Statement of
The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

by Dr. William W. McFee, President American Society of Agronomy

March 18, 1997

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Bill McFee the Head of the Department of Agronomy at Purdue University and the current president of the American Society of Agronomy. Today, I represent the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) all of which are non-profit scientific and educational organizations which because of their commonality of interests share a central administrative staff in Madison, Wisconsin. The three societies, often called the TriSocieties, have 12,000 members, with members in every state and territory of the United States. A major goal of the Societies is to promote and report effective agricultural research. Therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to provide this committee with comments concerning legislation that is critical to the American agricultural research and education system. Based on input from a cross section of our members across the country who work in industry, universities, and private practice, the TriSocieties have submitted written responses which document our position on this Committee's questions. At this time, I would like to highlight and summarize our view on two issues - priority setting and funding mechanisms. Prioritization of Research Issues

Agricultural research has resulted in more than a doubling in general farm productivity between 1950 and 1990 while requiring less than one-third the labor and improving water quality and erosion control. As an example, the average corn yields in Indiana, which parallel the national trends, have increased steadily from about 59 bushels per acre in 1950 to 130 in 1996. Not only has the yield increased markedly, the efficiency increase is phenomenal. Corn sold at an average price of $1.59 in 1950, and averaged $2.77 per bu over the most recent 5 year period. While corn prices have approximately doubled, the consumer price index has increased by more than a factor of six. The cost of corn to the consumer in real dollars is approximately a third of the cost in 1950. The ultimate beneficiary of this enhanced efficiency and cleaner environment is the American consumer who has access to an abundant, safe, affordable, and reliable food supply. I enjoy buying ready to cook turkey at Thanksgiving for the same price I once sold them in 1956.

Two dynamic technologies - genetic engineering and precision agriculture are currently attracting our attention. As you well know, Dolly has propelled genetic engineering into the forefront of public debate. Behind all these front page stories lies a powerful tool for the improvement of agricultural production and agricultural products. Through genetic manipulation, traits can be incorporated into plants and animals which would be difficult or impossible to achieve through conventional breeding. Important plant traits include insect and disease resistance, improved drought resistance, better nutritional quality, and enhanced shelf life. Other breakthroughs in biotechnology are imminent, but will require public expenditure in research. Precision farming using the new Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has achieved new potential for decision-making and management of agricultural production systems. Precision farming involves the collection and use of information about spatial and temporal variability in soil properties and landscape features that affect crop productivity and off-site environmental quality. Research is needed on methods for identifying the constraints to optimum crop productivity and environmental quality at specific sites within farm fields. New tools and concepts to achieve this goal include expert systems, digital elevation modeling, remote sensing, on-the-go soil and weed sensors and yield monitors, weed and pest scouting, and soil sampling and testing. Detailed information from such sources coupled with new research technologies can be of significant assistance in improving the efficiency of use of farm inputs, increasing crop productivity, and reducing the off-site movement of pollutants. Priority setting for agricultural research should involve a "bottom up" approach. Agricultural research that is conducted by USDA and the Land-Grant Universities serves a number of clients and customers including farmers, processors, commodity groups, farm groups, agribusiness, environmentalists, and public interest groups. A bottom up approach requires input from all these sectors to identify the needs and issues to be addressed and to develop a consensus and a context for a national priority system. Priority setting must have a planned balance in terms of the expertise levels involved. For example, a particular problem or question may be viewed by farmers or by an agency such as EPA as high priority, but a group of scientists may know that answers to the question already exist or that answers can be deduced from existing information. On the other hand, a group of scientists and agency individuals may over look needs deemed important by consumer groups or agriculture producers. Once needs are identified it is important that research projects are selected through a merit review process.

Such a bottom up approach was undertaken in 1992 by the Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences (FASFAS) and the Forum for Animal Agriculture at the Food Animal Integrated Research for 1995 Symposium (FAIR'95). Participants included scientists, food animal producers, commodity associations, aquaculture specialists, and consumer, environmental, and animal well-being advocates.

The TriSocieties, along with several other organizations, are currently involved in implementing a similar process for plant research. The Coalition for Research On Plant Systems (CROPS) is a coalition of farm and commodity associations and professional and scientific societies. Its mission is to address, communicate, and encourage the establishment of agricultural research needs and priorities, and related extension and education issues. A national workshop in 1977 will bring together representatives of all the stakeholders in crop production including scientists, producers, food processors, and consumer and environmental advocates to achieve a consensus on national research priorities for crop or plant research. Funding Mechanisms for Research, Extension, and Education

The TriSocieties endorse a broad portfolio of research and education funding mechanisms and options including intramural and formula funds as well as competitive and special grants. Each of the current funding mechanisms fulfills certain needs and allows the system to remain flexible. The intramural funds are used for basic and applied research and to fulfill the needs of USDA regulatory agencies. Formula (base) funds are used to support research that is more site- or region-specific and provide a base of support that allows flexible and rapid response to emerging needs, and in so doing, helps achieve national goals. Even though these funds are thought of as local or regional, most of research results are applicable over large regions or the whole country. We feel that the formula should be reviewed to accurately reflect changing demographics and shifts in food and fiber production. The competitive grants in the NRI provide for basic research and long-term efforts that are primarily high-risk but high return. A high priority should be given to increasing the National Research Initiative to the $500 million level authorized and justified by several studies. The Fund for Rural America is focused on integrative programs that apply the research to practical problems and systems. It offers considerable promise and will watched closely for its effectiveness. Special grants provide a mechanism for rapid response to emerging situations which might not always be predictable, such as the appearance of new plant or animal diseases. We support the awarding of these grants through the merit review process. We believe the special grants as used in the past should be of the lowest priority in the agriculture program. The national agenda should have more emphasis on goal and priority setting with funding provided to meet the goals. Our total agricultural research and information delivery system is the envy of the world, but we must stay abreast of change. Involving the diverse stakeholders in the priority setting and industry in the funding of research will allow increased efficiency in use of public funds. Closing Remarks

In closing I would like to draw a parallel between two rather old systems. Our system of government which has proven to be very durable and has been frequently used as a pattern has its roots in documents such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights which are over 200 years old. Our agricultural research and education system is also based on some old statutes, some more than a hundred years old. It too, has been very successful and much copied. The American agricultural research and education system, with its unique, diverse, and flexible structure, has a remarkable history in its service to the American public. We support building for the future from this excellent foundation. The American Society of Agronomy, the Soil Science Society of America, and the Crop Science Society of America thank you, once again, for this opportunity for input into this review process. We hope that we can be of further assistance and look forward to working with this Committee in the future.