Michael Duffy

Iowa State University

I. Introduction

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to be a part of this extremely insightful and relevant conference. Component work is useful but we need to take a close look at the entire food system. I think the use of the word opportunities in the conference title is excellent. Too often we just hear complaints or problems. We have to look forward, realizing we can make a difference. It is not a matter of changing the world, but rather changing our approach to it as individuals.

Today I would first like to discuss some aspects of our past research efforts and accomplishments. Next, I will discuss some of the issues facing us currently as we think about agricultural research. And, finally I will look at some possible future directions.

Before proceeding I need to clarify a few points. I am an economist, not a historian. My discussion of past research will only cover enough ground to make my points. Much is left out and history is always subject to interpretation.

As an economist, is it probably redundant to say that I am not clairvoyant. My perception of future possibilities is influenced by my values, beliefs, and training. As researchers we must constantly be vigilant to separate our biases from our scientific interpretations. However, we can never totally eliminate our biases, so we need to clearly identify them.

I believe that everything is connected and that choices always involve trade-offs. In nature, in policymaking, in business, in research, and in every selection process, there are trade-offs and at some level everything is connected. When we have a policy that favors one type of production system over another, we are going to bear the consequences. When we pursue one research agenda, we preclude other agendas. The natural world works in cycles and systems and humans are a part of the natural system, not apart from it. Our worldview, for the most part, has been that of conqueror. An alternative worldview is that of coinhabitor.

As coinhabitors, we acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and abilities. We recognize that everything is important and that what happens to one species, no matter how far removed from us, could have an impact on our existence. When asked how the demise of a particular species could impact us, Richard Vari commented that biodiversity is like a wall. (National Geographic, January, 1998) If we take away one brick, nothing may happen. In fact, we can take away several bricks and nothing may happen. But, eventually, if we take away enough bricks, the wall could collapse. As coinhabitors, we are concerned with each 'brick in the wall'. To be sure, something has to die for us to live, but we can control how we live and what has to die. As coinhabitors we try to understand the system, not conquer it.

Within the limits set by their resource endowments, I believe that everyone should have the right to try. Success or failure cannot be guaranteed. But people need to be made aware of the options available to them.

Finally, I believe that change is inevitable. If an individual, species, or society does not change, it will die. Change drives evolution. The direction of the change is what we can control. There are many competing views of how agriculture and society could or should change. There are those who would like to return to some point in the past and those who want to cling to the present. There are those who look at change with a short time frame and finally, there are those viewing change with a much longer time frame. Regardless of how hard we try to stay the same, change is inevitable.

Here on the verge of a new millennium we are a part of the natural system, and as individuals, as a state, as a society, and as a species we must continue to change. To understand where we are today and where we are going, we have to have some basis of understanding of how we got here. This is the subject to which we will now turn our attention.

II. Past U.S. Agricultural Research Efforts

The basis for most U.S. agricultural research has been two-fold: increasing production and improving efficiency, where efficiency generally has been measured in terms of output per worker. Lasley, Hoiberg, and Bultena (1993) did a nice job of summarizing and documenting this move to an industrialized agriculture. As they noted, "Proponents of the industrial model argued that rural life could only be improved by increasing agricultural production and efficiency."

This same point is made in an early USDA study of farms in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. The report indicates that through improved efficiency, "Fewer men are now needed in the farming districts, and those not needed are able to devote themselves to useful work in the cities and towns. As a result of this condition more of the benefits of civilization are available to the farmer. Although the farmers are fewer in number, the production per man is increasing." (USDA, 1914) The report goes on to state that the goal of U.S. agricultural development was obtaining "the maximum product per man."

