Lc ll——\. L122/3:  
¥3{§>~1<# Y7" ‘£30 SPR

87-430 SPR

 

émment Pu bncations
  t ’

CRS REPORT FOR CO§g$_
J 

. ‘ ,
. ‘ 1‘
‘ta :v y,

.. ‘Iv ."° ‘rs - ‘:1  I’ ‘:‘:2~w4-  1 7
“W: W  ‘.3 E3 2: ;'~'     r 1
. ..._ fan I) ;t.—.' V. H -._ ,‘. 1‘ -_‘.' .   ,'»:¢/ 
 ‘'53 ~  :23‘: _?.=§.,;‘<1?:>_ ..§";<L  M M
 «  M  17 1994
. I.‘ ‘‘ E‘; \r_. Y‘
gi"’”"g 3'    -if  Sax ‘;¢-“<'/té X?!
  gwé 2 an arm»
Q-.\',i , ..1 . L .\3._\._,{ 1.. .

a ti  ?E’“x3r§'  it "i‘s!v\?’S‘2¥gt%‘PyhiV°'SitV. Libraries
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: IsS%fi’€s“Fb* ‘THE 1 *- lows, Mo 63130

 

‘\v.
1

 

  

Christine Matthews Rose
Analyst in Science and Technology
Science Policy Research Division



._kg_.u a_.._...m_Mll..u.l _,._“‘.

 

April 30, 1987

OI! ' I ‘

n In
I

V

souri - Colum ia

of Mis‘ A ‘ K b
\ ||||| ll|||1|H|l| IIIII1 Hill
9 8

Hill
10393 91

nivers

IITHI

010-

                                     

mini

             

   

  

   J '  “gervice works exclusively for
« A _ , ng research, analyzing legislation, and
providin" ‘ ormation at the request of committees, Mem-
bers, and their staffs.

  

The Service makes such research available, without parti-
san bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compila-
tions, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, CRS
assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and
issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals
and their alternatives. The Service’s senior specialists and
subject analysts are also available for personal consultations
in their respective fields of expertise.

ABSTRACT

This paper identifies selected agricultural research issues and
information needs that were made recently in congressional hearings and also
discusses recommendations made in expert reports to improve the programs and
institutions that have undergirded the food and fiber system. These issues are
not necessarily new initiatives, but, when taken in the aggregate, seem to be

of high priority in attempts to restore and enhance the profitability of U.S.

agriculture.

CRS-v

CONTENTS

 COOI000COCOO000000000000000000000OCOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOiii.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

0000OOIIOOOOO000000000COOOOOOOOIOIOOCOOOOOOOOOOO0000000000 1

SUMMARY....
INTRODUCTIGNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOICOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000 3

LONG RANGE PLANNING, ANNUAL PRIORITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTS

OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM.................................. 7

A. SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE AGRICULTURAL ~
RESEARCH SERVICE................................................. 7

B. REPORTS OF THE JOINT COUNCIL..................................... 9

C. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE OF PRIORITY-SETTING ACTIVITIES...........1O

IMPROVING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY...................l3
A. REFOCUSING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH...................
B. MAINTAINING WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY...........................14
C. EFFICIENT MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.....................16

00000000000000]-3

IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES.......................l7

IOOI0000OOOOOOOOOOOOIO000000000000DO00000021

HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH...

UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY...................25

EFFECTS OF NEW PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH........29
1890 LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO33

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT
 UNIVERSITIESOOCOOOOOOIO

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

O0O000000000OOOOOOOCOOIOOOIOOOOOOOCOCOCO00000041

MAINTENANCE OF A STRONG AGRICULTURAL
CAPACITY...

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.... ....4l

     SERVICEOOOOOCOOOCOOOOOOOOO0.000.C0000051

CDNCLUSIONSOOOOOOOOII OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOO000000000055

I. SUMMARY

As a result of reports criticizing the performance of the agricultural
research system, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) began strategic planning in 1982. In September 1985, the

ARS released the Agricultural Research Service Program Plan: 6-Year

Implementation Plan. The report was the ARS's second implementation plan and

provided for adjustments in the program changes instituted by the first plan,
which was released in 1983. The plan sought to address such critical national
problems as: (1) the declining competitive position of U.S. agricultural
products in international markets, (2) the threat of low profitability and
return on investment to farmers, and (3) the perception that agrichemicals and
biotoxins are environmental hazards. The ARS acknowledged that the plan could
be modified as a result of public coments and political considerations and
that the agency would respond to inputs from the users of its research with the
resources available.

During the 19705 and the beginning of the 19803, the challenge facing the
agriculture system was to expand output. However, now, one of the fundamental
problems in agriculture is overproduction. The combination of falling exports,
lower prices and incomes, and higher interest rates have placed the
agricultural system under increasing economic pressure to refocus itself. This
refocusing is based on the need to maintain yields while reducing inputs and
resource utilization.

The Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy of the

Cooperative State Research Service, has stated that a major problem in the

CRS-2

agricultural system is the limited number of markets available for U.S.
agricultural products. The committee noted insufficient knowledge about
consumer tastes and preferences and the extent of markets for agricultural
products. Satisfaction of both consumer and producer could be achieved by
increasing the variety, quality, availability and utility of food and fiber
products. The committee took the position that improved efficiency of
processing and distribution operations would lower the costs of products and
improve U.S. agriculture's market share in world trade.

The USDA claims that annual rate of return on investment in agricultural
research has been between 30 and 50 percent per year. Since 1965, federally
funded agricultural research has remained stagnant or declined (in constant
dollars), while private sector support for agricultural research increased in
real terms. iCurrently, only 5.2 percent of total Federal research funds are
allocated to the USDA and only 1.4 percent of the USDA budget is used for
research. Given the potential return on investment in agricultural research,

the present expenditure pattern may be too low for priority research areas that

ihave the ability to enhance and ensure the future competitiveness and

profitability of U.S. agriculture. The slower rates of growth in public
research expenditures might affect future productivity growth in the food and

fiber system unless the private sector begins to fund priority research topics.

CRS-3

II. INTRODUCTION

Agriculture, one of the most efficient and productive sectors in the U.S.
economy, is the largest industry in the United States, contributing directly or
indirectly approximately 20 percent of the gross national product, 23 percent
of the Nation's employment and 19 percent of export earnings.1 However, excess
production capacity, coupled with slowed economic growth domestically and
internationally, present major problems for U.S. agriculture. The U.S.
agricultural system is competing with several agricultural producing nations
during a period of relatively stagnant world demand for agricultural
comodities. While remaining the largest exporter of farm commodities, it
competes with countries which can produce for less, export for less, or both.2

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported $31.2 billion in export
sales for 1985, a 29 percent decline3 from the high level of $44 billion in
exports for 1981.4 The decline in the export sales of U.S. farm products has

resulted in a concomitant decrease in farm income and asset values, and a sharp

1 Parks, Alfred L. and Richard D. Robbins. Human Capital Needs of Black
Land-Grant Institutions. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. July
1985. p. 61.

2 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Food Security Act
of 1985. Report to Accompany H.R. 2100. Report, 99th Cong., lst Sess., Sept.
13, 1985. p. 112. (Hereafter referred to as Food Security Act of 1985.)

3 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Agricultural
Outlook. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Mar. 1987. p. 50.

4 Cook, Kenneth A. and Susan E. Sechler. Agricultural Policy: Paying
for Our Past Mistakes. Issues in Science and Technology, fall 1985. p. 99.

CRS-4

increase in Federal program expenditures to protect farm prices and income.
Factors contributing to the decline in the agricultural exports include
Government fiscal and monetary policies, world recession and debt burdens,
trade restrictions, subsidized foreign competiton, and the transfer of
agricultural production technology abroad.5 Resulting declines in the
agricultural economy impair total U.S. economic growth, primarily because
approximately one-fifth of the jobs in the United States depend on agriculture.
While these problems facing agriculture are serious, the opportunity for
solving them through research are significant.6 The benefits of agricultural
research have been proven to the USDA, which claims that the annual rate of
return on investment in agricultural research is between 30 and 50 percent per
year.7
This paper reviews selected agricultural research issues and information

needs that were identified recently in congressional hearings and also
recommendations that were made in expert reports to improve the programs and
institutions that have undergirded the food and fiber system. Structural or
organizational changes identified in this report deal with planning,
development of new markets, university-industry cooperative ventures,
historically black colleges and universities, personnel needs, and the role of
the extension service. The research needs focus on pesticide use, water,

nutrition, and biotechnology research and its effects on research personnel and

5 Food Security Act of 1985, p. 112.

6 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Research Funding As
an Investment: Can We Measure The Returns? Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
0ff., Apr. 1986. p. 17.

