U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–501 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–172 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: 

PERSPECTIVES ON PAST 

AND FUTURE SUCCESSES 

FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 15, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/ 
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

JAMES A. GLUECK, JR., MAJORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

JESSICA L. WILLIAMS, CHIEF CLERK

JOSEPH A. SHULTZ, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL

(II) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

HEARING(S): 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 

2018 Farm Bill ..................................................................................................... 1 

Thursday, June 15, 2017 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 1 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan ..................... 3 

Panel I 

Bartuska, Ann, Ph.D., Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education 

& Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC .... 5 

Ramaswamy, Sonny, Ph.D., Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC .............. 7 

Jacobs-Young, Chavonda, Ph.D., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ..................... 8 

Rockey, Sally, Ph.D., Executive Director, Foundation for Food and Agriculture 

Research, Washington, DC .................................................................................. 10 

Panel II 

Floros, John, Ph.D., Dean and Director, College of Agriculture and K-State 

Research and Extension, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS ............... 33 

McMurray, Gary, Division Chief, Food Processing Technology Division, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA .......................................................... 35 

Hartman, Kerry, Ph.D., Academic Dean and Sciences Chair, Environmental 

Sciences, Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College, New Town, ND .............................. 36 

Wellman, Steve, Farmer, Wellman Farms Inc., Syracuse, NE ............................ 38 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 48 

Bartuska, Ann ................................................................................................... 49 

Floros, John ....................................................................................................... 61 

Hartman, Kerry ................................................................................................ 68 

Jacobs-Young, Chavonda ................................................................................. 75 

McMurray, Gary ............................................................................................... 81 

Ramaswamy, Sonny ......................................................................................... 84 

Rockey, Sally ..................................................................................................... 94 

Wellman, Steve ................................................................................................. 105 

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie: 

Center of Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and Forest 

Lands (CISFRL), prepared statement ......................................................... 110 

Rockey, Sally: 

Addendum to Prepared Statement .................................................................. 118 
Page

IV 

QUESTION(S) AND ANSWER(S): 

Bartuska, Ann: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 120 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 129 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 155 

Floros, John: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 159 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 162 

Hartman, Kerry: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 164 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 165 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 167 

Jacobs-Young, Chavonda: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 168 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 169 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 183 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 184 

McMurray, Gary: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 186 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 189 

Ramaswamy, Sonny: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 192 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 193 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 203 

Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................... 206 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 208 

Rockey, Sally: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts .................................. 211 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 215 

Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand ....................... 217 

Wellman, Steve: 

Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow ......................... 220 

Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown ............................ 222 
(1) 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: 

PERSPECTIVES ON PAST 

AND FUTURE SUCCESSES 

FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL 

Thursday, June 15, 2017 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman 

of the committee, presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts, Boozman, 

Hoeven, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, Daines, Perdue, Stabenow, Brown, 

Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Casey, and Van Hollen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman ROBERTS. Good morning. I call this meeting of the 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to order. 

Someone once said, ‘‘Today American agriculture is in the grip of 

a technological revolution, as vast and as rapid as any in history. 

It is a revolution which has made the American farmer the most 

efficient in history. It has made his productivity the marvel and 

envy of every nation. Experts from all over the world come to see 

our farms, study our techniques, and learn our methods, and the 

farm technology we have developed here in the United States holds 

out hope to the world, for the first time, that no man, woman, or 

child on Earth needs to go hungry again.’’ 

These words are as accurate today as they were in the past, 

when said by then President John F. Kennedy. 

My colleagues, and those in the audience, times are pretty tough 

right now in farm country, and research is indeed the backbone 

that drives agriculture change, efficiencies, and productivity, and 

the U.S. must continue leading the charge to feed a growing population of an estimated 9.7 billion in the next several decades. 

Discretionary spending on the research, education, and economics mission area at the Department has remained fairly flat for the 

past six years, and yet budgets are getting even tighter here in 

Washington. However, we must continue to focus on agriculture research, and in February of this year we kicked off the farm bill 

process by holding a field hearing in Manhattan, Kansas, at Kansas State University, and 600 were in attendance. 

At that hearing, we heard from a variety of agriculture stakeholders, 21, about what they want to see in the next farm bill reau-
2 

thorization, but that day just did not include the hearing. My day 

started at the Kansas Wheat Innovation Center, where I toured the 

research labs and a greenhouse, and spoke with some of the center 

scientists, and observed cutting-edge research that will help keep 

our wheat growers as the most efficient and productive in the 

world. The Kansas Wheat Innovation Center is just one example of 

why the United States produces the safest, most affordable and 

abundant food and fiber supply in the world. 

In 2012, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the United 

States Department of Agriculture. That same year, we celebrated 

the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act, which established the 

land-grant college system. I might add that Kansas State University was the first land-grant institution created under that act. I 

well know—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. —the history with regards to Michigan 

State, and I will yield. 

Senator STABENOW. Official. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —the first official. I think you had a building and somebody just said that was official, and that we had the 

first land grant. Anyway, let us let that go. 

Because of the early investment U.S. leaders made in agriculture 

research and extension efforts, our producers are better equipped 

to manage through drought, disease, floods, fires, and a great deal 

more that Mother Nature throws at them. Today there are additional challenges. Farmers are combating new pests and diseases 

and unpredictable weather patterns. Livestock producers rely on 

best management practices supported by accurate data and data to 

continually improve their production efficiencies. At the same time, 

scientists must work to ensure consumers have accurate sciencebased information regarding the nutritional benefits in foods that 

consumers are demanding. 

My colleagues, we have our work really cut out for us with this 

farm bill reauthorization. We need to find ways to do more with 

less, to reduce burdens of overregulation, ask tough questions as 

we re-examine programs to determine their effectiveness, and if 

they are serving their intended purpose. Strong public-private partnerships have been the cornerstone of U.S. agriculture research. 

Senator Stabenow and I were the original cosponsors of the bill 

that became the foundation for food and agriculture research in the 

2000 Farm Bill. The foundation represents an opportunity to partner with the private sector and generate new funding streams in 

the light of budgetary constraints. In order to carry out bold and 

innovative agriculture research, this innovation should build upon 

and complement existing research at the Department of Agriculture. 

I look forward to hearing more this morning about how the foundation has used the seed funding Congress provided to leverage additional resources that produces results. I also look forward to 

hearing from leaders at the Department, our universities, and producers about research priorities for the next farm bill. 

So today’s hearing is an opportunity to take stock in where we 

have come from and discuss where we are going in agriculture research. Through the leadership of the Department of Agriculture 
3 

and setting priorities, the federal funding at our universities, and 

the investment of the public sector, I am optimistic about our future and overcoming the challenges that lie ahead. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank them for 

coming and participating. I know you all have valuable time. 

With that I am very pleased to recognize Senator Stabenow for 

any remarks she might want to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I first want to express what all of us are feeling about the shooting 

yesterday and Representative Steve Scalise, the staff, the Capitol 

Police, and that we all are saddened and horrified by what happened. 

I particularly want to lift up, though, a young man from Michigan, Matt Mika, who is very close to our staff. His mom and dad 

have flown in from Michigan and are now at the hospital. He has 

had one surgery, has to have another, and he is really in very serious condition, so we lift him up. He worked for two members of our 

congressional delegation in the House and is now with Tyson 

Foods, but we consider him part of the extended agriculture family 

and ask for specific prayers for Matt as he is going through tough 

times as well. 

I also want to thank our expert witnesses for being here today 

to discuss the importance of agricultural research, education, and 

extension. I have always said that we do not have an economy unless somebody makes something and somebody grows something, 

and that is exactly what agriculture research helps us do. Research 

initiatives included in the 2014 Farm Bill provide the tools and the 

science that sustain Michigan agriculture, and all of agriculture. 

I do want to indicate Michigan agriculture is our state’s secondlargest industry, supporting one out of four jobs. In fact every $1 

invested in agricultural research creates more than $20 in return 

to the U.S. economy, which is a great investment. Michigan is 

home to the country’s pioneer land-grant, my alma mater, Michigan State University. We will probably have to claim joint ownership at some point, depending on the timing here. 

The innovative work happening every day at land-grant universities, like Michigan State and Kansas State and other agricultural 

research institutions protects and improves our food system. Landgrant universities are unique in that they implement their research 

findings in communities through extension work. When I was getting my graduate degree I appreciated being a part of extension 

and seeing it close up. 

The Morrill Act of 1862 created the land-grant university system 

with the mission to serve rural communities. Since that time, the 

United States has led the world in agricultural research. However, 

over the last decade we have seen China, India and Brazil significantly increase their investment in agricultural research. China 

now has a 2-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in critical public investments to address emerging pests, disease, and extreme weather in 

the agriculture sector. If we allow our country to slip behind in ag-
4 

ricultural research, our farmers could lose their global competitiveness. 

Now, more than ever, it is critical to invest in public research 

and support our world-class agricultural research institutions that 

make our farms more productive and sustainable. From innovative 

robotic technology to precision agriculture, our scientists are pushing the bounds of what is possible to create new opportunities. 

In Michigan, we are famous for our wide variety of specialty 

crops, from our cherry trees and apple orchards to our hops yards 

and wineries, but many of those crops would not be thriving if it 

were not for targeted investments like the farm bill Specialty Crop 

Research Initiative. For example, Michigan has been the number 

one domestic producer of blueberries over the last 70 years, contributing more than $118 million to Michigan’s annual economy. 

While it might be easy to find these nutritious berries in your 

grocery store—and they are really good—their widespread popularity is thanks, in part, to agricultural research. Crops like blueberries have depended on innovative research to meet the changing 

needs of consumers and growers alike. Michigan State has developed some of the most widely planted varieties, with traits that 

work best for commercial production. 

But it is not just specialty crops that have benefitted. We are 

also growing jobs through research that strengthens the emerging 

bio-based economy. The 2014 Farm Bill supports the farms that 

produce our energy crops and provides innovative technologies for 

renewable energy projects across the country. Research breakthroughs have made it possible for bio-based products to enter the 

market, which contributes $393 billion to the U.S. economy and 

supports 4.2 million jobs, plus. 

There are many other ways, Mr. Chairman, I see that my time 

is running out. I am going to place some other comments as to 

other examples in the record. But let me just say, every day our 

farmers face new and emerging challenges posed by disease and 

invasive pests as well. In Michigan, invasive species are destroying 

our cherry harvests, and in Florida citrus greening is devastating 

orange groves. In Kansas, stripe rust has struck wheat farmers. 

Our agricultural researchers are stepping up to the plate, over 

and over again, to address these challenges. That is why, in the 

last farm bill, Chairman Roberts and I worked together to create 

the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research. I am thrilled 

to see some representatives from the foundation here today to update us. We owe so many of our accomplishments in agriculture to 

the scientists who conduct groundbreaking research. Every day 

they pave the way forward for farmers and food businesses. 

So I am very pleased that you are all here today. I also want to 

indicate that we are, unfortunately, having national debates over 

scientific facts, and I am not afraid to say that I believe in science. 

I know that in this Committee, when we are talking about research, we are talking about science. Science-based agricultural research is good for our farmers, good for our consumers, good for our 

economy, and I look forward, in the next farm bill, to strengthening 

our efforts, working together, based on our past bipartisan victories. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
5 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member. 

My colleagues, as you all know, we have three votes at 11:00. We 

are going to rotate back and forth during those votes to keep the 

hearing going. I only mention this to inform our panelists that we 

will keep going. If you can keep within the five-minute allotment 

that we have given you, despite the fact that both myself and the 

Ranking Member went over about 45 seconds, that would be fine. 

I would say that, like King Tut, we are pressed for time, but that 

is a horrible pun that I will not bring up. Please, no groaning. 

[Laughter.] 

Welcome to our first panel of witnesses before the Committee 

this morning. Dr. Ann Bartuska serves as the Acting Deputy 

Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics within 

the Department of Agriculture. Prior to her work at the Department she served in a variety of roles at the Forest Service, including the Deputy Chief of Research and Development from 2004 to 

2010. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony. 

Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy has served as the Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture since May of 2012. He has 

also held a number of leadership positions at universities across 

the country, including Kansas State University, where he was a 

distinguished professor and head of the Entomology Department. 

Welcome, sir, and thank you for participating. 

Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young has served as Administrator of the 

Agricultural Research Service, the Department of Agriculture’s 

chief science in-house research agency, since February of 2014. Previously she worked in a variety of leadership roles at the Department, at the Agriculture Research Service, the Office of Chief Scientist, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Welcome, and thank you for today’s joining—to joining today’s panel. 

Dr. Sally Rockey serves as the first Executive Director for the 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. Prior to this role, 

she led the Competitive Grants Program at the Cooperative State 

Research Education and Extension Service, what is now known as 

NIFA. Dr. Rockey also served as the Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health. Welcome, Dr. 

Rockey, and I look forward to your testimony. 

We will begin now with Dr. Ann Bartuska. Doctor? 

STATEMENT OF ANN BARTUSKA, PH.D., ACTING DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and distinguished members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, 

and Forestry Committee, I am very pleased to be able to be here 

with you to provide an overview of the activities of the research 

branch of USDA, and particularly research education and economics, my mission area. 

But before I begin my statement I would like to offer my sympathy from the entire USDA family to the victims of yesterday’s 

shooting and share your thoughts, Senator Stabenow. 

I am, as introduced, Dr. Ann Bartuska, Acting Under Secretary 

and Acting Chief Scientist of the USDA. I, however, was serving 
6 

as Deputy Under Secretary since 2010, and have really been privileged to be part of the REE mission area. REE has four agencies: 

the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the National Institute 

of Food and Agriculture. Two of the administrators are here today, 

as have already been introduced, Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy, the Director of NIFA, and Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, who is the Administrator of Agricultural Research Service. 

The United States and the world are facing critical problems and 

opportunities. Global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion 

people by 2050, almost two and a half billion more people than 

today. At the same time, we are struggling with extreme weather 

events and conditions that really impact so many agricultural production systems. Investments in research are a critical factor in 

meeting these and other challenges and opportunities, and it is the 

REE mission area agencies that support the critical research and 

analyses that our country needs to ensure farm profitability and 

strengthen our communities, improve nutrition and food safety for 

lifelong health, and safeguard sustainable use of natural resources, 

including an abundant and safe water supply. 

REE’s work in food and agricultural sciences is based on the 

premise that the Federal Government has a role in advancing scientific knowledge to promote our nation’s social and economic wellbeing. REE does this by investing in areas in which for-profit industry does not invest, such as basic research. It also collaborates 

with public sector academic and the private sector to amplify research outcomes. 

We know that the return on investment in agricultural research 

is $20 for every dollar spent. An under-investment or absence of investments in food and agricultural sciences diminishes the needed 

foundational knowledge base that fuels innovation—many of the 

things that Senator Stabenow mentioned in terms of precision agriculture and advances in technology are part of that innovation— 

and impacts our nation’s global preeminence and economic 

wellbeing. It is with these goals in mind that the REE mission area 

agencies establish their priorities and conduct their work. 

Expected gains in agricultural yield and production are unlikely 

to sustainably provide food, fiber, and fuel to meet the needs of 

2050, without additional resources for research. As it has been 

pointed out, the U.S. is losing its global scientific dominance and 

research leadership to emerging countries in addressing agricultural productivity and profitability challenges. China has surpassed 

the U.S. and it continues to increase its investment in agricultural 

research. 

Mr. Chairman, despite significant efforts by recent farm bill and 

annual spending bills to enhance agricultural science in the United 

States, we are at a crossroads. Although REE has made significant 

strides in our physical infrastructure, our human infrastructure, 

and big science capabilities, we are falling further and further behind. There is much to be accomplished. Our storied legacy of discovery, innovation, and international leadership in agricultural research, education, and economics is in jeopardy by insufficient investments in both money and in minds. 
7 

This is a challenge that we must all rise to meet and REE looks 

forward to rising to that challenge. 

Thank you for giving me some time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartuska can be found on page 

49 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you so much for your testimony and 

for keeping within the time limit. 

Next we have Dr. Ramaswamy. 

STATEMENT OF SONNY RAMASWAMY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, and Ranking Member Stabenow, and Committee members. Thank you so 

much for having us here this morning for me to share with you a 

little bit of information about the National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture, and we have submitted the written testimony that has 

got a lot more detail in it as well. 

We have, in America, our food systems, collectively, according to 

the Economic Research Service, is pretty close to a trillion-dollar 

enterprise, and it supports 21 million jobs. The role of the National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture is to provide the research and extension underpinnings, and the educational underpinnings, of that 

enterprise itself. 

I would like to say that what NIFA supports, across America, the 

science that we support is inspired by the end users, and once the 

work is done it is translated into innovations and solutions and delivered to the end users, and it transforms people’s lives. 

I want to share with you two examples of that. 

The first example is Dr. Barbara Valent from Kansas State University, last year went to Kentucky, and discovered wheat blast 

disease on spring wheat seedlings. This is a particularly vexing disease that can potentially destroy almost 100 percent of the wheat, 

and the work that she did with funding from NIFA and her colleagues at University of Kentucky and the Agricultural Research 

Service has resulted in our ability to very rapidly determine what 

species of wheat blast we have, so that we can deploy the appropriate approaches to deal with it. 

A second example, from Michigan, is the work that is done by 

our extension colleagues there at Michigan State University, and 

just yesterday we heard that the Attorney General of Michigan has 

filed charges against people involved in the Flint water situation— 

lead in the water situation. Our extension colleagues at Michigan 

State University were on the ground as soon as they discovered 

lead in the water, and started deploying information to those folks 

out there, and providing—in addition to providing just water, bottled water, they also provided information on improving the nutrition of the children so that if you can improve the nutrition of those 

children they will not have to suffer the long-term effects of lead 

itself. 

So those are a couple of examples of the transformative work 

that NIFA supports. Our mission is to catalyze transformative research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges, and at 

the end of the day, the support that we provide is really about our 
8 

producers, our farmers and livestock producers in America. We 

want to make sure that they are able to remain profitable. That, 

at the end of the day, as you said, Mr. Chairman, farm incomes are 

depressed, have been depressed here in the last few years now, and 

we have got to do everything we can to give them a leg up. 

So our budget is about $1.5 billion. It is split up into two big 

buckets. One supports the experiment stations extension and education, and the other funding is provided for competitive grants. 

These funds, as you noted, and Senator Stabenow noted, provides 

tremendous return to our nation, 20-to-1 return on the investments 

that we make. 

Unfortunately, however, we are falling further and further behind, as has been noted by you and my colleague here, Dr. 

Bartuska, as well. We are falling further and further behind, so we 

have got to do everything we can to ensure that this innovation engine that we have got is going to be supported and protected. 

We undertake stakeholder conversations throughout the year, 

and currently we are undertaking conversations about protecting 

the biosecurity for our food systems, about nutrition education, 

about youth education and 4–H, and about our 1994 tribal-serving 

institutions as well, and we hope to aspirationally incorporate 

those, as we go forward, to work with you and your colleagues in 

the farm bill itself, as we go forward as well. 

With that, I want to go ahead and thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts with you about the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramaswamy can be found on 

page 84 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Doctor, thank you very much for your very 

fine extemporaneous report, and we appreciate your observing the 

time limit. 

Dr. Jacobs-Young. 

STATEMENT OF CHAVONDA JACOBS–YOUNG, PH.D, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Good morning, Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow and the distinguished members of the Committee. 

My USDA colleagues and I represent the agencies that exemplify 

the mandate expressed in President Abraham Lincoln’s 1862 executive order establishing the Department of Agriculture, which the 

Department was charged with conducting practical and scientific 

experiments to improve the quality and security of agriculture in 

the United States. 

As U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency, ARS has about 1,900 scientists at 90 laboratories located throughout the United States, that carry out the mission and 

constitute an important component of USDA’s science enterprise. 

We have world-class research laboratories from Maine to Hawaii, 

and we maintain research facilities in France, China, Argentina, 

and Australia, that serve as bases for our insect, pest, and biocontrol collection efforts. 
9 

ARS has internationally recognized scientists working on every 

issue affecting American agriculture today, be it disease and insect 

pest, water use, soil erosion, drought, improving production yields, 

food safety, or crop and animal management strategies. Key to our 

success has been our strong partnerships and our collaborations. 

We work closely with our land-grant university partners, scientists 

from other federal agencies, international organizations, and many 

industry scientists and producers. 

ARS scientists have played an important role in providing the objective science that action and regulatory agencies depend on as 

they set their policies. ARS’s institutional capacity, our wide-ranging expertise, and our geographic reach allows us to conduct coordinated and integrated research, targeting national and regional agricultural priorities of importance to our many stakeholders. 

Since its inception, USDA has recognized the importance of having both intramural and extramural scientific research. The 

strength of having an intramural agency provides ARS and the 

USDA, and the United States, with unique capabilities, and we 

have huge responsibilities. We are responsible for conducting that 

research that is inherently governmental—public service, public 

good research. 

We support the action of regulatory agencies within USDA and 

across the Federal Government with sound scientific data. We 

maintain essential germplasm collections. In fact, we have the largest germplasm collection in the world. We conduct long-term nutritional studies and maintain very, very important databases. We operate long-term experimental watershed facilities. We respond to 

emergencies and national disasters. We engage in long-term research to meet national goals. 

This infrastructure expertise and nationwide network of partnerships is needed to respond quickly to national agricultural emergencies, for example, the H1N1 swine flu virus, the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or soybean rust, and to prepare for those 

emerging diseases such as Ug99, stem rust disease of wheat, or 

foot-and-mouth disease of cattle that are not yet here in this country, but we will be prepared. 

So how does all of this benefit America? Over the years, our public investment and the cooperation in agricultural research among 

the private sectors, universities, and government has given Americans the safest, most nutritious, and most abundant—and might I 

say most affordable—food supply anywhere. 

So agriculture has formed the foundation of our nation, the national economy, for the past 200-plus years, and our agricultural 

research has been the key to that success. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs-Young can be found on 

page 75 in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for a very strong 

statement. 

Dr. Rockey. 
10 

STATEMENT OF SALLY ROCKEY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FOUNDATION FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ROCKEY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and 

members of the Committee, I am Sally Rockey and I am the Executive Director of the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research, 

known as FFAR. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify 

before you as Congress considers its priorities in the next farm bill. 

As you know, FFAR is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, established with bipartisan support in the 2014 Farm Bill 

to serve as a new and unique model in our nation’s mission to be 

the global leader in food and agricultural sciences. We fund innovative science that is solving real-world problems, by filling research 

gaps and accelerating science through partnerships. An essential 

part of this model is our ability to leverage private sector funds to 

deliver huge value for the American taxpayer. The U.S. government’s $200 million investment in FFAR eventually returns more 

than $400 million in valuable science. 

FFAR unites researchers with funding partners like venture capitalists, industry, philanthropies, and expands the funding pool for 

agricultural science by coalescing groups together around common 

priorities. The foundation is also nimble and efficient, with the 

ability to award grants very quickly, and in some cases as little as 

in one week. 

Building a foundation from scratch was really no small task, but 

since I came on board in late 2015, FFAR has hired talented staff 

and developed reliable systems to protect the taxpayers’ investment. Our esteemed board of directors has grown, and we have established advisory councils to guide us in our research. 

To date, FFAR has delivered $32.4 million and 22 grants with 

more than 41 funding partners. By the end of the year, we will 

have obligated about half of our $200 million in public funding, 

leveraging, as I said before, another $100 million in additional 

funds. 

Our first major research project was funded with the Samuel 

Roberts Noble Foundation. It was to increase the use of cover crops 

and create new cover crop resources, with the goal of significantly 

improving soil health, one of the most valuable resources for our 

farmers. 

We recently awarded our first Rapid Outcomes from Agricultural 

Research, or as we call it, ROAR, grant, in partnership with the 

Cherry Marketing Institute and Michigan State University, to combat an invasive pest that will benefit the fruit industry in eight 

states. This program demonstrates our ability to accept applications as critical issues arise, and to fund them very quickly. 

FFAR also is positioned to fund science that adapts to industry 

needs. For example—and you may have just read about the story 

this morning in The Washington Post—FFAR just announced a $2 

million effort to address the emerging issue in cage-free egg production, to improve the health and productivity of cage-free hens. 

This week, we awarded a very innovative grant to the University 

of Illinois who is bringing together the latest in plant simulation 

models to predict how plants respond to their environment, which 
11 

can vastly accelerate the pace and the development of new crops 

with beneficial traits. 

More robust funding and research will allow the United States 

to maintain its science prominence, and will give our producers the 

opportunity to apply cutting-edge research results and technologies 

to their operations. However, as was already stated, Federal funding for agricultural research has been relatively stagnant over the 

last decade. FFAR offers an opportunity to not only increase the 

overall funding pool but increase it for cutting-edge science. 

Not only does science drive our economy but it is also progressing 

at, really, what is a breath-taking pace. We are becoming a pivotal 

player at FFAR in seizing emerging scientific opportunities in the 

food and agricultural research community, and we know our model 

will serve us well in driving innovation in the future. 

One innovative process that FFAR is exploring now is photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is what makes a plant a plant, and it allows 

it to acquire energy from the sun. By increasing photosynthetic capacity, we can dramatically increase crop yields. 

We are grateful for the opportunity to continue to work with 

Congress to ensure FFAR is reauthorized and fully funded in the 

next farm bill, consistent with the bipartisan legacy, as an institution contributing to the long-term competitiveness of our nation’s 

food and agriculture sector. 

To the members of this Committee who were so instrumental in 

establishing FFAR, I thank you on behalf of the entire food and agriculture community. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rockey can be found on page 94 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Dr. Rockey. 

Dr. Ramaswamy and Dr. Jacobs-Young, we are in the first week 

of the wheat harvest in Kansas. Not good news. We have lost about 

40 percent of our crop due to a very late freeze. We had that 11- 

county, 850,000-square-mile prairie fire, a freeze before that. I have 

no idea what we have done to Mother Nature but she sure has 

taken it out on us. 

Your testimony references the work of Dr. Valent at K-State, and 

what she has been doing in coordination with AFRI and ARS on 

wheat blast. You mentioned that in your comments. I understand 

that ARS research has been conducted through the wheat strip initiative, the wheat scab initiative, and the Insect Biotechnology 

Products for Pest Control and Emerging Needs in Agriculture 

projects. That is a lot of folks. 

Can you provide an update on these projects? Are there any partnership arrangements that are key to this work? How can the Department work be improved in these areas? Please, first, Dr. 

Ramaswamy. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts. Indeed, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is investing 

significant resources in helping develop new varieties of wheat that 

can withstand those early freezes, then the flooding situation, and 

then you have got the drying up and the drought situation as well. 

New varieties of wheat that are coming along, work being done at 

Kansas State University, at the University of Minnesota, at multiple universities across America, are going to have traits, charac-
12 

teristics in them that will allow them to withstand not just the biological constraints, such as wheat blast and other, insect problems 

as well. In addition, they will be able to withstand the environmental conditions, the extreme weather events that you referenced 

as well. 

We are, hoping that these varieties that are going to come along 

here, the investments that we are making now, will result in offering our producers better ways of dealing with the challenges that 

they face. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Jacobs-Young, any comments? 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Yes. ARS manages the Wheat and Barley 

Scab Initiative, which is a coalition of university, federal, and industry partners. I would just like to say that they have been working very hard on developing new varieties that increase resilience 

and reduce vulnerability, and because of their efforts, over the past 

10 years we have been able to reduce the amount of mycotoxin in 

wheat by 32 percent in durum wheat. We see some real evidence 

of the work that they have done in the varieties that have been released. 

We have also identified wheat that is resistant to Ug99, and 

while we do not have it here in the United States we have developed varieties that are being planted around the world. So we will 

be prepared. We have a diagnostic to determine the difference between Ug99 rust and other rust pathogens, and our wheat quality 

laboratories, which you are very familiar with, around the country, 

have been so instrumental to the wheat industry. 

So we are working very hard in releasing varieties that have increased tolerance or resistance to some of the diseases that we are 

being faced with. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Rockey, as one of the original co-sponsors of FFAR, and a strong advocate for investment in agricultural 

research, we are certainly hoping for the long-term success of the 

foundation. I appreciate your efforts to keep our committee updated 

as FFAR gets up and running. The last bill, as you have indicated, 

provided $200 million in mandatory funds as a seed investment to 

establish FFAR. 

In a time when there are almost no new programs being created, 

what are your plans to generate new funds and demonstrate 

project outcomes in order to enable FFAR to be a sustainable tool 

to support AG research into the future? I am especially interested 

in long-term investments. I know that you have a good record here 

in the last few months—well, the last six months—with short-term 

projects that are paying off with private partnerships. What about 

long-term? 

Ms. ROCKEY. Thank you for that question, Chairman. We have 

been working quite a bit on thinking about long-term sustainability 

as an organization. If you think about the model that was defined 

in the original 2014 Farm Bill, that model really only works when 

we have a continued financial investment from Congress. Really, 

the Federal funds are what attract our partners, and we are able 

to leverage them and bring in additional funds. So we leverage 

their funds and they also leverage the Federal funds, and that allows us to create this unique partnership and bring additional 

funds to the table for agriculture. 
13 

But the reauthorization of FFAR as an organization really allows 

us to solidify as a viable research entity and a viable research institution, capable of funding our partners. 

We continue, as you noted, to fund projects. Some of our projects 

are very short-term. For example, in our rapid response program, 

grants are for year-long projects. We are able to put money on an 

issue quickly while the USDA then comes back in with some 

longer-funded projects. However, we also are funding some longterm projects. Our grants can range up to five years, and will continue to, depending on the type of science that comes across our 

transect. We will fund either long or short-term projects, depending 

on the goals of the particular project. 

However, as an organization, we continue to think about how to 

build on these short-term successes and our plans for the future. 

We have built a credible organization. We have established our research priorities. We are securing additional funds. We have a low 

operating cost right now, as an organization. We have launched a 

giving program. We are looking at ways to generate IP revenue, 

and we are seeking major gifts. 

So all of this is no small task but we are building on the success 

that we have had of late, for our long-term sustainability. We are 

really establishing our reputation, and I think that is a lot of what 

is going to take us into our future. 

But I want to make something very clear to you, that we will be 

a successful organization, and we will fulfill every intent that you 

had in authorizing us in the first place. We have demonstrated now 

that the model really does work, and it will, but it will be dependent on our continued support from Congress. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I thank you. Senator Stabenow. 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to each of you, and Dr. Rockey, I was pleased to hear your comments, and I appreciate the grant that has been given most recently, two weeks ago, to tackle some specialty crop issues. I know 

there was a slow start, but things are moving now and I think it 

is very, very important that we continue to support this effort as 

a long-term effort. 

I did want to just comment, Dr. Jacobs-Young. You were talking 

about the Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. It takes me back. I 

was a new House member in 1997. I authored that initiative with 

a then new Republican colleague, Roy Blunt, and we are now both 

in the Senate. But when my constituents would excitedly ask me 

what was my first bill, and I said ‘‘wheat and barley scab,’’ it was 

not really exciting, but I am really pleased to know that it is still 

going on and is actually making a difference, so thank you for that. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Bartuska about the whole question on scientific integrity. We are here talking about research, how important this is. We know, fundamentally, this is so important for our 

farmers and food safety and the food economy. But there is a lot 

of debate right now, and public scrutiny, about science, and about 

facts. Under the last Administration, USDA developed its first scientific integrity policy, as well as fostered a culture of scientific integrity. 

So I wonder if you could talk a bit about what the USDA has 

done to gain the trust of the public and demonstrate it is con-
14 

ducting unbiased scientific research, and how you are addressing 

issues around scientific integrity. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Thank you very much for that question. We are 

very proud of our scientific integrity policy, not only that we initiated it very early on, among all the science agencies, but that we 

have since improved it and we have gone back out to many of the 

state of the art scientific integrity policies, in terms of what kinds 

of language you should have in a policy. What does a platinum 

version of a scientific integrity policy look like? We have refined it. 

We had a scientific integrity officer over the entire department. He, 

unfortunately, left but we were recently approved to hire a new 

one, even in a hiring freeze and at the time of some resource limitations. 

So the commitment USDA is making to a formal scientific integrity process is very high. It is investing in our own employees by 

providing training to all of our scientists. But we just recently 

agreed, many of the agencies, to extend that training to technicians 

and to those who use science but who are not scientists themselves. 

So again, there is a very strong commitment within USDA. I 

have to say, we were very pleased that the Union of Concerned Scientists, who had initially reviewed our first draft scientific integrity 

policy and found it wanting, have since reviewed all of the policies 

and have given us a very positive green light on what we have 

been able to accomplish. 

We believe that we have responded to the community and that 

we now have implemented a policy and an implementation that is 

demonstrating the highest standards of scientific integrity, and I 

think it is through our publications and the peer review process 

that the currency of science is reinforced. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. Dr. Ramaswamy, I 

wanted to ask you a little bit about organic research. All parts of 

agriculture are obviously incredibly important. Organic agriculture 

now counts for over 5 percent of the total retail food sales, as you 

know, making it one of the fastest-growing parts of agriculture, and 

bringing more people into focus, in terms of the importance of 

growing food and the agriculture economy. 

We know that the Organic Research and Extension Initiative has 

contributed to that success, and I wonder if you might talk about 

how other research programs at USDA help those organic producers address challenges and meet the increasing demands for 

their products. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Thanks very much, Senator Stabenow, for that 

question, and, indeed, to your point, organic agriculture is one of 

the fastest-growing segments of our agricultural enterprise in our 

nation, and it constitutes about $40 billion of farm value as we are 

looking at it, and continues to grow as well. 

The Organic Research and Extension Initiative, along with the 

Organic Transitions program are two of the programs specifically 

geared to provide funding for, research and extension efforts that 

support our organic producers. Along with that, the Agriculture 

and Food Research Initiative and our Specialty Crops Research Initiative also encourage applicants to submit grant proposals in support of organic efforts as well. 
15 

So the sum total of funding that goes to organic type enterprises, 

within the competitive grants arena, is in the neighborhood of 

around about $40 to $50 million a year. Along with that, the support that we provide for experiment stations and extension, adds 

an additional $30 to $50 million of investments that the land-grant 

universities are making. 

So those discoveries, that knowledge, is certainly of significant 

use, whether it is pest control, pest management, or dealing with 

the soil health and other issues as well. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Bennet. 

Senator BENNET. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding 

an excellent hearing. This is a great panel, and timely, I think, because of the budget that has been submitted. So I really appreciate 

it. 

Dr. Jacobs-Young, for 110 years the Central Great Plains Research Station in Akron, Colorado, has been working with local 

groups like the Colorado Wheat Growers to research crop varieties 

that grow best in local conditions. That is a very big challenge, as 

in my state. They also focus on new management techniques to 

conserve water and soil resources, helping the environment and improving the bottom line for farm businesses, generation after generation, for more than a century. 

Despite this, the President’s fiscal year ’18 budget proposes closing this station and 16 other similar research stations across the 

country. I wonder if you could tell the panel a little bit about the 

role these research field stations play and how they work to provide useful information to local growers and producers. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Thank you so much for your question, Senator. 

As Dr. Bartuska shared, and the Chairman as well, we have a 

huge goal ahead of us, of feeding 9.7 billion people by 2050, and 

ARS is right at the center of helping us achieve that goal. We were 

faced with the task of having to find $161 million in reductions for 

ARS, and through that process—— 

Senator BENNET. Who gave you that task? 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. It is a part of our President’s budget proposal. 

Senator BENNET. Yes. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. —ARS has the reduction of $161 million. 

Senator BENNET. Yes. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. As you can imagine, over the past years, because budgets have not grown tremendously, we have done a big 

job of trying to look across our portfolio, using data to streamline 

and consolidate. 

So we are at the point where every decision we make today is 

a tough one. Everything that we give up today, is important, but 

we have to make the decision to make these reductions and we 

used three criteria for how we are doing this. 

The first one, we looked at our employees. ARS is who it is because of our people. How do we minimize the impact to our ARS 

scientific workforce? Therefore, we looked at extramural funding. 

The second one is that we looked at those things that preserve 

ARS’s infrastructure—our germplasm collections, our LTAR net-
16 

work, our critical databases, et cetera, et cetera. So we looked at 

those things and said that we needed to protect those because they 

are uniquely what ARS provides to the scientific community. 

The third one was we had to balance the portfolio, and using 

data to determine the capacities of all of our research projects in 

our locations. So when we took a look across the portfolio, we 

looked at those locations and projects that might be challenged, 

from a resource perspective human capital, infrastructure, IT, and 

dollars. 

So we used a data-driven process to look at everything, to make 

those decisions. Unfortunately, Akron is on the list for proposed 

cuts in FY 18. 

Senator BENNET. Well, it is not—— 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. I assure you it was a data-driven process 

and it was not an easy one. 

Senator BENNET. Well, it is not. I can tell you that it is not going 

to be acceptable to me, and I don’t think to the United States Senate, to cut it, because there is no replacement for it, and, frankly, 

I hope I speak for other members of the Committee when I say that 

because of the leadership of the Chairman and the Ranking Member in the last farm bill, this is the only committee that actually 

created deficit reduction. This committee did. The people that we 

represent in farm country in the United States stepped up to the 

plate, when no other committee in the Congress did that. No other 

committee did that. For them to be presented with a 30 percent cut 

to the Department of Agriculture is an insult. It is worse than an 

insult. It is a war on rural America, I think, and rural Colorado. 

There is not a replacement for the Akron Research Station. 

There is not anybody else who is going to help our wheat farmers 

do what they need to do, or wheat growers do what they need to 

do, year after year, because of changes in the climate and changes 

in the environment. 

So I can appreciate that you made a ‘‘data-driven’’ decision and 

I think it is a terrible decision, for the people that I represent in 

my state, and I think, in the context of this Committee doing its 

work in a way that, because of your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and 

Senator Stabenow from Michigan, it is entirely unacceptable to me 

that they are trying—and they do not even balance the budget. So 

they have an unbalanced budget that they are trying to balance on 

the backs of our farmers and our ranchers, and it is absolutely unacceptable to me, because of the work that we have already done. 

The sacrifices that have already been made in an environment with 

commodity prices where they are, it adds insult to injury and it is 

utterly unacceptable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Bennet, thank you very much for 

reading the speech that I wrote. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BENNET. I hope I put the emphasis in the right places. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Some of the adjectives were a little out of 

line, but I think we can do that. 

Senator BENNET. Thank you. I am always happy to repeat your 

words. 
17 

Chairman ROBERTS. The President proposes and we dispose. I do 

not know of any—this is not an admonition I would like to expound 

upon, but the President proposes, we dispose. There has been a lot 

of talk about this budget, more especially in my view on crop insurance, AG research, et cetera, et cetera. That is not going to happen. 

It is simply not going to happen. We are in dire circumstances, and 

as you have indicated, we have given and given. We have got crop 

insurance cuts, $6 billion, and then seeing what they have done, 

like Lizzie Borden taking an ax and cutting another $6 billion. 

Then there was another three in the omnibus, which we saved. 

We stand ready to do what we have to do and meet our budget 

responsibilities, and I thank you for your comments. 

We have—Senator Donnelly is gone. It will be Senator Casey. 

Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you and the 

Ranking Member for having this hearing, and what a great panel, 

and I wish we had even more time. 

I wanted to start with Dr. Bartuska with regard to the Chesapeake Bay and nutrient management. I will also, in the interest of 

time, to try to get at least to a second major question for Dr. 

Ramaswamy on lead in soil. 

But let me start with the Chesapeake Bay. In Pennsylvania, our 

state is the source of much of both the fresh water for the Chesapeake Bay and also much of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution 

that enters the Chesapeake Bay, so I am particularly concerned in 

nutrient management tools, technologies, and practices that can 

help Pennsylvania’s farmers meet Chesapeake Bay restoration 

goals. 

