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.
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
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
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:
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
106 TABLE A.8 Agricultural Research Service Program Funding Levels (in millions of dollars) 1989 1988 Current 1990 ProgramActual Estimate Budget Six major areas Natural resources60.8 66.1 76.1 Plant science211.7 214.0 214.4 Animal science93.5 94.5 100.7 Commodity conversion and delivery105.3 107.8 112.5 Human nutrition44.4 45.7 45.7 Integration of systems12.4 13.0 13.0 Repair and maintenance11.6 21.3 17.7 Contingency research funds0.9 0.9 0.9 Trust funds3.5 5.0 5.0 Total, ARS research544.1 568.3 586.1 Construction Buildings and facilities7.8 16.0 18.5 Total, ARS research and construction551.9 584.3 604.6 SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agnculture. 1989a. 1990 Budget Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agnculture. state legislatures, citizens' groups, the media, and farm organizations to provide solutions to problems, technical assistance, information, and assistance in building consensus among organizations that have differing views on agricultural, food, or conservation policies or differing perspectives on agricultural, food, economic, and conservation issues important within the state. Faculty of land-grant colleges of agriculture and state agricultural experiment stations must bal- ance theircommitmentto meeting these demands with their teaching or extension responsibilities and their responsibilities to advance science or conduct applied research to help resolve practical problems faced by the state's farmers, agribusinesses, or consumers. In recent years a growing number of citizens' groups, constituencies, and private sector organiza- tions have become politically active in trying to rede- fine or modify the focus or balance among teaching, research, and extension activities at land-grant univer- sities and state agricultural experiment stations. These INVESTING IN RESEARCH pressures and the states' responses to them differ markedly across the nation. As a result, this compo- nent of the public research system is becoming more heterogeneous than it once was. Funding for research comes from federal formula funds that require one-for-one matching funds by states, as well as additional state appropriations made to the state agricultural experiment stations. Supple- mentary research funding comes from several sources, including the sale of commodities produced by state agricultural experiment stations, funds from com- modity organizations through producer group check- off programs, grants and contracts from industry, and state and federal grants administered by a large variety of agencies. The boxed article "Formula Funding Mechanisms: Payments to Agricultural Experiment Stations under the Hatch Act" describes the legislative basis for experiment station formula funds. Table A.12 shows trends in the funding of the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS), theprin
APPENDIX A cipal federal R&D agency that provides support to land-grant colleges of agriculture and state agricul- tural experiment stations. Table A. 13 summarizes the trend in research funding at state agricultural experi- ment stations and cooperating institutions between 1972 and 1987. Until 1965, Hatch Act formula funds accounted for virtually all funding through the CSRS. In that year, and for 5 of the next 6 years, a modest level of funding was provided to build research facilities. Other formula funding through the CSRS budget appropriation began in 1964 with the McIntire-Sten- nis Forestry Research Act and in 1967 with formula grants to the 1890 institutions and Tuskegee Univer- sity. In 1966, a special grant was included in the CSRS budget appropriation. The grant targeted funds for a specific area of research at a specific institution. For the next few years the funding appropriated for special 107 grants remained modest less than $2 million per year-until major growth in special grant appropria- tions occurred to $6.8 million in FY 1976, to $15.7 million in FY 1979, and to $32.0 million in FY 1985. In 1979 competitive research grants as well as animal health and disease research grants (Section 1433) were added to the CSRS budget appropriation. Table A.14 gives a breakdown of the FY 1988 funds provided to each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories through the CSRS budget. Fiscal year 1988 funding provided by other federal, state, and private sources to state agricultural experiment sta- tions and other cooperating institutions in each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories is shown in Table A. 15. For purposes of comparison, the farm income by state or territory is given in Table A. 16, and Tables A.17 and A.18 provide comparisons of differ- ent funding sources. TABLE A.9 Examples of ARS Research That Supports the Program Responsibilities of Other USDA Agencies Mission Agency ARS Role (Examples) Soil Conservation Service Food Safety Inspection Service Agricultural Marketing Service Federal Grain Inspection Service Human Nutrition Information Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Research on soil erosion prediction equations and improved conservation systems. Research on hazard evaluation methods in meat and poultry plants; improved rapid assay methods for pathogens and chemical contaminants. Research on methods to enforce compliance with food labeling, food grading systems, and standards of identity. Research on methods to measure the properties and compo- sition of grain and to ensure that grain meets standards of quality; development of more rapid and accurate probes to check for chemical or mycotoxin (such as aflatoxin) con- tamination. Research on bioavailability of nutrients; the nutrient com- positions of foods; unique dietary needs of special popula- iion groups, including the aged and children. Research on integrated pest management strategies to control grasshoppers; the detection and elimination of blue tongue and brucellosis; management strategies to control livestock pests; methods to detect pathogenic diseases in imported plants, animals, and genetic materials. SOURCE: Compiled by the Board on Agriculture from communications with officials of the Agricultural Research Semce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.
