review of beef, feed and forage research and development ... · final report – june 18, 2012...

Review of Beef, Feed and Forage Research and DevelopmentActivities in Saskatchewan

Prepared For: Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture

Prepared By: MNP LLPSuite 900 - 2010 11

thAvenue

Regina, SK S4P 0J3

MNP Contact: Craig Gates, MPAPractice Leader, MNP ConsultingPhone: 306.790.7943Fax: 306.790.7990Email: [email protected]

Jonathan Small, BSc., PAgFarm Management ConsultingPhone : 403.356.1281Fax : 403.341.5599Email : [email protected]

Date: June 18, 2012

FINAL REPORT – June 18, 2012

REVIEW OF BEEF, FEED AND FORAGE

SASKATCHEWAN

1.0 Glossary of Terms................................

2.0 Executive Summary ................................

2.1 Methodology................................

2.2 Key Findings................................

2.3 Recommendations ................................

3.0 Introduction................................

3.1 History of the Strategic Research Program

4.0 Project Methodology................................

4.1 Communications Strategy

4.2 Review of Background

4.3 Focus Groups................................

4.4 On-Site Tours and Program Reviews

4.5 Meetings with SRP Chairs

4.6 Interviews ................................

4.7 Producer Survey................................

4.8 Written Submissions................................

4.9 Comparative Research

5.0 Key Findings ................................

5.1 Effectiveness of Current Research and Development Activities

5.2 Future Research and Development Needs and Priorities

5.3 Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure

5.4 Governance................................

6.0 Recommendations ................................

Appendix A – Summary of Stakeholder Consultations

Appendix B – Stakeholder Interview Guide

Appendix C – List of Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix D – Future Research Priorities and Topics Identified during Interviews

Appendix E – Focus Group Facilitation Guide

Appendix F – Focus Group Summaries

Appendix G – Written Submission Guide

Appendix H – Written Submissions

Appendix I – Producer Survey Instrument

Appendix J – Survey Data

Appendix K – Communications and Media Materials

ORAGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.......................................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

History of the Strategic Research Program................................................................

................................................................................................

Communications Strategy ..............................................................................................

Review of Background Materials....................................................................................

................................................................................................

Site Tours and Program Reviews ................................................................

th SRP Chairs..............................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

Comparative Research................................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................

Effectiveness of Current Research and Development Activities................................

Future Research and Development Needs and Priorities................................

Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure ................................................................

....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................

Summary of Stakeholder Consultations

Stakeholder Interview Guide

List of Stakeholder Interviews

Future Research Priorities and Topics Identified during Interviews

Focus Group Facilitation Guide

Focus Group Summaries

n Submission Guide

Written Submissions

Producer Survey Instrument

nd Media Materials

Table of Contents

.......................1

....................................................2

.....................................................2

.....................................................3

...........................................5

................................12

....................................13

.................................................15

..............................15

....................16

.................................................16

............................................17

..............................17

.......................17

.............................................18

.......................................21

...................................21

..............................22

....................................22

..............................................25

..........................................27

....................28

....................33



SASKATCHEWAN

1.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ADF – Agriculture Development Fund

ADOPT – Agricultural Demonstration of Practices and Technologies

ALMA – Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency

APAS – Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan

ARDI – Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative

ARIO – Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario

BCRC – Beef Cattle Research Council

BCTRU – Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

CDC – Crop Development Centre

FTRF – Feed Technology Research Facility

LOI – Letter of Intent

MAFRI – Manitoba Agri-Food and Rural Initiatives

MAS – Manitoba Association of Soc

Ministry – Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture

MNP – MNP LLP

PAMI – Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

SCA – Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association

SFC – Saskatchewan Forage Council

SMA – Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture

SPARC – Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre

SRP – Strategic Research Program

SSGA – Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association

TAG – Theme Advisory Groups

U of S – University of Saskatchewan

VIDO – Vaccine Infectious Disease Organization

WBDC – Western Beef Development Centre


ERMS

Agriculture Development Fund

Demonstration of Practices and Technologies

Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency

Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan

Food Research and Development Initiative

Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario

Beef Cattle Research Council

Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

Feed Technology Research Facility

Food and Rural Initiatives

Manitoba Association of Societies

Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture

Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association

Saskatchewan Forage Council

Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture

arid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre

Strategic Research Program

Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association

University of Saskatchewan

Vaccine Infectious Disease Organization

Beef Development Centre

Page l 1



SASKATCHEWAN

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Agriculture and Food are important industries in Saskatchewan.products in the Province amount toapproximately $1.04 billion of this.

2

in the Province and includes feed grains2010 study by the Saskatchewan Forage CouncilIndustry, the direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being inthe region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3billion of benefits. Collectively, albeit from tbetween 15% and 20% of the direct agricultural benefits in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In order to support the Agriculture and Food industries and to maintain a competitive edge, theSaskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (SMAdevelopment activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feedand forage sector in order to develop new, and improve upon existinforage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic ResearchProgram (SRP) and research infrastructure.

In support of the dedicated funding for beef, feed and forage research and develrecognized the need for full review of the current beef, feed and forage research and developmentactivities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and developmentand an evaluation of whether a newforage research and development activities.

To address this need, the SMA engaged MNP LLP (MNP) to develop a consultation model in order to:

provide a full understanding of the contributiondevelopment activities as they relate to the

understand the future short-

determine the physical and intellectualdevelopment activities in Saskatchewan; and

create a governance model that willactivities and science and technology transfer/commercialization with agric

2.1 METHODOLOGY

In order to conduct the review, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNP andsupplemented by detailed data analysis. Major project activities included:

Review of background materials, existing funding

Two producer focus groups

Tour and review of the programs aDevelopment Centre (WBDC)

In-person meetings with the threeChair; review research programs and five

12011 June Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada.

2Statistics Canada, C. May 2012.


UMMARY

Agriculture and Food are important industries in Saskatchewan. Annual cash sales of agriculturalce amount to approximately $9.37 billion.

1The cattle industry accounts for

The primary feedstock of the cattle industry is forage (which is grownand includes feed grains), making the two sectors mutually dependent on each

2010 study by the Saskatchewan Forage Council (SFC) entitled The Value of Saskatchewan’s Foragethe direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being in

the region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3billion of benefits. Collectively, albeit from two different sources, the beef and forage sectors account forbetween 15% and 20% of the direct agricultural benefits in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In order to support the Agriculture and Food industries and to maintain a competitive edge, theewan Ministry of Agriculture (SMA or Ministry) invests over $19.5 million

development activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feedand forage sector in order to develop new, and improve upon existing, technologies for Saskatchewan’sforage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic ResearchProgram (SRP) and research infrastructure.

dedicated funding for beef, feed and forage research and develrecognized the need for full review of the current beef, feed and forage research and developmentactivities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and developmentand an evaluation of whether a new governance model could improve the outcome from beef, feed andforage research and development activities.


provide a full understanding of the contribution of current beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment activities as they relate to the competitiveness of producers;

- and long-term research and development needs and priorities

determine the physical and intellectual infrastructure needed to support research anddevelopment activities in Saskatchewan; and

model that will improve the outcomes from the research and developmentactivities and science and technology transfer/commercialization with agricultural producers.

, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNP andsupplemented by detailed data analysis. Major project activities included:

Review of background materials, existing funding agreements and performance reports

Two producer focus groups

the programs at the University of Saskatchewan (U of S)Development Centre (WBDC) and Feed Technology Research Facility (FTRF)

person meetings with the three SRP chairs, the additional endowed Chair and Beef IndustryChair; review research programs and five-year research plans

Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada.

Page l 2

Annual cash sales of agriculturalThe cattle industry accounts for

The primary feedstock of the cattle industry is forage (which is grownthe two sectors mutually dependent on each other. In a

The Value of Saskatchewan’s Foragethe direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being in

the region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3wo different sources, the beef and forage sectors account for

between 15% and 20% of the direct agricultural benefits in the Province of Saskatchewan.

In order to support the Agriculture and Food industries and to maintain a competitive edge, theover $19.5 million in research and

development activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feedg, technologies for Saskatchewan’s

forage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic Research

dedicated funding for beef, feed and forage research and development, the SMArecognized the need for full review of the current beef, feed and forage research and developmentactivities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and development infrastructure

governance model could improve the outcome from beef, feed and


of current beef, feed and forage research and

needs and priorities;

needed to support research and

improve the outcomes from the research and developmentultural producers.

, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNP and

eements and performance reports

t the University of Saskatchewan (U of S), Western Beef

chairs, the additional endowed Chair and Beef Industry



SASKATCHEWAN

Interviews with key SMA officials and project leaders, industry associations, and other organizedparties

Province-wide online producer

Solicitation and review of written submissions

Comparative research

Development of detailed findings

Development of a full report for the SMA

2.2 KEY FINDINGS

It is important to note that the process to obtain information from stakeholders was bothqualitative. Information and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt werenecessary to investigate further. MNP used a set of standard topics and questions for all stakeholders;however, each interview was providedThis approach resulted in diverse set of information that better informed the report’s key findings andrecommendations than if the questionnaire was strictly adhered with.

Much of the consultation process was discussion based and recorded by hand; therefore, while verbatimcomments were recorded at times, a significant amount of stakeholder consultation documentationincludes summaries of the key items discussed. MNP recognizes thatduring the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholders.Appendix A provides a summary ofincluding stakeholders perceptions of the program which may not always have been accurate. The factualnature of information was refined forthe consultation process were determined primarily by the recurrencethat emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying keyfindings we believe were relevant to the objectives of the study.

The key findings from all stakeholder consultationaccording to the study’s four review areas.report on each of these key findings.

Effectiveness of Current Research and Development Activities

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also soughtstakeholders’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of thetechnologies.

Overall, stakeholders indicated that current beef, feed and forage research and development activities areeffective. For example, data from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producerstrongly agreed that the activities are effective and relevant activities for them as producers; 55.1%agreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of theiroperations. Ultimately, an “evolution”, not a “revolution”, would be required to make these activities moreeffective and beneficial for producers. The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pullmany producers out of a BSE mindset that focuses on break even operatversus a long-term mindset that focuses on strategic investments and value creation.

The key findings related to program effectiveness are as follows:

Research and development priorities should be industry driven

Greater emphasis on the value of technologies is needed


Interviews with key SMA officials and project leaders, industry associations, and other organized

wide online producer survey




It is important to note that the process to obtain information from stakeholders was bothqualitative. Information and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt werenecessary to investigate further. MNP used a set of standard topics and questions for all stakeholders;however, each interview was provided flexibility to focus on relevant topics of interest to each individual.This approach resulted in diverse set of information that better informed the report’s key findings andrecommendations than if the questionnaire was strictly adhered with.

the consultation process was discussion based and recorded by hand; therefore, while verbatimcomments were recorded at times, a significant amount of stakeholder consultation documentationincludes summaries of the key items discussed. MNP recognizes that some of the comments heardduring the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholders.Appendix A provides a summary of main points for “what we heard” through the consultation process,

perceptions of the program which may not always have been accurate. The factualwas refined for MNP’s analysis and the formation of the key findings. Key findings of

the consultation process were determined primarily by the recurrence and/or significance of the themesthat emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying keyfindings we believe were relevant to the objectives of the study.

The key findings from all stakeholder consultation activities are listed provided below and groupedfour review areas. There is additional detail provided in the main body of the

report on each of these key findings.

Effectiveness of Current Research and Development Activities

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also soughtstakeholders’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of these activities and the transfer of the resulting

Overall, stakeholders indicated that current beef, feed and forage research and development activities areFor example, data from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producer

strongly agreed that the activities are effective and relevant activities for them as producers; 55.1%agreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of their

olution”, not a “revolution”, would be required to make these activities moreeffective and beneficial for producers. The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pullmany producers out of a BSE mindset that focuses on break even operations and risk management,

term mindset that focuses on strategic investments and value creation.

related to program effectiveness are as follows:

Research and development priorities should be industry driven

sis on the value of technologies is needed

Page l 3


It is important to note that the process to obtain information from stakeholders was both quantitative andqualitative. Information and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt werenecessary to investigate further. MNP used a set of standard topics and questions for all stakeholders;

flexibility to focus on relevant topics of interest to each individual.This approach resulted in diverse set of information that better informed the report’s key findings and

the consultation process was discussion based and recorded by hand; therefore, while verbatimcomments were recorded at times, a significant amount of stakeholder consultation documentation

some of the comments heardduring the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholders.

“what we heard” through the consultation process,perceptions of the program which may not always have been accurate. The factual

MNP’s analysis and the formation of the key findings. Key findings ofand/or significance of the themes

that emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying key

activities are listed provided below and groupedThere is additional detail provided in the main body of the

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also sought

se activities and the transfer of the resulting

Overall, stakeholders indicated that current beef, feed and forage research and development activities areFor example, data from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producers either agreed or

strongly agreed that the activities are effective and relevant activities for them as producers; 55.1%agreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of their

olution”, not a “revolution”, would be required to make these activities moreeffective and beneficial for producers. The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pull

ions and risk management,



SASKATCHEWAN

More robust/modernized technology transfer is required

An improved project approval process is required

Balance between pure (or basic) and applied research is required

Beef, feed and forage research and developmechain basis

The governance model for project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation andtechnology transfer needs improvement

Increased collaboration is required across jurisdictions and bet

Future Research and Development Needs and Priorities

As part of the review, stakeholdersdevelopment priorities should be in Saskatchewanare as follows:

When asked, the industry is not short of ideas for future priorities

Not all of the future priorities involve the laboratory or in

The predominant area of interest for research involves forage

Recognition and monetization of environmental benefits is needed

Forage research, to be done properly, should take into account a sometimes longer productioncycle than other crops and, in this case, the need to restore momentum to the forage programlost when funding was restricted

Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investmfindings are listed below.

Overall, Saskatchewan has strong physical and intellectual infrastructure for beef, feed andforage research and development

There are worsening gaps for forage research capacity

There is recognized need for a mode

There is an opportunity for greater collaboration and coordination throughout the research phaseof a project

There should be increased producer alignment for the WBDC

Need to ensure proactive succession management for

Governance

Input regarding the current state and future state governance model and practices were gathered fromstakeholders. The governance theme was the one in which we gathered the least amount of input fromparticipants. Our primary research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativegovernance models in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster modperspective for evaluating the current and potential future state.

Highlighted below are the key findings we have identified related to governance based on our stakeholderconsultations and supporting secondary research.


robust/modernized technology transfer is required

An improved project approval process is required

Balance between pure (or basic) and applied research is required

Beef, feed and forage research and development should be together and organized on a supply

The governance model for project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation andtechnology transfer needs improvement

Increased collaboration is required across jurisdictions and between funders

Future Research and Development Needs and Priorities

, stakeholders were asked what the future beef, feed and foragein Saskatchewan. Key findings from stakeholder consultation activities

the industry is not short of ideas for future priorities

Not all of the future priorities involve the laboratory or in-vivo research

The predominant area of interest for research involves forage

ion and monetization of environmental benefits is needed

research, to be done properly, should take into account a sometimes longer productioncycle than other crops and, in this case, the need to restore momentum to the forage program

ding was restricted

Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investm

Overall, Saskatchewan has strong physical and intellectual infrastructure for beef, feed andforage research and development

There are worsening gaps for forage research capacity

There is recognized need for a modern teaching research feedlot facility

There is an opportunity for greater collaboration and coordination throughout the research phase

There should be increased producer alignment for the WBDC

Need to ensure proactive succession management for research leaders

Input regarding the current state and future state governance model and practices were gathered fromstakeholders. The governance theme was the one in which we gathered the least amount of input from

research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativegovernance models in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster modperspective for evaluating the current and potential future state.


Page l 4

nt should be together and organized on a supply-

The governance model for project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation and

beef, feed and forage research andconsultation activities

research, to be done properly, should take into account a sometimes longer productioncycle than other crops and, in this case, the need to restore momentum to the forage program

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investments. The key

Overall, Saskatchewan has strong physical and intellectual infrastructure for beef, feed and

There is an opportunity for greater collaboration and coordination throughout the research phase

Input regarding the current state and future state governance model and practices were gathered fromstakeholders. The governance theme was the one in which we gathered the least amount of input from

research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativegovernance models in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster models as additional

Highlighted below are the key findings we have identified related to governance based on our stakeholder



SASKATCHEWAN

Most stakeholders consulted are unaware of how the current governance model works

There is a significant opportunity to establish clear, measurable priorities for the AgriculturalDevelopment Fund (ADF)

There is strong interest in additional project application windows a

There are opportunities to encourage and incent increased collaboration through the governancemodel of the research program

2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the information gathered to date from stakeholder consultations andexperience and knowledge, MNP arrived at the following set of recommendations. Theserecommendations are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the research program and to support asustainable and profitable beef, feed and forageinclude a mix of opportunities that can enable longhave included a set of recommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of theprogram while long-term planning is initiated and undertaken. It is important to underline that theserecommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current program and its strongfoundations.

2.3.1 Recommendations to Enable Long

The following recommendations are specific to enabling longrecommendations are specific to longimmediately to begin implementation. The recommendations have been organistrategy and policy, infrastructure and operations.

Strategy and Policy

This first set of recommendations is specific to establishing a bold new vision for the industry that canlead to transformative outcomes.

1. Establish a 20-Year Vision to Transform the Economics of the Industry

Establish a clear and measurable 20that describe how the future economic model of the industry should be structuredasking the question, “what do we want the industry to be?” There is an important opportunity toachieve a transformative change for the industry that will act as a catalyst for breakthroughresearch. It is time for the beef, feed and forage sectors to seek thechange that has re-shaped the economics of other sectors like the canola industry. For example,it was noted by one stakeholder that a Washington State University study by Jude Capper foundthat in 1977 it took 5 cows to produfeed for each pound of gain, 12% less water per pound of gain and 33% less land per pound ofgain. The result is 16% less inputs per cow and a corresponding 16% reduction in the wastecoming out. An example of a bold 20the production footprint by a further 10define a new economic model for the industry. Other examples of visionary goalslike reducing average input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animal to a specificlevel; exceeding today’s hormoneindustry engagement amongsttransfer program; bringing ten new grass/forage varieties to market; or solving the challenge ofbloat with alfalfa feeding. These are examples of potential longis long and the point of thisresearchers to reach them.


rs consulted are unaware of how the current governance model works

There is a significant opportunity to establish clear, measurable priorities for the Agricultural

There is strong interest in additional project application windows and collaborative project design

There are opportunities to encourage and incent increased collaboration through the governancemodel of the research program

Based upon the information gathered to date from stakeholder consultations and research, plus our ownexperience and knowledge, MNP arrived at the following set of recommendations. Theserecommendations are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the research program and to support asustainable and profitable beef, feed and forage industry in Saskatchewan. The recommendationsinclude a mix of opportunities that can enable long-term success for the program. At the same time, wehave included a set of recommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of the

term planning is initiated and undertaken. It is important to underline that theserecommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current program and its strong

Recommendations to Enable Long-Term Success

following recommendations are specific to enabling long-term success. Although theserecommendations are specific to long-term success, there are action items that can be undertakenimmediately to begin implementation. The recommendations have been organized into three categories:strategy and policy, infrastructure and operations.

This first set of recommendations is specific to establishing a bold new vision for the industry that can

Year Vision to Transform the Economics of the Industry

Establish a clear and measurable 20-year vision for the industry that includes specific outcomesthat describe how the future economic model of the industry should be structured

g the question, “what do we want the industry to be?” There is an important opportunity toachieve a transformative change for the industry that will act as a catalyst for breakthroughresearch. It is time for the beef, feed and forage sectors to seek the same kind of transformative

shaped the economics of other sectors like the canola industry. For example,it was noted by one stakeholder that a Washington State University study by Jude Capper foundthat in 1977 it took 5 cows to produce what is being done by 4 cows in 2010. That is 19% lessfeed for each pound of gain, 12% less water per pound of gain and 33% less land per pound ofgain. The result is 16% less inputs per cow and a corresponding 16% reduction in the waste

n example of a bold 20-year objective could be to reduce the amount of inputs andthe production footprint by a further 10-15%. In essence, the 20-year vision should aspire to

economic model for the industry. Other examples of visionary goalslike reducing average input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animal to a specificlevel; exceeding today’s hormone-assisted performance without the use of implants;industry engagement amongst younger producers in the research and development technology

bringing ten new grass/forage varieties to market; or solving the challenge ofbloat with alfalfa feeding. These are examples of potential long-term objectives; the potential list

int of this exercise is to set large goals that will stretch the industry and the

Page l 5

rs consulted are unaware of how the current governance model works

There is a significant opportunity to establish clear, measurable priorities for the Agricultural

nd collaborative project design

There are opportunities to encourage and incent increased collaboration through the governance

research, plus our ownexperience and knowledge, MNP arrived at the following set of recommendations. Theserecommendations are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the research program and to support a

industry in Saskatchewan. The recommendationsterm success for the program. At the same time, we

have included a set of recommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of theterm planning is initiated and undertaken. It is important to underline that these

recommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current program and its strong

term success. Although theseterm success, there are action items that can be undertaken

zed into three categories:


year vision for the industry that includes specific outcomesthat describe how the future economic model of the industry should be structured – essentially

g the question, “what do we want the industry to be?” There is an important opportunity toachieve a transformative change for the industry that will act as a catalyst for breakthrough

same kind of transformativeshaped the economics of other sectors like the canola industry. For example,

it was noted by one stakeholder that a Washington State University study by Jude Capper foundce what is being done by 4 cows in 2010. That is 19% less

feed for each pound of gain, 12% less water per pound of gain and 33% less land per pound ofgain. The result is 16% less inputs per cow and a corresponding 16% reduction in the waste

year objective could be to reduce the amount of inputs andyear vision should aspire to

economic model for the industry. Other examples of visionary goals might be thingslike reducing average input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animal to a specific

assisted performance without the use of implants; increasingthe research and development technology

bringing ten new grass/forage varieties to market; or solving the challenge ofterm objectives; the potential list

exercise is to set large goals that will stretch the industry and the



SASKATCHEWAN

Other important considerations in defining the vision would include:

o Consideration for new international market opportunities and setting goals fthem;

o Evolution of consumer trends and preferences;

o Definition of key stakeholders and their roles in the technology transfer system;

o Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitiveadvantage for Saskatchewan

o Recognition of Saskatchewan as a world leader in beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment;

o Targets for increasing the annual spending on beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment through increased cost sharing and collaboration;

o Proactive management of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,plus protection of watersheds;

o Water resource planning and water management;

o Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics suchas animal welfare; an

o The proportion of pure versus applied research in the portfolio to accomplish the 20vision.

It will be critically important to engage the emerging young leaders in the planning process whowill be the industry leaders to champion the implementatioThe current generation of leaders can be a valuable source of advice and wisdom, but a sense ofownership in the vision needs to be built with the emerging leaders. The vision should be revisitedand updated on a rolling 5-used to modify the approach to maximize results for the industry.

2. Link Clear and Measureable 5

Link the long-term vision to clear andclarity to researchers in developing novel ideas and proposals, plus clarity for program managersto make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisionedthat the 5-year research priorities would include incremental milestone targets to achieve the 20year vision. Measurements should be tracked and/or forecasted on an industryincentive to align the technology transfer model to substantially incrtechnologies or methods.

The strategic driver behind establishing the 5and innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work thatexisting research overall is too incremental and short term in nature. Researchers and otherstakeholders are anxious to break the mold.

3. Invest in Building a Coordinated, Single

Once a clear vision is in place, it is recommended that the rigstructure be designed to achieve the mandate. This follows the old saying that “form followsfunction”. This means that one should design any organizational structure around the vision andstrategic direction that is being acvision is established it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes togovernance or management models for the research program will focus on increasing the degree



Consideration for new international market opportunities and setting goals f

Evolution of consumer trends and preferences;

Definition of key stakeholders and their roles in the technology transfer system;

Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitiveadvantage for Saskatchewan;

Recognition of Saskatchewan as a world leader in beef, feed and forage research and

Targets for increasing the annual spending on beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment through increased cost sharing and collaboration;

gement of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,plus protection of watersheds;

Water resource planning and water management;

Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics suchas animal welfare; and

The proportion of pure versus applied research in the portfolio to accomplish the 20

It will be critically important to engage the emerging young leaders in the planning process whowill be the industry leaders to champion the implementation of the vision over the next 20 years.The current generation of leaders can be a valuable source of advice and wisdom, but a sense ofownership in the vision needs to be built with the emerging leaders. The vision should be revisited

-year basis to ensure that it is relevant and lessons learned are beingused to modify the approach to maximize results for the industry.