Could you tell us about the work of USDA with regard to nutrient management, either on the modeling and forecasting side or 

the actual on-farm nutrient management? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I would be happy to. Actually, as a born-andraised Philadelphian, I am well aware of the connection between 

Pennsylvania and the Bay, and actually worked in that area about 

20-some years ago. I am glad to say we have made improvements, 

partly because we have recognized what can be done on farm to reduce runoff. Bringing those practices into place through extension 

has been really important. I have to commend our University Park 

ARS lab, partly, for some of the research, as well as our competitive grants program. 

But in particular, connecting our research and science as information through extension and Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, Farm Service Agency, so that they know what those practices are, to help encourage them to adopt them but also to give 

them the tools they need to be able to do that. 

When it comes to lower down in the watershed we are increasingly looking at tools to reduce the impact locally. Can we do remediation on site? Can we be doing better modeling—I am sorry— 

monitoring of those sites, including in water columns, so you get 

real-time estimates of what nitro and phosphorus loading is happening and can take action? 

You mentioned modeling. That has been one of the areas where 

we, with the university community, have really tried to better con-
18 

nect a specific practice with what it does, in terms of the nutrient 

loading, and then address those loadings. 

Then, lastly, I have to acknowledge the Economic Research Service that has done quite a bit of work on the economics and the decision-making of farmers—why they choose practices, why they 

choose some practices over other practices, and identifying how can 

we provide them the tools to make a better decision. 

We really have everything from biogeochemistry and the chemistry of the site to the water quality, measuring to the monitoring 

to the modeling, and then the extension piece. 

Senator CASEY. How about kind of the appropriations budget 

question, which is, do you have the resources to do what you just 

talked about? Any—do you have a sense of what your resources are 

to carry out that task? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I think we are still assessing what the specific 

implications of the ’18 President’s budget is and what projects and 

what specific activities take place. I do know that through NIFA’s 

competitive grants—and Dr. Ramaswamy might talk to this—the 

water challenge area is continuing to focus on that. 

We will continue to support the highest priority work and nutrient management is part of the portfolio that we believe is very important for agricultural producers. 

Senator CASEY. Well, I hope if you need more resources, obviously, we hope you tell us over time, when you have a sense of 

that. 

Thank you very much, Doctor, for that. You were born in Philadelphia, you said? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Yes. 

Senator CASEY. That is great. Well, we always want you to come 

back. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Yes, from East Falls. 

Senator CASEY. Oh yeah. Thank you so much. 

I also wanted to raise a question on lead with Dr. Ramaswamy. 

I have heard from constituents across our state, obviously in the 

context of what happened in Flint, Michigan, with regard to water, 

but in our state, a major challenge is lead, lead paint in the old 

homes, and the numbers might be even higher there. But also, I 

just got off the phone this morning with a reporter investigating 

lead in the soil, and I know that is not what your testimony was 

directly about, but your testimony indicated that NIFA worked 

with Michigan State Extension and Edible Flint on a program focused on lead in the soil if you want to grow—if people want to 

grow their own food. 

Is there anything you can tell us about that initiative, or initiatives like it, that would be helpful in the context of just folks that 

might have lead in their soil in their back yard and they may not 

be growing food. But what would you recommend and what could 

you do to help on that? 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Yeah. Indeed, I would like to, Senator Casey, 

speak to the work that is going on in your state, in Pennsylvania, 

and folks at Penn State, as well as the Rodale Institute, are—they 

have received funding from NIFA, both competitive funding as well 

as what we refer to as capacity funds for the experiment station 

and extension. 
19 

Very specifically, to address the question that you asked of Dr. 

Bartuska as well, in regards to the eutrophication of the Chesapeake Bay with excess nutrients going through, and also tied to 

soil health itself, very recently, Professor Heather Gall received an 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative funding on that question 

of developing approaches to mitigating the movement of these nutrients that are impacting the Chesapeake Bay. Also, Joseph Keller 

at Penn State is looking at improving soil health. By growing certain types of crops and trees and things like that, that can—there 

have been some poplar trees that have been developed, varieties 

that have been developed, that can specifically go in and remove 

lead and other heavy metals, like arsenic and things like that, as 

well. 

We continue to invest resources in soil. If we do not have good 

soil health, as you know, we will not have good crops and livestock 

in our agricultural systems. We are going to be hurt. 

I want to get back to, specifically, after you asked the question, 

do we have enough resources and things like that, and, the funding 

rate within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative today, we 

do a three-year rolling average over the last three years, sits 

around 13 percent. Over the last three years, on average, we have 

received pretty close to 3,000 proposals, of which the grants panels, 

these peer panels that we have, have recommended over 1,200 of 

those to be funded. Many outstanding, many in high priority. Unfortunately, we have only funding to support just about 480 of 

those proposals. 

Senator CASEY. Out of 1,200. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Yes, sir. So a lot of them—— 

Senator CASEY. Then we have got to go—— 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. —are, left on the floor. 

Senator CASEY. He is tapping. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ramaswamy, 

in your testimony you mentioned how NIFA collaborates with other 

government agencies such as DOD, NIH, NSF, VA, and a host of 

others. Can you discuss, in more detail, how collaboration works, 

and perhaps give us some examples of the work done through collaboration? 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Thanks so much for that question. I was hoping that one of you was going to ask me that question. 

Indeed, the innovations and collaborations with the National 

Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Agency 

for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, we have 

a number of those. I will give you two examples in the field of, biophysical sciences, and then I will give you an example in regards 

to the opioid crisis that we have got as well. 

So we have got, with NSF and NIH, we partner with them in 

this area. We refer to it as the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious 

Diseases. There are a number of infectious diseases that impact 

animals, plants, honeybees, as well as livestock animals and humans. There is a commonality in some of these things, and some 
20 

of them get vectored, carried by insects and other, species of arthropods and invertebrates. So trying to understand how these diseases, the epidemiology of the ecology of it, and things like that, 

and whether it is foot-and-mouth disease or colony collapse disorder in honeybees and others, we have collaboratively provided 

funding and we have this ongoing relationship with those agencies 

now. 

For every dollar NIFA invests, it leverages about $5 to $10 from 

those other agencies. We partner, by the way, with the British Biotechnology Research and Science Council as well on those topics. 

In regards to our relationships with the Veterans Administration 

and the Department of Defense, and Health and Human Services, 

we partner with those agencies and the substance abuse and mental health service agency, SAMHSA, and deploying funding that 

they provide to us through interagency agreements, that goes 

through extension to address the opioid crisis, for example, 

amongst our veterans and active duty service members’ families, 

children and their families as well. 

Then, as you know, we have got this terrible scourge of the 

opioid crisis across the United States, and those partnerships are 

critically important because the—our extension community is in 

every one of our 3,141 counties, boroughs, and parishes. We have 

got a footprint throughout the nation. That is being utilized to deploy information to help those communities. 

A good example of that is in Michigan and Ohio and Indiana, 

amongst the Amish community. Their children are exhibiting significant use and abuse of drugs and opioids. Our extension folks at 

Purdue University and Michigan State University and Ohio State 

University are working together to address the opioid crisis as well. 

So those are a couple of examples. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. That is excellent. 

Dr. Jacobs-Young, can you describe, in more detail, the importance of the ARS extramural research projects? How is ARS able 

to leverage what you learn with the extramural research with what 

you learn at your intramural facilities? 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. So one of the beauties of having an intramural agency is that all of our employees are Federal employees, 

outside of just our contractors, our postdocs, and others, so the expertise we do not have internal to the agency, we are able to use 

the extramural funding to partner with expertise at universities, at 

corporations. We are able to use those extramural funds to sort of 

bridge the gap between the expertise we have inside ARS. Most of 

those extramural grants are with our land-grant partners, and so 

we leverage those resources to get the job done. 

I think it is also important to note that sometimes those extramural resources are used as a convening resource, to bring together 

groups of people to work on some high-priority topics. That is how 

we use the extramural funding inside of the agency. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bartuska, 

how will you direct ARS to conduct targeted on-farm data collection 

of antibiotic use? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I am sorry, can you repeat that? 
21 

Senator GILLIBRAND. How will you direct ARS to conduct targeted on-farm data collection of antibiotic use? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. The antimicrobial resistance work that we have 

going on across USDA has become a really high priority, and working specifically with ARS and NIFA, we have identified, principally 

through the partnership with HHS, on a portfolio of research that 

needs to be accomplished. The agencies will then build that into 

their programs and priority investments as they shape their fiscal 

year planning. For ARS, in particular, something we have worked 

with them through our priority-setting process out of the Under 

Secretary’s office. We use the REE action plan, which was driven 

by the farm bill, to establish a set of priorities, and the antimicrobial resistance work is built into the overall priorities. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Do you feel you need any additional authorities to enhance the AMR collection? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Actually, I would like to defer that to Dr. JacobsYoung. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Thank you. So ARS partners with the Food 

and Drug Administration where we are a part of NARMS, the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Program. We are their 

technical arm to do a lot of the on-farm data collection and analysis. We have been partnering with them for a number of years, 

and we look forward to continuing that on-farm data collection, because it helps us be able to trace where the antimicrobial resistance begins, and learn a little bit more about management practices. 

We have been partnering with the FDA on that and we have a 

huge portfolio in antimicrobial resistance inside of ARS, looking at 

immune systems between animals, zoonotic diseases, looking for alternatives to antibiotics, looking at probiotics, for example, for use 

in chickens, that is in use right now, FloraMax, which was developed by ARS. It is currently in use to minimize the prevalence of 

enteric diseases in poultry and are actively advancing vaccine development. 

We have been working and we have a lot of great experts working on AMR, and I think the agriculture community could benefit 

from a lot of information for decision-making. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I agree. I would be grateful if you would 

work with my office on further issues on this. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Would love to do that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Mr. Ramaswamy, did you want to add 

something. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Yes, if I may, Senator Gillibrand. So NIFA’s 

portfolio funding in the world of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance over the last few years, particularly in relation to this 

interagency collaborative effort, we are investing—we have been investing between $5 and $15 million each year on looking at it from 

the farm to the dinner table, rather than just focusing on any one 

small part of it, looking across the food chain, the value chain 

itself, and the data that are coming out now in regards to improved 

animal husbandry and management, how might that help mitigate 

the amount of antibiotics to use, et cetera. These are all, new data 

that are really driving the management of our herds in many, 

many situations, and poultry flocks as well. 
22 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Well, to the extent you need any additional 

resources or authorities, please let us know, because we would like 

to provide that with you, because I think this needs to be a national priority. 

On the question of organics, Dr. Bartuska, how do you intend to 

increase the resources available to organic farmers or those that 

are transitioning, so that we can meet the domestic demand without having to rely so heavily on imports? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. We have noted, through the Census of Agriculture, as well as through work done by the Economic Research 

Service, there is increasing demand by those who are going into 

farming, to want to go into organic farming. Programs such as the 

ones at NIFA that Dr. Ramaswamy has already mentioned have 

been made available. We are actively promoting these programs 

through extension to these new farmers who want to move into 

organics. 

Part of it is also creating more tools for them, lot of the organic 

production is in specialty crops, and so growing the specialty crop 

program is another way that we see it as being very important for 

them to do. 

I might defer to both Dr. Ramaswamy and Jacobs-Young to talk 

more about their specific programs, if that would be all right. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Yeah, so picking up where Dr. Bartuska left, 

we have the Organic Research and Extension Initiative and the Organic Transitions Program funding that is provided, and collectively they provide in the neighborhood of around $20-plus million. 

We also have proposals that are submitted to us through our other 

competitive grants as well, so that is one part of it. 

Then the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Development Initiative, that brings in literally thousands of new aspirants wanting to 

get into the food and agricultural enterprise, there is a tie-in that 

is being provided that allows them to develop the knowledge and 

skills, the marketplace, the credit, the capital, et cetera, that is 

definitely needed in the world of organic agriculture. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. We are awaiting Senator Daines who would like to ask a question, specifically, and I 

will give him about 30 seconds to show up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I have a question for the record, if I could 

ask, Dr. Rockey. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I would be delighted—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Okay. 

Chairman ROBERTS. —to have you ask a question of Dr. Rockey. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. It is about the pollinator health fund, and 

I know the next panel will talk about pollinators as well, but to the 

extent you could tell us about the fund, some of the partner groups, 

and what research you expect to see supported by this initiative, 

I would be grateful, because, obviously, for upstate New York, for 

the Hudson Valley, our pollinators are essential. We grow a lot of 

fruits and vegetables. So the colony collapse disorder has created 

enormous worry and strain amongst our—both beekeeper populations but also our farmers. 
23 

So to the extent you could just do a briefing for us on the status, 

and any authorities, money, research you need added in the farm 

bill. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Senator Brown. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BROWN. I ask consent for another 60 seconds for Senator 

Gillibrand. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You have already used 30 seconds. Let us 

go. 

[Laughter.] 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. It is that second page. 

Senator BROWN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I 

was at two other hearings today and I apologize for not being right 

now in the moment. 

Dr. Ramaswamy, thank you for—all of you on the panel, thank 

you for your work. Thanks for walking the Committee through the 

work USDA does on the opioid crisis. In my state, more people die 

from opioid overdose than any state in the country. We are not the 

highest per capita; we are among them. But the tragedy particularly hits rural Ohio hard. That is one of the reasons that so many 

of us are alarmed at efforts in this body to take away insurance 

from people getting opioid treatment. In my state alone, 200,000 

people right now are getting opioid treatment, many of them in 

rural Ohio, getting opioid treatment right now, and who are getting 

the treatment because they have insurance through the Affordable 

Care Act. So thank you for running through that. 

I want to talk for a moment about extension agents and how extension agents are so many faces in USDA. I think back on our— 

I went to the county extension agent in Richland County, Ohio, 

when my brothers and I were going to plant apple trees on our 

family farm, and I remember that the extension agents said, ‘‘Now 

when you prune these apple trees, prune them until you think you 

have killed them and then prune them a little more.’’ We only followed their advice on about half the trees, because we just could 

not bring ourselves, as novices, to prune them as far back as we 

should, and those ones we pruned as far back as the AG extension 

agents told us were the ones that thrived the most. So thank you 

for the accumulated wisdom of decades of ag extension and what 

you do. 

How do we—700 folks at OSU Extension in Ohio, 700 folks, from 

helping small dairies to improving water quality to help, in my 

case, again, an urban gardener in Cleveland, Ohio, grow tomatoes. 

I did not stay on that family farm. Sorry. I want to ask this. How 

do we continue to empower these individuals to continue to address 

the ever-changing challenges inherent in agriculture and to interact with the increasing number of constituents who are interested 

in how their food is grown, where it comes from, and, in many 

cases, even growing it themselves? How do we sort of empower ag 

extension, a group of very committed, very talented men and 

women? 

One more point. John McCracken, in my office, was talking about 

the mission statement and sort of the history of ag extension, and 
24 

it just is—it is so important, and they love their jobs so much and 

what they contribute to our society. Dr. Ramaswamy? 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Senator Brown, thanks so much, and I appreciate your kind words that you spoke about our extension community, and you are absolutely right. Without extension—this is a 

model that the rest of the world wants to emulate—our nation— 

and I truly believe this—would not be globally pre-eminent. Our 

ability to translate knowledge and deliver that knowledge in the 

form of innovations and solutions, the hallmark of extension, is 

truly at the basis of why we have such, affordable food that is safe 

and nutritious, that the rest of the world wants to emulate as well. 

We have seen, over the last about 20 years or so, with the continuing challenges in America with our budgets, at the state level, 

at the county level, and at the Federal level, our extension footprint, across America, on average, in every state, has been reduced 

by 30 percent. We have lost a number of those boots on the ground, 

even in Ohio. What they have done is rather than going and having 

extension agents in every county they have now had to reduce that 

and create what we refer to as districts, so that you have agents 

servicing multiple counties. We see this across America, and that 

is the challenge that we have got. 

All of us need to wake up and really be concerned that this is 

going to be, putting us in a significantly challenging situation if we 

are not able to make sure that extension agents are not going to 

be working together. 

So in regards to your question, how do we empower them, we 

continue to work with the land-grant universities and, obviously, 

funding is one part of it but we also host stakeholder conversations 

and make sure that the researchers and the extension folks are all 

working together. But the challenges that are being felt—and, earlier I said that what NIFA does is inspired by the end users. So 

the contact with the end users is critically important for the work 

that needs to be done. 

Then the work that is undertaken, the research that is undertaken, that is translated and delivered by our extension folks, 

transforms people’s lives, and that is sort of an empowerment that 

we have had, historically, and we continue to do so, despite the fact 

that we are facing these budget challenges and things like that. It 

really comes from partnering with other agencies, partnering with 

the non-governmental sector, the Farm Bureau, the various commodity groups and other, and understanding what it is, and being 

a little bit more effective and smart in delivering that information, 

and utilizing technology as well, in, really looking at a multi-faceted approach to staying engaged with the end users. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I do—could I 

ask Dr. Jacobs-Young a question that she can respond to? 

Chairman ROBERTS. Very quickly. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I know we are coming up on vote. 

Senator BROWN. Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio, is 

the newest 1890 land-grant, even though it has been around for a 

while, Dr. Jacobs-Young, as you know. If you would just, in writing, 

respond, because of time, and because Senator Klobuchar just arrived, and Senator Daines has questions. Could you tell us how 
25 

ARS works with Central State and other HBCUs to increase capacity at the university, at best utilize its existing strengths? CSU has 

already started a STEM summer program for middle school students, and if you would give us an answer to that in writing—I 

apologize for doing it that way. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Okay. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Stabenow. Thank you for coming before this committee. I want to 

thank Chairman Roberts for joining me in Montana earlier this 

month. We had a Montana Ag Summit and it was a home run. I 

tell you, the people of Montana were very appreciative of you being 

there, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. My pleasure. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you for coming. I have got to tell you, 

just before we get into the questions here, there is a picture today, 

I just got tweeted, that warms my heart. It shows a picture of the 

Governor of Nebraska with a few great big boxes. They are airfreighting U.S. beef into Shanghai today, and that is really a huge 

moment. The second-largest beef import market in the world, 

China, and it is open now to U.S. beef, and that is a real milestone 

here for agriculture. 

Chairman ROBERTS. If the Senator would yield, I would like to 

pay credit to him for going to China, because of his background and 

prior serving in this body, I want to thank you for your initiative. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it was a great 

team effort and we are glad to see U.S. beef moving into China 

now. 

One theme that stood out in the summit that the Chairman was 

at in Great Falls, Montana—really, it is in the heart of the Golden 

Triangle, our wheat country in Montana—was the importance of ag 

research in ensuring that producers in Montana and the U.S. at 

large continue to be the most productive and most efficient farmers 

and ranchers in the world. 

Dr. Jacobs-Young, you highlighted, in your testimony, the importance of ARS labs throughout the United States, and I could not 

agree more. Montana farmers and ranchers value the great work 

conducted at ARS labs, in Sidney and Miles City, Dubois, Idaho, 

that provide research essential to our Montana grain-growers, 

ranchers, wool-growers, producers across the state as well as the 

nation. 

Could you speak about the range and livestock lab, actually, in 

Miles City, and the Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, 

that we are currently working on? 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. So in Dubois, Idaho, one of the things that 

we are working on there is sheep production, and one of the beauties and the unique nature of the Dubois location is the opportunity 

to graze at higher elevations, to be able to study the interface between wildlife and domestic animals. 

As you most likely know, for many years we have not been able 

to graze in those higher elevations because of legal challenges to 

the interface, and the possibility of impact on grizzly bears and bighorn sheep, and so we have been faced with those lawsuits since 

2007. We have had some difficulty completing our mission at 
26 

Dubois, Idaho, in terms of the grazing patterns we are trying to research. 

In Miles City, Montana, we also look at rangeland management 

of livestock and beef. We have some very important work that is 

being conducted there where the goals of the work at both of those 

locations are critically important, and in some cases we have some 

challenges being able to conduct that research. 

Senator DAINES. Well, thank you, and while all these stations 

discussed have been targeted by prior administration, they provide 

invaluable research. I have spent time out in Miles City, spending 

time with the researchers. It is invaluable research to our farmers 

and ranchers across a state like Montana. 

You know, we are from a pretty arid state. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Right. 

Senator DAINES. We do not get a lot of rain, and it is so important to understand the grasses and so forth and these interfaces 

you talk about. In fact, the Bighorn Sheep Foundation is now— 

their headquarters is in my hometown of Bozeman—— 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Yeah. 

Senator DAINES. —and we are working constructive with the 

wool-growers, our sheep operations, the folks of the Bighorn Sheep 

Foundation, to ensure we can have both, and I think we can. We 

are going to need this research. So we are going to continue to 

work hard to prevent these closures from occurring, and keep them 

moving forward. 

I want to shift gears and talk about our tribes. Montana is home 

to 12 federally recognized Indian tribes, 7 Indian reservations, and 

the state recognizes the Little Shell Tribe. Ag play an essential role 

in Indian country economies. Montana also has seven tribal colleges, spread throughout the state, in fact, the most of any state 

in the United States. These colleges play a critical role in disseminating research and best practices to tribal farms and ranchers. 

Dr. Ramaswamy, how is USDA working with tribes and tribal 

colleges to ensure that tribal producers have access to the latest research and are aware of the research-related services made available by the USDA? 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Thank you very much, Senator Daines, and, indeed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, broadly writ, works very 

closely with our tribal populations and tribal colleges, and specifically my agency, NIFA, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture works with the 36 institutions we have across America and 

the 7 in your state as well. 

There are a number of projects that we support. We offer funding 

for research, for education, for extension. There is also what is referred to as the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program as 

well, that partners with our 1862 institutions to bring knowledge 

to our tribal populations. 

We provide funding and the good thing is that very recently several tribal colleges, they partnered together to work on bison, for 

example—this is part of their heritage—on improving the breeds of 

bison—breeding of bison. That is a project that we provided funding through our Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. There is 

another one that is developing varieties of relevance to tribal populations that we have provided funding to as well. 
27 

So there are a number of projects that we provide funding, both 

through our competitive grants programs as well as through the 

regular capacity funds that we provide. 

Senator DAINES. Dr. Ramaswamy, I am out of time now, but 

thank you. You have answered the question well. I am going to 

turn it back to the chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I am back. I had another hearing and good to see all of you. I know many questions 

have been asked but I have not asked them, so here we go. 

The research is very important in my state, and even with all the 

advances that you have made, I think you know that it has been 

estimated that we will need to produce more than twice as much 

food as we do today to feed 9 billion people in the world. Do you 

think additional investment will be necessary to meet future demands in the ag sector when it comes to research? 

Anyone can take that. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Let me go ahead and start and then pass it over 

to the administrators. We definitely have produced, from our research, the ability to grow more food on less land, more efficiently, 

and that has continued to be the driver. We see it as absolutely 

critical. This figure of 9.7 people in 2050 is just looming in my 

brain, and every day I think about what we have to do to make 

our investments the most efficient. 

Within our resources available, we are going to continue to focus 

on that, with laser-like attention, and I think this is where we need 

to continue to be innovative. 

One of the things that I mentioned earlier, is that we know that 

if we make these investments in agricultural research the benefits 

are great, and so we need to improve that—continue on that track. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. But there is not enough land to grow the amount 

of food—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. —so we have to be creative, and one of the areas 

that is in the area of—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I want to ask some specific questions 

now—— 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Okay. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. —but I appreciate that. One of the specific 

things that affects my state, recent outbreaks of avian influenza, 

the PEDV and other emerging diseases highlight the significant 

threats facing animal agriculture and the need for more research 

in this area, one of the reasons I am so concerned about budget 

cuts proposed by the Administration to USDA. 

Dr. Ramaswamy, can you talk about the importance of the National Animal Health Lab Network, and are more resources necessary for that research. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Senator Klobuchar, thank you so much for that 

question. Absolutely. We have, across America, several enterprises 

that protects the biosecurity for our food systems—the National 

Animal Health Laboratory Network, the National Plant Diagnostic 

Network, and other efforts of that sort that protect the biosecurity. 
28 

Unfortunately, when we look at cybersecurity—this has been on 

the news lately here, with the Chinese and the Russians hacking 

us—we are spending about $75 billion to protect our cybersecurity. 

To protect the biosecurity of our food systems we are spending a 

sum total of about $38 million in America. I joke, but very seriously, if all of our computers are hacked, we can go back to using 

paper and pencil. If our food systems are hacked, we are in serious 

trouble. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. So the National Health Laboratory Network 

and these other networks we have got are critically important for 

us to ensure that we are meeting the needs of protecting the biosecurity, and I agree with you that I dare say we are, really, really 

short in the investments that we are making. These networks that 

were created post 9/11 are falling apart, and we have to make sure 

we protect them. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Jacobs-Young, researchers at the U of M in my state are increasingly working the 

area of phenomics, which focuses on measuring the physical and 

biochemical traits of organisms as they change in response to environmental influences. Can you talk about the value of emerging 

plant science techniques, like phenomics? 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Absolutely, and back to your original question, I think this one is very relevant. 

You know, agriculture is a very high-tech industry. We do not 

just put the seed in the ground and hope something happens. We 

have many, many plant breeders, both on the classical—what we 

call classical breeding side, as well as our advanced technology 

side, and it is important for us to be able to generate data that enables us to speed up the process. 

I would like to just share that, Dr. Edward Buckler from our 

Cornell location in ARS, received the first prize for food and agriculture from the National Academies of Science, and it is through 

partnership with the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. He received that prize because his work in the genetic evaluation of maize has saved lives. It has helped deal with the vitamin A deficiencies around the world which result in stunting. But, 

he is only able to do that because we have been generating data 

for years and years and able to turn that data into solutions. That 

is why genomics and phenomics and all the other ‘‘omics’’ are extremely important to us as we try to innovate in agriculture. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. I appreciate it. On the 

record I will ask a question about research initiatives to expand the 

use of ag commodities in non-food markets, so thank you for your 

work. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of our 

witnesses for being here, and I want to express my very strong support for agricultural research. Growing up in western North Dakota we grew primarily small grains, and now, thanks to the incredible ag research and development that has been done we can 

grow amazing variety of crops, ranging from corn and soybeans to 

all the pulse crops, to oilseed crops, as well as all of the small grain 

crops. 
29 

Diversity in agriculture has truly been a real benefit, certainly 

for farmers, and for our ranchers, but for the American people, because we can grow so much more food and provide that variety, 

and, as I say, about agriculture every chance I get, our farmers and 

ranchers provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the 

history of the world, and ag research is a really big part of it. It 

is a big, big deal. So we need to support ag research funding in the 

budget, and I chair Ag Appropriations so I have every intention— 

we have every intention of doing that, and I know our Ag Committee Chairman and Ranking Member share that sentiment. 

I think, as a matter of fact, he even has some pretty good ag research in Kansas, and I know there is some pretty good ag research probably in Michigan too. 

Chairman ROBERTS. You do not want to go there, but go ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOEVEN. There is a little rivalry between North Dakota 

State and K–State. 

My question is, how do we leverage, private and other public investment with our ag research funds? So what are—because we 

want to fund ag research but we want to try to leverage those 

funds. 

So from each of you, just talk a little bit how we can do more 

to leverage private, and other public funding, with the funds that 

we provide for ag research. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. How about if I start and we end with Dr. Rockey, 

who probably has the home run answer. 

Part of it is we really do need to be reaching out to an emerging 

group of private partners, those that we have not necessarily 

worked with in the past, and to really understand what their needs 

are, where they need to be in 5 or 10 years, and be able to build 

that knowledge into our programs. So for me it is expanding those 

partnerships by reaching out to new individuals and new organizations. 

Senator HOEVEN. Are you actively doing that? 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Sorry? 

Senator HOEVEN. Are you doing that? I mean, how do we do 

that—— 

Ms. BARTUSKA. Well, part of it—— 

Senator HOEVEN. —in a concerted way. 

Ms. BARTUSKA. I would say one way we are doing that is the 

composition of our National Advisory Board, the NAREEE board, 

the National Agriculture Research Education Extension Economics 

Advisory Board, who advised us. 

By choosing qualified members and being able to have a nomination process to ensure that we have new and diverse members applying for that board, and then working with them as they are on 

the board, and then after they leave. 

We are really expanding our connections, so that is one example 

that has been a very productive approach to take. The other is just 

really reaching out to the business community, to be able to reach 

out to those who are in agricultural research, those who use the 

National Ag Statistics data, they are ones who are very interested 

in how can they continue to grow our databases to be able to make 
30 

better assumptions about the crops and the commodities they are 

dealing with. 

So those are two really big areas that are very ripe for more 

partnerships and more outreach. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Senator Hoeven, good to see you again, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. Good to see you. Thanks for your good work. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Well, thank you very much. From NIFA’s perspective, we leverage, for every dollar that NIFA invests there is 

$1.86 that is returned in leverage, and there are several tools that 

you, Congress, has provided us to be able to do that, this leverage 

of the public-private leveraging, non-governmental organizations, 

and others. For example, in the last farm bill we have the commodity board provision, which we match, dollar for dollar, and commodity boards come to us and they say they want us to invest on 

particular topics, and so NIFA co-invests with them. That is one 

approach that we have used. 

A second approach that we have used, again, thanks to what 

Congress did in the previous farm bills, particularly with the 2008 

Farm Bill, which created NIFA, we created what we refer to as coordinated agricultural projects. These are the huge grants that we 

have provided. You know, these are like $10, $20, $40 million 

grants. One of those grants was given to a consortium of institutions that includes a bunch of private sector folks as well, led by 

Washington State University. They had an airplane fly out of Seattle-Tacoma airport back in November, on November the 14th, 

with their congressional delegation that came to Reagan National, 

flying on ‘‘woodchips.’’ That project—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Flying on what? 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Flying on woodchips. The woodchips were converted into—— 

Senator HOEVEN. You are making that up. I know you are. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Seriously. Get your head wrapped around that image, right? That particular project, for a $40 million investment, 

has leveraged almost $200 million of additional from the private 

sector, from the non-governmental sector that have come in and invested resources as well. That includes some of our Native American tribal populations in the Northwest as well. 

So those are a couple of examples, and I am going to pass to Dr. 

Jacobs-Young. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. So just very quickly, I would like to say that 

at ARS, we deliver a lot of products inside of our laboratories, and 

then we work with businesses to get them moved out into commercializations, the Apples in the Happy Meals at McDonald’s, lactosefree milk, instant potatoes, the potatoes that are used for Pringles. 

All those things were developed in ARS, but once we discover it 

and deliver it, we work with the private industry to move it out. 

Sometimes that includes exclusive license, if that is necessary, but 

often it is just in the partnerships, and through other mechanisms. 

Ms. ROCKEY. Senator, as you know, our foundation was created 

with that exactly in mind. For every dollar that we spend we leverage another dollar from the private sector. So it is really about 

finding those in the private sector or commodity groups or other potential partners who share our goals for the research. We often 
31 

times use our convening power to bring those individuals and organizations to the table so we can decide collectively which areas of 

research would be the most important to go through, either first or 

to place our funding on. 

So it is important for our relationship and for our foundation to 

work to bring together those private-public partnerships. 

Senator HOEVEN. You are finding that USDA, ARS, NIFA are all 

very receptive to that, right—— 

Ms. ROCKEY. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. —and you are able to work with them and do 

creative things—— 

Ms. ROCKEY. We work very, very—— 

Senator HOEVEN. —leverage resources. 

Ms. ROCKEY. We work very, very closely with USDA. They are 

our closest partners. Not only that we complement their work but 

we have, for example, ARS scientists intimately involved in many 

of our projects. We work closely with NIFA through the AFRI program to see where our research programs can come in and fill gaps 

or white spaces that the AFRI programs may not be covering. We 

have great relationships with the USDA. 

Senator HOEVEN. Good stuff. Thank you all. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Dr. Ramaswamy, as you know there is a facility now being under construction at Kansas State called NBAF. 

It comes as a result of the danger of agro-terrorism. Some time 

back, in a city called Obolensk, which is not too far from Moscow, 

that is one of the secret cities during the time that Russia was 

much more open than it is today, there were large amounts of 

pathogens. I would imagine that it is still there. I hope it is still 

there, but under Mr. Putin it is a whole different matter. The intelligence community would let you know that it is in the top 10, top 

5 things they worry about, is an attack on our food supply. 

I would like to visit with you about that, and also anybody else 

that wants to chip in, but we are now in a voting process on the 

first of three votes. Senator Stabenow will return and then we will 

switch back and forth. 

I want to thank all of you for taking time out of your valuable 

schedule to come. Usually when we have a hearing like this, I get 

to come up, shake your hand, thank you, visit with you a little bit 

more, but we have some time constraints. So thank you so much, 

and I would like to welcome our second panel of witnesses to come 

before the Committee. 

Mr. RAMASWAMY. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts. 

Ms. JACOBS-YOUNG. Thank you. 

Ms. ROCKEY. Thank you, sir. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ROBERTS. We will proceed with the next panel. 

First I would like to introduce Dr. Floros, Dr. John Floros, of 

Kansas State University. He has been the Dean of the College of 

Agriculture and Director of K–State Research and Extension since 

August of 2012, and under his leadership K–State established the 

Center on Wheat Genomics and successfully competed to host four 

Feed the Future labs on wheat, sorghum, and millet, and post-harvest loss reduction and sustainable intensification of agriculture. 

He was recently recognized by the Food and Drug Administration 
32 

for his distinguished service to the people of the United States, as 

a member of the Science Board to the FDA. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony. Doctor, it is good to see you again. 

Mr. Gary McMurray, Senator Perdue is on his way to introduce 

you, and so we will wait until the distinguished Senator arrives. 

Then we have Dr. Kerry Hartman. Doctor, I am going to give 

this a good go. This is a welcome that Senator Heitkamp wanted 

to proceed, and that Senator Stabenow then said she would read, 

and now she has given it to me while she is voting. So stay with 

me here. 

I want to give a warm welcome to Dr. Kerry Hartman, Academic 

Dean and Sciences Chair at Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish—and the 

parens here on how to really do that is to say Nueta Hidatsa 

Sahnish College. I struggled through that. I apologize, sir. 

Dr. Hartman has spent the past 25 years conducting agriculture 

research and teaching on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in 

North Dakota. His research has focused on land, water, the environment, and native plants and wildlife that are central to the 

lives of the Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa people. 

I think that I am looking for a second page and obviously we do 

not need that with that introduction. 

Senator Perdue. 

Senator PERDUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is my honor this 

morning—good to see you—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. 

Senator PERDUE. —it is my honor to introduce Gary McMurray 

this morning, a fellow Georgia Tech guy, and I am pleased to introduce him as a graduate. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Tech and is now a 

Principal Research Engineer and Division Chief at the Georgia 

Tech Research Institute’s Food Processing Technology Division. He 

has been with the institute for over 25 years. He is also the Associate Director for Collaborative Robotics at the Institute of Robotics 

and Intelligent Machines at Georgia Tech. 

Being from a non-land-grant college, Mr. McMurray’s perspective 

on ag research is especially important to spur innovation beyond 

traditional methods of food production. Mr. McMurray’s research 

has focused on the development of robotic technologies and solutions for the manufacturing and agribusiness communities. His 

focus on research that brings experts from non-agricultural fields 

together with ag scientists is crucial to defining new technologies 

that can benefit farms and ultimately the consumers they feed. 

For the previous four years, Mr. McMurray led a strategic initiative on the future of agricultural sensing that involved a multidisciplinary team of engineers, computer scientists from Georgia Tech, 

and plant pathologists and agricultural engineers from the University of Georgia. 

He is currently leading a National Robotics Initiative project in 

conjunction with partners from the University of Georgia, that is 

funded by the USDA, to develop an automated system to identify 

plants that are potentially suffering from soil, nutrient, and water 

deficiency problems. 

Thank you, Gary, for being here today. We appreciate and look 

forward to your testimony. 
33 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Perdue. It is my privilege to introduce Mr. Steve Wellman from Syracuse, Nebraska, 

where he and his family grow soybeans, corn, winter wheat, and 

alfalfa, as well as manage a cow-calf herd on their fourth-generation family farm. Mr. Wellman has served in a variety of capacities 

through his agriculture career, as President of the American Soybean Association, an inaugural board member of the Supporters of 

Agriculture Research, and on the USDA/USTR Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Grains, Feeds, Oilseeds, and Planting 

Seeds. 

We thank you all for coming. 

We will start with Dr. Floros. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN FLOROS, PH.D., DEAN AND DIRECTOR, 

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND K–STATE RESEARCH AND 

EXTENSION, KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, MANHATTAN, KANSAS 

Mr. FLOROS. Senator Roberts, thank you, sir, for inviting me and 

good to see you again. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. EMAW. 

Mr. FLOROS. There you go. 

Chairman ROBERTS. That stands for‘‘ Every Man A Wildcat’’. I 

want to explain that to the others. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FLOROS. Sir, I would like to start by apologizing for my appearance here. It took me more than 20 hours to fly here from 

Manhattan, and my bag did not make it, so my apologies for looking a little—— 

Chairman ROBERTS. I think your attire is splendid, sir. Please 

proceed. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FLOROS. What I would like to do today is talk a little bit 

about the land-grant system and its importance to our research, 

agriculture research, and then very briefly talk a little bit about 

agricultural and food research and several components of its importance, the impact, and the long-lasting value of such research, so 

that you and your Committee can actually continue to support the 

research and our efforts. 

Finally, I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure, as well 

as workforce issues, and I am going to start by briefly saying how 

important the land-grant system has been, over 150 years now, for 

this country, and the well-being of the American citizens, particularly because we have the teaching, research, and extension components as part of that. I would like to stress that food security and 

political security are connected, and both of those are directly connected to food and agriculture innovation, and it is driven by agriculture and food research. 

In terms of ag research, what I would like to point out is that 

most of the investment that comes through USDA, the land-grant 

system, it is actually matched 1-to-1, in some cases 7 or 8-to-1, by 

other investments, from state governments, local governments, and 

other sources as well. So we will appreciate continuing that invest-
34 

ment because not only it is supplemented by other sources but also 

because its impact has been long-lasting. 

You heard earlier from USDA that the return is about 20-to-1, 

and I am sorry that the Chairman is not here, but that return in 

the state of Kansas is actually 33.6-to-1. So the return of agricultural research is very, very high, and you will be pressed to find 

anything higher than that. I also would like to say that AFRI 

should be really brought up to its appropriations of $700 million, 

because we have a lot of challenges coming up, as you all know. 

One of the points I wanted to stress has to do with food science 

and technology-related research. We put some emphasis on agriculture but we are not putting as much emphasis on food science 

and food processing and manufacturing. Food manufacturing per 

se, it is almost 15 percent of American manufacturing, and we are 

not really emphasizing much of that in our portfolio of investments. 

It used to be that half of every dollar goes to the farmer from the 

consumer, but today only probably one out of seven dollars goes to 

the farmer from the consumer. The rest, $6, are actually added 

value, and that is what we need to capture. We have divested from 

this area, and as a result, I think the American manufacturing segment of food and agriculture has suffered, and innovation is now 

coming from elsewhere in the world because of that. 

I also would like to say a few words about international research 

in food and agriculture. USAID invests a lot of money in that. We 

do a lot of work in that. Much of what we do benefits other countries out there in the world, but most of the information we generate comes back to the U.S., to help our own farmers, our own 

ranchers, our own industry, to improve and get better. 

A couple of things about infrastructure. There was a study that 

has been done very recently. Throughout the country, food and agricultural research infrastructure is suffering from really negligence in terms of our buildings and their maintenance. There was 

a study that shows that about $8.4 billion are needed to just bring 

the infrastructure to today. Just at K–State alone, we just did a 

study and it shows $550 million worth of needs right now to our 

own infrastructure. 

