A recent survey of Cornbelt farmers indicated their belief that agricultural research would generate the greatest benefit toward increasing their profitability in the long term. Research that occurs both in the laboratory and in the field is expensive because of all the attempts needed to get one good result. While seed, chemical, and other input companies conduct their own research, they generally tweak the expensive basic research that occurs at universities and USDA research facilities. As the new Farm Bill is written, the funding mechanism for research will be on the table for a major overhaul.

As unlikely as it seems, funding for research is quite controversial. But there are hundreds of millions of dollars involved, so you should expect everyone wanting a share of the pie. The controversy is generally between those who believe certain universities should get a set share of funding allocated by formulas, versus those who want all universities and researchers to compete for available funding.

Pending in Congress for Farm Bill consideration are several different plans, including a complete USDA proposal for renovating ag research funding. Purdue University’s Farm Bill series includes an analysis of the alternatives.

In recent years, ag research funding has been part of a larger fund that also finances the Forest Service, Extension, and the Economics Research Service, but the funding for the umbrella agency has been flat. Over time research and Extension funding has been unable to keep up with inflation, while other federal research agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have seen their funding increase by leaps and bounds. The result has been limits on ag research initiatives and decay at university facilities.

Numerous advocates of the ag research process have called for increased funding, but critics have contended there is a lack of coordination from state to state. The various state research coordinators contend they are addressing issues in their own states with their research funds, while communicating their findings to others. To solve the process without jeopardizing funding, several alternatives have been proposed:
1) The USDA’s Farm Bill proposal makes some administrative consolidations and creates several funds for research. Initially a $50 million fund would jumpstart bioenergy research, and a $100 million fund would expand specialty crop research. The agency would also research highly infectious foreign animal diseases on mainland locations in the U.S. and invest $10 million toward organic research.
2) The proposed National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), developed by a USDA panel led by William Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus of Washington University, St. Louis. It does not consolidate any administration, but proposes a new competitive grants program for fundamental research only, starting at $245 million per year and growing to $966 million per year in the fifth year. This new funding would be in addition to existing authorizations for ARS, CSREES, ERS, and the US Forest Service, which will continue to support integrative and applied research programs and invest in capacity.
3) CREATE-21 is an acronym for Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching Excellence for the 21st Century and is proposed by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. It combines elements of the Administration’s proposal and the Danforth Committee’s NIFA proposal. It ensures that adequate funding is available for public agricultural research to be distributed based on competitive and formula approaches, meets fundamental and applied research needs, provides for capacity building and infrastructure, and requires a complete reorganization and consolidation of federal and state agencies undertaking agricultural research. The suggestion in this proposal is that total authorized funding must start at a Fiscal Year 2007 baseline of $2.68 billion per year and grow to $5.35 billion per year in the seventh year.

Pending proposals in Congress include all of these proposals, nearly guaranteeing they or some of their elements will form the basis for ag research in the next five years.

Summary:
While the wheels of ag research seem to turn slow, continual rotation will provide financial benefits for farmers in future years. The new Farm Bill contains a major overhaul of the way basic agricultural research is funded, which is the most expensive kind. Federal investment in ag research has waned while health and science investment has expanded. Several alternatives for change attempt to increase the funding, while address criticism of the way the funding is allocated. Every farmer has a vested interest in the funding because of its impact on future profitability.