Link Clear and Measureable 5-Year Priorities to the Long-Term Vision

term vision to clear and measurable 5-year research priorities that will provideclarity to researchers in developing novel ideas and proposals, plus clarity for program managersto make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisioned

year research priorities would include incremental milestone targets to achieve the 20year vision. Measurements should be tracked and/or forecasted on an industryincentive to align the technology transfer model to substantially increase the adoption of new

The strategic driver behind establishing the 5-year priorities is to act as a catalyst for driving boldand innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work that

esearch overall is too incremental and short term in nature. Researchers and otherstakeholders are anxious to break the mold.

Invest in Building a Coordinated, Single-Model Delivery System

Once a clear vision is in place, it is recommended that the right governance and managementstructure be designed to achieve the mandate. This follows the old saying that “form followsfunction”. This means that one should design any organizational structure around the vision andstrategic direction that is being accomplished, rather than the reverse approach. Until the 20vision is established it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes togovernance or management models for the research program will focus on increasing the degree

Page l 6

Consideration for new international market opportunities and setting goals for capturing


Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitive


Targets for increasing the annual spending on beef, feed and forage research and

gement of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,

Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics such

The proportion of pure versus applied research in the portfolio to accomplish the 20-year

It will be critically important to engage the emerging young leaders in the planning process whon of the vision over the next 20 years.

The current generation of leaders can be a valuable source of advice and wisdom, but a sense ofownership in the vision needs to be built with the emerging leaders. The vision should be revisited

year basis to ensure that it is relevant and lessons learned are being

year research priorities that will provideclarity to researchers in developing novel ideas and proposals, plus clarity for program managersto make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisioned

year research priorities would include incremental milestone targets to achieve the 20-year vision. Measurements should be tracked and/or forecasted on an industry-wide basis as an

ease the adoption of new

year priorities is to act as a catalyst for driving boldand innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work that

esearch overall is too incremental and short term in nature. Researchers and other

ht governance and managementstructure be designed to achieve the mandate. This follows the old saying that “form followsfunction”. This means that one should design any organizational structure around the vision and

complished, rather than the reverse approach. Until the 20-yearvision is established it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes to thegovernance or management models for the research program will focus on increasing the degree



SASKATCHEWAN

of coordination through a truly integrated single model. This would include a focus on the wholevalue chain from forage to dinner plate, ensuring strong coordoutcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership andeffort will need to be invested to aThe proposed planning stage to establish the vision may result in a research program thatremains publicly managed or could result in the implementation of an alternative delivery model.MNP recommends that strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models ofother industry clusters globally in developing a singleThe management and delivery model selected should be selected basedpotential of success for implementing the 20As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

4. Re-Energize Governance and Management with a

The management and governance of the ADF program has proven itself to be effective over timewith the development of a worldmore effectively communicate how the ADF process wocontrolled model by government by most stakeholders. It is in fact a collaborative model that doesdraw upon stakeholder input, including industry, at key stages. With the strong physical andintellectual infrastructure in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindset of the programto embrace four important philosophies:

o Industry-driven research with increased input on priorities from industry associations andmore active involvement in research by industry

o Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance ofthe research program;

o Primary focus on building economic advantage to support a sustainable and profitableindustry in the long t

o Encourage additional managed risk in the overall Provincial portfolio by balancing pureand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novelresearch projects. Pure research funding is available primarily through theGovernment. Consideration should be given to coordinating longthrough the Federal and Provincial funding programs.

5. Integrate Beef, Feed and Forage Research

It is recommended that beef, feed and forage research be integratedproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages andopportunities to the beef industry. Any provincial strategy and research program for beef or feedwould be incomplete without thetypes of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anychange in governance, for example bringing beef and forage together into a single “program” willneed to consider how to balance other forage utilizing livestock.

Infrastructure

The next two recommendations are specific to three important elements of physical and intellectualinfrastructure.

6. Pursuit of a Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

In order to continue to be a world leader in beef research, Saskatchewan will need access to amodern beef feedlot teaching research facility. Through our research we heard either neutral orpositive assessments of the current proposal from the U of S for the


of coordination through a truly integrated single model. This would include a focus on the wholevalue chain from forage to dinner plate, ensuring strong coordination between desired economicoutcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership andeffort will need to be invested to align all of the stakeholders in the value chain to a single model.The proposed planning stage to establish the vision may result in a research program thatremains publicly managed or could result in the implementation of an alternative delivery model.

recommends that strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models ofother industry clusters globally in developing a single-model delivery system in Saskatchewan.The management and delivery model selected should be selected based on maximizing thepotential of success for implementing the 20-year vision for the beef, feed and forage industry.As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

Energize Governance and Management with a Pioneering Mindset

and governance of the ADF program has proven itself to be effective over timewith the development of a world-class capacity for advanced research. The Ministry needs tomore effectively communicate how the ADF process works. It is perceived to be a centrallycontrolled model by government by most stakeholders. It is in fact a collaborative model that doesdraw upon stakeholder input, including industry, at key stages. With the strong physical and

re in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindset of the programto embrace four important philosophies:

driven research with increased input on priorities from industry associations andmore active involvement in research by industry suppliers and related industry firms;

Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance ofthe research program;

Primary focus on building economic advantage to support a sustainable and profitableindustry in the long term; and

Encourage additional managed risk in the overall Provincial portfolio by balancing pureand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novelresearch projects. Pure research funding is available primarily through theGovernment. Consideration should be given to coordinating long-term research ideasthrough the Federal and Provincial funding programs.

Integrate Beef, Feed and Forage Research

It is recommended that beef, feed and forage research be integrated from a planning, funding andproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages andopportunities to the beef industry. Any provincial strategy and research program for beef or feedwould be incomplete without the inclusion of the forage sector as a critical component. Othertypes of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anychange in governance, for example bringing beef and forage together into a single “program” willneed to consider how to balance other forage utilizing livestock.

The next two recommendations are specific to three important elements of physical and intellectual

Pursuit of a Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

order to continue to be a world leader in beef research, Saskatchewan will need access to amodern beef feedlot teaching research facility. Through our research we heard either neutral orpositive assessments of the current proposal from the U of S for the BCTRU. There is broad

Page l 7

of coordination through a truly integrated single model. This would include a focus on the wholeination between desired economic

outcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership and

lign all of the stakeholders in the value chain to a single model.The proposed planning stage to establish the vision may result in a research program thatremains publicly managed or could result in the implementation of an alternative delivery model.

recommends that strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models ofmodel delivery system in Saskatchewan.

on maximizing theyear vision for the beef, feed and forage industry.

As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

and governance of the ADF program has proven itself to be effective over timeclass capacity for advanced research. The Ministry needs to

rks. It is perceived to be a centrally-controlled model by government by most stakeholders. It is in fact a collaborative model that doesdraw upon stakeholder input, including industry, at key stages. With the strong physical and

re in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindset of the program

driven research with increased input on priorities from industry associations andsuppliers and related industry firms;

Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance of

Primary focus on building economic advantage to support a sustainable and profitable

Encourage additional managed risk in the overall Provincial portfolio by balancing pureand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novelresearch projects. Pure research funding is available primarily through the Federal

term research ideas

from a planning, funding andproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages andopportunities to the beef industry. Any provincial strategy and research program for beef or feed

inclusion of the forage sector as a critical component. Othertypes of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anychange in governance, for example bringing beef and forage together into a single “program” will

The next two recommendations are specific to three important elements of physical and intellectual

order to continue to be a world leader in beef research, Saskatchewan will need access to amodern beef feedlot teaching research facility. Through our research we heard either neutral or

BCTRU. There is broad-



SASKATCHEWAN

based support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for theindustry. That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposed building onthe existing proposal. Therefore, we awith the U of S to re-examine the current proposal to assess its strategic fit with the future of theindustry and the research program. In particular, consideration should be given to how industryuniversity collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support theoverall concept for the Unit while pursuing specific improvementsthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how the BCTRU can beaugmented by a consortium of private sector feedlots. The potential value of such discussions isto maximize the investment of public andcoordinated, single model delivery system. The revised plan will need to be more clearlycommunicated with the assistance of industry associations to rally the broadsecure approval.

7. Ensure Robust Plans are in Place to Manage Succession of Key Researchers

There are pressing and pending gaps in the succession of a number of key researchers inSaskatchewan who are approaching retirement which could undermine the longsustainability of the research program. In order to maintain or create new competitive advantagein research capacity the Ministry should work with the U of S and Agriculture and AgriCanada to develop succession strategies for key research personnel. The most urgare with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are notidentified, an external recruitment strategy should be devised to ensure Saskatchewan builds itsworld-class reputation.

8. Expand Investment in Forage I

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isfundamental to the success of the beef industry, is disproportionately low to other beef industryresearch areas. Stakeholders alsobeef industry research. Forage should be regarded as something of a special case whenconsidering expectations such as the length of projects, regionality of research and the ability toattract matching dollars from industry.

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingthe current research capacity and outcomes. Overall though, we believe thatresearch should be increased to bhowever, this will not yield longintellectual infrastructure is in place to exploit the increased funding effectively. The Provinceneeds to secure not only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and foragebreeding but also address the challenge of the significant regional differences in forage needswithin the Province. Taking a collaborative approachlocations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities to extend thereach of the research; we are aware that this sort of collaboration is already underway andaccepted by the industry.

The forage varieties in use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newintroductions in recent years). Despite this, stakeholders express dissatisfaction with the ratewhich new varieties and types are introduced and their perception ispresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.Investment in plant breeders needs particular attention with an expectation that it will be manyyears before there will be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and longerstill before they can have a material impact upon the industry economics.


based support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for theindustry. That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposed building onthe existing proposal. Therefore, we are recommending that a diverse group of stakeholders work

examine the current proposal to assess its strategic fit with the future of theindustry and the research program. In particular, consideration should be given to how industryuniversity collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support theoverall concept for the Unit while pursuing specific improvements that can support the success ofthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how the BCTRU can beaugmented by a consortium of private sector feedlots. The potential value of such discussions isto maximize the investment of public and private resources, plus support the evolution of a fullcoordinated, single model delivery system. The revised plan will need to be more clearlycommunicated with the assistance of industry associations to rally the broad

Ensure Robust Plans are in Place to Manage Succession of Key Researchers

There are pressing and pending gaps in the succession of a number of key researchers inSaskatchewan who are approaching retirement which could undermine the long

y of the research program. In order to maintain or create new competitive advantagein research capacity the Ministry should work with the U of S and Agriculture and AgriCanada to develop succession strategies for key research personnel. The most urgare with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are notidentified, an external recruitment strategy should be devised to ensure Saskatchewan builds its

Expand Investment in Forage Infrastructure and Research

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isfundamental to the success of the beef industry, is disproportionately low to other beef industry

areas. Stakeholders also indicated that forage research is more longbeef industry research. Forage should be regarded as something of a special case whenconsidering expectations such as the length of projects, regionality of research and the ability to

tching dollars from industry.

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingthe current research capacity and outcomes. Overall though, we believe thatresearch should be increased to be more reflective of its importance to the beef industry;however, this will not yield long-term benefits without ensuring the appropriate physical andintellectual infrastructure is in place to exploit the increased funding effectively. The Province

to secure not only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and foragebreeding but also address the challenge of the significant regional differences in forage needswithin the Province. Taking a collaborative approach to this and where possible seeking outlocations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities to extend thereach of the research; we are aware that this sort of collaboration is already underway and

The forage varieties in use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newintroductions in recent years). Despite this, stakeholders express dissatisfaction with the ratewhich new varieties and types are introduced and their perception is that the rate is dropping. Thepresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.Investment in plant breeders needs particular attention with an expectation that it will be many

be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and longerstill before they can have a material impact upon the industry economics.

Page l 8

based support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for theindustry. That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposed building on

re recommending that a diverse group of stakeholders workexamine the current proposal to assess its strategic fit with the future of the

industry and the research program. In particular, consideration should be given to how industry-university collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support the

that can support the success ofthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how the BCTRU can beaugmented by a consortium of private sector feedlots. The potential value of such discussions is

private resources, plus support the evolution of a fullcoordinated, single model delivery system. The revised plan will need to be more clearlycommunicated with the assistance of industry associations to rally the broad-based support to


There are pressing and pending gaps in the succession of a number of key researchers inSaskatchewan who are approaching retirement which could undermine the long-term

y of the research program. In order to maintain or create new competitive advantagein research capacity the Ministry should work with the U of S and Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada to develop succession strategies for key research personnel. The most urgent prioritiesare with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are notidentified, an external recruitment strategy should be devised to ensure Saskatchewan builds its

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isfundamental to the success of the beef industry, is disproportionately low to other beef industry

indicated that forage research is more long-term than otherbeef industry research. Forage should be regarded as something of a special case whenconsidering expectations such as the length of projects, regionality of research and the ability to

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingfunding for forage

e more reflective of its importance to the beef industry;term benefits without ensuring the appropriate physical and

intellectual infrastructure is in place to exploit the increased funding effectively. The Provinceto secure not only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and forage

breeding but also address the challenge of the significant regional differences in forage needse possible seeking out

locations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities to extend thereach of the research; we are aware that this sort of collaboration is already underway and

The forage varieties in use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newintroductions in recent years). Despite this, stakeholders express dissatisfaction with the rate

that the rate is dropping. Thepresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.Investment in plant breeders needs particular attention with an expectation that it will be many

be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and longer



SASKATCHEWAN

If the above recommendations on forage are to be adopted in part or in full then we recommendthat the establishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhancethe benefits from increased focus and funding for forage research.

Operations

Despite the recommendations above to pursue a 20there are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gatheredthrough this project.

9. Expand the Number of Project Application Windows

This review revealed significant support to increase the numberHowever, approximately six years ago stakeholders expressed a preference for a singlesubmission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a system inresponse to stakeholder preferences at that time.

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingto a quarterly application window or more. The LOI process is popular and should be maintainedas part of a two-window system in the immediate term. The benwindows include supporting greater collaboration with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, toleverage resources, equipment and personnel, plus ensuring that the research system can adaptand move more quickly at the pace o

Researchers are looking for additional support from the Ministry’s program managers to workcollaboratively with project proponents on their applications without implying any preferredprobability for approval. Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andpursuing leveraged funding from additional sources. On the back end, the Ministry’s programmanagers need to provide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was noapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and otherstakeholders, program managers should be candid with researchers

10. Economic Impact and Total Value Forecasts for all Projects

To aid the accomplishment of the outcomes defined in a 20robust economic and total value forecast is required for all project applications. These forecaswould require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving thelong-term vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspectsas well as total value, there is the opportunity to forecastimprovements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animalwelfare or environmental protection.

Some researches candidly shared that their current economic assumptions in project applicatioare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set ofassumptions. Ideally every approved project would be supported by an agexpert with knowledge of beef, feed or forage to ensure researcherstransformation and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will help ensurethe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’spotential impact for producers. Ineed to be made in training and/or attracting additional agare in short supply.


If the above recommendations on forage are to be adopted in part or in full then we recommendablishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhance

the benefits from increased focus and funding for forage research.

Despite the recommendations above to pursue a 20-year vision and to ensure that “formthere are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gathered

Expand the Number of Project Application Windows

This review revealed significant support to increase the number of project application windows.However, approximately six years ago stakeholders expressed a preference for a singlesubmission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a system inresponse to stakeholder preferences at that time.

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingto a quarterly application window or more. The LOI process is popular and should be maintained

window system in the immediate term. The benefits of additional applicationwindows include supporting greater collaboration with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, toleverage resources, equipment and personnel, plus ensuring that the research system can adaptand move more quickly at the pace of industry needs and the interest of industry partners.

Researchers are looking for additional support from the Ministry’s program managers to workcollaboratively with project proponents on their applications without implying any preferred

r approval. Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andpursuing leveraged funding from additional sources. On the back end, the Ministry’s programmanagers need to provide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was noapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and otherstakeholders, program managers should be candid with researchers.

Economic Impact and Total Value Forecasts for all Projects

To aid the accomplishment of the outcomes defined in a 20-year vision for the industry, a morerobust economic and total value forecast is required for all project applications. These forecaswould require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving the

term vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspectsas well as total value, there is the opportunity to forecast both quantitative and qualitativeimprovements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animalwelfare or environmental protection.

Some researches candidly shared that their current economic assumptions in project applicatioare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set ofassumptions. Ideally every approved project would be supported by an ag-economist or otherexpert with knowledge of beef, feed or forage to ensure researchers are focused on economictransformation and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will help ensurethe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’spotential impact for producers. In order to accomplish this outcome, important investments willneed to be made in training and/or attracting additional ag-economists and other experts which

Page l 9

If the above recommendations on forage are to be adopted in part or in full then we recommendablishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhance

year vision and to ensure that “form follows function”,there are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gathered

of project application windows.However, approximately six years ago stakeholders expressed a preference for a single-submission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a system in

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingto a quarterly application window or more. The LOI process is popular and should be maintained

efits of additional applicationwindows include supporting greater collaboration with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, toleverage resources, equipment and personnel, plus ensuring that the research system can adapt

f industry needs and the interest of industry partners.


r approval. Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andpursuing leveraged funding from additional sources. On the back end, the Ministry’s programmanagers need to provide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was notapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and other

year vision for the industry, a morerobust economic and total value forecast is required for all project applications. These forecastswould require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving the

term vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspectsboth quantitative and qualitative

improvements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animal

Some researches candidly shared that their current economic assumptions in project applicationsare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set of

economist or otherare focused on economic

transformation and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will help ensurethe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’s

n order to accomplish this outcome, important investments willeconomists and other experts which



SASKATCHEWAN

11. Work Closely with the BCRC on its Single Portal to Provide Accessible andResearch to Producers

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program, Saskatchewanproducers require more timely and easy to access information. Only a small minority of highlyinformed and motivated early adopters have acexisting online tool (www.foragebeef.ca) is virtually unknown to industry stakeholders and iscumbersome to use. Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this sitethroughout the entire project. The average producer needs a simple and easy access through asingle, online portal that provides intuitive access to wellbe most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) and otmaintain ongoing contact with producers. The majority of stakeholders were supportive of thistype of approach and were supportive of howtechnologies, plus blog postings for producers to share theirtechnologies. An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20the industry and attract regular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and moresophisticated producers.

The Ministry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishsuch a portal on a national basis. The Ministry’s staff have already been engaged in earlyplanning work to represent producers. It will be important for them to remdevelopment process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs ofSaskatchewan producers identified in this report. It is anticipated that the Province’s talentedextension agrologists will continue to have an improposed online portal will simply be one additional tool for agrologists to support higher rates oftechnology adoption in the future.

A concern from a number of producers was the limited access to theperception for many producers is that thepapers on its research projectsinformation is in fact publicly available witneeds to be better promoted and communicated by the U of S and through the associations.is a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should bemore routinely accessed acrossagreements with other key Agricultural Science Universities on data sharing to magnify theimpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of collwith other jurisdictions.

12. Develop an Enhanced Strategy for Technology Transfer

Building from the 20-year vision and the collaborative, singleabove, an enhanced strategy for technology transfer should be pursued.development of this strategy, the goals and means of technology transfer should be reviewed inorder to determine practical methods that will serve the needs of tomorrow’s producers.Important questions need to be asked about who the real targsolely the early adopters? Is it the minority of large producers who have the majority of all cattlein the Province? Or is it all producers across the Province? The leaders entrusted with steeringthe direction of the program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based onaccomplishing outcomes for the industry overall versus satisfying the expectations of producersuniversally. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a higeffective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on earlyadopters in its future technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industryconsolidation and to help pull the whole industry alo

For applied research projects, the opportunity to develop a technology transfer plan between theresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should beexplored. The technology transfer plan would only be develope


Work Closely with the BCRC on its Single Portal to Provide Accessible and

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program, Saskatchewanproducers require more timely and easy to access information. Only a small minority of highlyinformed and motivated early adopters have access to all of the available information. The onlyexisting online tool (www.foragebeef.ca) is virtually unknown to industry stakeholders and iscumbersome to use. Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this site

oject. The average producer needs a simple and easy access through asingle, online portal that provides intuitive access to well-categorized research results. It wouldbe most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) and otmaintain ongoing contact with producers. The majority of stakeholders were supportive of thistype of approach and were supportive of how-to videos showing applied demonstrations oftechnologies, plus blog postings for producers to share their actual experiences applying thetechnologies. An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20the industry and attract regular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and more

nistry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishsuch a portal on a national basis. The Ministry’s staff have already been engaged in earlyplanning work to represent producers. It will be important for them to remdevelopment process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs ofSaskatchewan producers identified in this report. It is anticipated that the Province’s talentedextension agrologists will continue to have an important role in technology transfer activities. Theproposed online portal will simply be one additional tool for agrologists to support higher rates oftechnology adoption in the future.

A concern from a number of producers was the limited access to the U of S’ databases. Theperception for many producers is that the U of S library database, which includes academicpapers on its research projects, is currently restricted to faculty, students and alumni.information is in fact publicly available with a few restrictions. The availability of this informationneeds to be better promoted and communicated by the U of S and through the associations.is a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should be

tinely accessed across the Province. There may be value in pursuing bilateralagreements with other key Agricultural Science Universities on data sharing to magnify theimpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of coll

Develop an Enhanced Strategy for Technology Transfer

year vision and the collaborative, single-model delivery system outlinedabove, an enhanced strategy for technology transfer should be pursued.development of this strategy, the goals and means of technology transfer should be reviewed inorder to determine practical methods that will serve the needs of tomorrow’s producers.Important questions need to be asked about who the real target is for technology transfer? Is itsolely the early adopters? Is it the minority of large producers who have the majority of all cattlein the Province? Or is it all producers across the Province? The leaders entrusted with steering

e program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based onaccomplishing outcomes for the industry overall versus satisfying the expectations of producersuniversally. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a higeffective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on earlyadopters in its future technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industryconsolidation and to help pull the whole industry along.

For applied research projects, the opportunity to develop a technology transfer plan between theresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should beexplored. The technology transfer plan would only be developed on applied projects that pass the

Page l 10

Work Closely with the BCRC on its Single Portal to Provide Accessible and Timely

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program, Saskatchewanproducers require more timely and easy to access information. Only a small minority of highly-

cess to all of the available information. The onlyexisting online tool (www.foragebeef.ca) is virtually unknown to industry stakeholders and iscumbersome to use. Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this site

oject. The average producer needs a simple and easy access through acategorized research results. It would

be most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) and other tools tomaintain ongoing contact with producers. The majority of stakeholders were supportive of this

to videos showing applied demonstrations ofactual experiences applying the

technologies. An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20-year vision forthe industry and attract regular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and more

nistry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishsuch a portal on a national basis. The Ministry’s staff have already been engaged in earlyplanning work to represent producers. It will be important for them to remain active in thedevelopment process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs ofSaskatchewan producers identified in this report. It is anticipated that the Province’s talented

portant role in technology transfer activities. Theproposed online portal will simply be one additional tool for agrologists to support higher rates of

U of S’ databases. Thewhich includes academic

is currently restricted to faculty, students and alumni. Thish a few restrictions. The availability of this information

needs to be better promoted and communicated by the U of S and through the associations. Thisis a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should be

value in pursuing bilateralagreements with other key Agricultural Science Universities on data sharing to magnify theimpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of collaboration

model delivery system outlinedabove, an enhanced strategy for technology transfer should be pursued. Through thedevelopment of this strategy, the goals and means of technology transfer should be reviewed inorder to determine practical methods that will serve the needs of tomorrow’s producers.

et is for technology transfer? Is itsolely the early adopters? Is it the minority of large producers who have the majority of all cattlein the Province? Or is it all producers across the Province? The leaders entrusted with steering

e program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based onaccomplishing outcomes for the industry overall versus satisfying the expectations of producersuniversally. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a highlyeffective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on earlyadopters in its future technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industry

For applied research projects, the opportunity to develop a technology transfer plan between theresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should be

d on applied projects that pass the



SASKATCHEWAN

LOI stage. The benefits are that extension work is embedded in the project design, researchersand agrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists have a strongerunderstanding of forthcoming research tlonger-term goal should be to achieve broad industry engagement in technology adoption.

