While that aspiration is still relevant, we’ve come a long way in the past decade or two, and we should celebrate the successes.

The biggest value-added success story is undoubtedly canola. We’re on our way to crushing 75 per cent of our most important crop. Not long ago, 75 per cent was being exported as seed.

Sure, a number of planned crush plants have gone by the wayside, including Viterra (now Bunge) in Regina, AGT Foods, also in Regina, as well as a facility at Northgate, Sask., right on the U.S. border.

However, the new Cargill plant is up and running in Regina, and Louis Dreyfus at Yorkton, Sask., will soon have a big celebration to mark its canola plant expansion, as well as a new pea fractionation facility.

Pea fractionation has seen some notable plant failures, but there are even more success stories.

Some plants use a wet fractionation process, while others use dry. Some are massive facilities, while others are more moderate, but it’s all secondary processing.

Recently, together with a number of other ag journalists, I had a chance to tour the massive Grain Millers facility at Yorkton.

It processes 23 million bushels of oats per year, turning the raw oats into flakes and rolled product. It has an organic line and also serves gluten free markets. Half the Yorkton mill’s market is gluten free.

Terry Tyson, president of Grain Millers Canada, says the plant has expanded 12-fold since being purchased from Popowich Milling 25 years ago.

Grain Millers claims to be North America’s largest industrial oat supplier, but Richardson is a similar size. Plus, there are several other significant players in the oat market.

Canada has the oat production and the U.S. has the oat consumption base. It’s an integrated market with American companies such as Grain Millers investing on this side of the border.

Tyson says the use of oats in beverages was a game changer for demand. In fact, 25 per cent of its business serves the oat beverage market, a category that didn’t really exist before 2018.

A year ago, Grain Millers started a 30,000-tonne flax processing facility at Delisle, Sask., just west of Saskatoon. The plant deals with conventional and organic flax in both brown and yellow varieties.

Many other companies also have flax processing facilities in operation, serving various markets.

AGT Food and Ingredients, based in Regina, has become a worldwide company and a leader in lentil processing.

With the end of the Canadian Wheat Board’s sales monopoly of wheat, durum and export barley in 2012, many predicted huge growth in secondary processing of these crops. Very few people bemoan the loss of the CWB’s monopoly, but it perhaps wasn’t the impediment to value-added processing that many assumed.

Yes, we have flour mills for wheat and some semolina production from durum, and yes, there are malting plants for barley, but not much has changed for these crops in the past 14 years. In fact, it might be argued that malt production from barley has struggled.

Perhaps value-added success with these crops is still to come, but in the meantime, it’s marvellous to see what’s happening with canola, oats, peas, lentils and flax.

The growth hasn’t happened overnight, but with the success of each new facility comes jobs, economic activity, better market stability and more marketing options for farmers.

In many parts of Alberta, repeated rainfall events have left soils saturated and, in some areas, standing water is visible in fields.

According to Deanne Madsen, a nutrient management specialist with Alberta’s agriculture and irrigation department, some regions have received roughly one-and-a-half to two times their normal precipitation for this time of year.

“We have standing pools of water in the field,” she said, adding that southern areas have seen substantial rainfall accumulation while central and northern regions have received even more.

Why it Matters: Changing moisture conditions across the Prairies are reshaping fertilizer risk in real time, forcing producers to rethink how and when nitrogen is most vulnerable in the field.

That shift in moisture conditions is changing how producers and agronomists are thinking about nitrogen behaviour in soil.

After earlier-season concerns about volatilization and surface losses under hot, dry and windy conditions, Madsen said the current focus has moved toward saturated soil processes and crop response under excess moisture.

“With soils now saturated, the concern shifts,” she said.

“Instead of volatilization, we’re now more concerned about denitrification, especially where water is sitting for several days.”

Denitrification happens in waterlogged soils when bacteria convert plant-available nitrate into gaseous nitrogen, which is then lost from the soil.

The risk is particularly pronounced in heavier rainfall zones, while lighter, coarser soils may still see some movement of nitrogen downward where water infiltration continues, Madsen said.

