Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK
list:$20.00
Web:$18.00
add to cart

PDF BOOK
your price: $15.50
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System (1989)
Board on Agriculture (BOA)

Page
95
bottomleft bottomright
  E-mail
 Facebook
 Digg
 Stumble
 Twitter
More
Page
95

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 95
A Public and Private Sector Programs en c! Funcling Tren(ls Agricultural, food, and environmental programs are funded by a variety of public and private sector sources. This appendix provides an overview of the funding trends of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other federal agencies, and public sources. The first section describes federal research and devel- opment (R&D) expenditures by agency and area of science. The second section surveys 1989 budget authority levels of USDA agencies and recent expen- diture levels, trends, and priorities by major mission within USDA. The final section provides an overview of the publicly funded R&D system as it relates to agricultural and forestry research and recent expendi- tures. FEDERAL R&D EXPENDITURES BY AGENCY AND AREA OF SCIENCE The history of federal support for R&D since World War II has been marked by significant but uneven growth, depending on the area of research being examined. Since 1980 there has been a dramatic shift toward military R&D compared with that for civilian research. Total federal R&D expenditures rose over 420 percent (in constant 1982 dollars) be- tween 1955 and 1988 ($12.177 billion to $51.250 billion). Table A.1 shows this trend and the percent- age of the total for each government agency. The trend in federal support for agricultural re- search in the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been among the most constant and slowest growing across the various agencies of the federal government. Within USDA, support for different agencies and areas of research has shifted gradually over the years (for details see the section below entitled "Overview of the Publicly Funded R&D System,'; also see the boxed article "Appropriations, Obligations, and Expendi Many federal agencies have experienced dramatic shifts in available R&D funding. Behind each major shift lies some combination of profound events or change in national priorities. The energy crisis driven by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Coun- tries (OPEC) in the mid-1970s pushed U.S. Depart- ment of Energy (DOE) R&D expenditures upward from $3.548 billion in 1975 to $6.040 billion in 1979 as the search for alternative energy sources intensi- fied. (Comparisons across years have been adjusted to constant 1982 dollars unless otherwise noted. Price deflators used to calculate constant 1982 dollars are given in Table A.2.) The worldwide collapse in oil prices and a loss of confidence in advanced nuclear power and oil shale technologies that were pursued aggressively by DOE contributed to a 33 percent drop in DOE R&D expenditures since reaching a peak of $6.040 billion in 1979. The meteoric rise in funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (NASA - $0.207 billion in 1955 to $17.374 billion in 1965 marked the beginning of the Apollo space program and the early years of space explora- tion. Expenditures for NASA have since retracted to about $3.636 billion in 1988. Figure A.1 displays the trends graphically and highlights the dominance of U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA spending in determining changes in the overall federal R&D. Trends in funding of civilian R&D are displayed in Figure A.2. Research funding for USDA has re- mained nearly stable over the period. National Sci- ence Foundation (NSF) funding has grown steadily since the early 1980s. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) funding has increased stead- ily and consistently over the past 30 years. As with 95

OCR for page 96
96 INVESTING IN RESEARCH TABLE A.1 Trends in Federal Obligations for Total Research and Development, by Major Agency, FY 1955-1988 All Total Other Nondefense Year USDA DHHS NSF DOE NASA Agencies Agencies DOD Values Adjusted to Constant 1982 Dollars (in millions) 1955 $347 $327 $46 $1,574 $207 $325 $2,586 $9,591 1960 505 1,284 300 3,059 1,483 759 7,390 22,938 1965 788 3,050 657 4,353 17,374 1,156 27,525 23,753 1970 738 3,205 758 3,533 9,974 2,410 20,941 19,319 1975 728 4,155 1,031 3,548 5,311 2,603 17,376 15,620 1980 804 4,421 1,031 5,560 3,783 2,938 18,357 16,352 1985 837 4,865 1,195 4,410 2,955 2,227 16,490 26,458 1988 778 5,079 1,379 4,027 3,636 1,862 16,761 34,489 Agency Percentage of Total Annual Nondefense R&D Funding 1955 13.4 12.6 1.8 60.9 8.0 12.6 100 1960 6.8 17.4 4.1 41.4 20.1 10.3 100 1965 2.9 11.1 2.4 15.8 63.1 4.2 100 1970 3.5 15.3 3.6 16.9 47.6 11.5 100 1975 4.2 23.9 5.9 20.4 30.6 15.0 100 1980 4.4 24.1 5.6 30.3 20.6 16.0 100 1985 5.1 29.5 7.2 26.7 17.9 13.5 100 1988 4.6 30.3 8.2 24.0 21.7 11.1 100 NOTE: Totals are not exact because of rounding. Abbreviations: USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture; DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services; NSF, National Science Foundation; DOE, Department of Energy; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; DOD, Department of Defense. SOURCE: Adapted from National Science Foundation. 1955-1988. Federal funds for research and development, detailed historical tables: Fiscal years 1955-1988. P. 22-38, Table B. in Federal Obligations for Total Research and Development by Major Agency and Performer: Fiscal Years 1955-1988. Washington, D.C.: Division of Sacnce Resources Studies, National Science Foundation. DOD and NASA Figure A.1), DOE has experienced much more volatile funding trends. Research Shares by Area of Science Federal R&D priorities have shifted considerably in the 1980s, as is evident in Table A.3, which shows the percent share of total federal R&D by field of science in FY 1980 and 1988. The decline in the relative share of federal research expenditures committed to agriculture in the 1980s- from 3.86 to 3.22 percent (see Table A.3 - is a result of two factors. F*st' the expenditures on agricultural research have not kept pace with inflation, and real funding for over areas of research has increased substantially. Itis noteworthy that the two science and technology fields that have experienced large declines in relative research shares-agriculture and engineer- ing are the two areas most closely tied to the eco- nomic performance of several major sectors of the economy. Support for agricultural research throughout the 1980s was constrained by several factors. The strong commercial performance of U.S. agriculture in the