108 TABLE A.10 Economic Research Service Program Levels, FY 1989 Division Millions of Staff Dollars Years Commodity analysis 9.6 192 Agncultum1 and trade analysis Trade and policy 2.6 51 Agricultural and made indicators 1.0 22 Developed market economies 1.3 26 Developing economies 1.4 29 Centrally planned economies 0.9 16 Other 0.6 12 Division total 7.8 156 Resources and technology Natural resources 2.4 49 Resource policy 1.2 26 Inputs, technology, productivity 1.9 12 Other 1.7 34 Division total 7.2 121 Agricultural and rural economy 10.8 160 ERS totals 49.3 860 aThe totals include other extramural and administrative activities. SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1989. The ERSinl989. April. Washington,D.C.: U.S.Dq~artmentofAgnculture. TABLE A.11 U.S. Forest Service Research Program Levels, 1977-1989 Budget and Personnel Levels 1977 19811985 1989 Total budget (millions of constant 1982 dollars)129.4 115.0102.3 107.1" Extramural research11.4 12.86.7 NA Percent extramural8.8 11.16.5 NA Personnel levels (person-years) Scientists949 958799 NA Support1,591 1,6621,601 NA NOTE: NA, Not available. aid estimated 1982 dollars by using the 1988 deflator of 123.7. Adapted from U.S. Department of Agnculture. 1989a. 1990 Budget Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. SOURCE: Adapted fran Giese, R. L. 1988. Forest research: An imperiled system. Joumal of Forestry 86(June):15-22 Cable 3). INVESTING IN RESEARCH
APPENDIX A 109 Formula Funding Mechanisms: Payments to Agricultural Experiment Stations under the Hatch Act Funds under the Hatch Act are allocated to the state agricultural experiment stations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto R co, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands for research to promote sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life. The Hatch Act provides that the distribution of federal payments to states for FY 1955 shall become a fixed base and that any sums appropriated in excess of the 1955 level shall be distributed in the following manner: 20 percent shall be allotted equally to each state; not less than 52 percent shall be allotted to the states as follows: one-half in an amount proportionate to each state's share of the total rural population of all states, and -one-half in an amount proportionate to each state's share of the total farm population of all states; not more than 25 percent shall be allotted to the states for cooperative research in which two or more state agricultural experiment stations are cooperating to solve problems that concern the agriculture of more than one state; and 3 percent shall be available to the secretary of agriculture for the administration of the act. The Hatch Act also provides that any amount in excess of $90,000 available for allotment to any state, exclusive of the regional research fund, shall be matched by the state out of its own funds available for research and for the establishment and maintenance of facilities necessary for the performance of such research. Also, in the case of Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, agencies are required by law to waive any requirement for local matching funds for federal formula funds under $200,000. Three percent of funds appropriated under the Hatch Act is set aside for federal administration, which includes disbursement of funds and a continuous review and evaluation of the research programs of the state agricultural experiment stations supported wholly or in part from Hatch Act funds. USDA's Cooperative State Research Service encourages and assists in the establishment of research linkages and partnerships within and between the states and actively participates in the planning and coordinating of research programs between the states and the department at the regional and national IQVQIS. Competitive Research Grants Office The USDA competitive research grants program is lodged administratively within CSRS. Table A.19 shows competitive grant funding trends and program areas from FY 1978 through FY 1989. Extension Service The Extension Service is the third federal agency in the science and education system in USDA. Exten- sion is