Finally, I want to put a couple of comments about capacity funding and you all know what that is, and USDA talked a little bit 

about that. Just in the last 50 or so years, the improvement of the 

U.S. agriculture has been about 2.5 times, when you look at productivity, compared to where we were 50 years ago. Capacity funding had a lot to do with that. Everybody talks about the green revolution. We are going to have to actually have a second green revolution if we are to meet the needs of a growing world. It is not just 

the growth in population. It is also the growth in middle class. It 

is the diversity of the population. The food system, the global food 

system, needs to respond to all of those, and for that I think we 

need to continue to invest in capacity funding as well as NIFA and 

AFRI. 

The final point I wanted to make is training the next generation, 

and it is critical that we find ways to train more people in agriculture and in food. A USDA study shows that we only provide 

maybe a little more than half of the workforce that we need today, 

and we will need more tomorrow. 
35 

So with that, I have overstated my time. I would like to assure 

the Committee that every dollar we invest in food and agricultural 

research, it will be worthwhile spent and we will see very longterm return and huge impact because of that. 

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Floros can be found on page 61 

in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. [Presiding.] Thank you, Dr. Floros, and let 

me just indicate that we are in the midst of three votes and Chairman Roberts and I are playing tag-team back and forth, and we 

apologize that members are being pulled in a number of directions. 

Dr. Floros, I want to just underscore what you said about food 

manufacturing, as a state that does a lot of food manufacturing, 

how important that is. 

Mr. McMurray. 

STATEMENT OF GARY MCMURRAY, DIVISION CHIEF, FOOD 

PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. MCMURRAY. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts, 

Ranking Committee Member Stabenow, and other Committee 

members. It is really an honor to be here today and to represent 

Georgia Tech, which is a non-land-grant institution, and the work 

that we are doing in agriculture. I, myself, am honored to lead a 

team of 28 research faculty members, 14 academic faculty members, and over 40 students, working in the area of agribusiness and 

food manufacturing. So we have over 45 years’ experience working 

in this through a state-funded program called the Agricultural 

Technology Research Program. So we have a lot of experience in 

this area, working in sensors, robotics, and sustainability. 

Georgia Tech is one of the leading engineering schools within the 

nation. It has outstanding reputation from NSF, DARPA, DoD, and 

Department of Energy. One of the things we are trying to do is leverage that expertise, which is funded from other government 

agencies, bring that to the world of agriculture. 

But one of the things which is very critical to us is that we are 

very much involved in the multidisciplinary approach. All of our 

projects have partners—at University of Georgia, University of 

Florida, and other land-grant institutes—because we really recognize the synergy that comes about when you bring the engineers 

together with the scientists. They really come up with 

groundbreaking and new ideas, and this is something that we really want to see continue. 

I would like to talk about several projects that we are focused on. 

We are mainly focused on yield improvements, because that is a 

critical issue to feeding the global population. We have two projects 

right now we are focused on: presymptomatic disease detection and 

field scouting for abiotic stress. These issues are very important for 

a number of different reasons. Currently we still lose over 12 percent of our crops to disease and approximately 16 percent of our 

crops to pests. So addressing these issues will go a long way to addressing some of the issues, which are of major concern. 

We do this through a couple of different areas. We focus on novel 

sensors as well as robotic systems. In the novel sensors, we have 
36 

been working on a micro gas chromatograph, which takes a traditional gas chromatograph, which works in a laboratory environment, we have reduced it down to something the size of a 9-volt 

battery size, which can now be field deployed and can actually, in 

real time, take air samples and process that. 

Why is that important? Because plants emit volatile organic compounds, and those compounds will give you tremendous insight into 

the health of the plant. Not only can we recognize stress in plants 

but can actually target and actually identify specific pathogens and 

diseases that are attacking the plants. That is very important. 

We are also looking at root sensors to be able to actually look at 

the root mass, and this has tremendous value in agriculture. This, 

actually, this type of multidisciplinary work is something that we 

feel would really be better served through the creation of something we call ARPA AG. These types of programs have been very 

successful in a number of government agencies, and it is the opportunity to do high-risk, high-reward, but really bring the scientists 

and the engineers together to work on critical issues in agriculture. 

So, in conclusion, the land-grant institutes are very interested in 

working in agriculture, because it is a major problem that we face 

in the world. We think that we can bring expertise, from NSF, 

DoD, and other agencies, to bear on this problem in a very unique 

way, and this is something that we at Georgia Tech are very excited about and really look forward to contributing as the process 

goes. 

So I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here, and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray can be found on page 

81 in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. Dr. Hartman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KERRY HARTMAN, PH.D., ACADEMIC DEAN 

AND SCIENCES CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, NUETA 

HIDATSA SAHNISH COLLEGE, NEW TOWN, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. HARTMAN. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Stabenow, and I wish Chairman Roberts was here. I would like EMAW 

to him also. My daughter graduated from our college and is now 

attending vet school at Kansas State. 

On behalf of the nation’s 34 tribal college land-grant institutions 

known as the 1994s, thank you very much for this opportunity to 

talk about our place-based research. Indian country includes some 

of the most isolated and economically challenged regions in the 

United States, but our lands are rich in natural resources and our 

people are among the most resilient in the world. Within this context, tribal colleges are working to strengthen our tribal community 

economies, to revitalize our cultures and languages, and to protect, 

restore, and sustainably use our lands, waters, and traditional 

foods. 

Since 2001, my undergraduate students and I have been conducting culturally and economically relevant research under the 

USDA/TCU programs. The goal of my current NIFA research 

project, conducted with tribal game and fish biologists and South 

Dakota State University, Mr. Thune, Senator Thune, is to figure 
37 

out how to develop and maintain an environment that will support 

the native pollinators of Amelanchier cultivars, or juneberries, as 

well as other native fruits. Juneberries are an ancient plant. There 

are high levels of protein, calcium, antioxidants, sustained generations of native people throughout the northern plains and woodlands, until native pollinators and juneberry stands fell victim to 

Western expansion. 

Ranking Member Stabenow, a juneberry is very, very, very similar to a blueberry. If they were sitting here together, you cannot 

tell them apart. Down the road I hope to do research on the genetics. I do not know whether it was convergent evolution or divergent 

evolution or just the luck of the draw, but these two berries are 

very, very similar. 

Back to my written statement now. 

If we can restore the juneberry native habit we can sustainably 

cultivate crops for local use and small farm commercial production, 

helping to grow our reservation’s economy and improve the health 

standards of our people. 

We are also helping to restore the identity and cultural pride of 

the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people. This project would not 

happen without USDA support for our specialty crop research. The 

need for research into emerging technologies for small farmers, 

invasive species management, sustainable growth, and security, is 

essential in Indian country, as the juneberry research attests to. 

As you work to reauthorize the farm bill, I have three quick recommendations. We need to acknowledge the value of undergraduate place-based research and education. The Farm Bill’s research provisions should specifically acknowledge that diversity 

matters. Students and faculty at 1994s and the minorities and the 

small institutions can enhance the call to competency and research 

capacity of the next generation of agricultural scientists and practitioners. This is extremely important in expanding our U.S. workforce as well as the global economy. 

Second would be to resist efforts to consolidate Federal STEM research programs. We will lose research opportunities under the 

President’s budget proposal to consolidate Federal STEM programs. 

History demonstrates it is small and poor institutions, like all of 

the 1994s, cannot compete against Research I and the large landgrant institutions. 

Thirdly, to establish McIntire Stennis eligibility for the 1994s. 

This is a matter of equity. In 2008, the McIntire Stennis Act was 

amended to include tribal lands and a formula for state forestry 

programs but tribal land-grant institutions were excluded. Please 

amend the McIntire Stennis formula to include 1994s with the forestry programs. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the modest Federal investment in the 1994 institutions has already paid great interest in 

terms of increased employment, access to higher education, and research opportunities and economic development. Continuation and 

growth in this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hartman can be found on page 

68 in the appendix.] 
38 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. 

Wellman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE WELLMAN, FARMER, WELLMAN FARMS, 

SYRACUSE, NEBRASKA 

Mr. WELLMAN. Yeah. Thank you, Ranking Member Stabenow, 

and also I appreciate the invitation from Chairman Roberts and 

you and the rest of the Committee to appear here today, to really 

discuss the science and innovation which is the very essence of 

farming. My perspective is, as a third-generation farmer, farming 

the same fields that my father and grandfather did, plus a few 

more. 

We need three things to get American agriculture growing: sun, 

rain, and research. There is not much I can do about the first two, 

but when it comes to research, I can lend my name, my time, and 

my voice, to policymakers, encouraging you to renew American 

leadership in agricultural science. 

Sufficient Federal investment and wise policies are essential if 

the United States is to continue to be a global leader in agriculture. 

As SoAR founder, Bill Danforth, has remarked, ‘‘Food is too important to the human race to be a research afterthought. It needs to 

be a high priority for the nation’s entire scientific community,’’ and 

I would add, for the entire nation. 

Traditionally, we have thought of agriculture science in terms of 

improving yields, preventing soil erosion, and adapting crops to a 

variety of growing conditions. Today, agriculture stands to realize 

significant gains through interdisciplinary research across numerous scientific fields, including data science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and genomics. To capitalize on these relatively modern 

fields of science we need to ensure we have a modern Federal research enterprise, and that is why I am urging you to give the entire USDA research, education, and economics mission area your 

full attention. 

Public agriculture research spending peaked in 1994, and has 

since declined 20 percent. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized AFRI at 

$700 million annually, yet funding has reached only the halfway 

point of that level. As a percentage of total Federal research investment, USDA has fallen to less than 3 percent of the annual Federal 

investment. Put another way, research funding for other Federal 

agencies is nearly $60 billion. Research funding at the USDA research mission area tops out at just over $2 billion, an amount that 

has remained virtually unchanged for decades. 

On our non-irrigated farm, conservation of natural resources is 

a constant focus. Farming practices such as contour terraces, no 

till, drought and insect-tolerant seeds and cover crops are all implemented. Field scripts prescribing varieties to plant managing nutrients to maximize yield while controlling inputs, are also used. 

Thanks to modern science, these are all effective and productive 

practices. Will they be in the future, and will new research demonstrate ways to improve? 

What we do today is based on years of research and learning. 

Where will the knowledge to improve U.S. production practices 

come from in the future without public research leading the way? 
39 

American agriculture is a marvel of the world but that does not 

mean the world is standing by. As you mentioned earlier, China 

has increased their investment at a double-digit pace and are actually outspending the United States on ag R&D at this point. Funding rates in the European Union has increased and their grant proposals are nearly a 40 percent success rate. In the U.S., AFRI 

grant applications are between 10 and 15 percent, and only around 

25 percent of the projects they rate highly receive support. 

For fiscal year 2015, the most recent research AFRI analysis 

shows a total of 2,694 competitive grant applications, requesting 

just under $1.8 billion. They were received and reviewed through 

the competitive peer review process. An additional 884 proposal 

were recommended for funding by review panels and could have 

been supported provided an additional $690 million was available 

for the program. A modernized system, supported with additional 

investment, is the plea I make to you today. 

In closing, I leave you with a question. How certain are we that 

we can provide food security for 10 billion people by the middle of 

the century? The U.S. has been the world leader in agricultural 

production and innovation for decades. This is a role the U.S. needs 

to retain. I believe it will not happen without a strong commitment 

to public research, from Congress and our Administration. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wellman can be found on page 

105 in the appendix.] 

Senator STABENOW. Well, thank you very much to each of you, 

and I could not agree more, Mr. Wellman, about the importance of 

agricultural research and what this means to the future of the 

country, and to farmers, and to all of us. 

Mr. Hartman—Dr. Hartman, I wanted to ask you first if you 

might just expand a bit on the important benefits of partnerships 

with the tribal communities and other land-grant universities and 

so on. I know we, in Michigan, have some terrific examples of that 

with Michigan State University and our tribal colleges. But these 

have been very important partnership and I wondered if you might 

expand a bit on that. 

Mr. HARTMAN. Thank you for that question very much. They enable us—partnerships with other land-grant institutions under the 

NIFA 1994 program, partnerships are required with land-grant institutions and state institutions or agricultural research stations. 

These partnerships assist us in carrying out the grant’s primary 

emphasis, which is on training students in sciences. 

Through the collaborations and cooperative projects, I personally 

have grown significantly in my education philosophy, research capabilities, professional contacts, and, most importantly, in terms of 

educational research. Scientists, researchers, professors, career professionals from multiple institutions are now readily available to 

me. I have contacts at NDSU. I graduated. My PhD was from 

South Dakota State University. I have done my pollinator research 

and most of my cultivator research was with South Dakota State 

and North Dakota State. 

Our initial—well, I think one of the first NIFA land-grant collaborative was a huge one, with Iowa State. There was four—forgive me—I think they are the 1864s, the original land-grants, the 
40 

ones that were started under the Morrill Act. There was four Morrill Act and four tribal colleges—North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska Community College, and Sinte Gleska. That grant was a 

huge grant and we still have connections. I was able to achieve my 

PhD through a collaboration of that grant. We did lots of partnerships. We like to say that we help educate the 1884s also, to extend 

their understanding of the tribal communities, and to bring their 

scientific expertise out to our communities, and to take some of our 

students over there. 

As I mentioned, here is—the Chairman is back. As I mentioned, 

my daughter graduated from our tribal college and she is now attending veterinary college at Kansas State University. EMAW 

there, sir. We have lots of students that have transferred to the institutions after these collaborations were begun. 

So I hope I addressed your question. They offer us research capabilities and scientific—laboratories that we, of course, are not capable of maintaining, and research expertise, also, from their professors. We like to say we offer them a very different ecosystem also. 

For instance, North Dakota State is in the Red River Valley, and 

we are on high, arid, western North Dakota, so we have very, very 

different ecosystem climate characteristics, et cetera. 

Chairman ROBERTS. [Presiding.] I apologize to this panel. You 

are caught in those merry-go-round moments that we have on occasion, where we have had three votes, and the distinguished Ranking Member was helpful to—she is voting. I just voted. We have 

another vote, so time is of the essence, and I apologize because we 

have, or I have quite a few questions for you, as would every member of this Committee. 

Dr. Floros, you mentioned that the price and availability of food 

directly impacts the political stability of our country. But we are 

currently experiencing low commodity prices. Food insecurity 

around the world certainly remains of serious concern, especially 

South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Northern Nigeria. How can we better leverage USDA domestic and international research efforts to 

help support the goal of producing enough food supply for the incredible 10 billion people that we may experience in the next several decades? 

Mr. FLOROS. Chairman, thank you. That is a great question. Not 

necessarily an easy answer, but definitely we need to invest more 

in looking at the system that helps our farmers and our ranchers 

plan better, and plan ahead, versus from year to year. 

There is no question that what happens in one part of the country affects what happens all around the world, but our system is 

not quite designed to figure that out ahead of time. So I think we 

need to be able to project forward a little better than we are today. 

The other thing that I think we need to work on is developing 

a system that is much more robust, in terms of the varieties that 

we use, in terms of the genetics we use for animal production, in 

terms of how much we lose from the farm to the table, to reduce 

food waste. All of that will impact not only prices but also the 

availability of food and the final prices of the food around the 

world. 

Today, in this country, we have the least expensive food supply 

in our history, and in the world, for that matter. That is a result 
41 

of investing heavily in food and agricultural research, and I think 

if we continue to do that, it will help both our farmers and our 

ranchers in the long term, as well as our citizens. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you. Mr. McMurray, as the representative of the non-land-grant institution on our witness panel, 

you bring a unique perspective. Your testimony mentioned that 

overhead issues matching requirements from the USDA may 

present engineering universities like Georgia Tech from participating in agriculture research. Do not let Sonny Perdue know that. 

In spite of the tough budgetary environments that many states 

are facing, are non-land-grant institutions or other significant food 

and agricultural programs still able to find a way to effectively leverage resources to match Federal grant dollars and do more with 

less? If you can, please explain how the overhead issue is negatively impacting the ability of Georgia Tech to utilize the USDA 

grant programs. 

Mr. MCMURRAY. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. It is an 

excellent question, and I think it is one that is complex in some 

sense. We do see engineering as a critical component to agriculture, 

and we do want to play a role in this area. But when it comes to 

things with cost-matching and overhead rates, it becomes very difficult for us. My organization, at GTRI, we do not receive discretionary funding from the state, that we could use as leverage for 

cost-sharing or the cost match. 

So it becomes a serious impediment for many of the non-landgrant institutes to participate in programs from USDA. I think 

that is unfortunate because I think there is much to be offered 

from these institutions. Many of these institutions have played 

major roles in some of the innovations in many of the industries 

throughout the United States, and they want to contribute in ag, 

but so far these issues have limited their ability to participate. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that. Mr. Wellman, you mentioned research advances including drought-tolerant plant varieties 

and plant input management to help you reduce costs and maximize yields. Research on conservation practices like contour terraces, no-till farming, cover crops have some support but they have 

yet to be broadly adopted. 

Beyond seed technology and precise fertilizer application, what 

research opportunities in agriculture would most directly impact 

our producers on the ground? 

Mr. WELLMAN. Chairman Roberts, I just want to say to you 

thank you for the invitation to appear here today. To your question, agriculture is so diverse across the United States, and there 

really is a variety of needs for, depending upon what area the 

farmer is and the crops they want to produce, or that are needed 

to be produced. 

Maybe that is the question, the overarching question. Are we 

producing the right products? Are we producing the products that 

the world will need in the future, that was mentioned earlier, looking ahead as to what is needed. How do we transition? If that is 

the case, if there are other products that maybe are more nutritional in a smaller quantity, how do we transition from where we 

are now to something like that in the future? 
42 

What we have recognized, up to this point, is from the technology 

side of it, with the biotechnology and then also the equipment that 

we use today, and the advancements that we have seen there. It 

is just amazing the progress that we have made, and the ability to 

produce more with less labor, which is another—I think, a future 

problem for us, as we move forward, is where is the labor force 

going to come from? 

The long-term aspect, the long-term view of where research 

money needs to be spent to really get a response that is beneficial 

to the farmer, the person that is going to use it and be implementing this research, and then, in turn, beneficial to the consumer. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 

witnesses. Dr. Hartman, it is great to have you here, representing 

Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College in New Town, North Dakota, and 

the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. 

NIFA administers four programs for 1994 institutions, an ag equity program, a research program. The 1994 institutions often 

serve as the primary institutions of scientific inquiry, knowledge, 

and learning for tribal communities. The two other programs that 

I should mention, the competitive extension program and also research programs. So four different programs. 

In your testimony, you state all of these grant programs are critically important, to your college and the other 1994 institutions. I 

guess my question would be, can you tell us a little bit more about 

the impacts that these programs and funding have on students, the 

colleges, and the communities? 

Mr. HARTMAN. Good to see you, Senator. I do not need this but 

I will use it anyway. Thank you for the question, sir. 

I will have to qualify my answer just a little bit. I am primarily 

involved with the research grants, the Tribal College Research 

Grants Programs, and I can talk about them for hours. I will address the extension. We are the extension agent on the reservation. 

So the previous panel was addressing the importance of extension, 

and at our land-grant institution, and many of the tribal colleges, 

we have an agriculture department, and our ag department administers the extension and the equity, and the one other grant, cooperative or collaborative. I do not remember what the other grant 

is, sir. My knowledge of them is somewhat limited. 

I know extension, we do a lot of activity with the Boys and Girls 

Clubs. We do Young Farmers program. We have—previously we 

had emphasis on young farmers, where we introduced everybody 

from grades—I think it was 4 through 6, up through 12. They were 

eligible for sheep and hogs program that we ran. We have a gardening program that we run, between those. Of course we do education. We have our small farmers and ranchers program that provides workshops and trainings. 

We work close—I should not say ‘‘we’’—they work closely with 

the tribe in administering some of the tribal activities and assisting 

with the bison project. Again, the tribal gardening and reinforcing 

the gardening, the elders’ foods program. Just to briefly address 

those that I am least familiar with. 
43 

The Tribal College Research Grants, we have been doing those 

since 2002, and we basically have three, I guess, three chair legs 

that we like to stress in our research. The first one, of course, is 

the educational component of implementing research in our undergraduate experience. We have a bachelor’s degree in environmental 

science and our students plan—they choose, they plan, with my 

help and from the 1860s also, of course, we have a design component where we design our research projects. We conduct our own 

research. We have done everything from aquaculture, invasive species. We did a research project on leafy spurge, when leafy spurge 

was such a major issue out in western North Dakota. My juneberry 

research has been focused on small fruits and small crops. We have 

got the best cultivars we are trying to select out. 

But all throughout that we try to implement the concept of doing 

quality scientific research to our students, and validating the results, and repetition trials, et cetera. 

We also like to strengthen and reinforce the culture. Of course, 

the tribal culture is important, and that is one of the missions of 

all tribal colleges is to help perpetuate the cultures. Juneberries, 

for instance, they were harvested for centuries, and we have got elders in telling stories. We talk about the traditional use of the 

juneberry. Our nutritional research was conducted with South Dakota State University. So our students learned how to do nutritional analysis, in our lab and in the lab at South Dakota State, 

and, of course, we stress that with community members, in collaboration back with our extension people, of the results. Juneberries 

are extremely nutritious in antioxidants. 

Right now we—my current research is involving pollinators, and 

that would be native pollinators, primarily, and we are trying to 

understand the interactions with the environment, of course, and 

with the berries, and maximizing the pollinator habitat, and maximizing the pollinator food plots. That will hopefully improve not 

only the juneberry quality and quantity but also the plums and the 

chokecherries and the buffaloberries and the crabapples that are 

all there. 

But throughout all the processes, we like to stress introducing research to our undergraduates, as well as reinforcing the culture 

and the educational opportunities. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, again, I want to thank you for your outstanding work there for many years, in making a real difference, 

and then, I had asked the earlier panel, but anything we can do 

to help leverage funding from other sources to join with the NIFA 

money that you receive, we want to try and help do that. 

Mr. HARTMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. Thanks for being here today, too, 

to all the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator. Dr. Floros, you mentioned that for every $7 spent on food, about $1 goes to the primary 

agricultural production, with the remaining $6 spent on handling, 

processing, packaging, transportation, and distribution. Then, in 

the meantime, it is estimated that we waste 30 to 40 percent of the 

food produced in the United States. 
44 

My question is, which research authorities might be most useful 

in considering efforts to reduce waste along the entire food supply 

chain, and subsequently, help cut costs related to food production? 

Mr. FLOROS. Senator, thank you for the question. The answer is 

not easy and it is not simple. I think there are a lot of things we 

need to do. We need to start by some of the comments that were 

heard earlier. We need to probably redesign our food system so 

that we are actually producing what it is that we need to produce, 

rather than producing what we are producing and push it down the 

chain. 

I think we need to really understand better what are the needs 

of the consumer, what are the global needs of the food system, so 

that we can come back and really redesign the whole thing. If we 

did that, I think prices will be a lot better off for our farmers and 

our ranchers. 

A quick example about sorghum, which is so important in Kansas. If we were to figure out ways to create products that consumers want, that are sorghum-based, I think we will be doing a 

big favor to our farmers back home. Similar things we can do 

across the board, throughout the food system. 

The other part that has to do with waste is how do we really 

take the raw material, how we handle the raw material, how it 

gets to the consumer, because in this country, most of that loss 

happens at the very end of that chain. It happens at restaurants. 

It happens at grocery stores. It happens at consumers’ houses. A 

lot of it has to do with how we label the food. A lot of it has to 

do with policies that we have in place. But it also has to do with 

the technology and the science we have behind that very complex 

system, which we have not really paid much attention to in recent 

decades. 

So I would say that there are a lot of things that we need to do 

to reduce waste in this country, and to really stabilize the system, 

make it more robust, so that the producer wins, the manufacturer 

wins, the citizen, the consumer wins, as well. 

To look at a little broader aspects, however, most of the loss that 

happens worldwide, it actually happens between the farm and the 

plate, not at the very end, like it happens in this country and in 

developed countries. So the developing world still needs help with 

really figuring out how to protect the food supply very early on in 

that chain. 

If we did that, I think we will also gain because of that, we being 

the American farmer and the American consumer as well, because 

it is a global system. 

There are also other things that I believe will contribute to the 

complexity of the system, and that has to do with diseases for 

plants, diseases for animals, and the safety and security of our food 

supply globally, that if we were to really do a better job of designing the system, we will actually do a better job of having a safer, 

more secure food supply overall. 

Chairman ROBERTS. I appreciate that very much. I am reminded 

of the—one of the first calls I got from the Secretary, Secretary 

Perdue, was to be with him at Leesburg. We were trying to get at 

the problem of wasting one-third of the food that is served in our 

school lunch program, and the angst that we have on the regu-
45 

latory side with school nutritionists. The decision was made by the 

Secretary to issue proclamations. Quite frankly, I did not know 

that he could do it to that extent, but I am happy to learn that. 

I have a whole list of proclamations that I wish he would issue. 

But there were three, and it was to provide one percent milk to 

mix with chocolate and/or strawberry so the kids would actually 

drink it, or would want to drink it, and then there was the whole 

grains issue, and then there was the salt issue. I just talked to a 

nutritionist, I think it was yesterday. I asked her, ‘‘Did this make 

a difference?’’ She said, ‘‘Oh, yes, especially keeping that salt situation right where it is.’’ 

So there are things that you can try to mandate, from the United 

States Government, that simply do not work given the circumstances, and still have something that is certainly nutritious. 

I have been advised that the third vote just started, and so, let 

us see if I can get to the conclusion here. 

I am sorry for the disruption we have had, and virtually every 

member of this Committee has been running back and forth between their other committee assignments and voting. 

So this will conclude our hearing today. As we heard during this 

Committee’s recent hearing addressing the state of the agriculture 

economy there are macroeconomic forces that have created these 

current difficult times for American farmers and ranchers. Research is an integral tool that can help combat these larger trends. 

Research that results in better efficiencies and productivity becomes a significant risk management tool against weather, pests, 

and disease. 

Thank you to each of our witnesses on both panels for taking the 

time to share your view on agricultural research. The testimonies 

provided today are valuable for the Committee to hear first-hand 

and also be on the record. For those in the audience who want to 

provide additional thoughts on the farm bill, we have set up an email address on the Senate Ag Committee’s website, to collect your 

input. Please go to ag.senate.gov and click on the farm bill Hearing 

box on the left-hand side of the screen. That link will be open for 

five business days following today’s hearing. 

To my fellow members, I would ask any additional questions you 

may have for the record be submitted to the Committee Clerk five 

business days from today, or by 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, June 

22nd. 

With that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

JUNE 15, 2017 
48 

Statement by Senator Thad Cochran 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agriculture Research Hearing 

Thursday, June 15,2017 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to review the research programs 

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As this Committee prepares to write the 

2018 Farm Bill, it is important to identify the research programs that are working well and those 

that need improvement. 

Agricultural research has a significant impact on our nation's economy and the 

world. American farmers and ranchers play the leading role in feeding and clothing the 

world. The United States would be hard pressed to fulfill this mission without significant 

investment in agricultural research. 

I am pleased that this Committee continues to support the expansion of academic 

knowledge about agriculture in order to help our farmers be more efficient and effective. 

The Land Grant System is an important resource for promoting research. Formula grants 

distributed by the Department of Agriculture provide a stable source of funding for universities 

to conduct innovative agricultural, forestry, and extension activities which encourage U.S. food 

and fiber production. 

I also commend the USDA Agricultural Research Service for working with universities 

to increase research productivity. There is no better example of this than in my 

state. Agriculture production in Mississippi contributes roughly $8 billion annually to the state 

economy. Much of this success can be tied to recent and ongoing advances in agricultural 

research. 

Finally, I am pleased that the Committee established the Foundation for Food and 

Agriculture Research in the 2014 Farm Bill. This innovative model is enabling the best and 

brightest scientists to focus on research to enhance the economic and environmental resilience of 

our food supply. 
49 

Statement by 

Dr. Ann Bartuska 

Acting USDA Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for 

Research, Education, and Economics 

June 15, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished members of the Senate 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, I am pleased to appear before you to provide an 

overview of the activities of the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area of the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), highlight some of our recent successes, and 

share information on the priorities and challenges facing the future of agricultural research. 

I am Dr. Ann Bartuska, the Acting Under Secretary for the REE mission area. I am a 

career Senior Executive Service employee of USDA and have served as the Deputy Under 

Secretary for REE since 2010. I previously worked in the U.S. Forest Service as the Deputy 

Chief for Research and Development and also served as the Acting Under Secretary for the 

Natural Resources and Environment mission area in 2009. 

The REE mission area has four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service, the 

Economies Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture. I am accompanied by the leaders from two of the four agencies 

in the Research, Education and Economics Mission Area: Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, 

Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy, Director 

of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). The other two agencies in the mission 

area are the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS). I also serve as the Acting Cbief Scientist for USDA and oversee the Office of the Chief 

Scientist, which was mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill. The Office of the Chief Scientist provides 

strategic coordination of the science that informs USDA's and the Federal government's 
50 

decisions, policies and regulations that impact all aspects of U.S. food and agriculture and related 

landscapes and communities. 

The United States and the world are facing critical problems and opportunities. Global 

population is expected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, almost two and half billion more 

people than today. At the same time, we are seeing the impacts of extreme weather conditions, 

impacts that will likely only get worse. These are among the challenges that all of us face. 

Investments in research are a critical factor in meeting these and other challenges and 

opportunities, and it is the REE mission area agencies that support the critical research our 

country needs to ensure farm profitability and strengthen our communities; improve nutrition and 

food safety for lifelong health; and safeguard sustainable use of natural resources, including an 

abundant and safe water supply. For instance, ARS' network of2,000 Ph.D. scientists at nearly 

90 laboratories across the country work to enhance and protect agriculture as well as transfer 

research results to the marketplace where they serve the needs of a wide range of users. By 

funding research at land-grant universities, as well as other universities and organizations, NIF A 

integrates research, education, and extension to ensure that groundbreaking discoveries go 

beyond the laboratory and make their way to the farms, ranches, classrooms, and communities 

where Americans can put this knowledge into practice and improve lives. The research and 

analytical work of ERS provides vital statistical information to policymakers, consumers, other 

researchers, and the marketplace. NASS conducts numerous surveys and issues over 400 reports 

that provide accurate, timely, and useful official statistical data on national, state, and county 

agricultural estimates covering production, supply, price, and other aspects of the U.S. 

agricultural economy. Farmers and ranchers, governments, commodity markets, businesses, and 

researchers are among those who depend on these statistics to make informed decisions. 
51 

We have a rich history of the agricultural sciences in the United States and I would like to 

provide you some context for the ongoing work within the mission area. 

The agricultural research and education system of the United States started in 1862 with 

President Abraham Lincoln signing into law the creation of a new Department of Agriculture 

with the mission to promote scientific agriculture and the propagation and distribution of seeds. 

The passage of the Morrill Act in 1862 established the Land Grant University (LGU) system. In 

creating the Land Grant system, a whole new generation was allowed to gain access to postsecondary education in the United States, ensuring that higher education would forevermore be 

accessible to everyone. Congress expanded this family of Land Grants in 1890 through the 

Morrill Act of 1890 to serve the educational needs of the Afiican American communities and, in 

1994, to serve Native Americans in welcoming Tribal universities and colleges through The 

Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994. 

Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1887, which created the State Agricultural Experiment 

Stations. These experiment stations contributed many key discoveries in agricultural science. In 

1914, the Smith-Lever Act was signed into law, which created the Cooperative Extension 

Service as a unique federal, state, and local partnership to translate knowledge into innovations 

and solutions that advanced economic and social progress in American agriculture and rural 

America. 

REE' s work in the food and agricultural sciences is based on the premise that the federal 

government has a role in advancing scientific knowledge to promote our Nation's social and 

economic well-being. REE does this by investing in areas in which for-profit industry does not 

invest, such as basic research. It also collaborates with the public sector, academia, and the 

private sector to amplifY research outcomes and impacts. We know that the return on investment 
52 

in agricultural research is $20 for every $1 spent. Underinvestment or the absence of investments 

in food and agricultural sciences diminishes the needed foundational knowledge-base and 

impacts our Nation's global preeminence and economic well-being. It is with these goals in 

mind, that the REE mission area agencies establish their priorities and conduct their work. 

These priorities are determined through a rigorous and extensive process that 

incorporates the direction provided by this Committee, and the House of Representatives 

counterpart, through five-year authorizing farm bills, the annual appropriations bills, and related 

governance statutes set in place by Congress and guidance provided by the President. REE 

agencies have five year strategic plans, which are aligned with the Depattment's plans. Input is 

also solicited from many different types of stakeholders throughout the planning process. These 

stakeholders conduct or use agricultural research, education, and economics services provided by 

or for the agencies and include representatives from commodity groups, industry, interagency 

federal working groups, scientific societies, and university partners. Stakeholders also include 

the Congressionally-established REE external advisory committee, the National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB). 

Additionally, Congress, in the 2008 Farm Bill, directed the REE mission area to prepare a 

roadmap for USDA agricultural research, education, and extension. The Roadmap stated that 

solutions to many of modem society's most intractable problems demanded change that USDA 

would bring about by, for example, (1) better coordinating its science planning among and 

between REE science agencies and with other Federal science agencies; (2) listening to the needs 

of stakeholders; and (3) institutionalizing outcome-driven scientific program planning and 

implementation. Building upon this, REE developed an Action Plan organized around the 

leading priority areas for USDA science that contains long-term goals and short and immediate 
53 

steps to: enhance crop and animal health and production; develop positive responses to changes 

in weather and climate; develop new energy resources; develop knowledge about sustainability 

of our natural resources; develop more knowledge about childhood obesity and nutritional needs; 

enhance food safety as new challenges emerge; and increase science literacy and education. 

REE ensures the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the Department's engagement 

in these scientific and technological activities and through the use of scientific information in 

policymaking. REE has developed and provided continuous improvements to a Department-wide 

scientific integrity policy intended to provide guidance to leadership and employees to ensure 

public policy is informed by science that is unbiased and unaltered as well as developed under 

stringent scientific standards. This policy also is intended to instill public confidence in USDA 

research and science-based policy. 

You will hear more on the work and accomplishments of ARS and NIF A in their 

respective remarks. I would like to take a moment to highlight the important work of our 

statistical agencies- ERS and NASS. ERS shapes its research program and statistical products to 

serve those who routinely make or influence public policy and program decisions and their work 

reaches far beyond the borders of USDA. The mission ofERS is to inform and enhance public 

and private decision making on economic and policy issues related to agriculture, food, the 

environment, and mral development. Although ERS statistical research is aimed at the 

information needs of policymakers, its statistical products are also used by the media, trade 

associations, public interest groups, and the general public. ERS statistical products are widely 

recognized in the research community for its credibility, timeliness, and use of cutting edge data, 

models, and methods. 
54 

Rather than make recommendations, ERS designs its statistical research to examine 

alternative programmatic or policy pathways. In fact, in recognition of this 'arms-length' role, 

along with NASS, ERS is one of the 13OMB officially designated Federal statistical agencies. 

As principal Federal statistical agencies, both NASS and ERS provide data that are relevant to 

policy issues, maintain credibility among data users, maintain the trust and confidentiality of data 

providers, and the independence from political and other external influence. 

As I mentioned earlier, NASS's mission is to provide timely, accw·ate, and useful official 

statistics in service to U.S. agriculture. NASS achieves this through two separate appropriated 

program areas: the Agricultural Estimates program, and the Census of Agriculture and its followon studies. The Agricultural Estimates program provides critical supply, production, and price 

data that is the foundation of the commodities market and critical to the coordination of damage 

and loss assessment of the crop insurance program and disaster assistance. The Agricultural 

Estimates program issues over 400 reports annually, providing U.S., regional and State estimates 

on a wide range of crop and livestock commodities, in addition to estimates of cnviromnental 

issues, economics, and demographics. The Census of Agriculture serves as the benchmark of the 

structure of agriculture in the U.S and is critical to formulation of agriculture policy. The 

quinquennial census, which is being done this year, provides very detailed statistics at the 

county, watershed, and Congressional district level. Additionally under this program, NASS 

conducts in-depth studies on topics like irrigation, horticulture, organic farming, and aquaculture. 

In keeping with the efforts to break down silos, REE agencies are actively encouraged to 

seek efficiencies, collaborations, and partnerships with other agencies in the REE mission area 

and the Department. For example, ERS relies on NASS data for its Farm Income Estimate 

research; ERS provides ARS with social science research and analysis that guides some aspects 
55 

of ARS' priority setting; and ARS and NIFA routinely work together on research projects that 

have both intramural and extramural components. The REE mission area works broadly across 

the Department and with other Federal agencies on agricultural literacy, food safety, pests and 

diseases, bioenergy, natural resources, and nutrition programs in order to ensure REE programs 

provide the science backbone to support budget and program policy decision makers. 

Mr. Chairman, up to this point, I have presented some information on the mission ofREE 

agencies and provided some background on how priorities are coordinated in the mission area. I 

would like to look forward at agricultural science in coming years and the unique challenges we 

face. 

Expected gains in agricultural yield and production are unlikely to sustainably provide 

feed, fiber, and fuel to the burgeoning population projected to be 9.7 billion people worldwide by 

2050 without additional resources for research. The U.S. is losing its global scientific dominance 

and research leadership to emerging countries in addressing agricultural productivity and 

profitability challenges. China has surpassed the United States and continues to increase their 

investment in agricultural research. 

New discoveries, new technologies, and new skill sets (e.g. precision agriculture, 

artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, photonics, remote sensing, computational 

biology, etc.) applied to agriculture and forestry, arc needed to greatly increase agricultural 

productivity and profitability sustainably in order to provide for a population expected to expand 

to 9. 7 billion people worldwide by 2050. U.S. agricultural research currently has limited 

flexibility and resources to apply to these high-risk opportunities, and perhaps an even bigger 

recurring challenge is attracting the brightest minds to sustainably increase food and fiber 

production and to solve tough problems. Despite these challenges, REE is looking towards the 
56 

future to meet the demands of providing feed, fiber, and fuel to an exponentially growing 

population. This will require focus on the growth and development of the physical infrastructure, 

human capital, and big science capabilities within USDA and the agricultural research enterprise. 

As I mentioned earlier, ARS operates an extensive network of over 90 research facilities 

for which adequate, up-to-date and safe structures, as well as laboratories, are critical to produce 

research results that will help the U.S. continue to lead the world in agricultural innovation. 

Concurrently, infrastructure for agricultural research at land grant (including 1862's, 

1890's, 1994's, and HSI's) and non-land grant universities includes deteriorating 19th and 20th 

century facilities unsuitable and unsafe for quality modern research. A recent Association of 

Public and Land-Grant Universities audit estimated $8.9 billion in deferred maintenance of 

mission-critical buildings, including classrooms and laboratories, animal and plants research 

houses/farms, greenhouses, and pilot facilities with a $29 billion replacement value. Investments 

in academic research infrastructure would immediately create local jobs, conserve energy, and 

realize savings over time, in addition to improving research and education outcomes. Most 

universities already have documented capital infrastructure 'shovel-ready' projects. 

Agriculture will need to produce more food, fiber, and fuel in the next 30 years in order 

to provide for a population expected to expand to 9.7 billion people worldwide in that timemore than mankind has produced over its entire history; yet land area available for cultivation 

decreases, so production increases must be made through efficiency. Recent discoveries, new 

technologies, new sources of data, and holistic approaches allow breakthrough technologies and 

management practices to meet the production challenges facing U.S. agriculture. Trans formative 

innovations to ensure nutritional security and safety will require substantial additional 

investments, which can be leveraged by significant private sector investments and, often more 
57 

critically, create new industries and technological efficiencies for the U.S. private sector to 

market. This would significantly boost U.S. agricultural production, increase farm incomes and 

profitability, benefiting the entire agricultural sector, consumers, and their rural communities. 

Both development as well as effective monitoring of these systems regionally are needed, for 

example, as provided by the USDA-ARS Long Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network, 

which addresses water resource issues through holistic approaches such as drought tolerant 

germplasm and non-traditional water management research. 