7 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Cooperative State Research Service. The
Experiment Station Committee on Organizational and Policy. Research
Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, 1986. p. ix.

CRS-5

increased public support of research in high priority areas. These issues are
not necessarily new initiatives, but, when taken in the aggregate, seem to be

of high priority in attempts to restore and enhance the profitability of U.S.

agriculture.

CRS-7

III. LONG RANGE PLANNING, ANNUAL PRIORITIES AND ACCOHPLISHHENT
REPORTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM
The discussion in this section examines the various planning processes
proposed for the agricultural research system. The planning centered on

establishing priorities for the research systems resources.

A. SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

The agricultural research system has been scrutinized extensively by the
General Accounting Office, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the Office
of Science and Technology Policy. Their reports point out the need for more
effective planning and coordination among the components of the system and
improvement in the quality of scientific research performed by the system.
Concern has been expressed that insufficient planning has resulted in undue
overlap of research activities and underutilization of some facilities. In
response to the criticisms made about the system, the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) began strategic planning in 1982.

The first report, Agricultural Research Service Plan: 6-Year
Implementation Plan, 1984-1990, issued in February 1983, was instrumental in
guiding the Department of Agriculture's operational planning, resource
allocation, and program execution in its major program areas (soil and water
conservation, plant productivity, animal productivity, commodity conversion and

delivery, human nutrition, and integration of systems). Its purpose was to

CRS-8

guide the ARS National Program staff during budget development and redirection
of funds in the recent ARS organizational realignment. The plan reflected
ARS's decision to address new initiatives and emerging problems and to develop
new research thrusts. The redirection resulted in some program areas being
emphasized and others deemphasized in accordance with highest agricultural
science needs. This required not merely the shifting of funds, but also the
consolidation of scattered research activities into concentrated centers and
the relocation of scientific equipment and personnel. An important purpose of
the plan was to increase the communication between the ARS and the individuals
and organizations it serves.
In September 1985, the ARS released the Agricultural Research Service

Program Plan: 6-Year Implementation Plan.8 This report is the second 6-year
implementation plan and covers the period 1986-1992. The second 6-Year

Implementation Plan made adjustments in the program changes instituted by the

first plan. It is intended to assist the ARS in maintaining linkages with
research users and formulators of policy. The second 6-Year Implementation
Plan sought to address complex problems of national concern. They include but
are not limited to:
(1) The declining competitive position of U.S. agricultural products
in international markets and increasing surpluses of many
commodities;
(2) The threat of low profitability and return on investment to
significant numbers of farmers, the businesses that supply and
finance them, and the rural communities in which these people

trade and live;

(3) The continuing vulnerability of U.S. food and fiber security to
weather and long-term depletion on nonrenewable resources;

8 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service Program
Plan: 6-Year Implementation Plan. Agricultural Research Service. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Sept. 1985. 38 p.

 cRs—9
(4) The continuing perception that agrichemicals, sediments, and
biotoxins are environmental hazards; and
(5) The increasing consciousness of both domestic and foreign
consumers that the quality, nutritional value, and safety of
U.S. agricultural products must be maintained.9
The ARS has assumed the lead in addressing these critical national
problems, acknowledging that research alone cannot solve problems but can
contribute to their solution if resources are available.
Concern has been expressed about the ARS's ability to manage research and

conduct meaningful long-range planning.1O The ARS acknowledges that the new

6-Year Implementation Plan can be modified as a result of public comments and

political considerations and that the agency will respond to inputs from the
users of.its research with the resources available. The ARS will periodically

revise and update the plan as priorities change and research progresses.

B. REPORTS OF THE JOINT COUNCIL

Section l407(d)(2)(G) of Title XIV of P.L. 97-98, the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act Amendments of 1985,
requires that the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences develop
annual priorities and accomplishment reports.11 The Joint Council is obligated
to produce four reports to help improve the overall effectiveness of the

agricultural system: (1) a long-term needs assessment (20-30) years); (2) a

9 Agricultural Research Service Program Plan, p. 3.
10 Food Security Act of 1985, p. 115.

11 The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences was established in
the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977 to encourage and coordinate research,
extension, and higher education activities in the food and agricultural
sciences. Its membership is comprised of representatives from Government,
industry, and academia.

CRS-10

five-year plan; (3) an annual priorities report; and (4) an annual accomplish-
ment report.
One of the mandated reports, Needs Assessment for the Food and

Agricultural Sciences, released in January 1984, is a comprehensive document

which covers all areas of agricultural science.12 ‘It suggested research
priorities and is being used to inform policy officials of the most important

needs facing agriculture. Based on Needs Assessment findings, more specific

goals and objectives were set out in the report, Five-Year Plan for the Food

and Agricultural Sciences, and a few were selected for special emphasis in the

Fiscal Year 1988 Priorities report.13
The Joint Council's planning process, as outlined in its four reports, is

difficult to evaluate. The complexity of the agricultural system obfuscates a

clear statement of priorities as is found in the 6-Year Implementation Plan.
The limitation may derive from the fact that the ARS Program Plan is concerned
with only one part of the system, while the reports of the Joint Council focus
on the entire system. However, the general findings in both reports are

consistent.

C. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE OF PRIORITY-SETTING ACTIVITIES

It has been recommended by the scientific community that a more effective

linkage be established between the priority-setting process and the world of

12 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Reference Document: Needs Assessment for
the Food and Agricultural Sciences. The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1984. 328 p.

13 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Five-Year Plan for the Food and
Agricultural Sciences. The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Mar. 1986. 96 p.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. FY 1988 Priorities for Research,
Extension and Higher Education. The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
Sciences. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1986. 36 p.

CRS-ll

the bench scientist. Nationally established priorities may not have a big
impact because of the disciplinary structure of agricultural sciences.
According to William B. Lacy, Professor, Rural Sociology, University of
Kentucky, U.S. agricultural scientists tend to be unaware of the research being
conducted in other disciplines, and the value of that research to their own.14

Questions have been raised about how much the priority-setting process and
needs assessment exercises would influence the manner in which science is
conducted in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field. Lacy, and fellow professor
Lawrence Busch, testified at congressional hearings that the impact would be
negligible.15 They surveyed more than 1,400 principal investigators engaged in
agricultural research at institutions that receive Federal agricultural funds
and found that disciplinary criteria and personal preferences dominated the
decisionmaking process for most scientists‘ research agendas, not whether an
issue was a national priority or a "hot" topic.16 Scientists identified the
availability of funding and research facilities as important criteria for
research choice. Lacy suggested that the priority-setting process could be
linked more effectively to the provision of funds and facilities. Possibly
then it would have a greater impact on bench scientists.

Many suggestions have been made to improve the planning process. One
recommendation is to have priority issues formulated in clear terms of the

sponsoring organization's mission and to project both the monetary costs of

14 U.S. Congress. House. Comittee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on
Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture. Long-Term Farm Policy
to Succeed the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981. Hearings, 98th Cong., 2d
Sess., June 1984. p. 188. (Hereafter cited as Long-Term Farm Policy to
Succeed the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981.)

15 Long-Term Farm Policy to Succeed the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981,
p. 188.

16 Ibid., p. 188.

CRS-12

proposed programs and also the costs of not implementing such programs.
Additional credibility could also be given to priority statements if it were
demonstrated how priorities in one organization could supplement and validate
those of other agencies. Lacy testified that, "Congress and the agricultural
research community need to combine effective priority-setting with sufficient
resources for sustained effort to meet the long-term needs, while retaining the
flexibility to respond to urgent short-term problems and coordinating the over

all effort."17 He proposed that policymakers should continually review and

‘analyze the agricultural policy process. They should:

(1) Include the full range of constituents for agricultural research
in the process of developing priorities;

(2) Establish several multidisciplinary units in which policy
research could be conducted;

(3) Develop methodologies for interpreting scientific, technical,
and economic information in order to increase the effectiveness
of research efforts;

(4) Promote closer collaboration between natural and social
scientists; and

(5) Fund agricultural research at a level more commensurate with its
value to society and with its research needs.

17 Ibid., p. 188.

13 Ibid., p. 294.

CRS-13

IV. IMPROVING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY

This section on improving agricultural productivity and efficiency deals
with changes in the emphasis of agricultural research, issues in groundwater

quality, and strategic marketing of agricultural products.