responsible for education and technology trans- fer activities designed to bring to farmers the scientific progress made through research. The USDA Exten- sion Service provides formula funding to the states under the Smith-Lever Agricultural Extension Act. States are required to provide a one-to-one match of the federal formula funds. Funding for extension activities also comes from other state appropriations and in many instances from local county and regional governments. The coordinated federal, state, and local extension activities are collectively referred to as the Cooperative Extension Service. Many faculty members at state land-grant univer- sities have appointments with academic departments that are split across two or three missions and sources of funding. A common appointment would include 25 to 50 percent research supported largely by federal formula funds, 25 percent to 50 percent teaching supported by state funds, and 25 to 50 percent exten- sion supported through a combination of federal and state funds. Accordingly, it is important to consider trends in extension funding in evaluating the funding base for academic research, education, and technol- ogy transfer activities. Current federal law is judged by most research administrators to prohibit the Exten
110 INVESTING IN RESEARCH TABLE A.12 Cooperative State Research Service Program History of Appropriations for Research, FY 1955-1988 a Funding Mechanism 1955 19651975 1980 1985 1988 Formula funding Hatch Act $18,954 $45,423$77,036 $118,566 $156,484 $155,545 McIntire-Stennis Act 1,0007,070 10,000 13,053 17,500 Evans-Allen Act, 11,824 17,785 23,474 23,333 1890 institutions Animal Health & Disease, Section 1433 Title V, neural development Special research grants. Competitive research grants Forestry competitive grants Other Agricultural Marketing Act 500 Direct federal administration 141 Total CSRS 0 6,000 1,500 1,500 3,400 15,198 15,500 5,760 5,476 33,230 46,000 7,840 50,580 42,372 3,000 334 919 1,482 1,475 4,094 $19,595 $46,757 $101,749 $186,031 $287,316 $301,900 Excludes appropriations for research facilities, buildings, and higher education-strengthening grants and fellowships. Includes other CSRS grant programs: alcohol fuels; rangeland; native latex/critical agricultural materials; agriculture centers; international trade centers; agricultural productivity, Subtitle C; supplemental and alternative crops; and other grants under Secuan 1472. SOURCE: Adapted from data compiled by the Budget Office, Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agnculture, Washington, D.C., 1989. sion Service from actually carrying out research. As a result, most federal data on USDA R&D activities do not include Extension Service funding levels. The USDA Extension Service expenditures in FY 1988, current estimates forFY 1989, end expenditures requested in the FY 1990 budget are presented in Table A.20. Combined USDA Funding Trends Agricultural Research Service and formula funds to state agricultural experiment stations have accounted for most USDA support for food and agricultural research. Since 1955, the relative share of USDA research expenditures through ARS has fallen from well over SO percept to less than40 percept. Trends in research support by major USDA agency since 1955 are presented in Table A.21. Higher Education Activities in USDA Support for the higher education fellowship pro- gram was initiated by USDA in 1985 with a $5 million appropriation for training grants and $2 million for strengthening grants. Since 1986, the training grants have received $2.8 million annually and about $2 million has been appropriated each year for grants to strengthen higher education in agricultural research. Several organizations have called for a substantial increase in support for undergraduate and graduate fellowships to help meet the need across the agricul- tural research sector for talented, highly trained indi- viduals (see, for example, National Research Council, l988b, p. 34~. To help attract scientists to food and agricultural research, the ARS has expanded its post- doctoral fellowship program substantiallyin the l980s, and it currently offers 100 awards each year.