Decisions and products for U.S. agricultural and nutritional security and global 

competitiveness will continue to dramatically improve if cyberinfrastructure enables the 

necessary big data to be readily accessible and the information to be properly analyzed, 

validated, used, and disseminated. USDA and other federal research organizations generate 

enormous quantities of valuable big data, as well as integrated models, on agricultural production 

and markets, natural resource utilization, agricultural production systems, genetics of agricultural 

species, and field data on crops, soils, climate, and water. Data collected on-farm is rapidly 

growing from tractors and other machines, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS or drones), and the 

Internet ofThings. New software, algorithms, and analytical models using this wealth of digital 

untapped information would reduce burdens, decrease operational cost and time, increase 

efficiency, and provide new products for the private sector. Underserved needs for big data 

infrastructure by USDA uniquely encompass aU aspects of the REE mission area- ARS, ERS, 

NASS, and NJFA. A few data-enabled science goals would include more accurate and timely 

crop forecasts, accelerated breeding of crops and animals, enabling robotics and smart systems, 

improved market and supply chain efficiencies, and gaining better health outcomes to 

sustainably provide food, fiber, and fuel to 9.7 billion people worldwide by 2050. Investments in 
58 

our future must also include trained staff, data storage, high performance state-of-the-art 

computing clusters, partnerships with university researchers, a high-speed network backbone to 

link locations, agricultural data hubs, digital data spokes, and modem cybersecurity mechanisms. 

USDA needs to expand its big data platform, Ag Data Commons, to handle USDA-funded 

scientific data in open computable forms. USDA also needs a virtual research support core to 

provide the advanced informatics, statistical, data management, programming, modeling, and 

other analytical capabilities. 

A highly focused, but nimble, effort that can support high-risk opportunities and attract 

expert researchers from within and outside of agriculture to work on applied problems in 

agriculture and forestry is also urgently needed. A research effort focused on data and 

technology advancement would provide this novel approach, yielding the ability to bridge the 

innovation "valley of death," attract new talent in agriculture, and improve data-driven decisions. 

Such an effm1 would expand USDA's ability to accelerate cutting edge technology adoption to 

provide solutions to U.S. producers, consumers and other end users. 

Agriculture critically needs a steady supply of individuals with modem agricultural and 

scientific knowledge and training to support the agricultural industry and R&D enterprise. This 

requires an ability to translate complex technical knowledge to end-users, particularly farmers 

and livestock producers, while recognizing local needs and constraints. A Purdue University 

study suggests an acute shortage and immediate need for significantly more agricultural 

graduates than currently being produced; this is an emerging threat to our food and national 

security, especially in the context to provide for an expanding population. A USDA-NIFA 

"systems approach," including development of transformative models in agricultural education, 

spanning the "K through 20" pipeline, would result in students competent in leadership, critical 
59 

thinking, problem solving, communication skills, digital competencies, professionalism and 

ethics. This would create the workforce needed for future U.S. agriculture. A specific training 

need for national security is modernizing the workforce at the USDA-ARS Plum Island Foreign 

Animal Disease facility in New York in advance of the move to the $1.2 billion National Bioand Agro-defense Facility, known as NBAF, in Kansas in 2021. 

In addition to the infrastructure needs of USDA, the future of farming extends beyond 

our rural communities and into our urban spaces. Small community gardens, urban farms that 

span several city blocks, and intensive indoor aquaponics facilities are all examples of urban 

agriculture. The fast-growing phenomenon has the potential to nourish the health and social 

fabric of communities and create economic opportunities for farmers and neighborhoods. Urban 

agriculture can provide many benefits to a community, including closer neighborhood ties, 

reduced crime, education and job training opportunities, and healthy food access for low-income 

residents. USDA's urban agriculture research provides leading science and decision tools to 

inform urban natural resources stewardship and improve environmental health and community 

well-being in urban areas. Our research helps communities transition to a more sustainable 

future. Key urban research areas include: forestry inventory and management; ecosystem 

services; human health and well-being; urban sustainability; green infrastructure; water and 

watersheds; and urban long-term research, which works across and within disciplines to identil)' 

a holistic approaches to sustaining urban agriculture and improving the communities served. 

Mr. Chairman, despite significant efforts by recent Farm Bills and annual spending bills 

to enhance agricultural science in the United States, we are at a crossroads. Although REE has 

made significant strides, there is still much to be accomplished. Our storied legacy of discovery, 

innovation, and international leadership in agricultural research, education, and economics is in 
60 

jeopardy by insufficient investments in both money and minds. This is a challenge we must all 

rise to meet and REE looks forward to rising to the challenge. Thank you. 
61 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

By 

DR. JOHN FLOROS 

DEAN OF AGRICULTURE 

DIRECTOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AND 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY 

Before the 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

"AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: PERSPECTIVES ON PAST AND FUTURE 

SUCCESSES FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL" 

JUNE 15,2017 

Food and Agriculture Research and Innovation Depends on the Land-Grant University 

System 

The year 2012 marked the sesquicentennial celebration of the signing of the MorrillJ\ct and the 

establishment of the land-grant university system. At the time that President Lincoln signed federal 

legislation, litde could he or the authors of the bill have imagined the far-reaching implications of the 

enactment of that landmark legislation. The partnership that was developed between the states and 

the federal government with the Morrill1\ct, and subsequently the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts, 

provided broader access to higher education and application of agricultural research findings on and 

off campus. One of the results was the development of an agricultural economy and a food system 

that is unmatched across the globe. Efficiencies achieved through knowledge generated by research 

and communicated to producers and industry through Extension programming have been a solid 

investment of public resources. The U.S. is fortunate to have abundant natural resources within its 

borders, and those resources have been critical in contributing to the food security enjoyed by her 

citizens. The public land-grant system has been critical in leveraging that investment into a safe and 

abundant supply of food. 

Globally, much of the social and political unrest and riots that swept the planet in recent years have 

been connected to a single factor-the price of food. Studies, including data gathered by the United 

Nations, show strong correlations among the price of food against time, the so-called food price 

index of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, and the dates of riots around the world, 

whatever their cause .. This seems to indicate that food price indices rising above a certain threshold 

results in trouble around the world'. Many recent events in the Middle East, North and Eastern 

1 :\f. Lagi, K.Z. Bertrand, Y. Bar· Yam (August 10, 2011). The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and 

the ~fiddle East. https: /I arcfilcs.ucdaYis.cdu/ upload~ I tiler public /2014/03 /27 /bc1Jcmarcfo<)dpriccsaugust2\H 1.pdf 

and Lagi et al. 2011, http: I /nccsi.cdu/rcscarch /social /food crises pdf 
62 

Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America and elsewhere around the world underscore the tragic 

consequences that can accompany regional food insecurity and food shortages, regardless of the 

root cause. In the words of the late Jamaican musician Bob Marley, " ... a hungry mob is an angry 

mob." Food security is truly central to security and political stability, not just in the United States, 

but throughout the world. Food security and political stability can be linked directly to 

agricultural and food-system innovation driven by investment in food and agricultural 

research. 

Agricultural Research Has an Impressive Impact and a Long-Lasting Value 

The second piece of federal legislation that was important in transitioning and broadening the 

teaching mission of land-grant universities was the Hatch Act of 1887. That piece of federal 

legislation, celebrating its 130th anniversary this year, established the so-called Agricultural 

Experiment Stations that inaugurated the food and agriculture research function at land-grant 

universities. That legislation provided a framework for federal support of the research mission at 

land-grant institutions to be matched at least 1:1 (and in other cases 7 or 8:1) by state dollars through 

what arc now referred to as federal capacity funds. This mix of federal and state funds is now further 

leveraged many-fold by federal competitive grants, grants from private industry, and other types of 

unrestricted gifts and awards to faculty conducting research at the nation's land-grant universities. 

That activity is further leveraged by integration with the research and economic arms of U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture Research Service and the Economic Research Service, to 

round out the nation's food and agriculture research enterprise. That enterprise has, for 13 decades, 

advanced scientific knowledge in all aspects of food production, and together with Cooperative 

Extension, has advanced production capacity, profitability, and safety of the nation's food system. 

Agricultural trade, in turn, engages the nation's food system with the larger global food system, 

extending the value of public and private investments in research and development worldwide. 

What do experts say about the value of public investment in agricultural research? That question is 

central to the published, peer-reviewed research of agricultural economists at multiple land-grant 

institutions. These scientists essentially conduct research on the impact of agricultural research. The 

work of these economists, notably Dr. Wallace Huffman, Iowa State University; Dr. Phillip Pardey, 

University of Minnesota; and Dr. Julian Alston, University of California-Davis; all points to the 

value of public investment in research and further warns of the downstream consequences of public 

divestment from agriculture research. In general, the published benefit-cost ratios vary by state 

but are always double digits, averaging 21:1 and corresponding to annual rates of return 

between 9-10%. For example, in Kansas, the estimated benefit-cost ratio was 33.6:1 with an annual 

rate of return of about 10'Yo2

• An important nuance of these otherwise very impressive rates of 

return is that, especially considering research related to production agriculture, the payoff for 

investment is realized only after considerable lag time, in some cases multiple decades. Thus, the 

reality is that failure to continue to invest in food and agriculture research would be 

expected to have negative consequences for decades to come, and that will take significant 

time to reverse. 

Even though the United States remains a world leader in agricultural science as measured by 

publications, citations, and patents, the U.S.lost its number one ranking in the world to China for 

2 Julian 1\l Alston, 1\'latthcw A. :\ndcrscn,Jcnnjfcr S.Jamcs, Philip G. Pardcy; The Economic Returns ro U.S. Public 

l\gricultural Research. Am J _1p;i"" hw; 20! 1; 93 (5): 1:257-12'77. doi: 1U.1U93/ajac/aar(J44 
63 

public investment in food and agriculture research in 20093

• To fill the void, the private sector has 

become a key funder of research at land-grant universities. In general, this trend is in part a result of 

a very small funding base in USDA NIFA's flagship grant program AFRI. With the private sector 

funding food and agriculture research, essential "high risk-high consequence" questions to advance 

the science and solve fundamental problems relevant to agriculture and food (plants, animals, pests, 

diseases, safety, sustainability, etc.) are more likely to remain unexplored. Although progress is being 

made to incrementally increase appropriations to the AFRI program, it remains funded at 

considerably less than the $700 rnillion authorized in the previous two Farm Bills. Although it is 

understood that budget management and fiscal accountability are shared responsibilities across 

federal agencies, the AFRI program simply does not have the level of base funding (as compared to 

NIH or NSF) to shoulder continued reductions. In fact, we support the goal of achieving 

appropriations in J\FRI equal to that authorized in the last Farm Bill by 2020. 

Food Science and Technology Research Adds Safety, Security, Quality, and Value to 

Agricultural Commodities and Our Food Supply 

Studies of many ancient civilizations indicate that, throughout history, humans overcame hunger and 

disease not only by harvesting food from a cultivated land, but also by preserving and processing it. 

Today, our modem food system is complex, and out food supply is largely safe, nutritious, tasty, 

abundant, diverse, convenient, and less costly and more readily accessible than ever before. 

Contemporary food science and technology contributed greatly to the success of this modern food 

system by intq,>rating science, engineering, and many other disciplines to solve difficult problems, 

such as enhancing food safety, improving availability, and resolving nutritional deficiencies, while 

adding tremendous value to raw agricultural commodities'. However, research funding for food 

science and technology within USDA has declined substantially over the years, with the possible 

exception of food safety research. 

The impact of modern food preservation, processing, and manufacturing methods is evident in 

today's food supply. Food quality can be maintained or even improved, and food safety can be 

enhanced. Sensitive nutrients can be preserved, important vitamins and minerals can be added, 

toxins and anti-nutrients can be removed, and foods can be designed to optimize health and reduce 

the risk of disease. Similarly, processing and manufacturing can improve the overall efficiency of the 

food system, minimize waste or product loss, facilitate distribution of foods around the world to 

increase availability, and contribute significantly to increased trade and economic growth5

• Research 

funding for food post-harvest handling, preservation, processing, packaging, and other 

manufacturing methods is now almost non-existent within USDA, with only some private 

investments in the broader area of food processing innovation. 

Food manufacturing transforms raw agricultural materials into products for intermediate or final 

consumption by applying technolob'}', labor, machinery, energy, and scientific knowledge. In 2011, 

food manufacturing accounted for 14.7% of the value of all shipments from U.S. manufacturing'. 

Also, according to USDA Economic Research Service, the farmer's share of the consumer's food 

3 USDA ERS Amber \'X·' aves at https: · ;,l.\J.'I.\'.t'ts.usda.vov/amber-,van~s/2016/novt'mbertus-ap·icultural-rd-io-an-eraof-falJini{-puhlic- fundin~: I. 

'Floros ct al. 2010, Feeding the World Today and Tomorrow: The Importance of Food Science and Technology, 

Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 9, 2010, pp: 572-599. 5 Floros eta!. 2010, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Vol. 9, 2010, pp: 572-599. 6 USDJ\ Economic Research Service, hrtps: / /"'"'-'·'IV.crs.usda..~rm·/ topics/ fvod-markcts-priccs /proccssin?-

markctiny! manufacturing.aspx. 
64 

shopping dollar has decreased from 46% in 1913 to less than 20% in 20067

• Overall, today, only 

about $1 out of every $7 spent on food goes to primary agricultural production. The remaining value 

of approximately $6 is added by handling, processing, packaging, transportation, distribution, and 

other modern food manufacturing techniques. If we were to look at wheat, for example, an 

important agricultural commodity for Kansas, wheat represents less than 9% of the retail value of a 

typical loaf of bread. Milling, baking, and related manufacturing activities represent almost 65% of 

the final value, and the remaining 26% is due to transportation and retail mark-up8

• However, 

drastically reduced research funding over several decades has considerably decreased innovation and 

competitiveness in the U.S. food manufacturing sector. 

Many individual research studies and several comprehensive scientific reviews concluded that: (1) 

major advances in sustainable food production and availability can be achieved "~th the concerted 

application of current technologies; and (2) in order to enable the food system to cope with both 

known and unknown challenges in the coming decades, it is important to invest in research sooner 

rather than later". 

International Research is a Key Component of America's Agriculture Research Portfolio 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the lead federal agency 

working to end extreme poverty and enable success in resilient democratic societies10• The Feed the 

Future Innovation Labs, funded by USAID, draw upon faculty expertise of top U.S. universities and 

in-country research institutions that tackle the most difficult challenges in agriculture and food 

securityl!. As one inspects the list of U.S. universities leading these efforts, it is obvious that landgrant universities are generally best suited to provide key expertise and leadership fundamental to the 

success of each laboratory. At my home institution, Kansas State University, we went from not 

leading any labs in 2012 to now leading four Feed the Future laboratories. \'\'hat has become 

obvious to us is that, although the target of the work is international in nature, the knowledge, 

relationships, and products of the work (e.g. sources of plant genetic diversity) become available to 

researchers as Kansas State University as a natural outcome of the labs, and, in turn, they help our 

fanners, ranchers, and industry to advance. 

A Major Infrastructure Challenge 

Since the last presidential election, major challenges associated "~th the current state of America's 

airports, roads, bridges, and ports have been in the news. It is apparent that our infrastructure, so 

important to the U.S. economy and national security, is aging and in need of upgrade and repair. 

Similarly, the country's land-grant universities, a network so vital to the nation's economy and 

national security, also have an aging infrastructure, and they are in desperate need for repair and 

rebuilding. 

America's colleges of agriculture educate the next generation of leaders in this most important of 

industries; conduct the research that mil allow us to provide food, feed, fiber, and fuel for a 

growing world population; and take science-based education to every county in the U.S. The 

physical infrastructure that supports these activities is the foundation of our national 

7 \h1luc-:\dckd Pr~)ducrs and Enterprises, University of:hfaryland Extension, 

htt;ps: I I c<tcnsiuo.umd.edn i agmarkctin~ /value-added -products. 

'Robert M. Kerr Food & Agricultural Products Center, Oklahoma State University, http:/ /fapc.bjzivalucadded. 

'Godfray et al. 2010, The Future of the Global Food System, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 365, 2769-2777. 

10 United States Agency for International Development. https: r /w'\\r\v.usaid.~'OY /who-we-arc. 

1 t Feed the Future Innovation Labs. hrtps: I I fecdthcfuturc.&roy /lp / fct'd-futurc-innovation-hbs. 
65 

competitiveness in food, agriculture, and natural resources. The infrastructure in most land-grant 

universities is aging, inadequate, and, in many cases, obsolete. A national study of capital facilities 

and deferred maintenance recently documented the magnitude of the infrastructure problem that 

threatens to further erode the United States' preeminent role in global food and agriculture. Building 

level data supplied by 91 colleges of agriculture (1862, 1890, and 1994land-grant universities and 

colleges, and some non-land-grant universities) documented the existence of more than 15,000 

facilities with 87 million gross square feet of space valued at over $29 billion in this largest and most 

comprehensive study in the U.S. Summary findings: 54% of facilities were constructed during 1951-

1990, accounting for 68% of deferred maintenance needs; more than $5 billion of the deferred 

maintenance pertains to science research ($3.2 billion) and classroom/ teaching ($2.0 billion), while 

the remaining $3.2 billion was marked as farm/ animal, support, greenhouses and Extension 

buildings; only 20% of colleges of agriculture invest at levels that would at least stabilize, if not 

decrease, the backlog of deferred maintenance; 80% of the campuses are investing capital at such a 

low level that they will continue to add to the backlog of deferred maintenance every year. The 

conclusions from this Sightlines ILC Stud)P on the age of the buildings, the lack of capital 

investment over time, and the levels of deferred maintenance needs are sobering- the total 

deferred maintenance cost is at least $8.4 billion. In order for the United States to remain the 

world leader in food and agricultural research, the aging infrastructure problem must be 

addressed. 

Pressure on NIFA Capacity Funding 

The U.S. agriculture industry is the envy of the world and a true American success story. Since the 

1940s, the U.S. food, agriculture, forestry, fishery, and natural resource industries' productivity and 

output have increased by more than 2.5 times, while using fewer total acres. However, this trackrecord of success has not occurred by chance. Rather, it is a result of the intense and deliberate 

application of scientific research and development and technological development-with the 

involvement of the federal government and state and local (county) governments. A key component 

of this federal funding has been Capacity Funding (Hatch, Smith-Lever, Evans-Allen, 1890 

Extension) specifically dedicated to supporting research and Cooperative Extension programs at 

America's land-grant universities. \11/ith roots in legislation passed in 1862, NlFA has asked the 

question of "whether Capacity Funding remains a productive model for supporting academic 

institution-based research and Extension in the 21st century?" TECononry Parlners conducted a 

national survey and synthesized the results for NIP A. 

The findings are strong and unequivocal in their impact: financial leveraging through matching state 

and local funds of at least $1.86 per $1 federal sustains the specialized personnel and scientific 

facilities and instruments, research station infrastructure, and Extension operations needed for 

complex agricultural and associated research programs; generates significantly higher volumes of 

publications; provides flexibility to fund rapid response to emergencies or emerging issues; allows 

long-term research, leading to improved crop and livestock management; and provides a base of 

support to successfully vie for competitive grants across all sizes of institutions and federal, state, 

and local agencies. Capacity funds align with 9 out of 10 2014 Farm Bill priority areas (as well as a 

majority of NIFA Challenge Areas); research programming thrust is evident across applied, 

translational, and basic sciences; patenting output is more wide-ranging and influences up to one in 

"i\ National Study of Capital Infrastructure & Deferred Maintenance at Schools of Agriculture. Sightlines, LLC. 

http: I /'\'l"'W'\Y .aplu.urf I projects ... and ... inj tla rives I afrkulturc-human-~cicnccs-and-naturalrcsourccs/Dcfcrrcdl\1alntcnancc Schoolsof.\g.pdf 
66 

every six patents; this funding model should be increased and maintained into the future. 

Comparative Levels of Funding to Federal R&D Supporting/Performing Non-Defense Agencies 

from 1997 to 201613 illustrates a very challenging narrative: NIH $588 B, NASA $251 B, DOE $221 

B, NSF $101 B, USDA $52 Band all other $169 B. 

The core finding is that Capacity Funding carries substantial and ongoing advantages as an 

agricultural research and Extension base funding model, and it should be considered by 

other federal funding agencies. 

Training the Next Generation Food System Workforce 

Recent revisions from the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and 

Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat predict world population growth to 9.7 billion by 

205014• Awareness of the population growth, the need for action to prepare for the predicted 

growth, and the desire of that population for a higher standard of living was highlighted prominently 

in the publication", "A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the 

Corning Biology Revolution." This National Research Council publication became the roadmap for 

the organization of AFRI requests for applications. One of the grand societal challenges highlighted 

in those requests was global food security. Feeding a world of more than 9 billion people is a 

complex and multifaceted problem that will require significant advances in plant and animal 

genetics, soil fertility, water and nitrogen use efficiency, animal nutrition, tillage and irrigation 

practices, and other areas. These advances must occur in a world ·with a potentially more variable 

climate and must include major improvements in food distribution, breakthroughs in food 

processing and stored food preservation, and substantial progress toward reducing food waste and 

food loss. The grand challenge to feed the growing world population points to the need for AFRI to 

be re-authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill at no less than $700 M, and grown quickly to that level of 

appropriated funding. 

Since its inception, the land-grant university system has played an important role in continually 

providing new knowledge that advances the science and application of new technology. These 

advances allowed production agriculture and a1,>ribusiness to meet and defeat agriculrural production 

challenges, and have ensured food security for the United States. Undoubtedly, the land-grant 

university system played a major role in global food security, and until now, it has helped meet the 

ever-increasing population challenges. But who will continue the education, discovery, and outreach 

in the corning decades? 

Replacing faculty positions vacated by retirements and lost to budget cuts at land-grant universities 

over the corning decade is going to be a major challenge, if not a crisis. However, awareness of this 

looming challenge is increasing. As an example, the Coalition for a Sustainable Agricultural 

~'orkforce formed a partnership aimed at increasing the workforce pipeline by generating greater 

numbers of bachelor to doctoral degree recipients in an array of disciplines within food and 

13 National Evaluation of Capacity of Programs. Quantitative and Qualitative Review of NIFA Capacity Funding. 

TECon071!JI PartntWI, I ... LC. 

htt:ps: i / nifa.usda.iJOV 'sites/ default/ files/ rcsourcc/~1P.:\ -'020Capadt;~/'i(J20Fundin~:(':o20RcYic\"\A~.;:~20-

~:o20TEConom\·0-';J20Final~,.o20Rcport.pdf 

"World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015. 

http: I/ \\"WW.un.or,v/ en/deYelopment/ des a/ fiC\,VS lpopuhtion/2(115-rrp<)rt.html. 

15 National Research Council. 2009. A New Biology for the 21st Century. \Xlashington, DC: The National Academics 

Press. doi:https:/ /doi.org/10.17226/12764. 
67 

agriculture". The coalition, a collection of prominent, agriculturally related scientific societies, 

agribusinesses, and industry leaders, has proposed federal partnerships with leading agtibusinesses to 

help fund this effort. This and other similar efforts are examples of initiatives needed to address a 

looming crisis. \X'e support initiatives to enhance the number of students selecting agriculture and 

related disciplines for their university training. We encourage the Committee to explore avenues so 

that the next Farm Bill can raise national awareness of and authorization to begin to tackle this 

challenge of worldwide food security. 

Related to the issue of the workforce pipeline, we additionally would encourage the committee to 

consider another problem. Like many STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) 

disciplines, graduate programs in food and agriculture attract bright and very capable international 

applicants into their doctoral programs. If these doctoral recipients are not placed in faculty or 

research associate positions in land-grant universities in the United States, they return home. Home 

often means returning to the growing economies of India, China, Brazil, etc. It would seem prudent 

to consider ways to "reinvest" these doctoral recipients in the land-grant university system, and to 

nurture and diversify the system. 

Finally, it must be pointed out that the agricultural research workforce clilemma has at the root of its 

solution the continued USDA investment in land-grant universities. Capacity funding via the SmithLever act provides base support for the 4-H program. This important youth development activity is 

the bq,>inning of a pipeline directing both rural and urban youth to engage with greater probability in 

higher education with the potential for careers in the food and agriculture sectors. A percentage of 

those youth would be expected to choose graduate degrees that ">ill credential them for careers in 

agricultural and food research, either at land-grant universities or in the private industry. An 

important takeaway is that capacity funding through USDA supports ongoing programs 

through Extension that are interconnected to the workforce pipelioe needs for the food 

system, including food and agricultural research. 

Conclusion 

It is my hope that this testimony captures the enduring optimism that has been a common thread 

connecting more than 150 years of history of the land-grant university system. That thread is one of 

valued service to the farmers, ranchers, food and agricultural industries, and all the citizens of this 

great nation. Faculty and staff at land-grant universities across the nation recognize that their work 

takes place on behalf of a greater good, a broader goal, and a common vision that is much bigger 

than their individual achievements. Members of this United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry can be confident that every dollar of federal investment authorized by the 

2018 Farm Bill and expended at land-grant universities will be a wise investment. That investment is 

guaranteed to be leveraged further, and to spawn innovation and discovery that will be translated 

into solutions to improve the lives of U.S. citizens. 1 thank you for this opportunity to provide 

testimony. 

16 Coalition for a Sustainable Agricultural \X1

orkforce. http:/ /"\v\vw.apsnct.or~r /members :'outreach /Pa~rcs lCSA. \\'.aspx. 
68 

STATEMENT OF KERRY E. HARTMAN, PH.D. 

ACADEMIC DEAN & SCIENCE CHAIR 

NUETA HIDATSA SAHNISH COLLEGE AND 

THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM 

NEWTOWN, NORTH DAKOTA 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITIEE ON AGRICULTURE·· UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 15, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of my institution, Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College, and the 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium, which is the nation's 37 Tribal Colleges and Universities, on 

the topic of Agricultural Research: our past experiences and potential opportunities for the 2018 Farm Bill. 

I am Dr. Kerry Hartman, Academic Dean and Sciences Chair, and for the past 25 years, I have been a fulltime faculty member and teacher on the Fort Berthold Indian reservation in North Dakota. Throughout that 

time, I have been engaged- most often with my undergraduate students·· in research on the land, water, 

environment, and native plants and wildlife that are at the center of life for the Mandan, Arikara, and 

Hidatsa people. 

BACKGROUND ON TRIBAL COLLEGES: 

American Indian Tribal Colleges, including Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College (NHSC), are public institutions 

of higher education that are young and geographically isolated -primarily located on federal trust land. 

Chartered by the Three Affiliated Tribes, NHSC, like all Tribal Colleges that followed, was established for 

two reasons: (1) the near complete failure of the U.S. higher education system to address the needs of- or 

even include- American Indians; and (2) the need to preserve our culture, our language, our lands, and 

our sovereignty. 

Collectively, Tribal Colleges have grown from one institution in 1968 to 37 TCUs today, operating 75 sites 

in 16 states and serving approximately 160,000 American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other rural residents 

each year in academic and community-based programs. We are located in some of the most economically 

impoverished regions of the country, yet our homelands are rich in natural resources and our people are 

among the most resilient in the world. Within this context, Tribal Colleges are planting seeds of hope for 

the future; nurturing languages, cultures, and traditions; helping to strengthen tribal economies and 

governments, and sustaining and revitalizing our lands, waters, environments, and traditional foods. 

NHSC's values are represented by the earth lodge, the common home to the Nueta/Mandan, Hidatsa, and 

Sahnish/Arikara people. The earth lodge symbolizes the universe and all elements necessary to exist in the 

world. Unity, being the key value, is located in the center (fire pit), around which the rest of the values build 

and is depicted through the Earth. Spirituality, People, Culture, and Future are the four domains 

represented by the four main posts. The outer twelve posts represent values within each of the four 

domains and follow these guiding principles: Our Livelihood, Teachings, Leadership, Community, 
69 

Industrious, Determination, Growth, Respect, Land, Language, Balance, and Humility. All of the research 

at our college, like our education programs, grows out of these values and is intended to sustain them. At 

the same time, we are part of the nation's higher education system and research infrastructure. 

TCUs AS lAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS 

In 1994, the Tribal Colleges took a significant step toward greater participation in the American higher 

education system when American Indian reservations became the last lands under the American flag to 

receive federal land-grant status and funding under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This 

historic- and long overdue •• recognition occurred with the passage of the Equity in Educational Land 

Grant Status Act of 1994. 

As place-based institutions of higher education whose collective mission is to meet the needs of our tribes 

and tribal communities- and most important, to preserve, strengthen and sustain our tribal lands, 

languages, and cultures·· Tribal Colleges are proud to be part of this nation's land-grant family. I think it is 

important to remember that over 155 years ago, the first Morrill Act was enacted specifically to bring 

education to the people. Today, the 19941nstitutions- more so than many other institutions of higher 

education- epitomize the original intent of the first land grant legislation: we are truly place- and 

community-based institutions. All of the 1994 institutions offer place-based natural resource management 

programs and train a significant number of our tribal natural resource research and management 

professionals. Of 37 Tribal Colleges, 34 currently are 19941and-grants, and another will join our ranks as a 

19941and-grants when the Farm Bill is next reauthorized. 

Being part of the land-grant system is important to us because, as I mentioned earlier, we are people of a 

Place. Place defines who we are. Our stories, songs, and language come from the land, waters, 

mountains, and wind. Most of our land ··the remaining tribal land in North America ··is forest or 

agricultural land. In fact, of the 55.7 million acres that compose American Indians reservations, more than 

75 percent are agricultural and forestry holdings. 

The National Institute of Food and Nutrition (NIFA) administers four modest programs for the 1994 

institutions: a $3.4 million (formula) agriculture education equity program, which has enabled the thirty-four 

1994 institutions to develop and offer small foundational agriculture or natural resource education 

programs; an endowment program, from which the 1994 institutions share annual interest payments of 

approximately $5 million (total) each year; a $4.4 million competitive extension program, which supports 

1994 outreach activities such as community gardening, summer science and nature camps for youth, 

agriculture technical assistance, and financial literacy programs; and a $1.8 million competitive research 

program, which began in FY2000 at $500,000. As the NIFA website states, our institutions often serve as 

the primary institution of scientific inquiry, knowledge and learning for our tribal communities. This modest 

funding assists us in our efforts to protect our reservation's forests, woodland, and monitoring water quality 

and other environmental factors. Projects range from studying bison herd productivity to efforts such as 

mine, which focus on the connection between traditional plants and their role in managing diabetes, 

controlling invasive species, or revitalizing Native species. 

Under the NIFA-1994 program, partnerships are required with other federal and land-grant institutions or 

state institutions or Agriculture Research Service stations. These partnerships assist us in carrying out the 

grant's primary emphasis, which is on training students in science. 
70 

Three types of funding are available through the program: "New Discovery" supports basic and applied 

scientific inquiry that could be published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Capacity level" grants support local, 

applied research. "Student Inquiry" funding allows a Tribal College student to build a research project and 

present the results under the guidance of a 1994 Land-Grant faculty member. 1994 faculty may also 

receive a grant to study optimal ways to teach Native American students in sciences as they relate to 

health, conservation and agriculture, and there is a special funding initiative that allows the 1994s 

to develop scientific capacity throughout the entire 1994 Land-Grant system. 

All of these grant programs, though small, are critically important to NHSC and the other 1994 institutions. 

My years as a member of the NHSC faculty have instilled in me a keen understanding of the need to write 

and administer grants to support our extremely under-funded institution. In my 15 years as a full-time 

faculty member, I have written, co-authored, or been a collaborator in approximately two dozen grants, and 

I have served as Principal Investigator, Project Director, researcher, faculty member, and student mentor, 

usually at the same time. These grant programs have had a lasting impact on my students, our science 

department, and the community. They have allowed us to purchase equipment and supplies, conduct 

research, obtain training/professional development, financially support and employ student researchers, 

participate in national and regional conferences, and more. My college simply would not be able to offer the 

science and agriculture education and opportunities to our students and community that we offer today 

without these programs. The same is true for all of the 1994 institutions. 

A key additional benefit of the USDA-NIFA Tribal College Research Grant Program is the collaboration the 

grants build other institutions faculty, agencies, tribal organizations, and researchers. Through these 

collaborations and cooperative projects, I personally have grown significantly in my educational philosophy, 

research capabilities, professional contacts, and most important, in terms of educational resources 

available to my students and me. Scientists, researchers, professors and career professionals from 

multiple institutions, agencies, and businesses are now readily available to me for support, to respond to 

questions, suggest methodologies and inform me of other resources. Likewise, I serve as a resource to 

others. These communities of practice are similar to learning communities- through and within them, we 

find camaraderie, communication networks, and resources that strengthen our individual research and 

education projects and serve as laboratories for innovation, technology transfer, and ongoing regional (and 

national) economic and community development. 

1994 Research 

NHSC along with the other Tribal Colleges in North Dakota are engaged in research directly related to 

sustainably managing the traditional resources of our tribes' homeland, now known as the Northern Great 

Plains. While mapping and exploring the region, Lewis and Clark were struck by the "immence [sic] herds 

of Buffaloe [sic] deer Elk and Antelopes which we saw in every direction feeding on the hills and plains." 

The wildlife that wandered this vast grassland and the plants on which they found nourishment were the 

traditional foods and medicines of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people. Using Native knowledge and 

practices, tribal ancestors researched the plants, wildlife, and insects of their homeland and made 

remarkable discoveries that helped improve health, create crop rotation and irrigation cycles, and 

sustainably co-exist with the natural world. Today, the wildlife and plants are not entirely gone, but they are 

far less abundant. 

I am proud to say that NHSC has been a beneficiary of the competitive USDA-NIFA TCU research program 

almost since the program's inception. I personally have been involved in NIFA-funded research grants 

since 2001. Common threads in all four of these grants is a research focus that is culturally and 
71 

economically relevant to the people of the Fort Berthold reservation, and most important, that the research 

involves and engages students. Locally- and community-relevant research enhances the education 

experience and, I believe, sparks an interest in my students to continue their education for the benefit of 

their tribe and community. 

Primarily through our grant collaborations, NHSC students and I have been involved with multiple individual 

and collaborative research projects on a wide range of issues, including water quality monitoring, selenium 

in bison meat, diabetes monitoring, and aquaculture. Previously funded NIFA-TCU research grants include 

a multi-TCU/state institution of higher education grant to build and enhance TCU natural resources 

education programs; aquaculture research aimed at creating local small farmer economic development 

opportunities; and a series of grants related to june berries (environment, production and propagation, 

nutritional implications, Native/traditional habitat), a traditional plant and food of our region. With all of 

these projects, the search for solutions and the excitement of conducting valid and reliable research that 

will benefit our community and tribe in terms of culture and identity, health status, and economic impact 

continues excites my students and me. Importantly, as my research has evolved, I have become more 

aware of the need to incorporate qualitative research into my methodologies and to ensure that Native 

science is incorporated within the research paradigm. 

The goal of my current NIFA-TCU program research is to develop and sustain the environment needed to 

support native pollinators, which- through improved pollination- will help us restore and sustain one of our 

native plants/foods, Amerlanchier Cultivars, or juneberries. Juneberries are important to us for their 

nutritional value and newly discovered anti-cancer properties. NHSC is doing this research in partnership 

with Tribal Game and Fish biologists and South Dakota State University. 

It is important to note that SDSU as well as the Tribal Game and Fish Department have been key partners 

in all of our Amerlanchier Cultivars research. Equally important is that fact that research such as this would 

not be possible without a focus at USDA on specialty crop research. In rural America and Indian Country, 

specialty crop research is critically important to building and sustaining a local economy: locally grown, 

locally produced, locally packaged, and locally consumed. Whether through a separate specialty crop 

program or the NIFA-TCU research program, we believe this type of research is the most relevant and will 

yield the largest return in many of our communities. The need for more an ongoing research into new and 

emerging technology uses and impacts; pest and invasive species management; sustainable growth; and 

food safety/security are essential in Indian Country, as NHSC's series of juneberry research grants attests. 

Other TCUs are also doing important research. Salish Kootenai College, in Pablo, Montana, conducts 

extensive research and offers an accredited bachelor's degree program in the Science of Hydrology to 

address a dearth of American Indian water management scientists. This is particularly relevant to people of 

the Flathead Indian Reservation because their primary body of water, Flathead Lake, is the nation's largest 

freshwater lake west of the Mississippi and it is fed by several rivers and streams flowing from the glaciers 

of northern Montana and Canada. 

llisagvik College in Barrow, Alaska, is located on the northern-most point of the United States where "the 

sea is the way of life.' llisagvik offers a unique Marine Mammal Observer Stewardship degree that 

combines lnupiaq traditional knowledge, Western science research, and industry standards into a program 

that is recognized by the Alaska Federation of Natives as "the training center for Alaska Natives on Marine 

Mammal Observation.' 
72 

These examples demonstrate our fundamental connection to the 1994 legislation: We are people of a 

Place. Tragically, due to misuse, exploitation and lack of expertise and training, millions of tribal acres are 

fallow, under-used, or are being developed through methods that could render resources non-renewable. 

For this reason, in particular, agriculture and forestry research is critically important to the 1994 institutions 

and our tribal communities. 

THE NEED TO GROW TCU (1994) AGRICULTURE & fORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAMS: 

THE: PRODUCTION CHALLENGE: 

The agriculture challenges we face as a nation and world today are well established: constantly and rapidly 

changing technologies; population growth and predicted food shortages; environmental changes and 

competition over water and land access and use; obesity and health status; and more. A common thread 

adding another layer of complexity to each of these challenges is the aging agriculture workforce in the 

U.S. The average age of farmers and producers in the U.S. is 60 years of age and continues to rise each 

year. Among Native American farm operators, more than 30 percent are 65 years or older. But for 

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), the issue goes far beyond age. The 2012 Agricultural 

Census reports less than 38,000 Native American-operated farms, representing only 1.8 percent of the 

approximately 2.1 million farms in the U.S. Of these Native farms, only 8 percent had a market value of 

$50,000 or more, while 25 percent of all U.S. farms were worth $50,000 or more. In North Dakota, the 

statistics are even more grim: in 2012, only 348 principal farm operators were AI/AN, representing only 1.1 

percent of all farm operators in the state. The state lost nearly 20 Native farmers between 2007 and 2012. 

The bottom line is that Native farmers and ranchers are already under-represented in the U.S., and their 

numbers will likely decline even further as today's farmers and ranchers retire. 

As a nation, we must do more to increase the number of young people seeking careers in the food and 

agricultural sciences, including agriculture research, agribusiness, food production, energy and renewable 

fuels, and farming marketing, innovation, and distribution. The need is particularly acute in Indian Country, 

as the numbers I have cited attest. For Native farmers and ranchers, access to land is not the primary 

issue, as it is for most potential farmers in the country. (As I mentioned earlier, 75 percent of the remaining 

lands in Indian Country are forested or agriculture lands.) Access to capital, agriculture education and 

research, and technical assistance are the major barriers for most Native farmers and ranchers. Outreach, 

technical assistance and innovative research opportunities through traditional Cooperative Extension and 

education programs are limited in many tribal communities, often due to the rural settings and funding 

limitations. Tribal Colleges often lack the funding they need, as well as critical support from the mainstream 

land-grant system, to develop and deliver appropriate agricultural programming and research opportunities. 