A. REFOCUSING AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

During the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the challenge facing the
agriculture system was to expand output. But now, one of the fundamental
problems in agriculture is overproduction. Figures released at the end of May
1986 estimated that the United States had 276 million pounds of surplus butter,
640 million pounds of surplus cheese, and 906 million pounds of surplus nonfat
dry milk.19 The 1986 harvest of grain was expected to be the largest in
history.20 By 1985, the challenge to U.S. agriculture was now focused on the
need for efficiency, that is, to maintain yields while reducing inputs and
resource utilization.l The combination of falling exports, lower prices and
incomes, and higher real interest rates have placed the agricultural system
under increasing economic pressure to refocus itself. This "refocusing" of the
agricultural system was reflected in a synopsis of the statements made by USDA

officials in their testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture:

19 Kozlov, Alex. Born to Milk. Science Digest. Sept. 1986. p. 68.

20 Harkin, Tom. America Needs a New Direction in Farm Policy. USA
Today. July 1986. p. 11.

/.

CRS-14

Emphasis must shift from farm productivity to farm profitability.
Through research and education programs--leading to cost-reducing
technologies, improved pest and drought resistance, new uses for
agricultural products, and more efficient marketing and management
approaches--farm income can be strengthened and consumers of American
farm products can be assured of a continued and abundant supply of
food, fiber, and forest pr0ducts.21

B. MAINTAINING WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY22

A significant factor in the cost of production is water, a resource that
is crucial to both agricultural productivity and economic stability.
Approximately 50 percent of the the U.S. population relies on groundwater for
drinking water.23 Data from 1980 indicate that of the approximately 88 billion
gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals, almost 67 percent were used for
agriculture, and the dependency is increasing.24 However, as the use of this
resource by municipal water systems, industry and electric utilities continues
to increase, the quality and quantity available for agriculture decreases.
Groundwater and surface water (the only other usable source) are increasingly
becoming contaminated with various substances. An estimated 700 million pounds

of pesticides are used annually in U.S. agriculture, with approximately 0.5 to

21 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Food Security Act
of 1985. Report to Accompany H.R. 2100. House Report No. 99-271, 99th Cong.,
lst Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. p. 113.

22 Additional information on this issue is provided in the CRS
publication - U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The
Nation's Water Supply: An Overview of Conditions and Prospects. Report No.
86-893 ENR, by John L. Moore, Claudia Copeland, Donald V. Feliciano, H. Steven
Hughes, Malcolm M. Simmons, and Jeffrey Zinn. Washington, 1986. 53 p.

23 Research Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, 1986. p. 4.

24 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Extension Committee on Organization and
Policy. Groundwater Education: A Challenge for the Cooperative Extension
System. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of
Agriculture. Tucson, Arizona, 1986. p. 4.

CRS-15

3.0 percent (3.5 million to 21 million pounds) of these pesticides reaching
groundwater or surface water before degradation.25 The data alone indicate
that agriculture may be contributing to much of the known groundwater
contamination.
The Experiment Station Comittee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP),

proposed that agricultural research efforts be focused on reducing contami-
nation of surface water and on sediment and chemical movement.26 To assure

adequate supplies of high quality water, the committee recommended the

development of:

(1) Methods for predicting the environmental fate of agricultural
chemicals and assessing the risks of groundwater contamination
in order to develop data on which to base regulatory guidelines;

(2) Systems to provide farmers with alternatives that minimize water
quality degradation;

(3) Strategies and practices such as remote sensing to increase
total water yield and availability for both irrigated and
nonirrigated lands;

(4) Integrated systems and procedures that will conserve existing
water supplies and prevent soil erosion; and

(5) Procedures to provide information necessary for the allocation,
efficient use, realistic pricing, and equitable distribution of
water resources.

25 Ibid., p. 3.

26 The Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy is a
standing committee on the Experiment Station Section, Division of Agriculture,
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. The ESCOP
formulates policy and represents the administrators of State agricultural
experiment stations in their collective dealings with other units of the
Association, with agencies of the Federal Government, with farm organizations,
with commodity and agricultural business groups, and with the public.

27 Ibid., p. 4.

CRS-16

C. EFFICIENT MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

A major problem in the agricultural system, as cited by the ESCOP, is the
limited number of marketing options available for U.S. agricultural products.28
It noted a void in knowledge relative to both consumer tastes and preferences
and also the size of markets for agricultural products. It reported that
satisfaction of both consumer and producer could be achieved by increasing the
variety, quality, availability and utility of food and fiber products. It was
the committee's position that an improvement in the efficiency of processing
and distribution operations would lower the costs of the products and improve
U.S. agriculture's market share in world trade.

The Fiscal Year 1988 Priorities report addressed the issue of expanded

domestic and foreign markets for agricultural products. The report concluded
that expanded markets would serve many purposes, including maintaining high
employment levels, restraining inflation, and improving the Nation's
international balance of payments.29 The report further stated that:

Lagging productivity and efficiency contribute to higher prices for
agricultural products, declining markets, and a loss of U.S. jobs.
.Labor-intensive production and processing-are shifting to countries
with lower wage rates. Market development needs to focus on new
products and new uses for agricultural products. Domestic and
foreign consumer attitudes and preferences that affect the
consumption of farm and forest products need to be explored and
satisfied to expand demand.30

28 Research Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations, p. 26.

29 FY88 Priorities for Research, Extension, and Higher Education, p. 19.

30 Ibid., p. 19.

CRS-17

V. IHPROVED MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES

Pesticides that are used to control insects that damage crops are
expensive and in some instances, dangerous to the farmer, environment, and even
the consumer. During the 1960s the benefits associated with indiscriminate
pesticide use were obtained at substantial costs. Those costs included
development of genetic resistance in target populations, damage to non-target
species of plants and wildlife populations, destruction of beneficial insects,
and detrimental effects on human health and reproductive capacity.31

Although the use of pesticides facilitates high outputs, criticism has
been lodged against the use of some pesticides, the industry which supplies
them, and the agriculturists who advocate their use. Pesticides, which
ultimately end up in the soil, behave not only according to the properties of
the chemical themselves, but also react with the particular matter with which
they come in contact. Sometimes soil microorganisms can break down pesticides
before they take effect. Pesticides may seriously damage the delicate
composition of the soil and reduce the long-term soil productivity. The major
concern is that many long-term effects of pesticides are unknown.

It has been found that chemical agents used to control some pests have

made them more plentiful by increasing their resistance, and in some case have

31 Speth, James Gustave. A Better Mousetrap: Improving Pest Management
for Agriculture. World Resources Institute. (Micheal J. Dover). Sept. 1985.
p. vi.

CRS-18

replaced one species by a more noxious species.32 An alternative to total
reliance on chemical control that has received considerable attention in the
past yearsis integrated pest management.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a system which substitutes detailed
knowledge about pests’ natures and habits for indiscriminate use of chemical
poisons. Integrated control uses cultural, chemical, and biological control
methods to suppress pests while preserving insect parasites and predators. A
report prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment defined IPM as:

. . . the optimization of pest control in an economically and

ecologically sound manner, accomplished by the coordinated use of

multiple tactics to assure stable crop production and to maintain

pest damage below the economic injury level while minimizing hazards

to humans, animals, plants, and the environment.

Preliminary data suggest that biological control programs return about $30
in effective crop protection for every dollar invested. In contrast, pesticide
control programs return $4 to $5 in crop protection for every dollar
invested.34

The report, Needs Assessment for the Food and Agricultural Sciences,
addressed the issue of pesticide use.35 The report accepted projections of

increased pesticide use, mostly due to increasing herbicide use, as more

farmers adopt conservation tillage methods, which are advocated in order to

328 Spinks, Peter. Fighting Insects the Natural Way. New Scientist. May
15, 1986. p. 46.

33% U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Pest Management
Strategies. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. p. 5.

34 Risch, Stephen. University of California, Berkeley. Economics of
Biological Control. Speech presented at the Annual Meeting of American
Association for the Advancement of Science, New York, May 24-29, 1984.

35 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. FY85 Priorities for Research, Extension
and Higher Education. The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., June 1984. 328 p.

CRS-19

prevent erosion of topsoils. Although it recognized gaps in knowledge about
long-term effects of present application rates, the report did not emphasize as
a major research area understanding the effects of pesticide use on long-term

soil fertility. The Needs Assessment did, however, advocate more targeted

biological control systems having such as integrated pest management, as having
fewer environmental hazards.

The Joint Council's Fiscal Year 1988 Priorities report identified eight

national priorities that are important to the continued progress in the U.S.
food and agricultural system. In order to control crop pests and diseases,
which was included as a priority, it encouraged the adoption of integrated pest
management programs in order to maximize the effects of pesticides on target
organisms while reducing nontarget exposure and farmer's production costs. The
report emphasized that research on IPM should encompass basic research on life
cycles, population dynamics, competitive capabilities and ecological charac-
teristics of major insects, weeds, and diseases.36

L. B. Brattsten, senior research biologist, E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company, reported that "Insects have developed resistance to all major classes
of insecticides and will develop resistance to future insecticides as long as
present application techniques and use patterns prevail."37 A report of the
Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy, Cooperative State
Research Service, described the present research programs in biological control
techniques as "substantial and growing", but still, inadequate in relation to

the potential to increase agricultural productivity while simultaneously

36 FY 1988 Priorities for Research, Extension and Higher Education,
p. 13.

37 Brattsten, L. B., C. W. Holyoke, Jr., J. R. Leeper, and K. F. Raffa.
Insecticde Resistance: Challenge to Pest Management and Basic Research.
Science. Mar. 14, 1986. p. 1255.