Cochrane presents a very detailed discussion of the history of agricultural research and education in the United States. The U.S. started off slowly with basic experimentation and developing an infrastructure for agriculture. "Once the scientific properties and relations of plants, animals, and the soil were understood, the technologies for combating plant and animal disease and for increasing yields could begin to flow forth. And they did so after 1900. But the great technological payoff from investments in agricultural research and experimentation did not occur until the 1930s." (p. 245)

The results of U.S. agricultural research efforts are very impressive. Corn yields in Iowa averaged 39.3 bushels per acre for the period 1866 to 1870. From 1926 to 1930, Iowa corn yields averaged 37.9 bushels per acre. Over the last five years, 1993 to 1997, Iowa corn yields have averaged 126.6 bushels per acre. (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics)

For the period from 1915 to 1919 it took 34.2 hours to raise an acre of corn. In the 1978 to 1982 period, it took an average of just 3.4 hours per acre. (USDA, Agricultural Statistics Yearbook, 1983) A recent study in Iowa estimated that fieldwork took 1.3 hours per acre for corn after corn and 1 hour of fieldwork for corn after soybeans. (Duffy, 1996)

Other crops and agricultural enterprises show similar dramatic results. Indeed U.S. citizens spend the least amount of disposable income on food in the world. U.S. farmers feed more people per person than those in any other country in the world. The list of accomplishments could go on, but suffice to say that U.S. citizens and farmers have benefited tremendously from agricultural research.

The results of agricultural research are truly impressive. However, "coupled with these widely recognized benefits is a growing recognition of its unintended, adverse consequences." (Lasley, et al, 1993) The list of unintended consequences includes environmental degradation, food safety concerns, intensive fossil fuel energy use, declining farm numbers, and a change in the structure of agriculture.

Most of these concerns are not new. Rachel Carson warned about the problems of pesticide use in the 1960s. Aldo Leopold and others wrote about problems of soil erosion five decades ago. Henry A. Wallace was concerned about the declining number of farmers in the early 1960s. One of the first commissions established to look at farm numbers and conditions in rural America was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908!

One of the major problems facing American agriculture in this century has been overproduction. This has led to the seeming dichotomy where the government was sponsoring research on ways to increase output per acre but on the other hand looking for ways to control supply to insure an adequate income for farmers. As early as 1954, President Eisenhower appointed a commission whose report implicitly concluded "that too many resources were devoted to farming, and that financial resources, land, and people should be moved out of agriculture."

Another indication of the unintended consequences of our agricultural research program has been the continually tightening profit margins faced by farmers. Smith in an article in Choices saw this as the shift in revenues away from production to other areas within the agricultural sector. A casual review of net income as a percent of the gross income in agriculture also reveals how great the shift has been to purchased inputs. Farmers are producing much more but they are also paying more to achieve that production level. As a result, farms are forced increase in size to ensure an adequate income.

There is a myriad of conflicting signals about agricultural research. Some observers feel that we must continually seek new ways to constantly increase output. Others are so concerned about the altered structure of agriculture that they have started institutions to help beginning farmers. The Secretary of Agriculture recently appointed a commission to study 'how small farms could compete in a big economy.' Some advocate new programs to help the small, beginning, or other unique classes of farmers while others are calling for the government to phase out its agricultural research altogether.

III. Current Situation

One of the major issues facing the agricultural research community, indeed most sectors of the U.S. economy, is the public versus private research debate. There are many questions about whether or not there should be continued public research.

Huffman and Just have examined the issue of shifting from public to private research. They note that "since 1980, the growth in agricultural research funds (in constant prices) has been largely in the private sector..." They also point out that the "federal government provides about 24 percent of all agricultural research funds, while state governments provide 16 percent and the private sector 60 percent. In contrast, federal agencies actually perform about 15 percent of the research, compared to 31 percent being carried out by state agencies and 54 percent by private businesses. Thus, the federal government and private sector transfer funds to state institutions for performing agricultural research." (Huffman and Just, 1997) Between 1960 and 1995 the share of revenue going from the private sector to the state agricultural experiment stations has doubled, from 7 to 14 percent. There are potential conflicts of interest because "open sharing of R&D results is seldom in the private sector's best interest, and it is generally in the best interest of private firms to seek exclusive rights to innovations from projects that they fund in public research institutions." (ibid)

It is unfortunate that the current debate is focusing on whether or not there should be publicly funded research. I think the debate would be far more constructive if it focused on the appropriate level of public funding. As Huffman and Just note, "a public research institution should focus on producing advances in general and pretechnology science that ultimately may be complementary to private R&D activities and conduct applied research in areas where the innovations are socially beneficial but no private market exists, e.g., minor crops, food safety, environmental quality. The sharing of the public agricultural research mission between USDA and state institutions needs re-examining for balance."

