AAFC cuts hitting seven research sites

Jan 28, 2026
By Diego Flammini
Assistant Editor, North American Content, Farms.com

Industry is voicing concern over what these mean for Canadian ag

Canada’s ag sector is expressing concern over the full scope of cuts coming to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

“These staffing cuts, and related impacts at AAFC research stations, represent a tremendous loss for Canadian agriculture,” Jocelyn Velestuk, chair of the Canadian Wheat Research Coalition, said in a Jan. 23 statement.

Over the course of 12 months AAFC will close seven research sites across the country:

Nappan Research Farm in Nova Scotia
Quebec Research and Development Centre
Guelph Research and Development Centre
Portage la Prairie Research Farm in Manitoba
Scott Research Farm in Saskatchewan
Indian Head Research Farm in Saskatchewan
Lacombe Research and Development Centre in Alberta

Closing these sites along with eliminating 665 positions are AAFC’s way of supporting the prime minister’s goal of reducing overall spending by 15 per cent over three years.

Some groups feel now isn’t the time for cuts.

Competitors like Australia and the U.S. provide billions of dollars in ag research annually.

Canada should be increasing its commitments to ag research. Any opposite action indicates the federal government doesn’t view agriculture as an important economic driver.

"You cannot call agriculture a strategic sector while firing the scientists who sustain it," said Aaron Stein, executive director of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA). "If this government truly believes agriculture is an economic powerhouse, it is now actively disabling that engine."

In addition, the AFA says, there’s been no justification for the cuts outside of saving money.

The cuts will be “disastrous” for Canada, the National Farmers Union says.

Ag organizations like the Western Grains Research Foundation invest checkoff dollars into research that supports farmers.

Canada needs to do more for ag, the NFU says.

The organization “is calling for not only a reversal of these cuts, but re-investment in public agricultural research,” the organization said. “In a world increasingly fraught with uncertainty, rebuilding our capacity for public-interest agricultural research will provide Canada with the strategic autonomy to deliver security and confidence into the future.”

The AAFC cuts are also receiving political criticism.

Given the announcement of these cuts came after the prime minister told the World Economic Forum a country that can’t feed, fuel, or defend itself has few options, it shows Liberals don’t understand agriculture, said John Barlow, the Conservative agriculture critic.

“Agricultural research sites play a vital role in advancing innovation, improving productivity, protecting plant and animal health and helping farmers adapt when necessary,” he said in a press release. “Shutting them down weakens Canada’s agricultural competitiveness and reduces the support available to producers at a time of rising costs and increasing risk.

“These closures reflect a broader and troubling pattern: Liberals choosing lobbyists over lab coats, consultants over scientists and ideological agendas over the realities of agriculture.”

Farms.com has contacted Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald for his message to Canadian farmers concerned with the cuts, and how the government plans to mitigate the impacts of the research site closures.

Video: Turning Plant Defense Into a Management Strategy

Turning Plant Defense Into a Management Strategy

Understanding how a plant responds to stress is one thing.

Using that knowledge to make better management decisions is another.

Systemic acquired resistance, or SAR, is the plant's more direct defense response. When stress or infection occurs, the plant begins signaling throughout its system and preparing defensive compounds.

But if we know that response exists, can we help prepare the plant before the stress arrives?

The answer starts with understanding what triggers the response and what the plant needs to carry it out.

The Trigger and the Fuel

Salicylic acid plays an important role in triggering the SAR pathway.

Think of it as turning the truck on.

The engine may be running, but it still needs fuel to do the work.

In this case, manganese plays an important role in supporting the enzyme systems involved in the plant's defensive response.

This makes manganese status an important part of the conversation. Whether a producer is using tissue testing, sap analysis, or simply scouting for visible deficiency symptoms, the goal is to make sure the plant has adequate manganese available.

Manganese is required in relatively small amounts, but that does not make its role small.

If the plant receives a signal to defend itself but lacks the nutrition needed to support that response, it may struggle to carry out the process efficiently.

The trigger matters.

The fuel matters too.

Prepare Before the Stress Arrives

The best time to think about stress management is before the plant is overwhelmed.

Once a crop is already struggling, management can quickly turn into a game of catch-up.

This is similar to nitrogen management. Once a plant becomes severely deficient, correcting the problem does not necessarily erase the time and yield potential already lost.

Plant defense can work the same way.

Low-rate, targeted approaches designed to support the SAR pathway may fit best ahead of an expected stress event rather than after significant damage has already occurred.

That requires producers to think about predictable stress.

We may not know exactly what the weather will do tomorrow, but we generally know summer heat is coming. We know certain field conditions increase disease pressure. We know a herbicide application can temporarily stress a crop as the plant processes the chemistry.

Even a properly timed and labeled herbicide application can create a temporary response in the plant.

That does not mean the herbicide is bad.

Weeds can create significantly more yield loss than the temporary stress caused by controlling them.

The question is not whether we should eliminate every stressor.

The question is whether we can better prepare the plant to manage necessary and predictable stress.

Not All Stress Is Bad

Stress is a normal part of plant growth.

A perfectly stress-free environment does not exist in the field.

In fact, some stress is necessary for normal plant development. A plant responds to wind, temperature, moisture, sunlight, and countless other environmental signals throughout the season.

The environment is stress.

The plant's job is to manage it.

Problems begin when the stress load becomes greater than the plant's ability to respond.

Extreme heat, drought, high salt concentrations, disease pressure, and even certain management practices can add to that load.

This is where understanding SAR becomes useful.

Instead of waiting until the plant is visibly struggling, producers can begin identifying periods when stress is likely and make management decisions around those windows.

ISR Starts With the Soil

While SAR is a more direct defense response, induced systemic resistance, or ISR, brings the conversation back to soil health.

The longevity of a farm is closely connected to the health of its soil.

Carbon plays a major role because it supports biological life within the soil. Bacteria, fungi, and other organisms interact with plant roots and influence how the plant grows, accesses nutrients, and prepares for stress.

This is why soil health cannot be reduced to one product or one application.

It is a system.

Keeping living plants in the field longer can support biological activity. Cover crops may fit some operations. Better water management can improve soil conditions.