CRS-20

decreasing environmental contamination.38 Estimations are that employing
better pest-management techniques could effectively reduce pesticide use by as

much as S0 to 75 percent.39

38 Cooperative State Research Service. Research Initiatives. p. 18.

39 Dover, Michael J. A Better Mousetrap: Improving Pest Management for
Agriculture. p. 7.

CRS-21

v1. HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH40

The Food and Agricultural Act of 1977 required that the USDA implement a
comprehensive national plan for human nutrition research programs and that it
serve as a lead agency in disseminating research-based information.41 The USDA
maintains that proper nutrition is an essential component in preventive health
care, and that some of the chronic degenerative diseases in the United States
result from improper diet.42 Current USDA programs in human nutrition research
focus on human nutrition requirements, the role of trace elements, nutritional
effects during pregnancy, lactation, and early life, assessment of individual
nutritional status, and nutritional needs of the elderly.43 Due mainly to the
rapid introduction of new food processes and products into the market,
expansion, extension and strengthening of research programs may need to be
developed. In its research agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations, the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy listed

the nutritional and health status of people as a major research initiative for

40 Note: A separate CRS report is being prepared on this subject.

41 The Food and Agricultural Act of 1977 designates the USDA as lead
agency for human nutrition research except with respect to the biomedical
aspects of human nutrition concerned with diagnosis or treatment of disease.
The research, extension and teaching in human nutrition will be coordinated
with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (no Health and Human
Services).  

42 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1986 Fact Book of U.S. Agriculture.
Office of Information. Nov. 1985. p. 45.

43 Ibid., p. 46.

cus-22

1986. The initiative is intended to ". . . permit development of information

regarding the effects of innovative processing techniques on the nutritional
quality of food products, on the potential interactions(s) between or among
nutrients or ingredients, and on the bioavailability of nutrients."44 The
comittee suggested programs to:

(1) Determine more precisely the nutritional requirements of
individuals as influenced by age, occupation, lifestyle,
climatic conditions, and sex;

(2) Identify the economic, behavioral, social, cultural, and
environmental factors that influence consumer preferences and
dietary practices in order to improve nutrition education and
improved agricultural products to satisfy those needs;

(3) Improve the nutritional status of the population by studying the
effects of production, processing, and preparation practices on
the nutritional quality of food products;

(4) Study interactions of food nutrients with each other and with
other substances to determine the methods of improving the
bioavailability of nutrients in food products; and

(5), Compile information about possible health risks associated with
certain food components such as lipids, saturated fats,
cholesterolg chemical residues, and naturally occurring
toxicants.4

In March 1986, Human Nutrition Research: The Federal Five-Year Plan, was

released by the Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research (ICHNR).46
This report was in response to a request of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy and the Joint Committee of Agriculture and the Committee on

Science and Technology.‘ The report proposed areas of nutrition research for

44 Research Initiatives: A Research Agenda for the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations. p. 30.

45 Research Initiativesv p. 30.

46 Coordinated by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and the Dept. of Health and
Human Services. ~Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research. Human
Nutrition Research: The Federal Five-Year Plan. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.
Off., 1986. 199 p. *

CRS-23

focus within the Federal Government to assist in the development of research
strategies in the selected areas, and to increase coordination of nutrition
research with the private sector and within the Federal Government. Human

Nutrition Research identified six human nutrition research priorities:

1) Nutrition requirements through the life cycle;

2) Research on the role of nutrition in the etiology, prevention, and
treatment of chronic diseases and conditions;

3) Energy regulation, obesity, and related eating disorders;
4) Nutrition monitoring research;

5) Nutrient content, bioavailability and interactions; and
6) Research in nutrition research.

Similar to the priorities in the ARS' 6-Year Implementation Plan, these

human nutrition areas can be adjusted as a result of responses to the
developing knowledge base and the needs of the lCHNR number agencies.

The Fiscal Year 1988 Priorities report, which selected nutrition research

as one of its eight priorities, is in agreement with the ICHNR in that
nutrition research must be expanded and accelerated in order to improve the
nutritional and health status of people.47 The Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences maintains that an expanded program in human nutrition
should serve to benefit food producers and processors and the consumer. The
report stressed that food producers and processors, should be knowledgeable
about food composition and its alteration in order to improve its nutritional
content, and should simultaneously be cognizant of methods that might

inadvertently lower the nutrient content and palatability of foods.

47 FY88 Priorities for Research, Extension, and Higher Education, p. 22.

CRS-25

VII. UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Data indicate that almost 50 percent of industries supporting
biotechnology research are engaged in a university-industry relationship.48
Such relationships constitute approximately 16 to 24 percent of all external
support for university research in this area.49 Industry sponsors joint
ventures, contracts, grants, and consortiums with universities to conduct
cutting-edge agricultural research. Support for these "new biotechnologies"
extends to include the fields of recombinant DNA technology, monoclonal
antibody techniques, gene synthesis, gene sequencing, cell and tissue culture
techniques, large-scale fermentation, and enzymology.50

Although industrial resources significantly augment university research
capabilities, many questions have been raised about the potential negative
implications of these arrangements.51 Some critics question the impact of such
ventures on the university. will private research projects conflict with the
teaching responsibilities of the professors involved? Is it ethical for

graduate students to assist a professor in research being done to facilitate

48 Blumenthal, David, Michael Cluck, Karen Seashore Louis, Michael A.
Stoto, and David Wise. University-Industry Research Relationships in
Biotechnology: Implications for the University. Science, v. 232, June 1986.
p. 1361.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

CRS-26

the professor's private commercial interests? In addition, the new
biotechnology companies are prepared to pay salaries much higher than the
academic community and to provide researchers with modern facilities and "state
of the art" equipment. The possibilities exist that not only will faculty
members be hired away from the universities, but also that they may leave to
form their own companies. If university faculties are being recruited for
industry jobs, will enough faculty remain to teach the next generation ofp
scientists? I A H

Probably oneof the most critical questions being raised is the type of
impact these arrangements would have on basic agricultural research. would
university faculty shift the direction of too much of their research toward
commercially oriented projects? Attention to commercial applications may lead
ito excessive emphasis on applied investigation at the expense of more
fundamental research. However, David Blumenthal, Executive Director, Center
for Health Policy and Management, Harvard University, maintains that "Marginal
shifts in the direction of university work toward more applied and commercially
relevant projects may have benefits for human health and economic growth that
far outweigh the risks to scientific progress."52

Troublesome issues in the commercialization of biotechnology research
through joint university-industry research have focused on patent applications,
patents, and trade secrets. Critics of these university-industry arrangements
charge that they produce a corrosive effect on the university environment by
creating incentives for faculty to keep their research secret. In addition, it

has been reported that industry sponsors, who are interested in protecting the

  52 Ibid., p. 1365.

CRS-27

proprietary nature of the research, invariably place more restrictions on
publications than other supporters.53 Both effects have the potential to
". . . impede the free, rapid, and unbiased dissemination of research
results."54

The Patent Reform Act of 1980 has done much to address the issue of patent
relationships among universities, corporations, and also the Federal
Government. The Act, which took effect July 1, 1981, provides a single
Federal-wide policy on the allocation of patent rights resulting from federally
supported research and gives preferential benefits to universities, small
businesses, and non-profit organizations. The Act requires that universities
be given preferential title rights to inventions made with federally funded
research and development. Its intent is to encourage cooperation between
universities and industry by allowing the universities to offer future licenses
in exchange for support even if Federal money is involved.

Despite the concerns of conflict-of-interest, ethics, licensing, and
proprietary rights, there seems to be a general consensus about the need to
increase industrial funding for university research. Industrial support of
biotechnology research in universities augments other funding sources and
enhances the capacity to conduct both basic and applied research. Suggestions
have been made on how to control the risks associated with university-industry
research relationships. They include:

(1) University monitoring of relationships with biotechnology

companies, noting the opposition to the protection of trade

secrets resulting from industrially supported research.
Research indicates that university arrangements with non-Fortune

53 Association of American Universities. University Policies on Conflict
of Interest and Delay of Publication. Report of the Clearinghouse on
University-Industry Relations. Feb. 1985. p. 21.

