To date, only pesticides registered for use with drones — often called remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) — can legally be applied by drones. Almost none are registered for drone application.

WHY IT MATTERS: The proposed regulations would make many existing pesticides available for application by drone. To date, almost no products have been made available for legal application by drone — though anecdotal evidence suggests drone application is happening on the down low.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) proposes to allow currently registered products, where the label permits aerial application — that is, by fixed wing or rotary aircraft — to be applied by drone.

Applicators would need to comply with all the label directions for aerial application, including spray volume, application rate, droplet size, treatment interval and spray buffer zones.

When used according to aerial application instructions, the PMRA said, drone application is not expected to impact the value of the pesticide being applied.

Based on data from global studies, spray drift with drone application is similar to ground application. Spray buffer zones established for conventionally-piloted rotary wing aircraft will be adequate. The PMRA also said pesticide residues on food crops are not higher than with conventional applications.

The PMRA said there isn’t enough data for a full risk assessment on safety risks of operators exposure to pesticides; however, it says available evidence suggests it’s “unlikely to be higher than with conventional equipment” — particularly because tasks such as mixing, loading and application must be done by different people, just as with other aerial spraying.

Consultations opened on Feb. 23 and close March 25.

Drone pilots would still require the relevant licenses from Transport Canada.

PMRA passes five-year mark on regulation studies

The PMRA began studying drone regulations in 2019. In September, members of the federal standing committee on agriculture asked the PMRA’s senior director general Frédéric Bissonette what was taking so long.

Bissonette cited scientific issues — for example, that a drone did not behave the same as an airplane — and pledged to have “something in place for next year.”

“Canada seems to be kind of falling behind other jurisdictions in terms of allowing this type of use,” CropLife Canada CEO Pierre Petelle told Glacier FarmMedia in late 2025.

“With these products being used in many other western-type jurisdictions … there should be ways of coming to conclusions much quicker than we have,” he added.

Crop protection companies, meanwhile, have been conducting studies to collect drone-specific data for their products.

Anecdotal evidence suggested farmers were using already drones to apply pesticides on the down low.

The post Consultations open on expanded regulations for drone pesticide application appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That’s not exactly how researchers define the canopy architecture of wheat, but “eyeballing it” has been a key part of the process. With better imaging technology though, the hope is those assessments can reduce much of that subjectivity.

TerraByte Labs at the University of Winnipeg is refining a tool that can create 3D renderings of wheat plants and give precise measurements of their structure, detecting characteristics much earlier.

WHY IT MATTERS: The ability to create 3D scans of plants could speed up crop breeding through precise measurements and detection of minute differences in plant genotypes, potentially putting new, useful varieties in the hands of farmers faster.

That kind of plant architecture is one of the many genetic traits that crop breeders might select for when chasing a particular outcome. The angle at which wheat leaves grow is a good predictor of canopy structure — how floppy or erect the plants are — notes doctoral student Kalhari Manawasinghe. That in turn affects plant resilience to heat stress. More floppy plants equal less ability to shed heat and less airflow within the stand of wheat.

The imaging setup inside TerraByte Labs can precisely measure that leaf angle.

“You can imagine that breeders only need to grow their seedlings for one week, and then can predict what type of canopy architecture those plants will be,” said University of Saskatchewan plant science professor Karen Tanino. “That’s a big advantage.”

The making of an image

The setup is composed of a checkerboard-patterned turntable on a blue fabric backdrop. Four small cameras face the turntable at different angles.

Once fired up, a computer controls the turntable to spin a given plant, stop it at precise intervals, and take its picture. These photos become the basis of the plant’s 3D rendering, featuring precise metrics — like the height and radius of the plant, or the angle of the leaves.

“You take out that human bias out of these measurements,” said Michael Beck, assistant professor of applied computer science at the University of Winnipeg.

The process is called photogrammetry. It’s often used to create 2D or 3D models of buildings or bridges. Beck and his colleague, department of physics professor Chris Bidinosti, were inspired by museums that use photogrammetry to scan artifacts, a University of Winnipeg article says.

The turntable setup isn’t the only photography rig in the lab, but it’s the cheapest by an order of magnitude. It was built with relatively low-cost cameras and runs off an inexpensive Raspberry Pi single-board computer.

The whole setup cost about $2,000 — though Beck said they could do it cheaper. By comparison, the other rigs in the lab cost $70,000 and $20,000.