13. Establish a Reliable System to Monitor, Track and Report Adoption and Impact

In order to validate the outcomesadoption possible, a reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impactof new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by anagricultural economist, with input from other experts, who have the foresight and ability to designa practical, workable and repeatable system. It is anticipated that a sampling methodology wouldbe used to monitor, track and report on a certain percentage oimpact data should be captured. The results of the tracking system need to be linked togetherwith the single portal concept to engage producers on the measurable outcomes that can beachieved through new technologies and met

2.3.2 Recommendations to Provide Immediate Improvements in ProgramDelivery

The thirteen recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20year vision to transform the economics of the industry. The design, developmentfor such a plan will take significant time and should not be rushed. As this important work is undertaken,there are opportunities to make immediate improvements to the program based on the findings of thisreport. These improvements are primarily based on establishing progress on recommendations six tothirteen above in the infrastructure and operations categories.

It is recommended that the Ministry pursue the following immediate improvements and supporting actionsto evolve the program.

1. Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups and interestedparties to build buy in and support for the future direction. Include an explanation on how thecurrent project approval process and governance system ope

2. Encourage the U of S to engage a variety of stakeholders, including industry, in a review of itscritical plans for the BCTRU.

3. Follow-up with the U of S and other institutional partners to discuss and assess their currentsuccession plans for key researchers within the context of program sustainability.

4. Add a second project application window in response to stakeholder preferences. Maintain theLOI process. Encourage Ministry program managers to collaboratively and proactively supportproject proponents with their project applications and to also provide detailed feedback tounsuccessful proponents.

5. Work with the U of S and other institutional partners to develop a plan to expand the number ofbeef and forage economists in Saskatchewan to supportmodeling work that will be required.scholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

6. Continue to actively support the singleensure that Saskatchewanwebsite. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned andadoption rates in the early stages.


LOI stage. The benefits are that extension work is embedded in the project design, researchersagrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists have a stronger

understanding of forthcoming research to keep producers informed of future opportunities.term goal should be to achieve broad industry engagement in technology adoption.

Establish a Reliable System to Monitor, Track and Report Adoption and Impact

In order to validate the outcomes set in the 20-year vision and to encourage the highest rates ofadoption possible, a reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impactof new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by an

icultural economist, with input from other experts, who have the foresight and ability to designa practical, workable and repeatable system. It is anticipated that a sampling methodology wouldbe used to monitor, track and report on a certain percentage of projects. Economic and totalimpact data should be captured. The results of the tracking system need to be linked togetherwith the single portal concept to engage producers on the measurable outcomes that can beachieved through new technologies and methods.

Recommendations to Provide Immediate Improvements in Program

The thirteen recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20year vision to transform the economics of the industry. The design, development and building of supportfor such a plan will take significant time and should not be rushed. As this important work is undertaken,there are opportunities to make immediate improvements to the program based on the findings of this

nts are primarily based on establishing progress on recommendations six tothirteen above in the infrastructure and operations categories.

It is recommended that the Ministry pursue the following immediate improvements and supporting actions

Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups and interestedparties to build buy in and support for the future direction. Include an explanation on how thecurrent project approval process and governance system operates.

Encourage the U of S to engage a variety of stakeholders, including industry, in a review of itscritical plans for the BCTRU.

up with the U of S and other institutional partners to discuss and assess their currentresearchers within the context of program sustainability.

Add a second project application window in response to stakeholder preferences. Maintain theLOI process. Encourage Ministry program managers to collaboratively and proactively support

onents with their project applications and to also provide detailed feedback to

Work with the U of S and other institutional partners to develop a plan to expand the number ofbeef and forage economists in Saskatchewan to support the vital economic assessment andmodeling work that will be required. The Ministry should provide support for bursaries orscholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

Continue to actively support the single-portal concept that is being pursued by BCRC and work toensure that Saskatchewan-based projects are profiled in any early phases or pilots of thewebsite. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned and

es in the early stages.

Page l 11

LOI stage. The benefits are that extension work is embedded in the project design, researchersagrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists have a stronger

o keep producers informed of future opportunities. Theterm goal should be to achieve broad industry engagement in technology adoption.

Establish a Reliable System to Monitor, Track and Report Adoption and Impact

year vision and to encourage the highest rates ofadoption possible, a reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impactof new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by an

icultural economist, with input from other experts, who have the foresight and ability to designa practical, workable and repeatable system. It is anticipated that a sampling methodology would

f projects. Economic and totalimpact data should be captured. The results of the tracking system need to be linked togetherwith the single portal concept to engage producers on the measurable outcomes that can be


The thirteen recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20-and building of support

for such a plan will take significant time and should not be rushed. As this important work is undertaken,there are opportunities to make immediate improvements to the program based on the findings of this

nts are primarily based on establishing progress on recommendations six to


Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups and interestedparties to build buy in and support for the future direction. Include an explanation on how the

Encourage the U of S to engage a variety of stakeholders, including industry, in a review of its

up with the U of S and other institutional partners to discuss and assess their currentresearchers within the context of program sustainability.

Add a second project application window in response to stakeholder preferences. Maintain theLOI process. Encourage Ministry program managers to collaboratively and proactively support

onents with their project applications and to also provide detailed feedback to

Work with the U of S and other institutional partners to develop a plan to expand the number ofthe vital economic assessment and

The Ministry should provide support for bursaries orscholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

portal concept that is being pursued by BCRC and work tobased projects are profiled in any early phases or pilots of the

website. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned and



SASKATCHEWAN

3.0 INTRODUCTION

Agriculture and Food are important industries in Saskatchewan. Annual cash sales of agriculturalproducts in the Province amount to approximatelyapproximately $1.04 billion of this.

4

in the Province and includes feed grains2010 study by the Saskatchewan Forage CouncilIndustry, the direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being inthe region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3billion of benefits. Collectively, albeit from two different sources, the beef and forage sectors account forbetween 15% and 20% of the direct agricultural benefits in the Province of Saskatchewan.

According to the same report, forageprovince. The forage area supports a cattle herd of 3.36 million head plus various other livestockindustries including equine, dairy, sheep and bison, among others.

In order to support the Agriculture anSaskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (SMAdevelopment activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feedand forage sector in order to develop new, and improve upon existing, technologies for Saskatchewan’sforage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic ResearchProgram (SRP) and research infrastructure.

Over $12 million of the $19.5 million provided by the SMA is received by theFund (ADF). The ADF and other related programsresearch and development dedicated totransfer activities. The $6 million in funding for beef, feed and forage has been committed over multipleyears, with some projects being multiprojects funded through ADF. The ADF’s resultssustainability of the agriculture sector.

The SRP receives approximately $2.8thirteen SRP chairs, three of which are dedicated to beef, feed and forage research, plus one endowedchair through the University of Saskatchewanplan developed in conjunction with the SMA’sdeliverables. The goal of the SRP is to target specific areas of strategicintellectual capacity, and recruit and retain qualified research personnel that will subsequently attractproject funding to support their research programs.

In order to ensure continued, quality beef, feed and forage reseaannually in support to research and development facilities such as the Western Beef Development Centre(WBDC), Crop Development Centre (CDC), Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) and VaccineInfectious Disease Organization (VIDO)to maintain the Province’s high standards and global ldevelopment field as well as to attract and retain highly sought after intellectuals and researchers.SMA also provides $1.1 million of its fundinginnovations and knowledge that have market potential.West Bio.

In support of the dedicated fundingrecognized the need for full review of the currentactivities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and development

32011 June Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada.

4Statistics Canada, C. May 2012.


Agriculture and Food are important industries in Saskatchewan. Annual cash sales of agriculturalce amount to approximately $9.37 billion.

3The cattle industry accounts for

The primary feedstock of the cattle industry is forage (which is grownand includes feed grains), making the two sectors mutually dependent on each other. In a

2010 study by the Saskatchewan Forage Council (SFC) entitled The Value of Saskatchewan’s Foragethe direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being in

the region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3ion of benefits. Collectively, albeit from two different sources, the beef and forage sectors account for


orages from a variety of categories occupy a total of 23 million acresThe forage area supports a cattle herd of 3.36 million head plus various other livestock

industries including equine, dairy, sheep and bison, among others.

In order to support the Agriculture and Food industries and to maintain a competitive edge, they of Agriculture (SMA or Ministry) invests over $19.5 million in

development activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feednd forage sector in order to develop new, and improve upon existing, technologies for Saskatchewan’s

forage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic ResearchProgram (SRP) and research infrastructure.

million provided by the SMA is received by the Agriculture Developmentand other related programs have received over $6 million of this amount for

research and development dedicated to beef, feed and forage research and development and technologyThe $6 million in funding for beef, feed and forage has been committed over multiple

years, with some projects being multi-year projects. This amount does not include previously completedThe ADF’s results-oriented method is focused on the long

sustainability of the agriculture sector.

The SRP receives approximately $2.8 million of the SMA funding per year for salaries and benefits forSRP chairs, three of which are dedicated to beef, feed and forage research, plus one endowed

chair through the University of Saskatchewan (U of S). The chairs are responsible for a fiveplan developed in conjunction with the SMA’s program framework which defines outcomes and

. The goal of the SRP is to target specific areas of strategic importance identified as lackingintellectual capacity, and recruit and retain qualified research personnel that will subsequently attract

funding to support their research programs.

order to ensure continued, quality beef, feed and forage research, the SMA providessupport to research and development facilities such as the Western Beef Development Centre

Crop Development Centre (CDC), Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) and VaccineInfectious Disease Organization (VIDO) to assist with operational costs. The objective of these facilities isto maintain the Province’s high standards and global leadership in the agricultural research anddevelopment field as well as to attract and retain highly sought after intellectuals and researchers.SMA also provides $1.1 million of its funding to support the development and commercialization of new

dge that have market potential. This initiative is managed primarily through Ag

ated funding for beef, feed and forage research and developmentthe need for full review of the current beef, feed and forage research and development

activities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and development

Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada.

Page l 12

Agriculture and Food are important industries in Saskatchewan. Annual cash sales of agriculturalThe cattle industry accounts for

The primary feedstock of the cattle industry is forage (which is grown), making the two sectors mutually dependent on each other. In a

The Value of Saskatchewan’s Foragethe direct benefits (primarily but not exclusively for the beef sector) were quantified as being in

the region of $740 million per year. Indirect benefits, such as environment, added at least a further $1.3ion of benefits. Collectively, albeit from two different sources, the beef and forage sectors account for


million acres in theThe forage area supports a cattle herd of 3.36 million head plus various other livestock

industries and to maintain a competitive edge, themillion in research and

development activities annually. The SMA has focused on research and development in the beef, feednd forage sector in order to develop new, and improve upon existing, technologies for Saskatchewan’s

forage and livestock industries through research and development funding, the Strategic Research

Agriculture Developmentover $6 million of this amount for

development and technologyThe $6 million in funding for beef, feed and forage has been committed over multiple

year projects. This amount does not include previously completedoriented method is focused on the long-term

per year for salaries and benefits forSRP chairs, three of which are dedicated to beef, feed and forage research, plus one endowed

. The chairs are responsible for a five-year researchwhich defines outcomes and

importance identified as lackingintellectual capacity, and recruit and retain qualified research personnel that will subsequently attract

provides $2.5 millionsupport to research and development facilities such as the Western Beef Development Centre

Crop Development Centre (CDC), Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) and Vaccine. The objective of these facilities is

eadership in the agricultural research anddevelopment field as well as to attract and retain highly sought after intellectuals and researchers. The

to support the development and commercialization of newThis initiative is managed primarily through Ag-

for beef, feed and forage research and development, the SMAresearch and development

activities and the direction of future activities, an assessment of research and development infrastructure



SASKATCHEWAN

and an evaluation of whether a new governance model could imforage research and development activities.


provide a full understanding of the contribution of current beef, feed anddevelopment activities as they relate to the

understand the future short-

determine the physical and intellectualdevelopment activities in Saskatchewan; and

create a governance model that willactivities and science and technology transfer/commercialization with agricultural producers.

3.1 HISTORY OF THE STRATEGIC

The SMA has had an SRP Agreement with thefive-year agreements. Under these agreements, funding is provided to four major program areas:

Crop Development,

Livestock,

Value-Added, and

Soils and Sustainability.

The program areas were indentified on the basis of consultations with industry, other stakeholders, theUniversity and other government departments.

In 2002 the SMA began negotiations with the U of S to develop a new SRP agreement based on theprinciple of providing funding for research capacity. The funding was to provide for the creation up to 17research teams (including technical support) that wouindustry, while being consistent with SMA goals and objectives.

The positions identified under this agreement represented those areas where the Province lackedresearch capacity. The intent was that while creaprovide longer-term security to researchers in the new research positions and allow them to compete forfunding from national, provincial and industry funding agencies. The four positions in the valuearea were intended to create new products, improve current products and utilize other raw materialsavailable in Saskatchewan.

Subsequently, the SMA signed its first new fiveproviding $16.5 million in funding over the fiveteams whose work is intended to enhance and add value to Saskatchewan's agriculture and foodindustry. The 17 research teams each included a scientist and a technician, provitotal. SRP funding also covers indirect costs such as administration.

The five-year Agreement gave researchers the opportunity for longercompete for funding from all available sources. The Agreewith the U of S, enabling the University to continue to attract top people and provide new researchopportunities for both undergraduate and graduate students.

In terms of beef and forage research, SMA now hais one SMA-funded SRP Chair at the U of S (feed research and development) and two at WBDC(economics of cow-calf production and cow


and an evaluation of whether a new governance model could improve the outcome from beef, feed andforage research and development activities.


provide a full understanding of the contribution of current beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment activities as they relate to the competitiveness of producers;

- and long-term research and development needs and priorities

determine the physical and intellectual infrastructure needed to suppodevelopment activities in Saskatchewan; and

model that will improve the outcomes from the research and developmentactivities and science and technology transfer/commercialization with agricultural producers.

TRATEGIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

The SMA has had an SRP Agreement with the U of S since 1986. The funding has been provided underyear agreements. Under these agreements, funding is provided to four major program areas:

The program areas were indentified on the basis of consultations with industry, other stakeholders, theUniversity and other government departments.

In 2002 the SMA began negotiations with the U of S to develop a new SRP agreement based on theprinciple of providing funding for research capacity. The funding was to provide for the creation up to 17research teams (including technical support) that would support the development of the agriindustry, while being consistent with SMA goals and objectives.

The positions identified under this agreement represented those areas where the Province lackedresearch capacity. The intent was that while creating new research capacity, the SRP program would also

term security to researchers in the new research positions and allow them to compete forfunding from national, provincial and industry funding agencies. The four positions in the valuearea were intended to create new products, improve current products and utilize other raw materials

Subsequently, the SMA signed its first new five-year SRP Agreement with the U of S on July 23, 2003,ion in funding over the five-year term. The funding was directed towards research

teams whose work is intended to enhance and add value to Saskatchewan's agriculture and foodindustry. The 17 research teams each included a scientist and a technician, providing for 34 positions intotal. SRP funding also covers indirect costs such as administration.

year Agreement gave researchers the opportunity for longer-term planning and the ability tocompete for funding from all available sources. The Agreement also extended a long-standing partnershipwith the U of S, enabling the University to continue to attract top people and provide new researchopportunities for both undergraduate and graduate students.

In terms of beef and forage research, SMA now has ongoing agreements with two different bodies. Therefunded SRP Chair at the U of S (feed research and development) and two at WBDC

calf production and cow-calf and forage systems). WBDC is part of PAMI.

Page l 13

prove the outcome from beef, feed and


forage research and

needs and priorities;

needed to support research and

improve the outcomes from the research and developmentactivities and science and technology transfer/commercialization with agricultural producers.

U of S since 1986. The funding has been provided underyear agreements. Under these agreements, funding is provided to four major program areas:

The program areas were indentified on the basis of consultations with industry, other stakeholders, the

In 2002 the SMA began negotiations with the U of S to develop a new SRP agreement based on theprinciple of providing funding for research capacity. The funding was to provide for the creation up to 17

ld support the development of the agri-food

The positions identified under this agreement represented those areas where the Province lackedting new research capacity, the SRP program would also

term security to researchers in the new research positions and allow them to compete forfunding from national, provincial and industry funding agencies. The four positions in the value-addedarea were intended to create new products, improve current products and utilize other raw materials

year SRP Agreement with the U of S on July 23, 2003,year term. The funding was directed towards research

teams whose work is intended to enhance and add value to Saskatchewan's agriculture and foodding for 34 positions in

term planning and the ability tostanding partnership

with the U of S, enabling the University to continue to attract top people and provide new research

s ongoing agreements with two different bodies. Therefunded SRP Chair at the U of S (feed research and development) and two at WBDC

calf and forage systems). WBDC is part of PAMI.



SASKATCHEWAN

The SRP contracts were most recently renewed on March 31, 2009 for a period terminating on March 31,2013. The total number of SRP Chairs at the U of S has been adjusted to 13, receiving total annualfunding of $2,789,337. The two SRP chairs at the WBDC each receive annualSRP Chair annually submits a report to the ADF Advisory Committee on their activities over the past yearas well as their work plan for the coming year. This process ensures that the Chairs’ research programscontinue to be in alignment with the objectives that have been established under the leadership of theSMA. Every five years in the process of renewing the fivereview of the research objectives for each program area and whether the apto meet those objectives.


were most recently renewed on March 31, 2009 for a period terminating on March 31,2013. The total number of SRP Chairs at the U of S has been adjusted to 13, receiving total annualfunding of $2,789,337. The two SRP chairs at the WBDC each receive annual funding of $165,000. EachSRP Chair annually submits a report to the ADF Advisory Committee on their activities over the past yearas well as their work plan for the coming year. This process ensures that the Chairs’ research programs

gnment with the objectives that have been established under the leadership of theSMA. Every five years in the process of renewing the five-year agreements there is a more extensivereview of the research objectives for each program area and whether the appropriate Chairs are in place

Page l 14

were most recently renewed on March 31, 2009 for a period terminating on March 31,2013. The total number of SRP Chairs at the U of S has been adjusted to 13, receiving total annual

funding of $165,000. EachSRP Chair annually submits a report to the ADF Advisory Committee on their activities over the past yearas well as their work plan for the coming year. This process ensures that the Chairs’ research programs

gnment with the objectives that have been established under the leadership of theyear agreements there is a more extensive

propriate Chairs are in place



SASKATCHEWAN

4.0 PROJECT METHODOLOGY

A consultation model was designed by MNP in order to provide the following:

An evaluation of the quality and quantity of current research activities based on MNP’sconsultative approach, as well as the level of economic impact coming from that research

o Consultative interviews to focus on stakeholders’ perceptions of Saskatchewan researchand development priorities over the next five to ten years

o Identify if possible adoption rtechnologies or innovations

A needs assessment on current research infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, and itsability to facilitate the SMA’s goal of becoming a global leader in agricultural redevelopment, as well as its ability to attract highly

Identify and evaluate alternative governance models available to the SMA that will allow forgreater transparency and collaboration within Saskatchewan’s

In order to provide the above items, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNPand supplemented by detailed data analysis. Major project activities included:

Review of background materials, existing funding agr

Producer focus groups.

Tour and review of the programs a(FTRF).

In-person meetings with the threeChair; review research programs and five

Interviews with key SMA officials and project leaders, industry associations, and other organizedparties.

Province-wide online producer survey


Comparative research.



Project activities are described in further detail starting at Section

4.1 COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

To support data gathering activities, agenerate review awareness and encourage participation from producers and stakeholders. Thecommunications strategy included a wideincluded a variety of multi-media communications channels including:

A review website (www.saskbeefreview.com

o The review website included an overview of the review process and information forproducers and otherproducer survey and the written submission guide were included on the website.


ETHODOLOGY

A consultation model was designed by MNP in order to provide the following:

An evaluation of the quality and quantity of current research activities based on MNP’sapproach, as well as the level of economic impact coming from that research

Consultative interviews to focus on stakeholders’ perceptions of Saskatchewan researchand development priorities over the next five to ten years.

Identify if possible adoption rates and the economic impact for a sample of newtechnologies or innovations.

A needs assessment on current research infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, and itsability to facilitate the SMA’s goal of becoming a global leader in agricultural re

s its ability to attract highly-skilled research professionals

Identify and evaluate alternative governance models available to the SMA that will allow forgreater transparency and collaboration within Saskatchewan’s research facilities

In order to provide the above items, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNPand supplemented by detailed data analysis. Major project activities included:

Review of background materials, existing funding agreements and performance reports

the programs at the U of S, WBDC and Feed Technology Research Facility

person meetings with the three SRP chairs, the additional endowed Chair and Beef Industryiew research programs and five-year research plans.


line producer survey.

Solicitation and review of written submissions.

Development of detailed findings.

Development of a full report for the SMA.

Project activities are described in further detail starting at Section 4.1 of this report.

TRATEGY

To support data gathering activities, a comprehensive communications strategy was developed togenerate review awareness and encourage participation from producers and stakeholders. Thecommunications strategy included a wide-reaching provincial advertisement campaign. The campaign

media communications channels including:

www.saskbeefreview.com)

The review website included an overview of the review process and information forproducers and other stakeholders interested in contributing to the review. Links to theproducer survey and the written submission guide were included on the website.

Page l 15

An evaluation of the quality and quantity of current research activities based on MNP’sapproach, as well as the level of economic impact coming from that research.

Consultative interviews to focus on stakeholders’ perceptions of Saskatchewan research

ates and the economic impact for a sample of new

A needs assessment on current research infrastructure, both physical and intellectual, and itsability to facilitate the SMA’s goal of becoming a global leader in agricultural research and

skilled research professionals.

Identify and evaluate alternative governance models available to the SMA that will allow forresearch facilities.

In order to provide the above items, primary and secondary research activities were conducted by MNP

ements and performance reports.

eed Technology Research Facility

, the additional endowed Chair and Beef Industry


comprehensive communications strategy was developed togenerate review awareness and encourage participation from producers and stakeholders. The

reaching provincial advertisement campaign. The campaign

The review website included an overview of the review process and information forstakeholders interested in contributing to the review. Links to the

producer survey and the written submission guide were included on the website.



SASKATCHEWAN

Focus group participant selection

o It was agreed that the Ministry and MNP wanted to attract a sample of earthe focus groups. A number of industry associations were contacted and asked to providenames of potential participants to MNP. In addition, MNP asked itleaders in Saskatchewan to nominate potential attendees. The prorandomly selected producers to participate and extended invitations until the desiredattendance was confirmed for each session.

MNP contact

o An MNP resource was available to respond to producers’ questions regarding the reviewand its components, provide information on how to contribute to the review and receiveproducer feedback. The MNP resource also handled the distribution of paper copies ofthe producer survey to those who requested them.

Print and online media advertising

o A print and online media campaign was launched via theGrowers AssociationAgricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewanavailability of the survey.

Individual survey notices

o Email notices developed by MNP were sent to producers via stakeholder associations toinvite them to participate in the producer survey.

Individual written submission notices

o Email notices developed by MNP were sent directly to stakethem to develop a written submission.

A list of media placements and dates, the website content,included in Appendix K.

4.2 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND

MNP reviewed background materialsby the SFC, as well as historic and current ADF project approvals and examples of published materialsfrom research facilities.

4.3 FOCUS GROUPS

The focus groups were comprised of selected beefmeetings held in Saskatoon (December 6, 2011) or Regina (December 7, 2011). Specifically the selectionprocess sought individuals who were mostly below the average age of producers in the industry and whowere known to be articulate and forthcoming in such settings. Therefore, these focus groupspredominantly consisted of the younger, early adopters; the average age of focus group attendees wasestimated at approximately 43. Although the focus groups may nowhole, they were probably reasonablythe industry in the next ten to twenty years.

The objective of the focus groups was to gather beef, feed and forage producers’ perspectives on currentresearch and development and how relevant and transferable the output is to Saskatchewan producers.

The focus groups were also to provide insight intproducers, industry stakeholders, researchers and prospective students. Issues and opportunities forimprovement identified during the focus groups were then to be further explored through the producsurvey. With this objective in mind, the following themes were discussed during the focus groups:


Focus group participant selection

It was agreed that the Ministry and MNP wanted to attract a sample of earthe focus groups. A number of industry associations were contacted and asked to providenames of potential participants to MNP. In addition, MNP asked its agricultural serviceleaders in Saskatchewan to nominate potential attendees. The prorandomly selected producers to participate and extended invitations until the desiredattendance was confirmed for each session.

An MNP resource was available to respond to producers’ questions regarding the reviewents, provide information on how to contribute to the review and receive

producer feedback. The MNP resource also handled the distribution of paper copies ofthe producer survey to those who requested them.

