Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
D Statements of Program Objectives and Funcling Response A variety of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies, committees, councils, and private organizations conduct periodic as well as ad hoc reviews of agricultural and food science and engineer- ing priorities. This appendix provides additional details on some of the most important statements of systemwide or agency-specific priorities, including the following: Agricultural Research Service (ARS) objectives from its most recent 5-year plan. Joint Council for rood and Agricultural Sciences (JCFAS) 5-year plans and annual reports on priority research. The Users Advisory Board (UAB) priority state- ments. National Agriculture Research Committee, con- vened by the National Association of State Universi- ties and Land-Grant Colleges statement of systemwide · . . prlontles. · Areviewoftheimpactofpriority-settingmecha- nisms on budget allocations. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE The ARS objectives from the agency's 5-year plan are presented in the report Agricultural Research Service Program Plan (U.S. Department of Agncul- ture, Agricultural Research Service, 1983~. An im- plementation plan to act upon these objectives has also been published (Agricultural Research Service Pro- gramPlan: 6-YearImplementationPlan.1986-1992 [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Re- search Service, 19851~. The six objectives are de- scribed here. The purpose of objective 1 was to develop the means for managing and conserving the nation?s soil 144 and water resources for a stable and productive agri- cultural system. There were four approaches for fulfilling objective 1: (1) develop the technology for assessing and predicting long-term changes in the quantity and quality of soil, water, and air resources available to agriculture; (2) provide the technology needed for improving, protecting, and restoring the productive capacity of agricultural soils; (3) develop improved water management systems and practices to achieve effective and efficient use of water resources; and (4) develop improved subsystems and models that integrate the use of soil, water, and air resources for the optimal management of major land resource areas. The purpose of objective 2 was to develop the means for maintaining and increasing the productivity and quality of crop plants by four approaches: (1) broaden the germplasm resources of plants and bene- ficial organisms to ensure maximal genetic diversity for improved productivity; (2) select and modify the germplasms of plants, beneficial organisms, and pests; (3) develop improved production practices for main- taining and increasing crop productivity and quality and for reducing costs; and (4) develop improved methods for reducing crop losses caused by weeds, diseases, insects, nematodes, and other pests. The purpose of objective 3 was to develop the means for increasing the productivity of animals and the quality of animal products, which was to be done by six approaches: (1) increase the genetic capacity of animals for production; (2) improve the efficiency of reproduction and reproduction-related biological processes; (3) improve animal nutrition and feed effi- ciency to increase productivity and product quality; (4) develop ways to prevent or control losses from diseases, parasites, and toxicants and other substances that limit animal performance and reduce the quality of animal products; (5) develop a means for control
APPENDIX D ling insects, ticks, and mites that affect animals and humans; and (6) devise means for improving and integrating procedures and facilities for production and transport of animals to increase productivity, reduce costs, and minimize stresses. The purpose of objective 4 was to devise means for improving and integrating procedures and facilities for production and transport of animals to increase productivity, reduce costs, and minimize stresses. This was to be done by four approaches: (1) develop means for enhancing the inherent properties and uses of agricultural materials; (2) develop the means for meeting foreign and domestic user and regulatory requirements relating to toxic factors in food, feed, and other agricultural products; (3) develop means for reducing or eliminating postharvest losses caused by pests, spoilage, and physical and environmental damage; and (4) develop the means for increasing the efficiency of systems for processing, handling, stor- ing, and distributing agricultural products. The purpose of objective 5 was to develop the means for promoting optimum human health and well-being through improved nutrition and family resource management, which was to be done by four approaches: (1) define the nutrient requirements of humans at all stages of the life cycle; (2) determine the nutrient content of agricultural commodities and pro- cessed foods in the form that they are eaten, and establish the bioavailability of their nutrients; (3) improve the nutritional status of humans and the well- being of families by making techniques available for assessing the effectiveness of nutrition and home economics programs; and (4) integrate knowledge of human nutritional needs into the food and agricultural system. The purpose of objective 6 was to develop the