Wheat in 3D

It takes maybe 15 minutes for the photogrammetry setup to take pictures of each plant. Rendering the 3D image takes a lot longer — though this can be done automatically by a computer overnight, said Beck.

Students are researching how to shorten the process. Even as it is though, it could save plant breeders a lot of time.

Breeders may deal with hundreds of thousands of seedlings, Tanino said. There’s only so many people they can hire to help evaluate the structure of the plants. “Breeders are always looking for high throughput,” she noted.

Bits and (flea beetle) bites

At present, Manawasinghe sends seeds to Winnipeg to be grown and the plants photographed there, then compares results in the lab to plants she grows under high tunnels at the University of Saskatchewan.

The folks at TerraByte Labs are the experts in data extraction, Tanino said, so they leave that aspect of the research to the computer scientists.

Down the road, it may be feasible for the University of Saskatchewan to have their own photogrammetry setup. Bidinosti and Beck plan to develop more user-friendly software and to get the price of the rig down to around $1,000, the University of Winnipeg article says.

The setup can also be modified for other projects. One University of Manitoba student is working on a project that would scan wheat heads and detect each individual kernel. A similar system at the University of Manitoba is also being used to assess flea beetle damage.

The post 3D imaging takes guesswork out of wheat research appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This year marked the tenth anniversary of the event, held on Feb. 10, Canada’s Agriculture Day.

Farm Credit Canada CEO Justine Hendricks opened the packed conference by speaking to the need for unity in the sector.

“It’s been 10 years of working together to build a stronger industry, and we’ve been asking ourselves a really important question: how can we better feed our families, our communities? How can we better feed the world?” she said. “The theme of today’s conference is igniting the power of 10 and unleashing a new decade of action.”

Hendricks noted “2025 was a pretty unforgettable year, but sadly for all the wrong reasons.”

“[This year] is the year we must turn the page and make bold changes that respond to new global environment in which we find ourselves,” she said. “Each and every one of us in this room has a responsibility to do our unique part to drive this industry forward.”

“It’s doing it together,” Hendricks added. “That’s where we’re going to make a difference, because none of us can do it alone.”

Producer/business collaboration drives innovation

The theme of unity connected many of the day’s conversations.

In the morning’s first panel, investors and agribusiness leaders discussed the importance of collaboration for industry-wide success.

That collaboration must begin with understand the goals of four primary stakeholders in the agriculture system: farmers, tech startups, universities and nonprofits said Johnny Park, CEO of Wabash Heartland Innovation Network (WHIN), an American consortium dedicated to advancing tech adoption.

“The success of the ecosystem depends on how you align incentives for all those four stakeholders,” Park said.

Farmers often know they must adopt technology but don’t have the time or resources.

“The way we solve that is, as a nonprofit organization at WHIN, we do a very rigorous vetting process of all those technologies from around the world,” Park said. “That itself is very enticing for farmers to engage with us, because we are essentially becoming their R and D on their behalf.”

Technology companies want access to customers Park continued, “so, we enable that by having a network of farmers in our region who are incentivized to adopt their technology once they go through our vetting process.”

As for academics, Park said what they often want most is the ability to do research.

“The best way to do that is let the farmers use emerging technologies from around the world,” said Park.

This will raise problems for companies and farmers to solve with which universities can engage.

Park argued adoption, not invention, is what drives innovation. Policy should encourage farmers to take risks on tech.

“The farmer who adopts emerging technologies faster, judiciously, is going to win at the end.”

‘Unit economics’

Gustavo Bassetti, partner at investment service Just Climate, said his company often considers the whole food system when eyeing potential investments.

“We try to understand how the companies that we’re investing in are helping everyone succeed,” Bassetti said.

The firm looks at what Bassetti called “unit economics.”

“Can you do simple math and show to me this new technology or new product is going to make the farmer’s life better, and not necessarily add a line of cost that does not have a benefit?” he asked. “It sounds simple, but a lot of companies are unable to answer that question.”

Roger van Hoesel, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Dutch company Ecosystem Navigators, said he has seen new technologies stagnate or fail to find adopters when farmers are not consulted and considered in the process.

“In the Netherlands, we have seen fantastic technology,” van Hoesel said. “Close to my office is this company has a completely robotized greenhouse. Not a single person in it anymore. Still, it’s not being adopted yet, and it has to do with the fact that it was developed by people who are not farmers themselves.”

Innovators need to find farmers in the community who are open to their technology and have influence in their communities, he said.

In a later panel, Ashley Nicholls, Founder of REACH Agriculture Strategies echoed the need for farmers to be active participants in partnerships.