Yet, with adequate funding, TCUs can provide relevant, locally- and place-based higher and 

technical/career education that is innovative and which includes important tribally-driven experiential 

learning and community-based research opportunities to aspiring and beginning farmers, ranchers, and 

agriculture/forestry researchers and students throughout Indian Country. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION DURING THE fARM BILL REAUTHORIZATION 

The 1994 institutions are confident that we have the potential of becoming significant contributors to the 

agricultural base of the nation and the world once again. More and more AI/AN tribes and 1994 institutions 

are beginning to re-assert sovereignty over our food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries systems. Working 

with key partners, we are defining policies that are ecologically, socially, and culturally appropriate to our 

unique circumstances. 
73 

Due in large part to our land-grant activities, leveraged with other federally funded STEM programs, our 

students are involved to some degree in cutting-edge and community-relevant research, particularly 

research related to the preservation of our natural resources and the exploration of the linkages between 

nutritional patterns and disease. Much of this research is conducted with other land-grand institutions, 

resulting in both good science and solid partnerships. 

1. ACKNOWLEDGE THE VALUE OF PLACE·BASED, TRADITIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

The 1994 Institutions, along with other Minority-Serving Institutions (MSis), are uniquely positioned to 

provide the next generation of technically and culturally competent agricultural scientists and researchers. 

We believe that our Native American students represent a unique competitive advantage in an increasingly 

culturally diverse global agriculture science world. Our Tribal College students can succeed in crosscultural contexts better than anyone, and these types of people will be successful as agriculture scientists 

working in places that are culturally different from the U.S., such as the Middle East, South America, and 

Africa. American Indians and Alaska Natives are a unique and important component of any student 

pipeline that leads to a new generation of agriculture scientists. 

The research provision of the Farm Bill should specifically acknowledge that students and faculty of the 1994 

institutions and other MSis can enhance the cultural competency of the next generation of agricultural 

scientists, researchers, and practitioners. The cultural competency needed to meet global agricultural 

challenges will often be as important as scientific and technical competency. Agricultural scientists and 

researchers working in cross-cultural, international settings will need to be sensitive and respectful of cultural 

and social norms and values. In many countries, cultural competency facilitates the initial access to local 

populations before technical and scientific activities can proceed. Indigenous peoples are especially 

vulnerable to exploitation of cultural and natural assets, such as traditional ecological knowledge and 

natural resources. 

More broadly, research and education provisions of the Farm Bill must specifically include underserved 

students at the undergraduate level. The vast majority of the USDA current 'education' and research 

funding supports graduate-level research. More resources need to be devoted to student success, faculty 

development, curriculum innovation, international development, facilities development, and infrastructure 

support at the community college and early undergraduate level. 

2. RESIST EFFORTS TO CONSOLIDATE STEM RESEARCH PROGRAMS 

As you know, the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request proposes the consolidation of many federal 

STEM higher education and research programs. We expect that other proposals along these lines will be 

put forth in the months ahead. We believe that the research programs supported by NIFA are important 

and unique. Consolidation of these programs with other federal STEM research and education programs is 

simply a bad idea, particularly for Indian Country. Not only would the agriculture and natural resource focus 

become lost- which is so important to us for the reasons noted earlier- but also to be lost will be the multicultural, diversity of thought focus of America's education programs. Under proposals to consolidate and 

homogenize programs, we stand to lose some important USDA programs, and history clearly demonstrates 

that small and under-resourced institutions, such as the 1994 land-grant institutions, would fair very poorly 

in competitions with well-resourced major Research I institutions. 
74 

3. MCINTIRE STENNIS AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH PARTICIPATION ELIGIBILITY FOR 19941NSTITUTIONS WITH 

BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAMS IN FORESTRY 

The Mcintire Stennis Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a, et seq. Public Law 87-788) should be amended to allow 

Tribal Colleges (1994 institutions) that offer a bachelor's degree in forestry to receive a share of Mcintire 

Stennis Act formula funding that flows to a state in which a relevant 1994 institution is located. 

Justification: In 2008, the Mcintire Stennis Act was· amended to include Tribal lands in the formula 

calculation for funding of state forestry programs, which are centered around forestry research and 

management. However, the 1994 institutions were not included in the funding formula, nor were states 

required to include them in funding distributions. This oversight is significant because, as noted earlier, 75 

percent of Tribal land in the U.S. is either forest or agriculture holding. In response to the severe underrepresentation of American Indian professionals in the forestry workforce to conduct research on the AI/AN 

forestry holdings in Montana and across the United States, Salish Kootenai College (SKC) launched a 

Forestry baccalaureate degree program in 2005. 

In 2013, SKC became the first tribal college land-grant to join the National Association of University Forest 

Resource Programs, a consortium of 85 forestry schools, the vast majority of which receive Mcintire 

Stennis funding. However, when SKC recently sought specialty accreditation for its program, the college 

was told that it was "one forestry researcher short" of the optimum number needed. Participation in the 

Mcintire Stennis program, even with the required 1-1 match, would help SKC secure the researcher it 

needs to gain accreditation. Yet, it cannot participate in the program. Once again, TCU land-grants are 

prohibited from participating as full-partners in the land-grant system. And although currently, only SKC 

has a baccalaureate degree in forestry, considering the wealth afforested land on American Indian 

reservations, others such programs could arise at the nation's other Tribal land-grant institutions, to further 

the effort to grow Native researchers in this essential area. 

CONCLUSION 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, I want to reiterate that the 1994 Institutions have 

proven to be efficient and effective vehicles for bringing education and research opportunities to American 

Indians/Alaska Natives and the promise of self-sufficiency to some of this nation's poorest and most 

underserved regions. The extremely small federal investment in the 1994 Institutions has already paid 

great dividends in terms of increased employment, access to higher education and research opportunities, 

and economic development. Continuation of and significant growth in this investment makes sound moral 

and fiscal sense. As stated earlier, no institutions better exemplify the original intent of Senator Morrill's 

land grant concept than the 1994 Institutions. We are proud to be part of the nation's great land-grant 

system, and I am honored to have this opportunity to share our story and a few recommendations with the 

Committee today. Thank you. 
75 

Statement by 

Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young 

Administrator 

USDA Agricultural Research Service 

Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate 

June 15, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Members of the 

Committee, I am honored to have this opportunity to speak about USDA's Agricultural 

Research Service. 

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in partnership with the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture exemplify the mandate expressed in President Abraham Lincoln's 1862 

executive order establishing the USDA, in which the Department was charged with conducting 

"practical and scientific experiments" to improve the quality and security of agriculture in the 

United States. 

As U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific in-house research agency for the 

past 64 years, the Agricultural Research Service, with its I ,800 scientists at 90 laboratories 

throughout the United States, carries on that mission today and represents an important 

component of USDA's science infrastructure. ARS has world-class research units from Maine to 

Hawaii, and we maintain research facilities in France, China, Argentina, and Australia that serve 

as bases for our insect pest and weed biocontrol collection efforts. We manage tens of thousands 

of acres of pasture, rangeland, and crop land for our research; more than 3,000 buildings housing 

our laboratories; and 8,000 employees developing cutting-edge science at our locations. They 

provide us with the infrastructure to pursue the science to make American agriculture stronger 

and more resilient to environmental changes and the demands of feeding a growing world 

population. 

We have 19 genebanks that manage the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System's 

collections and provide scientists all over the world with the genetic materials to develop new 

varieties that improve the quantity, quality, and production efficiency of our food, feed, 

bioenergy, fiber, and ornamental crops. The genebanks hold 578,000 accessions representing 

more than 15,000 plant species, making it the largest collection of plant germplasm in the world. 
76 

This resource is very much in demand by scientists everywhere. In the most recent fiscal year, 

these genebanks facilitated the distribution of more than 240,000 plant germplasm samples 

domestically and internationally. The GRIN-Global database of the details about the accessions 

held in our genebanks [https://npgsweb.ars-grin.goy/grimdobalisearch.aspx''] received more than 

1.5 million page visits during that time. ARS also maintains genebanks for animal and bee 

gctmplasm for research and breeding purposes, and collections of insects, microbes, nematodes, 

and plant pathogens that are used for reference by USDA action and regulatory agencies and as 

resources for researchers. 

We have organized 18 of our experimental watersheds, ranges, and research farms into a 

coordinated national information-gathering network for creating an infrastructure for research on 

agricultural processes at a variety of scales. These locations have been collecting data on 

agricultural production, natural resources, and conservation in their specific areas- some for as 

long as I 00 years - but had not shared that information amongst themselves. 

The concept of the Long-Term Agro-Ecosystem Research Network, or LTAR, is to put 

data into a format that will provide the capacity to address large-scale environmental questions 

through shared research protocols across locations, and even to a continent gradient. Our 

scientists are using the data to develop more refined and accurate modeling systems for 

estimating the effects of climate variability on agricultural production. Recent LT AR findings 

include a I 0-year study identifYing a link between extreme precipitation patterns and decreased 

vegetation productivity across II sites in the continental United States; validation of satellitebased rainfall estimates made by NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission satellite; a 

global analysis of plant community water demand; and publication of 50+ years of data records 

for watersheds in Oklahoma and Missouri. 

I would also like to highlight ARS support for the National Agric~I!tural Library that is 

located in Beltsville, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C. While not a research facility per 

se, it is the world's largest agricultural library, and one of four congressional national libraries. 

The Library is an important component of the ARS research infrastructure, and we are rapidly 

increasing the ways in which the information in this repository can be shared with our scientific 

colleagues. As a public institution, ARS maintains an open access policy for the data and 

research results our scientists generate, and the National Agricultural Library is instrumental in 

assisting ARS in meeting that demand. The Library now provides access to nearly 50,000 peer-
77 

reviewed journal articles authored by USDA researchers through the PubAg public archive 

system, and is adding more publications every year. It has turned out to be a very popular and 

active resource. In 2016 alone, the Library reported its users had downloaded more than 13.5 

million full-text items. This free flow of information is an important stimulus for the 

entrepreneurs who will be developing valuable decision support options for farmers based on 

site-specific crop, soil, and weather data. 

ARS is also looking to the future, and developing two state-of-the-art animal disease 

research facilities- one in Athens, Georgia and another in Manhattan, Kansas. 

In Athens, ARS is modernizing the biocontainrnent facilities and expanding the 

capabilities of the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, ARS' preeminent location for poultry 

related disease, toxicology, and food safety research. 

The new National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan will allow ARS 

and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to safely study foreign animal and 

zoonotic diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease of cattle, classical swine fever, and Afiican 

swine fever, that are not yet in the United States. When completed in 2023, NBAF will replace 

an aging facility at Plum Island, New York, which is currently the primary USDA laboratory 

responsible for research on high-consequence foreign zoonotic diseases, but which lacks the 

infrastructure to work with the highest level BSL-4 biosafety agents. 

The most irreplaceable component of our infrastructure, however, is our employees. ARS 

has internationally recognized scientists working on every issue affecting American agriculture 

today. ARS scientists arc engaged in the agricultural, biological, chemical, engineering, 

veterinary medicine, human nutrition, food teclmology, and physical science disciplines on 690 

research projects that fall under four broad research areas: 

Nutrition, Food Safety, and Quality; 

• Animal Production and Protection; 

• Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems; and 

• Crop Production and Protection. 

It is this science that provides help in controlling plant and animal diseases; finding ways to ease 

the effects of drought and soil depletion; increasing yields and sustainable production of plant 

crops; determining nutritious dietary food choices; and developing new products from our 

Nation's agricultural production. 
78 

The key to our success has been our strong partnerships and collaborations. We work 

closely with Land-Grant university researchers; scientists from other Federal agencies; 

international organizations; and many industry scientists and producers. As an example of that 

cooperation, the development of ARS' LTAR network involves the collaborative efforts of60 

universities, IS Federal agencies, 29 international organizations, 25 non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), 19 private industry firms, and 12 State government agencies. 

ARS scientists also continue to play an important role in providing the objective science 

that action and regulatory agencies in USDA and other Federal departments need and use as the 

basis for developing their policies. For instance, under the IR-4 program, ARS scientists evaluate 

the safety and residue of pesticides on specialty crops grown in fields using established 

application protocols. The data generated is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

to inform its decision on pesticide labeling and use. 

ARS scientists also provide critical support to the USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) on numerous fronts, such as during the 2015 outbreak of highly 

pathogenic avian influenza that started in Washington State and soon spread across the Midwest, 

resulting in the loss of 49 million chickens and turkeys from approximately 200 farms. ARS 

scientists quickly implemented a rapid response research program to determine the virulence, 

host range, and transmission capabilities of the emerging viruses. Within weeks, ARS scientists 

had developed a rapid molecular test to detect the H5N8 and HSN2 viruses causing the disease. 

They then transferred the test to the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratory to help 

APHIS track and react to the spread of the viruses. 

ARS' institutional capacity, wide-ranging expertise, and geographic reach aiJows it to 

conduct coordinated and integrated research targeting national and regional agricultural priorities 

of importance to our many stakeholders. One such example is the national coordination 

involving ARS, APHIS, and NIFA to focus efforts to control and eradicate Huanglongbing, or 

citrus greening, which also involved private industry from Florida, California, and Texas, State 

departments of agriculture, and university researchers. The collaboration was essential to 

identifYing research gaps, establishing priorities, and developing a coordinated research plan to 

manage the citrus greening disease and its insect vector across a variety of interests. ARS' inhouse expertise and NIFA's financial support for increased research were brought to bear on this 
79 

most serious threat the U.S. citrus industry has ever encountered. While the disease continues to 

impact the production of citrus in Florida, it has only been found in limited instances in other 

citrus-producing states to date. 

Meanwhile, ARS and its collaborators have made significant strides in preparing industry 

to better cope with its presence. We have developed new citrus tree rootstocks more resilient to 

the disease; techniques for preventing or mitigating the disease fi·om infecting trees; and 

strategies to reduce the population of the insect vector. 

Recently, ARS' decades-long expertise was also called upon to address an outbreak of 

New World screwworms in Florida Key deer on Big Pine Key, the first U.S. infestation repmted 

in 30 years. The screwworm is devastating for cattle ranchers and caused tens of millions of 

dollars in loses each year before it was eradicated from the United States in 1966 using a 

technique developed byARS scientists. ARS researchers in the 1950s developed the sterile fly 

technique that involved releasing sterilized (infertile) screwworms into infested areas, where they 

would mate with wild screwwmms without producing any progeny. ARS and APHIS continue 

to collaborate on a sterile fly rearing facility in Panama that is supplying flies today to create a 

barrier in Central America to prevent the spread north of screwworm populations still persistent 

in South America. In Florida, ARS scientists, working with APHIS and the Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, brought in nearly 154 million sterile flies from the 

Panama facility and released them in the Keys and southern Florida. By April 2017, 5 months 

after the infestation was discovered, APHIS announced the screwworm had been successfully 

eradicated from Florida. 

Since its inception, USDA has recognized the importance of maintaining a research 

infrastructure of both intramural and extramural research. This includes NIFA, which as USDA's 

extramural agricultural research agency provides research funding to scientists who work at 

universities and other public organizations, including Federal agencies. To avoid duplication of 

effort and enhance coordinated research goals, ARS and NIFA have established agency 

mechanisms for identifying overlap/duplication ofrescarch projects in related topic areas. 

This involves checking the CRIS database for duplicative current research projects; 

vetting proposed projects through an external peer-review process; joint agency meetings with 

stakeholders; and active communication between national program leaders at both agencies and 
80 

with other members of the scientific community. However, the strength of having intramural 

programs provides ARS and USDA with unique capabilities, capacities, and responsibilities: 

• Conduct inherently governmental, or for "the public good", research; 

• Support action and regulatory agencies, such as APHIS, FSIS, and the 

EPA; 

• Maintain essential germplasm collections; 

• Conduct long-term nutritional studies and maintain databases; 

• Operate long-term experimental watershed facilities; 

• Respond to emergent national priorities; and 

• Engage in long-term research to meet national goals; 

This infrastructure, expertise, and nationwide network of partnerships is needed to respond 

quickly to a national agricultural emergency like the H!Nl swine flu virus or soybean rust, and 

to prepare for those emerging diseases- such as the Ug99 stem rust disease of wheat or the footand-mouth disease of cattle- that are not yet in our country. 

In a 2011 study on returns to investment from USDA intramural agricultural research, the 

USDA Economic Research Service estimated that for every dollar spent on research, the country 

received approximately $17 in economic benefit. These returns include benefits not only to the 

farm sector, but also to the food industry and consumers. Over the years, our public investment, 

and the cooperation in agricultural research among the private sector, universities, and 

govemment, has given Americans the safest, most nutritious, and most abundant food supply 

anywhere. 

Agriculture has formed the foundation of our national economy for the past 200-plus 

years, and agricultural research has given strength to that foundation. And that is the mandate 

President Lincoln gave the USDA at its founding. As we face the challenges to U.S. agriculture 

in the coming decades, ARS will continue to place a premium on expanding our scientific 

cooperation where we can and with whom we can, and on sharing our information and 

technology as freely as possible to help the American farmer. 

### 
81 

Georgia ~ Research Tech~ Institute 

Written Remarks by Gary McMurray 

Division Chief, Food Processing Technology Division, Georgia Tech Research Institute 

Associate Director, Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Member of Advisory Council for Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

June 15, 2017 

Good morning Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow, and members of the committee. 

My name is Gary McMurray and I am the Division Chief for the Food Processing Technology Division 

of the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) in Atlanta, Georgia. I am honored to lead a team of28 fulltime research professionals, 14 academic professors, and 40 students working in the areas of perception 

and sensing (food quality and food safety), robotics and automation, energy, and environmental 

engineering in support of the agriculture and food processing industries. I am also the Associate Director 

for the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines (!RIM) at Georgia Tech. !RIM serves as an umbrella 

organization that brings together over 75 roboticists to create new and exciting opportunities for faculty 

collaboration; educate the next generation of robotics experts, entrepreneurs, and academic leaders; and 

partner with industry and government to pursue truly transformative robotics research. In addition, I am a 

member of the Advisory Council for Food Waste and Loss for the Foundation for Food and Agriculture 

Research. Thank you for the invitation to discuss the importance of agricultural research and innovation 

as you prepare the next Farm Bill. 

Investing in agricultural research is ctitical and necessary to address the future food production needs of 

the United States and the world. The need for an additional 75 percent more food by 2050 is well 

documented and the focus of a great deal of research. The USDA has made significant investments that 

have produced incredible improvements in yield per acre and reduced the inputs required to achieve that 

yield. However, to make even greater strides in this area, transformative innovation is needed. 

Transformative innovation moves beyond just improving existing methods and processes to totally rethinking systems development by creating entirely new systems. 

At Georgia Tech, we are very focused on the technology required to make the next quantum leap in food 

production systems. Georgia Tech is consistently ranked in the top 5 engineering schools in the United 

States and has received significant research dollars from other federal agencies such as National Science 

Foundation, Department of Energy, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Department of 

Defense. GTRI has been a leading research institute for more than 80 years and prides itself with 

developing technologies that help industry and government solve complex problems. Robotics and 

sensors, in conjunction with machine learning, have been the key technologies behind our agricultural 

research endeavors. In conjunction with our colleagues at the University of Georgia (UGA), we are 

currently focused on two main areas that we believe can benefit from new technology. 

Georgia Tech Research Institute 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Atlanta Georgia 30332~o8oo U.S.A. 

A Unit of the University System of Georgia An Equal Education and Employment Opportunity Institution 
82 

Crop monitoring for biotic yield-reducing factors (pest organisms such as insects, plant pathogens, and 

weeds) and abiotic stresses (such as inadequate moisture and nutrient levels) are pivotal components of 

integrated crop and pest management systems, but manual crop scouting by growers or crop consultants 

is often time- and cost-prohibitive. In the state of Georgia alone, yield losses due to these factors exceed 

a billion dollars a year. Multi- and hyper-spectral satellite imagery has been studied for years as a method 

to monitor crop health, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are currently garnering considerable 

attention as a method of remote crop monitoring. Although such systems can detect plant stresses, they 

are not capable of autonomously collecting samples for identification and verification of the cause of the 

stress symptom. In this area, we are working on autonomous systems for improved field scouting and 

sampling for peanuts. These systems are instrumental in providing earlier detection of pests as well as 

abiotic yield-reducing factors, thereby preventing crop loss and improving the efficacy of agrichemical 

applications. 

We are also developing advanced sensing capabilities for unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) that work 

in conjunction with unmarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) to autonomously map presymptomatic (plants that 

show no visible symptoms of disease) and infected plants using real-time volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) emissions data and ground images of leaves, fruits, and the stem. This technology will enable 

earlier detection of infected bell pepper plants or peach trees and identify the source of plant stress for 

timelier and more targeted intervention spraying, thereby preventing crop losses and improving the 

efficacy of agrichemical applications. This is a significant problem on the farm as growers currently lose 

over 12 percent of their crops to disease. This work integrates collaboration between aerial and ground 

robotic systems, advanced perception to build 4D models of individual plants, novel microelectromechanical sensors for measurement of volatile organic compounds from plants, and sensors to 

measure root mass in the soil. We arc using advanced machine learning techniques to synthesize the 

different sensor data into a decision. This is especially important in forestry, orchards, and groves as trees 

can be presymptomatic for up to I 0 years with some diseases while they are producing the bacteria to 

infect other trees the entire time. 

What is important about these problems is they were not something that Georgia Tech or UGA was even 

aware of as being problems. It was only through intentional and consistent interaction with UGA plant 

scientists and extension experts that the problems were identified as critical and ones that Georgia Tech 

had technologies and experts that could contribute to a solution. This type of interdisciplinary work 

involving engineers, computer scientists, plant scientists, and extension personnel is critical to making the 

next leap in i1111ovating food production systems. Much like the biomedical revolution, it is the integration 

of multiple disciplines into a single project that allows for the transformative innovation that provides 

improved products for the consumer and builds new industries in the United States. The amazing new 

biomedical devices ranging from robotic surgery, new sensing systems, and disease diagnosis using 

artificial intelligence never would have occurred without significant investment by NSF and NIH in 

multidisciplinary projects. 

There are many examples of federally funded large, multidisciplinary projects that often result in 

transformative innovations. Examples include the NSF Engineering Research Centers and Science and 

Technology Centers and the National Network Manufacturing Innovation (supported by various federal 

agencies). The Department of Defense's DARPA and the Department of Energy Advanced Research 

Projects Agency Energy fw1d high risk, high reward projects that drive transformative i1111ovation. A 

recent example is DARPA's Insect Allies program that is focused on using targeted gene therapy and viral 

manipulation to spread disease-resistant genes to plants via insects so that mature plants are protected 
83 

from disease in a single growing season. The cwTent structure of USDA is well suited for funding the 

basic science work that has had a tremendous impact on all of our lives, but it is not suited to funding this 

type of multidisciplinary research. 

I would respectfully propose that the next Farm Bill include the creation of an Advanced Research Projects 

Agency Ag (ARPA-AG) to create the next generation of transformative research in agriculture by 

bringing together multidisciplinary university-based research teams. The agency would bring together 

experts in nutrition, soil sciences, plant pathology, plant physiology, and other fields of sciences with 

technology experts in robotics, sensors, artificial intelligence, materials, supply chain logistics, and energy 

systems to solve the most complex problems in agriculture. Examples of these large, multidisciplinary 

projects include areas such as efficient, high-throughput phenotyping; individual plant management to 

optimize yield; and efficient, dynamic supply chains to minimize food waste and loss. These are examples 

of the types of projects that are necessary to take the next leap in illllovation, but they do not fit within 

USDA's current research structure. Only through the creation of an ARPA-AG can we provide the 

necessary resources required for multidisciplinary teams to solve these complex problems. 

Finally, the next Farm Bill must address the issue of overhead restrictions. Today's leading engineering 

universities are major partners in driving innovation in every economic sector other than agriculture. These 

universities will be deterred from participating in USDA opportunities until the overhead issue and costmatching requirements are revisited because most of them are not land-grant universities. The overhead 

rate at USDA must be on par to what other federal agencies like NSF and NIH pay to attract the best minds 

to solve these ciiticai problems. A partnership between engineering universities with their systems 

approach and technology focus and land-grant universities with their agriculture expertise would be a 

powerful team to bring the types of trans formative innovation that the agricultural community needs to 

keep our growers profitable and the world fed. 

The entire Georgia Tech community looks forward to working with USDA and NIFA to solve the 

problems that face our agricultural community. We know that these problems are critical to maintaining 

one of the most important industries to our nation and our world. The challenges are large, but I am 

confident that through a systems approach coupled with integrated, multidisciplinary teams, we can begin 

to solve these problems in a cost-effective manner that will maintain the public's confidence in our ability 

to produce safe and affordable food while allowing the growers and the affiliated industries a profit. I look 

f01ward to working with the USDA, the academic community, and the industry to achieve these goals. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions that the members may have. 
84 

Statement by 

Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy 

Director of the National Institute ofF ood and Agriculture 

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry 

June 15, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Members of the Committee, I am 

honored to have this oppotiunity to speak about the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

(NIFA), whose mission is to catalyze transformative research, education, and extension to 

address 21 '

1 century agricultural challenges. At the outset, I would like to thank you and the 

Committee for your dedication to America's farmers and livestock producers. Your support of 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies such as NIFA promotes the productivity and 

profitability of our farmers and the health and safety of all Americans. 

I have had the privilege of traveling across America and experienced first-hand the 

impact of our data-driven, research and extension investments. For example, wheat blast, a crop 

disease caused by the fungus Magnaporthe oryzae triticum (MoT), can result in 30-I 00 percent 

crop loss. In spring 2016, work undertaken by Kansas State University scientist Barbara Valent 

and her colleagues helped prevent the devastating impact of this disease in the United States. 

With support from two NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grants totaling 

$5.4 million, Dr. Valent and her colleagues from the University of Kentucky and USDAAgricultural Research Service created a sensitive new method to detect the fungus. In tests, it 

accurately distinguished all known strains of MoT from more than 280 specimens of M. oryzae 

collected around the world. The method yields results in less than 24 hours and is sensitive 

enough to detect even trace amounts, and will protect our wheat production systems and enhance 

profitability. 

Similarly, Michigan State University (MSU) Extension, with partial Smith-Lever 

extension funding from NIF A, deployed a rapid response to the crisis of lead contamination of 

water in Flint, Michigan. MSU specialists offered educational workshops and wrote several 

articles and fact sheets on lead poisoning; they facilitated the distribution of 12,000 gallons of 

milk to the Food Bank of Eastern Michigan. Milk can be used to mitigate the effects oflead 
85 

absorption, as it is rich in iron, vitamin C, and calcium. Additionally, MSU Extension worked 

with partner organizations to fund and distribute water filters and soil tests. MSU coordinated 

with Edible Flint, an informal cooperative of food producers, to focus new programs on lead in 

soils and educating people who grow their own food. Such grassroots work by Extension is 

crucial to the vitality of our communities in rural and urban America. 

NIFA was established by the Food Conservation and Energy Act of2008 (the 2008 Farm 

Bill) to find innovative solutions to issues related to agriculture, food, the environment, and 

communities. NIF A's investments are driven by the six ptiorities articulated in the 2014 

Agricultural Act: Plant Health, Production, and Products; Animal Health, Production, and 

Products; Bioenergy, Natural Resources, and the Environment; Food Safety, Nutrition, and 

Health; Agriculture Systems and Technology; and Agricultural Economics and Rural 

Communities. NIF A supports user-inspired discoveries that transform lives: in the classroom, on 

farms, in communities across our great nation, and in other countries where often the need is 

greatest. My six-year term appointment as director expires in May 2018, with the position 

subject to an additional six-year term, as mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

NIF A is one of four agencies within USDA's Research, Education, and Economics 

(REE) mission area, and is authorized to direct federal funding through approximately 60 

capacity, or formula based, and competitive grant programs that address key national and global 

challenges. NIF A invests in and advances agricultural research, education, and extension to solve 

societal challenges, thus ensuring nutritional security in the context of diminishing land and 

water resources, changing climate and extreme weather events, while promoting the health and 

well-being of all Americans and creating economic opportunities in rural communities. The 

agency promotes the education and training of our nation's workforce through programs offered 

to support K-12 education, along with undergraduate and graduate education. NIFA supports 

technology transfer and knowledge sharing through Cooperative Extension; additionally, the 

agency manages the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program for USDA. The 

agency has approximately 350 employees and was funded at approximately $1.53 billion in 

Fiscal Year 2017 through discretionary and mandatory lines; the agency also generates 

approximately $50 million per year in interagency collaborations and reimbursable agreements 

with other federal agencies. 
86 

Organizationally, NIFA is divided into two units: programs and operations. The Civil 

Rights Office and Congressional Affairs Office report to the agency director. 

Associate director Meryl Broussard oversees NIF A programs deployed through four 

institutes (Food Production and Sustainability; Food Safety and Nutrition; Bioenergy, Climate, 

and Environment; and Youth, Family, and Community), the Center for International Programs, 

and Planning, Accountability, and Reporting. Staff in the programs unit help develop science 

priorities based on congressionally mandated Farm Bill priorities, those of the White House and 

Secretary of Agriculture, and seek input from the vast an-ay of stakeholders across America. 

They also deploy funding opportunities through Requests for Application (RF As), work with 

external peer reviewers to select the best ideas for funding, undertake pre- and post-award 

management, and evidence based analysis of achievement of goals. 

Associate director Robert Holland oversees the agency's operations through the Office of 

Grants and Financial Management, the Office oflnformation Technology, Budget, and 

Communications. A key role for the operations unit is implementing NIFA's grants 

modernization initiative to streamline the agency's grant application and award process. This 

business transformation initiative will result in increased efficiency and reduced costs (in system 

maintenance and staff time) for NIF A grantees and staff. NIF A is now using ezF edGrants, a new 

web-based grants and financial management system used by several USDA agencies, to support 

this initiative. Additionally, the information technology staff manages NIFA's Data Gateway, an 

online portal that allows users to find funding data, metrics, and information about research, 

education, and extension projects that have received grant awards from NIFA. The user can 

render and visualize data using various tools, including by State, Congressional District, and 

Science/Knowledge Area. NIFA is committed to increasing transparency and making technical 

advancements to ensure that data are easily accessible. 

NIF A has been in existence for eight years, but its history goes as far back as the creation 

of the People's Department and land-grant Colleges in 1862. Landmark fann bills and other 

significant legislation passed by Congress have shaped the history ofNIF A and its predecessor 

agencies. The Monill Act of 1862 created land-grant institutions (LGUs) to enable children of 

the working class to have access to higher education with a focus on agricultural and mechanical 

skills. The Morrill Act of 1890 established the 1890 land-grant institutions to promote 
87 

educational opportunities for African Americans. The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status 

Act of 1994 established the 1994 land-grant institutions to promote educational opportunities for 

Native Americans. 

The Hatch Act of 1887 authorized strengthening the capacity ofland-grant colleges to 

research agricultural problems faced by rural citizens by providing funds to create a series 

of agricultural experiment stations across America. The Cooperative Extension System was 

created through the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, as a partuership between the federal, state, and local 

(county/county equivalents) govemments. 

NIF A is committed to supporting the research, education, and extension efforts of its 112 

land-grant partuers through legislatively authorized capacity funds, comprising 49 percent of 

NIF A's annual appropriations. Several types of capacity funds for supporting research, 

Extension, and 4-H are available annually on a non-competitive basis and require a match at the 

state and local levels. The amounts allocated to each state depend on variables such as rural 

population, farm population, forest acreage, and poverty rates, as authorized by Congress. 

Key capacity funding programs include Hatch capacity funding, which supports research 

and training of students at state agricultural experiment stations (SAES). Mcintire-Stennis 

capacity funding supports forestry research and training at SAES, forestry schools, and landgrant forestry research programs. Renewable Resources Extension Act capacity funding supports 

forest and rangeland education programs that benefit landowners and managers, commw1ities, 

and the environment. Animal Health and Disease Research capacity funding enhances the 

capacity of veterinary schools and SAES to conduct research to improve the health of poultry, 

livestock, aquaculture, and other income-producing animals. Expanded Food and Nutrition 

Program (EFNEP) capacity funding provides nutrition education programming to low-income 

families to help them develop healthy habits in eating, physical activity, food handling, and food 

storage. 

Cooperative Extension is funded through Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Smith-Lever Act. 

Extension provides non-formal education and learning activities to people throughout the 

country- to farmers and other residents of rural commw1ities, as well as to people living in 

urban areas. By translating knowledge into solutions and delivering to end users, NIF A helps 

improve and transform people's lives. 4-H, our nation's preeminent positive youth development 
88 

program, is funded through Extension with NIF A-supported 4-H programs positively influencing 

over 6 million children across the country every year. 

With Hatch funding, South Dakota State University collaborated with Agrisoma 

Biosciences, Inc., and the SD Oilseeds Council to develop an oilseed crop, Carinata, to be used 

for production ofbio-based jet fuel and diesel for the U.S. Navy. Carinata, which has the 

potential to be used as a I 00 percent petroleum substitute in biodiesel, bio-jet fuel, oil additives, 

and specialty lubricants, can reduce dependence on petroleum-based products. 

NIFA's 1890 land-grant institutions programs are intended to strengthen research, 

extension and teaching in the food and agricultural sciences by building the institutional 

capacities of the 19 institutions with the LGU designation. 1890 programs include 1890s 

Extension that provides primary support for extension programs at 1890 LGUs, while EvansAllen capacity funding supports research and training of students at 1890 land-grant institutions. 

NIF A-funded researchers at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore studied factors 

that affect antibiotic resistance and virulence of Salmonella during poultry processing. Their 

analysis showed that chilling can lead to Salmonella contamination and cross-contamination 

among poultry carcasses but has no effect on the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant genes. This 

knowledge is being used to develop tools to help poultry inspectors improve Salmonella 

detection, helping to improve food safety and prevent future food recalls. 

At Georgia's Fort Valley State University (FVSU), new leaders in agricultural and life 

sciences are coming face-to-face with technology that will help them solve the toughest 

agricultural challenges of the future. A $150,000 grant from NIF A's 1890 Capacity Building 

program helped FVSU create a bioinformatics curriculum where students learn to transfonn 

biological research into informational science. In the program, science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) majors join with computer science majors to become competent 

bioinformatics programmers and gain hands-on experiences in writing algorithms and coding for 

biological problems. Bioinformaticians use computers to store, organize, and analyze the vast 

amounts of data generated by scientific research. 

The Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act, within the Improving America's 

Schools Act of 1994, established 29 tribal colleges and universities as 1994 tribal land-grant 

institutions. There are currently 36 LGUs with 1994 tribal land-grant institution status. NIFA 
89 

funds five programs that promote learning, opportunity, and health in Indian Country. These 

programs give them access to federal government resources that improves the lives of Native 

students through higher education and help propel American Indians toward self-sufficiency. 

These resources also support innovative research, education, and extension programs that 

positively impact agriculture and food production. These programs include the Tribal College 

Equity program, which supports formal education at these schools. The Tribal College Extension 

program supports informal, community-based learning such as farmer education, youth 

development, and rural entrepreneurship. The Tribal College Research program helps the 1994 

LGUs build scientific capacity and provide a strong foundation in research knowledge for 

students. The Tribal College Endowment program receives annual appropriations from Congress, 

and the institutions receive money from the interest earned during the previous year. The amount 

each school receives is based in part on the number of Native students attending the school, and 

is determined annually through the Indian Student Count. The Federally Recognized Tribes 

Extension Program (FRTEP) allows 1890 and 1862 LGUs to provide informal learning to 

support youth development and agricultural productivity. They complement Extension efforts of 

the 1994 LGUs, often serving in states that do not have a 1994 land-grant institution. 

According to the Department of Health and Human Services' Indian Health Service, 

American Indians are 2.2 times more likely to have diabetes compared to non-Hispanic whites. 

The United Tribes Technical College (UTTC), in Bismarck, North Dakota, is doing its part to 

lower that number by mentoring nearly 450 people at five diabetes-related events. UTTC also 

produces three publications that were delivered to more than 11,000 local households. In 2017, 

UTTC plans to host three 6-week training sessions for 10-15 people each, covering topics such 

as understanding and monitoring the human body, nutrition, and physical activity. 

A recent TEConomy repmt (page 3, https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/nifa-capacity-fundingreview-teconomy-final-report) states that capacity funding generates an additional $1.86 in nonfederal funding for every $1 in federal funds, considerably expanding the utility of federal 

funding dollars. Between 2000 and 2015, there were 19,971 projects supported by capacity fund; 

I in 6 patents in agriculture across the U.S. are based on innovations resulting from these 

capacity funds. In 2014, about 31,500 full-time equivalent jobs were supported by capacity 

funds. 
90 

NIF A deploys almost $700 million in competitive grants, funding for which are derived 

through annual discretionary appropriations and mandatory programs, The Agriculture and Food 

Research Initiative (AFRI) is America's flagship competitive grants program for agricultural 

sciences, AFRI was created in the 2008 Farm Bill and authorized at $700 million armually. The 

Fiscal Year 2017 Omnibus Appropriations Act provides $375 million to AFRL AFRI 

competitive funds support research, education, and extension grants to promote productivity and 

profitability of farming systems, improve rural economies, combat childhood obesity, promote 

the bioeconomy, mitigate the impacts of climate variability, address water availability issues, 

ensure food safety and security, and train the next generation of agricultural workforce. 

Other key competitive grant programs include the following mandatory programs: Organic 

Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), Biomass Research and Development Initiative 

(BRDI), Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), Emergency Citrus Research and Extension Program 

(CDRE), Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI), Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, 

Agriculture Risk Management Education Program, and the Community Food Projects Competitive 

Grants Program. 

A deadly bacterial disease--Citrus Greening or Huanglongbin-has infected up to 80 percent of 

Florida's citrus trees and cost billions in lost revenue. U.S. citrus growers have a critical need for grovedeployable management practices that keep healthy citrus from becoming infected. With a $6 million 

SCRI grant, Dr. Susan Brown, Kansas State University, and colleagues from other institutions are 

collaborating to combat the disease by developing innovative approaches to stop the pathogen from 

developing in and being transmitted by the vectoring insect. 

NIFA administers USDA's Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), which offers 

competitive grants to support small businesses undertaking research on the feasibility of starting viable 

small businesses to address agricultural challenges. The program stimulates technological innovations in 

the private sector, strengthens the role of federal research and development in support of small 

businesses, and also fosters and encourages participation by women-owned and socially or economically 

disadvantaged small businesses. 

In 2014, the porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) virus was responsible for the death of eight 

million piglets in the United States. Developing a vaccine took many months, making it hard to 

rescue the declining swine community. Harrisvaccines, in Ames, Iowa, with funding from NIFA 
91 

through the SBIR program, used its patented SirraVaxSM technology to analyze PED gene 

sequences to commercialize a vaccine in just four months, and gained conditional licensure from 

USDA. The vaccine, called iPED, is administered to sows right before they give bilth to a litter, 

protecting the piglets. Recently, Harrisvaccines has been acquired by Merck Animal Health, 

which will deploy this vaccine to protect piglets. 

NIF A reviews all proposals through the external peer review process for individual 

competitive programs. Evaluation criteria are described in the Requests for Application (RF As). 

The total time for this entire peer review process is about six to nine months. Prior to the RF A or 

soon after its release, the respective NIF A National Program Leader (NPL) selects a Panel 

Manager (PM) with the appropriate expertise to lead the panel review process alongside the 

NPL. The PM is not a NIF A employee and is hired as a temporary Federal Employee. Proposals 

are accepted for panel review if the proposal addresses the program priorities and is submitted to 

NIFA before the RFA deadline date. The PM works closely with NPLs to ensure a diverse panel 

with the appropriate expertise is constituted to review proposals submitted to the program, assign 

proposals to panelists based on panelist expertise, and lead the panel review meeting. 