means for integrating scientific knowledge of agricul- tural production, processing, and marketing into sys- tems that optimize resource management and facili- tate the transfer of technology to users. This was to be done by developing integrated systems for the effi- cient production, processing, and marketing of agri- cultural products. JOINT COUNCIL FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES JCAFS's 5-year plan for 1988 to 1993 identified seven critical societal concerns on which the USDA's R&D programs should focus and was put forth in the 145 Five-Year Plan for the Food and Agricultural Sci- ences: A Report to the Secretary of Agriculture (U.S. Deponent of Agriculture, Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences, 1980~. These seven con- cerns were as follows: (1) restoring a competitive and profitable agricultural system; (2) revitalizing rural areas of the United States; (3) maintaining water qual- ity; (4) enhancing the future through biotechnology; (5) advancing knowledge and scientific expertise in the agricultural sector; (6) understanding food, diet, and health relationships; and (7) managing germplasms and maintaining genetic diversity. It is interesting to assess these 5-year priorities in contrast to annual priorities. The fiscal year ~Y) 1987 priorities were to (1) increase agricultural profitability through manage- ment; (2) improve water quality and management; (3) expand biotechnology efforts on plants, animals, and microbes; (4) develop the necessary scientific and professional human capital; and (5) improve human nutrition and understanding of the relationship be- tween diet and health. The FY 1988 priorities were to (1) enhance profit- ability in the agricultural system; (2) expand biotech- nology to enhance the benefits from plants and ani- mals; (3) improve water quality and management; (4) strengthen the development of professional and scien- tif~c expertise; (5) enhance productivity and conserva- tion of soils; (6) expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for agricultural and forest products; (7) preserve plant germplasms and beneficially improve plants; and (8) improve human nutrition and the under- standing of the relationship between diet and health. The FY 1989 priorities are to (1) maintain and preserve water quality; (2) expand biotechnology and its applications; (3) develop and maintain scientific knowledge and expertise; (4) improve understanding of food, diet, human nutrition, and health relation- ships; (5) sustain soil productivity; (6) assess new and expanded uses for agricultural products; (7) preserve germplasms and genetically improve plants; and (8) improve food processing, quality, distribution, and safety USERS ADVISORY BOARD Agency Budget Recommendations The UAB has reviewed the President's FY 1989 budget for the USDAin theAppraisal of the proposed
146 1989 Budget for Food and Agricultural Sciences: Report to the President and Congress (National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board, 1988~. Whilegenerallysupportingtheproposals ofthe executive branch, the UAB has made suggestions for (1) the best ways to utilize the level of funding that has been called for and (2) some ways in which in- creased funding or shifting of funds between catego- ries would allow the USDA to do a better job of achieving the nation's agricultural priorities. Agricultural Research Service The UAB endorses the administration's $20.2 million funding increase for ARS, but proposes some reallocations and restrictions. Specific recommenda- tions include continued comprehensive planning for research; increased interdisciplinary efforts; manda- tory peer review; economic impact analysis of pro- posed research; renovation of the Beltsville, ~y- land, research facility; closing or consolidation of excess laboratory facilities; shifting of $10 million from plant research to animal science research; and giving top priority to research on alternative uses for agricultural products. Cooperative State Research Service The UAB would increase the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) budget by $3 million and reallocate some funds among program areas. This would provide an additional $6 million for animal health and disease research, $3 million for aquaculture research, $3 million for higher education programs, and $338,000 for rangeland research. Economic Research Service The UAB proposes a reallocation aimed at equal- izing funding between two Economic Research Serv- ice divisions and stresses the need to focus on agricul- tural labor issues. Extension Service The UAB proposes a shift of funds from food and nutrition education to programs directed toward agri- culture and natural resources. Thereallocations would provide $7 million for pest management, $10 million for water quality, and $2.8 million for renewable resources. WRESTING IN RESEARCH U.S. Forest Service The UAB suggests shifting $6 million to the Cooperative State Research Service to fund a forestry competitive grants program. The UAB also suggests several high-priority forestry issues that the agency should emphasize. Human Nutrition Information Service The UAB supports the proposed Human Nutrition Information Service budget and suggests that the agency set research priorities through strategic plan- ning, track major market shifts, increase cooperation with other agencies, and devote more time to commu- nicating its findings to the public. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE Table D.1 provides a list of 21 initiatives and objectives of the National Agricultural Research Committee, which is convened by the National Asso- ciation of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF PRIORITY SETTING MECHANISMS ON BUDGET ALLOCATIONS The impact of a specific recommendation or or- ganization's activities on bringing about change in funding priorities is often difficult to trace. A few notable exceptions can be cited, including the biotech- nology initiative led by the Experiment Station Com- mittee on Policy in the mid-1980s, the Resident In- stn~ction Committee on Policy's advocacy of a higher education fellowship program, and the Carnegie Insti- tution report A Nation at Risk (1984), which galva- nized public concern about the inadequate state of public education. One approach to gauge the impact of priority- setting mechanisms on funding decisions is to isolate and analyze actual significant changes in funding levels that have occurred from one budget to the next. Typically, the U.S. Congress will state in conference and full committee reports its reasons for cutting or expanding an existing program or initiating a new one. It may cite a particular report, or a set of recommenda- tions offered by an advisory body. In most cases several reports and recommendations lie behind any major shift in priorities. Table D.2 summarizes sig
APPENDIX D TABLE D.1 National Agricultural Research Committee Initiatives and Objectives 147 1. Maintain and protect water quality and quantity Groundwater quality Water quantity Water use efficiency Conservation practices Water use policy Household water use Biotechnology Plant productivity Plant disease resistance Nutritional quality of plants Biological control of pests Biologically active materials Diagnostic and immunologic products Animal disease resistance Animal development and productivity Impacts of biotechnology 3. Genetic improvement of economically important plants Gene characterization Germplasm acquisition and maintenance Plant breeding Resistance to pests Soil microorganisms Consumer preferences New uses for plant products and components 4. Sustaining soil productivity Erosion-soil property relationships Soil conservation policy Soil conservation economics Status of soil productivity Tillage management interactions Soil dynamics 5. Improved management of crop pests and diseases Incidence, prediction, and management Pesticide and pest management Quantifying constraints to plant productivity Epidemiological systems Biological control techniques Integration of pest management into crop production systems 6. Food processing, preservation, and quality enhancement Processing and preservation Quality enhancement Food safety By-products and the environment 7. Animal efficiency in food production Animal genetics Reproductive physiology Animal nutrition Animal protein and lipid synthesis Animal management systems 8. New and expanded uses for agricultural and forest products New and alternative crops Processing technologies Added value 9. Integrating agricultural technologies Assessment of new technologies Market forces and enterprise profitability Capital investment and financial requirements Integrated systems Alternative systems Optimal input systems 10. Interrelationships of food and the nutritional and health status of humans Human nutritional requirements Dietary practices Nutritional quality of foodstuffs Bioavailability of nutrients Health influences from diet 11. Marketing of agricultural and forest products Supply, demand, and price relationships Grades and standards Market efficiency and performance International market development Madcet strategies and power Consumer preferences and quality 12. Animal health and disease Immunological advances Integrated health management Epidemiology of animal diseases Residue and toxicology studies 13. Impact of agricultural and forestry policy on global markets Commodity, factor, and financial Market relationships Political economy of domestic and foreign commodity policy Table D.l continues
148 TABLE D.1 (Continued) INVESTING IN RESEARCH Comparative productivity growth and competition in world markets Impacts of emerging technological changes for public policy Policy and institutional design 14. Rural family and community well-being Economic alternatives and diversification Family stress factors Displacement assistance Resource management Environmental and safety factors for families ~ Organizing capacities and governance of communities Interdependence among agriculture, families, and communities 15. Agricultural and forestland use Land use policies, land values, and tax base Land use alternatives Recreation resource management Consolidation of forestland and agricultural land information 16. Energy-efficient systems Efficient plant and animal production and processing systems Efficient energy conversion technologies Alternative sources Extraction procedures and practices 17. Sensors and computing systems for food and agriculture Sensor technology development Electronic systems for plant and animal production Electronic systems for food processing 