“When we’re talking about innovation, we’re talking about collaboration and getting people involved, I think that it needs to come from both sides,” Nicholls said.

“We need to be really paying attention to boots on the ground. We can develop all the best protocols in the world, we can develop all the best financial programs, all these amazing products, but if the end user, if the producer that is in the pen, that is in the tractor, if they aren’t willing to use it … the innovation side of things just kind of falls flat.”

How collaboration can drive public trust

Lisa Bishop-Spencer, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI), said collaboration can help win back public trust in the Canadian agri-food sector.

According to CCFI public sentiment research, trust in Canada’s food system has been shifting.

“For the longest time, maybe for the last nine years, farmers have been at the top in terms of trust and transparency,” said Bishop-Spencer. “This is the first year that we’ve seen scientists overcome farmers.”

She said this is a good sign, as it means those who are trusted to talk about the food system are being treated as more reliable.

“The importance of collaboration is the fact that when people don’t trust the food system, it affects the entire system,” she said. “It affects affordability, it affects food security, it affects food sovereignty and it affects innovation.”

A record low of Canadians had a positive impression of the food system in 2024. Those numbers saw a sharp turnaround in 2025, which Bishop-Spencer attributed largely to unity in the face of threats from the U.S.

“The question is, how do we leverage that and make it last? Because during crisis, we’re great and we’re well trusted, but how do we maintain that in times when we’re not in crisis?”

The next step in collaboration is to get more people talking about Canadian food. Trusted industry voices who talk about what they do can address some of the myths out there.

“It’s as simple as going on a live and just walking your barn and showing people what you do and telling the stories of who you are,” Bishop-Spencer said. “If they trust you, then they’ll trust your neighbor.”

She noted the new Canada’s Food System initiative, which she said is “aimed at elevating the food system from farming, from before farming, to all the way to retail and food service.”

Collaboration for red tape reduction

Collaboration is also integral to getting a message to the government regarding the sector’s concerns about red tape said Pierre Petelle, president and CEO of CropLife Canada.

“CropLife Canada has always been a big proponent of working in collaboration with the whole value chain, so from farmers to input providers to exporters and processors,” he said.

CropLife has over 40 member organizations, including Bayer, Nutrien and SeCan. Petelle said they have had concerns about predictability and a buildup of regulatory barriers.

Last summer, that sector sent a letter to federal leaders asking to work together on ideas “to really unleash Canadian agriculture,” Petelle said.

Petelle said this type of collaborative approach is something he expects to see CropLife members continue with.

“We know that if our members are enabled, they bring better technology that helps the farmer be more productive, that then helps the exporter export what the consumers want in other countries.”

The post Future of Food conference underscores need for unity in agriculture sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Another phase of the Universal Broadband Fund is underway, with 83,600 more rural homes around Alberta slated to have access to reliable high-speed internet.

“When we launched our broadband strategy, we set an ambitious goal — ensure every Albertan, no matter where they are in the province, has access to reliable, high-speed internet. This latest batch of projects brings Alberta to over 95 per cent of our goal and it shows just how far we’ve come. We are following through on our commitment to universal connectivity,” said Nate Glubish, minister of technology and innovation, in a Government of Alberta press release.

WHY IT MATTERS: No longer a want, but a basic need, reliable high-speed internet is crucial to remote rural agricultural operations as an economic driver.

The latest 27 projects announced will connect the 80,000-plus homes in 759 communities, including an estimated 3,488 Indigenous households. The Woodland Cree First Nation is building a fibre-to-the-home network for Cadotte Lake.

The latest phase of funding is split between the province ($112.4 million), the federal government ($136.9 million) and service provider partners ($124.2 million).

Since the strategy’s launch, the provincial and federal governments have invested over $622 million into 81 projects that have connected more than 135,000 homes. Fourteen broadband projects have been completed, 44 more are in progress and another 24 are in planning.

“In today’s day and age, every corner of Alberta should have access to reliable, affordable high-speed internet, whether that’s in Slave Lake or Beaver Mines. Investments like these make a real difference in people’s lives, creating jobs, improving access to health care and online learning services, and keeping us connected to our loved ones,” said Buckley Belanger, secretary of state (Rural Development), for the Government of Canada.

Alberta’s Broadband Strategy is designed to eliminate the digital divide by bringing high-speed internet access to Albertans in remote, rural and Indigenous communities — locations which have access challenges including distance from network infrastructure and challenging or remote terrain.

