil organic carbon. With climate change, new pests will emerge that you may not have had to deal with before.
Incorporating resistance traits into our germplasm takes place in genetic research programs. These characteristics not only positively impact yield, but can also reduce the need for and impact of other crop inputs such as pesticides. Gene editing and other new technologies may increase the rate of improvement. However, without variety development, none of these traits can be disseminated in the field.
Cover crops are becoming commonplace in the sustainability lexicon, and cultivar development is also required to optimize their impact. Honestly, I feel a little stupid for even having to have this conversation.
So the question is not what breeding can do for sustainability (because it can clearly do a lot). We should ask what we can do to make breeding and variety development more sustainable here in Canada.
Traditionally, at least for grains, crop science clusters within the Federal Agricultural Policy Framework's Agriscience Program have provided a way for producers and other industry groups to match funding with the federal budget to support public variety development efforts. I've done it. The current framework, the Sustainable Canadian Agriculture Partnership (SCAP), is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2023 and run for five years, ending in 2028. However, the intention of this cluster is as a means of supporting public breeding activities, particularly livestock breeding activities. Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Canada (AAFC) has changed with each new framework. The cluster has moved from being industry-driven to federal policy-driven.
Leading up to the SCAP cluster submission, applicants were told that this round would be different. Projects are expected to address federal policy priorities such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions, carbon sequestration, and other climate change mitigation measures, including economic growth, development, and sector resilience. has a higher proportion of federal costs than other areas.
Activities were expected to include well-developed measurement elements so that impacts on climate change targets could be clearly demonstrated. However, an unpalatable issue for applicants is that cultivar development, particularly activities close to commercialization activities that have traditionally made up the bulk of the cluster, are not considered by policy makers to impact on SCAP objectives. That was the suggestion.
On the one hand, of course, governments will use funds to advance their own policy goals and research priorities. However, federal aid has created an environment in which producers rely heavily on the development of official breeds and have no other basket to put their eggs in.
AAFC has a history of playing an unpopular role in developing near-commercial varieties. I entered the industry shortly after then-Agriculture Minister Jerry Ritts announced in 2012 that AAFC would exit at the “F6” stage and hand over commercialization to another, possibly private entity. Ta. There was significant pushback as there was already an established history of investment by producers, such as through the Western Grains Research Foundation in Western Canada. This message has been bounced.
Discussions on value creation followed, lasting nearly a decade after its announcement in 2012, with the aim of establishing a national royalty system for the use of farm-saved seeds. Such a plan would not only provide additional funding to the AAFC program and its ever-shrinking budget, it would also provide incentives for private entities to set up shop and develop appropriate capacity, allowing AAFC to support more upstream utilities. will allow you to move to. Pursuit of genetic research. The government, the AAFC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency led discussions in 2019 that were arguably unsuccessful.
The industry, through the Canadian Seed Trade Association and the Canadian Botanical Technology Agency (now Seeds Canada), established a royalty structure known as a Variety Use Agreement (VUA). The VUA came into effect in 2020 and there are currently 17 breeds under it, but none of them are from his AAFC in Western Canada. The AAFC and some of its producer investors have successfully limited Canada's ability to have a universal royalty system for farm-saved seeds, disrupting competition and undermining the success of private industry investors. It is restricted.
So there's been a bit of confusion over the past decade. If governments do not develop alternative funding programs to replace variety development investments through clusters, and market signals to attract private investment and capacity building are stalled, we need to agree on a way forward.
Although it is possible to increase the proportion of producer taxes devoted to the development of public varieties, there are limits to this. Fee income is not bottomless, and there are countless other priorities that deserve attention, especially for those with a small share of production. After all, there is a huge amount of work to be done in terms of agricultural management, and the work is more effective if he provides more than five years of funding. There is more research needed than money available.
We must all work together to ensure that our agriculture industry and producers continue to produce enough food to meet growing demand and remain profitable while meeting sustainability goals. is needed. Our federal government must foster a culture where genetic intellectual property is respected and investment is encouraged.
We need access to all the tools in our toolbox, including innovations from other jurisdictions, but those innovations won't migrate here if there's no return on investment for their creators. While growers and their AAFCs may need to consider a change in approach, private industry needs to accept responsibility for providing improved varieties that are worth the grower's investment.
Variety development and breeding will do more than enough to make Canadian agriculture more sustainable, but if we want genetic innovation to reach its full potential, we all need to do it. We need to be committed to creating the right environment for this to happen.