APPENDIX A TABLE A.13 Sources of Expenditures to State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other Cooperating Institutions, FY 1972-1987 Funding Source 1972 1977 1982 1987 Federal USDA21.621.122.218.4 CSRS Formula18.816.416.112.3 Other0.92.72.73.6 Other USDA1.92.03.42.5 Other federal7.88.910.210.2 State appropriations56.654.951.653.8 Product sales6.46.35.95.2 Industry4.65.35.86.5 Other3.03 54359 Percentage total100.0100.0100.0100.0 Total funding (in millions of dollars)3636221,0581,449 Scientist-years6,0586,9197,5317,821 Dollars/scientist-year (in thousands)6090140185 SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988. Inventory of Agricultural Research, Fiscal Years 1972, 1977, 1982, and 1987. Washington, D.C.: Cooperative State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 111
112 Cal c o 3 cat ~4 ._ - ~D o I: F o - C) a c Cal Cal .c - - ~i C) .c . be I: ._ a: 3 cat ._ Cut 00 ~ _4 ._ [.~ EM O ~3 ~ Cut O EM ~ ~ C o ._ _ _ c.) ~ u' 3 ~ C cat - r. ~ _ _ e cat o · _ ~ C . LL1 C: .> . _ TIC s:: ~ ~ ~ ~ 'e v ~ c) ~c · - c) ~ c: ct - o ~o - :: ~o o - ·E o ~> Cf. oo o oo o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ oo ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~o t- OX ~t _ ~ ~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o - - ~o~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ - ^ ~ o~ o ~o 0~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~0 ~ cr~ oo ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o oo ~ oo oo oo~ In ~ 0 ~- ~ c~ d" c O ~- - ~- o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o In u ~0 0 ~ ~oo oo ~ ~ ~ - o o o o o oo - ~ o o ~ oo o ~ ~ ~ o o o o o o ~ ~ o a ~00 a~ 0 0 0 a~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~-o o~o ~ ~ - ^ - ^o o~o~o o o =~ - o 00 ~ O ~ ~1 ~Q o o o o oo oo c~ c~ o^ ~n ~ ~0 ~ u~ ~ ~c~ cr~ ~4 ~_ _ _4 C ~ ~C~ o Q Q ~Q Q o ~ oo ~ o o ~ ~o o o o o Q Q c ~Q o o oo ~ Q o o _ ~ o ~ o o o ~o o ~ ~ ~ o oo C~ o ~ o ~ o _ 0 ~ ~0 ~ ', 0 - a~ - - ~ ~ 1- - ~0 ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - O oo c~] 4 ~ ~- ~ o c ~ ~ ~ - C<) ~o -c~ - o ~ o ~ oo o- ~ ~ o - ~ o~ - o S ~ ~ - ~ oo ~ ~ ~ - ~ - c~^ ~c~ ~ o- ~ c~ o ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ - N ~ oo ~ o oo ~ ~ a~ ln ~ oo - c~ ~ ~ oO c ~oo oo - ~ ~n t~ ~ ~ In \0 _4 - ~ c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ - o c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ t- oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - oo _ ~ ~ oo 0 U~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~oo ~ 0 - ~ Q - ~ `o _ <~ ~ - d. ~ - ~- ~ ~ ~ O o v~ _ 0 C~ ~ t- OX ~ C~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ C ~C~ _ O ~ ~ oo u~ ~ ~ ~ _ O u~ \0 ~ oO ~ oO ~D - ~ ~n _ ~0 0 oo ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ 0 o o ~ ~o ~ ~ oo ~ oo ~ O ~ ~ O cr~ ~ - ~ _ cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 o o ~ ~ oo ~ ~ - ') Cr~ t- ot, oo ~ cr c~^ ~ ~ O" ~ ~ o~ ~ In - oo oo - L~8 - C~ ~C~ - - ~ C~ - - ~t ~d" ~ ~t ~ - ~7 E - o - C) D ~ O ~ O O ~ ,~g ~Ei ~b4 {8 0 o ~ta == ~ ~> ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C) ~ '_ C O ~ ~ ~ ~