Construction on all broadband strategy projects will create up to 2,000 jobs. Reaching 100 per cent connectivity in Alberta will cost approximately $1 billion.

The post Rural Alberta gets further boost to internet connectivity appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Canada’s national standard for companies to voluntary label genetically modified foods is currently open for public review. Part of that involves comment on how gene editing should be defined within the standard and where they do, or do not, fit in the rules.

The federal consultation is accepting comments until Jan. 23.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canada has already ruled that gene-edited plants don’t need to meet the stricter threshold that genetically modified plants do to be approved for cultivation (as long as there’s no foreign DNA involved), and that gene-edited crops are safe for livestock feed. Now, the topic is entering the food labelling arena.

The standard in question is formally titled CAN/CGSB-32.315 Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering. It provides guidance on how food companies may decide to mark packaging as to whether products are or are not, products of genetic engineering. This standard is maintained by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB).

Canada does not require genetically engineered or gene-edited foods to be labelled differently from other foods, according to the federal government’s website. Claims are voluntary, although they must be truthful and not misleading under the Food and Drugs Act and related regulations.

According to the Standards Council of Canada, the purpose of the voluntary labelling standard is to provide a framework for truthful labelling, not to create mandatory requirements.

Edited versus modified

Industry groups such as the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) have noted that the federal government’s current proposal would draw a line between gene editing and genetic modification —similar to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s take on the subject in recent years. Seed and feed guidance in recent years have put gene-edited plants on largely the same regulatory ground as conventionally bred crops, unless foreign genetic material is being incorporated, in which case they’re back to needing a pre-market safety assessment and authorization before they hit the farmer’s field.

Those decisions have drawn ire from the organic sector, worried about contamination with their crops, and praise from much of the rest of the seed sector as a gateway to faster innovation and variety development.

The CHFA, meanwhile, says the new label proposal could allow foods made with gene-editing techniques to be marketed as not genetically engineered, despite gene editing being a form of genetic modification in scientific terms.

In a CHFA report released in October, the association argued that a majority of Canadians surveyed by the study believed gene editing is a form of genetic engineering and that labelling should disclose its use.

The post GMO food labelling review opens questions on gene editing appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

That’s what experts said at a recent Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) webinar. Panellists said the country’s agricultural innovation system needs major improvements if it hopes to keep pace with other leading food-producing nations.

Panellists disagreed on whether the situation already counts as a crisis, but all agreed that change is needed soon.

“When I think of innovation, it’s really part of a continuum,” said Darcy Pawlik, executive director of the Wheat Growers Association — one of the camp that does typify the innovations gap as a crisis.

“It starts with research … the universities are doing a great job. I think we’ve got a lot of successes that need to be celebrated.”

The problem, Pawlik added, is those successes often don’t carry through to commercialization or getting new technologies and ideas out into the field.

“I think that’s a good example of where we’re really faltering,” he said.

Furthermore, Pawlik argued, Canada has not done a good job building new agriculture-focused companies or supporting startups.

Among other arguments, industry has long suggested that Canada’s regulatory environment has not set a stage that encourages innovation, and there needs to be considerable streamlining to pave a smoother path for those advances.

A growing innovation gap

Canada’s performance in research and development (R&D) continues to decline internationally, listeners heard. The country dropped from 14th to 17th in the Global Innovation Index rankings this past year, said Omer Kaya, CEO of Global Advantage Consulting Group.

“We have a $26 billion a year gap when it comes to R&D expenditures in Canada, across all sectors of the economy,” Kaya said.

He said that Canada spends about $55 billion a year on research and development, equal to about 1.8 per cent of its gross domestic product. Of that, $33 billion comes from industry, $18.5 billion from universities and colleges, $2.7 billion from the federal government and around $500 million from provincial governments.

Most of the gap between Canada and other developed economies comes from lower business investment, Kaya noted. He added that Canada struggles to turn research into practical results, and that there needs to be better collaboration between researchers, developers and end users.

Agriculture’s quiet crisis

Within that wider challenge, agriculture has its own issues. Public investment in agricultural research has been declining for the past 40 years (21 per cent since the 1980s), and private-sector investment now represents only about one quarter of the total, the listeners heard.

Elisabeta Lika, a research associate with CAPI, described it as a gradual problem rather than a sudden collapse.

“I see this more as a quiet kind of crisis, one that is creeping through this underinvestment … (There’s) fragmentation, there’s missed opportunities,” Lika said.

She further argued that Canadian agriculture’s research infrastructure is getting long in the tooth.