Dry conditions

The wet conditions stand in contrast to earlier in the season, when parts of the Prairies, including Manitoba, were dealing with hot, dry and windy weather that raised concerns about nitrogen loss from surface-applied fertilizer.

Nutrient management specialist Marla Reikman said producers applying urea on the soil surface can face significant risks if rainfall does not follow quickly enough to move fertilizer into the soil.

Urea applied to the surface can be vulnerable to volatilization, particularly in warm, dry conditions where wind increases evaporation and speeds up the chemical conversion of urea into ammonia at the soil surface.

“The urease enzymes that naturally exist in the soil start transforming that urea very quickly into ammonia … and that ammonium volatilization can occur,” Reikman said.

The transformation process can lead to nitrogen escaping into the atmosphere if it is not incorporated or moved into the soil profile by rainfall.

Under ideal conditions, producers aim for roughly half an inch of rain to move surface-applied nitrogen into the soil, where it is less vulnerable to loss. Without that moisture, alternatives such as urease inhibitors can help slow the conversion process and provide more time for rainfall to occur.

Physical incorporation remains the most reliable way to reduce loss, though typical field operations such as harrowing or light tillage may not fully bury fertilizer granules, Reikman said.

Even higher-disturbance equipment may leave a significant portion of fertilizer near the surface.

“So, ultimately, the goal is getting the fertilizer down into the soil,” Reikman said.

Placement efficiency can make a significant difference in nitrogen use, with general estimates suggesting banded or incorporated applications can improve efficiency compared to surface broadcasting.

However, Reikman cautioned that increasing rates to compensate for potential losses is often not economically practical given current input costs.

I made phone calls and emails to the ministry and local MLAs. I shared on social media. I celebrated when the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation was victorious in getting it granted.

And then the news came that complexity funding was only available for schools of more than 75 students. What a gut punch.

As if small schools don’t experience learning disabilities, behaviour issues or language barriers. As if one teacher trying to create a lesson plan for the five grades she teaches in one classroom has no complexity at all.

Such disappointment. Rural schools left in the dust yet again.

And then the double whammy came — not only would we not be receiving funding or an additional teacher body to assist with complexity, but the existing teacher complement we currently had was going to be cut further. That was it. That’s the final straw.

Rural schools matter. Our rural students matter.

We already have to deal with pot-hole filled roads, no cell service and internet that can’t handle Netflix without buffering a thousand times that makes us feel forgotten by our governments and corporations.

But sub par education? That shouldn’t be tolerated.

These students are the children of the families that are feeding our world, raising the cattle and growing the crops that gave Saskatchewan the nickname “bread basket of Canada.” Politicians love to use that phrase when touting how amazing our province is, but when it comes to providing support for those very same families, all you can hear is the sound of crickets coming from government. Just like the sounds of crickets on our lands.

And believe me, our rural teachers are trying their best. They give and give and give.

They volunteer more than anywhere else to ensure our small-school students get as much of a “school experience” as they can with such small numbers.

Sports require combining multiple schools to make a team, and driving and driving and driving to small towns or cities hours apart to compete.

But they can only do so much. They have lives and their own families to prioritize, too.

In a school with four teachers, sports and clubs require high volunteer participation from teachers. Every single adult body in the school matters immensely.

Losing even one body makes things like recess supervision, prep time and sports nearly impossible to pull off.

Our students lose out on the knowledge, life experiences and passions they bring to the school — one less interest shared with a student that inspires them to pursue science or art or travel.

The impacts are more than just numbers on paper. Its effect is felt deeply by everyone who enters the building.

In a school where there are five grades to a classroom and grades 10-12 are taught 60 per cent online, low registration becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy.

New families choose to live elsewhere where their kids will receive a more normal version of the school experience. And so, the cuts continue to come.

But here’s the kicker— we’re considered a “school of necessity.” There are no other schools in the region close enough for our students to attend.

So if we’re a school of necessity, why do we continue to feel like we’re on the brink of closure?