Print and online media advertising

line media campaign was launched via the SFC, Saskatchewan StockGrowers Association (SSGA), the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s AssociationAgricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) to communicate theavailability of the survey.

Email notices developed by MNP were sent to producers via stakeholder associations toinvite them to participate in the producer survey.

Individual written submission notices

Email notices developed by MNP were sent directly to stakeholder associations to invitethem to develop a written submission.

d dates, the website content, advertisements and focus group invite

ACKGROUND MATERIALS

als such as The Value of Saskatchewan’s Forage Industry, as well as historic and current ADF project approvals and examples of published materials

The focus groups were comprised of selected beef and forage producers able to attend either of themeetings held in Saskatoon (December 6, 2011) or Regina (December 7, 2011). Specifically the selectionprocess sought individuals who were mostly below the average age of producers in the industry and whowere known to be articulate and forthcoming in such settings. Therefore, these focus groupspredominantly consisted of the younger, early adopters; the average age of focus group attendees wasestimated at approximately 43. Although the focus groups may not be representative of the industry as a

reasonably representative of the opinion formers, influencers and leaders ofthe industry in the next ten to twenty years.


The focus groups were also to provide insight into future research priorities and the potential impact onproducers, industry stakeholders, researchers and prospective students. Issues and opportunities forimprovement identified during the focus groups were then to be further explored through the producsurvey. With this objective in mind, the following themes were discussed during the focus groups:

Page l 16

It was agreed that the Ministry and MNP wanted to attract a sample of early adopters forthe focus groups. A number of industry associations were contacted and asked to provide

agricultural serviceleaders in Saskatchewan to nominate potential attendees. The project team thenrandomly selected producers to participate and extended invitations until the desired

An MNP resource was available to respond to producers’ questions regarding the reviewents, provide information on how to contribute to the review and receive

producer feedback. The MNP resource also handled the distribution of paper copies of

, Saskatchewan Stock, the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association (SGA) and the

to communicate the

Email notices developed by MNP were sent to producers via stakeholder associations to

holder associations to invite

and focus group invite are

The Value of Saskatchewan’s Forage Industry, produced, as well as historic and current ADF project approvals and examples of published materials

and forage producers able to attend either of themeetings held in Saskatoon (December 6, 2011) or Regina (December 7, 2011). Specifically the selectionprocess sought individuals who were mostly below the average age of producers in the industry and whowere known to be articulate and forthcoming in such settings. Therefore, these focus groupspredominantly consisted of the younger, early adopters; the average age of focus group attendees was

t be representative of the industry as armers, influencers and leaders of


o future research priorities and the potential impact onproducers, industry stakeholders, researchers and prospective students. Issues and opportunities forimprovement identified during the focus groups were then to be further explored through the producersurvey. With this objective in mind, the following themes were discussed during the focus groups:



SASKATCHEWAN

Overall awareness of the current research and development programs

Future research and development activities

Specific areas for improvement

Provincial comparisons

Future trends in the industry

The focus group facilitation guide used during this phase of data collec

4.4 ON-SITE TOURS AND

MNP completed facility tours and reviewed the programs at theBioresources, the WBDC and theoperations, outcomes and opportunities of each facility. MNP analyzed each facility’s governance model;historical performance and documentati

4.5 MEETINGS WITH SRP

MNP held in-person meetings with the three Strategic Research Program Chairs as well aendowed Chair and Beef Industry Chair:

Dr. Peiqiang Yu, SRP Chair, Feed Research and Development

Kathy Larson, SRP Chair, Economics of Cow

Dr. Bart Lardner, SRP Chair, Cow

Dr. Tom Scott, Chair, Feed Processing Technology

Dr. John McKinnon, Saskatchewan Beef Industry Chair

The purpose of these meetings was to identiffocus of the meetings included:

the five-year research plan,

progress to plan,

actual results,

competitive advantages,

degree of technology transfer, and

analysis of key processes and project manag

4.6 INTERVIEWS

MNP and the project committee identified a representative list of stakeholders to interview includingreview steering committee members, industry associations, civil servants, veterinarians, researchers,Agrologists and a sample of larger producers. The final list was reviewed and approved by the SMA.Stakeholder interviews took place with individuals from the following organizations, among others:


Western Beef Development Centre

Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute


Overall awareness of the current research and development programs

Future research and development activities

Specific areas for improvement

Future trends in the industry

The focus group facilitation guide used during this phase of data collection is available in App

OURS AND PROGRAM REVIEWS

MNP completed facility tours and reviewed the programs at the U of S College of Agricultureand the FTRF in order to gain first-hand knowledge of the objectives,

operations, outcomes and opportunities of each facility. MNP analyzed each facility’s governance model;historical performance and documentation were also reviewed.

SRP CHAIRS

person meetings with the three Strategic Research Program Chairs as well aChair and Beef Industry Chair:

Dr. Peiqiang Yu, SRP Chair, Feed Research and Development

Larson, SRP Chair, Economics of Cow-Calf Production

Dr. Bart Lardner, SRP Chair, Cow-Calf and Forage Systems

Dr. Tom Scott, Chair, Feed Processing Technology

Dr. John McKinnon, Saskatchewan Beef Industry Chair

The purpose of these meetings was to identify research programs and the five-year research plan. The

year research plan,

degree of technology transfer, and

analysis of key processes and project management.

MNP and the project committee identified a representative list of stakeholders to interview includingreview steering committee members, industry associations, civil servants, veterinarians, researchers,

larger producers. The final list was reviewed and approved by the SMA.Stakeholder interviews took place with individuals from the following organizations, among others:



cultural Machinery Institute

Ministry of Agriculture

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada


Page l 17

tion is available in Appendix E.

e of Agriculture andhand knowledge of the objectives,

operations, outcomes and opportunities of each facility. MNP analyzed each facility’s governance model;

person meetings with the three Strategic Research Program Chairs as well as the additional

year research plan. The

MNP and the project committee identified a representative list of stakeholders to interview includingreview steering committee members, industry associations, civil servants, veterinarians, researchers,

larger producers. The final list was reviewed and approved by the SMA.Stakeholder interviews took place with individuals from the following organizations, among others:

Food Canada




SASKATCHEWAN

Saskatchewan Cattle BreedersAssociation

Saskatchewan Livestock Association

Saskatchewan Stock GrowersAssociation

Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s A

Saskatchewan Cattle FeedersAssociation

Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

Canadian Forage and GrasslandAssociation

MNP also attended the Canadian Forage and GrasslandSaskatchewan Beef Industry Conference. Several of the interviews MNP completed were conductedduring these conferences. These attendances also elicited a good deal of spontaneous input fromproducers attending those events. A complete list of stakeholders interviC.

Fifty-seven interviews (in-person or by telephone) were conducted by MNP in order to gain insight into thefour main theme areas which are described below:

Program Effectiveness

Knowledge of the programs, success stories, economic impact, industry competitiveness, effectiveness ofproject identification, funding and eventual technology transfer.

Future Priorities

Major trends in the next ten years, research activities in otherresearch and development priorities not being met, process for identification of research priorities.

Infrastructure

The state of existing intellectual and physical infrastructure, identification of infrastcompetitive advantages for Saskatchewan (with existing infrastructure), alignment of infrastructure withpriorities and Saskatchewan’s ability to attract the right research talent.

Governance

The effectiveness of the research identificationresearch identification and selectiongovernance model’s ability to align priorities with industry needs.

The stakeholder interview guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in Appendix

4.7 PRODUCER SURVEY

An extensive online producer survey was developed to empirically measure producer assessment of theresearch and development activities aon research activities conducted byalso governance and research focus. Specifically, the survey contained the following sections forproducer input:


Saskatchewan Cattle Breeders

Saskatchewan Livestock Association

Saskatchewan Stock Growers


Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders

Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

Canadian Forage and Grassland

Canadian Seed Trade Association

Saskatchewan Forage SeedDevelopment Commission


Pfizer

Spring Creek Land and CattleConsulting Inc.


Simmental Association/Genomics

nded the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association Annual Meeting and theSaskatchewan Beef Industry Conference. Several of the interviews MNP completed were conductedduring these conferences. These attendances also elicited a good deal of spontaneous input from

ts. A complete list of stakeholders interviewed can be found in Appendix

person or by telephone) were conducted by MNP in order to gain insight into thefour main theme areas which are described below:

Knowledge of the programs, success stories, economic impact, industry competitiveness, effectiveness ofproject identification, funding and eventual technology transfer.

Major trends in the next ten years, research activities in other jurisdictions, opportunities for collaboration,research and development priorities not being met, process for identification of research priorities.

The state of existing intellectual and physical infrastructure, identification of infrastcompetitive advantages for Saskatchewan (with existing infrastructure), alignment of infrastructure withpriorities and Saskatchewan’s ability to attract the right research talent.

The effectiveness of the research identification and selection process, the fairness and balance ofresearch identification and selection process, assessment of the current governance model and the

ability to align priorities with industry needs.

The stakeholder interview guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in Appendix

An extensive online producer survey was developed to empirically measure producer assessment of theresearch and development activities and the uptake of a sample of new technologies.on research activities conducted by WBDC, U of S and others to facilitate not only funding decisions butalso governance and research focus. Specifically, the survey contained the following sections for

Page l 18

Canadian Seed Trade Association

Saskatchewan Forage SeedDevelopment Commission


Land and Cattle


Simmental Association/Genomics

Association Annual Meeting and theSaskatchewan Beef Industry Conference. Several of the interviews MNP completed were conductedduring these conferences. These attendances also elicited a good deal of spontaneous input from

ewed can be found in Appendix

person or by telephone) were conducted by MNP in order to gain insight into the

Knowledge of the programs, success stories, economic impact, industry competitiveness, effectiveness of

jurisdictions, opportunities for collaboration,research and development priorities not being met, process for identification of research priorities.

The state of existing intellectual and physical infrastructure, identification of infrastructure gaps,competitive advantages for Saskatchewan (with existing infrastructure), alignment of infrastructure with

and selection process, the fairness and balance of thecurrent governance model and the

The stakeholder interview guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in Appendix B.

An extensive online producer survey was developed to empirically measure producer assessment of the. Focus was placed

and others to facilitate not only funding decisions butalso governance and research focus. Specifically, the survey contained the following sections for



SASKATCHEWAN

Optional profile questions including producer age and the type, location and size offarming operations

Overall evaluation of the current beef, feed and forage research and development activities inSaskatchewan

Alignment of research and development activities to producer needs and the priority topic areasresearch activities should focus on

Evaluation of a sample of projects that have been funded through the Aestimate of money saved or earned on an annual basis as a result of applying the technologies orprocesses resulting from these projects

Approach and effectiveness of technology transfer activities

Future priorities of research and development activities

Producers were notified of the survey through online and print advertising. MNP also provided messagingregarding the survey to 33 stakeholder associtheir membership via email or other means. Producers without access to the internet or preferring tocomplete the survey on paper were invited to call MNP and request that a paper copy be mailed orto them. In order to prevent multiple online survey responses from a single person, the survey wasdesigned to only allow one submission pe

In order to increase participation rates for the survey, aplaced targeted phone calls to producers at the end of the survey time window. As a result, the surveyresults should not be considered entirely random.was able to attract the input of aninformation about the program.

MNP received 280 responses to the survey. This provides a5.8%, 19 times out of 20 (based on a random sample)answered every question in the survey, so this is the “overall” confidence level. The confidence level willbe different for individual questions depending on the number of respoattached as Appendix I. Complete survey data is attached as Appendix

Demographics of Survey Respondents

Most (87.5%) survey respondents indicated that they run cowalso received from a sample of producers who run several other types of operations as shown in thegraph below. Note that some producers indicated that they manage multiple types of operations,accounting for the fact that the total number of operations shown in the graphsurvey respondents.


Optional profile questions including producer age and the type, location and size of

Overall evaluation of the current beef, feed and forage research and development activities in

Alignment of research and development activities to producer needs and the priority topic areasuld focus on

Evaluation of a sample of projects that have been funded through the ADF andestimate of money saved or earned on an annual basis as a result of applying the technologies orprocesses resulting from these projects

effectiveness of technology transfer activities

Future priorities of research and development activities

Producers were notified of the survey through online and print advertising. MNP also provided messagingregarding the survey to 33 stakeholder associations, requesting that they forward this messaging on totheir membership via email or other means. Producers without access to the internet or preferring tocomplete the survey on paper were invited to call MNP and request that a paper copy be mailed orto them. In order to prevent multiple online survey responses from a single person, the survey wasdesigned to only allow one submission per IP address (i.e. one submission per computer).

In order to increase participation rates for the survey, a number of committee members for this reviewtargeted phone calls to producers at the end of the survey time window. As a result, the survey

be considered entirely random. However, as a result of these phone calls,an increased share of larger producers which provided

MNP received 280 responses to the survey. This provides an overall confidence interval of plus or minus(based on a random sample). It is important to note that not every producer

answered every question in the survey, so this is the “overall” confidence level. The confidence level willbe different for individual questions depending on the number of responses. The survey instrument is

. Complete survey data is attached as Appendix J.

Demographics of Survey Respondents

Most (87.5%) survey respondents indicated that they run cow-calf operations. Survey responses werem a sample of producers who run several other types of operations as shown in the

graph below. Note that some producers indicated that they manage multiple types of operations,accounting for the fact that the total number of operations shown in the graph exceeds the total number of

Page l 19

Optional profile questions including producer age and the type, location and size of producer

Overall evaluation of the current beef, feed and forage research and development activities in

Alignment of research and development activities to producer needs and the priority topic areas

and SRP including anestimate of money saved or earned on an annual basis as a result of applying the technologies or

Producers were notified of the survey through online and print advertising. MNP also provided messagingations, requesting that they forward this messaging on to

their membership via email or other means. Producers without access to the internet or preferring tocomplete the survey on paper were invited to call MNP and request that a paper copy be mailed or faxedto them. In order to prevent multiple online survey responses from a single person, the survey was

r IP address (i.e. one submission per computer).

er of committee members for this reviewtargeted phone calls to producers at the end of the survey time window. As a result, the survey

, as a result of these phone calls, the surveylarger producers which provided more valuable

confidence interval of plus or minusimportant to note that not every producer

answered every question in the survey, so this is the “overall” confidence level. The confidence level willThe survey instrument is

calf operations. Survey responses werem a sample of producers who run several other types of operations as shown in the

graph below. Note that some producers indicated that they manage multiple types of operations,exceeds the total number of



SASKATCHEWAN

There is a good distribution of demographics amongst survey respondents in terms of location and age.Responses were received from producers throughout many areas of the Provincefor information on the specific locations of respondentsbetween “older” producers over the age of 45 and “younger” producers under the age of 44.

Responses received were generally from mid to large producerfeedlot operations indicated that their feedlots were small (under 1,000)respondents’ operations has been provided below.

Feed Grower

Other Livestock

Dairy Producer

Forage Producer

Feedlot

Cow-Calf

Survey Respondents' Farming Operation Types

55 to 64

2,561 to 5,120

5,121 to10,240 acres

10%


There is a good distribution of demographics amongst survey respondents in terms of location and age.Responses were received from producers throughout many areas of the Province (please see Appendixfor information on the specific locations of respondents). An almost 50-50 response rate was achievedbetween “older” producers over the age of 45 and “younger” producers under the age of 44.

Responses received were generally from mid to large producers; however, most (83%) respondents withfeedlot operations indicated that their feedlots were small (under 1,000). Data regarding the size of surveyrespondents’ operations has been provided below.

0 50 100 150 200 250

Other Livestock

Dairy Producer

Forage Producer

Feedlot

Calf

Survey Respondents' Farming Operation Types

24 or under3%

25 to 3417%

35 to 4423%

45 to 5427%

55 to 6423%

65 or more7%

Age of Survey Respondents

Under 640acres13%

641 to1,280 acres

17%

1,281 to 2,560acres25%

2,561 to 5,120acres30%

5,121 to10,240 acres

10,241 acresor more

5%

Size of Respondents' Farm or Ranch

Page l 20

There is a good distribution of demographics amongst survey respondents in terms of location and age.lease see Appendix J

50 response rate was achievedbetween “older” producers over the age of 45 and “younger” producers under the age of 44.

; however, most (83%) respondents with. Data regarding the size of survey



SASKATCHEWAN

4.8 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

In order to gather more in-depth, qualitative feedback from producers, associations, researchers andother stakeholders, a written submission guide was made available on the review website, and emailed tostakeholders who were interviewed as well as others who requested the guide. The gucomments on the following themes:

Program effectiveness

Future research and development priorities

Physical and intellectual infrastructure assessment

Program governance

The following organizations submitted written input regarding the

College of Agriculture and Bioresources and Department of Animal and Poultry Science,University of Saskatchewan




Two producers also provided written submissions to MNP

The written submission guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in AppendixWritten submissions prepared by industry, research or other organizationsin Appendix H.

4.9 COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

Agriculture is a global industry; the scientific research and development that supports it is also global. Inmost jurisdictions this research and development is funded by governments to some degree. In a processto review the way that the science is funded in Saskatchewan, MNP investigated alternative models inuse in other jurisdictions, focusing on those used in similar industries. The purpose of this research wasnot to find a “plug-and-play” model thtypes of models that could be used and what their attributes are.

Under 10029%

101 to 25033%

251 to 50025%

501 to 7505%

751 to 1,0002%

1,000 or more6%

Size of Cow-Calf Producers' Operations


UBMISSIONS

, qualitative feedback from producers, associations, researchers andother stakeholders, a written submission guide was made available on the review website, and emailed tostakeholders who were interviewed as well as others who requested the guide. The gucomments on the following themes:

Future research and development priorities

Physical and intellectual infrastructure assessment

The following organizations submitted written input regarding the review:

College of Agriculture and Bioresources and Department of Animal and Poultry Science,University of Saskatchewan



Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association (Research Strategy and Priorities)

o producers also provided written submissions to MNP

The written submission guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in AppendixWritten submissions prepared by industry, research or other organizations and associations are included

ESEARCH

Agriculture is a global industry; the scientific research and development that supports it is also global. Inmost jurisdictions this research and development is funded by governments to some degree. In a process

view the way that the science is funded in Saskatchewan, MNP investigated alternative models inuse in other jurisdictions, focusing on those used in similar industries. The purpose of this research was

model that can be adopted in Saskatchewan, but to identify the possibletypes of models that could be used and what their attributes are.

Under 1,00083%

1,000 to 5,00013%

5,000 to10,000

2%

Over 10,0002%

Size of Respondents' Feedlot OperationsCalf Producers' Operations

Page l 21

, qualitative feedback from producers, associations, researchers andother stakeholders, a written submission guide was made available on the review website, and emailed tostakeholders who were interviewed as well as others who requested the guide. The guide asked for

College of Agriculture and Bioresources and Department of Animal and Poultry Science,

The written submission guide used during this phase of data collection can be found in Appendix G.and associations are included

Agriculture is a global industry; the scientific research and development that supports it is also global. Inmost jurisdictions this research and development is funded by governments to some degree. In a process

view the way that the science is funded in Saskatchewan, MNP investigated alternative models inuse in other jurisdictions, focusing on those used in similar industries. The purpose of this research was

in Saskatchewan, but to identify the possible

Under 1,00083%

Size of Respondents' Feedlot Operations



SASKATCHEWAN

5.0 KEY FINDINGS

It is important to note that the process to obtain information from stakeholders wasqualitative. Information and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt werenecessary to investigate further. MNP used a set of standard topics andhowever, each interview was provided flexibility to focus on relevThis approach resulted in diverse set ofrecommendations than if the questionnaire was strictly adhered with

Much of- the consultation process wascomments were recorded at times, a significant amount of stakeholder consultationincludes summaries of the key items discussed.during the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholdersAppendix A provides a summary of main points for “what we heard” through the consultation process,including stakeholders perceptions of the program whnature of information was refined for MNP’s analysis and the formation of the key findings. Key findings ofthe consultation process were determined primarily by the recurrence and/or significance of the tthat emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying keyfindings we believe were relevant to the objectives of the study.

Key findings from all stakeholder consultation activities are provided below.

5.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF C

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also soustakeholders’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of these activities and the transfer of the resultingtechnologies. The key findings are listed below.

Overall, stakeholders indicated that current beef,effective. For example, data from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producers either agreed orstrongly agreed that the activities are effective and relevant actiagreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of theiroperations. An overarching finding by MNP is that the current program is generally effectivetherefore an “evolution”, not a “revolution”,beneficial for producers. The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pull manyproducers out of a BSE mindset that focuses on break even operations and risk management, verlong-term mindset that focuses on strategic investments and value creation.

Industry-Driven Priorities

Clear research and development priorities should be identified and set through a formalized process ofindustry consultation. Priority identificathe specific aim of engaging the end users in the setting of at least some of the priorities.

There has been measurable but comparatively lowproducers from the 16 selected projectssome of the most widely adopted results from reseneeds of producers. This was followedthat first critical success at identification, those great resultsimportance of mixing industry producers with researchers and extension agrolneeds identification cannot be underestimated as a breeding ground for future great research.


It is important to note that the process to obtain information from stakeholders was both quantitative andInformation and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt were

MNP used a set of standard topics and questions for all stakeholders;provided flexibility to focus on relevant topics of interest to each individual.

resulted in diverse set of information that better informed the report’s key findings andthan if the questionnaire was strictly adhered with.

the consultation process was discussion based and recorded by hand; therefore, while verbatimmes, a significant amount of stakeholder consultationitems discussed. MNP recognizes that some of the comments heard

uring the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholdersAppendix A provides a summary of main points for “what we heard” through the consultation process,including stakeholders perceptions of the program which may not always have been accurate. The factualnature of information was refined for MNP’s analysis and the formation of the key findings. Key findings ofthe consultation process were determined primarily by the recurrence and/or significance of the tthat emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying keyfindings we believe were relevant to the objectives of the study.

Key findings from all stakeholder consultation activities are provided below.

CURRENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also soustakeholders’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of these activities and the transfer of the resultingtechnologies. The key findings are listed below.

Overall, stakeholders indicated that current beef, feed and forage research and development activities areata from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producers either agreed or

strongly agreed that the activities are effective and relevant activities for them as produceragreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of their

An overarching finding by MNP is that the current program is generally effectiven “evolution”, not a “revolution”, would be required to make these activities more effective and

The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pull manyproducers out of a BSE mindset that focuses on break even operations and risk management, ver

term mindset that focuses on strategic investments and value creation.

Clear research and development priorities should be identified and set through a formalized process ofindustry consultation. Priority identification and selection should occur in a coordinated, regular cycle withthe specific aim of engaging the end users in the setting of at least some of the priorities.

measurable but comparatively low uptake of research results by medium and large16 selected projects included in this study’s producer survey. What

ome of the most widely adopted results from research activities began with gatheringfollowed by great research and highly effective technology transfer.

that first critical success at identification, those great results could not have been achieved.importance of mixing industry producers with researchers and extension agrologists for the purpose of

identification cannot be underestimated as a breeding ground for future great research.

Page l 22

both quantitative andInformation and trends emerged throughout the consultation process that MNP felt were

questions for all stakeholders;ant topics of interest to each individual.

the report’s key findings and

discussion based and recorded by hand; therefore, while verbatimmes, a significant amount of stakeholder consultation documentation

that some of the comments hearduring the consultation process are not necessarily factual, but reflect the perceptions of stakeholders.

Appendix A provides a summary of main points for “what we heard” through the consultation process,ich may not always have been accurate. The factual

nature of information was refined for MNP’s analysis and the formation of the key findings. Key findings ofthe consultation process were determined primarily by the recurrence and/or significance of the themesthat emerged. In addition, MNP’s independent knowledge and expertise was significant in identifying key

EVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’knowledge of current and past research and development activities was explored. MNP also soughtstakeholders’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of these activities and the transfer of the resulting

feed and forage research and development activities areata from the producer survey indicates that 68.3% of producers either agreed or

vities for them as producers; 55.1%agreed or strongly agreed that the activities place enough emphasis on improving the economics of their

An overarching finding by MNP is that the current program is generally effective, andwould be required to make these activities more effective and

The provincial research program can be an effective catalyst to pull manyproducers out of a BSE mindset that focuses on break even operations and risk management, versus a

Clear research and development priorities should be identified and set through a formalized process oftion and selection should occur in a coordinated, regular cycle with

the specific aim of engaging the end users in the setting of at least some of the priorities.

by medium and largeWhat is evident is that

arch activities began with gathering insight into thehighly effective technology transfer. Without

could not have been achieved. Theogists for the purpose of

identification cannot be underestimated as a breeding ground for future great research.