“I see this more as a quiet kind of crisis, one that is creeping through this underinvestment …”

–Elisabeta Lika, Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute

Long-standing research institutions and commodity groups may feel the system is still functioning, she noted, but others in newer value chains say it is broken.

“I think that we can all agree that the system can and should deliver better to the sector,” Lika said.

Funding pressures hit universities

Angela Bedard, dean of the College of Agriculture and Bioresources at the University of Saskatchewan, said she tries to take a more balanced view.

“I tend not to be too much of an alarmist. I try to be a bit more of a pragmatic person,” Bedard said.

“Could we do better? Of course, absolutely, there’s lots of spaces where we are fragmented, but not completely shattered.”

Universities face tighter budgets as provincial funding declines and federal caps limit the number of international students, she said. Even in Saskatchewan, where space remains available, the policy changes have discouraged applications.

Aging research facilities are a particular challenge for agricultural research, which requires access to land, laboratories, and animal care facilities, she added. Maintaining and upgrading these facilities is costly, and even more so when trying to plan for the future rather than simply keeping pace with current practices.

Need for co-ordination and action

Canada also lacks clear data on how research and development funds are divided between basic, applied and experimental research and that makes it difficult to design effective policy, Kaya said.

Investment needs to extend beyond research itself to include modern equipment, intellectual property development and collaboration that allows people to work as a connected network rather than in isolation, he added.

“We work all as an individual, and we tend to work within an organization,” Kaya said.

“The sector is still exploring how to work effectively in networks and networks of networks.”

The three panellists agreed that fragmentation and lack of co-ordination are holding back progress.

Canada has national strategies for critical minerals, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, but not for agriculture, Kaya pointed out. Other countries, including Australia and the Netherlands, have established national plans for agricultural innovation.

Farm Credit Canada, meanwhile, estimates the Canadian economy could gain $30 billion over the next decade simply by matching the productivity growth of the previous decade, Kaya noted.

A call for leadership

Tyler McCann, CAPI’s managing director and moderator of the discussion, also noted that Canada does not yet have a national agricultural innovation plan.

Bedard suggested a “confederated” model that would share accountability among regions while maintaining national co-ordination. She said a fully federal approach could be viewed as too Ontario-focused and might create regional tensions, while a shared model would allow strong ideas developed in one region to be tested and applied in others.

Pawlik returned to Canada after working abroad and found multiple consultations taking place across government and industry, but all focused on maintaining the status quo.

“I think what we’ve seen to date is that we always defer, and it’s just these little tweaks that don’t really move the needle,” he said.

He argued that Canada must set clear goals and hold itself accountable in a competitive global environment.

Lika agreed that government leadership is essential, especially when it comes to stable funding and regulatory frameworks. She compared it to how provinces eased trade barriers during COVID-19, which helped some businesses but did not fundamentally change the system. The lesson, she said, is that co-ordination should allow the best ideas to rise naturally rather than trying to pick winners in advance.

Canada cannot afford to spend years developing strategies that are never put into action, Kaya believes.

Canada needs a bold agricultural innovation plan that brings together governments, universities, businesses, Indigenous communities and value chains across the country, he added.

The post Canada’s agricultural innovation in crisis? appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Italy’s rich culinary traditions may have just gained UNESCO heritage status, but the Nutri3D project by the country’s public research agency ENEA shows scientists are out to push boundaries in the quest for sustainable, nutrient-rich snacks.

Prototypes include snack bars and glossy “honey pearls” designed to preserve flavour and nutritional value.

“In a world where arable land is shrinking and climate change forces us to rethink food production, the goal is to keep making what we are used to eating,” said Silvia Massa, head of ENEA’s Agriculture 4.0 lab.

The aim “is not to grow the plant itself, but its cells,” she added.

‘Italians add creativity’

Northern Europe has led early efforts, with Finnish labs producing fruit compotes from cell cultures and researchers in Zurich developing cocoa-like flavourings.

“We Italians add creativity, combining cellular food with recovered by-products,” Massa said, referring to the fruit residues from jam production for example.

The project is run with EltHub — an Italian private technology R&D firm that is part of ELT Group — and Rigoni di Asiago, a family-owned company specializing in organic food products.

At EltHub in the central region of Abruzzo, ENEA’s plant-based “inks” are shaped using a 3D printer.

An ENEA survey found 59 per cent of respondents willing to try such foods.