Why are our students forced to endure educational and support gaps that would be considered completely unacceptable in a bigger centre?

Why must our continuously shrinking teacher complement be left to figure out how to fill the gaps and make it work?

Why were the complexities that rural schools experience completely ignored and left out?

I, for one, would love an answer.

Kira Glas is a farm wife and mother living in Val Marie, Sask.

Health Canada issued a letter of no objection to the Canadian Agricultural Drone Association (CADA) on June 10, creating an interim pathway for farmers to apply any pesticide already registered for aerial application using remotely piloted aircraft.

For an industry that has been pushing for this moment for years, the letter was a long-overdue milestone.

“Previously there were no agricultural pesticides approved by PMRA to apply by drone at all, so there was literally nothing that could be applied legally,” said Markus Weber, president of the Canadian Agricultural Drone Association.

Why it Matters: A new federal green light for drone pesticide spraying is already changing how some farmers manage wet fields, even as questions about safety, training, and regulation lag behind.

The move came amid unusually wet conditions across parts of Western Canada that left fields inaccessible and shortened herbicide windows.

It followed a February proposal by the federal Pesticides Regulatory Directorate to formally recognize drones as aerial application equipment.

The change brings Health Canada’s February proposal, which would formally classify drones as aircraft and open registered aerial pesticides to drone application, into force on an interim basis until a final policy is published, expected later this summer or fall.

However, farmers aren’t waiting for the final rules. Drone application has already happened this season, driven in part by the wet weather that made conventional ground equipment impossible to operate in affected areas.

“There will be growers using it this season. There’s no question that that’s happening already,” Weber said.

He expects early adoption to concentrate in lower-risk applications, including fungicide, brush control and desiccation.

The technology’s logistical advantages are real even beyond emergency situations, Weber said.

“We won’t be able to spray all of Western Canada, by any means. This is still going to be a very small part of the total spray arsenal that Western Canada has.”

Weber was careful to frame the letter as an interim step, not a final answer.

“There’s never a guarantee that the final (result) will look like the interim,” he said, adding the letter itself becomes void once a final policy is published.

Policy warning

Not everyone in the agricultural application world shares the industry’s enthusiasm, at least not without reservations.

Tom Wolf, an application specialist with Agrimetrix Research & Training and the website Sprayers101, called the regulatory shift a “significant departure” from the agency’s historically cautious, science-based approach.

“Someone said to me, ‘this is no longer a science decision, this is a policy decision.’ Someone’s decided we’re going to do this, and whether or not the science is there is a different question,” said Wolf, who previously spent five years as a scientist seconded to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate.

Health Canada released the letter through the Canadian Agricultural Drone Association’s website rather than its own, an unusual move for an agency that typically publishes regulatory decisions through official channels, Wolf said.

The regulatory framework as written also leaves critical technical gaps that standard aerial label directions don’t address, which Wolf believes may mislead drone operators.

Drone sprayers produce finer droplets than the international sizing standards referenced on aerial pesticide labels. A drone set to deliver a “medium” spray quality is not producing the same droplet size as a crewed aircraft at the same setting.

“It’s finer, so it’s riskier, and we don’t have any language on the label to warn users that you might think you’re complying, but you’re actually not,” Wolf said.

Swath width is another problem. Unlike boom sprayers, which lay down a consistent, predictable band, drone coverage varies with flight height, droplet size, speed, wind direction and tank fill level.

Wolf says these variables can each independently alter how wide a strip the drone actually covers. Operators who rely on manufacturer specifications may find their coverage narrower than expected, leading to missed strips that only become visible as crop irregularities weeks later.

“When do you find that out? When it’s too late to respray,” he said.

Label directions also require that the person mixing and loading pesticide not be the same person piloting the drone, a separation of duties designed to limit chemical exposure.

On most farm operations, that means two people are legally required for every application, a constraint Wolf said will limit adoption on smaller operations.

Provincial rules

The federal interim permission doesn’t resolve provincial gaps.

Most provinces have not yet established certification pathways for drone pesticide applicators, Weber said.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have frameworks in place; others are still developing them.