OCR for page 97
APPENDIX A 97 Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures It is important to understand what research funding data represent. Accurate data on public support for research are available from several different sources, but the aggregation and comparison of such data from different sources can be difficult and sometimes confusing. The data presented in the tables and figures in this appendix have been identified by source; and care has been madeto distinguish among budget requests, appropriations made by law, obligations made by government agencies, and records of actual expenditures. A brief description of what each of these means is given here. The federal government's fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30 of the calendaryearthat names the fiscal year (FY); hence, FY 1990 begins on October 1, 1989. For each fiscal year, government agencies prepare a budget request that Goes forward to the U.S. Congress in the January preceding the fiscal year as part of the President's budget proposal. Congress responds to these budget requests by preparing and passing appropriations bills to be signed into law by the President. Appropriations bills, as law, specify what monies can be obligated and spent by an agency and for what purposes. The appropriation is the budget authority against which an agency obligates funds during that fiscal year. Normally, funds appropriated but not obligated during the fiscal year are returned to the U.S. Treasury. The actual expenditure of obligated funds might be spread out over several years. One example of this is a 3-year research grant. The total dollar amount of the grant for the full 3 years may be obligated in 1 fiscal year, but expenditures against the grant occur over 3 years. Because Congress often modifies a budget request before it becomes law, it is important to distinguish between a budget request and an appropriation or budget authority. Since agencies almost always obligate all the funds they are appropriated within a fiscal year, the dollar amount of an agency's budget authority or appropriation is usually identical to the obligations made that year. For example, the FY 1990 budget summary from an agency or the appropriations hearing record from Congress often provides data covering 3 fiscal years: data for FY 1988 are actual obligations since FY 1988 has ended; data for FY 1989 are called current estimates based on the budget authority (i.e., FY 1989 appropriations), because the fiscal year is still in progress and all the obligation of funds will not be completed until September 30, 1989; and data for FY 1 990 are simply the budget request to Congress (i.e., what the agency wants to be able to obligate in FY 1990~. One major source of data on research support for agricultural research is the Inventory of Agricultural Research based on the Current Research Information System (CRIS), which records all fiscal year expen- ditures by USDA research agencies, state agricultural experiment stations, forestry schools, and other related institutions. These data on expenditures are valuable because they itemize funds from federal, state, and other sources. However, ~ cannot be directly compared or checked against fiscal year appropriations because, as noted above, obligations from one fiscal year can end up as expenditures over several fiscal years. 1970s reinforced the view that U.S. agriculture en- joyed a sizable technological advantage relative to other countries. Funding for agricultural science and technology appeared less pressing than other needs in the USDA budget. As the economic crisis within agriculture emerged in the 1980s, the U.S. Congress was compelled to rapidly and markedly increase farm income support payments, despite a growing national budget deficit and progressively tight fiscal constraints. Farm credit end disaster relief programs became much more costly, and a major new soil conservation pro- gram began to push erosion control expenditures upward sharply in the FY 1987 budget. More detailed data are available from the National Science Foundation on plant biology research among the agencies of the federal government. Table A.4 shows support from federal agencies for competi- tively awarded research grants for plant biology. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURE LEVELS, TRENDS, AND PRIORITIES The USDA's budget authority is summarized in Table A.5. Total department appropriations in 1989 are estimated at $59,644 million. Budget items that individually account for more than a 5 percent share of the total USDA budget authority in 1989 are:

OCR for page 98
98 TABLE A.2 Price Deflators for Adjusting to Constant 1982 Dollars Year Deflator Year Deflator 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 20.8 21.9 22.9 24.1 24.6 24.9 25.4 26.3 26.9 27.6 28.5 29.8 31.2 33.1 35.1 38.1 41.0 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 43.8 47.1 52.2 57.7 61.5 65.8 70.4 76.8 85.5 93.4 100.0 104.0 108.6 112.6 115.3 119.5 123.7 SOURCE: Adapted from Council of Econonuc Advisers. 1988. P. 253, Table B-3, in Economic Report of the President. Washing- ton, D.C.: U.S. Govemment Printing Office. · Food stamps and nutrition programs: $20.437 billion (34 percent of total). · Commodity Credit Corporation: $ 15.103 billion (25 percent of total). · Farmers Home Administration programs: $13.786 billion (23 percent of total). · U.S.Forest Service: $3.184 billion(5percent). The science and education budget authority in 1989 was $1.300 billion, or only 2 percent of total USDA appropriations. Major Shifts in USDA Budget Priorities Despite the fiscal discipline required to meet the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction goals in recent years, there has been considerable buoyancy in USDA's budget in recent years. Priorities have not been frozen by fiscal austerity. INVESTING IN RESEARCH Table A.6 summarizes USDA expenditures from 1980 to l9X7 in eight major categories. It provides several insights regarding fiscal priorities, as follows: · Changing levels ofprice support program expen- ditures have driven changes in overall USDA spend- ~ng. · Nutrition program expenditures-the largest budget function within USDA in the early and late 1980s-have been one of the most stable areas, grow- ing at or just above the rate of inflation in most years. · U.S. agriculture's economic crisis in the mid- 1980s was met by a sevenfold increase in credit and rural developmentprogram spending, which rose from $1.024 billion in 1981 to a peak of $7.481 billion in 1985. Funding for these programs has since fallen precipitously. · Most smaller USDA programs proceed from year to year with nearly stable budgets, including agricultural research and education programs. · The 10-year Conservation Reserve Program authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 began exerting a sizable influence on erosion control expen- ditures in FY 1987. The nearly 30 million acres enrolled in the program in early 1989 will result in about $1.3 billion in expenditures, more than tripling federal funds devoted to reducing erosion. By the FY 1991 budges, 40 million acres are likely to be enrolled, resulting in an estimated expenditure of $1.X billion each year for 6 years. By FY 1997, when the first 10- year contracts begin expiring, spending will decline if no new land is brought into the reserve program. · In FY 1980 the $841 million spent on research and education programs constituted 3.4 percent of the USDA total budget and 24.3 percent of total farm price and income support payments; in 1987 the $1.127 billion spent on research and education accounted for 2.2 percent of the total USDA budget and 4.4 percent of farm price and income support expenditures. OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLICLY FUNDED R&D SYSTEM Agricultural, food, and environmental research is undertaken in all 50 states in a variety of public institutions and in thousands of laboratories, field stations, and other facilities. This research is sup- ported by funds from federal, state, and local govern- ments and a wide range of private sources. In 1985, in the public andprivate sectors combined,