The technology could also be useful in resource-scarce settings, such as space or in conflict zones, said EltHub director Ermanno Petricca, dubbing the snacks “fruit for astronauts”.

ENEA is also testing microgreens and nano-tomatoes for space cultivation.

On Earth, 3D food printing could enable tailored nutrition for people with dietary restrictions. A plant-based steakhouse in Rome, Impact Food, is already offering 3D-printed sliced meat on its menu.

— Reporting by Matteo Negri

The post Italy crafts lab-grown snacks with fruit residues, plant cells and a 3D printer appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Selling genetically engineered seeds to home gardeners is reckless and could jeopardize our ability to provide customers with organic and other non-GE choices,” said Mel Sylvestre, an organic farmer from Gibsons, B.C., in a statement from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN).

CBAN has been vocally critical against GMOs and gene editing in foods.

This August, U.S.-based Norfolk Healthy Produce received Health Canada’s approval to bring The Purple Tomato to Canada. The tomato has had traits from snapdragons added to its genetic makeup. This causes its deep purple colour and increases the amount of an antioxidant called anthocyanin.

Contamination fears

CBAN coordinator Lucy Sharrat said that as of Dec. 2, seeds for the purple tomato were listed in Norfolk’s online seed store but were marked as sold out. On Dec. 18, the seeds appeared to no longer be listed.

The fear is that if genetically modified produce is widely grown across Canada, this will raise the risk of contaminating other varieties. This is a problem for organic farmers, who cannot grow genetically-modified crops under the Canadian Organic Standards.

Organic groups have also said cross-contamination concerns could lessen the standards’ credibility and hamper export opportunities.

CBAN is calling for mandatory labelling of genetically-engineered seeds as is the Canadian Organic Trade Association.

“With no GE garden seeds previously on the market in Canada, gardeners may not expect these seeds to be GE and would not have clear indications that identify them as GE at the point of purchase,” said the association’s executive director Tia Loftsgard in a statement.

On its website, Norfolk Healthy Produce frequently calls its plants “bioengineered,” which is in keeping with U.S. labelling conventions according to a ‘frequently asked questions’ page. Its seeds are currently only for sale on its website, it said.

Seed sovereignty

CBAN said the introduction of genetically-engineered seeds could also threaten the ability of growers to save seeds and cultivate heritage varieties.

“Our customers want to buy the seeds we’ve nurtured on our farm, not patented seeds from corporate laboratories,” said Kim Delaney, founder of Hawthorn Farm Organic Seeds in Mount Forest, Ontario.

“We should reinforce our local seed systems and reject genetically engineered seeds from U.S. and multinational biotechnology companies. Canadian seed sovereignty should be a priority for all levels of government.”

“We don’t need or want genetic engineering in our gardens,” Delaney added. “We already have many good varieties of purple tomatoes.”

A group of 163 farmers signed a statement in opposition to the sale of genetically-engineered or gene-edited seeds to Canadian gardeners and small growers.

The post Selling GMO tomato seeds to Canadian gardeners ‘reckless’ say advocates appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Ellis, 38, a fourth-generation farmer in Wawanesa, Manitoba, credits investments in pricey systems including minimum and zero-till farming which help protect soil; tile drainage, an underground system to prevent flooding; slow-release fertilizer pellets which are more effective, and advice from a professional agronomist on weedkillers.

“We are constantly making little tweaks,” he said. “That’s how we’re going to be able to keep fighting the changing climate.”

Across much of western Canada, farmers like Ellis have been turning out strikingly better crops despite hotter and drier conditions — far above what farmers in the region could have expected in better conditions years ago, according to Canadian government data, thanks in part to widespread embrace of climate adaptation strategies.

While greater yields in Canada and elsewhere are depressing global prices for grains, they are keeping many farmers in business.

Record harvests despite drought

Adaptation practices – which tend to be costly and require cutting edge technologies – have enabled many farmers to ride out a drought that began in 2020.

Earlier this month, the Canadian government announced record harvests of spring wheat and canola for 2025. And because most of the grains produced in Canada are shipped and consumed abroad, those gains have major implications for the rest of the world’s ability to feed itself affordably.

Australia, another large global grain exporter, has also reported rising crop yields despite drier conditions.

This combination of methods and technology is not just helping Canadian growers keep up with climate change, but stay ahead of its ravages, according to interviews with 25 farmers, scientists and agriculture industry leaders, and a review of more than a dozen academic papers.

