TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, and FORESTRY
U.S. SENATE ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING (CARET)
BY
JOSEPH D. COFFEY CHAIRMAN
MARCH 20, 1997
Chairman Lugar and Members of the Committee: My name is Joe Coffey. I am
testifying in my capacity as Chair of the Council for Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching (CARET). CARET is a national grassroots organization
comprised of 112 leaders from across the country.
The National Association of the State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) sponsors CARET. Our mission is to enhance national support and
understanding of the land-grant university system's food and agricultural
research, extension and teaching programs.
I am honored to serve as a CARET member from Virginia where I am Vice President
of Economics and Planning of Southern States Cooperative, headquartered
in Richmond. Southern States is a regional farmer-owned and controlled
cooperative that serves a million farm and rural families in the six states
that surround this nation's capital. Southern States markets a billion
dollars of feed, seed, fertilizer, fuel, and 45,000 other products through
a network of 500 stores.
Agricultural research, extension and teaching are very important to Southern
States Cooperative, as they are to farmers, consumers, other businesses
and communities across the country. Hardly a day goes by that Southern
States does not directly use the services of a land-grant university on
behalf of our farmer members. The services we use include the soil laboratories,
field test plot results, weather and crop application advisories, market
projections, best management practices, and Internet sites. We hire 30
to 50 new employees each year, some with two-year degrees others with PhD's,
from the land grant universities. Our top management and Board of Directors
regularly visit the land-grant campuses.
Thus, I am doubly pleased that the Senate Agriculture Committee has elevated
the reauthorization of Research Title VIII of the 1996 farm bill to a top
priority for the current session.
CARET members have been involved from beginning to end in the development
of the responses submitted by The Board on Agriculture of NASULGC to the
42 questions posed by this committee. CARET enthusiastically and whole-heartedly
supports the testimony presented to this Committee by Dr. R. Rodney Foil,
Vice-President for Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi
State University, on March 11, 1997.
In the brief time available, CARET's testimony will outline our response
to four key questions. We are attaching a more thorough and detailed explanation
of our testimony. We would be happy to discuss our position in the future
with this Committee or its staff.
I. Why should the public invest federal, state and local funds in agricultural
research, extension and teaching? To provide food security to all Americans.
Food and fiber are fundamental -- every day for every person on the planet.
To meet the escalating world food demand. World population is projected to increase from today's 4.6 billion to 8 billion in 25 years. Most of this growth will occur in the developing nations where yields are low, land is scarce, and diets are inadequate.
To create jobs and income. In 1995, the food and agriculture sectors and their related industries provided 23 million jobs, almost 17 percent of U.S. jobs, and account for $982 billion, or 13 percent of GNP.
To reduce the trade deficit. Agricultural exports were a record $60 billion in 1996 and contributed a $28 billion surplus toward reducing the $227 billion nonagricultural trade deficit.
To enable farmers to capitalize upon promising technologies while managing the risks arising from the sweeping changes in farm policy and the farm market volatility of 1996. These changes increase the pay off to research and education.
To enhance the environment. Farmers provide many valuable and taken-for-granted amenities to the public. Farmers are stewards for 65 percent of non-federal lands and provide habitat for 75 percent of wildlife.
To develop new uses and new products for agricultural commodities.
To stimulate future improvements in agricultural productivity that will be passed on to the consumer. Agricultural research and education are not "corporate welfare." To the contrary, the benefits are passed through the market place to the consumer in terms of a more abundant, more affordable and more secure food and fiber supply.
To generate a high payback to tax dollars. Agricultural research and education at land-grant colleges have an annual payback to society's investment of 25percent or more. Yet, we are investing only $1 in federal agricultural research, extension and teaching at land-grant colleges per $800 dollars of consumers' food and fiber expenditures.
To reverse the decline of federal support of agricultural research and education. Federal funding of agricultural research and education has declined 15 percent in the past five years in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars. Agricultural research and education must be being singled out for cuts. Federal funding of other areas of non-defense research is increasing.
To strengthen the U.S.'s agricultural competitiveness in the global
market. In dynamic, deregulated, global agricultural markets there are
two choices for U.S. farmers to compete: either work for a lower wage or
work more productively. Clearly, productivity is preferred to poverty.
To expand the creation and use of "public goods" that the private
sector lacks incentives to produce. Even with patenting, the private sector,
which is funding an increasing share of agricultural research, would provide
too little of several types of agricultural research and education.
II. What lessons have we learned to guide the future of US's agricultural
research, extension and education system?
Agriculture is a site-specific biological process, not a mechanical process.
Biological processes, such as growing crops and livestock, are more difficult
to improve than a machine process, such as manufacturing an automobile.
You can not double the shift and double accelerate the speed corn grows.
Agricultural research must be conducted near crop and livestock production
and where stakeholders can have access to the results and can assist in
setting priorities.
Farmers must depend on private and public research and education. Farmers can not do their own research. In many cases, they can not even identify the problem.
Recruiting and supporting intelligent, energetic, motivated and problem-oriented professionals is key to progress in agricultural research and education.
Agricultural research and extension must draw on a mix of disciplines. Advancing productivity in modern agriculture involves the entire production and marketing system, "from genes to jeans."
Research should be closely linked to extension to quickly spot and address problems. The quicker the adoption of improved technology, the greater benefit to society. Extension speeds the identification of problems and the implementation of research, and accelerates the application of research findings.