OCR for page 99
APPENDIX A 60 ~ 50 o oo 40 z ~ 30 z o o 20 z o m 10 O _ 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 99 '\ All Agencies / ~i' I ~/ / ~/ ~, ~ _ - / - ~- ~_ _ / ~, DOD / I ~, ~ I ~'a/ \ ~ I ~/, / J USDA / i' ~NASA / - \ - - - YEAR FIGURE A.1 Trends in federal support for R&D for all agencies and for selected agencies, 1955-1988 (in billions of constant 1982 dollars). SOURCE: Adapted from National Science Foundation. 1955-1988. Federal funds for research and development, detailed historical tables: Fiscal years 1955-1988. P. 22-38, Table B. in Federal Obligations for Total Research and Development by Major Agency and Performer: Fiscal Years 1955-1988. Washington, D.C.: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation. there were about 23,000 active doctoral-level scien- tists conducting, managing, or administering food and agricultural research (National Research Council, 198Sb). About two-thirds, or 16,000, of these scien- tists were employed by public programs and academic institutions. Table A.7 presents a breakdown of employment patterns in the food and agricultural sciences in 1985. Note that for each doctoral-level scientist working in the more applied agricultural fields, there are about two scientists working in basic sciences related to agriculture. A major goal of this proposal is to attract more of these nearly 46,000 scientis~eople who are well-qualified but who are not provided support for food and agricultural re- searc}~into research that addresses agricultural needs. (Statistics on the number of scientists em- ployed by field, including those reported in Table A.7, must be interpreted with caution. The distinctions between basic and applied disciplines often are not clear; some scientists working in applied disciplines are carrying out basic research, and some scientists counted in basic disciplines are conducting applied research.) The publicly funded agricultural research system has three principal missions: undergraduateandgradu- ate teaching, research and technology development, and extension education activities. These three mis- sions link publicly funded researchers and educators with farmers, agribusinesses, community leaders, and others interested in some aspect of agriculture or its effect on resources, communities, or the economy. Extension programs deliver research-based educa- tional programs to producers, small businesses, youth groups, and community and resource development agencies; and they assist in technology transfer. The key institutions that constitute the publicly funded component of the nation's agricultural and food sciences infrastructure are (1) USDA's Agricul

OCR for page 100
100 oh O 6 Cal oo of In 4 of 8 IL o cn At o 2 J m INVESTING IN RESEARCH 8 _ 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 YEAR USDA 1 1 1 1985 1 988 FIGURE A.2 Trends in federal agency support for R&D for selected civilian agencies, 1955-1988 (in billions of constant 1982 dollars). SOURCE: Adapted from National Science Foundation. 1955-1988. Federal funds for research and development, detailed historical tables: Fiscal years 1955-1988. P. 22-38, Table B. in Federal Obligations for Total Research and Development by Major Agency and Performer: Fiscal Years 1955-1988. Washington, D.C.: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation. tural Research Service, which is USDA's intramural research agency; (2) USDA's Economic Research Service; (3) USDA's U.S. Forest Service; and (4) the state agricultural experiment stations and cooperative extension services, which are funded in part by USDA but most substantially by state and county govem- ments. Federal and state government agencies have worked in partnership over the years to establish, develop, and create partnerships across these institu- tions. Agricultural Research Service The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) con- ducts basic and applied research, some of it targeted at helping USDA agencies resolve scientific and techni- cal issues that arise as they fulfill their program re- sponsibilities. It carries out programs in six major areas (see Table A.8), and its FY 1989 estimated appropriation is $568 million. The ARS employs about 2,670 scientists and engineers, about 2,500 of whom have doctoral degrees. Thus, ARS scientists account for a little more than to percept of the current total doctoral-level scientists in agricultural research reported in Table A.7. (Appendix D includes a list of current ARS research objectives, as articulated in the agency's most recent S-year plan.) In planning and carrying out its research programs, the ARS works closely with other federal research agencies, as well as with USDA's mission agencies that rely on technology and science to carry out their program responsibilities. For example, the ARS has cooperative agreements with several USDA agencies to conduct a variety of research activities. Table A.9 lists some of the research called for in these agree- ments. The ARS conducts research at some 127 domestic and 7 foreign locations, including five major regional