Spring wheat, used to make high-quality bread, yielded 58.8 bushels per acre this year, according to the government data release. That’s a gain of 77 per cent from 30 years ago, based on a three-year average. Canola yields nearly doubled, reaching 44.7 bushels per acre, also based on a 1994-1996 average.

While most climate science paints a bleak picture for global food supply, with a study in Nature this year forecasting up to 40 per cent reduction in North America’s wheat harvest by 2100, the agricultural experts Reuters interviewed said that with climate adaptation strategies the Prairies can continue to produce bigger and bigger crops in the future.

“Back in the day, 30, 35 bushels an acre (for wheat) would have been a bumper crop,” said Rob Saik, a Canadian agronomist who has consulted with governments all over the world. “Now it’s an abject failure.”

A notoriously difficult region

Even before climate change brought more unpredictable and extreme weather, western Canada was a notoriously difficult region to farm.

The central Prairies, a land of green and golden short grasses and thin, scrubby brush, get only about half as much rainfall as Iowa, and have a much shorter growing season. Climate change has made it even harder. Environment and Climate Change Canada says the country is warming at double the global average and that extreme events have become more common. On the Prairies, annual snowfall, a key source of spring moisture, has declined and summer extremes of rain and drought have increased, with rain often coming in enormous torrents, or not at all.

“Extreme events, like floods, heatwaves, wildfires, and severe storms, are increasingly damaging to our economy, ecosystems and built environment,” the federal department said in a 2024 report.

Incremental gains, not miracles

Scientists and agronomists say Canada’s gains don’t come from a single, dramatic factor, but from steady, incremental progress with farming methods and inputs.

Many seeds now come stacked with insect, disease and weed resistance, thanks to conventional breeding as well as genetic modification. Fertilizer application is designed to minimize disturbance to the soil surface by being placed at the same time as the seed goes in.

Fungicides, weedkillers and nutrients allow crops to outcompete their natural enemies.

Some of the strategies recall pre-industrial practices, such as intercropping, growing multiple crops at the same time.

Experts also credit automation such as self-guiding tractors that apply fertilizer at different rates based on soil tests and satellite mapping.

One family’s adaptation evolution

The Mowbray family ventured into adaptive practices four decades ago with tile drainage, laying a small stretch of perforated pipe designed to take the water down into the soil rather than spread it across the surface.

Over the last 12 years, Scott Mowbray, 46, has expanded the drainage system to about 800 acres of his land.

Meanwhile, the Mowbrays gradually took up minimum till. By 2010, the 2,000-acre farm was entirely no-till, leaving the soil unplowed and with stubble standing as a moisture trap and a barrier against the wind that otherwise carries the topsoil away.

The innovations allow the Mowbrays to “pull off yields twice what we used to with half as much rain,” Mowbray said, producing “incredible” volumes of spring wheat, peas and rye.

Technology’s steep price tag

Much of what has allowed Canadian farmers to deal with climate change involves expensive and complex equipment. A smart combine costs upwards of $1 million. A high-speed-data-enabled tractor and seeding drill cost around $2 million.

Kip Eideberg, senior vice president of government and industry relations for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, which represents John Deere DE , Case New Holland CNH and other manufacturers, said precision systems have saved Canadian farmers nine per cent in herbicide and pesticides, six per cent in fuel, and four per cent in water use. That saves money for farmers operating on razor-thin margins, he said.

Most large-scale farmers have access to such technology in their tractors, combines, sprayers and management computers, Terry Griffin, a Kansas State University agricultural economist, said. But an older generation of farmers often doesn’t want to take on digital challenges, while younger farmers don’t have the money for machines or agronomic advice.

One obstacle to greater adoption is rural broadband access. Mowbray can’t count on being able to run a constant stream of data from his big farm machines. He can’t even call his farmhouse from his cellphone. His farm relies on two-way radios instead.

“It’s a simple thing but hugely important when you are in the field and might need a pick-up but can’t get a call through to the house,” he said.

Seed science – the invisible factor

Another equally important factor for farmers’ gains: breeding genetically superior crops that are hardier, drought-tolerant and produce bigger yields.

“We’re just starting down that path,” said Rick Mitzel, CEO of farmer-and-industry-funded mustard seed development organization Mustard 21. The company is developing drought-tolerant plants as an alternative to canola. The varieties “come out of the ground quicker, develop roots quicker, get leafing faster,” Mitzel told Reuters in an interview.

The farmer-controlled South East Research Farm in Redvers, Saskatchewan has been testing crops such as camelina, which is most likely to be planted in Canada for sustainable aviation fuel, that could offer farmers better yields and more resilience.