54 Blumenthal et al., p. 1364.

CRS-28

500 companies are potentially more risky than with larger
companies; and

(2) Government assurance that the patent system maintains sufficient
protection for the commercial value of intellectual property in
biotechnology research. A possible preventive measure to
secrecy may be the perfection of methods that permit
participants involved in university-industry relationships to
disclose their research results while simultaneously protecting
their proprietary interest in that information.

55 Ibid., p. 1366.

CRS-29

VIII. EFFECTS OF NEH PLANT BIOTECHNOLOCIES ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

It appears that genetic engineering may have a profound impact on the food
and farm system. Genetic engineering in plant breeding is expected to add $5.6
billion to the annual value of crops before the year 2000. The National
Science Foundation conducted a study, through its Program on Ethics and Values
in Science and Technology, to examine the impacts of the new plant
biotechnologies on breeding. The findings from that study foresee changes in
farm production and agribusiness and in the functions of agricultural research
and education.56

The new biotechnologies have caused conflicts for some researchers at the
agricultural experiment stations affiliated with land-grant universities. Much
of the expertise in biotechnology lies outside of the land-grant universities,
while most plant breeding expertise lies within the institutions. Microbiolo-
gists and molecular geneticists, once employed largely in colleges of science
and medicine, are beginning to replace plant breeders in agricultural
experiment stations.57 Some of these positions may be filled at the expense of
conventional plant breeding scientists. Because biotechnologists and plant

breeders differ with respect to work environment and location within the

56 As cited in Long-Term Farm Policy to Succeed the Agriculture and Food
Act of 1981. p. 184.

57 Ibid., p. 184.

CRS-30

scientific community, many biotechnologists have had little connection to farm
life.

Another known consequence of biotechnology is the high cost of instru-
mentation, construction and maintenance of research facilities. Every State
has been able to afford a conventional breeding program, but every State might

not be able to afford a comprehensive plant biotechnology program.58 The

resulting effect might be a limitation on the number of States that can engage

in a full-fledged biotechnology program, and a concentration of scientific
talent at a few public and private institutions. However, this situation is
common to most fields of research.

Added structural and behavioral changes are occurring in the seed industry
as a consequence of biotechnology. According to Lawrence Busch, Professor,
Rural Sociology, University of Kentucky, the large seed companies have
continued to control the market for major crops while the small seed companies
are being confined to fewer crop species.59 The activities of the seed
industry also appear to have the effect of reducing the role of the experiment
stations in the release of finished varieties and restricting them to basic
research.60 In addition, the private sector seed industry tends to use
biotechnology differently from the public sector.

Probably the most dramatic effect of biotechnology will be on the farmer.
Development in the seed industry is gradually being moved from the experiment

stations to the industrial sector.61 Busch stated that:

53 Ibid., p. 185.
59 Ibid., p. 186.
60 Ibid.

61 Ibid., p. 187.

CRS-31

Farmers are . . . likely to be gradually eased out of their
traditional roles as the primary clients for plant breeding research.
They will be, and already are being, replaced by seed companies and
the chemical companies that run them.
The scientific and technical innovations of the new biotechnologies have the

ability to make independent farmers dependent on industry inia manner in which

they have never been before. There is the potential for conflict between the

interests of the independent farmer and those of agribusiness.63

Biotechnology does, however, promise to enhance the benefits from plants
and animals. Advances in embryo transfer, gene insertion, and protein
production could be instrumental in increasing efficiencies in animal
production. The potential applications of biotechnology on plant agriculture
could modify plants so they would be more resistant to insects and disease,
would grow in more extreme environments, would provide higher quality protein,

and would provide their own nitrogen fertilizer. An OTA report, Technology,

Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, stated that
"While the immediate impacts will be greater for animal agriculture, the long-
term impacts of biotechnology may be substantially greater for plant
agriculture."64

The Joint Council's Fiscal Year 1988 Priorities made recommendations for

plant biotechnology research. The report proposed initiating and strengthening

existing programs to develop:

62 Ibid., p. 186-187.
53 Ibid.
64 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Technology, Public

Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, U. S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1986. p. 6.

(1)

<2)
<3)
<4)

(5)

(6)

CRS-32

Genetic and breeding strategies that incorporate biotechnology
and other innovative concepts with current breeding practices to
improve populations and enhance development of improved species;

Germplasm potentials for meeting agricultural, forestry, and
industrial needs;

Genetic bases for minimizing the damage caused by pests such as
nematodes, pathogens, insects, and weeds; i

Genetic elements that determine responses to environmental
stress factors;

Genetic elements which determine superior physiological and
morphological traits that can be incorporated into improved
cultivars; and

Plant capacity to utilize beneficial soil microorganisms and
thus decrease fertilizer and other inputs.

These recommendations are intended to provide the interface between the ongoing

traditional breeding research with the methods of the new research in basic

plant biology.

65

Priorities for Research, Extension, and Higher Education.

p. 22.

CRS-33

IX. SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT 1890 LAID-GRANT
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Since their establishment, the historically black, or 1890 land-grant

institutions have been and continue to remain the primary source of blacks
trained in agriculture in the United States.66 In addition, these institutions
have provided a multiplicity of services to poor and minority people living in
the rural and urban areas of their respective States, directing a significant
portion of their research efforts toward small farms. Although teaching and
not research has been the primary focus of the 1890 land-grant institutions,
these institutions have been successful in conducting and supporting research,
developing new technology for commercial agriculture, and providing services
needed to utilize research findings and technology. However, a lack of
sufficient research facilities has limited the agricultural research programs
of the 1890 institutions and prevented them from developing ". . . research

programs that could provide expertise to complement and enhance their instruc-

tion and extension program needs, or to participate with the 1862 land-grant

66 The passage of the first Morrill Act in 1862 provided for the
establishment of a land-grant institution in each State. Primarily in the
South, under the premise of legal separation of races, blacks were not allowed
to attend these institutions. In response, Congress passed the second Morrill
Act in 1890, requiring States with dual systems of higher education to provide
land-grant institutions for blacks as well as whites. As a result, some new
public black institutions were founded, and some private institutions came
under public control; eventually 16 black institutions were designated as 1890
land-grant colleges.

CRS-34

institutions in a balanced attack on the agricultural research programs of the
people in their States."67
In testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture, George E.Cooper,

Dean, School of Applied Sciences, Tuskegee Institute, stated that, "[A]
significant disparity in funding has prevented modern research facilities from
being developed."68 The 1890 institutions have received less State and Federal

funding for research, teaching and extension than the 1862 land-grant

institutions and have been ". . .less than full partners in the land-grant

experience".69 The 1890 institutions were not eligible to participate in the

Federal facilities program provided in the 19605 and 1970s for the 1862 land-

grant institutions under the Research Facilities Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-74).70

In addition, during the period 1965-1978, the 1890 land-grant colleges did not
receive funding under several Department of Agriculture programs: the Special
Research Grants program under the Science and Education Administration's
Cooperative Research program (SEA/CR), as established by P.L. 89-106; the
Competitive Research Grants program under SEA's Agricultural Research Program,

established by P.L. 89-106; the Competitive Forestry Research program

67 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on
Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture. 1890 Land-Grant
Colleges Facilities. Hearings., 97th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. 0ff., June 4, 1981. p. 5. (Hereafter cited as 1890 Land-Grant Colleges
Facilities.)

68 Ibid., p. 33.
69 Parks, Alfred, L. and Richard D. Robbins. p. 66.

70 1890 Land-Grant Colleges Facilities, p. 5.

CRS-35

established by P.L. 94-788; or the Rural Development Research Grants under the
SEA/CR as established by the P.L. 94-259.71

It was not until fiscal year 1967 that 1890 institutions received funding
for research on a continuing basis, and these funds were for research projects,
not for constructing research facilities.72 Appropriations for research,
administered by the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) were $285,000,
approximately $17,692 for each institution.73 The 1972 appropriation for
research at the 1890 land-grant institutions was increased to $8.6 million.74
During the period 1972-1977, the amount increased to $13.35 million, and was
considered primarily as "soft" money.75 Passage of the 1977 Farm Bill brought
changes to the funding process, creating a source of "hard" money for the 1890
institutions and becoming the primary source of funding available for
research.76 Current estimates are that approximately $23 million is
appropriated annually for research at the 1890 institutions, ranging from
several hundred thousand dollars at the smallest institution to $2 million for

the largest institution.77

71 Bennett, Richard, Jr. North Carolina State University. Agricultural
Research, Extension and Teaching at the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions. The
Impact of Federal Funding. Dec. 15, 1985. unpublished paper.

72 Parks, Alfred L. and Richard D. Robbins. p. 67.

73 1890 Land-Grant Colleges Facilities. p. 33.

74 Ibid., p. 33.

75 "Soft" money is defined as one time only support, such as grants,
while "hard" money is specifically earmarked support on a long-term, continuous
basis. Parks, Alfred L. and Richard D. Robbins. p. 67.