Research and extension linked with undergraduate and graduate education trains future scientists and ensures that the latest findings are conveyed to the classroom. Research and teaching are especially complementary in agricultural science where knowledge has a shelf life of less than 10 years.
Research has a long gestation period, which often requires public support during the early "pre-technology" phase. We need to have the continuity of long-term formula funding in addition to shorter-term competitive grants.
Private and public research are not competitors, they are complimentary. Private research, by necessity, tends to be more narrow and short term. In contrast, public research can be broader, longer term and focused on the "pre-technology" sciences.
One-third of research is needed just to keep agricultural productivity where it is. Productivity would decline without added research.
Conclusion: The most productive agricultural research and education
system is a decentralized, globally sensitive, coordinated, problem-oriented
partnership of the federal, state and local governments with the private
sector. The system should integrate higher education, identification of
problems, the discovery of solutions and the dissemination of information
about these solutions. III. Why should land grants be the lead provider
of the agricultural research, extension, and the education system of the
21st century?
1) The investments in agricultural research and education at the land-grant
universities have paybacks to society's investment of 25 percent or more.
The land-grant universities, on-campus teaching and research, and an integrated
network of extension agents and research stations have propelled U.S. agriculture
into world leadership of productivity and environmental sustainability.
2) Land-grant universities, created in 1862 when President Lincoln signed the Morrill Land-Grant Act, are one of our greatest inventions in higher education. They are envied worldwide. We do not have to start from scratch because they have a 135-year base on which to build.
3) The success of land-grant universities is due to the close working relationship of research, extension, and teaching and their collaboration with clientele. Knowledge, when put to work on our farms, communities and homes, can work wonders.
4) Land-grant agricultural research and education programs are soundly
based upon a balanced portfolio of funding from federal, state, local and
private sources. One of the important elements is the formula funds which
have many very significant advantages that are too often overlooked. The
base or formula funds:
Make the land-grant universities a coordinated system;
Leverage state and local funds as much as five to one;
Provide an equitable distribution of limited federal funds;
Reflect the geography of U.S. agriculture;
Provide a mechanism for regional and national coordination that is otherwise
not mandated;
Permit institutional pluralism and decentralized decision making;
Allow greater and faster responsiveness to clientele and greater relevance;
Permit program continuity for long-term projects;
Compensate states and localities for the "spill-over" of research
and education;
and Enable the state land-grant universities to address regional and national
goals.
5) Land-grant agricultural research and education programs have been thoroughly evaluated in recent years. The evaluations have consistently found high pay-offs to the public.
6) Land-grant universities are now implementing a forward-looking action
plan: "From Issues to Action: A Plan for Action on Agriculture
and Natural Resources for the Land Grant Universities." They are:
Accelerating interstate cooperation;
Expanding public/private collaboration;
Involving clientele in the planning process;
Targeting programs to achieving specific outcomes;
Strengthening the rewards for undergraduate teaching;
Applying science-based approaches to solving society's problems;
and Integrating scientific disciplines into problem-solving, systems-based
teams.
IV. What does CARET recommend?
Structure: Don't change the structure. The basic structure of a federal,
state, local and private industry partnership is sound. It is multi-faceted,
flexible, and dynamic structure, and there is sufficient continuity to
avoid disruption and confusion.
Funding mechanism: We must reverse the real decline in federal funding for agricultural research, extension and teaching. The problem is not the mechanism; it is the funding! We must maintain a balanced portfolio of competitive grants, special grants, industry support, and formula funds.
Coordination and priority setting: Let the new national coordinating organizations continue their efforts. The organizational changes in USDA to better coordinate agricultural research and extension appear to be working. The new "National Agricultural Research, Extension… Advisory Board" is off to a good start. Major organizational changes are not needed. The plans to strengthen USDA's information system for research projects (CRIS) should be accelerated. This would aid coordination.
Accountability: It's time to put a moratorium on further inquiries and
studies of the land-grant system. The leadership of land-grant agricultural
research and education need focus upon their basic responsibilities of
"making two blades grow where one grew before." They need relief
from the constant grilling so they can get on with the implementation of
their aggressive action plan - From Issues to Action. The relevant accountability
measure is not the paper reports nor perfunctory processes, but the palpable
pay off to society's investment in agricultural research and education.
As repeatedly emphasized, land-grant agricultural research and extension
have a very high pay off. While there are undoubtedly ways to strengthen
accountability, we are not aware of any area other than agricultural research
and education, that has published any major study of the returns to federal
funds invested.
Reauthorize a strengthened Title VIII Establish a national agricultural
policy for agricultural research, teaching and extension as a core component
for boosting long-term productivity, international competitiveness, and
greater harmony between agriculture and the environment.
Reaffirm a strong commitment to purposes of agricultural research, extension
and education.
Strengthen the commitment to using science-based information in regulatory
decision making.
Maintain a balanced portfolio of base and targeted funding.
Increase incentives for multi-state cooperation.
Increase incentives for expanded research and extension cooperation, yet
maintain their separate funding in order to not adversely affect state
and local support and retain greater accountability.
Mr. Chairman, CARET members applaud this Committee's efforts. We stand ready to assist you in any way we can in strengthening the land-grant agricultural research, extension and education system to meet the challenges of the new millennium. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of agricultural research, extension and teaching. I would be pleased to respond to questions.