Advocates for greater agricultural research investments are cautiously optimistic that a final farm bill could deliver much-needed wins to boost U.S. innovation.
The House Agriculture Committee advanced a farm bill in May, and the leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee have released summaries of competing farm bill proposals.
When it comes to the research title, the proposals vary in some areas but overall, research advocates see bicameral, bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing investments in some programs.
Notably, all farm bill proposals include greater investments in research facility modernization. The maximum one-time amount the Research Facilities Act Program has received is $2 million, far below the $11.4 billion over five years advocates say is needed to address infrastructure needs.
Stabenow’s proposal includes $100 million in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2025 to improve research facilities, and extends the authorization of appropriations for agricultural research facilities through fiscal year 2029. Boozman’s framework would provide a “minimum” of $1 billion in mandatory funding.
The House committee bill included $2.5 billion in mandatory funding for research infrastructure from 2025 through 2029.
This is a “generational investment” that the agriculture research community has been pushing for a long time, and will help reshape American agriculture innovation, said Doug Steele, vice president for the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLGU) Office of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources.
“If you look at what we do, and look at our research facilities, we just think it's imperative for all of America's ag innovation ecosystem to survive and to be well,” Steele said. “When you make this kind of commitment to land grant universities, you're impacting the next generation through the students that we serve. I think that's very critical.”
Many research facilities at universities are approaching or have even exceeded their “useful” date, and need to be modernized to keep up with foreign competition, said Karl Anderson, president of the Supporters of Agricultural Research Foundation. Additional funding can also be used to attract and maintain a research work force.
Karl Anderson, president at Supporters of Agricultural Research Foundation
It’s been a challenge to recruit the best and brightest students with run-down, underfunded facilities when other research areas have greater funding, Anderson said.
All three farm bill proposals also demonstrate bipartisan interest in increasing mandatory funding for some research programs, like the Specialty Crop Research Initiative and a new Specialty Crop Mechanization and Automation Research effort.
It's easy to be "in the know" about agriculture news from coast to coast! Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news. Simply click here.
The House bill would increase the mandatory funding level for SCRI to $175 million a year, a $95 million increase, and would allocate $20 million for mechanization and automation research. Stabenow’s proposal would increase SCRI funding to $130 million a year, with up to $10 million for mechanization.
Boozman’s framework does not list specific funding amounts, but would increase “permanent, additional funding” for SCRI and provide mandatory funding for a new specialty crop mechanization and automation research program.
The proposals also maintain authorization for key programs that receive annual funding through appropriations. These include the Sustainable Ag Research and Education Program and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
One of the key differences between the Senate and House proposals is reinvestment in the Foundation for Food and Ag Research. The program was established in the 2014 farm bill to match federal and private investment.
Since FFAR is a new program without baseline funding, it could eventually cease to exist without federal dollars to attract private matches, said Emily Bass, associate director of federal policy, food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute.
Stabenow would provide another $250 million for FFAR while Boozman’s framework indicates it would maintain previous funding levels, which Bass said is likely the $185 million it received in the last farm bill.
“Investing in a program that is required to double at least any investment you put in, we would say, is a really great bang for your buck in terms of investments in a tight budget year,” Bass said.
To date, 40% of projects funded by FFAR handle climate mitigation in some way, which outpaces agricultural research programs at USDA, Bass said.
The House bill did not contain funding for FFAR. Since its inception it has not been included in a House proposal and is typically a Senate-led effort, Anderson said.
“As long as we have leaders in the Senate continuing to make the case for FFAR, and prioritize FFAR, I have a lot of confidence that at the end of the day, FFAR will get the funding it needs,” Anderson said.
A number of marker bills have been introduced with research provisions to catalyze new areas of research.
One example is the EMIT LESS Act, which would expand USDA research for products and practices to reduce enteric methane emissions and create voluntary incentives through conservation programs for farmers to apply these tools.
During the House committee markup, the bill was submitted as an amendment by Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, but the panel didn't vote on it. Some of the bill's provisions did make it into Stabenow’s proposal.
Despite the funding successes so far in the farm bill process, some in the research community still point to missed opportunities. Anderson said it was disappointing to see no new funding for the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA).
Funding in this program through the farm bill could provide more “impetus” for USDA to see the program through, Anderson continued.
The organic farm lobby rates this year's farm bill proposals as a “mixed bag,” said Matthew Dillon, co-CEO of the Organic Trade Association.
He said all versions would extend annual funding of $50 million for the Organic Research and Extension Initiative, which is about 1.5% of all research funding. Dillon said the sector has grown since the last farm bill and now makes up 15% of all produce and 7% of all groceries. OTA hoped to add $10 million a year to better match growth in the sector and cover some of the increase in research costs.
Stabenow’s plan, unlike those from Boozman and the House, aims to boost organic research coordination within USDA and calls for the creation of a new role within the chief scientist’s office.
Senate Ag Committee Ranking Member John Boozman. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Dillon said he is “thrilled” to see it included but is not clear how the role would be funded.
Because most agricultural research is funded by annual appropriations, the research programs take up a tiny part of all the programs in the farm bill.
Research advocates hope this fact keeps research programs out of the funding fights. They emphasize that research can have an impact on other titles of the farm bill, including nutrition, rising production costs and increased food prices.
“Funding research on solutions today upstream is really a down payment that congressional lawmakers should be jumping at to ensure we can address these challenges in the future and in future farm bills,” Bass said.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
