YORKTON - Last week I wrote about how positive public investment in agriculture research is.
Certainly I doubt many in the ag sector would suggest government dollars are not welcome, but there is some concern the money comes with some strings these days.
In a recent producer.com article it was noted that at the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission’s annual general meeting concerns were raised suggesting the priorities of the federal government were not necessarily in sync with what farmers hope to see coming out of research.
The article suggested “government funding is heavily weighted to projects where the primary focus is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving carbon sequestration or other ways of addressing climate change.”
By contrast producers remain more interested in research which help in terms of production.
Herein lies an interesting dichotomy – a split in where research should be focused which is likely only to grow.
On the farm the costs are massive so production is of course of huge importance. If you can squeeze more bushels out of an acre without increasing production costs too much, it’s a win for the farm bottom line.
Also there are immediate concerns for producers – for example establishing blackleg resistance in canola – which are again very much tied to production but with a rather tight focus on a specific disease.
So unencumbered money from a source such as the federal government would be seen as best allowing farmers to determine what best to invest the dollars in in terms of research.
But, a federal government is supposed to represent all Canadians, and that might not align perfectly with how farmers see things.
If one spent time in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver would you find people concerned over how many bushels a farmer produces on an acre, or greenhouse gas emissions and climate change higher up their priority list in terms of what we should worry about?
Now, while I know many are going to suggest climate change is either a mirage, or a natural process we can’t do anything to change, for the sake of argument let’s say it’s real and as in most things on this planet humans have had an influence.
In that case the split in priorities in research tend to come down to a short term outlook, versus a longer term one.
Farm producers want to be profitable and that is always going to happen quickest with new varieties which fight off disease, or simply produce more bushels per acre.
Issues such as climate change appear much less immediate – was a nearly Canada-wide brown Christmas climate change or an ultra rare anomaly?
That is of course the core question, do we focus research on adapting to expected changes now, or wait for more evidence change is real?
That is the balance government has to make in research investment on behalf of Canadians – and it is likely the majority of Canadians might opt for planning for change, even as producers might just want more bushels.