OCR for page 101
APPENDIX A TABLE AN Relative Shares of Federal Research Obligations, by Field of Science, FY 1980 and 1988 Field of Science Billions of Dollars Relative Share of Total Research (%) 1980 1988 1980 1988 Life sciences 4.903 5.935 36.15 39.39 Agricultural 0.523 0.486 3.86 3.22 Biological 2.410 3.043 17.76 20.20 Medical and life sciences 1.970 2.406 14.53 15.97 Physical sciences 2.340 2.798 17.25 18.57 Engineering 3.311 3.328 24.40 22.08 Other sciences 3.010 3.006 22.20 19.96 Total research 13.564 15.067 100.0 100.0 NOTE: Data are compiled by NSF under the three categories of research, development, and application. Research data only are included here. SOURCE: Adapted from National Science Foundation. 1980 and 1988. Federalfunds for research and development, detailed historical tames: Fiscal years 1980 and 1988. In Federal Obligations for Total Research and Development by Maior Agency and Performer: Fiscal Years 1980 and 1988. Washington D.C.: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation. TABLE A.4 Federal Support for Plant Biology Academic Basic Research, FY 1978-1989 (in millions of dollars) Agency 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 NSF 22.2 26.1 28.3 34.1 41.443.452.460.657.661.864.2 69.7 USDA 9.6 9.7 12.2 12.6 13.014.514.526.925.625.624.6 NA DOE 18.9 19.4 23.6 27.5 20.621.524.125.224.627.930.8 31.0 NIH NA NA NA NA 20.020.020.021.025.027.029.0 32.0 NASA NA NA 0.9 1.2 0.91.01.41.51.61.01.0 1.0 Total 95.9100.4112.4135.2134.4143.3149.6 NOTE: Values for FY 1989 are estimates. NA, Not available. NIH, National Institutes of Health. SOURCE: Adapted from data compiled by the Interagency Plant Science Committee, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1989. 101

OCR for page 102
102 INVESTING IN RESEARCH TABLE A.5 U.S. Deparunent of Agriculture Budget Authority by Organizational Units and Agencies, 1990 Budget Summary (in thousands of dollars) Organizational Units and Agencies 1989 1988 Current 1990 Actual Estimate Budget Science and education Agricultural Research Service Cooperative State Research Service Extension Service National Agricultural Library International affairs and commodity programs Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Foreign Agricultural Service Commodity Credit Corporation Office of International Cooperation and Development P.L. 480 Natural resources and environment Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service Small community and rural development Farmers Home Administration Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Rural Electrification Administration Food and consumer services Food and Nutrition Service Section 32 Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program Human Nutrition Information Service Marketing and inspection services Federal Grain Inspection Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Food Safety Inspection Service Agncultural Cooperative Service Agricultural Marketing Service Office of Transportation Packers and Stockyards Adminis~a~on Economics Economic Research Service National Agncultural Statistics Service World Agricultural Outlook Board Administration Office of the Secretary DeparOmental Adminis~aiion Office of Budget and Program Analysis $559,493 352,019 357,963 12,194 1,289,179 92,217 11,081,280 10,008 1,059,596 686,871 2,475,102 15,231,451 428,523 1,294,834 20,169,558 366,742 50,000 8,623 7,020 336,615 393,052 4,611 121,500 2,397 9,402 48,277 61,341 1,730 5,710 20,664 4,252 $584,402 340,917 361,370 13,268 2,011,722 95,417 15,103,925 10,254 1,098,100 704,597 3,184,462 13,786,438 313,992 1,605,833 20,437,080 405,873 170,000 8,823 8,115 338,753 406,004 4,655 125,794 2,397 9,562 49,536 63,788 1,820 $604,618 295,398 324,840 14,947 1,228,791 98,620 12,548,818 8,918 723,279 631,950 2,511,389 10,799,582 388,565 129,460 20,290,640 522,746 120,000 9,468 8,255 284,872 423,949 2,303 119,475 1,395 9,562 51,914 71,238 2,045 5,953 6,115 21,533 22,500 4,389 4,554 Table AN continues

OCR for page 103
APPENDIX A TABLE A.5 (Continued) Organizational Units and Agencies 1988 Actual Estimate 1989 Current 1990 Budget Hazardous Waste Management Working Capital Fund Rental Payments and Building Operations Advisory Committees Office of Governmental and Public Affairs Office of the Inspector General Office of the General Counsel Gifts and bequests Offsetting receipts Total, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2,000 $5,708 68,969 1,308 8,673 48,795 18,734 1,585 ($1,462,378) $55,235,618 5,000 $4,708 70,764 1,494 8,859 50,510 20,836 2,328 ($1,798,977) $59,644,294 25,688 $3,750 74,268 1,494 9,068 52,530 22,340 50 ($1,606,761) $50,842,633 SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989a. P. 77 in 1990 Budget Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agnculture. research centers located in Beltsville, Maryland; Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania; Peoria, Illinois; New Or- leans, Louisiana; and Albany, California. Many other ARS research facilities are located atornear academic institutions. This allows for some interaction between ARS scientists and faculty of the academic institu- tions. In addition, some ARS staff hold adjunct faculty appointments end participate in graduate teach- ~ng programs. The relative lack of an economics research capac- ity in the ARS, coupled with only limited and sporadic interaction with scientists in USDA's Economic Re- search Service, has been recognized as a problem for years (V. Ruttan, University of Minnesota, personal communication, 1989~. An improved capacity to es- timate the economic impacts of R&D priorities and technologies within USDA is dependent on progress toward overcoming this problem. Economic Research Service The Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA was established in 1961 "to provide economic and other social science information and analysis for improving the performance of agriculture and rural 103 A m e r i c a " ~ U . S. . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u 1 t u r e , E c o n o m i c Research Service, 1989~. It collects and maintains a number of historical data series on farm type, size, and number; production and input levels; trade; effects of farm policy; and socioeconomic characteristics of rural areas of the United States. The ERS also provides key statistical and analyti- cal support to both the executive and the legislative branches of the federal government. It is called upon not only to quantify the effects of recent policy and market developments but also to estimate the probable future consequences of policy alternatives under consideration. The work of the ERS is organized into four major divisions, which were supported by a $49.3 million budget in FY 1989 (see Table A.10~. The agency has limited extramural funds to contract for research by the academic sector, but it has never been authorized to administer a competitive grants program that is broadly open to analysts in the academic sector. An expanded USDA competitive research grants program that includes grants in markets, trade, and policy would greatly increase Me collaborative rela- tionship of ERS specialists with other economists and scientists. The expertise and data of the ERS will be pertinent to policy-related studies and the work of