76 The legislation did not require matching funds from individual states
and few states choose to make available any matching amounts. 1890 Land-Grant

Colleges Facilities. p. 33.

77 Robinson, Rolland. Telephone Interview. Cooperative State Research
Service. Feb. 6, 1987.

CRS-36

The Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill) addressed the issue of upgrading

1890 land-grant research facilities. The law established a new grant program
to provide $10 million for each of the fiscal years 1986 through 1990, with
such sums to remain available until expended. Approximately 4 percent of the
funds will be available for administration of the program, with the balance
available to eligible institutions for the purpose of assisting in the purchase
of equipment and land, and the planning, construction, alteration, or

renovation of buildings, to provide adequate facilities to conduct extension

‘work in a balanced way in meeting the needs of the people of their respective

States.

CRS-37

X. MAINTENANCE OF A STRONG AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY CAPACITY

The Nation's high-technology food and agricultural system is significantly
dependent on a qualified cadre of professionals and scientists to maintain its
competitive edge in the world economy. At the same time that the technological
needs of agriculture are expanding, the supply of agricultural scientists and
technicial specialists is declining. A 1985 report prepared by the USDA
indicated that through 1990 ". . . U.S. colleges and universities are expected
to produce insufficient numbers of graduates with food and agricultural
expertise to fill important scientific and professional positions."78

Approximately 48,000 positions are projected annually in the United States for

rcollege graduates in the food and agricultural sciences, yet less than 44,000

graduates are anticipated.79 Projected estimates of supply and demand through
1990 indicate that scientists, engineers, managers, sales representatives, and
marketing specialists will account for approximately 75 percent of the total
annual employment openings for graduates with specialities in agriculture,

natural resources, and veterinary medicine.30 Other shortages will be evident

78 Coulter, K. Jane, Marge Stanton, and Allan D. Goecker. Employment
Opportunities for College Graduates in the Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Veterinary Medicine. Higher Education
Programs, Office of Grants and Program Systems, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C. 1986. p. 2. A

79 Ibid., p. 2.

30 Ibid.

CRS-38

in education, communication, and information sciences, social services, and
agricultural production.

In recent years, there has been a decrease in the number of undergraduate
students enrolling in the agricultural sciences at colleges and universities,
perhaps because many high school counselors do not recommend agriculture to
students as a potential career. The image of agriculture as a scientific area
does not seem to be recognized as such by many high school counselors, science
teachers, parents, or students. Also, "the traditional source of agricultural
students has been farm and ranch populations; ironically, these populations
[also] have declined as a result of the very technology that has depended on
them for replenishing its human capital."81

A June 1986 report of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences
stated that a unidimensional "production" image of agriculture, coupled with
increased competition from other disciplines, has contributed to a reluctance
of students to enter agricultural programs.32 In addition, the report charged
that inadequate investments for faculty, facilities, and equipment have
seriously eroded the ability of academic institutions to educate highly
qualified agricultural scientists and to train them for positions requiring a
broad-based systems approach.33 The Joint Council report recomended an

expansion of Federal and private sector programs for support at the

81 Reference Document: Needs Assessment of the Food and Agricultural
Sciences. p. 300.

82 FY88 Priorities for Research, Extension and Higher Education, p. 15.

83 Instrumentation used at both undergraduate and graduate levels for
food and agricultural sciences research, in the top-ranked universities has a
median age twice that of the instrumentation available to leading industrial
research laboratories. Reference Document: Needs Assessment for the Food and
Agricultural Sciences. The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
p. 310. '

CRS-39

baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral levels. The report also recommended
updating and strengthening faculty competencies, strengthening curriculum, and

improving instructional equipment and facilities.

CRS-41

XI. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

The allocation of responsibility for the support of agricultural research
between the public and private sectors has been a continuing issue in the
agricultural system. The private sector, which includes agribusiness firms and
foundations, not only conducts in-house research, but also provides funds to
the public sector in support of research. ,Private sector research firms are
primarily profit-oriented and focus on proprietary research and development
(R&D) efforts in order to " . . . capture benefits through reducing processing
and/or marketing costs or by developing new products or processes which can be
patented or otherwise kept private."84 New product developments generally do
not appear to increase immediately productivity levels in the industry.
Approximately 50 percent of private sector research expenditures is for
"production agriculture".85 Public sector agricultural research, however, is
focused on two major program areas--those to conserve, protect and manage
natural resources and those to produce and protect crops and animals. Data
from 1984 indicated that these programs are the recipients of approximately 75

percent of all public expenditures on agricultural research sponsored by the

84 Eddleman, B. R. Extension Committee on Policy. Research and
Development for the Future Farm and Food System. Michigan State University
Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, Michigan, 1984. p. 7.

85 Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American
Agriculture, p. 265.

CRS-42

USDA and the State experiment stations.86 At issue is what is the optimal
level and mix of public and private funding for research.

Information on the magnitude of agricultural research by the private
sector in the United States is quite limited and poorly documented, mainly due
to proprietary interests and the reluctance of some companies to provide exact
figures on research expenditures. The best single set of data available, at
this time, is the estimates developed by the Agricultural Research Institute
(ARI). The ARI has conducted three surveys since 1965 on private expenditures
by industry. The most recent, A Survey of U.S._égricultural Research by

Private Industry III, published in July 1985, contains data for 1984.87 The

ARI's 1984 survey included agricultural trade associations and agricultural
companies most likely conducting and financing research.

In compiling the data for research expenditures by private industry, the
ARI included in its 1984 report the results of a Kalton and Richardson survey
of seed industry research expenditures in 1982 and 1983. These data were
included by the ARI because it was deemed necessary to obtain information from
this particular segment of the agricultural research industry without having to
repeat a recently completed survey. For 1984, the ARI estimated that a total

of $1.37 billion was reported as expenditures for agricultural research by

-private industry88 and that all private industry expenditures for agricultural

research totaled $2.6 billion. The greatest expenditure of research funds
reported by the companies was in the area of pesticides. Following is a table

of those expenditures by the 357 companies included in the survey.

36 Ibid., p. 7.

87 iAgricultural Research Institute. A Survey of U.S. Agricultural
Research by Private Industry III. Bethesda, Md., 1985. 16 p.

88 Ibid., p. 8.

CRS-43

TABLE 1. Total Research Expenditures
(In-House and Outside)
(Combined ARI and Kalton-Richardson Data)

Size of Research No. Companies No. Companies
Expenditure Supporting Toal Supporting
Dollars In-House Research Dollars Outside Research Dollars
0 215
Under 100,000 104 5,200,000 81 4,716,500
l00,000- 500,000 110 33,000,000 30 3,400,000
500,000- 1,000,000 47 35,250,000 14 9,300,000
1,000,000- 5,000,000 51 53,000,000 14 34,059,170
5,000,000- 10,000,000 16 20,000,000 2 15,850,000
10,000,000- 20,000,000 13 95,000,000
20,000,000- 30,000,000 4 100,000,000
30,000,000- 40,000,000 3 105,000,000
40,000,000- 50,000,000 3 135,000,000
50,000,000-100,000,000 3 225,000,000
Over 100,000,000 2 200,000,000
Total 326

1,303,450,000 356 67,325,670

Total Research Expenditure $l,370,775,670
Mean for 356 Companies 3,850,493

Source: A Survey of U.S. Agricultural Research by Industry III. Agricultural
Research Institute. p. 9.

Extrapolating from the survey, the ARI made the following assumption:

. . . the 322 [companies] who did not reply would all be conducting
research, and it would be assumed at about the same rate per company
as those who did respond. On the basis of $1,303,450,000 having been
spent on in-house research by the 356 companies that reported usable
data and $67,325,670 in support of outside research, the total would
be $l,370,775,670 and the mean expenditure per company would be
$3,850,493. The additional 322 companies that did not report would
also be operating on the same basis as the 356 which reported, and
would have spent $1,239,858,746. By adding this to the 356 total of
$l,370,775,670 we arrive at a figure of $2,610,634,416 for the total
of all companies doing research. This is obviously not a precise
figure since ranges were used in reporting and extrapolations were
used to arrive at this figure. 9