The current anti-government mood will likely continue to put pressure on public support for agricultural research. A recent survey funded by DuPont asked farmers and the general public what they thought were the top ten problems facing the nation. Three of the items appearing on both the farmer and general public lists were government waste, government regulations, and honesty in government.

A recent survey of Iowa farmers asked who would benefit from ten different new technologies being developed. It is interesting to note that none of the technologies was identified as benefiting consumers by more than 25 percent of the respondents. (Lasley, 1997) This same question showed that large farms would be the primary beneficiary (group most often mentioned by the survey respondents) for four of the ten new technologies.

The potential problems of research for industrial agriculture are not lost on the general public. In a recent editorial, James Flansburg noted that "Iowa has opted for development for development's sake. I think it's a product of the land-grant mentality that still imbues Iowa State University: Anything that makes money must by definition be good. The corollary: Out with the old and in with the new." (Ames Tribune, 9/26/97)

Food availability is no longer questioned in the United States. Instead we are more concerned with food safety and environmental impacts. The recent e-coli meat contamination and the hog lot debate are just two examples.

Our research efforts have been tremendously successful. However, we have created a system that is going to require a constant infusion of money. As Cochrane pointed out, "it should be recognized that a state of science and technology can be reached with respect to agriculture where the research and development establishment must keep turning our (sic) new and improved technologies and practices at a rapid pace in order for consumers of food and fiber products to hold their consumption levels even." He goes on to list the reasons for this, including scarcity, new diseases, population growth, and so forth. He concludes by saying, "should the force of the adverse factors noted above become more powerful, the volume of resources devoted to research and development would need to be stepped up still further to hold constant the level of food consumption of the average American consumer. In this sense, research and development in food and agriculture have become an unending process."

We have then a situation where we have made giant strides with publicly supported research but now we are seeing a deterioration of the support for such research. Where R&D is continuing, it occurs in the private sector or is at least funded by the private sector. Such research rightly is designed to make money for the individual companies. For example, the biotechnology revolution in the seed industry has "promised huge profits to the big chemical companies that increasingly are influencing their development and marketing." (George Anthan, Des Moines Register)

There have been, and continue to be, special programs designed to offset the negative impacts and perceptions surrounding agriculture. These programs in sustainable agriculture, for beginning farmers, minority farmers, small farmers, and so forth are put forward by the federal and state governments and increasingly by nongovernmental agencies and foundations. However, these programs are inadequately funded and too often viewed as tangential to "real" agriculture.

There is also a push to increase the funding for agriculture at the federal level. How successful this will be remains to be seen. However, it appears that even with this added funding, the new program will be saddled with the same old vision. Increased output has been identified as one of the major efforts needed by Senator Lugar and others. (Jerry Perkins, Des Moines Register, October 26, 1997)

Who will benefit from increased output? Are we confusing wanting the world to be fed with wanting to feed the world? Will the increased output go to feed the hungry or the wealthy?

We have to recognize that we are at a time when hard decisions have to be made. There are powerful vested interests that would prefer to see things remain as they are, but there are many questions regarding the desirability of the path we are currently following.

IV. The Future

No one can accurately predict the future. We can use the past as a guide, but that is all it can be. Jael Silliman wrote in A Social Agenda for Iowa for the 21^st Century that the "challenge is to find a way to define our multiple futures in multiple ways so that one vision will not have to supersede and dominate all others."

This is indeed a big challenge, but one that must be successfully met. As we look to the future, two fundamental issues need to be addressed. First, we must come to grips with the notion that public and private research both need to exist. They are not competitors but rather should be viewed in a complimentary way. We must continue to promote agricultural research, but monetary gain cannot be the sole principle guiding our research. The second issue is how we perceive our challenge. Do we want to continue the ways of the conqueror where we need to expand continually just to stay one step ahead of the scarcity? Or do we want to change our perception to one of a coinhabitor where understanding and working within the natural system becomes more important than overcoming it?