Panelists develop their individual reviews for each proposal assigned to them prior to the 

review paneL Once the peer review panel meets (in person or virtually), the entire panel 

discusses each proposal and reaches a consensus rank within each peer review category. Those in 

Outstanding, High Priority, and (extremely rarely) Medium Priority categories are respectively 

funded until no appropriated funds are left. Peer Review Panel Ranking Categories are 

Outstanding, High Priority, Medium Primity, Low Priority, and Do Not Fund. Following the 

funding decisions, applicants receive copies ofthe written reviews of their proposal (with 

reviewer name removed to maintain reviewer confidentiality), the panel summary, and 

information on the relative ranking oftheir proposaL 

Funding rates in NIFA's competitive grants programs range from approximately 13 

percent in AFRI to approximately 19 percent in SCRI; because of the significant competition for 

funding in AFRI, many worthy ideas addressing agricultural challenges go unfunded. NIFA is 

attempting to develop multiple approaches to enhance the funding rate, including administrative 

policy changes to address unobligated funding from prior years. 
92 

NIF A collaborates with other federal agencies within and outside of USDA, including the 

National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Agricultural Research Service, 

United States Agency for International Development, Department of Energy, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health and Human Services, 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Defense (DOD), to accelerate progress 

on the discovery and application of solutions to high priority agricultural and societal challenges. 

By partnering with agencies with complementary missions, we are able to leverage funding and 

bring a wider range of capabilities, expertise, and experience to our programs. 

NIF A, DOD, and VA collaborate to support those who protect America: active duty 

military and their families, along with veterans. Research suggests that children of deployed 

parents experience more stress than their peers. NIF A, DOD, and VA collaborations have helped 

thousands of military families gain access to the high-quality educational programs in early 

childhood education, youth development, and related fields that land-grant university cooperative 

extension systems provide. In nearly every state, 4-H Military Partnerships offer programs for 

children from military families. NIF A also engages military veterans through the Beginning 

Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP), which funds organizations that train 

beginning farmers and ranchers through workshops, educational teams, training, and technical 

assistance. Nearly 10 percent ofBFRDP fimding went to projects that serve military veterans in 

2016. 

Collaboration with our stakeholders ensures that NIFA responds to their needs and the 

needs of the end-user. Our staff interacts with LGUs on a continual basis through respective 

national program leaders and our state liaisons. NIFA also keeps keep open lines of 

communication with other stakeholders. Additionally, NIFA periodically holds formal listening 

sessions to gamer feedback from all stakeholders and stakeholders are encouraged to provide 

feedback on our RF As via a web portaL NIF A is undertaking a series of "Calls to Conversation" 

meetings aimed at continuing to work with stakeholders to seek a shared vision to enhance the 

effectiveness, efficacy, and efficiency of agency programs. 

Colorado State University, the University of Wyoming, and NIFA hosted the first such 

Calls to Conversation in September 2016. The meeting, themed "Engagement and Success of 

Land-Grant Universities and Colleges Respecting Sovereignty, Serving the People and the 
93 

Land," was held for the purpose of promoting a candid and productive conversation between the 

1994s and 1862s, to discuss ways to strengthen their relationship, and chart a course for a more 

collaborative and productive future. 

In February 2017, the University of Maryland and NIFA hosted a conversation on the 

topic of Tactical Sciences: a complementary set of programs offering the tools to protect the 

integrity, reliability, sustainability, and profits of the U.S. food and agriculture system against 

threats from pests, diseases, contaminants, and disasters. The biosecurity of America's food and 

agricultural system is of utmost priority, and we are committed to supplying a toolkit of sciencebased tactics readily available to help prevent, prepare for, detect, respond to, and recover from 

known and potential pests, diseases, and other natural disasters. 

In August 2017, the University of Georgia, Fort Valley State University, and NIFA will 

undertake a Call to Conversation on Positive Youth Development (PYD). 4-H, the youth 

outreach program of Cooperative Extension, reaches six million children and translates the 

sciences of engagement, learning, and change with youth and adults who collaborate to create 

sustainable community change. 4-H National Headquarters at NIFA provides leadership on 

positive youth development in the areas of citizenship, healthy living, and science. 

The narrative provided above gives you an overview of the vast and complex programs 

and impacts NIF A ha.~ with funding from Congress. Through your continued support, NIF A can 

continue to spark innovation through funding of extramural research, extension, and education to 

address the significant agricultural and societal challenges facing humanity as a result of the 

burgeoning population. With your help, and the help of our stakeholders, we can meet those 

challenges head on. Thank you for this opportunity to highlight NIF A, our employees, our grant 

programs, and successes of those programs. 
94 

Written Statement for the Record of 

Dr. Sally Rockey 

Executive Director 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research 

Before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Hearing on 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future 

Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15, 2017 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research 

401 9'" St NW, Suite 630 J Washington, DC 20001 

www.foundationfar.org 
95 

Introduction 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Sally 

Rockey, Executive Director of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, and I am 

honored at the opportunity to testify as you continue discussions for the next Farm Bill. The 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research is an independent 501 (c) (3) nonprofit 

organization established with bipartisan Congressional support in the 2014 Farm Bill to serve as 

a new model in our nation's mission to be the global leader in food and agricultural sciences. 

Rather than repeat what others do, FFAR makes progress in seven strategic areas by finding 

critical gaps in research and accelerating problem solving using a new model in partnership and 

program design and delivery. 

Much like President Abraham Lincoln referred to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as 

the People's Department upon its founding in 1862, I believe FFAR is the People's Foundation. 

The Foundation belongs to everyone in the food and agriculture community, especially to our 

farmers and ranchers. 

To the members ofthis committee who were so instrumental in establishing FFAR, I thank you 

on behalf of the entire food, agriculture and scientific communities. I look forward to the 

opportunity today to provide an update on FFAR's progress, give an overview of what lies 

ahead for the Foundation, and to demonstrate that FFAR remains worthy of this Committee's 

full support in the next Farm Bill. 

FFAR is a New Model in U.S. Agriculture Science and Research 

At FFAR, we envision a world in which ever-innovating and collaborative science provides every 

person access to affordable, nutritious food grown on thriving farms. FFAR's aim is to fund 

innovative and applied sciences that help to increase access to food, support producers and the 

agricultural economy, and foster environmental resilience. Additionally, FFAR builds unique 

partnerships that can address the most pressing challenges in food and agriculture. From the 

lab, to the farm, to the boardroom, the Foundation delivers solutions-based science that 

empowers and safeguards our nation's economic and national security while providing a 

significant return on the taxpayers' investment. 

We are not a government agency, although USDA is our closest partner. Instead, the work we 

do complements scientific programming carried out by the USDA. Nor is FFAR a completely 

private entity, although we partner frequently with the private sector to respond rapidly to 

emerging challenges that can be addressed through research. 

Thanks to this Committee's forethought, FFAR is something brand new for the agricultural 

arena. Designed to foster public-private partnerships meant to deliver bigger bang for the 

taxpayer's buck, FFAR is perfectly positioned to put America back on top as a global leader in 

agriculture R&D by accelerating problem solving on behalf of U.S. agriculture. 
96 

FFAR matches every program dollar with outside funding, delivering huge value for American 

taxpayers. Every $1 contributed by FFAR has been more than doubled by our funding partners. 

In other words, the U.S. government's $200 million investment in FFAR will eventually deliver 

more than $400 million in programming. 

We have also formed a diverse and esteemed Board of Directors led first by Dan Glickman, 

former Agriculture Secretary, and now by Dr. Mark Keenum, president of Mississippi State 

University. In 2016, we expanded the Board by adding six new positions. Today, the Board of 

Directors includes 19 voting members and five ex-officio members designated by Congress, 

none of whom receive compensation for their positions. 

FFAR's non-voting ex officio members, including Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, are the 

stewards of the Foundation's close partnerships with the National Science Foundation and the 

USDA. Specifically, these members provide insight into the federal research enterprise and 

ensure that FFAR's work complements USDA and NSF research. 

The Foundation has also established six Advisory Councils to provide guidance on program 

development and implementation, potential partnerships, and other matters of significance 

across our research portfolio. Advisory Council members are leaders in their respective fields 

with expertise and experience spanning the food and agriculture industry from both a scientific 

and business perspective. We are grateful for their contributions. 

FFAR Brings Together New Kinds of Partners 

Owing to its unique public-private partnership model, FFAR is able to convene diverse groups 

that might not otherwise collaborate around common challenges of national and international 

significance. We have formed partnerships with farmer and commodity groups, retail, IT 

companies, the public health sector, and other foundations. 

Since I came on board in 2015, FFAR has joined with 41 funding partners to carry out the 

Foundation's cutting-edge research agenda, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the 

Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Fair Food Network, the Indiana Soybean Alliance, the 

Iowa Corn Promotion Board, Kaiser Permanente Center for Total Health, Cargill and many 

others. Besides providing good stewardship of taxpayer dollars, FFAR's dollar-to-dollar match 

ensures our partners are equally invested in delivering value and seeing measurable outcomes, 

similar to other critical public private partnerships in the food and agriculture space, such as the 

federal crop insurance program. 

By uniting researchers with groups like venture capitalists, partner governments and global 

philanthropies, FFAR can quickly bring research to scale and more than double the taxpayer's 

investment. 

The Foundation also puts significant emphasis on convening external events and other 

information sessions with experts to identify critical research needs facing agriculture and food. 
97 

To that end, FFAR has reached more than 12,000 individuals in the food and agriculture 

research community through conference presentations and organized six large-scale convening 

events that have attracted leaders from science, farming, government, business, and the nonprofit sector. 

Additionally, FFAR staff have personally met with more than 400 groups in food, agriculture and 

research to hear their different perspectives on the most pressing issues. We continue to 

welcome insight from all facets of our vibrant food system: from scientists conducting food and 

agricultural research, to farmers in the field, to members of the public deciding what to feed 

their families each day. We seek researchable issues with the potential to yield pivotal pieces of 

knowledge that propel the food and agriculture field forward. This approach then translates to 

program implementation. For each project, we survey the food and agriculture field to ensure 

we are focusing on research questions that are not being answered elsewhere. We then look at 

the landscape and decide, project-by-project, how to convene the right partners to address a 

given issue. 

To catalyze innovation, we believe we need not only brilliant minds, but also diverse 

perspectives tackling today's challenges in food and agriculture. It takes outside-the-box, 

interdisciplinary thinking to solve the food system's most pressing challenges. When soliciting 

research proposals or building a team, we strive to include experts with diverse backgrounds 

and in different fields, and perspectives from different sides and stages of an issue. 

Many of the events and convenings mentioned above deliver immediate results. For instance, 

FFAR and Purdue University co-hosted an event to unite the field of plant phenomics by 

facilitating opportunities for collaborative research. Attendees from 11 countries, 34 

companies, 30 academic institutions and a variety of commodity groups, nonprofit 

organizations and government agencies joined the discussion. Because of this event, FFAR will 

announce a collaborative project at the end of this month called Crops of the Future. This 

project will form a collaborative between several companies and organizations to identify genes 

that give rise to specific traits in plants that will be necessary in the future, including drought 

resistance, heat tolerance, and increased nutritional value. Companies will pool resources in a 

pre-competitive space so that results come more quickly and data can be shared. 

Just recently, we held a convening event in Lincoln, Nebraska as part of our Overcoming Water 

Scarcity Challenge Area to determine potential research opportunities to improve irrigation 

systems. 

FFAR is also seeking engagement on virtual platforms. To remain open to emerging innovation 

potential and facilitate public engagement in research opportunities, FFAR opened the online 

Concept Portal for public input on research concepts. To submit a research concept to the 

Foundation, you simply visit our website, foundationfar.org, and give an overview of the idea. 

Our staff will respond promptly and the idea may help to inform a FFAR research program or 

project. 
98 

FFAR is Delivering on its Promise 

Since I joined FFAR as Executive Director in 2015, we have focused on building the foundation 

into an institution that will support U.S. food and agriculture long into the future. Over the past 

year-and-a-half, we have established critical resources and processes to support the 

Foundation's ability to solicit and review grant applications, build partnerships and issue 

research funding. Now, in 2017, we are seeing the fruits of this monumental effort. 

I want to thank the members of this Committee for demonstrating patience as the Foundation 

was established. I believe, and I know you all agree, that FFAR was created to be an institution, 

rather than a short-term experiment, to contribute to the long-term competitiveness of our 

nation. With your support, we have built an efficient, nimble organization able to meet the 

most pressing challenges in food and agriculture. 

To date, FFAR has delivered $32.4 million in 22 grants with more than 41 funding partners. By 

the end of the year, we will have obligated about half of our funding and identified more than 

$100 million in matching funds. 

In addition to building awareness, educating the food and agriculture community on FFAR, 

establishing long-term partnerships and building the Foundation's systems and structures, we 

have focused primarily on garnering matching funds. Generating matching funds for any startup 

organization is a challenge. 

What we have discovered over the past two years is that we have two distinct advantages over 

other government-established research foundations. First is our public funding, which gives 

FFAR the flexibility to seek out diverse partnerships, especially with the private sector. Rather 

than raising money for a government agency, which is the model for most government 

established research foundations, FFAR leverages public funding-more than doubling that 

funding-for the public good and, in the process, develops a new community of partners. 

Second is our independence, which allows us to focus almost exclusively on results. When 

partners are focused just on the science and equally invested in seeing measurable outcomes as 

soon as possible, new partnerships may develop. 

I firmly believe the current FFAR model is working effectively. As a long-term safeguard, we 

continue to look at ways to take investment income earned by the Foundation and create a 

long-term fund that will support FFAR. Building a self-sustaining organization is part of the 

Foundation's five-year strategic plan, but that effort will take time. We will continue to lay the 

groundwork for future fundraising and partnerships, prioritizing projects that help to attract 

private sector investment. 

Our goal today is to continue to demonstrate our value to this Committee and to the food and 

agriculture community as a highly effective organization that supports innovative work and 

collective research priorities. 
99 

FFAR Research Success Stories 

FFAR now has the systems in place to design programs, assess requests, match funds, and 

award grants quickly and efficiently. For example, no grant cycle is longer than six months. 

Because of the expert staff and vetting in place, the Foundation can award grants in as little as 

one week, acting nimbly to mobilize resources to confront emerging pest, disease and climatic 

threats before it's too late. Grants can be awarded competitively, directly, or through 

challenges or prizes. 

Taken together, the Foundation has a variety of tools in its toolbox. Of the $100 million in 

matching funds identified by FFAR to date, roughly 80 percent will come from non-academic 

entities, including industry, associations, retail, and foundations. These unique partnerships 

have allowed FFAR to achieve important results in a short period. 

For example, this past March, FFAR announced a National Cover Crop Initiative in partnership 

with the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. The $6.6 million research initiative was made 

possible by a $2.2 million grant from FFAR-a two-to-one match-to promote soil health 

through the development and adoption of new cover crops across the United States. The 

National Cover Crop Initiative unites the resources of the two foundations with scientific 

expertise from several universities and USDA. 

Two months later, FFAR responded to an emerging issue in egg production, announcing it had 

matched a grant to reduce bone fractures in cage-free, egg-laying hens. The research has the 

potential to improve the health and productivity of approximately 100 million hens by 2025 and 

garnered support from the United Egg Producers and the American Veterinary Medical 

Association (AVMA). 

The work we are doing to reduce bone fractures in cage-free hens is just one program within 

our Protein Challenge, a suite of research programs that will support producers' efforts to 

improve plant and animal production efficiency to meet the growing global protein demand 

while conserving natural resources. In total, FFAR has seven Challenge Areas ranging from 

protein to urban food systems. The seven Challenge Areas were developed with direct input 

from farmers, consumers, industry, and other stakeholders. 

Another innovative FFAR program is our Rapid Outcomes from Agricultural Research, or ROAR 

program. Through ROAR, FFAR makes available up to $150,000 in matching funds in one-year 

grants to combat or prevent new or emerging pest and pathogen outbreaks that threaten U.S. 

food and agriculture systems. ROAR enhances the nation's capacity to mitigate and prevent 

outbreaks by ensuring rapid review of grant applications and rapidly disbursing funding for 

research and extension. In this way, ROAR serves as a bridge to traditional, longer-term funding 

sources while supporting critical short-term research that will help farmers in the field. 
100 

For example, when an invasive pest decimated 21 percent of Michigan's 2016 cherry crop, FFAR 

formed a partnership with the Cherry Marketing Institute to fund scientists at Michigan State 

University to combat the pest, spotted wing drosophila (SWD). This ROAR grant will benefit the 

fruit industry in California, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and 

Washington. 

Just a few days ago, FFAR announced a new, incredibly innovative program with the University 

of Illinois that brings together computer scientists, plant scientists, mathematicians and 

breeders to develop realistic models that mimic plant response to their environment. The Crops 

in silica project, while very theoretical, has the potential to create virtual plant models that 

could speed up the time it takes to develop new plant varieties by replacing what are often 

times long term field trials. 

As additional projects, events and grants are announced in the months ahead, we look forward 

to continuing our work with the Committee to streamline FFAR's operations and 

administration, and we look forward to your suggestions. 

How FFAR Designs Programs 

There are seven Challenge Areas that guide FFAR's work. Developed in consultation with 

farmers, consumers, industry, and other stakeholders, the Challenge Areas are: 

1. Protein Challenge helps to sustainably increase the production of high quality protein to 

meet current and future demands. 

2. Overcoming Water Scarcity aims to increase the efficiency of water use in agriculture, 

reduce agricultural water pollution, and develop water reuse technologies. 

3. Forging the Innovation Pathway to Sustainability helps break down barriers to the 

adoption of technology and research results into sustainable practices. 

4. Healthy Soils, Thriving Farms aims to increase soil health by building knowledge, fueling 

innovation, and enabling adoption of existing or new innovative practices that improve 

soil health. 

5. Food Waste and Loss seeks to mitigate social, economic, and environmental impacts 

from food waste and food loss. 

6. Urban Food Systems enhance our ability to feed urban populations through urban and 

peri-urban agriculture, augmenting the capabilities of our current food system. 

7. Making "My Plate," Your Plate focuses on research that includes, but is not limited to, 

increasing the production and accessibility of fruits and vegetables with optimal 

nutritional quality and taste desirability, and reviewing system constraints that not only 

impede the incorporation of more fruits and vegetables into the supply chain, but also 

decrease farmer profitability and consumer affordability. 
101 

In addition to these seven Challenge Areas, FFAR addresses pressing issues in food and 

agriculture that cut across multiple areas, such as pollinator health and emerging pest and 

disease threats. 

FFAR is Building the Bench 

By championing the next generation of food and agriculture scientists, the Foundation is also 

taking an important step in making agriculture an attractive field for aspiring scientists through 

the New Innovator in Food and Agriculture Research Award. As a scientist, I am particularly 

proud of the New Innovator program. 

It was an honor last year for FFAR to award its first grants to nine talented early career 

researchers, or New Innovators, in partnership with their respective universities. FFAR invests 

in faculty members within the first three years of their careers to allow our best and brightest 

to pursue innovative and transformational ideas uninhibited by the pressure of identifying their 

next grant. Our goal is to train, encourage, and inspire future generations of agricultural and 

food scientists. FFAR announced nine New Innovator awards in 2016, including Dr. Kisekka of 

Kansas State University. Dr. Kisekka's research will integrate data to develop methods and tools 

for optimizing water use in agriculture. Another researcher from Purdue University seeks to 

improve plant disease mitigation by investigating which genes are communicating through 

plant root systems. The 2017 awardees will be announced this summer, and we look forward to 

sharing their names with this Committee. 

In that same vein, FFAR has partnered with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine and the Supporters of Agricultural Research (SoAR) Foundation to launch 

Breakthroughs 2030, an innovative effort to determine the greatest scientific opportunities in 

the next decade within the fields of food and agriculture. Breakthroughs 2030 will respond to 

the numerous reports issued by government and non-governmental organizations on the 

relationship of the food and agricultural system to public health, food security, national 

security, trade, economic development, and the environment. Most of these reports emphasize 

the need to dramatically increase food production worldwide to feed a growing global 

population. Tapping the ingenuity and knowledge of the American research community, 

Breakthroughs 2030 will produce a blueprint for how research can solve these major issues. 

FFAR is proud to support this effort on behalf of U.S. food and agriculture. 

Evolving Our Institutions to Meet New Challenges 

A few years ago, a seismic shift occurred in global leadership when China overtook the United 

States in public agricultural R&D. By 2013, according to the USDA, they had a 2-to-1 advantage 

over the United States. But the members of this Committee did not take that news lightly. 

Instead, you took a bold step by establishing FFAR with bipartisan support. 

In my lifetime, total agricultural output in the United States has grown nearly 170 percent with 

less land and labor due to the adoption of technologies in crop and livestock breeding, farm 
102 

equipment, fertilizer use, pest management, and farming practices. Advances in food, 

agricultural, and environmental sciences depend upon this research. And to put a finer point on 

these achievements-over that same period, the United States has established itself as the 

most consistently food secure nation on the planet. With food security come economic and 

national security. And when you have all three of these together, you have prosperity. 

Let us not overlook just how important agricultural research is to our nation's prosperity. like 

medical sciences, modern advances in agriculture depend upon research advances from public 

and non-governmental organizations alike. 

Certainly, the return on investment must be recognized. Ours is a technology and knowledgebased economy, and we firmly believe that food and agriculture science conducted by our 

organization and by our colleagues in the research funding community, is a critical economic 

engine. Agricultural science and research from public and private institutions is a boon to our 

nation's economy, generating roughly $20 in economic activity for each $1 invested. 

Yet, as we all know, federal funding for agricultural research has been stagnant over the past 

decade, and has declined in real terms according to USDA. 

With 9.7 billion people projected to populate the world by 2050, we have new challenges to 

face with far-reaching implications. Global hunger is still unacceptably high. Pests and disease 

have decimated American crops like citrus while stagnant yields for staples like wheat make it 

tougher to compete in trade. 

If America wants to continue to feed the world, our farmers and ranchers must be given every 

opportunity to apply cutting-edge research and technology into their fields. With an everincreasing number of mouths to feed and threats mounting, it's imperative that our food 

system keep pace by supporting innovation and technology. 

I also believe there is no better time to be engaged in food and agricultural science and 

research. The pace of technology is absolutely breathtaking, and FFAR is uniquely positioned to 

bring together all aspects of our food system in an inspiring, unified manner to solve the biggest 

challenges ahead. 

FFAR Opportunities Ahead 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, this Committee took a bold step by establishing the Foundation for Food 

and Agriculture Research with bipartisan support. Designed with a public-private partnership 

model, FFAR's emergence as a cutting-edge research institution is well timed considering the 

many challenges we face. 

FFAR matches every one of its public dollars with outside funding, delivering huge value for 

American taxpayers. By 2019, the U.S. government's $200 million investment in FFAR will 

deliver more than $400 million in programming. 
103 

Building a foundation from scratch is not easy, but since 2014, FFAR has worked to hire staff, 

develop reliable systems and structures including robust scientific review processes, and raise 

funding from diverse partners. Today, the Foundation has invested more than $32 million in 

food and agricultural science with 41 partners, and has done so nimbly and efficiently, with the 

ability to award grants in as little as one week to confront emerging pests, diseases and climatic 

threats before it's too late. Moreover, by uniting researchers with groups like venture 

capitalists, the private sector and global philanthropies, FFAR can quickly bring research to scale 

and more than double the taxpayer's investment while, at the same time, expanding the tent 

for U.S. agriculture. 

Now that the Foundation is fully staffed and has developed the systems and structures to 

contribute toward its long-term sustainability, the value and volume of award announcements 

will continue to pick up throughout 2017 and 2018. In the following months, FFAR will further 

distinguish itself as a cutting-edge institution with the announcement of three significant 

research projects. 

1. A new soil health initiative will help catalyze the adoption of soil health promoting 

practices across a large percentage of our farmland. 

2. Research to improve photosynthetic efficiency has the potential to significantly 

increase the yield of staple food crops. 

3. Advancing and applying new irrigation technologies will make irrigation more efficient 

for producers. 

Over the next five years, FFAR will become a pivotal player in the food and agriculture research 

community. In order to fulfill our Congressional mandate, FFAR is uniquely positioned to carry 

out its three core strategic priorities: 

1. Evaluate potential gaps and emerging issues in food and agriculture. 

2. Facilitate public private partnerships to fund research that addresses the most pressing 

issues in food and agriculture. 

3. Grow the scientific talent pool to address critical food and agriculture issues. 

In keeping with the Foundation's strategic plan, we anticipate awarding the balance of FFAR's 

funding by early 2019, matched dollar for dollar by diverse partners in support of scientific 

solutions to critical issues facing food and agriculture. 

We are grateful for the opportunity to continue work with Congress to ensure FFAR is 

reauthorized and fully funded in the next Farm Bill, consistent with our bipartisan legacy as an 

institution contributing to the long-term competitiveness of our nation's food and agriculture 

sector. 

I know we will look back on the past two years as an important, formative time spent planting 

the seeds of innovation and I also know that the best is yet to come for FFAR. The relationships, 
104 

scientific ideas, and organizational framework in which we have invested so much energy are 

just now beginning to prosper. 
105 

Written Remarks by Steve Wellman, Farmer 

Wellman Farms Inc. 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

"Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Success for the 2018 Farm Bill." 

June 15, 2017 

Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow, and distinguished Senators of the Committee, thank you 

for the invitation to appear today before the Committee to discuss science and innovation which is the 

very essence offarming -today and especially into the future. 

My name is Steve Wellman. I am a past President of the American Soybean Association and an inaugural 

board member of the Supporters of Agricultural Research (SoAR). Most importantly, I am a thirdgeneration farmer from Syracuse, Nebraska farming the same fields my father and grandfather did. 

Today, we raise soybeans, corn, alfalfa, winter wheat and a cow-calf herd. 

On behalf of SoAR and the American Soybean Association I am here today advocating for additional 

agricultural research support, including full funding of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, 

USDA's flagship competitive grants program. 

As I like to say, we need three things to get American agriculture growing: sun, rain and research. 

There's not much I can do about the first two but when it comes to research I can lend my name, my 

time and most importantly my voice to policymakers encouraging them to renew American leadership in 

agricultural science. 

Sufficient federal investment and wise policies are essential if the United States is to continue to be a 

global leader in agriculture. More aptly, as SoAR Founder Bill Danforth has remarked, "Food is too 

important to the human race to be a research after-thought; it needs to be a high priority for the 

nation's entire scientific community." 

And I would add for the entire nation. 

Today's hearing is a welcomed review of the state of farm science and the investment in federal 

agriculture research. Farmers like me are rightfully concerned about trade policy, commodity risk 

management, crop insurance and conservation. But the ancestry of virtually every topic discussed in the 

Farm Bill can be traced to research. And for that matter, the future of each rests on the shoulders of our 

collective ability to modernize USDA agriculture research so that we don't miss opportunities awaiting 

discovery. 

Traditionally, we have thought of agriculture science in terms of improving yields, preventing soil 

erosion, and adapting crops to a variety of growing conditions. Today, agriculture stands to realize 

significant gains through interdisciplinary research across numerous scientific fields including data 

science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, biologicals and genomics. To capitalize on these relatively 

modern fields of science we need to ensure we have a modern federal research enterprise. That is why 

today I am urging Senators during this Farm Bill debate to give research and the entire USDA Research, 

Education and Economics mission area your full attention. 
106 

Public agricultural research spending peaked in 1994 and since has declined 20 percent. The 2008 Farm 

Bill authorized AFRI at $700 million dollars annually yet today funding has reached only the halfway 

point of that level. As a percentage of total federal research investment, USDA has fallen to less than 3% 

of the annual federal investment. Put another way, research funding for federal agencies not including 

USDA is nearly $60 billion dollars. Research funding at the USDA Research mission area tops out at just 

over $2 billion which is an amount that has remained virtually unchanged for decades. 

On our farm in eastern Nebraska thanks to modern science I plant varieties that can adapt to dry 

weather. Since we don't have irrigation, there isn't much I can do about long stretches of dry weather, 

so fortunately, I can use varieties that are drought tolerant. 

With data and analytics available to purchase today, I can manage effectively and more affordably my 

input costs. Farmers today can receive a field script prescribing which varieties to plant, at what time on 

which field and more precisely measure the right type of inputs to apply to fields to maximize yields. All 

made possible with science. 

On our farm, conservation of natural resources is a constant focus. Farming practices such as contour 

terraces, no till farming, cover crops and nutrient management such as grid sampling plus variable rate 

application of nutrients and seed are implemented. These are effective and productive practices today. 

Will they be in the future? Or will research demonstrate ways to improve? What we do today is based 

on years of research and learning. Where will the knowledge to improve U.S. production practices come 

from in the future without public research leading the way? 

We can always use more science to improve growing season forecasts, produce hardier plants, and 

examine how to manage too much water or not enough. 

American agriculture is a marvel of the world but that doesn't mean the world is standing by. China, 

Brazil and increasingly Europe are investing at a double-digit pace. Now, funding rates for agriculture 

research grant proposals in many EU countries are nearing 40 percent. In the U.S. those funding rates 

for grants that score highly have fallen from 20-25 percent to 5-10 percent. The success rate for AFRI 

grant applications is between 10 and 15%. How can we improve this success rate? Let's look at the 

numbers. 

For fiscal year 2015, the most recent AFRI analysis shows that a total of 2,694 competitive grant 

applications~ requesting $1,793,235,471, were received and reviewed through a competitive peer 

review process. An additional 884 proposals were recommended for funding by review panels and could 

have been supported, provided an additional $689.574.878 was available to the program. 

A modernized system supported with additional investment is the plea I make to you today. 

In 1945, the final year of World War II, the number of tractors overtook the number of working horses 

on the farm. Today, the American farmer feeds 155 other people, but for that number to continue to 

grow, science must remain imbedded in modern farms. To accomplish this the scientific pipeline and the 

research powering American agriculture must be renewed with modern programs and robust funding. 

In closing, I'd leave you with a question I ask myself on the farm frequently. How certain are we, and you 

as policymakers, that we can provide food security for 10 billion people by the middle of this century? 
107 

The U.S. has been the world leader in agricultural production and innovation for decades. This is a role 

the U.S. needs to retain. It won't happen without a strong commitment to public research from 

Congress and our administration. 

Thank you. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

(109) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JUNE 15, 2017 
110 

Testimony of 

Walter A. Hill, Ph.D. 

Director, Center of Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and Forest Lands 

(CISFRL) 

Vice-Provost and Dean & Director, Land-Grant Programs 

Tuskegee University 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

Senate Committee on Agriculture 

June 15,2017 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, on behalf of Dr. Kent J. Smith, Jr., PresidentLangston University and chair of the 1890 Council of Presidents; Moses A. Kairo, Chairperson of 

the Association of 1890 Research Directors (ARD) and Dr. Carolyn Williams, Chairperson of the 

Association of 1890 Extension Administrators (AEA) and the entire 1890 Land-Grant Community, 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony. l am Dr. Walter A. Hill, 

Vice Provost and Dean, College of Agriculture, Environment and Nutrition Sciences at Tuskegee 

University. l also served as Principle Investigator for the 1890 Land Grant University 125'h 

Anniversary Center for Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and Forest Lands during 

2015-2016. 

The 1890 Land Grant Universities are members of the Board on Agriculture Assembly of the 

Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU) and we have played an active role in 

the development of the Board's proposed farm bill recommendations. We endorse APLU's 

budget priorities regarding funding needs and the need to better integrate science and education 

programs into all of the action and policy activities of the Department. Building on the testimony 

of the first panel, together with the information and data provided in this panel, I will focus on 

some additional issues of concern specific to the 1890s in the new Farm Bill rewrite legislation. 

Key Issues for the 1890s 

There are three key issues that I would like to address: 

I. The critical need for increased investments; and 

2 Appropriate funding mechanisms. 

3. Success/Impacts of 1890 work on specialty crops and organics 

The Critical Need for Increased Investments 

I am heartened by the recent calls to increase significantly the investment in agricultural research, 

extension and education. It is remarkable that so many diverse interests are coming together with 

an understanding of an urgent need to reinvest in the science and education base serving our farmers 

and our communities. It is important to note that over the last several decades, according to 

USDA/Economic Research Service, the U.S. agricultural sector has sustained impressive 

productivity growth. The Nation's agricultural research system, including Federal-State public 

research as well as private-sector research, has been the key driver of this growth. Economic 

analysis finds strong and consistent evidence that investment in agricultural research has yield high 

returns per dollar spent. These returns included benefits not only to the farm sector, but also to the 

food industry and consumers in the form of more abundant commodities at lower prices. There is 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/1511 7 
111 

consensus that the payoff from government's investment in agricultural research is high. The data 

show that the rate of return to U.S. public agricultural research range from 20 percent to 60 

percent with an average of 53 percent. The average rate of return for private agricultural research 

is 45 percent. 

The 1890 universities look forward to working with all of the farm and interest groups who are 

working to enhance our abilities to serve their needs. As we support critically needed investments 

in agricultural research, extension and teaching, it is essential that the specific funding needs facing 

the 1890 community also be addressed. At this time, I would like to convey some of our specific 

recommendations to meet the unique needs of the 1890s and the communities that we serve. 

The 1890 Cooperative Extension programs are comprised of a broad range of science based 

educational efforts, which have been proven to: 

l. Strengthen the food and agricultural industry, particularly small and limited resource 

farmers, by developing agricultural production systems that are efficient, sustainable and 

highly competitive in the global economy. 

2 Enhance the health of families through diet and nutrition and food safety education and 

their economic well-being through practical financial education. 

3. Enhance youth skills in science, technology, math, citizenship and leadership. 

4. Foster strong, stable communities through leadership development efforts and encouraging 

entrepreneurship. 

Cooperative Extension has developed transformation programs that have improved the economic 

viability of small-scale agriculture and reduced the decline of small minority-owned farms. 

Programs emphasizing agricultural diversification, marketing strategies and risk management have 

been of paramount importance to this client group. Many of the small farmers have diversified their 

operations to include vegetable production, fruits, specialty crops and animals to increase their cash 

flow. For example, the development of a Natural Hog Growers Association increased its 

membership hog-sale income by nearly a million dollars in North Carolina and they have entered 

into contracts with the Whole Food Market. The development of the Master Meat Goat Herdsman 

Program has saved producers over $16,250, annually, in Florida in veterinarian and production 

costs. 

in Alabama, farmers participating in a comprehensive program in record keeping, financial 

management, production management and farm planning have become producers that are more 

efficient. It was reported that ]3 farmers acquired USDA farm ownership loans in the amount of 

$2.6 million and 1 0 acquired operating loans for nearly $1.0 million. Without this training, the 

farmers would not have qualified for the loans. Programs of this nature enabled the limitedresource farmers in Kentucky to increase their net farm income by $4,500.00. 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15117 
112 

Increase the funding base of /890 capacity funding 

We support reauthorization of capacity programs funding for both 1862 and 1890 institutions. 

The amount of capacity funds available to the 1890s is smaller than the amount of these funds 

available to our colleagues in the 1862s. Currently, the legislation requires that the funding base of 

1890 formula research funding (Section 1445) be set at an amount equivalent to not less than 30% 

of 1862 capacity funding (Hatch funding). The 1890 research program (Evans-Allen) currently 

received 22% of the 1862 capacity funding. It is our goal to receive the authorized amount of 30 

percent. Similarly, 1890 Extension formula funding (Section 1444) is currently set at an amount 

equivalent to not less than 20% of 1862 Extension formula funding (Smith-Lever funding). It is 

our goal to receive the authorized amount of20 percent. 

Reauthorize the 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program 

The 1890 Capacity Building Grants Program has played a critical role in helping us build our 

capacities in research, extension and teaching. This program has allowed us to attract new faculty, 

enhance our ability to conduct quality research, has enabled us to carry out needed curriculum 

development programs, and has enabled us to enhance the delivery of our extension and 

engagement programs. We also recommend that the authorized funding level for this program be 

continued. 

Reauthorize the 1890 Facilities Grant Program 

We recommend reauthorizing the 1890 Facilities Grant Program (Section 1447) at the authorized 

funding level. The 1890s have a clear and immediate need to improve their academic, research and 

extension physical facilities. There is also an urgent need to adequate equip these facilities for stateof-the art equipment. Years of limited resources have taken their toll and needed improvements 

cannot be delayed forever. Meanwhile, new technologies require new resources and modifications 

to existing facilities. Without the needed improvements and technology upgrades, it becomes more 

and more difficulty to recruit and train top quality scientists and other educational professionals for 

the future. We therefore urge your support of authorization for the 1890 Facilities Grant program 

Change the Carryover Provision for 1890 Extension Funding 

The 1890 land-grant universities can only carryover 20 percent of its Extension funding after one 

year while other capacity programs can carryover their funding at a I 00 percent for one or more 

years. The 20 percent carry-over provision limits the flexibility needed for planning and expending 

the funding based on identified priorities. We are requesting that the carryover provision for 1890 

Extension be changed from 20 percent to a carryover level that would be consistent with the 

carryover provision for other capacity programs such as Smith-Lever. This will provide the same 

carryover opportunity for Extension capacity funds for both 1890 and 1862 institutions. 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15117 
113 

Increase the funding base for Mclntyre-Stennis (Forestry) funding 

We recommend increased funding targeted to forestry issues (Mclntyre-Stennis) at the 

authorized level. Many of our institutions abide in states where forestry is a major 

agricultural industry and these institutions have forestry and natural resource programs that 

are germane to the forestry industry and applicable to the current program eligibility 

bruidelines 

Nutrition Education Program (Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program) 

Nutrition education is important to the health and well-being of all families, but there is a 

tremendous need for this program for persons with limited income. EFNEP help individuals to 

improve their diets and change their food buying behavior. It is recommended that EFNEP be 

reauthorized at its current level of $90 million. 

Authorize the 1890 Centers of Excellence 

We recommend authorization ofthe 1890 Centers of Excellence at a funding level of $35 million 

per year. These Centers were developed and initiated in 2015 in recognition of the 125~ Anniversary 

ofthe Second Morrill Act of 1890. The centers are: Center for Innovative and Sustainable Small 

Farms, Ranches and Landowners (CISFRL), 2) Center of Excellence for International Engagement 

and Development (CEllED), and 3) Virtual Center to Motivate and Educate for Achievement 

(MEA). 

In recognition of the 125" Anniversary of the Second Morrill Act of 1890, several USDA agencies 

committed $2 million to the 1890s to support the former two centers. The goals of the Anniversary 

Centers are to substantially increase diversity in the STEM pipeline, increase profitability and jobs 

in underserved farming communities and enhance talent preparation related to global food security. 

The 1890s are working in an integrative fashion across multi-disciplines and in partnership with 

the private sector, government and community-based organizations to make a difference and obtain 

measurable impacts on the lives of underserved youth, farmers and developing communities who 

hold great potential. Although the funds from these USDA agencies were used prudently to support 

underserved small farmers and students at our institutions, these funds were woefully inadequate. 

Through the years, the 1890 universities have struggled with inadequate funding resources to meet 

the especially challenging needs ofunderserved communities. The proposed Centers of Excellence 

would be utilized to help address historical inequities of resources and to allow our institutions the 

opportunity to work collaboratively and synergistically to help our stakeholders while 

concurrently effectively competing for other funding resources. These Centers of Excellence would 

jump-start new initiatives on the 1890 campuses, particularly developing resources to provide 

practical solutions to improve job opportunities and the quality oflife of citizens in the 1890 region 

and beyond. 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15/17 
114 

Reautlzorize tlze Outreac/z and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers 

We recommend reauthorizing the Socially Disadvantaged Initiative (Section 2501) Program at a 

level not less than $20 million per year. This program allows the !890 universities and other 

Community Based Organizations to work cooperatively directly in a sustained way with small 

farmers. We have had tremendous success providing training in risk management, record keeping, 

farm management environmental stewardship, and alternative enterprises and market development. 

We train small farmers to access new and alternative markets for their crops and animal 

commodities. This program has had a dramatic impact on increasing the economic viability and 

sustainability of these small and limited resource farmers. This critical program should be sustained 

and strengthened and other small farm programs should be established as a safety net for all such 

farmers in this category. Co'mparatively, this group of farming clientele has been vertically ignored 

in terms of specially targeted programs. We therefore ask the Committee to rectifY this oversight 

by providing sufficient funding for this program to provide sustained impact. 

