1. Agriculture Research Enterprise QSSB Partnership Workshop May 31, 2013 Don Latham & Rich Joost

2. What Is PCAST? Advisory group of scientists and engineers Appointed by the president Makes policy recommendations Covers all disciplines of science

3. Co-Chairs John P. Holdren Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Eric Lander President Board Institute of Harvard and MIT What Is PCAST?

4. PCAST Agricultural Preparedness Working Group Working Group Members Sharon Clay, South Dakota State University Jeff Dangl, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill David Fischhoff, Monsanto Company Molly Jahn, University of Wisconsin-Madison Don Latham, DTB Farms Frank Mitloehner, State of California Cooperative Extension Tom Sinclair, North Carolina State University Chris Somerville, University of California, Berkeley

5. Current Status of the Ag Enterprise Agricultural research totaled more than $14 billion in 2009 $8.7 billion from private funds $3.8 billion from federal funds $1.9 billion from state matching funds

6. Federal Investments in Ag Research Utilize Formulas to Determine Funding Levels Example: Hatch Act Formula Formed in 1887 to create ag experiment stations Uses population data State provide 100% matching funds

7. Hatch Act Formula - Research Allotments 20% - Equally to Each State 26% - Proportion to State’s Rural Population 26% - Proportion to State’s Farm Population 25% - Regional Research 3% - Federal Administration

8. Matching State Investments Hatch Act Formula – FY12 InstitutionFY12 AllocationFY12 Matching Requirement University of Arkansas$4,129 Million$4.288 Million Iowa State University$7.597 Million$6.915 Million University of Minnesota$6.267 Million$6.355 Million Ohio State University$7.475 Million$7.571 Million

9. Smith-Lever Formula - Extension Allotments 20% Equally to Each State 40% Proportion to State’s Rural Population 40% Proportion to State’s Farm Population

10. Matching State Investments Smith-Lever Act Formula – FY12 InstitutionFY12 AllocationFY12 Matching Requirement University of Georgia$7,884 Million$7.884 Million University of Illinois$9.497 Million University of Missouri$8.705 Million North Carolina State University $11.553 Million

11. Current Status of the Agriculture Enterprise

12. Checkoff Investments in Ag Research $130+ million in ag R&D Most checkoff research includes extension and outreach support Funding leveraged by matching- funds requirements

13. Research Funding by Commodity ($ Thousands) RESEARCHNutrition & HealthProductionNew Uses Food Safety & Disease TOTAL Almond$1,500 $4,500 Beef$940 $845$1,400$3,185 Citrus $3,100 $5,500$8,600 Corn $500 $1,000 Cotton $11,000 Dairy ~$10,000 Eggs$2,000 Pork $9,500$500 $10,000 Sorghum $1,400 Soybeans $34,447$26,533 $60,980 Wheat $6,250 $12,500 Other$1,211$4,209$1,050$0$16,300 Total $5,651$60,906$35,678$8,400$131,465

14. Checkoff Investments in Ag Research USB leveraged 3 to 1 $240M+ in soybean research

15. University Gap Analysis

16. Gap Analysis: Background USB Production Committee explores endowed chair possibilities Jim Palmer, MN Soybean Research & Promotion Council Exec recommends study USB Director, Jim Schriver, proposes idea of university soybean research “gap analysis” study to A & E Committee Bryant – Christie commissioned by A & E to conduct study

17. Gap Analysis: Farmer Priorities Increasing yield Improving soybean quality Maximizing profitability

18. Gap Analysis: Important Fields of Study Agricultural Economist Biotech Breeder Conventional Breeder Entomologist Extension Nematologist Plant Pathologist Soil Scientist Water Scientist Weed Scientist

19. Gap Analysis: The Ideal Soybean Research Program Soy Agronomist Entomologist Weed Scientist Plant Pathologist Extension Soil Scientist

20. Gap Analysis: Areas that Only Need to be Filled Regionally (QSSB and Farmer Response)

21. Gap Analysis: Areas That Could Be Done Better by the Private Sector

22. Gap Analysis: Potential Land Grant University Research Position Vacancies (During the Next Five Years)

23. Addressing Challenges, Looking Ahead

24. PCAST: New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agriculture 1. Managing new pests, pathogens and invasive plants 2. Increasing the efficiency of water use

25. 3. Reducing the environmental footprint 4. Growing food in a changing climate PCAST: New Challenges Require a New Investment in Agriculture

26. 5. Managing the production of biofuels and bioenergy 6. Providing safe and nutritious food 7. Feeding the world

27. PCAST: Key Findings Finding 1: Federal funding for ag research low Finding 2: Agricultural research not balanced Finding 3: Need to address the seven main challenges

28. PCAST: Recommendations 1. Expand the role of competition in agriculture funding: Increase funding for basic science relevant to ag Increase competitively awarded USDA funding AFRI to $500 million NSF to $250 million

29. PCAST: Recommendations 2. Increase funding for advanced research fellowship programs 3. Expand program of competitive awards for new infrastructure in specialized areas 4. Invest $150 million per year to create six institutes to foster tech transfer

30. PCAST: Recommendations 5. Internal review of regulatory policy pertaining to ag tech transfer 6. Create committee to act on these recommendations

31. PCAST: Main Takeaways A strong agricultural research enterprise is needed now more than ever. The seven major challenges can be addressed through working group recommendations. Bottom line: PCAST recommends a $700 million per year increase in investments for ag research.

32. Gap Analysis: New Approaches Endowed Chairs Farmer's 3rd and university’s 4th choice Fund graduate student assistantships: – Farmer’s 5 th / University’s 1 st choice – 72% deans: cover researcher salary, overhead, tech support Regional Collaboration – 81% Farmers/ 59% University – Models Partnerships with Industry

33. Gap Analysis: Farmers’ Priorities (Yield, Quality, Profitability) QSSBs: Tether research proposals Common criteria Avoid duplication with the private sector Common performance measures United Soybean Board: National impact Support regional collaboration

34. Gap Analysis: Roadmap Greatest Threats: agronomy, pathology, entomology, weed and soil Gaps Already Exist: not every university capable of ideal program Regional Coordinators Regional Collaboration and Performance Measures Focus USB/QSSB investment on farmers’ priorities, filling research gaps and cultivating new researchers

35. Gap Analysis: Outcomes Improved coordination of USB/QSSB research Establishment of a research strategic planning session Similar to the “Communication Roundtable” Funding of Critical Programs Better coordination of checkoff and industry research

36. Thank You