18. Productivity of rangeland and pastureland Rangeland ecology and management Plant-animal interactions Water management Plant improvement Weed and brush management 19. Forest productivity Silvicultural techniques and practices Genetics and superior tree production New processes, products, and uses for wood Forest health 20. Effects of atmospheric deposition on ecosystems Chemical exposures Amount-response relationships Accumulation of toxicants in plants and animals 21. Plants for the urban environment Plant materials Management and maintenance strategies SOURCE: Adapted from Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy. 1988. Table 5 in Research Initiatives: A Midtenn Update of the Research Agenda for the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. College Station, Ted.: Texas Agricultural Experunent Station. nificant shifts in USDA research funding priorities since FY 1983. One of the important organizations that influences the priority-setting process is the Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences. JCFAS was estab- lished in 1977 by the U.S. Congress to facilitate coordination and prioritization of research, education, and technology policy among the agencies of USDA, other federal agencies, and state performers of re- search and extension activities. JCFAS developed its first 5-year plan for the food and agricultural sciences in 1984, and has since issued an updated 5-year plan on a biennial basis (see discus- sion earlier in this appendix). In addition, JCFAS publishes a yearly report to the secretary of agriculture on priorities for research, extension, and higher educa- tion. These reports articulate national research and education priorities and offer recommendations re- garding how federal research activities should be redirected or focused to better address top-priority issues. The evolution in the priorities notedin six most recent annual priorities reports (1985-1990), in con- trast to the most recent 5-year plan issued in 1988, is summarized in Table D.3. The priorities identified by JCFAS in annual and 5- year reports reflect its sense of changing scientific needs and opportunities. Two of the top priorities listed in the 1988 5-year plan were not among the top
APPENDIX D TABLE D.2 Significant Annual Shifts in Funding Priorities in USDA Research Agency Budgets, FY 1983- FY 1989 149 ARS CSRS Fiscal Funding Change Funding Change Year Area (millions of dollars) Area (millions of dollars) 1983 Basic research + 9.6 Hatch Act + 3.4 Animal health + 4.0 Cooperative forestry Range and pasture + 0.5 research - 1.2 NAGS + 3.8 1890 institutions + 0.2 Acid precipitation + 0.9 Plant science com Land and water petitive grants + 6.4 conservation + 5.1 Animal health formula Human nutrition + 1.0 funds - 5.8 1984 Basic animal Animal science biotechnology + 0.8 competitive grants + 4.5 Basic plant Animal health formula biotechnology + 1.3 funds -5.8 Postdoctorate fellowship ~ 0.5 Basic postharvest resources Exports + 1.0 Grain quality + 0.6 Human nutrition + 1.2 1985 Basic animal science + 0.4 Hatch Act + 3.0 Livestock disease Cooperative formula - 0.3 diagnosis + 0.2 1890 institutions + 0.5 Animal genetic Animal science disease resistance + 0.4 competitiveness + 4.5 Agricultural systems + 0.6 Biotechnology +28.5 Plant germplasms + 0.6 Animal health formula - 5.8 Plant protection + 0.6 Biocoatrol + 0.4 Soil fertility + O.6 Soil erosion + 0.5 Basic postharvest + 0.9 Basic postharvest exports + 0.8 Strengthening of 1890 institutions + 2.0 Graduate fellows - 5.0 1986 Groundwater quality + 0.5 Eliminate special grants -28.5 New methods for Eliminate section 1433 SCS resource formula funds - 5.76 assessments + 0.5 Reduce higher education Plant germplasms + 3.2 funding - 5.8 Table D.2 continues
150 INVESTING IN RESEARCH TABLE D.2 (Continued) ARS CSRS Fiscal Funding Change Funding Change Year Area (millions of dollars) Area (millions of dollars) Animal health + 0.75 Alternative quarantine treatment 0.5 1987 Plant germplasms + 3.5 Eliminate special grants New products and ~ funds -30.3 uses +10.0 Eliminate 1983 formula funds - 5.7 Reduce higher education (elimination of graduate - training and Moms Nelson programs) - 5.S Reduce competitive grants (elimination of categories designated by U.S. Congress) - 1.8 1988 Plant germplasms + 7.3 Increases of formula Improve meat quality programs + 8.3 through reduction Eliminate special grants -52.0 of fats +2.1 Compeutive grants for Planning for con- plant science centers + 3.9 struction of new Eliminate Section 1433 National Seed Storage formula funds - 5.5 Lab (instead of plant Reduce higher education - 5.6 gene germplasms) + 1.0 1989 Groundwater quality + 5.0 Reduce forestry formula - 4.5 Global change + 0.7 1890 institutions Food safety + 4.5 and Tuskegee Repair and University + 2.0 maintenance + 4.0 Eliminate Section 1433 formula funds - 5.5 Reduce higher education - 5.4 Reduce special grants - 44.5 Competitive grants +12.1 Increases directed land for: Plant science centers Animal science Biotechnology Global change NOTE: Abbreviations: NPGS, National Plant Germplasm System; SCS, Soil Conservation Service. SOURCE: Adapted from data provided by the Office of Budget, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Agnculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.