The letter of no objection requires compliance with provincial certification laws, but in the three Prairie provinces, farmers who spray their own fields with conventional equipment are generally exempt from provincial certification requirements, meaning the training gap may be wide even among operators who believe they’re in compliance.

Wolf is also concerned about the best-selling agricultural spray drone in Canada.

The DJI Agras T100 has a 100-litre tank and weighs approximately 170 kilograms when fully loaded. Transport Canada requires a Special Flight Operations Certificate for remotely piloted aircraft systems exceeding 150 kg, a threshold the T100 exceeds at full capacity.

There’s also a real risk of conflicts in shared airspace, Wolf said.

Drone spraying season in Western Canada coincides with peak season for crewed aerial applicators, putting both in the same airspace simultaneously. Drones typically operate without filing flight plans or communicating with air traffic control.

“Now imagine people without certification and without contact with the tower or a flight plan using the same airspace,” Wolf said.

Operator discretion

Weber and Wolf agree that what happens next will largely depend on individual farmers making responsible choices in the absence of robust enforcement.

There are roughly 20 pesticide enforcement officers covering nearly 100,000 applicators across the Prairie provinces, Wolf said, and the system is complaints-driven.

Until the letter of no objection, every agricultural drone spray application in Canada was technically illegal, but zero operators have been ticketed.

“Whether or not we spray under windy conditions is entirely up to our own scruples, our own ability to mitigate the risk. The same will apply to these drones,” he said.

Training is the critical next step as adoption grows, Weber said.

“There’s definitely a need for more training, there’s no question about that.”

Maybe not Coachella, exactly, but the California desert in April and an open field near Saskatoon in July have more in common than you might think. Both require sunscreen, comfortable shoes and a hat.

Follow all our Ag in Motion coverage here.

At Ag in Motion, that hat is less likely to be adorned with glowsticks and more likely to feature the logo of a seed company, machinery dealer or crop input supplier, but the festival feeling is there.

People arrive in waves, park in fields, consult maps, eat at food trucks and spend the day walking from one attraction to the next. Instead of stages, there are themed pavilions. Instead of set times for bands, there are drone demos, antique tractor pulls and plot tours.

And, like any good festival, there is merch.

At Ag in Motion, the merch haul comes in the form of swag bags stuffed with caps, water bottles, rain gauges and enough branded pens and stationery to stock a farm office until well past harvest.

The difference, of course, is that people are not there to escape, except from the fact that they may not quite be able to afford the million-dollar combine they’re eyeing up. It may be a break from farm work, but they’re ultimately there because they hope to leave with a good idea.

That’s what makes the show interesting. The buzz around a new machine, input, crop variety or digital tool is not just about novelty. It is about whether it might solve a problem, save time, reduce risk or make a farm more efficient.

There is still plenty of spectacle. Combines, sprayers and tractors have a way of drawing a crowd, but underneath the festival atmosphere, Ag in Motion is a practical event.

People come to look, talk, compare notes and ask the same question farmers always ask when something new appears: would this work on my farm?

It’s important we pull together as a country to withstand these assaults.

The mandatory six-year joint review provision in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement occurs July 1, so our trading relationship with the United States will again dominate news cycles.

The three countries will likely miss an outright renewal of CUSMA by this date because Trump prefers separate, bilateral negotiations.

If an agreement or extension is not achieved at this scheduled checkpoint, the treaty will remain in force until 2036.

There is a chance the upcoming talks could result in the phasing out of CUSMA, but this agreement is popular with powerful U.S. industries and companies important to Trump’s base.

Pulling out of this agreement would be easier said than done for Trump, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.

This is why prime minister Mark Carney has been able to take a measured, patient approach with Trump.

Most Canadian exports to the U.S., including agricultural goods, have not been affected by the recent American tariffs.

The attacks that the U.S. will launch on Canadian trading practices and character will continue to be both unfair and unhinged.

For instance, U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra recently said making Canada the 51st state would be “a great discussion for the president” and Prime Minister Carney to have.