SASKATCHEWAN

Greater Emphasis on Economics and

The research program needs to continue to focus on driving profitability and sustainability.in the process of adoption of a new technology by producers is their assessment of,economic benefits that may or may not cothat is performed there are minimalactual economic impact of the research.economic impact of the research program.of technologies and processes in the past several years.research measuring uptake and economic impactthe funding process is a shortcoming. Furthermore, twhen no kind of measurement or baseline has been put in place at thealmost impossible to assess with any reliability.they do not appear to be for many ofown perceived focus on economic benefits).to be generally poor in its rigor by a number of stakeholders.priorities is compromised by the lack ofimpact stages.

Producers also indicated that improved methods of evaluating the benefits of adopted technologies intheir own operations would be valuable. Producersbenefits of technology adoption for themselves.adoption, they tend to do so in a manner inconsistent with

In some cases with certain projectsof economic impact to demonstrate overall value for the industryto environment or animal welfare. Examples of such measurements could include measuring activitiesother lagging indicators on uptake, or measuring sales of a piece of technology rather than the impactthat the technology is having on a farm.for each proposal would be to considermeans to measure uptake (and therefore derive economic impact) is described

It is important to note that there are some technologies that, despite their proven economic benefits,low adoption rates. Therefore, it is clear that ttechnology adoption. These are not well understoodmade by the Ministry and other stakeholders

More Robust/Modernized Technology Transfer

The importance of technology transfer to the success of research and development activities isunderstood by stakeholders. It was expressed thatin the technology transfer and technology uptake process. Better lprivate sector through increasing the use of information technologeffectiveness of technology transfer.

Increasing travel costs and diminishing available time as farms increase in sizeless willing to travel to attend technology demonstrations. At the same timebecoming increasingly educated andrepeatedly identified as a means to increaseresulting technologies, magnifying thefrom many stakeholders for the concept of an online portal which producers could accessof technology demonstrations. Although it is likely to be a major initiative to organize suinformation, its ability to yield benefitcost could make it a key future component in the effort to increase producer benefits from research anddevelopment.


Economics and Value

The research program needs to continue to focus on driving profitability and sustainability.in the process of adoption of a new technology by producers is their assessment of, and/economic benefits that may or may not come from that adoption. It appears that for much of the researc

follow-up plans put in place to either measure uptake or ultimately theactual economic impact of the research. This lack of information makes it very difficult to estimate theeconomic impact of the research program. Very few reliable statistics exist as to the actual level of uptakeof technologies and processes in the past several years. It is readily agreed that

e and economic impact is next to impossible but to not consider this as part ofshortcoming. Furthermore, trying to retroactively quantify the impact of projects

when no kind of measurement or baseline has been put in place at the start makes economic impactalmost impossible to assess with any reliability. While economic benefits are top-of-mind for producersthey do not appear to be for many of the researchers (although one institution, WBDC, stands out with its

s on economic benefits). The information provided in application forms was reportedor by a number of stakeholders. Evaluation of spending effectiveness and

lack of quality information at the proposal evaluation an

Producers also indicated that improved methods of evaluating the benefits of adopted technologies intheir own operations would be valuable. Producers are not always well equipped to assess

for themselves. If they attempt to assess the economic benefits ofdo so in a manner inconsistent with the way the researchers or economists

with certain projects, a broader set of measurements could prove more valuable than thatto demonstrate overall value for the industry. This could apply to projects that relate

Examples of such measurements could include measuring activitiesother lagging indicators on uptake, or measuring sales of a piece of technology rather than the impactthat the technology is having on a farm. An alternative to mandating that there be anfor each proposal would be to consider establishing a requirement for a “value” component in which themeans to measure uptake (and therefore derive economic impact) is described by the researcher

It is important to note that there are some technologies that, despite their proven economic benefits,t is clear that there are factors other than economic benefits

are not well understood at this time; however, continued efforts shouldand other stakeholders to try to understand these factors.

More Robust/Modernized Technology Transfer

The importance of technology transfer to the success of research and development activities ist was expressed that information management and access are major issues

in the technology transfer and technology uptake process. Better leveraging provincial agrologists and thethe use of information technology would be a means of improving

ectiveness of technology transfer.

diminishing available time as farms increase in size have madeless willing to travel to attend technology demonstrations. At the same time, many producers arebecoming increasingly educated and technology competent. Modernizing technology transfer was

ied as a means to increase producers’ access to research findings andresulting technologies, magnifying the economic benefits of research spending. Support was receivedfrom many stakeholders for the concept of an online portal which producers could access

Although it is likely to be a major initiative to organize suinformation, its ability to yield benefits to a large number of producers quickly and at a low, incrementalcost could make it a key future component in the effort to increase producer benefits from research and

Page l 23

The research program needs to continue to focus on driving profitability and sustainability. A critical stageand/or belief in, the

for much of the researchup plans put in place to either measure uptake or ultimately the

cult to estimate theVery few reliable statistics exist as to the actual level of uptake

for some types ofis next to impossible but to not consider this as part of

rying to retroactively quantify the impact of projectsstart makes economic impact

mind for producersresearchers (although one institution, WBDC, stands out with its

The information provided in application forms was reportedEvaluation of spending effectiveness and

proposal evaluation and post-project

Producers also indicated that improved methods of evaluating the benefits of adopted technologies inare not always well equipped to assess the economic

attempt to assess the economic benefits ofor economists would.

f measurements could prove more valuable than thatThis could apply to projects that relate

Examples of such measurements could include measuring activities orother lagging indicators on uptake, or measuring sales of a piece of technology rather than the impact

economic analysisishing a requirement for a “value” component in which the

by the researcher.

It is important to note that there are some technologies that, despite their proven economic benefits, havefactors other than economic benefits that impact

ontinued efforts should be

The importance of technology transfer to the success of research and development activities istion management and access are major issues

everaging provincial agrologists and they would be a means of improving the

have made producers, many producers are

. Modernizing technology transfer wasproducers’ access to research findings and their uptake of

economic benefits of research spending. Support was receivedfrom many stakeholders for the concept of an online portal which producers could access to view videos

Although it is likely to be a major initiative to organize such a portal ofquickly and at a low, incremental

cost could make it a key future component in the effort to increase producer benefits from research and



SASKATCHEWAN

An Improved Project Approval Process is Required

The current once-per-year process of project approval is seeninnovation and potentially reducinghave more fluid processes. It was acknowledged however, that ADF does have a more frequentapplication process for special projectsused in the recent past.

Researchers are spending increasing amounts of time making applications and seeking funding and lesstime in the laboratory, lecture halls and in front of producers.as it lessens the amount of time put into appstrong support for maintaining the LOI processthat having additional project application windows would provide benefits including theschedule and align graduate student time.

It is anticipated that additional project application windows would lead to a modest riseapplications. The Ministry would need to reaccommodate additional application windows.the amount of resources by application window toadding additional application windows may lead to inconsistencies with research windows for otheragricultural sector research programs.

Balance between Pure (or Basic) and Applied Research is Required

Much of the research for applied projects depends on the results of pure research, which may not havebeen undertaken with a specific end use in mind,Because of the uncertainty of its outcomes, pure rresearch and therefore, it is generally easier to obtain funding for applied or nearto obtain funding for pure research.Government. The provincial ADF proprimarily on applied research and was designed to fillexpressed that the funding of pure research issuffer from lack of pure research data and/or inadequacy of physical and intellectual infrastructure.value of pure (or basic) research cannot be underestimated. If Saskatchewan truly wants totransformative improvements in the industrypure research in order to supportattract industry funding.

There is a critical balance between pure research, applied research and technology transfer that needs tobe achieved. There is no information available on what the appropriate ratio is or evidence that anyparticular ratio is being sought. However, all thwasteful and the right technology is to reach users at an appropriate rate. Establishing guidelines on theappropriate ratios of effort, resourcing and expenditure between these threean ongoing review of the areas will help to optimize the flowactivities of all three areas togethersmoother.

Beef, Feed and Forage Research andSupply-Chain Basis

Beef and forage are mutually dependent industries in Saskatchewanneeds. Producers in the industry see their industry holistically. Their income and therefore their futureviability depends upon success throughout the supply chain from the right cattle and forage genetics tothe right management, the availability of resources lgrowing, affluent markets for their end products. Feffective, the planning, funding, technology transfer and all other components of beef and foragactivities should be considered and managed as a single complex.


roject Approval Process is Required

year process of project approval is seen by some stakeholdersovation and potentially reducing collaboration with other jurisdictions and the private sector, which

It was acknowledged however, that ADF does have a more frequentspecial projects available during the year. Special project windows have

Researchers are spending increasing amounts of time making applications and seeking funding and lesslecture halls and in front of producers. The Letter of Intent (LOI)

time put into applications before there is some certainty of success.ning the LOI process and increasing the frequency of applications.

that having additional project application windows would provide benefits including theschedule and align graduate student time.

It is anticipated that additional project application windows would lead to a modest riseapplications. The Ministry would need to rebalance its allocation of internal resource

additional application windows. In addition, the Ministry would need to appropriately budgetthe amount of resources by application window to meet the needs of researchers. The Ministry noted that

dows may lead to inconsistencies with research windows for otheragricultural sector research programs.

Balance between Pure (or Basic) and Applied Research is Required

Much of the research for applied projects depends on the results of pure research, which may not havebeen undertaken with a specific end use in mind, or it was undertaken with a different end use in mind.Because of the uncertainty of its outcomes, pure research is typically considered higher risk than appliedresearch and therefore, it is generally easier to obtain funding for applied or near-market projects than it is

research. Most of the pure research in Canada is funded by tThe provincial ADF program is designed to compliment Federal resear

research and was designed to fill gaps in the funding continuum.nding of pure research is restricted, and the applied research effort will eventually

pure research data and/or inadequacy of physical and intellectual infrastructure.value of pure (or basic) research cannot be underestimated. If Saskatchewan truly wants totransformative improvements in the industry, then the Province has to be prepared to continue to in

the applied research and commercialization that is typically

There is a critical balance between pure research, applied research and technology transfer that needs tobe achieved. There is no information available on what the appropriate ratio is or evidence that anyparticular ratio is being sought. However, all three have to work in harmony if the process is not to bewasteful and the right technology is to reach users at an appropriate rate. Establishing guidelines on theappropriate ratios of effort, resourcing and expenditure between these three areas and then m

will help to optimize the flow of technology to end users. Ball three areas together will also help to make the research and technology transfer process

earch and Development Should be Together and Organized

Beef and forage are mutually dependent industries in Saskatchewan and frequently have overlappingProducers in the industry see their industry holistically. Their income and therefore their future

viability depends upon success throughout the supply chain from the right cattle and forage genetics tothe right management, the availability of resources like capital, land, water and labour and access togrowing, affluent markets for their end products. For the research activities in these industries to be fullyeffective, the planning, funding, technology transfer and all other components of beef and foragactivities should be considered and managed as a single complex. However, forage, being a crop,

Page l 24

by some stakeholders as limitingcollaboration with other jurisdictions and the private sector, which

It was acknowledged however, that ADF does have a more frequentSpecial project windows have been

Researchers are spending increasing amounts of time making applications and seeking funding and less(LOI) process is valued

certainty of success. There isincreasing the frequency of applications. It was noted

that having additional project application windows would provide benefits including the ability to better

It is anticipated that additional project application windows would lead to a modest rise in the number ofbalance its allocation of internal resources in order toIn addition, the Ministry would need to appropriately budget

The Ministry noted thatdows may lead to inconsistencies with research windows for other

Much of the research for applied projects depends on the results of pure research, which may not havewith a different end use in mind.

esearch is typically considered higher risk than appliedmarket projects than it is

nded by the Federalederal research by focusing

gaps in the funding continuum. Concerns werethe applied research effort will eventually

pure research data and/or inadequacy of physical and intellectual infrastructure. Thevalue of pure (or basic) research cannot be underestimated. If Saskatchewan truly wants to support

the Province has to be prepared to continue to invest inis typically able to

There is a critical balance between pure research, applied research and technology transfer that needs tobe achieved. There is no information available on what the appropriate ratio is or evidence that any

ree have to work in harmony if the process is not to bewasteful and the right technology is to reach users at an appropriate rate. Establishing guidelines on the

and then maintainingof technology to end users. Binding the

will also help to make the research and technology transfer process

hould be Together and Organized on a

and frequently have overlappingProducers in the industry see their industry holistically. Their income and therefore their future

viability depends upon success throughout the supply chain from the right cattle and forage genetics toike capital, land, water and labour and access to

in these industries to be fullyeffective, the planning, funding, technology transfer and all other components of beef and forage research

However, forage, being a crop,



SASKATCHEWAN

benefits from the same scientific approach that is used in crop research; theas a joint responsibility of the livestockthrough utilization by livestock.

Consideration should then be given as to whether the remainder of the supply chainplate” and other forage using livestock industriesactivities.

Governance Model Needs Improvement

The cycle of project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation and technology transferfunctions moderately well but not all of the parts work in hasame goals. Improvements in the management and focus of this governance model and its respectiveparts could yield significantly better value to the Province from the research and development annualspend.

Funding for forage research has to be viewed differently thanproduction cycle is longer and yields less.in nature as growing conditions vary so much regionally within the Province. Tfeed and forage in Saskatchewanviewing these sectors’ contributions to the Province’s GDP.

Increased Collaboration is Required

The importance and value of collaboration across jurisdictions and between fundersunderestimated. Good progress has been made alreadcontinued and the future culture should fully incorporate this. The most natural partner for suchcollaboration is Alberta as this province has very similar conditions and industry. However, other similarjurisdictions can be found for the research fields that are not regiongenetics, genomics, meat quality, food safety and environment.

5.2 FUTURE RESEARCH AND

As part of the review of beef, feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’were asked what the future research and development priorities should be. Key findings from stakeholderconsultation activities are provided below.

When Asked, the Industry is not Sh

From just fifty seven interviews and the two focus groupssuggestions for future research needsstakeholder, but there were at least 51 separate and distinct areas of future research identified. Thisstrongly suggests that any future processfuture needs will not be short of ideas. However, it should be noted thanature, which is indicative of the challenge in maintaining the critical balance between pure and appliedresearch.


benefits from the same scientific approach that is used in crop research; therefore, forage needs to seenthe livestock and crop sectors even if its benefits are primarily expressed

Consideration should then be given as to whether the remainder of the supply chain –plate” and other forage using livestock industries – should be fully integrated into these research

Governance Model Needs Improvement

The cycle of project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation and technology transferfunctions moderately well but not all of the parts work in harmony with each other or necessarily have thesame goals. Improvements in the management and focus of this governance model and its respectiveparts could yield significantly better value to the Province from the research and development annual

has to be viewed differently than livestock and crop research as theproduction cycle is longer and yields less. As well, forage research and its benefits are distinctly regionalin nature as growing conditions vary so much regionally within the Province. The level of funding for beeffeed and forage in Saskatchewan also seems to be disproportionate to the funding fviewing these sectors’ contributions to the Province’s GDP.

Increased Collaboration is Required

The importance and value of collaboration across jurisdictions and between funders. Good progress has been made already in fostering collaboration; this trend should be

continued and the future culture should fully incorporate this. The most natural partner for suchcollaboration is Alberta as this province has very similar conditions and industry. However, other similarjurisdictions can be found for the research fields that are not region specific in their application such asgenetics, genomics, meat quality, food safety and environment.

ESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND PRIORITIES

feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’were asked what the future research and development priorities should be. Key findings from stakeholderconsultation activities are provided below.

When Asked, the Industry is not Short of Ideas for Future Priorities

and the two focus groups it was possible to gather no lessfor future research needs. Many of these were needs identified by more than one

at least 51 separate and distinct areas of future research identified. Thisthat any future process aimed at engaging industry stakeholders in the

future needs will not be short of ideas. However, it should be noted that these ideas were all of an appliedindicative of the challenge in maintaining the critical balance between pure and applied

Page l 25

refore, forage needs to seeneven if its benefits are primarily expressed

– the “farm gate tould be fully integrated into these research

The cycle of project identification, approval, funding, execution, validation and technology transferrmony with each other or necessarily have the

same goals. Improvements in the management and focus of this governance model and its respectiveparts could yield significantly better value to the Province from the research and development annual

estock and crop research as theAs well, forage research and its benefits are distinctly regional

he level of funding for beefseems to be disproportionate to the funding for crops when

The importance and value of collaboration across jurisdictions and between funders cannot bey in fostering collaboration; this trend should be

continued and the future culture should fully incorporate this. The most natural partner for suchcollaboration is Alberta as this province has very similar conditions and industry. However, other similar

in their application such as

RIORITIES

feed and forage research and development in Saskatchewan, stakeholders’were asked what the future research and development priorities should be. Key findings from stakeholder

it was possible to gather no less than 150. Many of these were needs identified by more than one

at least 51 separate and distinct areas of future research identified. Thisthe identification of

were all of an appliedindicative of the challenge in maintaining the critical balance between pure and applied



SASKATCHEWAN

The full list of topics identified during the consultation process (and used to produce the above pis provided in Appendix D.

Not all of the Future Priorities Involve the Laboratory or In

There was significant feedback on the need for research and information into economic or managementtopics (in particular focus upon managing very large cowareas like markets, environment and food safety featured pis that they have a material impact upon producer returnsproducers spoken with.

The Predominant Area of Interest for Research Involves F

Nearly 40% of the suggested futurefrom plant breeding, to seed production

Recognition and Monetization of Environmental Benefits is N

While not a unanimous finding, the producerthat the forage areas of Saskatchewrecognition amongst those who raised this topic that the true environmental benefits need to be betterunderstood prior to the implementation ofthe good of all.

Forage Research has some Lost Ground to Make Up

Forages, especially mixtures, can take many years to stablize ialso have to be expressed through an animal of some sort which may extend the testing cycle. It wasrecognized by many that were interviewed that forage has lost ground in research and developmentcompared with other sectors. Restoring momentum to the program as well as bring

Forage, 41%

Environmental, 8%

ProductionEconomics, 8%

Beef, Feed and Forage Future Research Priorities from Interviews


The full list of topics identified during the consultation process (and used to produce the above p

Not all of the Future Priorities Involve the Laboratory or In-Vivo Research

There was significant feedback on the need for research and information into economic or managementus upon managing very large cow herds, education on economics

areas like markets, environment and food safety featured prominently. What these areas haveis that they have a material impact upon producer returns, a topic that was front of mind for most of the

The Predominant Area of Interest for Research Involves Forage

future research topics involved forage in some shape or form. This rangedto seed production, to extended grazing and bloat prevention.

Recognition and Monetization of Environmental Benefits is Needed

, the producer interviews pointed at the significant environmental benefitsthat the forage areas of Saskatchewan bring to the Province and Canada. There was also widespreadrecognition amongst those who raised this topic that the true environmental benefits need to be better

to the implementation of any kind of reward or incentive for managing these areas for

ome Lost Ground to Make Up

Forages, especially mixtures, can take many years to stablize in their production. The benefits of foragesessed through an animal of some sort which may extend the testing cycle. It was

recognized by many that were interviewed that forage has lost ground in research and developmentcompared with other sectors. Restoring momentum to the program as well as bringing the technology up

Markets/Consumers,12%

Forage, 41%

Medicine, 7%Feeds, 17%

Animal Genetics, 7%


Page l 26

The full list of topics identified during the consultation process (and used to produce the above pie chart)

There was significant feedback on the need for research and information into economic or managementherds, education on economics, etc). Also,

rominently. What these areas have in commonnt of mind for most of the

topics involved forage in some shape or form. This ranged

pointed at the significant environmental benefitsThere was also widespread

recognition amongst those who raised this topic that the true environmental benefits need to be betterany kind of reward or incentive for managing these areas for

n their production. The benefits of foragesessed through an animal of some sort which may extend the testing cycle. It was

recognized by many that were interviewed that forage has lost ground in research and developmenting the technology up

Markets/Consumers,12%

Animal Genetics, 7%




SASKATCHEWAN

to date may require not only increased funding but also patience as investment may have to leadincreased results by a number of years.

Saskatchewan’s diverse environments for forage (including arable/forage rotations) require that toften need to be multi-site, adding to complexity and cost. Finally, as forage is a feedstock, its economicsare tied to those of the livestock it is fed to. All of these issues have historically tended to make forage apoor relation in the field of crop research. This has limited industry investment in research anddevelopment leaving government sometimes as the only primary funding body. There is a call forincreased funding (in total and in proportions) for forage research to help it overcome these

5.3 PHYSICAL AND INTELLECTUAL

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investments. Thefindings are listed below.

Strong Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure

Many stakeholders describe Saskatchewan’s physical and intellectual infrastructure as “world class” inthe areas of beef, feed and forage research. The Pthe U of S College of Agriculture and augmentedAgricultural Research Centre (SPARCsurvey participants for providing valuable research and technologand Provincial funding has resulted in this strong foundation of research facilitiesresearchers. There were some specific suggestions forincluding an abattoir, a feed analysis lab, a toxicology analysis unit and forage evaluation facilities.

Worsening Gaps for Forage Research Capacity

Forage is almost unanimously identified as a top future pthere is a significant intellectual infrastructure gap that is anticipated to widen with additional retirements.Currently there are only four researchers in all ofconsulted believe that the beef industry is really about forages, since the industry is largely sethrough its cattle. Significant concern was expressed over a lack of succession plans, in particular withthe pending retirement for Dr. BrucAvailable Provincial research funding for forage research is currently being unspent due to the lackintellectual infrastructure. At the same time stakeholders expressed coFederal funding for forage programs through Agriculture Canada. The importance of the SPARC facility inSwift Current was noted by many; it is an important piece of infrastructure.SRP research chair position for forages.worthy of consideration. In addition, a specific plan to identify and build new forage research capacityneeds to be a high priority.

Recognized Need for a Modern Teaching

The need for a modern teaching reseahas deteriorated to the extent that is no longer sustainable according to stakeholders.underlined for MNP the aging equipment and structural issues associated with the drainage of water andsewage. Opinion is divided on whether the U of S(BCTRU) is the right solution. An important area for rerole in the Unit itself and the expanded use of private sector feedlots for researchnumber of participants.

Opportunity for Greater Collaboration and Coordin

Stakeholders repeatedly noted the need for increased collaboration and coordination throughout theresearch phase of the project. The various players in the research system appear to get alon


to date may require not only increased funding but also patience as investment may have to leadincreased results by a number of years.

Saskatchewan’s diverse environments for forage (including arable/forage rotations) require that tsite, adding to complexity and cost. Finally, as forage is a feedstock, its economics

are tied to those of the livestock it is fed to. All of these issues have historically tended to make forage acrop research. This has limited industry investment in research and

development leaving government sometimes as the only primary funding body. There is a call forincreased funding (in total and in proportions) for forage research to help it overcome these

NTELLECTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investments. The

Strong Physical and Intellectual Infrastructure

Many stakeholders describe Saskatchewan’s physical and intellectual infrastructure as “world class” inbeef, feed and forage research. The Province has a diverse portfolio of assets anchored by

the U of S College of Agriculture and augmented by the WBDC, FTRF and the Semiarid PrairieSPARC). All the research facilities received overall positive ratings

participants for providing valuable research and technology transfer. The combination of Frovincial funding has resulted in this strong foundation of research facilities

There were some specific suggestions for only a few new facilities and research capacityincluding an abattoir, a feed analysis lab, a toxicology analysis unit and forage evaluation facilities.