113 ~ ~ ~- ~ ~- ~ lo is, _ _'Do ~ ~ ~ [_ _ t- en Go ~ c ~. ~ ~ ~ a~ - o ~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo _ ~ t- ~ ~ t- :~ ~ =\ ~- ~ ~ C~ oo~ _ o ~ o ~ ~ oo ~ o O~ ~ _ oo ~_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ t- ~ ~', ~ _4 oo ~5; oo ~ o oo ~o o ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~oo o o o ~ ~ o ~ ~oo ~ ~ _ -~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ C~ _4 _ _ ~_ ~ o o o o o o o o o o e3 ~n C~ - Q o ~n oo - o oo o Q Q o o ~ o oo ~ oo - o o o t ~t~ o o o o o o o t- o o ~ o o o o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 a~ 0 0 ~ ~oo0 ~ooo0 ooomo 0~oo0 o^ o^ o^ ~ ~ 0 0 0 o^ o^ o^ oo oo o^ oo ~ o^ o^ o^ 0 ~ ~ ~ ox ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 U~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~C ~C~ r~ C ~oo ~0 0 0 0 0 0 o oo ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~C~ _ ~ 0 ~ C~ ~C~ _ _ _ ~00 0 ~ 0 0 - ~ =\ ~- 0 ~ 0 ~ O ~ O cr ~ 0 ~ r~ oo =- C`] --4 O~ _ C~ ~ _ ~ C~ 0 00 _ ~ ~ ~_ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ _ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 cr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo 0 _ C~ oo oo o~ ~ ~ =~ ~ oo - ~ ax 0 ~ v~ oo ~ 0 oo 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ') ~ ~ ~ - Q ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ Oo _ ~oo ~ a~ c~ ~ ~ oO \0 a~ ~ ~ ~oo - In ~ ~ C~ ~ ~00 00 ~ ~ O~ C~ ~C ~- - t- ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo O ~ O ~ o - 0 ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~oo ~ ~1 oo oo ~ a~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~ 0 oo 0 ~ - ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ oo C~ O ~ ~- C~ - t- ~- ~ \.0 '~ ~C') t-oo C') ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O C~ ~ ~ C ~O ~ ~ ~ C~ t- t- - ~ ~ =' _ _ ~_ O ~ O ~1 ~ ~ ~) C~ O ~ \0 cr~ ~ \0 ~ _ O 00 r~ O O O0 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~> ~ O Q 0 ~ oo ~ 0 cr ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ _ c~ _ _ \0 O0 ~ _ oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ `0 Q O O ~ ~ ~ v~ 0 c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo oo ~ oo ~ \0 ~ _ ~ ~ \0 oo cr~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ [_ _ _ cq c R . C o ° c:, E c D C ~O ~ ~3 ~ 3 ~ D -