Even more troubling is the alleged meetings between State Department officials and Alberta separatists, considering it’s still unknown exactly what support the Alberta separatists asked for and what they received.

There has been an escalation of online foreign actors, powered by offshore bot farms, that spread disinformation and hate through social media to stoke division within Canada.

In many ways, it will be up to Canadians how much damage is done by these efforts to undermine Canadian unity.

Trump’s power in the U.S. is rooted in his ability to gather a fan base by presenting himself as a solution to serious longstanding issues, including the high cost of living, corruption and the costly wars the U.S. enters far from its own shores.

It doesn’t seem to matter to Trump’s fans that he doesn’t take his own promises seriously or that his policies tend to exacerbate the issues that concern them.

Trump’s military wars and trade wars have increased the cost of living in the U.S., added billions of dollars to its debt and cost the lives of U.S. soldiers.

On corruption, Trump has achieved new lows when it comes to how much he, his family and associates have been able to profit from his control of the White House.

None of this has affected his devout supporters, some of whom are Canadian.

Just as Trump’s messages and antics are not meant to win over a broad swath of the U.S. electorate, his communications approach toward Canadians is directed at a small but vocal subset.

This is where you can help to deflect the hot air blowing north across the 49th parallel.

Firstly, don’t buy into any rhetoric that suggests Canada is an unfair trading partner that treats Americans terribly. Striving to conduct our affairs with integrity is a Canadian value, which is why we always rank near the top of international surveys on the most trusted and revered countries.

Secondly, Canada has been very good to many of the people that tend to repeat flawed perspectives funnelled into the country’s discourse by foreign actors — it doesn’t hurt to point this out every once and a while.

It’s also important to remember that the U.S. is not one hegemonic entity and that we still have many friends in the country with interests that align with our own.

An example of this is a recent letter written by more than 150 Canadian, U.S., and Mexican companies within the food and agricultural value chains that shows support for a renewal of CUSMA.

Patience is a virtue, and we must exercise ours as we strive for a fair trading relationship with our southern neighbour.

An agreement could flood the domestic market with cheap and low-quality beef from Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina and other countries, they say.

Canada’s fertilizer industry, however, wants this deal to happen, as soon as possible.

South America is a major importer of crop nutrients, and it represents a massive market for additional exports, says a letter from Fertilizer Canada to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

“We must pursue opportunities that expand market access and support long-term economic growth,” says the letter, signed by Michael Bourque, Fertilizer Canada president and chief executive officer.

“There is no greater example than the current opportunity with Mercosur. We urge you to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement with Mercosur as soon as possible.”

The federal government has been pursuing a free trade deal with Mercosur nations, a trading bloc that includes Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay.

The conversations around trade began in 2018, with a region that has 270 million people.

Fertilizer, mostly potash, is Canada’s largest export to Mercosur countries. Exports to Brazil, alone, were worth $1.6 billion in 2025.

“Mercosur is home to some of the world’s most productive and rapidly expanding agricultural economies,” says Fertilizer Canada.

“The region will play an increasingly important role in feeding the world, creating significant opportunities for Canadian suppliers of crop nutrients, agricultural technology and expertise.”

Why it Matters: The opportunity may be real for fertilizer companies, but Canadian beef producers are worried about the risks of a Mercosur deal.

Imports of beef from Mercosur nations have jumped 238 per cent since 2021, and that number could climb much higher if the government rushes into a deal, the CCA says.

“They’re some of the biggest beef exporting nations in the world, definitely lower cost beef than what we produce here,” said CCA vice-president Ryan Beierbach.

He made the comments at the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association annual meeting, held June 8-10 in Moose Jaw.

Signing a deal with Mercosur nations sometime this summer may jeopardize the ongoing trade discussions with the United States and Mexico, Beierbach added.

“We’ve heard that loud and clear from our U.S. counterparts that it could be detrimental to the CUSMA negotiations.”

That may be true, but U.S. president Donald Trump took steps this winter to increase beef imports from South America, increasing the tariff rate quota on Argentine beef by 80,000 tonnes, Reuters reported.