Authorize Student Scholarships for the 1890 Land Grant Universities 

We request support to authorize the Student Scholarships for the 1890 ]and-grant universities at a 

funding level of$19 million per year ($1 million to each institution) for student scholarships. This 

scholarship pr,,gram is needed to increase the number of young African-American indi\'iduals 

seeking a career in the food and agricultural sciences and shall be pro\'ided "ith theca\ eat that 

such scholarship students shall commit to pursue a career in the food and agricultural sciences, 

including agribusiness. food production, distribution. and retailing. the clothing industries. energy 

and renewable fuels. and farming marketing. finance, and distribution. According to USDA data on 

the employment opportunities for college graduates in food. agriculture. rene\\ able natural resources 

and the environment. the demand for these graduates exceeds the supply by 39 percent. 

Appropriate Funding Mechanisms 

We would like to commend the leadership ofUSDA/NIFA and tbe Land-Grant community in the 

development of tbe new AFRI competitive grants program. The Department staff and others went 

the extra mile to make sure that our institutions were fully aware of the new program and gave us 

the opportunity to compete as equal partners in the process. The 1890 Land Grant Universities 

achieved some success, however, with enhanced support to increase our competitiveness we will 

do even better in the future. 

We recommend increased funding at a level of$418 million per year. While we support competitive 

grants; however, many of the programs that we provide need to be sustained over time. Short-term 

competitively awarded projects do not adequately serve the longer-term needs of the underserved 

populations that we work with. Capacity funding funds provide the necessary sustained funding 

that is required to truly build capacity. Again, we support competitive grants, but it is not tbe only 

funding tool and it is not always the most effective mechanism to meet our needs and the needs of 

the people we serve in rural and urban communities. 

Small Farms/Specialty Crops 

The researchers and extension specialists have focused their efforts of helping improve the quality 

of life and increasing the income/profitability levels of small and undeserved farm operators in tbe 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15117 
115 

1890 region about beyond, including an emphasis to increase the competitiveness of specialty crops 

and organic crops. Small farms make up 90 percent of the farm count and operate nearly half of the 

farmland, but only account for 24 percent of the production. The largest share of farm production, 

however, occurs on the large-scale family farms. According to the Economic Research Service and 

other researchers, specialty crops typically account for 30 to 40 percent of the total value of U.S. 

crops, not an insignificant value. 

Even before the increased attention given to specialty crop issues in the 2008 Farm Bill, the 1890 

universities have been assisting specialty crop producers to increase the quality of these products 

and to develop a market niche. 

Specialty crop issue often vary depending on the type of crop involved and the type of market in 

which they are sold. Among the crops important to producers that the 1890 researchers and 

extension specialists have focused on include, but are not limited to, ethnic crops such as Brassica 

rapa cv. Bosai Chinensis (Bok choy), Amaranthus viridis Linn (Amaranth or Callaloo), and 

Hibiscus sabdariffa L. (Hibiscus or Jamaican Sorrel); energy beets; ginger; 

carrots; kale; specialty peanuts; grapes; watermelon; blueberries: vegetable soybeans (edamame); 

Indian, Chinese and Hispanic vegetable crops; sweet potatoes, southern peas, squash, and eggplant; 

mushrooms; and herbs. 

Among the issues important to producers that the 1890 researchers and extension specialists have 

focused on include, but not limited to, sustainable production practices, planting flexibility 

restrictions, programs, labor, food safety, marketing and trade patterns, integrative pest 

management, and risk management. 

Provided below are three impact vignettes illustrative of the type of innovative research that is 

being funded by USDA/NIF A at the 1890 land grant universities, and an impact vignette from 

the Center for Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and Forest Lands. 

1. University of Maryland Eastern Sbore: "Organic Crop Management on Delmarva 

for Selected Specialty Crops" 

The goal is of this project to produce selected specialty crops in an environmentally responsible 

manner while assessing their safety and the economic viability of the practices on the Delmarva 

Peninsula. The project is comprised of the following objectives;(!) to compare the effects of 

subsurface applied poultry litter on the growth development and food safety of tomatoes produced 

under organic and conventional systems, (2) to evaluate overall economic impact of subsurface 

applied poultry litter application on the growth and development of tomatoes produced under 

organic and conventional systems, (3) to determine the optimum balance of non- poultry supplied 

nutrients on ginger development in high tunnel and field and evaluate the economic impact and 

( 4) to assess selected produce for their varietal performance for small farmer consideration and 

use in their cropping system. 

Field studies were conducted on conventional and organic sites at the university experiment 

station. Two heirloom tomato cultivars, Debarao plum and Brandywine red were tested in 

different poultry litter and non-poultry litter nutrients. The test nutrients sources were poultry 

litter, poultry litter plus nature safe, nature safe and blood meal for the organic site, and 20-0-12 

fertilizer, poultry litter plus 20-0-12 fertilizer, and poultry litter at the conventional site. Data were 

collected for food safety and economic analyses of harvested fruits. Preliminary results indicate 

that growing Debarao plum heirloom tomatoes organically can be more profitable than growing 

them conventionally. 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15/17 
116 

2 Virginia State University: Edamame to the Rescue? 

Since the peanut and tobacco quota buyouts of 2002 and 2004, fanners in Southside Virginia 

and the southwestern part of the state have experienced loss of income and cropland. In the 

search for alternative crops to replace the two former mainstays of Virginia agriculture, 

researchers at Virginia State University (VSU) have identified vegetable soybean (edamame) 

as a potentially profitable option for former tobacco farmers. Unlike commodity soybean, 

edamame is harvested green and marketed as a specialty vegetable. Similar to tobacco in that it 

lends itself to intensive cultivation in small holdings, edamame can, with proper marketing, 

emerge as a lucrative cash crop. 

For example, sales have averaged $2 per pound of fresh in-the-pod edamame, and one grower was 

able to sell half-pound packs of shelled edamame for $6. With support from the Virginia Tobacco 

Commission, VSU is working with Southside growers to commercialize three edamame varieties 

developed by the Soybean Breeding Program at the VSU Agriculture Research Station. So far, 25 

growers have been contracted to grow and market edamame. The project has purchased harvesting 

and processing equipment and set up a centralized processing facility in Fannville, Va. VSU 

Cooperative Extension continues to provide marketing support. A consumer base for Southsidegrown edamame has been established and continues to expand. Edamame is beginning to be 

recognized as a specialty crop in Virginia. 

3. North Carolina A&T State University: Hypoallergenic Peanuts 

Estimates vary as to the numbers of people who suffer from peanut allergy, but health officials 

agree it is one of the most severe and prevalent food allergies. A report from the National Institute 

of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 20 I 0 reported that the various studies on the issue, some 

based on self- reports, estimate the prevalence of peanut allergy in the United States population 

ranges from 0.6 percent to 1.3 percent (2-4 million people). According to the American College of 

Allergy, Asthma and Immunology approximately 400,000 children in the U.S. suffer from the 

allergy. Making matters worse for them, peanut allergy is rarely outgrown, unlike many other food 

allergies. 

Scientists in the Food and Nutritional Sciences Program at North Carolina A&T State University 

have developed a safe, relatively simple technology for deactivating the allergenic proteins in 

whole roasted peanuts. The patented technology relies on treating whole roasted peanuts with 

various food-grade enzymes. Repeated laboratory trials using extracts from treated peanuts at N.C. 

A&T, as well as an initial clinical trial using skin- prick tests at the University of North Carolina 

at Chapel Hill, have shown promising results. Laboratory tests indicate allergenic proteins can be 

reduced by up to 98 percent. Researchers have also worked on applying the technology to wheat 

protein allergens. 

One of the greatest advantages ofthis technology is its potential to produce peanut products 

that can reduce the severity of allergic reaction in the case of accidental exposure. 

1 890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15/17 
117 

4. Center for Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and Forest Lands 

(CISFRL)- An 1890 Land Grant 125'h Anniversary Center of Excellence 

CISFRL was initiated in 2015 as an outcome of the J25th Anniversary of the 1890 Land Grant 

Universities. In its first year of operation, approximately 70 farmer clusters or cooperatives, including 

five or more owners, were created or operationalized in the seven states that initiated the C!SFRL, 

based on competitive proposals. These clusters and cooperatives included hundreds of farmers, 

ranchers, and landowners. CISFRL has catalyzed farmers, ranchers and landowners working together 

with universities and the private sector and state governments to leverage their strengths and resources 

by working with like-minded producers. Among their successes has been to obtain new markets 

(including large commercial retailers), who require larger quantities of produce delivered on a 

consistent basis than a small farmer can supply alone. The cluster approach (farmers working 

together) has enhanced GAP and food safety certifications, soil testing, pest management, irrigation, 

other sustainability practices and improved partnering with USDA agencies. Specific achievements 

after the first year of operation include: 

Increased marketing of vegetables to large commercial retailers (Walmart, Kroger) 

• Joint purchase of equipment for crop spraying and animal pregnancy testing 

• Joint purchasing of coolers to increase the shelf life of fresh produce and refrigerated trucks 

for transporting fresh produce 

• Increased irrigation capacity for vegetable production 

• Access to modern packing and shipping facilities 

• Conducted collectively over 80 workshops and conferences in partnership with USDA 

agencies, community based organizations for farmer training on FSA, NRCS, FS and APHIS 

programs and new technologies 

• Trained and provided information to small and limited-resource land owners on forest health, 

pests, invasive species and fire and disease control, and assisted in developing management 

plans for 422 landowners 

Investing in the Future 

Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit my testimony today. We 

look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the university community as we move 

through the reauthorizing of the Farm Bill. We urge you to use this moment, this opportunity, to 

invest in our 1890 universities and in the future of our communities and the people we serve. 

1890s Senate Farm Bill Testimony 6/15/17 
118 

Addendum to the 

Opening Statement of 

Sally Rockey, Ph.D 

Executive Director 

Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) 

on 

"Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill" 

Before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the United States Senate on 

Thursday, June 15, 2017 

Addendum Submitted June 30,2017 

The Rapid Outcomes from Agricultural Research (ROAR) grant awarded by FFAR in May 2017 to combat 

spotted wing drosophila was doubled by matching funds provided by Michigan State University, the 

Michigan Cherry Committee, and the Michigan State Horticulture Society. 
(119) 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

JUNE 15, 2017 
120 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Ann Bartuska 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

I. Dr. Bartuska, there has been tremendous growth in organic agriculture, with sales hitting $4 7 

billion in 2016. Producers that transition to organics receive a premium for their products in 

the market place, and USDA has created an Organic Transitions Program. In addition, 

USDA is progressing on the organic check off called for in the last Farm Bill, which could 

provide $30 million a year to spend on research. It was stated during the hearing that the 

sum total of competitive grant funding that goes to organic type enterprises is in the $40-50 

million range, which is in addition to the $30-50 million of investments made by land grants, 

with USDA support. It was also stated that USDA is "actively promoting" organics through 

extension, and "encourage[s) applicants to submit grant proposals in support of organic" 

production. As a reminder, we are in an extremely tight budgetary environment, where the 

federal dollar must be stretched. In light of the many research needs of producers, are 

programs like the Organic Agriculture Research and Education Initiative and the Organic 

Transitions Program necessary for an agricultural sector with rapid growth, industry-driven 

research, and an existing market advantage? Or, could limited funds be better spent on 

challenges facing other areas of the agriculture sector? 

Response: The organic sector is one ofthe fastest growing sectors in agriculture, with sales 

more than tripling in the past 10 years; investments in research are critical to this growth. 

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) invests in and advances agricultural 

research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges. NIFA 's programs promote 

the productivity and profitability of our farmers with every dollar invested in agricultural 

research now returning over $20 to the U.S. economy. Funding programs available for 

agricultural research and extension across NIF A, including Organic Agriculture Research 

and Education Initiative and the Organic Transitions Program, are extremely competitive, 

and many highly competitive proposals with great ideas to address problems go unfunded. 

Additional research, education, and extension is needed to help develop innovative 

management strategies for certified organic growers and to inform transition choices. 

2. The Economic Research Service (ERS) is slated to examine conservation compliance 

regarding the "effectiveness" of the policy, including policy changes made in the 

Agricultural Act of2014. Who at ERS will be responsible for this analysis? Will the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, and the Risk Management Agency 

be consulted during the research process? What data will ERS rely upon to analyze whether 

these changes are "effective"? What is the metric(s) used to measure "effectiveness"? 

Response: The study is being led byERS Senior Economist Roger Claassen who works in 

the Rural and Resource Economics Division at ERS. The research has been informed by 

consultations with the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and Natural 
121 

Resources Conservation Service. ERS staff engaged program agency staff before the 

research began and, as the research progressed, to discuss interim results. All three program 

agencies were asked to review the draft report during the peer review and clearance review 

phases of the project as is standard practice for all ERS research reports that describe USDA 

programs or policies. The repmt is scheduled for release later this summer. 

The study will address several questions: 

• How much erosion reduction can be directly attributed to Highly Erodible Land 

Compliance (HELC)? 

• How large are compliance incentives under the 2014 Farm Act? 

o How much do incentives vary across farms? 

o How do incentives under the 2014 Act differ from incentives under the 2008 

Act? 

o How would incentives change under the 2014 Act if crop insurance premium 

subsidies were not subject to Conservation Compliance? 

To estimate the extent of erosion reduction directly attributable to HELC, the National 

Resources Inventory (NRl) point data was linked to FSA data on HEL field determinations. 

Erosion reduction on highly erodible cropland (land with an erodibility index of 8 or greater) 

located in fields that have been determined to be HEL was compared to similar land on fields 

that have been determined not to be HEL, controlling for a range of factors including soil 

quality, topography, the level of inherent erodibility, and eligibility for commodity programs 

(a binary indicator that base acreage is associated with the tract). Because a field is 

determined to be HEL only when it contains at least 33 percent or 50 acres of highly erodible 

soil, roughly 30 percent of highly erodible land is not subject to HELC. So, erosion 

reduction on highly erodible soil subject HELC can be compared to highly erodible soil that 

is not subject to HELC. 

Ideally, Compliance incentives would be assessed by comparing farm program benefits 

subject lo Compliance sanction with the cost of meeting compliance requirements. While 

farm-level data on farm program benefits is available, farm-level data on the cost of meeting 

Compliance requirements is not_ So, the study uses two metrics to consider the size of 

compliance incentives: 

• Farm program benefits per acre of land subject to HELC or Wetland Conservation 

(WC). 

• Farm program benefits per dollar of rental value for land subject to HELC or WC. 

The second metric is used because crop profits (crop rental rates are a proxy) are an upper 

bonnd on Compliance costs. For highly erodible land already in crop production in 1985, 

approved conservation systems were developed to ensure that HELC costs would not drive 

land out of crop production (that is, cost would never be larger than crop profits). For that 

land that is not in crop production, crop profit forgone (on land that is not cropped due to 

compliance) is an upper bound on Compliance costs. 
122 

Given that these metrics do not accurately account for Compliance costs, the study does not 

attempt to assess the effectiveness ofHELC or WC under the 2014 Act. Rather, the study 

shows how incentives vary across farms, how incentives may differ from incentives that 

would have been realized under a continuation of the 2008 Act, and how incentives would 

change if the link between Compliance and crop insurance premium subsidies was severed. 

USDA administrative data is used to estimate Compliance incentive metrics. For the 2008 

Act, estimated benefits include commodity payments, disaster payments under the 

Supplemental Revenue Assurance Program (SURE), and conservation payments. Under the 

2014 Act, estimated benefits include commodity payments, crop insurance premium 

subsidies, and conservation payments. While there are other programs subject to 

compliance, these programs account for a very large majority of payments subject to 

compliance sanction. 

A simulation model is used to estimate commodity payments to ensure that 2008 and 2014 

programs are compared under the same crop price levels. Farm-level information on base 

acreage, program yields, and commodity program elections (e.g., ARC/PLC) are used. 

Commodity payments are estimated for several crop-price scenarios. RMA data on crop 

insurance premium subsidy data is used directly (with adjustments for crop price scenarios), 

except that benefits from new products (e.g., Stacked Income Protection (STAX)) were 

simulated. Farm-level conservation payments, obtained from FSA and NRCS, were used 

without adjustment. 

Cropland in highly erodible fields is estimated for individual farms using FSA crop reporting 

data and HEL detenninations, by common land unit. Field level data on wetland is obtained 

(for the Prairie Pothole state only) from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data 

maintained by the Department of the Interior. Data on land productivity and cropland rental 

rates are from USDA sources. 

Farm-level metrics are summarized nationally by linking them to the National Resources 

Inventory (NRI). The NRI data is critical because it identifies highly erodible land and 

wetland and provides a complete survey of the land base, including land in farms that do not 

participate in USDA programs. Each NRI points that fall in fields that have been determined 

by USDA to be HEL or are identified as wetland by NRI are linked to a fa1m and the farmlevel compliance metrics. Results will be shown as the number of HEL or wetland acres in 

various ranges of compliance incentive (e.g., $0, $0-$20 per acre, $20-$40 per acre, etc.). 

3. The Economic Research Service Consumer Data Information Program funds data purchases 

and research on the U.S. food system. I appreciate the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

commitment to food system data. Please detail how the program funding for FY20 18 would 

be spent, including how ERS "will support only the highest priority research to create new 

and linked data." 

Response: ERS's investments in consumer and food system data will focus on these high 

priority areas: 
123 

• The annual Food Security module to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey 

that provides the Nation's estimates of Americans' food security status. 

• The National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS), cosponsored byERS and Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), to conduct research that 

informs policymaking on key national priorities including obesity, food insecurity, 

and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other nutrition 

programs. The survey captures unique and comprehensive data from a nationally 

representative sample about household food purchases and acquisitions, along with 

factors that influence household food choices. FoodAPS links to SNAP 

administrative records, USDA nutrition data bases, and food environment data 

sources to support research that could not otherwise be conducted on critical food 

policy issues facing the Nation. 

The Census Administrative Data Platform, a partnership with FNS and the Census 

Bureau that links SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children (WIC) administrative records to Census Bureau's economic 

surveys to conduct evidence-based policy research. 

• The University of Chicago's NORC Data Enclave that houses the confidential and 

sensitive FoodAPS and proprietary retail food scanner data secure systems to provide 

access to external researchers while protecting and maintaining the data 

confidentiality. 

At a reduced funding level, ERS plans to make the following four data investments less 

frequently (rather than annually) and on a rotating 3 to 5 year basis. The reduced investments 

will result in less frequent updates of associated research and statistics. 

• Proprietary consumer and retail scanner data that provide weekly grocery sales and 

purchase information at the item level that supports research on food prices, 

affordability, and nutritional quality. These data will be acquired every 3 years to 

support the work on CNPP's Dietary Guidelines. As a result of the reduction in 

frequency of acquiring these data, the latest information will no longer be available to 

support Department needs during unanticipated events such as food safety recalls or 

other food market changes. 

• Proprietary data on the universe of retail food stores in the country that supports 

research on food access, consumer food shopping habits, and the influence of local 

food environments on food choices will be also be reduced, diminishing the 

frequency of updating the analytical information and statistics for the Food Access 

Research Atlas and the Food Environment Atlas. 

• The Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey (FCBS)), a supplement to CDC's National 

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) that supports research on the 

influence consumers' dietary and nutritional knowledge, including use of nutrition 

labels on food choice behavior will no longer be included on a regular basis within 
124 

NHANES Additional FCBS questions would be included in NHANES every znd or 

3ro year depending on budget levels and agency priorities. 

• The Eating and Health (E&H) module to Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time 

Use Survey (A TUS) that supports research on the impact of time-use constraints and 

secondary eating across various populations on their food behaviors will no longer be 

included on a regular basis within ATUS. Additional E&H questions would be 

included in the ATUS every 3-5 years depending on budget levels and agency 

priorities. 

4. Please elaborate on the opportunities within the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

(NIFA) regarding education grants to Alaska Native Serving Institutions, formula funding for 

Mcintire-Stennis and other NIF A and Agricultural Research Service, research and extension 

regarding invasive plant species and insects applicable to Alaska producers. 

Response: The Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Education 

Competitive Grants (ANNH) Program promotes and strengthens the ability of eligible Alaska 

Native-Serving Institutions and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions to carry out education, 

applied research, and related community development programs within a broadly defined 

area of food and agricultural sciences and related disciplines. Recently, the University of 

Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) received a Consortium grant for about $1.5 Million to conduct 

projects at branch campuses and on the field to improve the economic, social and 

environment conditions in (rural) Alaskan villages. 

Alaska Native Serving Institutions (ANSI) have also benefited from Mcintire-Stennis 

formula funds and the Extension Implementation Program (EIPM) from the Crop Protection 

and Pest Management Competitive Grants Program. Alaska EIPM addresses invasive species 

through the invasive Plants Program, as a collaborator in the Committee for Noxious and 

Invasive Plants Management in Alaska (CNIPM), and through Extension. Western Water 

Weed (Elodea nuttallii) is an emerging issue for aquatic invasive species management in 

Alaska. EIPM responded by hosting community meetings, working with local cooperative 

weed management areas, and assisting with applying for state pesticide treatment permits for 

public and private waters. Additionally, Alaska Native Serving Institutions are eligible for 

NIFA competitive grants programs, including the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. 

Alaska currently has quarantined some very invasive aquatic weeds of great concern, 

particularly elodea, Brazilian waterweed, hydrilla, and Eurasian watermilfoil. ARS has two 

main aquatic weed research laboratories, the ARS Invasive Plant Research Unit in Ft. 

Lauderdale, Florida (which focuses on biological controls) and the ARS Exotic and Invasive 

Weeds Research Unit in Albany, CA (with a more comprehensive research program on 

biocontrol and integrated weed management). Both laboratories are a good resource of 

information for Alaska with respect to its invasive weed concerns. The ARS Exotic and 

Invasive Weeds Research Unit has recently established a program on the development of 

biological controls for insect pests, such as the brown marmorated stink bug and the bagrada 

bug. The ARS Horticultural Crops Research Unit in Corvallis, OR, also develops biological 

control systems for insect pests of horticultural crops. 
125 

5. 2017 marks the year of the Census of Agriculture. The Census is a critical tool that provides 

an important view of the landscape of U.S. agriculture. The information provided by the 

Census is used in many different ways, not the least of which is right here in this Committee 

as we work to shape farm policy. Can you talk about where you are in the process of 

conducting the 2017 Census of Agriculture? When can we expect to see the results and how 

will you share that information with those that need it? 

Response: The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is currently finalizing the 

mail list in preparation for data collection to begin in December. Our final push to get 

farmers and ranchers to sign up to receive a 2017 Census of Agriculture questionnaire ends 

on June 30. Other preparatory activities include finalizing edit and summary systems along 

with testing data collection and processing instmments, specifically a new online rcpmting 

tool. NASS is also completing data collection from the National Agricultural Classification 

Survey to measure the completeness of the Census Mail List. This is a critical component of 

the statistical methodology used to provide official, comprehensive and uniform agricultural 

data for every state and county or county equivalent in the United States. 

NASS will spend all of 2018 collecting, editing, analyzing, and summarizing the responses 

from the 2017 Census of Agriculture. Currently, NASS is preparing to release results from 

the 2017 Census of Agriculture in February 2019. The Agency's communication plans are 

ongoing. The communication plan changes over time from encouraging farmers and ranchers 

to sign up, through promoting responses, and culminates in marketing the many data 

products from the Census of Agriculture program. Along the way, NASS reaches out 

extensively to producers, industry experts and leaders, academia, and many in the public and 

private sectors to gain support, promote response, and share the published results of the 2017 

Census of Agriculture. 

6. The responsibility ofNASS to provide timely, objective, accurate, and useful statistics is 

extremely important to the agricultural sector. Many row-crop and livestock producers use 

NASS data for farm management planning, forecasting line items such as input costs, as well 

as determining the supply and demand landscape for agricultural commodities. Additionally, 

commodity markets rely on this data to determine actual and forecasted conditions for a 

wide-range of economic variables. With the Administration's budget proposal to reduce 

sample sizes from select NASS reports, what unintended consequences would this create 

with regard to marketplace volatility? Would certain farmers be at a disadvantage due to 

reduced sample sizes? 

Response: The proposed sample size reduction will result in reduced statistical precision for 

some states and/or counties. Hence, some state or county estimates will not be available for 

publication. Therefore, certain farmers would be at a disadvantage, because the data for their 

patticular state would not be available. Without state level data, NASS will not be able to 

publish county level data. 

7. The Union of Concerned Scientists is opposed to biotechnology, despite the science being 

very clear regarding health and environmental effects. Please elaborate on your comments 
126 

during the hearing relating to the Union of Concerned Scientists and their involvement with 

any of the processes used by the REE agencies or in its mission area regarding scientific 

integrity. Did the Union of Concerned Scientists approve any of the processes used to ensure 

scientific integrity? If so, why? Is there other precedent for an agency or mission area to 

request that a portion of their internal processes regarding scientific determinations be 

approved by an outside group? Were other groups approached for similar involvement? 

Response: The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) was not involved in the establishment 

nor the subsequent update of the USDA Scientific Integrity Policy (SIP) and Departmental 

Manual. In December 2015, the USDA Departmental Scientific Integrity Officer and the 

Agency Scientific Integrity Officers, with support of USDA's Science Council, initiated an 

internal review and update ofthe 2013 USDA SIP. In November 2016, USDA issued a 

revised version of DR I 074-001 (Scientific Integrity) and a new Departmental Manual, 

providing detailed and robust procedures for responding to allegations of compromised 

scientific integrity. Following that issuance, UCS independently conducted their own review 

ofthe revised SIP, and the SIPs of 18 other federal science agencies. In their January 2017 

report, "Preserving Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking," UCS gave USDA's 

updated SIP the highest rating, and based on USDA's release of an accompanying new 

procedural manual, USDA was one of only five federal departments/agencies to receive a 

"strong" rating for its response procedures to scientific integrity concerns. 

8. In your testimony you discuss the 'fast growing phenomenon' of urban agriculture and the 

role the Research, Education, and Economics mission area plays in urban focused research. 

As U.S. farmers and ranchers are currently facing critically tough times, including 

destructive weather patterns, the spread of pests and disease, and low commodity priees, can 

you explain how prioritizing urban agriculture research provides a meaningful return on the 

taxpayer dollars that are expended? Please provide data explaining the impact investment in 

urban agriculture has on addressing the issues our U.S. producers are facing during these 

tough economic times. 

Response: Through the Fatm Bill and appropriations, NIFA invests in and advances 

agricultural research, education, and extension to solve societal challenges. NIFA's programs 

promote the productivity and profitability of our farmers with every dollar invested in 

agricultural research now returning over $20 to the U.S. economy. Urban agriculture has 

economic, health, and social impacts, with the majority of urban related projects relevant to 

all agricultural production systems and rural communities, not just urban environments. 

Across NIF A's granting programs, 127 projects related to urban and community based 

agriculture at a value of $34,773,341 in fiscal year 2015 were funded. States reported 

$2,703,000 expended on related capacity projects in the same year. Between 2009 and 2015, 

NIF A awarded a total of 831 competitive projects related to urban and community based 

agriculture at a value of $198,214,308, with States reporting capacity expenditures of 

$9,502,000. Of this total, $41,271,174 was awarded through the Community Foods Projects 

grant programs. Capacity funding is NIFA's support for research and extension activities at 

land-grant institutions through grants to the states on the basis of statutory formulas, as 

determined by the Congress. See chart below illustrating NIFA administered resean:;h, 

education, and extension funding for urban agriculture related projects. 
127 

Competitive Capacity Total 

2009 $22,200,036 $607,000 $22,807,036 

2010 $33,744,367 $832,000 $34,576,367 

2011 $39,849,622 $806,000 $40,655,622 

2012 $26,309,244 $883,000 $27,192,244 

2013 $21,926,265 $1,483,000 $23,409,265 

2014 $19,411,433 $2,188,000 $21,599,433 

2015 $34,773,341 $2,703,000 $37,476,341 

Total $198,214,308 $9,502,000 $207' 716,308 

9. Can you provide for the Committee a list of the REE authorities, including the amount of 

funds authorized, that can be used for urban agriculture? Additionally, please identity all 

activities you are referring to when you state that key urban research areas 'work across and 

within disciplines to identity a holistic approaches to sustaining urban agriculture.' 

Response: A representative list of relevant programs is included in the Urban Agriculture 

Toolkit, https :i www .usda. uov, sites' dcfaul t 1filcs; documcn ts!urban-auricu lturc-too I kiL pdt: 

Urban agriculture is a diverse discipline within agriculture that requires the knowledge of 

traditional agricultural practices with research focused on the unique issues that exist within 

urban systems. Research within urban agriculture spans all disciplines of agricultural 

research soil health and quality, water access and quality, geospatial assessments, urban 

forestry, biology, ecology, pollinator health, education and workforce development, 

agricultural engineering and production strategy development- however, there are unique 

outputs. The sum of these research activities helps yield high output, successful urban farms. 

Urban agriculture requires long-term research focused on the overall goals of enhancing 

operational and production efficiencies; improving economic returns to producers; and 

reducing the environmental impact of urban agricultural production. Specific themes for 

such research in ARS include: Production Environment: Characterization of atmosphetic 

gases, pollutants and light intensities experienced by crops grown in urban settings whether 

at ground-level or, but especially, on rooftops of high-rise buildings. Technologies for C02 

capture and release into C02-starved greenhouse environments are particularly important for 

urban crop production during the winter months. Water: Technologies are needed for more 

effective use and re-use of water, be it municipal or rain feed, and water runoff collection and 

recycling. Aquaculture: Technologies for aquaculture/aquaponics in urban settings, either as 

a stand-alone system or coupled with vertical farming and hydroponic farming. Postharvest 

Quality: Technologies are needed to assure food quality and food safety, via superior 

product handling/ processing/ packaging and storage for produce from urban agriculture. 

ERS has conducted research on local food systems that spans both rural and urban areas that 

is, rather than based on proximity to cities per se, the research is defined based on marketing 

arrangements in which farmers sell directly·to consumers at regional farmers' markets or to 

schools. ERS has published reports covering local food markets, characteristics oflocal food 
128 

farmers, and the local foods supply chain. Academic expertise and research on local foods 

has grown during this period and provides information on local food markets and the effects 

on farmers and rural communities thus reducing the value of the ERS research on local foods. 

Thus, ERS' FY18 budget includes a request to discontinue this research area (a requested 

funding decrease of $200,000 and I staff year for local foods research). 

NASS did not receive additional funds in the FY2017 budget for the urban agriculture 

survey. 

NIFA supports a broad spectrum of urban and community based agricultural projects through 

competitive grants programs and capacity programs, and indirectly through grants awarded 

and administered through regional centers. NJF A defines urban and community based 

agriculture as agricultural practices that take place within a community setting. Across our 

granting programs, we funded 127 projects related to urban and community based agriculture 

at a value of$34,773,341 in fiscal year 2015. States reported $2,703,000 expended on related 

capacity projects in the same year. Between 2009 and 2015, NIFA awarded a total of 831 

competitive projects related to urban and community based agriculture at a value of 

$198,214,308, with States reporting capacity expenditures of$9,502,000. Of this total, 

$41,271,174 was awarded through the Community Foods Projects grant programs. Capacity 

funding is NIFA's support for research and extension activities at land-grant institutions 

through grants to the states on the basis of statutory formulas, as determined by the Congress. 

[see separate table as attachment] 

I 0. Your testimony states that urban agriculture provides benefits such as closer neighborhood 

ties, reduced crime, and education and job training opportunities. You also mention that 

research done under REE assists communities in transitioning to a more sustainable future. 

Please provide evidence as to these claims, as well as what, if any, USDA resources are 

being used in evaluating these results. 

Response: Our response focuses on activities in the REE mission area. 

Urban agriculture benefits from the Food Insecurity Incentive Program (FINI), which funds 

projects intended to "increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables by low-income 

consumers participating in [SNAP] by providing incentives at the point of purchase." For 

FINI grants, NJFA defines "fruits and vegetables" as "any variety of fresh, carmed, dried, or 

frozen whole or cut fruits and vegetables without added sugars, fats, or oils, and salt (i.e. 

sodium)." Incentivizing purchases of fruits and vegetables increases their affordability and 

consumption. 

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service recently completed an evaluation of a FINI predecessor, 

the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) in Hampden County, Massachusetts (pilot from November 

2011 to December 2012), which investigated the impact of making fruits and vegetables 

more affordable to SNAP participants. Under HIP, SNAP households received 30 cents on 

every SNAP dollar spent on targeted fruits and vegetables at participating SNAP-authorized 

retailers, including large supermarkets, grocery stores, and farmers markets. A rigorous 
129 

evaluation showed that HIP significantly increased the consumption of targeted fruits and 

vegetables, with the increased consumption of about one quarter of a cup per day. 

The USDA's Forest Service has supported research that evaluates the benefits of urban green 

space and its relationship to less crime. for example Kuo, F.E., and W.C. Sullivan (2001) 

published in Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Effects of Environment Via Mental 

Fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33, 4:543-571. That "the presence of nearby nature may 

positively influence social interactions and lessen aggressive and violent behavior. 

Comparing similar buildings (within Chicago public housing), 145 women were asked to 

recall aggressive and violent behaviors within their household. Those who had trees and 

grass cover outside their apartments reported significantly less aggression against their 

partners than did those living in unlandscaped areas." 

In 2016 USDA Forest Service scientists Troy, A., Nunery, A., and Grove, J.M. published 

The relationship between residential yard management and neighborhood crime: An analysis 

from Baltimore City and County. In this study USDA Forest Service scientists analyzed the 

relationship between crime and indicators of residential yard management in Baltimore City 

and County. After controlling for income, population density, Block-scale tree canopy and 

housing type, they found a consistently significant relationship between crime and number of 

indicators of yard management. Specifically, Forest Service scientists found that indicators of 

yard management, from cut lawns to presence of yard trees, are inversely associated with 

crime, while indicators of neglect are positively associated with crime. 

The USDA Forest Service Philadelphia Field Station is working with city groups such as the 

Parks and Recreation Department and the Philadelphia Water Department to establish the 

"triple bottom line", meaning improvements in three broad areas of impact- environmental, 

social and economic. In tetms of crime reduction, our studies have found that "green" 

stormwater infrastructure improvements resulted in significant reductions in narcotics 

possession and theft. According to Philadelphia police detective Hugh Davis, one can feel 

neighborhoods changing and becoming safer over time. 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

I. In 2016, Congress passed the Global Food Security Act, which codified a whole-ot: 

government strategy to fight hunger and str·engthcn global food security. Please provide a 

comprehensive description ofUSDA activities within the Research, Education, and 

Economics mission area that are supporting this global food security strategy and in 

which countries. 

Response: In 2016 the U.S. Government prepared the Global Food Security Strategy 

(GFSS), an integrated whole-of-government strategy and agency specific implementation 

plans, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as required by the Global 

Food Security Act of2016 (GFSA). USDA identified Research, Education, and 

Economics mission area (REE) activities in support of the GFSS in the FY17 USDA 

GFSS Implementation Plan. Generally, USDA research collaborations focus on those 
130 

that are mutually beneficial to the U.S. and its foreign collaborators. These cooperative 

activities leverage foreign and domestic resources (human, financial, and infrastructural) 

to more quickly and efficiently produce solutions for the pressing challenges facing 

American agriculture. When applicable and appropriate USDA aligns REE mission area 

activities with the GFSS, but said activities are typically not initiated solely to support the 

GFSS nor are they specific to any country. 

In the area of research, USDA can leverage over $2 billion in annual investment~ in the 

REE mission area which contribute to a wide range of research programs focused on 

global food security. USDA research investments can directly, or indirectly, support U.S. 

Department of State- and USAID-funded international research collaborations for food 

security. The following specific REE activities are named in the FYI? USDA GFSS 

Implementation Plan: 

GO DAN. The United States is a founding member of, and financial contributor to, the 

Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN) initiative. U.S. participation 

is managed by the USDA Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS). This initiative seeks to 

support global efforts to make data that is relevant to agriculture and nutrition available, 

accessible, and usable for unrestricted use worldwide. Open access to research, and open 

publication of data, are vital resources for food security and nutrition. 

Livestock Improvement and Health. USDA intramural research is cooperating with 

USAID and an international consortium of researchers to develop a new generation 

vaccine for East Coast fever, a devastating disease of cattle in East Africa. In addition, 

USDA is cooperating in bringing advanced genomics and genetic approaches to 

improving goat production in Africa. These projects are funded under Feed the Future 

but are leveraged by existing Agricultural Research Service (ARS) research funding 

support of intramural research projects and by the extensive network of cooperation that 

includes several Land Grant universities. 

Wheat Improvement and UG99. USDA has active research addressing one of the 

greatest threats to the global wheat supply. UG99, the highly virulent wheat stem rust, 

continues to be a major threat to what is arguably one of the most important food 

commodities, and actively preventing this threat from spreading any further is a high 

priority globally. USDA coordinates intramural and extramural research in wheat, 

particularly UG99, through the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative, the Intemational Wheat 

Yield Program, and the International Wheat Consortium, in addition to coordinating with 

producer organizations and universities in the United States. 

Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMlP). USDA 

coordinates with the AgMIP, a distributed climate-scenario simulation exercise for 

historical model intercomparison and future climate change conditions, with participation 

of multiple crop and world agricultural trade modeling groups around the world. AgMIP 

is an important tool in identifying the impacts on crop, and eventually animal, production 
131 

and will help policy makers prepare in advance as climate shifts and impacts the viability 

of various production systems. 

ARS Office oflntemational Research Programs (OIRP). Working with the ARS Office 

of National Programs, the OIRP works to engage strategic intemational partnerships that 

can enhance the productivity, effectiveness, and impact of ARS National Programs, as 

well as further the goals of the United States government. The OTRP enhances 

coordination of research that supports the GFSS. 

Technical contributions. USDA embodies robust technical and policy expertise for 

sustainable agriculture, nutrition, and food systems. USDA's expertise and work-such 

as research, education, and economics~oncurrently meet the needs of U.S. agriculture 

and support global food security. In addition, USDA experts are directly engaged in 

international cooperative research and capacity building and development programs, both 

independently and through reimbursable partnerships. For example, several agencies 

plan to provide subject matter experts andior conduct cooperative research to support 

USAID's food security and nutrition work worldwide. 

Finally, the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) domestic 

research agenda will provide a foundation for new and ongoing USDA international 

partnerships in key areas such as agricultural production and resiliency, food safety, 

nutrition, youth development, and agticultural extension. 

2. As leader of USDA's urban agriculture interagency working group, can you describe how 

the Department is supporting urban farmers? What are some of the major challenges 

urban farmers have accessing USDA programs? Where are the biggest opportunities at 

USDA to support urban farmers? 

Response: USDA established the internal Urban and Community Agriculture Working 

Group (UCA WG) which has representation from fourteen USDA agencies and various 

offices within the Office of the Secretary who provide technical assistance to or have 

programs that can assist urban fanners. The goal for this Working Group is to contribute 

to ongoing USDA-wide efforts, including strengthening local and regional food systems 

and by studying and supporting urban and community agricultural systems, and 

connections to rural fanners. 

One of the major challenges urban fanners have regarding USDA programs is a lack of 

knowledge or understanding that USDA has programs available to assist urban fanners. 

In order to assist with this issue, the UCA WG deve loped the USDA Urban Agriculture 

Tool Kit (bt ps:fll1·ww.usda.go~- ~itesJi:ldardt!fil<.'s/ducwueJr/s tr all-tlgri a!!ureloolkit.ru/f), which provides a foundation for urban fanners. It Jays out operational 

elements that urban farmers must consider, and it identifies technical and financial 
132 

resources and Federal programs and services that can support a variety of activities 

related to urban farming. 