OCR for page 104
104 Ct a; rid oo CS~ _ - o lo ~ ~_ Ct :, o c _ Do oo cr Cal _4 - o oo at - on o ._ Cal CQ .~ o ·~' cry _ Cal o ._ - Ct _ ~ ED 00 O Cat Cal ;` Ct - o - _ ~4 oo _ - C~ 'C oOo o - ~: o C ~·_ ~o~ Ct ~C) _ ~ ~o __~ _ \4 o ~o o oot-~ _^ o. ~ ~ oo ', ~_ ~oo o^ oo o C~o~ ~ o t_~ oo o ',-~ oo _ _ _ _ ~3 o~ ~ko ~ ~ oo `~ w) - t - - oo ~o ~ - Q~ ~ ~ u~ ooo - oo t- ~t- ', _~ I<) - ~ ~ oO _~ oo - _ =\_~ o oo ~o ~C~^ ~ oo o ~ o - ~ o n ~o ~c ~O o t~ooo ~oo _C~ oo _ t- - ~ 6O - __ ~o O ~ ~ - o~o~ ~_ ko _ 0 ~a ~o ~ ~ a ~ 0 ~o - ^o~ ~t_ _ ~ O-~ ~- d. o0 _ _ ~ ~ooo ~oo ~ ~o ~o ~ ~ _ ~00 0 oo ~ _. ~( ~oo - ^ _C~ t- ~o - o~ oo 0 ~ _ ~ 0_C~ t- _ ~ [_ ~_ ~ ~ 0 ~ - - cr~ ~ 0 - ~a~ oo ~ oO ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo oo ~ oo oc ~ oo ~ cr~ ~c ~ ~ 0 - ^' - ^ - _ _ ~ oo oo oo oo~ ~0 ~ ~ oo 0 - ^ ~ o"- - _ ~ ~? oo~ 0 ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~- oo C~ - ^ - ^ O~ eo _~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo~ 0 _ `.o oo oo C~ ~_ ~ ~ E ~ t' ~} ~ i. Z ~ == ~ ~ oo ~ce ~(5'' 3.o c: C oo ·c ~ O.e ~0 ~ tS °s 3 K ;` y 88 E 8 3 5 2 8 5 . e u E ~ 2 Z E 8 ~ ~ ·' =, ! ~. ~ ~ ~ ~, ; ~ / I I ~ i ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ·° e' u ~ ~' 2 t~l c~ ~t ~ <~ ~ oo ~ ZO c~ . ~D r~ oo

OCR for page 105
APPENDIX A TABLE A.7 Doctoral-Level Scientists, by Employment Sector, 1985 Employment SectorAcademiaaIndustrybGovernment Total Applied agricultures9,9007,0003,800 20,600 Animal2,5001,100300 3,900 Plant and soil3,2001,300800 5,300 Food7001,800200 2,700 Natural resources and environment2,0002,0002,100 6,100 Other1,500900300 2,700 Agricultural economics1,900300400 2,700 Total applied agriculture and agricultural economics11,8007,3004,200 23,300 Agriculture-related basic sciences31,3009,6005,000 45,900 NOTE: Totals are not exact because a small number of Ph.D.'s (less than 0.1 percent) did not report their employment sectors and because of rounding. This sector does not include postdoctoral students. alibis sector includes self~nployed Ph.D.'s. CApplied agriculture disciplines include many scientists who conduct basic research. Agriculture-related basic science disciplines include some scientists who conduct applied research. SOURCE: Adapted from National Research Council. 1988a. Educating the Next Generation of Agncultural Scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. mission-oriented teams in natural resources and the environment, and plant and animal productivity stud- ies. Other research programs will also find ERS analysts and data to be as important resources for ~ncorporaung economic performance measures into biological and physiological assessments of crop and livestock production. U.S. Forest Service Principal federal responsibility for research on the nation's forests and for technologies useful in the manufacture ofpulp and wood-based products is vested in the U.S. Forest Service. Table A.11 summarizes funding and personnel trends in U.S. Forest Service research between 1977 and 1989. Forestry research is wide-ranging. Priority R&D targets include the effects of global climatic change on forest productivity, the behavior of fires and the ways in which ecosystems respond to catastrophic forest fires (like those in Yellowstone National Park in the summer of 1988), issues involving water quality and wildlife, new uses for wood, and increasing productiv 105 ity through management of the 182 million acres of forestland-muchofitprivate inl3southernstates. The scientific disciplines that play a part in forestry research range from the basic biological sciences (e.g., genetics and physiology), to pest control and disease specialties (e.g., entomology and pathology), to man- agement of wildlife and ecosystems and several engi- neering and design specialties. State Agricultural Experiment Stations The state arm of the publicly funded agricultural research system is composed of 50 land-grant univer- sities, each of which has a state agricultural experi- ment station. There are also six historically black state universities that conduct agricultural research and teaching programs. Many faculty members in col- leges of agriculture, home economics, and forestry have appointments that split their responsibilities between teaching and research or research and exten- sion; a few are involved in all three activities. State agricultural experiment station programs and scientists are routinely called upon by state agencies,