Carney and international trade minister Maninder Sidhu have visited dozens of countries in the last six months, promoting trade and commerce with Canada.

Talks with Mercosur nations heated up this spring, prompting a response from the CCA and other groups.

The CCA is asking the feds to exempt beef from the trade deal, arguing the agreement provides no benefits for the cattle industry.

“We support trade diversification that is reciprocal and rules based. In the case of Mercosur, the data shows no meaningful export opportunity for Canadian beef, while imports are already rising sharply.”

Fertilizer Canada, meanwhile, says an agreement will strengthen existing relationships in South America. Canada currently supplies more than 30 per cent of Brazil’s potash imports.

However, there is plenty of room for more sales because South America is an agricultural powerhouse that supplies the world with food.

“Fertilizer Canada strongly urges the Government of Canada to finalize and ratify a trade agreement that positions Canada to be a long-term partner in that growth.”

Prices since the peak in March have slowly been dropping, depending on the commodity.

There is a tendency to assign all market moves to the impact of the war, but fundamentals are also playing a key role.

Fertilizer prices (urea) have dropped back to prewar levels, although values for phosphate-based products remain well above what they were before the conflict.

The drop in fertilizer prices has more to do with the seasonality of fertilizer use. Most of the fertilizer requirements for the 2026 crop have now been applied and demand has dropped. This in turn has lowered prices.

Seasonality is also playing a role in lower grain and oilseed prices, which tend to rally in the spring until the crop is planted. If normal growing conditions persist, markets tend to sell off in June and early July. The sell-off has arrived as the calendar turned to June.

Row crop planting is essentially complete in the United States, which is pressuring prices for corn and soybeans.

The drop in soybean values has pressured canola futures over the past week. The nearby contract has lost C$40 per tonne since establishing a new contract high in early June. Canola values have been supported by strong soybean oil futures.

There are still concerns in the canola market, considering planting has been delayed in key northern and central Saskatchewan growing areas. This has resulted in relatively strong prices for canola when compared to wheat and other grains.

Spring wheat prices over the past month have dropped by more than US$1 per bushel since the middle of May.

Seasonality is playing a large part in the lower prices for all three wheat futures contracts.

Winter wheat harvest, despite the reduced size of the crop, is pressuring prices as the harvest pushes into Kansas. The overall winter wheat harvest is 11 per cent complete, which is well above the six per cent average.

The combination of harvest pressure and a relatively good start to the spring wheat growing season has been responsible for the drop in prices.

European and Black Sea crops are only one month away from harvest, which is also pressuring global wheat markets. This seasonal pressure should see wheat harvest lows established in July.

Wheat market fundamentals remain firmly in charge of determining prices, regardless of what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz.

I know that the farmer who grew the malt barley isn’t getting much of that.

It is no wonder beer consumption is declining.

Of course, it is not only the price that is turning people off the suds.

A percentage of young people, those who traditionally down the most beer, are turning to other things such as cannabis and coolers or are shunning all mind-altering diversions in favour of a healthier lifestyle.

Also, drinking and driving laws save lives and keep those who do imbibe down to a single glass or two when at a restaurant or pub.

Statistics Canada keeps track of alcohol sales and puts numbers on the decline.

The data shows that for all types — beer, wine, spirits and ciders/coolers — the total volume sold on a per capita basis over the past 20 years peaked in the 2007-09 period and then drifted lower until 2022-23, when a sharper decline set in. The only segment growing is the cider/coolers types, but that is a small percent of total sales.

Focusing on beer, from 2004-05 to 2009-10, the volume sold was steady at 4.2 litres per capita. That is based on alcohol content.

It then drifted lower, usually by 0.1 litre per year until recently. It dropped by 0.2 litres per year in each of the last two years.

It now stands at 2.7 litres per capita compared to 4.2 in 2004-05, a decline of 36 per cent.

However, the population has increased over that time, so the total amount of beer sold has not fallen as far.

Over the 20 years, the volume sold of all beer, domestic and imported, has fallen 14 percent. The volume of Canadian-produced beer fell 13 per cent to almost 1.7 million litres.