Executive director Lana Shaw doesn’t think climate change will happen without losses to the Canadian farm community. Some farmers will choose to not adapt and will simply retire. Some will adapt and fail. And some farmers will adapt and thrive.

“Under pressure,” she said, “they can adapt very fast.”

The post How Canada’s farmers are producing record crops despite droughts and floods appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

A grain drying system was on the list in late October when the RCMP reported a string of incidents where internet accessible control systems had been hacked.

In one case, water pressure values were tampered with at a community water facility, an Oct. 29 release noted. False alarms plagued an oil-and-gas company after hackers got access to a automated tank gauge. In the case of the farm, temperature and humidity levels were altered — a potentially dangerous prospect when it comes to grain dryers.

WHY IT MATTERS: Grain dryer settings are carefully controlled to reduce the risks of a dryer fire.

Ottawa warned that many of these systems in use on farms are old and have outdated security features, which allow hackers to gain access to them and then into other programs controlled by the same device.

Hacks have taken various forms from malicious damage to ransomware attacks.

According to a 2024 survey by MNP, farms may be particularly vulnerable to these types of attacks, with hackers targeting the various internet accessible control systems used, such as grain bin monitoring or automated dairy barn systems. Adding to that vulnerability, the survey found 80 per cent of the 541 farms in the study had no security plan in place.

“(Farmers) are rapidly modernizing things with connected tractors and remote sensors with everything automated, like watering bowls and grain dryers” says Tyler Moffitt, senior security analyst at OpenText Cybersecurity.

“The problem with many of these systems is they were never designed to be connected to the internet. They’re decades old, designed to last 20 years and not fend off modern tactics and modern criminals.

“Hackers, whether it’s for money or activism, know this and they probe for misconfigured or unauthenticated access every day. That’s usually how they get in.”

That means these older control systems provide an easy gateway to gain access to a farm’s digital system. And once in, they can then infiltrate other programs and software.

“Hackers don’t struggle,” he adds.

“They have no problem getting in through these exposed services. A lot of the time it’s weak or absent log-in protection. We see this all the time.”

Big picture problem

Moffitt said the vulnerability of these older control systems is so significant that hackers could disrupt food and agricultural management systems on a national scale.

These kinds of attacks have caused serious damage at chemical plants and other types of industrial operations just by something as simple as disrupting temperature controls, causing explosions or other damage.

Historically, hackers were motivated by activism, such as animal rights groups, but now attacks are primarily motivated by money through ransomware.

“They cut off your (file) access and demand payment to restore them,” says Moffitt.

While paying these extortionists isn’t a guarantee they will restore files and service, Moffitt says most of the time they do.

“The ransom or extortion racket wouldn’t have any credence and no one would pay if they didn’t get operations back,” he says.

“So around 95 per cent (do).”

Anatomy of a hack

Many times these criminal hackers frame it as involuntary security testing, providing a victim with a breakdown of how they got in and what needs to be done to protect from further attacks.

“Which is kind of crazy,” adds Moffitt.

“It’s bottom of the barrel ethics justifying what they did. In the ransom note, they try and phrase it as if they’re doing you a service.”

Many attacks come from groups associated with unfriendly countries, such as Russia and North Korea. The number and co-ordination of attacks on infrastructure tends to increase when hostilities break out, such as the invasion of Ukraine.

After an announcement that Canada was pledging some material support for Ukraine, a railway was attacked by one of these groups.

Major farm equipment manufacturers such as Agco and Lemken have also been victimized.

However, other criminal groups are also engaging in hacks.

Are you at risk?

Moffitt says farmers should consider the older control systems they have to be the most vulnerable.

Passwords and access configurations should never be left as they were when installed with default settings, he says. Hackers can actually look those up and start an attempted hack from there. Despite that, he has found it common for many users to still use default settings, providing hackers an easy entry point.

Segmenting access to different online operations, keeping access to various software separate, such as through a VLAN (virtual local area network), can limit the damage from a hack.

If possible, removing systems from internet access removes the risk of hacker getting in through them.

“Set up secure gateways, rather than open ports,” Moffitt suggests.

“Multi-factor authentication is probably the biggest single thing you can do stop them.”

That involves authorizing access through two or more ways such as with an online password verified by a text sent to a cellphone at an predetermined number.

“Identity is the new perimeter,” Moffitt says.

“It’s the new attack (method) criminals are going after.”

The post Older farm technology may risk hacker attack appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.