OCR for page 117
117 oo ~ ~ oo ~ - - al ~on 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Off ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - - O ~ ~ ~·= 0 of ~0 oo 0 oo ~ ~ ~ - cry t- ~ ON ~ ', % _ ~ oo ~ t- _ ~t oo ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ en _ oo A, - ~ - ~ ~{'' 6 o or ~ oo ~ ~ or ~ o o oo ~ ~ ~ ~ o o oo ~ ~ _ ~ t oo No ~ ~ A, _ or ~ ~ of ~ oo ~ oo ~Cat t_ ~_ ~ ~ ~ _ Cat ~ ~ ~Cal 0 cat 0 cry 0 cat - - ~ 0 o ~Cal ~ Cal oo ~ o ~of ~ t- _4 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ o - ko ~ oo ~ ~ c~ ~ ~o o ~ o Mo c ~ - c ~ ~ o - - o oo ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ oo t~ =` <~`O Q ~- ~ ~)o ~ t- o ~ _ ~ ~ _ ON ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ c~ c~ - cr ~0 _ _ - t- O O ~ t ~- ~ O O oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ c~ In - ^ O ~ - ^ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ t- a~ - _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ C~ _ t- c~] C~ ~ ~) oo .0 ~ - O - - ~ O - oo oo O ~) ~ oo ~ ~- t- O ~ \0 0 =^ a ~ m~ - ^ ~t- c~ ~ c~^ ~) C~] _ C~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ a~ c~ _ ~ C~ ~ ~t C~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~'] t_ C~ - ~ ~ 0 0 0 oo _ ~4 - ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ tn _ C~ ~ oo C~ _ _ _ C~ 0 oo ~ _ ~ _ 0 _ _ ~ _ 0 _ t- oo oo ~t - C~ ~_ ~ ~ c c ~ ° 3 ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ._ ._ ._ ._ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~X ~zzz zzzz C~ oo U~ C~ - C~ .c - o E ~ a o=E~^ O ~ == zO .C , -

OCR for page 118
118 ·3 o C: _' U) U) 1 =4 O ~ - Ct ~ A: _ O O Z U' A: - - C~ 3 'V - Ct Cal Cq A: o ._ - Ct .c C ~ 6 lo =: ~ _ ~ O A o - .E En o CD - Cal o o ~ ~ ~) Calt- ~ ~ ~ ~ oo Cal ~ ~ Cal ~ ~ To ~o 0 0 ~ 00 us ~ cat to ~ cr - ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~o en _4 _ ~ _ o oo ~ oo ~ o c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ e3 (~] O~ O~ ~-~ - c~ oo ~ - o ~ - - ~o ~3 o o - ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~- v ~ c~^ ~ a ~oo ~ ~O - t - - c ~ ~ON o o oo ~ oo ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~oo ~oo ' ~t - ~ oo a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cr oo ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ') ~ - - ~ ~- ~ oo 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~o - ~ oo ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ oo C`4 ~ _ ~ ~_ _ ~g 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~0 oo ~ C ~ ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 _ _ U ~') ~ C ~00 _ ~t- ~_ _ _ Ct Ct .= ~_ .C~ ~ j ~ a ~O ~C >~Be= .r~ :r: U) - ::' - ~S o ·.= z o ·~= C~ ·: o ~0 .S 3 x o~ - - ._ C: ~ .~ - o C/' z U, P7 ~ ~, o~ i~ ~o~ _ c: ·~ ~ O0 ~ ~ ~cq 63 ~ ~ ~al ~.s V C~ C~ U3.8 5.c o 8 , ~ ·~= ,: ~3 ·c 6 ~ ~° o.,5 C~ ~ o Do O O 6 ~ ~ ~ o ,q, 6 .> 4, 6 ° oo ~ _ _ ~ ~ 8 X 9 ~ 6 ~ O ~ - .c 6 o

OCR for page 119
APPENDIX A TABLE A.16 Farm Income as Cash Receipts Tom Farm Marketing and Government Payments, by State, FY 1987 (preliminary) (in thousands of dollars) Farm Marketing Government Total State Income Payments Income Alabama$2,148,055$125,228$2,273,283 Alaska29,4342,37831,812 Arizona1,780,77097,3381,878,108 Arkansas3,143,394397,6443,541,038 California15,521,832462,01115,983,843 Colorado3,191,446341,9913,533,437 Connecticut365,8334,517370,350 Delaware484,55112,176496,727 Florida5,226,99842,5325,269,530 Georgia3,086,887245,1843,332,071 Hawaii558,502377558,879 Idaho2,046,522234,3732,280,895 Illinois6,174,4771,477,6407,652,117 Indiana3,872,363670,2444,542,607 Iowa8,780,2691,987,68510,767,954 Kansas5,721,509966,3206,687,829 Kentucky2,418,611178,3382,596,949 Louisiana1,419,707209,2991,629,006 Maine413,2588,110421,368 Malyland1,127,79948,9631,176,762 Massachusetts392,6564,833397,489 Michigan2,503,884391,1432,895,027 Minnesota5,809,2651,193,8457,003,110 Mississippi1,979,027302,5382,281,565 Missouri3,690,604489,8004,180,404 Montana1,347,409352,3301,699,739 Nebraska6,823,0531,274,8438,097,896 Nevada243,1803,887247,067 New Hampshire103,8772,808106,685 New Jersey562,96311,386574,349 Table A.16 continues 119

OCR for page 120
120 TABLE A.16 (Continued) State Fann Marketing Government Income Payments Total Income New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total $1,147,261 2,5263500 3,715,190 2,308,102 3,421,774 2,752,219 1,860,740 3,224,220 75,305 931,155 2,722,648 1,932,695 9,086,482 596,083 412,378 1,692,179 2,841,424 220,937 5,016,983 641,996 $138,094,406 $93,346 109,304 190,172 719,783 431,877 362,769 127,438 71,766 119 114,086 504,827 156,745 1,441,175 44,513 7,067 87,285 292,170 10,584 405,969 35,976 $16,746,732 $1940,607 2,635,804 3,905,362 3,027,885 3,853,651 3,114,988 1,988,178 3,295,986 75,424 1,045,241 3,227,475 2,089,440 10,527,657 640,596 419,445 1,779,464 3,133,594 231,521 5,422,952 677,972 $154,841,138 SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agnculture. 1988. Table 584, p. 413, in Agricultural Statistics. Report No. 001 000 C)4532-6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. INVESTING IN RESEARCH