Domestic beer sales make up 89 per cent of all beer volume and beer sales were equivalent to 3.1 standard bottles (341 millilitres) per week, per person of legal drinking age.

The change is affecting the Canadian malting industry and barley growers, but it is difficult to put hard numbers on it.

The proportion of the barley area seeded to malting barley varieties has declined in Western Canada.

Malting varieties accounted for 46.2 per cent of the total barley area in 2025, down from 53.7 per cent in 2020, according to a Western Producer story by Sean Pratt.

However, that can’t be directly linked to reduced beer consumption.

There is always the uncertainty of how much of the malting barley crop will be purchased by maltsters and how much will have to go for feed. Also, there are feed varieties that are much higher yielding and might be more profitable.

As well, barley area generally is down from what it was 20 years ago, mostly because of the rising popularity of canola.

In the early 2000s, acreage generally ranged from 11 to 12.5 million acres, but at the end of the decade started to drop and in recent years has been around 6.5 million.

The world’s malting industry is consolidating, and most of the industry here is owned by global operators.

Some are closing plants in areas where beer consumption is declining, but expanding elsewhere. There have been no major closures in Canada.

Canada Malting Co., the country’s largest malting company with plants in Calgary, Montreal and Thunder Bay, several country elevators and Country Malt, a supplier of malt and distilling ingredients, was owned by Australia’s GrainCorp. before it spun off its malting holdings into a separate company, United Malt.

In 2023, United Malt was sold to Soufflet Malt, owned by French agribusiness InVivo. Soufflet Malt is one of the world’s largest maltsters with plants in 20 countries.

Prairie Malt in Biggar, Sask., became part of the global Boortmalt group in 2019. Boortmalt is also French, owned by agricultural co-operative Axereal.

American owned Rahr Malting Co. owns the malting plant at Alix, Alta.

Boortmalt has closed or temporarily mothballed several malting plants around the world because of declining demand.

Soufflet Malt has closed two plants in Germany and one in Britain because of declining demand, but is investing in India, where consumption is growing rapidly.

A Reuters story noted India’s per capita beer consumption remains low at about two litres annually, compared with about 70 litres in the United States and 130 litres in the Czech Republic, the world’s top consumer. However, India currently imports little malt.

With demand at home declining, Canada’s malting companies will have to look to exports.

Currently, malt exports range from 515,000 to 588,000 tonnes. There is some growth selling to Latin American and African countries.

Despite the important role this type of work plays in supporting innovation, trade and long-term competitiveness, experts say policy and economics research has historically received far less support than applied agricultural science — and recent federal cuts are worsening the problem.

You can find all our coverage of the proposed Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada cuts here.

“There’s very little funding at a federal level to engage in specific agricultural economics research,” says Stuart Smyth, an agricultural economist with the University of Saskatchewan.

Public investment in agricultural research overall has declined in recent decades, falling from roughly $860 million in 2013 to $680 million in 2022. Earlier this year, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced plans to cut roughly 665 positions and close seven federal research facilities across the country.

Experts say policy and economics research was already underfunded before those reductions.

“Less and less of (ag policy research) is done in government today, and in fact, there’s just less and less done period, which is very problematic,” says Al Mussell, founder of Agri-Food Economic Systems, an independent Canadian agricultural economics and policy research organization.

Richard Gray, also an agricultural economist at the U of S, says the timing is particularly concerning given the scale of challenges facing the sector.

“If we’re going to increase productivity growth in the future and do it in a way that is sustainable from a food security, food safety point of view … all of those things require new policy.”

Mussell says the need for strong policy research is especially important right now as Canada navigates increasingly complex international trade relationships, including future negotiations involving the United States and Mexico.

“We’re looking at renewal of a trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico. I think most people probably underestimate just how much work needs to go on in the background,” Mussell says. “They’re complex relationships … you have to cover a lot of different bases.”

Smyth says the lack of funding also limits the sector’s ability to generate the economic analysis needed to support evidence-based policymaking and regulation.