Regardless of the path we choose, I think that public research should continue to work toward identifying and evaluating options. We need to be doing the things that private industry will not or farmers cannot afford to do on their own. Public research needs to be geared toward protection of the environment and the natural systems that support agriculture. For example, breeding plants that can better utilize and produce natural fertilizers, plants that can exhibit allopathic effects, and so on.

This will be a challenge to all in the academic community. Levins and Beck recently conducted a survey of faculty at the University of Minnesota regarding research in sustainable agriculture. They reported that "the strongest influences among any of the general factors influencing faculty research direction, however, were the personal interests of the faculty member and available funding." They went on to note, "the call for any change in research directions will be made to a group that generally does not consider itself to be influenced by policy and priorities at any external level, the College least of all." From their research Levins and Beck went on to conclude, "a faculty that does not have a personal interest in sustainable agriculture will not produce research in that area no matter what else is done. Programs must be put in place to change basic faculty attitudes if progress is to be made. This, in our opinion, is the greatest challenge of all."

Administrators must have the fortitude to reward not the most popular work or work that can bring in the most outside grants, but the work that betters society.

Individual disciplines need to recognize the importance of inter- and multidisciplinary research efforts.

One vision of the future foresees a continuation of the current trends. Farm size in the Midwest will reach over 100,000 acres, and the number of farmers will continue to decrease to such an extent that one or two per county would not be out of the ordinary. There are those who feel that water quality should be valued in terms of the cost of bottled water. Some believe that the destruction of a species is of no consequence unless you can show that it costs somebody money, or that a species can be destroyed if money will be made through the actions that cause its demise. One scientist has even argued that the large swine confinement facilities are good for the environment. (Avery, Des Moines Register, December, 1997)

There are many other competing visions of the future. We should be looking for ways to allow as many different visions to exist as possible. Public agricultural research should be aimed at expanding options. It should be looking at all the costs of the available options. Costs such as the impact on rural communities, the environment, and food safety must be considered. The effects on farm size, resource depletion, and biodiversity should also be taken into account.

Farmers have been taught and conditioned that the only way to deal with tight margins is to increase volume. Today farmers are constantly looking for ways to increase volume even though the very methods they are selecting might be ones that further tighten the profit margins they face. Our agricultural research has to offer them more viable options

Research dollars are scarce. The public dollars should not be spent on areas where the private research dollars are already focused. Public funding for infrastructure should not be allowed to provide a cheap basis for private research. There has to be a clear understanding of which is which, and a modicum of courage to draw the line between the two research areas.

Daniel Quinn in a recent novel The Story of B made an observation that might be applicable to the state of public agricultural research. He said that many feel "our task is to grit our teeth and cling faithfully to the vision that is destroying us." He went on to say, "Jules Verne could make a century's worth of excellent predictions, because nothing changed between his time and ours in terms of vision. If people in the coming century have a new vision, then they'll do what is completely unpredictable by us."

Technology and technological innovations can be wonderful things. But too much of any good thing can cause problems. We should look to the future humbly, recognizing that we don't know everything and never will. Instead of viewing the world as something to conquer, we should take the cue from the Native American belief that we do not inherit the earth from our parents but borrow it from our children.

IV. Conclusion

Agricultural research has yielded many benefits. We have been fortunate to have leaders with the foresight to acquire an understanding of agriculture and apply sound agricultural practices. However, today we know that much of agriculture's gain has come with hidden costs. As we move forward, we have to look at the world in a different way.

Questions concerning the true nature of the costs and benefits of trying to feed the world must be addressed. The level of public funding and who truly benefits must also be considered.

We must look ahead to the 21^st Century and decide which of the competing visions of the future appears to be the best. Because we do not know, we need to leave ourselves as many options as possible. We have choices, but two things we cannot do are stay the same or go back to some point in the past.