OCR for page 121
121 Cal I:: .° Ct .c .~ ~ ~ of OCR for page 122
122 A: ·~= I: o A_ rid ~3 Cal o ._ - w ._ ~ W Cq o 5 6 ~ ~ C) _ ~ ~ O CL ~ o ._ _, w .c o C: C: ._ _ V ~ ~ C) PI W _ W Z ~ ~ _ ~ C) a: o ~ 2 - o . w . Ct ~ _ o ~ ~ o NEW . ~ ~ ~ o cn ~ C) ~ ·E o c<) ~ '] ~ t-=\ - ~ U~ -o ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t- c<) C'] t- C')=) ~ -~ ~ -~ ~ ~ o . . . . . . . · . · · · · · · · · · .- - oo ~o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ln ~ ~ ~ 0 _ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo ~ ~o 0 ~oo ~ 0 oo C~ ~ oo C ~ 0 ~ - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 C~ ~ ~ 0 . · . . · · . · · . · · . · · · · . .- 0 oo ~ ~ ~ 0 0 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ - ~ 0 ~ ~ - - ~ C ~ ~ oo oo _ _ ~_ c~ oo 0 oo ~n 0 ~ Q O O O O ~ Q ~ ~ - ~ ~- - O ~ ~ ~ O ~ o ~') w) ~ ~ o ~) ~ t- t- . 7 v~ 00 ~ O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ \0 l- - ~ ~ 5 0 ~ a~ ~ \4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o 0 - oo - ~ ~ 0 c~ ~ t- ~- _ c~ - ~oo ~} oo - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @. ~ ~ ~- oo ~ ~ ~_ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~- cs~ ~) ~ ~- ~ oo 0 ~0 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 a~ ~ a~ ~ 0 - ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ - ··· ····· ····· ···~ _ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u~ C ~ r~ c~ ~ ~0 ~ c~ ~ - ~ ~- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ _ ~_ ~ =\ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 oo ~ ~ O ~oo ~ 0 0 c~ oo ~ ~ oo c ~ O ~ - O ~ ~ ~ ~ O C~ ~ a~ 0 v~ ····· ····· ····. ····- O oo ~ ~ ~ O 0 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ O ~ - 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~c~ - - t- c ~ c~ oo oo _ _ ~ oo 0 ~ ~ - ~ ~ c~ - ~ - t~ oo cr ~c~ - ~ oo C7` ~ ~ oo o ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - t- oo ~ ~ '} ~ t- ····· ····· ····· ···· - ° ~ ~ Q ~ oo V ~ ~ 0 c~ ~ 0 ~ oo - 0 - 0 ~ 0 a~ ~ oo O ~ ~ ~ a~ - ) - ~t ~- ~C~ -} ~ ~ - ~ ~ 1- ~ ~) 0 oo ~ ~ ~O oo ~ O. ~o. r" c~ ~ v~ 0 ~ o ~ oo ~ O - _ _ _ _ \0 ~ c~ c~ ~- oo ~ oo ~ oo ~ - ~ - oo ~ a~ · · . · .· . . · . ~ ~ oo In 00~ ~ ~ ~ 00 c~ ~ _. ~_ c~ ~ _ - c', ~' ON _ ')~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ - ) ~ c~ ~ O ~ ~t a~ ~ c~d" ~ ~) ~ - - c~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o ·········· ·····.·.·- c~ ~ _ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ - 0 0 ~ oo ~ ~_ c~ _. ~ ~_ _ ~c~ c ~._ _l ~ c ~ ~ .g ~ ~ ~ E Co.~ .~.~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C C o Cm Z Z Z Z Z O O O

OCR for page 123
123 o ~_ Cat lo, is, oo cr cat ~of ~ ~ O ~° ~ ° ~ ····...... ··.. ~ o ~ _ _Cat oo - o ~ ~ - o JO _ 0 AL 0 0 0~ 0 0 ~ To oo ~ _ To o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~Cat o ~ ~ . · . . .· . . · · . . . . o ~ ~ _ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Cat~ ~ Cal ~ Cat ~ Cat In _ ~oo ~ ~- ~< ~t- < ~ _ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ JO Cal ·. . . 7 .,. . 7 oo ~ ~ ~ ~4 _ o ~O ~O _ em ~_on Do So _ ~_ _ - < C~] ~ _ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O > _ c~ c' ~ ax ~° ~r, ~7 = C~ ~ ~ ~ - ~- o ~ o o o ~ o o ~ oo oo ~ - ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ····· ····· ···- O ~ ~ - ~ 0 0 c~ ~ ~ r. _ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - c~ ~- = ~- ~ oo t- c'] ~ O~ - ~ ~ ~ o oo c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~c~ ~ c~ ~ . . . . . . . · · . . . . . oo ~ o oo ~c~ - ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ - a~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ oo ~ c~ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ No ~ ~ o ~oo ~ Yo - ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ o ~ - ~ · . . . . . . · . . . . . - - ~ ~ ~ oo ~ o ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ o- ~ o ~ o o c~ ~ ~ ~ · . . . - o ~ c~ ~ ~ ~- o oo o oo o ~ So o - o ~oo o u~ ~ · . . .. . . . o ~ o ooo o - ~ u, e ~ g E ~ ~ ~ °E -:,0 ~ ~ E E , ·O · ~ c~ 3 ~ o o~ ~ _ _ ._ ~ o ~ 3 o C _ ·c 6 ~ _ <: ~ oo 5 3 _ U) U~ ·_ ° ·e ~ ~, o ~ .s .- o _ ~ ~ U) U, ~ ~_ ~ ~ D C ~ -o ~ ~ Z O ~ <^ ·- ~ Z S .S :' ~ ~ ~-o ·5 ~ ~ :, ,g, 5 ~ ~ o ~ ~ o := o £ z ~ ~ - ~: D o - o S