“Anytime I talk to policymakers, they say we need numbers,” he says. “‘If we did this, we could add an extra $200 million to the Canadian economy.’ How do we make that happen? We need consistent, better numbers.”

The historical impact of ag policy research

Experts say agricultural policy and economics research has quietly shaped many of the systems that underpin the competitiveness and stability of Canadian agriculture today.

Gray points to Canada’s business risk management framework, including crop insurance and AgriStability, as one example of economics research helping governments design programs that could support producers while remaining compliant with international trade rules.

On grain transportation, he says agricultural economists also played a major role in shaping what he believes is now one of the world’s most efficient grain handling and transportation systems.

“I think the system has resulted in a very efficient system with lots of investment,” he says.

Mussell points to the sector’s response to the BSE crisis in 2003 as another example of successful policy work helping contain economic damage within the cattle industry.

“I think BSE recovery is an underappreciated policy success,” he says. “[It] was still a very bad episode, obviously, but could have far worse.”

Despite this track record, Mussell says policy research often receives little public attention.

“I think it tends to get kind of taken for granted,” he says.

The funding disparity

Experts say policy and economics research does not attract the same level of funding as applied production science areas such as crop breeding, agrownomy and disease management.

Mussell says policy research can be a harder sell because, unlike research tied to labs, equipment or field trials, it is largely desk-based and focused on longer-term public benefits rather than immediate commercial returns.

Smyth says producer groups may also hesitate to fund policy research tied to trade access, regulation and long-term competitiveness because those areas are often viewed as government responsibilities or politically sensitive issues.

“Some farm organizations feel that they should not be involved in funding policy because they see that as the government’s responsibility,” Smyth says.

The structure of policy research can also create challenges. Unlike applied projects that may produce visible short-term results, policy analysis often requires years of lead time, graduate student recruitment and long-term data collection.

“There’s really no consistent pot of funding to incentivize this type of academic investigation,” Smyth says.

Risks of underfunding policy research

Experts warn that continued underfunding could weaken Canada’s ability to respond to trade disruptions, adapt regulations and remain globally competitive.

As one of the few countries capable of sustainably exporting significant food surpluses, Mussell says Canada holds an important strategic advantage — but only if it maintains the policy capacity needed to respond intelligently to complex challenges.

“I’d hate to think that we lost out because we weren’t smart enough to come up with the right solution,” he says. “But if you don’t have the capacity to do the policy research, then you run that risk.”

Gray says another concern is the gradual loss of trained personnel and institutional knowledge as economists retire and are not replaced.

“Within (AAFC), there’s been a mass reduction in the number of economists,” he says. “Trade economists became really scarce.”

That loss of expertise, he says, leaves fewer people available to evaluate trade disruptions and emerging policy challenges.

“We’re back to trying to figure out what is the impact of a Chinese embargo on Canadian rapeseed, and there’s not a lot of capacity within government or outside government to actually tackle those types of issues,” he says.

Rebuilding capacity

Despite these challenges, experts say rebuilding Canada’s agricultural policy research capacity is both possible and increasingly necessary.

Mussell argues policy research is fundamentally a public good and should remain a core government responsibility, though industry also has an important role to play.

“Should industry support policy research? Absolutely.”

Smyth believes one of the most effective solutions would be dedicated federal funding streams specifically designed to support long-term policy and economics research.

“If they came up with one pot of money and said, ‘we’re going to put up $10 million a year for five years,’ then I think we would see that taking on,” he says. “The easiest way to get academics to do things is to incentivize them with granting.”

Gray also points to earlier federal policy research networks that helped fund graduate students and strengthen connections between universities and government departments.

“That was a very powerful model that I would like to see come back,” he says.

Ultimately, Gray argues, the issue is not simply about academic research funding, but about whether Canada wants to maintain the long-term analytical capacity needed to adapt its agricultural systems to a rapidly changing world.

“If one per cent of the sector resources went to economists to plan for the future, that would be a huge increase in capacity,” he says. “But we don’t spend nearly that much.”