114 Cal ~ o U) 3 o ._ - (~S so c, c, us "-~ E o ._ CD Ct ~ 3 ._ ;3 S C: TIC . U) Ct - - "C ~ - O O ~ - o 3 C: - o o - .E CD EN o - U) 00 0 0 ~ O 00 -~ 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Via ~ ~ _ en ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _J ~ ~ ~ ~ UP O ~ ~ O - _ ~ ~- O ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ O tn ~ ~ 0 _ ~ ~ oo - o o o o o Q o o o o o o o o o o o~ o oo oo ~ ~oo _ ~ ~ oo o C~ ~ o ~o ~ _ ~ ~ O O ~ t~ In o ~ oo o - o ~ t o 0 ~ 0 ' ~ oQ Q °° ~° ° ° ° o o ~ o oo ~ o o o o o o o o o - ~ ~ o o ~ o Q o o Q o - ~ o ~ o o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ oo ~ ~o oo o ~ oo ~ 0 a~ - ~_ 1 - 00 =\ C~ ~ o ~- _ o ~ _4 ~4 _ ~ o ~ - o O ln - d" O - oo C~ ~ ~ ~ 0 \0 O _ t_ \r~ c~) ~3 oo _ C~ _ _ O ~ - ~ \.0 V, oo oo C~ oo _ oo ~ O ~ O _ ~ ~ ~ ln ~ oo ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ Oo ~ oo O ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ In ~S) O 00 0 0 - C~ =-= O C O ,~ ~ ~ fi ~i ~ ~ 3 3 C: =3 ~ 0 O oo 00 - ~ O C ~O _ ~1 _ _ ~ O O ~ O O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ O t- oo - ~1 ~ oo ~ ~ - O C~ ~ O oo O 0 o0 ~ C~ t- ~ ~ In _ _ C~ C: C~ .5 ~o C oo oo ~ 0 0 oo 0 0 _ cr~ 0 0 U~ ~ ~ V~ _ oo ~ C~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 e~ _ _ oo ~o a~ _ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 C~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ oo cr~ oo tn O O ~ C~ C~ ~ ~ _ .a 0 04.= t,4 ~ . _ cq c: s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 0
115 ~o o ~_ Lo ~ _ _ ~ o To Cat - o 0 0 _ o No o _ ~Cat o _ To Cat of ~o In ~o em _. of o ~Lo To o To To oo of - - c=: 50 2 ~ cot ~Lo 8 oo HA _J 8 To A o o To Do oo Q o o oo - o o o o - C ~_ o C~ ._ c: o ;> ·;3 ~= :3 ~o ~ ~ =° ~ 80 C~ o8 o oo ~3 o c) oo ~n - c~ _J - 00 a' X ~5 .5 ~£ al . ~£ ~ .- ~ .5 c ~ ~ C ° _ < ~ 8 o ~ ~o _ C ~ ~C ~ ~. 5 <: ~4_,.S . ~ 2 e ~ ~ 2 i i, 133 ', 5~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~ i _ . 3 3 1 3 3 . ,^3'"34j. j~ ~ ~a' ~4_ oo ~·_ C~ o os .= £ . - o ._ C~ al D o 0\ 0\ - o - ,~ U, 3 - 3 os o - C~ C~ .t q} C~ C~ C~ ·~ ~. o~ os ~o D 8 £ ~: . . o U)
116 U) Cal o A: Ct Cal I: c - Ct o Lo - - :' Cal .c o U. ._ x - Ct CQ o ~ Z - o A:, o 1 I: o o .= CD Do ~ _ O V) - ~3 ~ _ ~ ~ o Ed ~ Cal ~ ~ _ C: ~-^ o I_ _4 CL ~ ~ O at 0 o ~Cal ~ _ _ - O Z ~: ~4 - ~ - ~ ct p~ v, u, ~: o ·3 .c o V, ~ .o 41.) O C~ o - ·E o - C~ ON oo ~ tn _ oo ~ ~ a~ t- oo - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~oo o ~ o o~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ oo ~ ~o~ ~ ~ - ^ o oo _ C~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo o oo ~ ~ oo ~ ~ oo o ~ ~ - - ~o ~J ~ ~ oo ~ ~ o o ~oo ~ ~ o~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~- oo _ _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~C~ _ ~o _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~- O ~ ~ `4 ~ ~ O ~ Q oo ~ ~ oo ax c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 - - ~ - ~ - ^ ~o~ oo - a~ _ _ ~t_ _ C~ ~ _ _ o ~ o oo - ^ o ~ o oo ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ - oo ~o -^ c ~ ~ ; ~ ~- cr~ _ ~ ~- d" C~ - O ~ U~ ~00 - ') ~ \~0 (~ =) d d" ') O t- --1 tr) O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OS _ O, ~oo _ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ao ~ ~ _ ~ -- _ oo In ~_ _ _ _ _ ~ O ~ oo 0 ~ ~ ~ ~n - oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ^ ^ _ ~ _ oo ~ O~ - ~ oo - ~ O ~ ~ \0 C~ - ^ ~ ~ ~ O. C ~ ~C~ ~_ ~C~ ~ _ ~000 00 ~- O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ C~ oo q" t- _O ~ oo ~O ~) ~C)oO t- oO d. - O d. ~) ~- ) ~1 ^ ^^ ^ _ ~_ __ .G ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~