Worsening Gaps for Forage Research Capacity

Forage is almost unanimously identified as a top future priority area according stakeholders.there is a significant intellectual infrastructure gap that is anticipated to widen with additional retirements.Currently there are only four researchers in all of Canada that do work in forages. Many stakeholconsulted believe that the beef industry is really about forages, since the industry is largely se

Significant concern was expressed over a lack of succession plans, in particular withtirement for Dr. Bruce Coulman. Simply increasing funding is not the whole answer.

research funding for forage research is currently being unspent due to the lackAt the same time stakeholders expressed concern over declini

ederal funding for forage programs through Agriculture Canada. The importance of the SPARC facility inSwift Current was noted by many; it is an important piece of infrastructure. Interest was expressed in an

orages. Due to the significance of forages to the industryworthy of consideration. In addition, a specific plan to identify and build new forage research capacity

Teaching Research Feedlot Facility

research feedlot is widely accepted. The condition of the existing feedlothas deteriorated to the extent that is no longer sustainable according to stakeholders. A tour of the facilityunderlined for MNP the aging equipment and structural issues associated with the drainage of water and

Opinion is divided on whether the U of S proposal for the Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unitimportant area for reconsideration is exploring an increased industry

and the expanded use of private sector feedlots for research which was raised by a

Opportunity for Greater Collaboration and Coordination

Stakeholders repeatedly noted the need for increased collaboration and coordination throughout theThe various players in the research system appear to get alon

Page l 27

to date may require not only increased funding but also patience as investment may have to lead

Saskatchewan’s diverse environments for forage (including arable/forage rotations) require that trialssite, adding to complexity and cost. Finally, as forage is a feedstock, its economics

are tied to those of the livestock it is fed to. All of these issues have historically tended to make forage acrop research. This has limited industry investment in research and

development leaving government sometimes as the only primary funding body. There is a call forincreased funding (in total and in proportions) for forage research to help it overcome these drawbacks.

Input was gathered from stakeholders through a variety of mediums regarding their assessment of thecurrent physical and intellectual infrastructure, including their suggestions for new investments. The key

Many stakeholders describe Saskatchewan’s physical and intellectual infrastructure as “world class” inrovince has a diverse portfolio of assets anchored by

the Semiarid Prairieoverall positive ratings from

combination of Federalrovincial funding has resulted in this strong foundation of research facilities and highly skilled

only a few new facilities and research capacityincluding an abattoir, a feed analysis lab, a toxicology analysis unit and forage evaluation facilities.

ty area according stakeholders. Howeverthere is a significant intellectual infrastructure gap that is anticipated to widen with additional retirements.

Many stakeholdersconsulted believe that the beef industry is really about forages, since the industry is largely selling grass

Significant concern was expressed over a lack of succession plans, in particular withSimply increasing funding is not the whole answer.

research funding for forage research is currently being unspent due to the lack ofncern over declining levels of

ederal funding for forage programs through Agriculture Canada. The importance of the SPARC facility inInterest was expressed in an

Due to the significance of forages to the industry, this is an ideaworthy of consideration. In addition, a specific plan to identify and build new forage research capacity

The condition of the existing feedlotA tour of the facility

underlined for MNP the aging equipment and structural issues associated with the drainage of water andfor the Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

is exploring an increased industrywhich was raised by a

Stakeholders repeatedly noted the need for increased collaboration and coordination throughout theThe various players in the research system appear to get along well in



SASKATCHEWAN

most cases; however, the input and comments gathperceived philosophical differences (e.g.and perceptions of the level of bureaucracy in various organizations) and the competition for scarcresources between institutions. This sense of turf protection appears to be most notable between theWBDC and the U of S. Relative to the challenges and opportunities faced by the industry, there walways be scarce resources. Greater collaboration andapproach and mindset than one of turf protection. The specialized equipment and lab space required forleading research is expensive. Opportunities to share equipment and lab space amongst researchersshould be a priority not just within Saskatchewan, but across Canada. Efficiencies gained from lowercapital costs provides the potential for more funding for research which will benefit the industry as awhole.

Increased Producer Alignment for the WBDC

The WBDC is a critical piece of the innovation system for producers. It is important for them to be seenas innovative and responsive to the needs of producers. The WBDC perceives itself to be a leader inresponding to the needs of industry and to engaging with indudirectly from leading producers and other stakeholder groups that the WBDC is not achieving its fullpotential. There were repeated suggestions for the Centre to undertake more innovative research, versusfocusing on incremental improvements to already accepted practices such as bale grazing. Severalstakeholders recognized a need for the WBDC to evolve from being a working ranch to a truedemonstration farm that is delivering high value for the early adopters. Into demonstrate more innovative research requires the U of S and others to develop more innovative labbased research for demonstration. As was noted earlier, this will require a more collaborative workingrelationship between the WBDC and U of S. In addition, it was noted that the demonstration activities ofthe Centre are not responding to the geographic diversity of the province. It was suggested that theADOPT program be used as a mechanism to do satellite research ithe Centre to focus more on cow-calf research which is viewed as a critical area. Frustrations were alsoexpressed from stakeholders that the WBDC's focus is not following their mandate for driving producereconomics. The economic work being compiled is viewed as an economic assessment. Stakeholdersare interested in having a more holistic economic analysis completed that considers the full risks and fullcosts in deploying a technology or management practice, incluin the province. Despite these concerns, the WBDC is viewed as having an important role to play insustaining a world-class beef, feed and forage research program in Saskatchewan.

Ensure Proactive Succession Management for Research Leaders

Saskatchewan’s world class capabilities in key areas are in large measure a reflection of the outstandingvision and capabilities of key leaders.retirement of these research leaders.noted earlier. In addition, there is thein a significant loss of vision and capability.posed to the overall research system in the Pphysical infrastructure.

5.4 GOVERNANCE

Input regarding the current state and future statestakeholders. The governance theme was theparticipants. Our primary research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativegovernance models in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster models as additionalperspective for evaluating the current and potential future sta



input and comments gathered underline a sense of turf protection driven byd philosophical differences (e.g. pure versus applied research, the level of focus on agronomics

and perceptions of the level of bureaucracy in various organizations) and the competition for scarcThis sense of turf protection appears to be most notable between the

Relative to the challenges and opportunities faced by the industry, there wGreater collaboration and coordination would be a far more valuable

t than one of turf protection. The specialized equipment and lab space required forleading research is expensive. Opportunities to share equipment and lab space amongst researchers

priority not just within Saskatchewan, but across Canada. Efficiencies gained from lowercapital costs provides the potential for more funding for research which will benefit the industry as a

Increased Producer Alignment for the WBDC

a critical piece of the innovation system for producers. It is important for them to be seenas innovative and responsive to the needs of producers. The WBDC perceives itself to be a leader inresponding to the needs of industry and to engaging with industry. Throughout our research we hearddirectly from leading producers and other stakeholder groups that the WBDC is not achieving its fullpotential. There were repeated suggestions for the Centre to undertake more innovative research, versus

n incremental improvements to already accepted practices such as bale grazing. Severala need for the WBDC to evolve from being a working ranch to a true

demonstration farm that is delivering high value for the early adopters. In fairness to the WBDC, its abilityto demonstrate more innovative research requires the U of S and others to develop more innovative labbased research for demonstration. As was noted earlier, this will require a more collaborative working

ween the WBDC and U of S. In addition, it was noted that the demonstration activities ofthe Centre are not responding to the geographic diversity of the province. It was suggested that theADOPT program be used as a mechanism to do satellite research in other regions. Producers also want

calf research which is viewed as a critical area. Frustrations were alsoexpressed from stakeholders that the WBDC's focus is not following their mandate for driving producer

The economic work being compiled is viewed as an economic assessment. Stakeholdersare interested in having a more holistic economic analysis completed that considers the full risks and fullcosts in deploying a technology or management practice, including scenarios to reflect regional variancesin the province. Despite these concerns, the WBDC is viewed as having an important role to play in

class beef, feed and forage research program in Saskatchewan.

anagement for Research Leaders

Saskatchewan’s world class capabilities in key areas are in large measure a reflection of the outstandingnd capabilities of key leaders. There are significant risks posed to the research system by the

these research leaders. The contributions of Dr. Bruce Coulman in the areathere is the future retirement of Dr. John McKinnon at some point

in a significant loss of vision and capability. Proactive succession planning is critical to minimize the risksarch system in the Province and to maximize the benefits from any investment in

Input regarding the current state and future state governance model and practices wThe governance theme was the one in which we gathered the least amo

Our primary research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativemodels in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,

MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster models as additionalperspective for evaluating the current and potential future state.


Page l 28

ered underline a sense of turf protection driven bypure versus applied research, the level of focus on agronomics

and perceptions of the level of bureaucracy in various organizations) and the competition for scarceThis sense of turf protection appears to be most notable between the

Relative to the challenges and opportunities faced by the industry, there willcoordination would be a far more valuable

t than one of turf protection. The specialized equipment and lab space required forleading research is expensive. Opportunities to share equipment and lab space amongst researchers

priority not just within Saskatchewan, but across Canada. Efficiencies gained from lowercapital costs provides the potential for more funding for research which will benefit the industry as a

a critical piece of the innovation system for producers. It is important for them to be seenas innovative and responsive to the needs of producers. The WBDC perceives itself to be a leader in

stry. Throughout our research we hearddirectly from leading producers and other stakeholder groups that the WBDC is not achieving its fullpotential. There were repeated suggestions for the Centre to undertake more innovative research, versus

n incremental improvements to already accepted practices such as bale grazing. Severala need for the WBDC to evolve from being a working ranch to a true

fairness to the WBDC, its abilityto demonstrate more innovative research requires the U of S and others to develop more innovative lab-based research for demonstration. As was noted earlier, this will require a more collaborative working

ween the WBDC and U of S. In addition, it was noted that the demonstration activities ofthe Centre are not responding to the geographic diversity of the province. It was suggested that the

n other regions. Producers also wantcalf research which is viewed as a critical area. Frustrations were also

expressed from stakeholders that the WBDC's focus is not following their mandate for driving producerThe economic work being compiled is viewed as an economic assessment. Stakeholders

are interested in having a more holistic economic analysis completed that considers the full risks and fullding scenarios to reflect regional variances

in the province. Despite these concerns, the WBDC is viewed as having an important role to play in

Saskatchewan’s world class capabilities in key areas are in large measure a reflection of the outstandingThere are significant risks posed to the research system by the

The contributions of Dr. Bruce Coulman in the area of forages wereat some point that will result

to minimize the risksrovince and to maximize the benefits from any investment in

governance model and practices were gathered fromin which we gathered the least amount of input from

Our primary research was supplemented through secondary research into comparativemodels in other jurisdictions for their beef, feed or forage research programs. In addition,

MNP undertook additional secondary research into alternative research cluster models as additional

Highlighted below are the key findings we have identified related to governance based on our stakeholder



SASKATCHEWAN

Most Participants are Unaware of h

We inquired with a wide variety of stakeholders about their understanding of how the governafor the ADF operates. The majority of stakeholders were unaware of specific aspects of the currentgovernance model including the composition of the boardand the decision process for how projects are selected. The current ADF process provides multiple pointsfor industry input. There is an ADF Advisory Committee which is comprised of industry representativeswhich provides input on priorities on the overall direction and management of the program. Lproposals are shared with industry associations to solicit their assessment and comments on proposedprojects. In addition, program managers and specialists routinely congather input and feedback.

By contrast, most participants were aware of how the “two stage”organized. This includes the submisthen leads to a full proposal. The intent of the twoin their submission with the probability of having a successful application.

Researchers repeatedly expressed their interest in inproject decision process is organized. In addition, when projects are not approved, applicants are lookingfor greater openness on the rationale foropenness will improve the quality and focus of future submissions.

Significant Opportunity to Establish Clear, Measurable Priorities

The need to establish clear, measurable priorities for ADF was the most commonly mentiofor improvement. Stakeholders believe clear, measurable priorities that are linked to a longwould provide a stronger focus for developing new project ideas that would advance the beforage industries. The Beef Cattle Research Council ((ALMA) priorities are viewed as beingresult, offer better guidance.

As additional context for the reader, highlighted below are the current priorities foutlined on the Ministry of Agriculture website:

The Ministry's focus for research and development investments is the longsustainability of the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan. Therefore, the Ministry has taken anoutcome based approach, targeting ADF to

New crops and/or cultivars meeting market demands and consumer preferences

Increased livestock competitiveness

Optimized livestock feeding systems

New and innovative food, bioproducts, and

Improved food quality

Innovative and sustainable farming systems and practices

Enhanced adaptive capacity of the Provincial soil and ecosystem resources

Utilization of biotechnology to enhance agriculture and value

Decreased agricultural production risks

To this point, the ADF program has preferred to define broad outcomes for the industry (“what” should beaccomplished) and then open the process to researchers and industry to identify specific researchprojects and ideas for “how” the outcomes can be accomplished. This has provided the opportunity for


Most Participants are Unaware of how the Current Governance Model Works

wide variety of stakeholders about their understanding of how the governaThe majority of stakeholders were unaware of specific aspects of the current

governance model including the composition of the board, the various existing points for industry inputfor how projects are selected. The current ADF process provides multiple points

for industry input. There is an ADF Advisory Committee which is comprised of industry representativest on priorities on the overall direction and management of the program. L

proposals are shared with industry associations to solicit their assessment and comments on proposedprojects. In addition, program managers and specialists routinely consult with industry representatives to

icipants were aware of how the “two stage” project selection process wasorganized. This includes the submission of an LOI that outlines the project concept, which ifthen leads to a full proposal. The intent of the two-stage process is to align the researcher’s level of effortin their submission with the probability of having a successful application.

Researchers repeatedly expressed their interest in increased transparency to better understand how theproject decision process is organized. In addition, when projects are not approved, applicants are lookingfor greater openness on the rationale for why projects are not selected. It is felt that a higheropenness will improve the quality and focus of future submissions.

Opportunity to Establish Clear, Measurable Priorities

The need to establish clear, measurable priorities for ADF was the most commonly mentioStakeholders believe clear, measurable priorities that are linked to a long

would provide a stronger focus for developing new project ideas that would advance the beBeef Cattle Research Council (BCRC) and Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency

priorities are viewed as being clearer by researchers than those outlined by the ADF and, as a

As additional context for the reader, highlighted below are the current priorities for the ADF Program asoutlined on the Ministry of Agriculture website:

The Ministry's focus for research and development investments is the longsustainability of the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan. Therefore, the Ministry has taken an

sed approach, targeting ADF to achieve the following outcomes:


Increased livestock competitiveness

Optimized livestock feeding systems

New and innovative food, bioproducts, and processing technologies

Improved food quality

Innovative and sustainable farming systems and practices


Utilization of biotechnology to enhance agriculture and value-added production

Decreased agricultural production risks

To this point, the ADF program has preferred to define broad outcomes for the industry (“what” should beaccomplished) and then open the process to researchers and industry to identify specific research

ideas for “how” the outcomes can be accomplished. This has provided the opportunity for

Page l 29

wide variety of stakeholders about their understanding of how the governance modelThe majority of stakeholders were unaware of specific aspects of the current

ing points for industry inputfor how projects are selected. The current ADF process provides multiple points

for industry input. There is an ADF Advisory Committee which is comprised of industry representativest on priorities on the overall direction and management of the program. LOIs and full

proposals are shared with industry associations to solicit their assessment and comments on proposedsult with industry representatives to

project selection process wasthat outlines the project concept, which if approved,

stage process is to align the researcher’s level of effort

creased transparency to better understand how theproject decision process is organized. In addition, when projects are not approved, applicants are looking

It is felt that a higher level of

The need to establish clear, measurable priorities for ADF was the most commonly mentioned suggestionStakeholders believe clear, measurable priorities that are linked to a long-term vision

would provide a stronger focus for developing new project ideas that would advance the beef, feed andAlberta Livestock and Meat Agency

ined by the ADF and, as a

or the ADF Program as

The Ministry's focus for research and development investments is the long-termsustainability of the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan. Therefore, the Ministry has taken an



added production

To this point, the ADF program has preferred to define broad outcomes for the industry (“what” should beaccomplished) and then open the process to researchers and industry to identify specific research

ideas for “how” the outcomes can be accomplished. This has provided the opportunity for



SASKATCHEWAN

researchers and industry to have a greater degree of ownership over where the program’s resources areinvested.

Highlighted below are the research priorities for BCRC

Beef Cattle Research Council Priorities

BCRC for 2010-2011 – Based on stakeholder engagement and BCRC’s priority settingprocess, the beef industry has defined two core research objectives under which morespecific priorities are established:

Improve production efficienciesforage production, increased feed efficiency, decreased impact of animal healthand welfare issues and production limiting diseases, improved utilization ofspecified risk materials.

Improve beef demand and quasafety incidents; defining quality and yield benchmarks supporting the CanadianBeef Advantage and improved beef quality through an audit program and primaryproduction improvements, and the development and appltechnologies to optimize cutout values.

Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency Priorities:

Market AccessALMA will work with its partners to break down foreign market barriers more effectively. Wecan be a leader in the global arenahave quality products to sell and consumers who will buy them but we must respect theirneeds and sensitivities, including cultural differences.

DemandWe recognize the demand for livestock and menations. However, the demand in developed countries is at a 50proactive approach to effectively managing food safety, environmental and animal welfareissues and concerns. Solid customerincreasingly complex expectations.

CompetitivenessStatus quo is no longer an option and ALMA is committed to driving change. We can supportindustry by designing tools that meet business needs and propel it formovement and inspiring change are acceptable, remaining stagnant is not.

Information FlowTransparent, accurate, credible, realand down the value chain. Through our Livestock Inforcommitted to helping industry build systems that help industry realize its goals while meetingconsumer demands.

Despite the comparisons to BCRC and ALMA, stakeholders want to ensure that the Saskatchewanindustry’s interests are put first in the development and implementation of any program priorities. There issome concern that increased collaboration with other jurisdictions could undermine the priorities ofSaskatchewan industry.

There was unanimous support from indestablishing future priorities for beef, feed and forage research.industry stakeholders also were also in support of a greater role for


researchers and industry to have a greater degree of ownership over where the program’s resources are

Highlighted below are the research priorities for BCRC and ALMA from their websites:

Council Priorities

Based on stakeholder engagement and BCRC’s priority settingprocess, the beef industry has defined two core research objectives under which more

priorities are established:

Improve production efficiencies (~65% of funding): through enhanced feed andforage production, increased feed efficiency, decreased impact of animal healthand welfare issues and production limiting diseases, improved utilization ofspecified risk materials.

Improve beef demand and quality (~35% of funding): through reduced foodsafety incidents; defining quality and yield benchmarks supporting the CanadianBeef Advantage and improved beef quality through an audit program and primaryproduction improvements, and the development and application of post processingtechnologies to optimize cutout values.

Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency Priorities:

ALMA will work with its partners to break down foreign market barriers more effectively. Wecan be a leader in the global arena if we listen to what countries want from our industry. Wehave quality products to sell and consumers who will buy them but we must respect theirneeds and sensitivities, including cultural differences.

We recognize the demand for livestock and meat products is increasing in underdevelopednations. However, the demand in developed countries is at a 50-year low. We must take aproactive approach to effectively managing food safety, environmental and animal welfareissues and concerns. Solid customer and consumer research will help meet theseincreasingly complex expectations.

Status quo is no longer an option and ALMA is committed to driving change. We can supportindustry by designing tools that meet business needs and propel it forward. Stimulatingmovement and inspiring change are acceptable, remaining stagnant is not.

Transparent, accurate, credible, real-time information is the hallmark of information flow upand down the value chain. Through our Livestock Information Sharing Initiative, ALMA iscommitted to helping industry build systems that help industry realize its goals while meeting

Despite the comparisons to BCRC and ALMA, stakeholders want to ensure that the Saskatchewanrests are put first in the development and implementation of any program priorities. There is

some concern that increased collaboration with other jurisdictions could undermine the priorities of

There was unanimous support from industry players that there should be a greater role for industry inbeef, feed and forage research. In addition, a large number of non

industry stakeholders also were also in support of a greater role for industry influence

Page l 30

researchers and industry to have a greater degree of ownership over where the program’s resources are

Based on stakeholder engagement and BCRC’s priority settingprocess, the beef industry has defined two core research objectives under which more

(~65% of funding): through enhanced feed andforage production, increased feed efficiency, decreased impact of animal healthand welfare issues and production limiting diseases, improved utilization of

(~35% of funding): through reduced foodsafety incidents; defining quality and yield benchmarks supporting the CanadianBeef Advantage and improved beef quality through an audit program and primary

ication of post processing

ALMA will work with its partners to break down foreign market barriers more effectively. Weif we listen to what countries want from our industry. We

have quality products to sell and consumers who will buy them but we must respect their

at products is increasing in underdevelopedyear low. We must take a

proactive approach to effectively managing food safety, environmental and animal welfareand consumer research will help meet these

Status quo is no longer an option and ALMA is committed to driving change. We can supportward. Stimulating

time information is the hallmark of information flow upmation Sharing Initiative, ALMA is

committed to helping industry build systems that help industry realize its goals while meeting

Despite the comparisons to BCRC and ALMA, stakeholders want to ensure that the Saskatchewanrests are put first in the development and implementation of any program priorities. There is

some concern that increased collaboration with other jurisdictions could undermine the priorities of

ustry players that there should be a greater role for industry inIn addition, a large number of non-

industry influenced priorities. A



SASKATCHEWAN

number of participants noted that what is required is a longwill drive clear, specific and measurable priorities for research.

Stakeholders also believe that the futurebalances both pure and applied research.research program is too tied to today’s economicseconomics of the industry which would seek transformative improvements for the industryresearch. It was also noted that there is a strategic advantage to link the future research priorities of thebeef, feed and forage program to the

Strong Interest in Additional Project Application Windows and Collaborative Project Design

There is currently a two-stage application process which includes an LOI and full proposal submission.The deadline for submitting an LOI is April 15.project selection committee can assess each proposed project’s strategic fit with the ADF priorities.Meetings to decide on which LOIs go to full applicatiothat are approved at the LOI stage go forward to full proposal submission which is due byAugust. A final decision on approval is made byshortly afterward.

5The process used to provide for two windows for full applications; however, the

Ministry changed it to a single window at the request of researchers and other stakeholders about fiveyears ago.

The LOI process was generally viewed asappreciate that it aligns their amount of effort to the risk they have for approval. For example, if a projectdoes not have a high probability of being approved, it is likely to be filtered out at theresearcher has invested the time and resources into developing a full proposal. There were two specificsuggestions advanced from a number of researchers that would improve the process in their opinion:

Provide the opportunity for mufrom other jurisdictions; and

Provide collaborative assistance for the development of project proposals with ADF staff.

Researchers are looking to leverage funds from other jurisdictionsorder to effectively leverage funds from other programs, there needs to be similarities in applicatiand approval windows. ALMA has projereportedly completed in as little as three weesingle project approval window each year is that researchers will only apply to ADF when they anticipatereceiving majority funding for theirs

ALMA was also highlighted for its collaborative project design process which is an iterative processbetween the researcher and the project lead at ALMA. There was repeated, strong support for such anapproach being implemented in Saskatchewan.

5Important dates in the application process vary slightly as a result of adjustments made for the calendar (i.e. if usual

deadlines fall on weekends). In 2011, significant dates were as follows: Deadline for LOI: April 16 Meetings to decide which LOIs go to full application: June 12 Deadline for full proposals: August 25 Final decision meeting by the Advisory Committee: December 8

Formal approval from the Minister: December 12


number of participants noted that what is required is a long-term vision and 20-year industry goals thatwill drive clear, specific and measurable priorities for research.

rs also believe that the future-state program needs to be based on a portfolio approach thatresearch. Concerns were expressed by some participants that the

oo tied to today’s economics (a short-term focus) versus focusing on the longwhich would seek transformative improvements for the industry

It was also noted that there is a strategic advantage to link the future research priorities of thethe food security priorities of the Provincial Government


stage application process which includes an LOI and full proposal submission.submitting an LOI is April 15. The LOI outlines a summary of the project idea so that the

project selection committee can assess each proposed project’s strategic fit with the ADF priorities.Meetings to decide on which LOIs go to full application are held on June 12. Those project submissionsthat are approved at the LOI stage go forward to full proposal submission which is due by

A final decision on approval is made by early December; the Minister provides formal approvaThe process used to provide for two windows for full applications; however, the

Ministry changed it to a single window at the request of researchers and other stakeholders about five

The LOI process was generally viewed as a positive addition to the ADF process.appreciate that it aligns their amount of effort to the risk they have for approval. For example, if a projectdoes not have a high probability of being approved, it is likely to be filtered out at the LOI stage before theresearcher has invested the time and resources into developing a full proposal. There were two specificsuggestions advanced from a number of researchers that would improve the process in their opinion:

Provide the opportunity for multiple project application windows to align with the funding windowsfrom other jurisdictions; and


Researchers are looking to leverage funds from other jurisdictions, such as ALMA funding in Alberta. Inorder to effectively leverage funds from other programs, there needs to be similarities in applicati

ALMA has project application windows on an ongoing basis with project approvalstedly completed in as little as three weeks according to one researcher. The risk of maintaining a

single project approval window each year is that researchers will only apply to ADF when they anticipateor if it aligns to the timing of another program.