APPENDIX D TABLE Do Evolution of Research Priorities in Reports of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences: Ranking of 1988 5-Year Research Priorities in Annual Priorities Reports, 1985-1990 1988 5-Year Priorities Annual Priorities Ranking 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 Restoring a competitive and profitable agricultural system a a a a a a Revitalizing rural areas of the United States. Maintaining water quality Enhancing the future through biotechnology Advancing knowledge and . . ~ . . sclentlilc expertise In agriculture Understanding food, diet, and health relationships Managing germplasms and maintaining genetic diversity a a a 1 J 2 2 a a a ~2 4 7 2 3 1 3 4 4 3 3C 4 4 8 5 6 6 5 7 7 a a a aWas not included among the top-ranked priorities, was included in a listing of other priorities, or was included as an aspect of other . . . . . lsted pnont~es. bRanldngs involved emphasis Al water quality management in 1985 and 1986. Identified in 1985 as plant molecular biology research. SOURCE: National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board. 1987. Appraisal of the Proposed 1988 Budget for Food and Agricultural Sciences: Report to the President and Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. priorities identified for 1989 and 1990: revitalizing rural areas of the United States and restoring interna- tional competitiveness. Rural development has not been cited as a top-priority concern in any of these years, apart from the 1988 5-year plan. Some priori- ties emerge quickly but prove to be short-lived, such as competitiveness. Other categories, such as devel- oping biotechnology, maintain a fairly consistent ranking. Few priorities, however, have shiftedconsis- tently in the annual ranking of priorities. Water quality is the one exception, rising steadily from seventh place in 1985 to first in 1989 and 1990. While Table D.3 provides a useful snapshot of how JCFAS perceives budget priorities, it does not contain information on how budget allocations actually shifted in response to a perceived change in priorities. This response can be gauged, at least crudely, by contrast- ing significant changes in USDA research expendi- tures for FY 1983 to FY 1989 (see Table D.2) to 151 changes in JCFAS priorities (see Table D.3~. Recent changes in funding priorities suggest that three of seven priority issues identified in the JCFAS annual reports have received little or no new funding (com- petitiveness, revitalizing rural areas of the United States, understanding diet and health); some areas receiving increased funding were not among JCFAS 's top priorities (new uses and climatic changed. In- creased funding for research in two areas preceded identification by JCFAS as a top priority (biotechnol- ogy and germplasms); in one case (water quality), funding increases appeared to follow in a logical sequence after identification as a top-prionty research need. In the case of the priority of advancing knowl- edge, the funding response has been modest and intermittent. Funding changes are noted below in each of the seven top-prionty areas of research identified in the 1988 JCFAS 5-year plan (see Table D.3~.
152 1. RestoringCompetitiveness.Thisissueemerged as priority number one in the 1987 and 1988 annual JCFAS reports. There was little or no change in funding directed toward this issue in subsequent budgets. One executive branch initiative relevant to competitiveness was advanced by the Extension Ser- vice. The extension competitiveness end profitability initiative has not received significant new funding to date. 2. Revitalizing Rural Areas of the United States. This 5-year plan priority was not previously identified in earlier annual JCFAS priority reports, nor did it warrant mention as a top priority in the 1989 and 1990 reports. There has been little or no new or redirected funding devoted to research on this issue. 3. Maintaining Water Quality. Water quality has risen steadily in the relative rankings since 1985. Modest new funding for groundwater quality research in ARS ($0.5 million) was included in the FY 1986 budget, and a more substantial increase was included in the FY 1989 ARS budget ($5 million). The Presi- dent's proposed FY 1990 budget includes $10 million in additional funding for ARS water quality research and just under $4 million through the CSRS and $5 million through the Extension Service. This is the one top-priority area in which increases in appropriated funds appear to be responsive to JCFAS priority reports. 4. Enhancing the Future through Biotechnology. Since the mid-1980s, biotechnology has been identi- fied consistently as a highly significant scientific opportunity for food and fiber industries. The first new funding for plant and animal biotechnologies was included in the FY 1984 budget for ARS ($1.3 and $0.8 million, respectively). The FY 1985 CSRS budget for the competitive grants program included I - ESTINC IN RESEARCH the major increment of new funding for biotechnol- ogy: $28.5 million. Since FY 1985, no major new funding has been appropriated for biotechnology, and considerable slippage (about 30 percent) has occurred in the level of competitive grants available forbiotech- nology research. 5. Advancing Knowledge and Expertise. This pri- ority led to the initiation of the USDA higher educa- tion fellowship program in FY 1984. The ARS ex- panded its fellowship program in FY 1988 to include a total of 100 fellows. Efforts have been under way for 4 years to expand the higher education fellowship program and secure funding for institutional strength- ening grants. 6. Understanding Diet and Health. This priority has risen to number four among annual priorities. No new funding has been devoted specifically to this areas, although considerable scientific effort supported by animal science and human nutrition funding from ARS and CSRS has been directed toward understand- ing diet and health. 7. Managing Germplasms. Within the ARS budget, increases for the National Plant Germplasm System were appropriated in FY 1983, prior to its identif~ca- tion as a top-priority issue in 1986. Further modest ARS budget increases were provided in FY 1985 and FY 1986, and there were major increases in FY 1987 and FY 1988 ($3.5 million and $7.3 million, respec- tively). One advantage of competitive grants programs is the ability to quickly adjust research priorities by calling for proposals in areas of particular need. The six major competitive grant program areas proposed here would ensure opportunities to support cutting- edge science and technology development in each of the top-priority areas identified by JCFAS.