Public support of agricultural research focuses on agricultural problems
of regional, national, and international concerns. Table 2 details the support

for research by the USDA from FY 1980 to FY 1988. The Administration's FY 1988

39 Ibid.

CRS-44

.vmmomoum uo: maawaam xw
.owmH .uuo cw wu«>uwm muwuwwumum Hmu=ua=u«uw< Hmcofiumz mwemawm \u
.mHmauHwmo muawwm wwauomca wcm cowumuwwwumsm uwwvsn mucwwm Eoum vwcamuao mums wwwmvowwm pom mwuswam \m
.m .m .mwo:w«um Hmu:uH=uHum¢ wam voom no uuommm Hm=::< mwmfi mnu Scum cwxmu wuw3 mwwmlowwm now wmusmfim mm
m.¢nm o.~ooH q.mma o.mem ©.qww 9.0mm m.oHm o.w_~ o.owe auummmmm .HmuoH
H.H H.H m.o ~.H ~.o o.o 0.0 m.o m.o mofi>umm
% :o«uummm:H cwmuu Hmuwuwm
mummfi m.m~H o.mHH w.mHH ~.woH ~.~o~ H.~HH ¢.moH m.mm wuabuwm ummuom
xv m.~ H.m q.m m.m m.m V ~.o o.m m.m u:wSmoHm>mQ wan cofiumumao
Hm:o«umcumu:H mo wowmwo
o.o H.H H.H m.H w. m.o o.H m.o w.o aofiumuuommamue we mofimmo
o.H m.H m.H o.H o.~ m.H m.H ¢.H m.H mufi>umm mafiuuxumz Hmu=uH=oHpm<
~.N ~.~ ~.~ ¢.~ ~.~ N.~ ~.H w.H o.H mufi>umm
« w>«umummooo Hmu=uH=u«um¢
~.m m.o m.~H m.N H.o “.5 m.w ~.w H.n mu«>umm
:oHumEuom:H aowuauusz cwedm
o.mq q.m¢ H.«q H.n¢ m.qq w.mm q.mm m.¢m H.c~ mufi>umm coummmwm ofieocoom
~.m ~.w o.» <.w ~.w o.~ o.~ m.N o.m \u muH>uwm
mcwuuomwm Hmowumaumum
mhwmm m.mw~ m.mo~ q.Nm~ ~.~m~ m.~m~ o.o- n.oo~ q.qmH mmmu .HmuoH
\w m.¢ m.o w.“ o.o 0.0 o.o o.o o.o wucmuu m>Hufiummeou muummuom
mufi o.~ m.H m.H c.o m.o m.o m.H m.H :oHumuumH=Heu< Hmumumm uomufio
xv m.m m.m w.m w.m w.m w.m m.o o.© mmmwmfin w suammm Hmefi:<
mhqq N.oq% m.~q o.o¢ o.~H o.~H m.oH o.©H m.mH mucmuu suummmmm m>flufiumaeoo
\u o.mq o.m~ ~.mm m.o~ w.- H.m~ ~.wH ~.mH mucwuu cuummmmm Hmfiummm
m.m~ m.- m.N~ m.mN w.- w.HN m.H~ m.mH w.nH wowmxmsa w mwmmaaoo omwfi
o.mH q.NH ¢.m~ H.mH m.~H q.N~ o.~H m.oH o.oH zuummuom m>fiumumaooo
m.mmH w.mqH w.w¢H m.cmH m.~mH ~.m¢H ~.HwH o.m~H c.wH~ maseuom uo< cuumm
muH>uom
Loummmwm wumuw m>«umpmmooo
o.~qm o.o~mm ~.mwqw H.~mqw o.moqm m.Hm¢m ~.m~qm H.qo¢m o.mmmm muH>umm
cuuwmwmm Hmp:uH:uwuw<
Hm:uu< Hw:uu< Hw=uu< .mm=uu< Hm:uu< Hm=uu< Hm:uu< Hm:uu< ~m:uu< cuumwmwm
\nmw»m Nmwm omwm \mmm»m qwwm mmwm Nwwm Hmwm omwm
Amumfifiou mo mcofifififie :Hv  
mwma wmlcwma Mm supmmmmm pom mcowumHuaoumm¢ umu=uH:o«uw< mo ucmeuummmm .m.D .~ mAm<H

CRS-45

budget estimate for the conduct of R&D in the USDA is $974.9 million, 3.2
percent below the FY 1987 estimate of $1,007.6 million.90 In constant 1982
dollars, the decline is 6.8 percent (see table 3). The trend in overall
funding in constant dollars from FY 1980 to FY 1988 has been erratic, with the
FY 1988 request for research below all previous years.

During the period of time that public sector research has remained
stagnant or declined (in constant dollars), private sector support for research
and development increased in real terms. A report prepared by the OTA stated
that private sector research expenditures are equal to or potentially larger
than the public sector and " . . . represents . . . a major shift toward
private sector dominance of agricultural research."91 Questions have been
raised as to whether public support for agricultural research is sufficient to
sustain productivity growth. Currently, only 5.2 percent of total Federal
research funds are spent by the USDA and only 1.4 percent of the USDA budget is
used for research.92 Given the potential return on investment in agricultural
research, it may be that the present expenditure pattern under-invests in

«

priority research areas that have the ability to enhance and ensure the future

competitiveness and profitability of U.S. agriculture. The slower rates of

90 For additional information on funding in the agricultural research
system, see: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Research and Development Funding: FY88. Issue Brief No. IB87083, by Research
and Development Team; Michael E. Davey, Coordinator, Mar. 9, 1987 (continually
updated). Washington, 1987. 15 p.

91 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Technology, Public
Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1986. P\ 265.

92 Young, Mike. Telephone Interview. U.Si ,Dept. of Agriculture.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis. Mar. 23, 1987.

CRS—46%

noumwmwm .HmuoH

.~.~N~ w.qmm o.oHw m.~ow w.oHw ~.H~w m.oHw N.¢mw o.mow
a. m. w. o.H o. 0. o.c m. o.   mufi>umm
co«uumamaH SHNHU Hmumvwm
m.~a ~.¢oH o.wa ¢.Ho# m.ooH m.moH H.-H m.oHH ~.mHH mufi>uom umupom
H.~ ~.~ m.e a.q m.m ~.o q.m m.o u=uamoHo>ma uam aofiumumao
HmnoHum:uwuaH mo wowmwo
m. a. o.H ~.~ N. w. o.H o.H m. cofiumuuommamue we mofimmo
m.H ~.H m.~ q.~ m.~ ¢.H m.H m.H m.H wufi>uwm wafiumxumz Hmu=uH=uHHw<
w.H ~.~ m.~ o.~ o.~ H.~ ~.H m.H m.H moH>umm
m>«uwuwaoou amu:uH:uaum<
a.o ~.m H.~a 5.0 o.m «.5 m.m m.w q.w % mo«>umm
:o«umEuomaH cowuauusz cwaam
H.mm e.~m o.wm o.~¢ a.o¢ ~.~m ¢.mm q.~q m.om mufi>umm suumomum ufieocoum
a.e w.e% o.o m.~ o.“ m.~ o.n o.w m.m muH>umm
mcwuuomwm Hmowumaumum
o.omH m.om~ m.Hm~ o.om~ m.mH~ w.-~ o.o- m.mH~ o.~H~ ammo .Hmuoa
% ~.m o.m a.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o muamuu m>Hufiuomaoo muumouom
m.H ~.~ m.H m.H e. m. w.o ¢.H m.H aoHumuuma=fieu< amumvem uooufla
o.q ~.q ~.m ¢.m o.m w.m o.~ H.~ mmmmmfin a zufimwm HmeHc<
m.mm ~.mm m.om o.Hq ~.mH m.oH m.oH ~.- m.m~ muamuu soummmmm m>HuHumaaoo
o.oq o.m~ o.a~ m.¢~ ~.o~ H.m~ m.mH a.~H muamuu coumwmmm Hmfiummm
o.mH m.mH N.mH o.H~ o.H~ a.o~ m.H~ ~.o~ o.H~ umwmxmaa a muwmaaoo oawfl
%q.oH m.oH ~.oH ~.~H m.HH m.HH o.~H ~.mH w.HH zuummuom m>Humumaooo
o.q~H m.m~H m.w~H ¢.amH m.o¢H ~.~qH% H.H¢H o.wmH o.oqH waseuom uu< coumm
T muH>Hwm
A nuuwwmwm mumum m>Huwumaoou
w.~m¢m m.om¢m ~.oHqm q.mmqm ~.~mqw m.mmqm ~.m~qw m.mmqw m.~N<w muH>umm
nuummmwm awu=uH:uHum<
.mm:.uu< Hm=uo< .nm=uo< Hm5uU¢ am:uo< .nw:uo¢ Hm=uo< Hm=uo<. Hw=uu< zuummmmm
nwwm owwm mmwm gm»; mwwm % Nmwm Hmwm owwm

wmwm.

Ampmaaow mo mcofifififis aHV
Amumaaov Nwma ucmumcou ¢Hv

wwma wmnowma wm suumwwmm pom m:oHumHumouam¢ wu:uH:oHuw< mo uameuummmn .m.: .m mum<H

CRS-47

growth in public research expenditures might affect the future growth of
productivity in the food and fiber system unless the needed research efforts
are picked up by the private sector.