ALMA was also highlighted for its collaborative project design process which is an iterative processbetween the researcher and the project lead at ALMA. There was repeated, strong support for such an

plemented in Saskatchewan.

Important dates in the application process vary slightly as a result of adjustments made for the calendar (i.e. if usualdeadlines fall on weekends). In 2011, significant dates were as follows:

Meetings to decide which LOIs go to full application: June 12Deadline for full proposals: August 25Final decision meeting by the Advisory Committee: December 8

Formal approval from the Minister: December 12

Page l 31

year industry goals that

state program needs to be based on a portfolio approach thatConcerns were expressed by some participants that the

term focus) versus focusing on the long-termwhich would seek transformative improvements for the industry through pure

It was also noted that there is a strategic advantage to link the future research priorities of theovernment.


stage application process which includes an LOI and full proposal submission.The LOI outlines a summary of the project idea so that the

project selection committee can assess each proposed project’s strategic fit with the ADF priorities.Those project submissions

that are approved at the LOI stage go forward to full proposal submission which is due by the last week ofearly December; the Minister provides formal approval

The process used to provide for two windows for full applications; however, theMinistry changed it to a single window at the request of researchers and other stakeholders about five

ve addition to the ADF process. Researchersappreciate that it aligns their amount of effort to the risk they have for approval. For example, if a project

LOI stage before theresearcher has invested the time and resources into developing a full proposal. There were two specificsuggestions advanced from a number of researchers that would improve the process in their opinion:

ltiple project application windows to align with the funding windows


, such as ALMA funding in Alberta. Inorder to effectively leverage funds from other programs, there needs to be similarities in application timing

going basis with project approvalsThe risk of maintaining a

single project approval window each year is that researchers will only apply to ADF when they anticipate

ALMA was also highlighted for its collaborative project design process which is an iterative processbetween the researcher and the project lead at ALMA. There was repeated, strong support for such an

Important dates in the application process vary slightly as a result of adjustments made for the calendar (i.e. if usual



SASKATCHEWAN

Potential for Increased Collaboration

Annual spending by the ADF on beef, feed and forage research is $6 million, plus funding for three SRPchairs and $395,000 to WBDC. ADF also contributes other funds on a onefunds, relative to the size of the industry plus the high cost of undertaking research, mean that theprogram operates on limited resources. MNP believes that there are opportunities to encourage andincent increased collaboration throughcould ensure the efficient use of technology and other capital equipment in Saskatchewan or possibly ona regional or national basis. As was noted earlier, there is some “silo” thinking betweeninstitutions which is limiting the amount of intellectual collaboration between researchers, which in turnmay be minimizing the compounding growth of knowledge. There are opportunities to implement changesto the governance model that can increafeed and forage industries.

Collaboration between the WBDC and the U of S needs to be improved. WBDC was criticized by severalstakeholders, including industry, for not demonstrating enoughmethods. A significant number of industry stakeholders indicated that WBDC needstheir needs. As a number of stakeholders put it, “why are we still doing more research on bale grazing? Ithas been proven to work and is highly optimized already.” Applied demonstration is very important toproducers and WBDC is regarded as being a good facility, but it needs to deliver new andapplied research. This is where collaboration with tU of S should be a strong feeding source for applof stakeholders said that the U of S needs to push the bar on new research horizons that can be fthe WBDC. Increased collaboration between these two institutions is essential to move this forward.Relationships between the two institutions will need to be improved in order to make this successful.


Potential for Increased Collaboration

Annual spending by the ADF on beef, feed and forage research is $6 million, plus funding for three SRPchairs and $395,000 to WBDC. ADF also contributes other funds on a one-off basis. Thfunds, relative to the size of the industry plus the high cost of undertaking research, mean that theprogram operates on limited resources. MNP believes that there are opportunities to encourage andincent increased collaboration through the governance model for the program. Increased collaborationcould ensure the efficient use of technology and other capital equipment in Saskatchewan or possibly ona regional or national basis. As was noted earlier, there is some “silo” thinking betweeninstitutions which is limiting the amount of intellectual collaboration between researchers, which in turnmay be minimizing the compounding growth of knowledge. There are opportunities to implement changesto the governance model that can increase the amount of collaboration for ultimate benefit of the beef,

Collaboration between the WBDC and the U of S needs to be improved. WBDC was criticized by severalstakeholders, including industry, for not demonstrating enough unique and new technologies and

A significant number of industry stakeholders indicated that WBDC needs to do more to meetAs a number of stakeholders put it, “why are we still doing more research on bale grazing? It

to work and is highly optimized already.” Applied demonstration is very important toproducers and WBDC is regarded as being a good facility, but it needs to deliver new and

This is where collaboration with the U of S is important. The lab-based research of theU of S should be a strong feeding source for applied demonstrations at the WBDC. As a result, a numberof stakeholders said that the U of S needs to push the bar on new research horizons that can be f

Increased collaboration between these two institutions is essential to move this forward.Relationships between the two institutions will need to be improved in order to make this successful.

Page l 32

Annual spending by the ADF on beef, feed and forage research is $6 million, plus funding for three SRPoff basis. The total of these

funds, relative to the size of the industry plus the high cost of undertaking research, mean that theprogram operates on limited resources. MNP believes that there are opportunities to encourage and

the governance model for the program. Increased collaborationcould ensure the efficient use of technology and other capital equipment in Saskatchewan or possibly ona regional or national basis. As was noted earlier, there is some “silo” thinking between researchinstitutions which is limiting the amount of intellectual collaboration between researchers, which in turnmay be minimizing the compounding growth of knowledge. There are opportunities to implement changes

se the amount of collaboration for ultimate benefit of the beef,

Collaboration between the WBDC and the U of S needs to be improved. WBDC was criticized by severald new technologies and

to do more to meetAs a number of stakeholders put it, “why are we still doing more research on bale grazing? It

to work and is highly optimized already.” Applied demonstration is very important toproducers and WBDC is regarded as being a good facility, but it needs to deliver new and more relevant

based research of theAs a result, a number

of stakeholders said that the U of S needs to push the bar on new research horizons that can be fed intoIncreased collaboration between these two institutions is essential to move this forward.

Relationships between the two institutions will need to be improved in order to make this successful.



SASKATCHEWAN

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the information gathered to date from stakeholder consultations and research,experience and knowledge, MNPrecommendations are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the ressustainable and profitable beef, feed and forage industry in Saskatchewan. The recommendationsinclude a mix of opportunities that can enable lonhave included a set of recommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of theprogram while long-term planning is initiated and undertaken.recommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current programfoundations.

6.1.1 Recommendations to Enable Long

The following recommendations are specific to enabling longrecommendations are specific to longimmediately to begin implementation. The recommendations have been organized into three categories:strategy and policy, infrastructure and operations.

Strategy and Policy

This first set of recommendations is specific to establishing a bold newlead to transformative outcomes.

1. Establish a 20-Year Vision to Transform the Economics of the Industry

Establish a clear and measurable 20that describe how the future economic model of the iasking the question, “what doachieve a transformative cresearch. It is time for thechange that has re-shapedit was noted by one stakehothat in 1977 it took 5 cows to produce what is being done by 4feed for each pound of gaingain. The result is 16% lesscoming out. An example of athe production footprint by a furtherdefine a new economic model for the industrylike reducing average input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animallevel; exceeding today’s hormoneindustry engagement amongsttransfer program;; bringingbloat with alfalfa feeding. These are examples ofis long and the point of this exercise is to set large goals that will stretch the industry and theresearchers to reach them.


o Consideration for newthem;

o Evolution of consumer trends and preferences;

o Definition of key stakeholders and their roles in the

o Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitiveadvantage for Saskatchewan;


ECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the information gathered to date from stakeholder consultations and research,MNP arrived at the following set of recommendations.

are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the research program and to support asustainable and profitable beef, feed and forage industry in Saskatchewan. The recommendationsinclude a mix of opportunities that can enable long-term success for the program. At the same time, we

ommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of theterm planning is initiated and undertaken. It is important to underline that these

recommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current program

Recommendations to Enable Long-Term Success

The following recommendations are specific to enabling long-term success. Although theserecommendations are specific to long-term success, there are action items that can be undertimmediately to begin implementation. The recommendations have been organized into three categories:strategy and policy, infrastructure and operations.


Year Vision to Transform the Economics of the Industry

clear and measurable 20-year vision for the industry that includes specific outcomesfuture economic model of the industry should be structured

asking the question, “what do we want the industry to be?” There is an important opportunity totransformative change for the industry that will act as a catalyst for breakthrough

the beef, feed and forage sectors to seek the same kind ofthe economics of other sectors like the canola industry. For example,

it was noted by one stakeholder that a Washington State University study by Jude Capper foundthat in 1977 it took 5 cows to produce what is being done by 4 cows in 2010. That is

pound of gain, 12% less water per pound of gain and 33% less land per pound ofis 16% less inputs per cow and a corresponding 16% reduction in

n example of a bold 20-year objective could be to reduce the amount of inputsby a further 10-15%. In essence, the 20-year vision should aspire to

economic model for the industry. Other examples of visionary goalsaverage input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animal

hormone-assisted performance without the use of implants;industry engagement amongst younger producers in the research and development technology

ten new grass/forage varieties to market; or solvingThese are examples of potential long-term objectives; the potential list

is long and the point of this exercise is to set large goals that will stretch the industry and the

ortant considerations in defining the vision would include:

Consideration for new international market opportunities and setting goals for capturing

Evolution of consumer trends and preferences;


Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitiveadvantage for Saskatchewan;

Page l 33

Based upon the information gathered to date from stakeholder consultations and research, plus our ownllowing set of recommendations. These

earch program and to support asustainable and profitable beef, feed and forage industry in Saskatchewan. The recommendations

At the same time, weommendations that can provide immediate improvements to the delivery of the

It is important to underline that theserecommendations are designed to build upon the success of the current program and its strong

term success. Although theseterm success, there are action items that can be undertaken

immediately to begin implementation. The recommendations have been organized into three categories:

vision for the industry that can

year vision for the industry that includes specific outcomesndustry should be structured – essentially

important opportunity toas a catalyst for breakthrough

kind of transformativethe canola industry. For example,

that a Washington State University study by Jude Capper foundcows in 2010. That is 19% less

12% less water per pound of gain and 33% less land per pound of16% reduction in the waste

be to reduce the amount of inputs andision should aspire to

visionary goals might be thingsaverage input costs as a percentage of average sale price per animal to a specific

without the use of implants; increasingin the research and development technology

ing the challenge ofterm objectives; the potential list

is long and the point of this exercise is to set large goals that will stretch the industry and the

and setting goals for capturing

technology transfer system;

Linkages to the Provincial Government’s emphasis on food security as a competitive



SASKATCHEWAN

o Recognition of Saskatchewan as a world leader in bedevelopment;

o Targets for increasidevelopment through increased cost sharing and collaboration;

o Proactive management of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,plus protection of watersheds;

o Water resource planning and water management;

o Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics suchas animal welfare; and

o The proportion of pure versus applied research in the portfoliovision.

It will be critically important to engagewill be the industry leaders toThe current generation of leaders can be a valuable source of advice andownership in the vision needs to be built with the emerging leaders.and updated on a rolling 5-used to modify the approach to max

2. Link Clear and Measureable 5

Link the long-term vision to clear andclarity to researchers in developing novel ideas and propoto make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisionedthat the 5-year research priorities would includeyear vision. Measurements should be tracked aincentive to align the technology transfer model to substantially increase the adoption of newtechnologies or methods.

The strategic driver behind establishingand innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work thatexisting research overall is too incremental and sstakeholders are anxious to br

3. Invest in Building a Coordinated,

Once a clear vision is in place, it is recommended that the rightstructure be designed to achieve the mandatefunction”. This means that one should design any organizational structure around the vision andstrategic direction that is being accomplished, rather than the reverse apprvision is established it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes to thegovernance or management models for the research programof coordination through a truly integrated single model. This would include avalue chain from forage to dinner plate,outcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership andeffort will need to be invested to align all of the stakeholders in the value chain to a single model.The proposed planning stageremains publicly managed or could result in the implementation ofMNP recommends that strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models ofother industry clusters globally in developing a singleThe management and delivery model selected shou



Targets for increasing the annual spending on beef, feed and forage research anddevelopment through increased cost sharing and collaboration;

Proactive management of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,plus protection of watersheds;

nning and water management;

Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics suchas animal welfare; and

roportion of pure versus applied research in the portfolio to accomplish the 20

critically important to engage the emerging young leaders in the planning process whowill be the industry leaders to champion the implementation of the vision over the next 20 years.The current generation of leaders can be a valuable source of advice and wisdom, but a sense ofownership in the vision needs to be built with the emerging leaders. The vision should be revisited

-year basis to ensure that it is relevant and lessons learned are beingused to modify the approach to maximize results for the industry.

Link Clear and Measureable 5-Year Priorities to the Long-Term Vision

term vision to clear and measurable 5-year research priorities thatclarity to researchers in developing novel ideas and proposals, plus clarity for program managersto make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisioned

year research priorities would include incremental milestone targets tnts should be tracked and/or forecasted on an industry

incentive to align the technology transfer model to substantially increase the adoption of new

The strategic driver behind establishing the 5-year priorities is to act as a catalyst for driving boldand innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work thatexisting research overall is too incremental and short term in nature. Researchers and otherstakeholders are anxious to break the mold.

Invest in Building a Coordinated, Single-Model Delivery System

Once a clear vision is in place, it is recommended that the right governance and managementstructure be designed to achieve the mandate This follows the old saying that “form follows

that one should design any organizational structure around the vision andstrategic direction that is being accomplished, rather than the reverse approach. Until

lished it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes to thegovernance or management models for the research program will focus on incre

coordination through a truly integrated single model. This would include a focus on the wholevalue chain from forage to dinner plate, ensuring strong coordination between desired economicoutcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership and

d to be invested to align all of the stakeholders in the value chain to a single model.The proposed planning stage to establish the vision may result in a research program thatremains publicly managed or could result in the implementation of an alternati

strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models ofglobally in developing a single-model delivery system in Saskatchewan.

The management and delivery model selected should be selected based on maximizing the

Page l 34

ef, feed and forage research and

ng the annual spending on beef, feed and forage research and

Proactive management of environmental considerations such as methane, animal waste,

Inclusion of important research areas that may not be as tightly tied to economics such

to accomplish the 20-year

emerging young leaders in the planning process whochampion the implementation of the vision over the next 20 years.

wisdom, but a sense ofshould be revisited

year basis to ensure that it is relevant and lessons learned are being

year research priorities that will providesals, plus clarity for program managers

to make effective decisions on optimizing the investment of scarce resources. It is envisionedmilestone targets to achieve the 20-

nd/or forecasted on an industry-wide basis as anincentive to align the technology transfer model to substantially increase the adoption of new

is to act as a catalyst for driving boldand innovative research ideas. Concerns were expressed through our consultation work that

term in nature. Researchers and other

governance and managementfollows the old saying that “form follows

that one should design any organizational structure around the vision andoach. Until the 20-year

lished it would be premature to design the governance and management models.This being said, it is anticipated based on the findings of this study that any future changes to the

increasing the degreefocus on the whole

ensuring strong coordination between desired economicoutcomes, research priorities, investments in physical and intellectual infrastructure, projectselection, technology transfer and economic impact measurement. Significant leadership and

d to be invested to align all of the stakeholders in the value chain to a single model.the vision may result in a research program that

an alternative delivery model.strong consideration be given to the best practices and delivery models of

model delivery system in Saskatchewan.ld be selected based on maximizing the



SASKATCHEWAN

potential of success for implementing the 20As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

4. Re-Energize Governance

The management and governance of the ADF program haswith the development of a worldmore effectively communicatecontrolled model by government bydraw upon stakeholder input, including industry, at key stages.intellectual infrastructure in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindsetto embrace four important philosophies:

o Industry-driven researchmore active involvement

o Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance ofthe research program;

o Primary focus on buildingindustry in the long

o Encourage additional managed risk in theand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novelresearch projects.Government. Consideration should be given to coordinating longthrough the Federal and

5. Integrate Beef, Feed and Forage Research

It is recommended that beef, feed and forageproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages andopportunities to the beef industry.would be incomplete without the inclusion of the forage sector as a critical component. Othertypes of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anychange in governance, for example bringing beef and forage together into aneed to consider how to balance other forage utilizing livestock.

Infrastructure

The next two recommendations are specific to threeinfrastructure.

6. Pursuit of a Beef Cattle Teaching

In order to continue to be a world leader inmodern beef feedlot teachingpositive assessments of the current proposal frombased support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for theindustry. That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposedthe existing proposal. Therefore, we are recommending that a diverse group of stakeholders workwith the U of S to re-examineindustry and the research program.university collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support theoverall concept for the Unit while pursuing specific improvements that can support the success ofthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how theaugmented by a consortium of private sector feedlots.


potential of success for implementing the 20-year vision for the beef, feed and forage industry.As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

Energize Governance and Management with a Pioneering Mindset

The management and governance of the ADF program has proven itself to be effective over timewith the development of a world-class capacity for advanced research. The Ministry needs to

communicate how the ADF process works. It is perceived to be a centrallyntrolled model by government by most stakeholders. It is in fact a collaborative model that does

draw upon stakeholder input, including industry, at key stages. With the strong physical andtellectual infrastructure in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindset

important philosophies:

driven research with increased input on priorities from industry associations andmore active involvement in research by industry suppliers and related industry firms;

Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance ofthe research program;

Primary focus on building economic advantage to support a sustainable andindustry in the long term; and

additional managed risk in the overall Provincial portfolio by balancing pureand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novel

Pure research funding is available primarily through. Consideration should be given to coordinating long-term research ideas

through the Federal and Provincial funding programs.

Integrate Beef, Feed and Forage Research

It is recommended that beef, feed and forage research be integrated from a planning, funding andproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages and

rtunities to the beef industry. Any provincial strategy and research program for beef or feedncomplete without the inclusion of the forage sector as a critical component. Other

types of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anychange in governance, for example bringing beef and forage together into a single “program” willneed to consider how to balance other forage utilizing livestock.

ommendations are specific to three important elements of physical and intellectual

Beef Cattle Teaching Research Unit

a world leader in beef research, Saskatchewan will need access to ateaching research facility. Through our research we heard either neutral or

positive assessments of the current proposal from the U of S for the BCTRUbased support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for the

That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposedTherefore, we are recommending that a diverse group of stakeholders work

examine the current proposal to assess its strategic fit with the future of theresearch program. In particular, consideration should be given to how industry

university collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support the

ll concept for the Unit while pursuing specific improvements that can support the success ofthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how theaugmented by a consortium of private sector feedlots. The potential value of such discussions is

Page l 35

year vision for the beef, feed and forage industry. .As part of the future planning, a more holistic governance structure should be considered.

proven itself to be effective over timeThe Ministry needs to

how the ADF process works. It is perceived to be a centrally-It is in fact a collaborative model that does

the strong physical andtellectual infrastructure in place, it is logical to advance the culture and mindset of the program

with increased input on priorities from industry associations andin research by industry suppliers and related industry firms;

Actively engage the emerging, young generation of industry leaders in the governance of

to support a sustainable and profitable

portfolio by balancing pureand applied research, plus encouraging researchers to propose bolder and more novel

e primarily through the Federalterm research ideas

research be integrated from a planning, funding andproject selection basis. The vast forage areas of Saskatchewan provide strategic advantages and

Any provincial strategy and research program for beef or feedncomplete without the inclusion of the forage sector as a critical component. Other

types of livestock, while minor in terms of the industry as a whole, utilize forages and so, anysingle “program” will

important elements of physical and intellectual

Saskatchewan will need access to aThrough our research we heard either neutral or

BCTRU. There is broad-based support for the Unit’s role as a teaching facility that will develop future leaders for the

That being said, we did hear from a number of key individuals who proposed building onTherefore, we are recommending that a diverse group of stakeholders work

current proposal to assess its strategic fit with the future of theIn particular, consideration should be given to how industry-

university collaboration can be enhanced to best accomplish their mutual goals and objectives.We heard significant interest from key industry leaders to work with the U of S to support the

ll concept for the Unit while pursuing specific improvements that can support the success ofthe industry. For example, there is value in considering further how the BCTRU can be

such discussions is



SASKATCHEWAN

to maximize the investment of public and privacoordinated, single model delivery systemcommunicated with the assistance of industry assocsecure approval.

7. Ensure Robust Plans are in Place to Manage Succession of Key Researchers

There are pressing and pendingSaskatchewan who are approaching retirement which could undermine the longsustainability of the research programin research capacity the Ministry should work with theCanada to develop succession strategies for key research personnel.are with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are notidentified, an external recruitment strategy should be devisedworld-class reputation.

8. Expand Investment in Forage Infrastructure and Research

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isfundamental to the success of the beef industry, isresearch areas. Stakeholders also indicated that forage research is more longbeef industry research. Forage should be regarded asconsidering expectations suchattract matching dollars from industry.

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingthe current research capacity and outcomes. Overesearch should be increased to be more reflective of its imphowever, this will not yield longintellectual infrastructure is inneeds to secure not only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and foragebreeding but also address the challenge of the significant regional differenwithin the Province. Taking a collaborative approach to this and where possible seeking outlocations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities toreach of the research; we are aware that this sort of caccepted by the industry.

The forage varieties in use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newintroductions in recent years)which new varieties and types are introduced and their perception is that the rate is dropping. Thepresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.Investment in plant breeders needs particular attentionyears before there will be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and lstill before they can have a material impact upon the industry economics.

If the above recommendations on forage arethat the establishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhancethe benefits from increased focus and funding for forage research.

Operations

Despite the recommendations above to pursue a 20there are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gatheredthrough this project.


to maximize the investment of public and private resources, plus support the evolution of a fullcoordinated, single model delivery system. The revised plan will need to be more clearlycommunicated with the assistance of industry associations to rally the broad


pending gaps in the succession of a number of key researcherswho are approaching retirement which could undermine the long

sustainability of the research program. In order to maintain or create new competitive advantagethe Ministry should work with the U of S and Agriculture and Agri

succession strategies for key research personnel. The mostare with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are notidentified, an external recruitment strategy should be devised to ensure Saskatchewan builds its

Expand Investment in Forage Infrastructure and Research

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isfundamental to the success of the beef industry, is disproportionately low to other beef industryresearch areas. Stakeholders also indicated that forage research is more long

. Forage should be regarded as something of a special case whenexpectations such as the length of projects, regionality of research and the ability to

attract matching dollars from industry.

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingthe current research capacity and outcomes. Overall though, we believe thatresearch should be increased to be more reflective of its importance to the beef industry;

this will not yield long-term benefits without ensuring the appropriate physical andture is in place to exploit the increased funding effectively. The P

not only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and foragebreeding but also address the challenge of the significant regional differences in f

rovince. Taking a collaborative approach to this and where possible seeking outlocations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities to

we are aware that this sort of collaboration is already underway and

use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newintroductions in recent years). Despite this, stakeholders express dissatisfaction with the rate

h new varieties and types are introduced and their perception is that the rate is dropping. Thepresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.Investment in plant breeders needs particular attention with an expectation that it will be manyyears before there will be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and l

before they can have a material impact upon the industry economics.

If the above recommendations on forage are to be adopted in part or in full then we recommendthat the establishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhancethe benefits from increased focus and funding for forage research.

above to pursue a 20-year vision and to ensure that “form follows function”,there are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gathered

Page l 36

the evolution of a fullThe revised plan will need to be more clearly

iations to rally the broad-based support to


s in the succession of a number of key researchers inwho are approaching retirement which could undermine the long-term

order to maintain or create new competitive advantageand Agriculture and Agri-Food

The most urgent prioritiesare with regards to forage research and beef research. Where internal successors are not

re Saskatchewan builds its

Throughout the review we were told by stakeholders that investment in forage research, which isto other beef industry

research areas. Stakeholders also indicated that forage research is more long-term than othersomething of a special case when

as the length of projects, regionality of research and the ability to

The existing forage researchers in the province should be engaged on their ideas for maximizingfunding for forage

ortance to the beef industry;term benefits without ensuring the appropriate physical and

funding effectively. The Provincenot only its intellectual capacity in the areas of forage management and forage

ces in forage needsrovince. Taking a collaborative approach to this and where possible seeking out

locations in other jurisdictions with similar environments may offer opportunities to extend theollaboration is already underway and

use today are predominantly old (although there have been some newstakeholders express dissatisfaction with the rate

h new varieties and types are introduced and their perception is that the rate is dropping. Thepresent rate, in their view, is insufficient for the needs of a thriving and developing beef industry.

expectation that it will be manyyears before there will be any change in the rate of new variety and type introductions and longer

to be adopted in part or in full then we recommendthat the establishment of an additional SRP chair for forage be established in order to enhance

year vision and to ensure that “form follows function”,there are some logical operational improvements that are recommended based on the feedback gathered



SASKATCHEWAN

9. Expand the Number of Project Application Windows

This review revealed significantHowever, approximately six years ago stakeholderssubmission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a sresponse to stakeholder preferences

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingto a quarterly application window or more.as part of a two-window system in the immediate termwindows include supportingleverage resources, equipmenand move more quickly at the pace of industry needs and the interest of industry partners.