OCR for page 124
124 TABLE A.18 Research Funding Sources as a Percentage of Total Farm Income, by State INVESTING IN RESEARCH Special Competitive State Total Formula Research Research Appropri- CSRS State Funding Grants Grants ations Funds Alabama 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.62 0.32 Alaska 3.66 0.00 0.02 7.70 3.84 Arizona 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.83 0.41 Arkansas 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.17 California 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.56 0.09 Colorado 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.11 Connecticut 0.47 0.06 0.05 1.78 0.60 Delaware 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.37 Florida 0.08 0.02 0.03 1.03 0.13 Georgia 0.18 0.05 0.04 1.19 0.28 Hawaii 0.22 0.01 0.46 1.49 2.07 Idaho 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.43 0.13 Illinois 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.13 Indiana 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.14 Iowa 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.12 Kansas 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.24 0.11 Kentucky 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.55 0.28 Louisiana 0.27 0.02 0.04 1.32 0.33 Maine 0.49 0.02 0.04 0.96 0.56 Maryland 0.26 0.11 0.02 0.90 0.42 Massachusetts 0.54 0.47 0.24 0.93 1.25 Michigan 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.69 0.35 Minnesota 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.48 0.10 Mississippi 0.24 0.00 0.29 0.75 0.60 Missouri 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.19 Montana 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.15 Nebraska 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.06 Nevada 0.44 0.04 0.00 1.32 0 51 New Hampshire 1.38 0.11 0.02 1.97 1.56 New Jersey 0.44 0.10 0.10 1.65 0.65 New Mexico 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.50 0.19 New York 0.20 0.12 0.04 1.42 0.37 North Carolina 0.21 0.05 0.01 1.02 0.28 North Dakota 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.38 0.44 Ohio 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.18 Table A.18 continues

OCR for page 125
APPENDIX A TABLE A.18 (Continued) Special Competitive State Total Formula Research Research Appropri- CSRS State Funding Grants Grants ations Funds Oklahoma 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.39 0.19 Oregon 0.15 0.05 0.08 0.92 0.71 Pennsylvania 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.72 Rhode Island 1.50 0.35 0.02 2.31 1.93 South Carolina 0.43 0.01 0.06 1.39 0.51 South Dakota 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.08 Tennessee 0.29 0.05 0.01 0.63 0.36 Texas 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.11 Utah 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.90 0.31 Vermont 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.49 2.27 Virginia 0.31 0.06 0.07 1.17 0.46 Washington 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.62 0.64 West Virginia 1.14 0.00 0.(14 1.02 1.35 Wisconsin 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.39 0.14 Wyoming 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.50 0.24 NOTE: Values are the research collar per state from Tables A.14 and A.15 divided by the total state fang income from Table A. 16. For example, Wyoming received formula funds equal to 0.22 percent of the value of state farm income. 125

OCR for page 126
126 To An _ Cal oo _ _4 o o U. of A:' C: _ A .= _ _ An on - oo oo 6 _ no o L4 Cal ·~= ._, - U. . - o Cal of _. To To Cot of Do An - q At; I~) ~1 0 ~1 0 - 1 0 t-1 0 o ~o To~ I_ _ - I_ Cal - I~ ~ _ To ~To - o o ~ o o ~ 0 0 ~ C~ I I 0 t- ~ _ _ _ oo ~ ~ a~ C~ _I ~ oo ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ n oo _ ~0 - ~0 - C ~0 - ~ ~ - ° 1 8 8 8 o° o° o o -=o 8 n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~t ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~o o - 8 - oo _. o ~C~ _ _ ~3 - ~o - ooo - , oo C~ - o8 o^ - Q Q o o - ~ .o c,] .= - ~ ~ ·c~ ~ c ~ ~ o c ~ o ;^ ~ o c) c~ - ~ Q ~ - o _ o ~ _ ~ O o o _ o o ~o o ~ - o ~o o o 8 ~ o C~ oo 1 1 ooQ o o U~ 1 1 rO ~ o a e E 5 ~ ~5 E ~ o - oo - o c~ - o 80 - o o o U~ - - 8 ~ ^ C~ o~ :~ ·~= .= o C) ~o o~ oo .s U, 3 ~o · ~ a, <~: : c 1 1 ~ ~ ~ :e ~ o ~ o 8 Cd " ~ -= ~ ~ ~ 8 .~.S 2 o g'38g ~ ~:~s 5 e S ~ L ~ 3 ~ ~6 4) ~ oo C~ - , U) o . . C~

OCR for page 127
APPENDIX A TABLE A.20 Extension Service Expenditures through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, by Program (in millions of dollars) Program 1989 1988 Current 1990 Actual Estimate Budget General formula programs Smith-Lever Act$241.6$241.6$241.6 1890 land-grant colleges and Tuskegee University18.318.324.0 D.C.extension0.91.01.0 Subtotal260.8260.9266.6 Earmarked programs Priontyinitiatives0.00.05.0 Water quality0.01.56.5 Rum1 revitalization0.91.01.0 Low-income nutrition (EFNEP)58.658.621.6 Pest management7.27.27.2 Pesticide impact assessment1.61.62.6 Other earmarked programs5.75.9 Subtotal74.075.843.9 1890 land-grant college extension facilities9.59.59.5 Renewable resources extension2.82.8 Section 1440 grants3.43.4 Federal administration (direct appropnation)7.49.15.0 Total, ES357.9361.5325.0 SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agnculture. 1989a. 1990 Budget Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agnculture. TABLE A.21 Research Expenditures by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1950-1988 (in millions of constant 1982 dollars) Agency 1955 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1988 ARS 178.96 478.5 419.5 392.5 422.4 432.4 420.2 CSRS 92.6 156.3 164.0 177.9 219.5 136.7 119.7 U.S. Forest Service 35.4 126.0 119.5 135.8 113.2 100.1 102.0 ERS 22.79 39.8 44.2 43.4 41.5 41.0 37.9 Total 329.75 800.6 747.2 749.6 796.6 710.2 679.8 NOTE: ARS, Agricultural Research Service; CSRS, Cooperative State Research Service; ERS, Economic Research Service. SOURCE: Adapted from data compiled by the Office of Budget, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989. 127

Representative terms from entire chapter:

budget authority