A related area of concern is the division of responsibility between the
public and private sectors relative to the conduct of research. R. J.
Hildreth, Managing Director, Farm Foundation, stated that a simplistic proposal
exists in the agricultural system, which is ". . . basic research, which has
considerable spillover effects, should be done by the public sector while
applied research, yielding products of information with capturable benefits,
should be done by the private sector."93 However, this proposed dichotomy is
not so exacting because there are broad areas of needed research that are not
capturable. As an example, agronomic research, resulting in design of new
production practices, minimum tillage, and other conservation practices, would
probably not be done unless it were conducted by the public sector. Vernon
Ruttan, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota, stated that . . ."[M]uch of
the agricultural industrial research fits an intermediate category where
incentive systems have not yet been designed to induce an efficient level of
private research from society's point of view."94

Stephen Dewhurst, Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, USDA,
stated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has urged the Agricul-
tural Research Service (ARS) and other Federal agencies to fund long-term,

mission-oriented, high-risk, basic research--research as defined by the OMB as

93 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Policy Research Notes. Hildreth, R. J.
Policy Research Notes. Interrelations of Agricultural Science, Education and
Policy. Nov. 1984. p. 14.

94 Ibid., p. 14.

CRS-48

being "national in scope".95 with the ARS's mission purposely restricted to
high risk, long-term, basic research, some bench level scientists have
contended that their research projects fall outside OMB parameters. In
addition they have argued that basic research is cumulative and not easily
stopped or started as a result of short-term commodity surpluses and shortages.
Further, they have maintained that there is no certainty that private industry
will undertake the conventional, short-term, applied research that addresses
the needs of the commodity groups. The OTA report observed that the private
sector usually decreases research expenditures first W. . . in times of
adversity".96

Most new technologies require input from both the basic and applied
sciences and the success of the future farm and food system rely on both
public research institutions and private institutions and private industrial
laboratories. Both the USDA and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations
havebeen involved productively in basic and applied research. However, a
significant portion of the applied technology implemented by the U.S. food and
farm system has always been developed by the private sector.

Questions are how best to plan, fund, conduct, and coordinate the R&Di
activities of the public and private sector. How should R&D investments be
financed? What economic incentives for generating additional private sector
R&D will be appropriatel The present productivity gains in the agricultural
system are a result of past R&D efforts, and the real investment in Federal
research for food and agriculture is declining. Should this funding decline be

reversed?

95 Ibid.

96 Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American
Agriculture, p. 265.

CRS-49

While appropriations for agricultural research increased in current
dollars from $686.0 million in FY 1980 to $974.9 million in FY 1988, a total
increase of 42 percent in eight years, the increase has been far less when the
figures are adjusted for constant 1982 dollars. Constant dollars appropriated
for agricultural research declined 4 percent from $809.6 million in FY 1980 to
$777.7 million in FY 1988. This suggests that advocates of more spending for
agricultural research may face a difficult time in persuading Congress to do

more than keep up with inflation, in light of current deficits.

CRS-51

XII. CHANGING ROLE OF THE EXTENSION SERVICE

An issue having significant impact on the agricultural research system is
the basic role of the Extension Service. Passage of the Smith-Lever Act in
1914 created the Extension Service as the third part of the land-grant system,
which included resident instruction, Cooperative State Research, and Coopera-
tive Extension Service.97 The extension program is a cooperative one between
the USDA and the land-grant universities. Its purpose is to link USDA and
university research with persons not attending or residing in universities.
Concerns have been expressed in the agricultural community that the Extension
Service should modify its program and outreach in response to such variables as
new knowledge, changes in its cliente1e's needs, and changes in the socioeco-
nomic environment.

Agricultural researchers have traditionally been the producers of new
technology while the Extension Service personnel have served as the agents of
technology transfer.98 However, the accelerating rate of technological growth,

the globalization of the economy, and an increasingly urban population (66

97 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Col1eges(NASULCC). Extension in the 80's. A
Perspective for the Future of the Cooperative Extension Service. May 1983.
p. 3.

98 The Smith-Lever Act in 1914 provided no explicit authority for
extension to conduct research though extension agricultural specialists are
involved in applied research. An amendment in the Food Security Act of 1985
gives the Extension Service explicit authority to conduct applied research.

CRS-52

percent of Extension's clientele live in metropolitan areas) have increased
demands on the performance by the Extension Service to adapt its programs and

activities. The OTA report, Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing

Structure of American Agriculture stated that the Extension Service, at the

Federal, State and local levels had not responded as well as the research
community in setting priorities and in responding to socioeconomic changes.99
A 1983 report prepared by the USDA and the National Association of State

Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), Extension in the 80s, examined

the programs of the Extension Service and addressed the mission, scope, priori-
ties, and policies for the future of the system, including the roles and
relationships of the three partners.100 The report noted that, due to
structural changes in agriculture, a reevaluation of the Extension Service was
warranted. The report suggested that the Extension Service should establish
priorities within major program areas and improve its relevance and account-
ability in responding to an evolving environment. It identified several
Extension activities that required change even though it noted that the
Extension Service had expanded over the years, but not in proportion to the
expanded population or the expanded knowledge base. Specific recommendations
by the Joint Committee included:

(1) Providing national leadership and management for Cooperative
Extension system programs,

(2) Strengthening and reexamining linkages with other USDA agencies,

(3) Increasing dissemination of information from other Federal
agencies,

99 Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American
Agriculture, p. 258. T

p 100 Extension in the 80's. A Perspective for the Future of the
Cooperative Extension Service. 28 p.

CRS-53
(4) Strengthening [F]ederal leadership in media innovations and
technology transfer,

(5) Strengthening linkages and two-way communication with national
organizations,

(6) Providing leadership in studies of salary levels, professional
development, and updating of staff, and

(7) Reexamining the formula for allocating [F]ederal funds to the
respective State partners.

The series of internal and external analyses has led to adjustments in the
distribution of the Extension Service system's resources to meet its changing
needs. An initial effort, begun in December 1986, involved the creation of a
joint Extension System Task Force for the purpose of: " . . . identifying
critical issues and formulating direction for progressive change for Extension
nationwide".102 A USDA official testified that restructuring and targeting
programs to address critical issues involves:

(1) Focusing and prioritizing resources more sharply on critical
National, State and local issues and concerns;

(2) Using more of a systems approach to programming rather than the
traditional segmented approach to problem solving;

(3) Develo in a hiloso h of reater risk takin in determinin
pg P _1>y. g g g
program, focus, priorities and implementation strategies;

(4) Analyzing the potential important role of the System in the
practical application of the results of biotechnology generated
research; and

(5) Continuing assessment of the system in terms of the most
efficient and effective structure and staffing tailored to the
needs and demands of today's clientele.103

101 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Extension Service. A Catalyst for
Change - The Extension Service. Oct. 1983. p. 6.

102 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Testimony of Myron D. Johnsrud,
Administrator, Extension Service before the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Related Agencies. Written Testimony. Mar. 4, 1987.
p. 2.

103 Ibid., p. 2.

CRS-54

The Extension Service says it is redirecting or eliminating programs and
shifting personnel so they directly serve the needs of producers of U.S. food
and fiber. The proposed restructuring of the Extension Service's operations is
intended to keep it on the "cutting edge of science" while serving its

clientele in both an effective and efficient manner.

CRS-55

XIII. CONCLUSIONS

Although specific agricultural problems have changed drastically over the
past years, the apparent need for research has remained the same. It is
probable that for the next several years, U.S. agricultural production will
continue to have excess capacity (resulting from technological advances), that
perturbations in the international economy will continue, that there will be
less growth in demand for agricultural commodities, and that the existing
dichotomy in the farm sector will be more marked (the number of medium-sized
farms will continue to decline while the number of small and large farm
operations will increase). The agricultural research system, building on a
broad base of ongoing research activity and capability, may be in the position
to address high_priOriLy national problems that others systems cannot or will

not because of their narrower geographic focus or shorter term perspective.

However, greater research and training probably are needed. As B. R. Eddleman,.

Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State
University, stated:

. . . [T]he potential for growth in the farm and food system is not
being realized because we are not investing enough in schooling farm
people and developing their skills nor in R&D and the dissemination
of its results. . . .

Our ability to maintain a competitive edge for farm and food products
in a world market depends on continued technological advances. The
best efforts of [G]overnment, universities, and the private insti-
tutions engaged in R&D will be required to deliver this new technol-
ogy. Without such technology, productivity Skowth in the farm and
food system with all the attendant benefits such growth provides for
society will lag behind what it otherwise could be.

104 Eddleman, B. R. p. 8.

LIBRARY
OF

WASHINGTON
umvsnsrrv
s'r. Loucs - MO.

fi...——-v