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 , -
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
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
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
121 Cal I:: .° Ct .c .~ ~ ~ of <y ~ ~ ~ U' ~ C: Cal ~ ~ ~ C: At: _ O ~ ~ Cal o o ~ ~Do _ o o ~ of o_ oo o o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . . . ·. · . · . . . · . .· · . . .. o o C~ ~ ~ ~ o o C ~ o ~ o ~ C~_ ax Q ~ ~ o~ oo ~ Q ~oo ax ~ ~ ~ ~ o c~ t- ~ o ~ oo ~oo ~ oo o oo ~ ~ - ~ O~ - o ~ - · . · . .. · . . . · . · · .· . . . - o - C~ O~ ~ ~ O - ~ O ~ - -~ ~ o oo - t- ~' ~ _ ~ oo C~ ~' ~ _ ~In _ _ _ _ o ._ - Ct oo ~ Ox _ _ ON _ ~ <) '] .c ~ Z ~ ~ ~ O. ~cr ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ O \0 00 _ ~c~ ~ r~ == ~_ ~ _ _ ~'~ ~ <~a~ Ct "C ~ O O o . - Ct O ~ ~0 C~ ~ (7 ~ Ct O - .E o C) U' ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ln - ) O ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ O. - 0 0 ~ ~a~ oo ~ e~ C~ 00 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00= ~C~ ~ ~ 00~^ c~ ~ ') _ ~ _ ~ t_ C~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 a ~c~ 0 oo ~ _ - - c~ ON t- ~ ~ ~ 00 ~C~ ~ ~ O ~\0 ~ ~ ~ C ~t- ~ ') ~ c<' ·~·.· ··~·· ····· · - ') ,C. C~ ~ C ~O 00 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~t t~ ~=\ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ _1 ~ _. 00 O ~ ~ O O ~ 00 t- · . · . . O ~ ~ O _ ~n ~ 00 _ . .. .. crx 0 _ a~ ~0 - ~ oo In O ~ 00 ~ oo O oO . . · . . O ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ - o ~ - · . · . . · · · · - ~o O u~ _ - ~ tn 0 oo ~ oo ~ ~ ~c~ - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ 0 tn~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ c~ oo~ ~ ~ ~ oo . . · · · . · . . ·. . . . . ') ~ - ~ o ( ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ - y ] d" - ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ - C~ · ·· ····· ·.··- a~ 0 - ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ o~ - - ~- ~ ~ o - ~ - e~ ~ ~ oo In ~ ~ ~ oo ko · . · . - ~ Q 00 ~ t_ ~ 0 ~ O C~ ~ O ~ O O ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~o0 00 ~ C~ - O oo ~ oo ~ ~ O ~ oo O ~ ~ c~ d" ~ ~ ~ O . .... .. ··. ··.·. .... . 0 ~ ~ 0 - ~ 0 ~ ~ c~ oo - ~O a~ ~c ~ - ~ ~t - c~ ~ - o ~ ~ ° ~ fi- ° ° ~ s ~ o 3 ~ 8 ~ 3 c o ~ <~Q OQ&~ o=~- ~ ~o~)
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
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
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
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
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~
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