Researchers are looking for additional support from tcollaboratively with project proponents on thprobability for approval. Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andpursuing leveraged funding from additional sources.managers need to provide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was notapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and otherstakeholders, program managers should be candid with researchers.

10. Economic Impact and Total Value

To aid the accomplishment of the outcomes defined in a 20robust economic and total valuewould require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving thelong-term vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspeas well as total value, there is the opportunity to forecast both quantitative and qualitativeimprovements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animalwelfare or environmental protection.

Some researches candidly sharare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set ofassumptions. Ideally every approvedexpert with knowledge of beef, feed or forage to ensure researchers are focused on economictransformation and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will helpthe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’spotential impact for producers. In order to accomplish this outcome, important investments willneed to be made in trainingare in short supply.

11. Work Closely with the BCRC on itsResearch to Producers

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program,producers require more timely and easy to access information.informed and motivated early adopters have access to alexisting online tool (www.foragebeef.cacumbersome to use. Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this sitethroughout the entire project.single, online portal that prbe most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.)maintain ongoing contact with producers.type of approach and were supportive of howtechnologies, plus blog postings for producers to share their actual experie


Expand the Number of Project Application Windows

significant support to increase the number of project application windows.approximately six years ago stakeholders expressed a preference for a

submission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a sresponse to stakeholder preferences at that time.

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingrly application window or more. The LOI process is popular and should be maintained

window system in the immediate term. The benefits of additional applicationinclude supporting greater collaboration with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, to

leverage resources, equipment and personnel, plus ensuring that the research system can adaptand move more quickly at the pace of industry needs and the interest of industry partners.


Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andpursuing leveraged funding from additional sources. On the back end, the Ministry’s program

vide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was notapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and other

akeholders, program managers should be candid with researchers.

and Total Value Forecasts for all Projects

the accomplishment of the outcomes defined in a 20-year vision for the industry, a moreand total value forecast is required for all project applications.

would require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving theterm vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspe

as well as total value, there is the opportunity to forecast both quantitative and qualitativeimprovements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animalwelfare or environmental protection.

Some researches candidly shared that their current economic assumptions in project applicationsare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set of

Ideally every approved project would be supported by an ag-economistith knowledge of beef, feed or forage to ensure researchers are focused on economic

and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will helpthe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’spotential impact for producers. In order to accomplish this outcome, important investments willneed to be made in training and/or attracting additional ag-economists and other experts

Work Closely with the BCRC on its Single Portal to Provide Accessible and Timely

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program,require more timely and easy to access information. Only a small

informed and motivated early adopters have access to all of the available information.www.foragebeef.ca) is virtually unknown to industry stakeholders and is

Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this sitethroughout the entire project. The average producer needs a simple and easy access through a

line portal that provides intuitive access to well-categorized research results. It wouldbe most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.)

going contact with producers. The majority of stakeholders were supportive of thisproach and were supportive of how-to videos showing applied demonstrations of

technologies, plus blog postings for producers to share their actual experie

Page l 37

support to increase the number of project application windows.expressed a preference for a single-

submission cycle annually with an LOI stage. The Ministry implemented such a system in

A second project application window should be pursued immediately with the potential of evolvingThe LOI process is popular and should be maintained

benefits of additional applicationgreater collaboration with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, to

research system can adaptand move more quickly at the pace of industry needs and the interest of industry partners.

program managers to workeir applications without implying any preferred

Program managers could also play a supporting role on identifying andOn the back end, the Ministry’s program

vide more detailed feedback on why a project submission was notapproved and if there are specific improvements that could be made to increase fundingprobability in the future. If a project proposal will not gain funding support from industry and other

year vision for the industry, a mored for all project applications. These forecasts

would require the researcher to identify how their project proposal would aid in achieving theterm vision for industry and the project’s total impact. By balancing both economic aspects

as well as total value, there is the opportunity to forecast both quantitative and qualitativeimprovements. For example, qualitative improvement could include improvements in animal

ed that their current economic assumptions in project applicationsare simply telling the ADF what they think they want to hear, rather than a realistic set of

economist or otherith knowledge of beef, feed or forage to ensure researchers are focused on economic

and total impact for the industry. Involving an expert at the outset will help ensurethe appropriate data and information is being tracked to credibly report and model the project’spotential impact for producers. In order to accomplish this outcome, important investments will

and other experts which

Single Portal to Provide Accessible and Timely

In order to maximize the return on investment from the research program, Saskatchewanminority of highly-

l of the available information. The onlyindustry stakeholders and is

Only one individual who work with the Ministry mentioned this siteasy access through a

categorized research results. It wouldbe most effective to integrate social media (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) and other tools to

The majority of stakeholders were supportive of thisto videos showing applied demonstrations of

technologies, plus blog postings for producers to share their actual experiences applying the



SASKATCHEWAN

technologies. An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20the industry and attract regular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and moresophisticated producers.

The Ministry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishsuch a portal on a nationalplanning work to represent producers.development process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs ofSaskatchewan producers identified in this report.extension agrologists will continue to have an importantproposed online portal will simply be one additional tool for agrotechnology adoption in the future.

A concern from a number of producers was the limited access to the U of S’ databases. Theperception for many producers is that the U of S library database, which includes academicpapers on its research projects, is currently restricted to faculty, students and alumni. Thisinformation is in fact publicly available with a few restrictions. The availability of this informationneeds to be better promoted and communicated by the U of Sis a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should bemore routinely accessed across the Province. There may be value in pursuing bilateralagreements with other key Agricultural Simpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of collaborationwith other jurisdictions.

12. Develop an Enhanced Strategy for Technology Transfer

Building from the 20-year viabove, an enhanced strategy for technoldevelopment of this strategy, theorder to determine practical methods thatImportant questions need to bsolely the early adopters? Isin the Province? Or is it all producers across the Pthe direction of the program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based onaccomplishing outcomes for the industry overall versuuniversally. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a highlyeffective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on earlyadopters in its future technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industryconsolidation and to help pull the wholeachieve broad industry engagement in technology adoption.

For applied research projects, the opportunity to develop aresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should beexplored. The technology transfer plan would only be developed on applied projLOI stage. The benefits are that eand agrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists haveunderstanding of forthcoming research to keep producers

13. Establish a Reliable System to Monitor,

In order to validate the outcomes set in the 20adoption possible, a reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impactof new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by anagricultural economist, with ina practical, workable and repeatable system.be used to monitor, track and report on a certain percentage of projects. Economic and totalimpact data should be captured.


An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20regular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and more

The Ministry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishsuch a portal on a national basis. The Ministry’s staff have already been engaged in early

ng work to represent producers. It will be important for them to remain active in thedevelopment process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs of

wan producers identified in this report. It is anticipated that the Province’s talentedextension agrologists will continue to have an important role in technology transf

line portal will simply be one additional tool for agrologists to support higher rates oftechnology adoption in the future.

A concern from a number of producers was the limited access to the U of S’ databases. Theperception for many producers is that the U of S library database, which includes academic

ers on its research projects, is currently restricted to faculty, students and alumni. Thisinformation is in fact publicly available with a few restrictions. The availability of this informationneeds to be better promoted and communicated by the U of S and through the associations. Thisis a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should bemore routinely accessed across the Province. There may be value in pursuing bilateralagreements with other key Agricultural Science Universities on data sharing to magnify theimpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of collaboration

Develop an Enhanced Strategy for Technology Transfer

year vision and the collaborative, single-model delivery system outlinedabove, an enhanced strategy for technology transfer should be pursued.development of this strategy, the goals and means of technology transfer should be reviewed

determine practical methods that will serve the needs of tomorrow’s producersImportant questions need to be asked about who the real target is for technology transfer? Is it

the early adopters? Is it the minority of large producers who have the majority of all cattleis it all producers across the Province? The leaders entrusted with steering

the direction of the program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based onaccomplishing outcomes for the industry overall versus satisfying the expectations of producers

ly. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a highlyeffective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on early

future technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industrydation and to help pull the whole industry along. The longer-term goal should be to

achieve broad industry engagement in technology adoption.

research projects, the opportunity to develop a technology transfer planresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should beexplored. The technology transfer plan would only be developed on applied proj

are that extension work is embedded in the project design, researchersand agrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists haveunderstanding of forthcoming research to keep producers informed of future opportunities.

System to Monitor, Track and Report Adoption and Impact

comes set in the 20-year vision and to encourage the higa reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impact

of new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by an, with input from other experts, who have the foresight and

practical, workable and repeatable system. It is anticipated that a sampling methodology wouldbe used to monitor, track and report on a certain percentage of projects. Economic and totalimpact data should be captured. The results of the tracking system need to be linked together

Page l 38

An effective electronic platform will be a key asset to support a 20-year vision forregular use from a new generation of increasingly larger and more

The Ministry is encouraged to work with the BCRC in supporting its current efforts to establishThe Ministry’s staff have already been engaged in early

It will be important for them to remain active in thedevelopment process to ensure that the design and operations of the site meet the needs of

It is anticipated that the Province’s talentedrole in technology transfer activities. The

logists to support higher rates of

A concern from a number of producers was the limited access to the U of S’ databases. Theperception for many producers is that the U of S library database, which includes academic

ers on its research projects, is currently restricted to faculty, students and alumni. Thisinformation is in fact publicly available with a few restrictions. The availability of this information

and through the associations. Thisis a valuable Provincial resource, paid for in many cases through public funds that should bemore routinely accessed across the Province. There may be value in pursuing bilateral

cience Universities on data sharing to magnify theimpact of research within the Saskatchewan industry and to reinforce a mindset of collaboration

model delivery system outlinedogy transfer should be pursued. Through the

goals and means of technology transfer should be reviewed inwill serve the needs of tomorrow’s producers.

ology transfer? Is itmajority of all cattle

The leaders entrusted with steeringthe direction of the program should be encouraged to take bold decisions based on

s satisfying the expectations of producersly. As an example, research overall indicates that targeting the early adopters is a highly

effective approach to technology transfer. The Ministry is encouraged to focus primarily on earlyfuture technology transfer activities in order to maximize the realities of industry

term goal should be to

technology transfer plan between theresearcher and an extension agrologist during the development of the full proposal should beexplored. The technology transfer plan would only be developed on applied projects that pass the

in the project design, researchersand agrologists build a stronger working relationship and agrologists have a stronger

informed of future opportunities.

Adoption and Impact

and to encourage the highest rates ofa reliable system to monitor, track and report on adoption rates and the impact

of new technologies needs to be devised. The design of such a system should be led by anresight and ability to design

It is anticipated that a sampling methodology wouldbe used to monitor, track and report on a certain percentage of projects. Economic and total

to be linked together



SASKATCHEWAN

with the single portal concept to engage producersachieved through new technologies and methods

6.1.2 Recommendations to Provide Immediate Improvements in ProgramDelivery

The thirteen recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20year vision to transform the economics of the industry. Thefor such a plan will take significant time and shouldthere are opportunities to make immediate improvements to the program basedreport. These improvements are primarily based on establishing progressthirteen above in the infrastructure and operations categories.

It is recommended that the Ministry pursue the following immediate improvements and supporting actionsto evolve the program.

14. Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups andparties to build buy in and support for the future direction.current project approval process and governance system operates.

15. Encourage the U of S to engagecritical plans for the BCTRU

16. Follow-up with the U of Ssuccession plans for key researchers

17. Add a second project application window in respoLOI process. Encourage Ministry program managers to collaborativelyproject proponents with their project applunsuccessful proponents.

18. Work with the U of S and other institutional partners to develop abeef and forage economists in Saskatchewan to support the vital emodeling work that will be required.scholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

19. Continue to actively support the singleensure that Saskatchewanwebsite. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned andadoption rates in the early stages.


with the single portal concept to engage producers on the measurable outcomes that can beachieved through new technologies and methods.


recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20year vision to transform the economics of the industry. The design, development and building of supportfor such a plan will take significant time and should not be rushed. As this important work is undertaken,there are opportunities to make immediate improvements to the program based on the findings of this

These improvements are primarily based on establishing progress on recommendations six toabove in the infrastructure and operations categories.


Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups andin and support for the future direction. Include an explanation on how the

current project approval process and governance system operates.

ourage the U of S to engage a variety of stakeholders, including industry, in a review of itsBCTRU.

up with the U of S and other institutional partners to discuss and assess theirsuccession plans for key researchers within the context of program sustainability.

Add a second project application window in response to stakeholder preferences. Maintain theEncourage Ministry program managers to collaboratively and proactively

their project applications and to also provide detailed feedback to

and other institutional partners to develop a plan to expand the number ofeconomists in Saskatchewan to support the vital economic assessment and

modeling work that will be required. The Ministry should provide support for bursaries orscholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

Continue to actively support the single-portal concept that is being pursued by BCRC and work toensure that Saskatchewan-based projects are profiled in any early phases or pilots of thewebsite. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned and

arly stages.

Page l 39

on the measurable outcomes that can be


recommendations provided above are premised significantly on the development of a 20-design, development and building of support

not be rushed. As this important work is undertaken,on the findings of this

on recommendations six to


Prepare and deliver a summary of this report to relevant stakeholder groups and interestedInclude an explanation on how the

a variety of stakeholders, including industry, in a review of its

to discuss and assess their currentwithin the context of program sustainability.

nse to stakeholder preferences. Maintain theand proactively support

ications and to also provide detailed feedback to

plan to expand the number ofconomic assessment and

The Ministry should provide support for bursaries orscholarships for graduate programs where appropriate to support the plan that is developed.

cept that is being pursued by BCRC and work tobased projects are profiled in any early phases or pilots of the

website. Work with BCRC to monitor user statistics and feedback to identify lessons learned and



SASKATCHEWAN

6.1.3 Summary Implementation Plan

The following table and Gantt chart provide a summary implementation plan to laysequential approach to implementing the recommendations provided in this report.

MNP proposes that a Steering Committee be developed that includes Ministry resources to advance thesummary implementation plan.

Implementation Plan for the Recommendations to Enable Long

Strategy and Policy

Priorities and Action Plans

1. Establish a 20-Year Vision for theIndustry

Build stakeholder support for developing avision

Develop a Terms of Reference for aConsultant

Retain a consultant to facilitate and advisethe process

Hold planning sessions and document the20-year vision

Communicate results to key stakeholders Incorporate any required changes into the

SMA’s budget plans

2. Link Clear and Measurable 5-YearPriorities

Hold an additional planning session toidentify and document the 5-year prioritiesto support the long-term vision

3. Invest in Developing a Coordinated,Single Model Delivery System

Identify best practices and alternativedelivery models for consideration

Establish a set of criteria based on the 20year vision for the industry to evaluate thealternative models

Select a preferred delivery model Develop a business model and transition

plan to evolve the delivery model

4. Re-energize Governance andManagement with a Pioneering Mindset

Specific actions to be determined afterStep 3 is complete above

5. Link Forage and Beef at the PlanningStage

Ensure key leaders from the forage sectorare involved in all planning activities


Implementation Plan

The following table and Gantt chart provide a summary implementation plan to laysequential approach to implementing the recommendations provided in this report.

Committee be developed that includes Ministry resources to advance the

Implementation Plan for the Recommendations to Enable Long-Term Success

Priorities and Action Plans Timing Lead

Year Vision for the

Build stakeholder support for developing a

Develop a Terms of Reference for a

Retain a consultant to facilitate and advise

Hold planning sessions and document the

results to key stakeholdersIncorporate any required changes into the

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Months 4 & 5

Month 6

Month 7

SteeringCommitteeleads allactivities

All steps supportedby the keyassociations andthe U ofof the planningprocess should becost shared withindustryassociations.

Year

Hold an additional planning session toyear priorities

Month 6 SteeringCommittee

Supported by keyassociations andthe U of S. Costshare costs.

Invest in Developing a Coordinated,

Identify best practices and alternativedelivery models for consideration

criteria based on the 20-year vision for the industry to evaluate the

Select a preferred delivery modelDevelop a business model and transitionplan to evolve the delivery model

Month 7

Month 8

Month 9Month 10

SteeringCommittee


Management with a Pioneering Mindset

Specific actions to be determined after Month 10 SteeringCommittee

TBD

Link Forage and Beef at the Planning

Ensure key leaders from the forage sectorare involved in all planning activities

Month 1 andongoing

SteeringCommittee

TBD

Page l 40

out a logical and

Committee be developed that includes Ministry resources to advance the

Term Success

Supporting

All steps supportedby the keyassociations andthe U of S. Costsof the planningprocess should becost shared withindustryassociations.



TBD

TBD



SASKATCHEWAN

Strategy and Policy


During Step 3 it is anticipated thatconsideration will be given as to whetherforages officially stays within crops orunder livestock in the long-term

Infrastructure


6. Pursuit of the Beef Cattle TeachingResearch Unit

Meeting with the U of S to establish a workplan for re-visiting the BCTRU plan

Planning session with the feedlotto identify opportunities for collaboration

Development of a revised proposal by theU of S

Review and endorsement by industryplayers and industry associations

Pursuit of Provincial capital funding for therevised proposal

7. Ensure Robust Plans are in Place toManage Succession

Meet with the U of S to understand thecurrent status of succession planning

Identify any gaps in the current planningprocess

Determine the plan to fill any gaps andwhat resources are required to effectivelyresolve

Attract, retain and build world classresearchers in Saskatchewan

8. Expand Investment in ForageInfrastructure and Research

Work with the key stakeholders for foragesto develop a long-term plan for forageresearch within the context of the 20vision

Identify specific research priorities andoutcomes

Determine what gaps exist related to aphysical and intellectual infrastructure

Establish a SRP Chair position in forages



During Step 3 it is anticipated thatconsideration will be given as to whetherforages officially stays within crops or

Discuss inMonth 9


the Beef Cattle Teaching

Meeting with the U of S to establish a workplan

Planning session with the feedlot industryto identify opportunities for collaborationDevelopment of a revised proposal by the

Review and endorsement by industrys and industry associations

rovincial capital funding for the

Month 2

Month 4

Months 5 and6

2013/14ProvincialBudget

SMA

U of S

U of S

U of S

SMA

Supported byfeedlot industryleaders, keyindustryassociationsSteeringCommittee whereappropriate

Ensure Robust Plans are in Place to

Meet with the U of S to understand thecurrent status of succession planningIdentify any gaps in the current planning

gaps andwhat resources are required to effectively

Attract, retain and build world class

Month 4

Month 4

Months 5 & 6

Ongoing

SMA

U of S

U of S

U of S

Supported by theSteeringCommittee whereappropriate

Work with the key stakeholders for foragesterm plan for forage

research within the context of the 20-year

Identify specific research priorities and

ermine what gaps exist related to aphysical and intellectual infrastructureEstablish a SRP Chair position in forages

Month 8

Month 10

Month 10

Year 2 or 3

SMA, SaskForage Council

Sask ForageCouncilSask ForageCouncilU of S

U of SResearch CentresIndustryAssociations

Page l 41

Supporting

Supporting

Supported byfeedlot industryleaders, keyindustryassociations andSteeringCommittee whereappropriate

Supported by theSteeringCommittee whereappropriate




SASKATCHEWAN

Operations


9. Expand the Number of ProjectApplication Windows (Long-Term)

Based on the 20-year vision, 5-yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, the optimum number ofapplication windows should be identifiedand then implemented immediately

10.Economic Impact Forecasts for AllProjects

Develop a model to integrate effectiveeconomic forecasting and modeling into allprojects

Identify resource requirements –and expertise for ag-economists

Recruit new ag-economists or properlyassign existing ag-economists

Implement and establish new economicimpact model on a sustained basis

11.Single Portal to Provide Accessible andTimely Access to Producers

Based on the 20-year vision, 5-yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop a permanent andmodern portal

Effectively resource the portal for success Update information on a timely basis

12.Develop an Enhanced Strategy forTechnology Transfer

Based on the 20-year vision, 5-yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop an enhancedstrategy for technology transfer

Implementation of the new strategy

13.Establish a System to Monitor, Trackand Report Adoption and Impact

Based on the 20-year vision, 5-yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop a new system tomonitor, track and report

Implementation of the new system



Expand the Number of ProjectTerm)

yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, the optimum number ofapplication windows should be identifiedand then implemented immediately

Months 10 to12

SteeringCommittee,SMA

Economic Impact Forecasts for All

Develop a model to integrate effectiveforecasting and modeling into all

– number

economists or properly

Implement and establish new economicimpact model on a sustained basis

Month 12

Month 12

Month 13 andonwardMonth 16 andonward

U of S, SMA SteeringCommittee

Single Portal to Provide Accessible and

yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop a permanent and

Effectively resource the portal for successUpdate information on a timely basis

Months 10 to13

OngoingOngoing


Develop an Enhanced Strategy for

yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop an enhanced

Implementation of the new strategy

Months 12 to15

Month 16 andonward



Establish a System to Monitor, Trackand Report Adoption and Impact

yearpriorities and with heavy influence from thedelivery model, develop a new system to

Implementation of the new system

Months 16 to18

Month 19 andonward



Page l 42

Supporting

SteeringCommittee





SASKATCHEWAN

Implementation Plan for the RecommendationsDelivery

Immediate Improvements in Program Delivery


1. Prepare and Deliver a Summary of thisReport to Stakeholders

Meet with key stakeholder groups toreview and discuss the results

Gather input on the report and next steps

2. Encourage U of S to Review its FeedlotResearch Plans

Covered under “Infrastructure” point #6above

3. Discuss Current Succession Plans withthe U of S

Covered under “Infrastructure” point #7above

4. Add a Second Project ApplicationWindow

Based on capacity and researcher needs,determine the appropriate timing for asecond window

Notify researchers of the secondapplication window

Dedicate appropriate internal resources

Implement second window

5. Develop a Plan to Expand the Numberof Ag-Economists

Develop and approve a plan

Seek funding in Provincial budget Implementation covered under

“Operations” point #9 above

6. Pilot the Single Portal Concept for TenProjects

Develop and implement a plan for the pilotportal

Work with U of S and the other ResearchCentres to determine which projects toprofile

Develop and post electronic materials Launch portal site Publicize and promote through agrologists,

associations and other mediums Track and monitor usage


Implementation Plan for the Recommendations for Immediate Improvements in Program

Immediate Improvements in Program Delivery


Prepare and Deliver a Summary of this

Meet with key stakeholder groups to

next steps

Months 2 to 4 SMA SteeringCommittee

Encourage U of S to Review its Feedlot

Covered under “Infrastructure” point #6 Month 1 SMA SteeringCommittee

Discuss Current Succession Plans with

Covered under “Infrastructure” point #7 Month 1 SMA SteeringCommittee

Add a Second Project Application

Based on capacity and researcher needs,determine the appropriate timing for a

Notify researchers of the second

Dedicate appropriate internal resources

Month 1

Month 1

Month 2 andonwardMonths 3 to 6

SMA U of SResearch CentresSteeringCommittee

Develop a Plan to Expand the Number

rovincial budget

Months 2 to 4

Month 10


Pilot the Single Portal Concept for Ten

implement a plan for the pilot

Work with U of S and the other ResearchCentres to determine which projects to

Develop and post electronic materials

Publicize and promote through agrologists,associations and other mediums

Month 2

Month 2

Months 3 & 4

Month 5Month 5Ongoing


Page l 43

for Immediate Improvements in Program

Supporting

SteeringCommittee

SteeringCommittee

SteeringCommittee

U of SResearch CentresSteeringCommittee




REVIEW OF BEEF, FEED AND FORAGE RESEARCH AND

SASKATCHEWAN

Summary Gantt Chart

The following Gantt chart summarizes the proposed timelines for the proposed

ESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN

The following Gantt chart summarizes the proposed timelines for the proposed recommendations.

Page l 44

review of beef, feed and forage research and development ... · final report – june 18, 2012...

Documents