As outlined in the USDA Urban Agriculture Tool Kit, there are many opportunities for 

USDA to utilize our programs to assist urban farmers. USDA agencies need to educate 

staff to understand the needs of urban farmers and that USDA programs, where 

applicable, can be used. 

3. There are limited data available on the number and impact of non-traditional farms, 

including farms in urban areas. What steps is NASS taking to better identify and account 

for these non-traditional types of agriculture? 

Response: NASS recognizes that non-traditional farms are a growing segment of U.S. 

agriculture. We arc researching new avenues for identifying these types of operations to 

ensure they are available for the Census of Agriculture and the sampling frames used to 

produce estimates of US agricultural production. Our Regional Field Offices are charged 

with identifying and obtain state and local name sources for non-traditional farms. In 

addition, our national commodity statisticians use their commodity specific contacts and 

expe1tise to help build a more complete sampling frame that contain non-traditional 

operations. Some of our more prolific sources derive from grower associations and other 

non-traditional groups organized for the advancement of their focus. NASS has also 

begun to research the use of"web scraping" to identify farm operators that are considered 

non-traditional. NASS will continue to coordinate with other USDA agencies such as the 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to identify the 

trc~ditional farm operators but we are also collaborating with these federal, state and city 

agencies to identify non-traditional farm operators as they begin to capture those 

· demogrc~phic . 

4. In2014, USDA published the "Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access to Results 

ofUSDA-funded Scientific Research." One of the goals identified in the report was to 

"raise the profile and reputation of the food, agJicultural, and narural resources as 

providers of significant contributions to many areas of scientific innovation and value to 

society." Yet on January 23, 2017, USDA Agriculrural Research Service (ARS) 

circulated a memo telling employees to sop communicating with the public about their 

research, including news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media 

content. Acting deputy administrator Michael Young sent around a second memo 

clarifying the department's position on public engagement, and the original memo was 

redacted the next day. Other departments enacted similar bans on public engagement 

during the transition period. Do you believe that USDA should proactively engage with 

the public on its research findings? If yes, please explain how USDA is doing so. 

Response: ARS supports the USDA Public Access Policy and has taken great strides in 

making the research findings of its scientists known to the public and available for free 

for the public use. 
133 

For example, the ARS Office of Communications has an active social media presence 

that highlights research and other ARS activities. Once a month, we publish the 

Agricultural Research magazine, which contains five to seven stories about recent 

scientific achievements of our scientists. The magazine is available online to read 

electronically or for downloading to read offline. 

On its home page, the ARS Web site (hllps:l/www.ars.usda.goy·) has links to the current 

and previous issues of the monthly magazine; the Plant Hardiness Zone map, which is 

popular with gardeners; the USDA National Nutrient Database, the data source for 

dozens of diet and nutritional smart phone applications; the annual Teclmology Transfer 

report; and the annual progress reports for each of our 690 projects. The Web site also 

has many other resources, such as GRIN-Global, our plant genetic database of ARS 

genebank holdings; databases and modeling software; and a host of other consumerfriendly publications (i.e., Scientific Discoveries; Science in your Shopping Cart; and 

Plants of the West, a review of recent plant releases specifically for western U.S. 

rangelands and pastures). 

The primary method for relaying the detailed findings of our research is through the 

publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals. During the past 5 years (20 12-20 16), 

ARS scientists have published more than 21,000 articles in more than I SO different 

journals. 

ARS has worked bard to make these publications available to tl1e public through tbe Web 

site of the National Agricultural Library (NAL), the largest and most accessible 

ag~icultural research library in the world. lu 2016, NAL 's PubAg portal for literature 

searches and full-text access held more than 49,000 full-text journal articles by USDA 

researchers, mostly from 1997 to 2014. 

In addition, NAL digitized and created citation information for 20,275 new items ( 1.1 

million pages) in FY 2016, bringing the total number of digitized items in the library's 

collection to 115,500 (or approximately 5.4 million pages). These collections have 

proven popular with researchers and the public alike. fn FY 2016, users downloaded 

13.4 million full-text items from NAL, an increase of 48 percent over FY 2015. 

One important way ARS shares its research findings is in the collaborations it maintains 

with Land-Grant University and industry researchers. Through these collaborations ARS 

is able to expand our circle of knowledge, while leveraging our resources to extend our 

research goals. Because the universities also integrate extension service outreach in their 

research programs, these researchers arc able to share the knowledge from that 

collaborative research with farmers, producers, and backyard gardeners in their areas. 

5. All of the agricultural research conducted by USDA results in the generation oflots of 

data. New technologies can collect information at almost every step of the food supply 

chain. The challenge will be managing and analyzing all of this information in order to 

find solutions to current challenges. How is USDA approaching big data? 
134 

Response: Several years ago, it became evident that the amount of data our scientists 

were collecting was enonnous, and that as the data grew in size, it was getting 

increasingly more difficult to share and use. ARS established an aggressive program to 

create a high-speed computer network backed by a computing cloud base to facilitate the 

transfer and storage of large amounts of data between ARS scientists at our 90 locations. 

ARS has committed $5 million each year since FY 2014 to develop a high-performance 

computing cluster (named CERES) at the ARS location in Ames, Iowa, to offer big data 

ingress/egress. CERES is attached to an Intemet2-based wide-area network (SCINet) 

connected at six initial locations-large ARS facilities in Beltsville, Maryland (including 

NAL); Ames, Iowa; Fort Collins, Colorado; Clay Center, Nebraska; Stoneville, 

Mississippi; and Albany, California. These six hubs serve as the access points for ARS 

locations. The design allows all ARS scientists to access CERES and SCIN et as long as 

they can connect to the Internet. ARS staff can now conduct a myriad of highperformance computing operations and leverage a growing suite of user-friendly 

graphical interface applications. 

In the broader context, ARS is continuing to work with the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) and researchers at severaltmiversities, including Iowa State University, to develop 

cyberinfrastructure-the hardware, software, and people-to harness the new data tools 

and make high perfmmance computing more available through the NSF-sponsored 

extension to the flagship CyVerse program. 

NIF A convened a summit in October 2016, to identifY the frontiers and future of data in 

agriculture and build on existing U.S. government-wide efforts and investments in Big 

Data. Following the summit, NIFA accepted online input from the agricultural and 

broader data science communities. The summit featured distinguished leaders in the 

fields of data science and agriculture and engaged a diverse array of stakeholders to 

identifY new opportunities for data science in agriculture. At the summit, a new initiative, 

the Food and Agriculture Cyberinformatics and Tools (FACT), was announced to 

develop data-driven solutions for addressing complex problems facing agriculture today. 

The FACT initiative recognizes that analyses of agricultural systems to identify novel 

solutions require multi-scale data, machine learning, data visualization, and predictive 

modeling. The priorities expressed by stakeholders at the Summit and online are 

integrated in NIFA's future investment strategies. In the FY 2018 budget proposal, NIFA 

included $11M for investing in the FACT initiative in America's flagship competitive 

grants program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. A roadmap is being 

developed that will help NIF A make FACT investments in the subsequent years. 

ERS is actively engaged in Big Data initiatives and has implemented new technologies 

and methodologies to widen and expand the reach of our information services to the 

general public. New products and tools extend and expand access to ERS research 

findings, market outlook, and data-making the Agency's information more readily 

available to decision makers, other researchers, and the general public, to help our 

stakeholders more easily access critical information. Improvements for enhanced research 

capabilities include: 
135 

• Developing big data analytic capabilities by linking micro level farm and 

conservation program administrative data with natural resource and market data at 

the field level. 

• Commercial cloud services to provide ERS analysts with big data computing 

tools. ERS researchers usc these tools to develop predictive models of yield using 

neural networks (a "machine leaming" technique), which are trained on very 

large/high-resolution weather, satellite spectra, survey, and administrative 

datasets. These models are used in research on weather/climate risks, and 

collaboratively with sister agencies to improve in-season yield forecasts. 

• Hiring economists with expertise in predictive statistics and machine 

learning. These researchers plan to facilitate capacity-building seminars in these 

topics, which will be open to their colleagues. 

• Training: ERS staff are taking advance training in Applied Big Data Analytics 

offered by a consortium of the University of Chicago, New York University, and 

the University of Maryland. The training includes case studies, introduction to 

Python language, web scraping, APls, data linkage techniques, data quality and 

curations, spatial analysis, and advanced data visualization techniques. The 

training is the first of its kind to give government professionals an opportunity to 

develop key data science skills necessary to hamess tlte wealth of newly-available 

data. 

• Work with the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center (NORC) 

to provide big data analytics capacity to ERS researchers and external 

collaborators. The NORC system provides access to over 50 billion records of 

food purchase and household data from sources such as ERS' National Household 

Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (Food.APS) and Information Resources, 

Inc. (IRI). NORC allows a secure way for ERS' external collaborators to access 

the data, and NORC uses the Vertica Analytics Platform which offers faster 

performance than traditional relational databases. Having this faster access allows 

researchers to explore a broader set of food policy research questions using a 

combination of robust data sources. 

6. \Vhat percentage of resources goes rowards the rural economic development portion of 

ERS research today compared to years past? Housing, transportation, health, and 

education are major drivers in ru.ral communities; how many staff work on these 

components of rural development? 

Response: ERS's Rural Economy Brmch conducts economic and social science research 

related to rural economic development. In recent years, it has had between 13-19 staff 

researchers, similar in size to most research branches at ERS. Approximately l 0% of our 

current research resources are focused on rural economics topics. 

ERS currently has 8 full time equivalent researchers focused on topics related to rural 

housing, health, and education as detailed below: 
136 

Within the topic of rural housing, ERS is currently investigating the rising rental costburden in many Iura! areas and the factors affecting it, and high risk mortgage lending in 

rural areas and economic and demographic changes associated with it. We also plan to 

investigate risk factors for reduced availability of multi-family housing available through 

the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program administered by the USDA Rural 

Housing Service. We are also working with a collaborator at Middlebury College on the 

high risk mortgage lending issue via a cooperative agreement. 

The research on rural health includes three components. One component is investigating 

the linkages between rural health care and the rural economy, by investigating bow much 

rural hospitals and health care providers affect the rural economy via employment · 

multiplier impacts, impacts on property values and other means; and how changes in the 

economy of rural communities affect their ability to attract and retain health care 

providers. A second component is investigating how immigration of health care providers 

through the H-lB visa program is affecting rural economies and rural health. A third 

component is investigating changes in mortality in rural areas and the factors affecting it, 

including but not limited to the opioid epidemic. We are also working with a collaborator 

at Penn State University on the mortality/opioid epidemic issue via a cooperative 

agreement. 

ERS research on rural education currently focuses on trends and geographic variations in 

rural education and school quality and the effects of these on migration of businesses and 

people to or from rural areas. A recent publication from this program discussed trends in 

rural education (https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-detailsl?pubid=83077). We 

also plan research to investigate the impacts of rural school quality on property values in 

rural areas. 

In general, rural research at ERS focuses on understanding geographic variations and 

trends in rural economic activity and the well-being of rural people - including changes 

in population, employment, earnings, income, pove1ty, wealth, and health- and factors 

affecting and affected by those changes. We place special emphasis on understanding the 

effects of policies and policy-relevant facto rs, such as access to broadband, government 

programs to promote rural and regional development, anti-poverty programs, and others. 

We also emphasize development of data sources and research that supports targeting of 

govcrurncnt programs to rural areas or to specific rural populations, such as fi·onticr and 

remote areas or persistently poor people. ERS has developed and maintains several 

classifications of different types of rural areas based upon their geographic proximity to 

urban areas, population density and level, and economic and social characteristics. These 

and other descriptive data on rural areas of the United States are made available through 

publications such as our allJJual Rural America at a Glance series, the ERS Atlas of Rural 

and Small Town America, State Fact Sheets, and other materials available on the ERS 

website. 

7. In the 2014 Farm Bill, changes were made to USDA research programs. From your 

perspective can you discuss how the implementation of these changes has gone? 
137 

a. Ho:w has USDA improved tr.msparency and accountability with regard to 

intramural and extramural research programs? 

Response: As required by Section 7513 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-

79, the Secretary of Agriculture has submitted to Congress, in each year since 2014, a 

report containing a description of the agricultural research, extension, and education 

activities within the REE mission area. This report describes the current set of 

Federal goverrunent priorities for REE over the next five-year period; the role of the 

USDA in the national food and agricultural research ru1d innovation system; and the 

mechanisms the USDA uses to coordinate activities among the Federal, State, and 

private partners in the system, including coordination among different agencies in the 

REE mission area. · 

Transparency and accountability are paramount to ARS and are implemented through 

its robust 5-year National Program Cycle. The approximately 690 ARS research 

projects are aligned into 17 National Programs, each of which are led by a team of 

National Program Leaders (NPLs). The overarching objectives of the 5-ycar cycle 

are to ensure the relevance, quality, and impact of ARS research. Prior to the start of 

the cycle, ARS holds customer and stakeholder workshops to gather fonnal input 

about critical research needs. NPLs use this information to write National Program 

Action Plans that outline research goals for the ensuing 5-year cycle period. ARS 

scientists then write their 5-year project plans to reflect the Action Plan research 

goals. The plru1s are sent to the ARS Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR) for 

review by an external panel of peers prior to implementation to ensure the science 

meets the highest standards of quality. · 

NPLs, Area Directors, and scientists interact with customers and stakeholders 

throughout the research phase of the 5-year cycle to ensure the research and its 

outcomes are relevant and impactful and address critical, emerging issues. Ongoing 

monitoring of project quality and perfonnance takes place throughout the program 

cycle, and adjustments arc made when necessary to improve performance or meet 

emerging challenges. 

At the end of the program's 5-ycar cycle, a National Program retrospective review is 

convened to ensure, based on feedback from an external group of experts, that the 

research was conducted as indicated in the Action Plan and to gain advice and insight 

as to the future direction of the research. 

Each year, ARS prepares a performance report for the Government Perfonnance and 

Results Act (GPRA) and includes performance updates in the Agency's annual 

budget documents. In the past year, ARS redesigned its Agency annual report to an 

Annual Rep01t on Science that contains eight Agency measures on scientific 

knowledge and knowledge transfer. The report also describes progress on important 
138 

Agency emerging priorities; new accomplishments for ARS' critical agriculture 

resources and research tools that include collections, databases, scientific models, and 

software; accomplishments of the National Agricultural Library; and a compilation of 

ARS' international collaborations. Research accomplishments are written clearly and 

concisely and specifically highlight what results mean to the average U.S. citizen. 

National Program Action Plans, annual repOJts of ARS research projects and National 

Programs, and the Annual Report on Science are all publicly accessible from the ARS 

Website. 

ERS consists primarily of intramural research programs. Stakeholders are consulted 

both in the planning and reporting stages of research programs. Research results and 

economic indicators on important agricultural, food, natural resource, and rural issues 

are fully disseminated to public and private decision makers through reports and 

articles; special staff analyses, briefings, and presentations; databases; and individual 

contact. Starting in 2015, ERS has conducted annual program reviews by external 

evaluators in order to cover the breadth of research topics covered by agency output 

over a five year period. 

To improve transparency, NlFA continues to provide detail.s of proposed budget 

request for the President's budget proposal in it.s Explanatory Notes on the NIFA 

website (https://nifa.usda.!2ov/budger). For the Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative (AFRJ) program. this includes discussion of historical funding allocations, 

funding levels for the AFRI budget request, proposed new initiatives, changes to 

programs, and anticipated release of Requests for Applications (RFAs). For 

accountability, AFRI is strictly aligned with the priorities authorized in the 2014 

Farm Bill and the program tracks all grant awards relative to these authorized 

priorities. At the individual AFRI award level, progress toward accomplishing 

approved objectives is monitored annually through thorough review of required 

annual progress reports and through face-to-face interaction with awardees who are 

required to attend rumual Project Director meeting. 

The National Agriculmral Research, Extension, Education, and Economics 

(NAREEE) Advisory Board is also charged by Congress to complete au annual 

review of the relevance ofREE programs and activities to the established priorities 

and the adequacy of funding for those programs. The N AREEE Advisory Board 

perfOJms this review by focusing the review on one or two program areas across all 

REE agencies with the goal of reviewing all of the programs in 5 years. The results of 

these reviews have identified strengths and areas for improvement between the REE 

agencies. 

b. What changes have been made to the annual Presidential Budget Submission on 

furure spending plans regarding extramural competitive gr.mt programs and 

inlramural research spending? 
139 

Response: ARS budget submissions comply with the requirements of Section 7513, 

Budget Submission and Funding, of the 20 I 4 Fann Bill, and requests for funding 

reflect the President's priorities related to intramural agricultural research. 

ERS's future spending plans have been clarified in recent annual Presidential Budget 

Submissions by providing details of the highest priority planned intramural research 

projects and enhanced perfonnance metrics to track outcomes and impacts of agency 

research effo•ts. In addition, ERS regularly reports in its budget documentation a list 

of extramural funding amounts for topics of interest to policymakers that have been 

recently awarded to various academic institutions. 

The House Report No. I I 4-531 that accompanies the 2017 Appropriations Bill states: 

"The Committee appreciates NIFA's efforts to provide additional infonnation in its 

budget requests over the past three years. For the FY 20 I 8 budget request, the 

Committee is particularly interested in tl1e request for AFRJ, and requests that the 

agency provide greater detail on the levels proposed to be allocated to and the 

expected publication date, scope, and allocation level for each request for awards to 

be published under each priority area specified in section 2(b)(2) of the Competitive, 

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)(2))." 

Similar requirements were included in the 2014 Frum Bill. In response to the need for 

additional infonnation on the Requests for Proposals, NIFA has added a new exhibit 

to the Expla11atory Notes. NIFA provided a listing of anticipated RF A dates and RF A 

priority areas in the FY 20 IS Explanatory Notes, the Congressional Budget 

Justifications. NJFA also provides ongoing updates on our website for RF A release 

dates. 

c. How have the different research agencies at USDA improved their planning and 

coordination to ensure resources are used in a smart and efficient manner? 

Response: As pan of an overarching commitment to strategic investments in 

agriculture science and research, the USDA Research, Education, and Economics 

Mission Area (REE) developed an Action Plan to coordinate research, education, and 

extension goals and to ;~l gn priorities across the REE agencies. Originally published 

in 20 I 2 and revised in 2014, the Action Plan highlights a curated list of goals and 

subgoals to cultivate a process for strategic planning that links agency and 

Administration priorities to USDA investments. Goal Teams, consisting of intraagency subject matter experts, are the direct link between REE leadership, whkh 

develops the policy goals in the Action Plan, and the scientists perfonning or funding 

the agricultural research, education, and extension in pursuit of those goals. Twice 

each year the Goal Team members meet to coordinate and report REE activities for 

the annual REE Progress Report to monitor and track how REE agencies work to 

meet Action Plan goals, and they also make suggestions for implementation of and 

revisions to the Action Plan to reflect the nation's evolving agricultural needs. 
140 

As stewards of public funding, and especially in times of constrained budgets, ARS 

regularly communicates and coordinates its activities with the other research agencies 

within the USDA and those external to the Department. A recent report of the 

Government Accountability Office (GA0-13-255) did not find duplicative research in 

a review of ARS and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NlFA) projects. In 

response to report recommendations, ARS is updating its information in the CRIS 

system on a quarterly basis, enabling scientists from NlFA and ARS access to more 

up-to-date information in their searches to check for research duplication. ARS and 

NIFA leadership have established agency mechanisms for coordinating research 

directions and avoiding overlap or duplication of research. This includes holding 

joint agency meetings with stakeholders; participation in inter-agency working 

groups; and active communication between NPLs at both agencies. In addition, the 

ARS Associate Administrator for National Programs and the NIF A Director jointly 

prepare a quarterly report that list coordination activities between the two agencies; 

the most recent report listed more than 100 activities and workgroups. 

ERS develops its research program in coordination with other REE and USDA 

research agencies, USDA program agencies, and other external collaborators. 

Priority research projects are initiated after input from stakeholders. ERS also selects 

partners and recipients of cooperative agreements and grants based on the highest 

priority needs for external expertise that can be brought to bear on core research 

program areas. In addition, ERS fully participates in REE and OCS meetings and 

discussions to help ooordinate USDA science research and reports on research 

progress and fmdings through the REE Action Plan. 

NIFA has evaluated the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) program to 

prevent duplication and ensure complementarity with programs of other agencies. for 

example, AFRI recently coordinated with the USDA Economic Research Service to 

offer a joint funding priority of importance to both agencies. Another recent example 

is that NTF A has oompleted two stakeholder workshops in Animal Production and 

Animal Health conducted jointly with the Agricultural Research Service to obtain 

stakeholder input and assess progranunatic needs of both agencies. 

The NAREEE Advisory Board has developed six questions to help guide the annual, 

mandated relevance and adequacy review of the REE programs, which results in a 

comprehensive report of recommendations communicated back to USDA. 

• What are the key research, education and extension programming and their 

specific goals for this REE Action Goal(s)? 

• What documented client/stakeholder needs are being addressed by the 

programming for this Action Goal(s)? 

• Does the research, education and extension for the Action Goal(s) advance 

agricultural and/or natural resource science and its application? [Address 

strengths and limitations in answering this question.] 
141 

• Is the funding of this Action Goal(s) adequate to achieve its specific goals and 

how has its investment accomplished theses? 

• What does this Action Goal(s) need to do to address remaining gaps between 

the activities and accomplishments, evolving stakeholder needs and the 

current state and application of agricultural science? 

• Is there complementarity and collaborative effort across REE in tenns of 

intramural, extramm-al and infrastructure funding and short and long terrn 

research, education and extension that does not duplicate effort in REE or 

other federal effort? 

To date, the reviews have documented substantial planning and coordination 

amongst the REE agencies within the program areas reviewed. 

8. In the 2014 Farm Bill, the application process for USDA research programs was 

improved in order to make the process more streamlined. Can you explain specifically 

what changes were made, and how the implementation has gone? 

Response: NJFA has established goverrunent-wide forms for research, streamlined the 

process for additional increments of funding for continuation awards, established the Just 

in Time pilot (where only proposals selected for funding will be required to provide all 

supplementary forms and information), established a pre-application process, and 

streamlined matching. Opportunities to streamline in the future also exist as more 

functionality is achieved with the implementation of ezFedGrants. 

9. Agriculture is growing beyond our fanners' fields, and is now happening in many of our 

cities across the country. From small acre farms to rooftops and indoor vertical farming, 

new economic opportunities can be found through urban agriculture. Can you discuss 

research that needs to be done to support urban agriculture? 

Response: Urban agriculture requires long-term research focused on the overall goals of 

enhancing operational and production efficiencies; improving economic retums to 

producers; and reducing the environmental impact of urban agricultural 

production. Specific themes for such research in ARS include: Production 

Environment: Characterization of atmospheric gases, pollutants and light intensities 

experienced by crops grown in urban settings whether at ground-level or, but especially, 

on rooftops of high-rise buildings. Technologies for C02 capture and release into C02-

starved greenhouse environments are particularly important for urban crop production 

during the winter months. Water: Technologies are needed for more effective use and 

re-use of water, be it municipal or rain feed, and water runoff collection and recycling. 

Aquaculture: Technologies for aquaculturc/aquaponics in urban settings, either as a 

stand-alone system or coupled with vertical farming and hydroponic fanning. 

Postharvest Quality: Technologies are needed to assure food quality and food safety, via 

superior product handling/ processing/ packaging and storage for produce from urban 

agriculture. · 
142 

NlFA supports a broad spectrum of urban and community based agricultural projects 

through both competitive granting programs, capacity funds, and indirectly through 

grants awarded and administered through regional centers. NTF A defines urban and 

community based agriculture as agricultural practices that take place within a community 

setting. Across our granting programs, we funded 127 projects related to urban and 

community based agriculture at a value of$34,773,341 in fiScal year 2015. States 

reported $2,703,000 expended on related capacity projects in the same year. Between 

2009 and 2015, NTF A awarded a total of831 competitive proj ects related to urban and 

community based agriculture at a value of$198,214,308, with States reporting capacity 

expenditures of $9,502,000. Of this total. $4 1,271, 174 was awarded through the 

Community Foods Proj ects grant programs. Capacity funding is NIF A's support for 

research and extension activities at land-grant institutions through grants to the states on 

the basis of statutory formulas, as detennined by the Congress. See chart below 

illu.~trating NlFA administered research, education, and extension funding for urban 

agriculture related projects. 

Competitive Capacitv Total 

2009 $22,200,036 $607,000 $22,807,036 

2010 $33,744,367 $832,000 $34,576,367 

2011 $39,849,622 $806,000 $40,655,622 

2012 $26,309,244 $883,000 $27' 192,244 

2013 $21,926,265 $1,483,000 $23,409,265 

2014 $ 19,4 11,433 $2,188,000 $21,599,433 

2015 $34,773,341 $2,703,000 $37,476,341 

Total $198,214,308 $9,502.000 5207,716,308 

10. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest threats to public health. While there is 

speculation that antimicrobial use in food animals contributes to antimicrobial resistant 

bacteria, more evidence is needed to investigate those links as well as find solutions. A 

GAO report published on March 16,2017 titled "Antibiotic Resistan<.:e: More 

Information Needed to Oversee Use of Medically Important Drugs in Food Animals", 

made three recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding this topic, though 

all focused on APHIS and FS!S. Can you please explain how the research and extension 

mission area at USDA is addressing antimicrobial resistance, inclu<ling areas of research 

focus and efforts to share tlus information with producers? Can you explain how the 

research mission area at USDA coordinates with APHIS and FS!S on antimicrobial 

resistance? 

Response: Monitoring/surveillance. research, education, and outreach are 

interdependent. FSIS monitors for resistance through the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) and ARS works closely with FS!S to further 

characterize emerging resistance. Communication of collaborative findings is through 
143 

annual web reports, publications, and presentations, but can also be through blogs such as 

in the federal government's announcement of findings of colistin resistance in the U.S. 

last year: https:l/ww,v.usda. gov/media/blog/20 16i05!26/proa ctive-efforts-us-tederalagencics-enable-carly-dctcction-new-antibiotic. APHTS, in collaboration with NASS 

conduct~ on-fann sampling and surveys through the National Animal Health Monitoring 

System (NAHMS). Monitoring helps to funher inform research by identifying bow and 

why antibiotics are being used. APHIS communicates AMR-rclatcd information with 

producers and producer groups through several channels, including disseminating 

NAHMS findings via Pl!blications and presentations. ARS publishes and presents 

research. 

FSIS, APHIS, and ARS have an annual meeting where food safety researchers describe 

their current ongoing research, and FSJS/APHTS define their needs and challenges faced 

in the field for researchers to address. Through ARS intramura.l research and NlFAfunded extramural research, USDA agencies are studying the ecology of AMR, exploring 

products to improve the health of animals to decrease the need for antibiotics and 

identifying alternatives to antibiotics. In addition, the agencies are trying to identify better 

management practices to address AMR. NIFA-funded MvtR studies can be found at: 

http://cris.nila.usda.gov.;cgibin/starfinder/O?path=fastlink l.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=<GC=A41 7 1 )&form at= WE 

BTITLESGTY. Research feeds into education/outreach. Through NJF A's Agticulturc and 

Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive program, NIFA awards grants that target 

research and either an education or outreach component. Since grantees have to include 

an education or outreach component, results of research can be immediately 

communicated and applied in real-world situations. 

II . With the average age of the American farmer increasing, we need to encourage the next 

generation to engage in agriculture in order to feed the future. How does your respective 

agencies and programs help bring America's youth into agriculture? What are other ways 

to attract new farmers and ranchers? 

Response: The REE agencies employ over 100 interns every year in addition to 

participating in numerous conferences and outreach activities. 

NIFA specifically brings America's youth into agriculture through several programs. 

• The 4-H Youth Development Program, or 4-H, is the youth outreach program 

from the land-grant institutions' cooperative extension services and USDA 

through NIF A. 4-H serves as a model program for the practice of positive youth 

development by creating positive learning experiences; positive relationships for 

and between youth and adults; positive, safe environments; and opportunities for 

positive risk taking. NIFA-supported 4-H programs reaches over 6 million 

children across the United States. 

• NJF A's Agriculture in the Classroom Program (AJTC) serves nearly 5 million 

students and 150,000 teachers annually through workshops, conferences, field 
144 

trips, farm tours, and other educational activities. AJTC programs include 

working with state AITC activities engaged in a variety of issues relating to 

agricultural literacy. Other programs emphasized by the NIF A AITC office 

include Science literacy, Agricultural careers, Nutrition and Pre-service and 

professional develop opportunities for teachers. 

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program provides grant-; to 

organizations for education, mcntoring, and technical assistance initiatives for 

beginning farmers or ranchers. Ensuring there will be a "new generation" of 

beginning farmers and ranchers, regardless of age or production choice, is 

especially important to the continuation of agricultural production in the U.S. 

Agricultural science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has 

been described as a "leaky pipeline," as fewer students remain as they progress through 

advanced study. NIFA 's education programs are designed to enhance the pipeline 

through programs that support agricultural workforce development, increase student 

recruitment and retention, and build capacity. ARS, ERS, and NASS also engage students 

at all levels to help fill the pipeline. 

12. ln the past few years, we have seen several devastating animal disease outbreaks in the 

U.S., including highly pathogenic avian influenza and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. 

Docs USDA have the appropriate authority and funding to adequately prepare for and 

investigate the next animal disease outbreak? 

Response: Yes, the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) gives USDA the authoriry it 

needs to address large animal health emergencies, such as the 2014-2015 outbreak of 

highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The AHPA gives USDA a wide range of 

tools to address foreign animal disease outbreaks, which we utilize in coordination with 

our State regulatory partners, such as the ability to quarantine and restrict movement of 

animals. Additionally, the ARPA gives the Secretaty, upon apportionment by the Office 

of Management and Budget, the autboriry to transfer emergency funding from other 

agencies and corporations of the Department-typically the Commodity Credit 

Corporation-to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to address 

outbreaks. This authority provided the overwhelming majority ofthc funding utilized to 

respond to the HPAI outbreak in 20 14-2015. 

Beyond that, USDA requested additional funding for animal health emergencies in the 

20 17 budget request. APHIS received an additional $24 million to improve the Agency's 

preparedness to detect, analyze, and respond to foreign and emerging animal health 

events. 

13. Can you discuss current research being conducted on pre-harvest interventions to address 

food safety concerns in meat and poultry? 

Response: The ARS Food Safery program develops and validates intervention strategies 

to assist in reducing or eliminating pathogens in food animals during production. 
145 

Reduced shedding of zoonotic pathogens by food producing animals subsequently helps 

reduce the pathogen load during slaughter/harvesting and subsequent processing and 

storage. The Program addresses the continued need to develop and subsequently combine 

new and/or innovative technologies. Interventions can be additive and/or synergistic, 

leading to improved control over pathogen growth without potential changes in food 

quality or reduction in nutrition. The challenge is that the pathogen load on a product 

must be significantly reduced by any processing intervention strategy to avoid the 

consequences in food production resulting from "dirty in, dirty out" processing. 

ARS specifically conducts research in meat to: 

• Characterize the ecological niches and reservoirs to identify mechanisms of 

foodbome pathogen, especially biofilms, for their ability to colonize and persist 

leading to the development of intervention strategies. 

• Develop and evaluate novel intervention strategies that reduce or eliminate the 

occurrence, transmission, or persistence of foodborne pathogens in host animals, 

including cattle and swine, and the environment. Survey ecological niches and 

reservoirs using a systems approach to identify sites for potential interventions to 

reduce foodbome pathogens. 

• Identify environmental and management (intervention) practices that influence 

antimicrobial resistance, colonization of lymph nodes, and colonization rates of 

cattle, veal, and swine. 

• Develop interventions that prevent/mitigate colonization of gut of food-producing 

animals (particularly lower GI tract before slaughter) or that reduce 

pathogenic/antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in production environment. 

ARS specifically conducts research in poultry to: 

• Identify, develop, and test interventions, including exploring possible synergies of 

multiple interventions and alternatives to antibiotics that can kill pathogenic or 

antibiotic resistant foodbome pathogens or mitigate their persistence, shedding, 

virulence and resistance in the animal production environment. 

• Evaluate these products in multiple production/processing systems including 

conventional, pasture raised, and organic systems. 

• Develop new vaccination strategies based on innate immunity to reduce 

SalmoneUa contamination in broiler chickens and turkeys. 

• Develop strategies to reduce foodbome pathogens by targeting host immunemetabolic signaling pathways affected by Salmonella and Campylobacter 

virulence factors. 

• Develop innovative strategies for increasing disease resistance and improving 

immunity to foodborne pathogens of poultry using egg shell membrane 

technology. 
146 

• Assess the impact of dietary regimens, housing systems, and different chicken 

genetic lines on Salmonella (S.) infections of hens, Salmonella contamination of 

the production environment and eggs, and physical and functional egg quality. 

• Assess the effects of key management practices using experimental and field 

models of different housing systems on hen health, microbial ecology of 

food borne bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance associated with egg 

contamination. 

NIF A has funded 20 projects on pre-harvest food safety focused on meat and poultry, 

ranging from $50,000 to $25,000,000. These projects include research, education, and 

extension activities to reduce Shiga Toxin Producing E. coli (STEC) in beef, and 

Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry. Some projects are focused on reducing 

antimicrobial resistance. Four of the projects were or are currently being conducted at the 

Michigan State University: 

• Dr. Shannon Manning just completed a project to improve the understanding of 

the factors affecting colonization and shedding of shiga toxin-producing 

Escherichia coli (STEC) in cattle. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) 

are major pathogens of humans, resulting in severe illness and occasionally death. 

About 29% of the cases in the U.S. are attributable to beef. The information 

generated enhances our efforts to control this deadly pathogen and was provided 

to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service to inform their regulatory 

decision-making. 

• Dr. Julie Funk just completed a project on the epidemiology of shiga toxinproducing Escherichia coli (STEC) in pigs. This project filled a critical 

infonnation gap regarding the prevalence of STEC on commercial swine fanns, 

the factors associated with shedding of STEC by swine, and the relationship 

between STEC isolated from swine to those isolated from cattle and humans. The 

infonnation generated was provided to USDA's Food Safety and Lnspection 

Service to infonn their regulatory decision-making and to representatives of the 

swine industry. 

• Dr. Linda Mansfield is working on two projects focused on improving the 

understanding of Campylobacter j ejuni. Campylobacter is a major cause of 

gastroenteritis with vomiting and diarrhea. 

14. What research is currently being done at your agencies on the effectiveness of voluntary 

conservation programs authorized in the Farm Bill in addressing natural resource 

concerns, like water quality, drought, soil health, and wildlife habitat? Are there positive 

results or data from this research that you can share that will help justify the federal 

investment in voluntary conservation programs? Can you explain how do your agencies 

work with the Natural Resources Conservation Setv ice on research to demonstrate the 

environmental outcomes from conservation activities on fanns and ranches? 

Response: ARS research supports the agencies that lead voluntary conservation 

programs and initiatives arising from the Farm Bill. Our scientists work very closely with 
147 

NRCS and other agencies at USDA that implement conservation programs. Our scientists 

develop new cropping systems, management strategies, practices, tools and technologies 

that infonn, strengthen. or provide the scientific underpinnings for things such as NRCS 

Conservation Practice Standards. Often our data and measurement protocols arc used in 

quantifying the benefits of conservation programs. The expanding application of 

improved conservation management in areas such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, 

nutrient use efficiency and similar management practices, that have been extensively 

researched byARS scientists, are documented by NRCS data through the National 

Resources Inventory (NRI) and their beneficial impact on conservation accounted for in 

NRCS Conscr ... alion Efiects A~se~smcnt Proj c~e t (CEAP) regional and national reports 

and elsewhere. Another example is within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, where runoff 

of sediment and nutrients has been a documented problem. ARS research throughout the 

watershed and across the country is resulting in improved management practices that 

conserve soil and hold fertilizers and manure nutrients in place where they can be utilized 

by crops. EPA and USGS data over recent decades are demonstrating a positive trend 

resultmg in improving water quality across the watershed These examples, along with 

some additional recent accomplishments noted below, show bow ARS research efforts 

support Farm Bill related conservation programs, helping ensure soil health, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat availability while also enhancing our ability to sustainably 

produce food, feed and fiber. 

ARS's collaboration with NRCS on the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) 

includes ARS leadership of the CEAP Watershed Assessment Study (WAS), which 

involves more than 60 ARS scientists, plus additional technical support staiT, working in 

14 benchmark watersheds at 12 ARS locations. The ARS-CEAP-WAS project is a fully 

peer-reviewed national effort that is highly relevant to the conservation policy of the 

USDA. In the CEAP-WAS, scientists collect, manage and provide data to researchers and 

other users, develop and validate models and tools, and measure and quantify water 

quality, water quantity, soil quality, and CCOl>ystem effects of conservation practices at the 

watershed scale in a variety of hydrologic and agronomic settings. 

One strategic conservation target for USDA conservation programs is reducing nutrient 

losses that impact the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes and water bodies across our 

landscape. l11is challenge is continental in scale, but involves the management of 

thousands of small watersheds comprising millions of fann fields. A new GIS-based 

conservat.ion toolbox, called the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), 

has been developed by ARS to address local pla1u1ing needs on a site-specific basis, and 

is being tria led in a range of landscape and farm management settings across the 

Midwest. The ACPF toolbox is now available for download through the North Central 

Region Water Network website. The ACPF is based on a holistic planning concept that 

emphasizes soil health. ACPF considers key 'soil-building' practices that promote 

agricultural soil health (e.g., minimum tillage, nutrient management, cover crops) as well 

as additional conservation practices as needed to "trap and treat" nutrient losses when and 

where they occur. The ACPF provides a way to identify those locations in agricultural 

landscapes where water accumulates and that arc suited for the placement of "trap and 
148 

treat" conservation practices. TI1e ACPF is a set of tools, and the combined results 

provide an 'inventory' of conservation opportunities found in fields, below fields, and in 

riparian zones where water quality improvement and other ecosystem services can be 

realized. 

Soil organic matter is key to many aspects of conservation, including the ability ofthe 

soil to hold water and nutrients until the crop requires them. Additionally, increasing soil 

organic matter provides many ecosystem services and conservation benefits. ARS 

scientists have developed a research and data network called GRACEnet, (Qrecnhouse 

gas B. eduction through Agricultural £ arbon J;;nhanccment network) which spans 36 ARS 

research locations collecting data on management practices that increase soil organic 

matter and soil carbon storage. This has resulted in development of standard sampling 

and measurement protocols, improved quantification of conservation benefits, and 

notable improvements to the ability of both USDA and EPA to do required agricultural 

greenhouse gas inventory reporting, and provided much of the basis for development of 

decision support tools such as NRCS's COMET-Fann and COMET-Planner tools. 

The ARS Resilient Economic Agricultural Practices (REAP; initially called Renewable 

Energy Assessment Project) effort has developed cropping systems, cover cropping 

practices, residue management and tillage harvest strategies. The goal of this effort is the 

utilization of crop residues in such a way that also maintains or enhances soil health and 

quality, allowing for increased utilization of the biomass produced, increased margin for 

the producer, and reduced negative impact on the c.'llvironment. ARS REAl' science bas 

been utilized in conservation and renewable energy programs at USDA Rural 

Development and NRCS as well as by the Department of Energy. 

ARS scientists are researching a variety of practices and technologies that improve the 

management and use efficiency of nutrients in agricultural systems. Research and data on 

precision fertilizer practices such a.~ changing the timing of application or the placement 

of the nutrients have resulted in new strategies that increase the amount of nutrients used 

by crops and reduce losses to the environment. Development of tools for quantifying the 

use, efficiency and loss of nutrients have been developed (such as the Nitrate Lcaclung 

und Economic Analysis Package [N-LEAP]) as well as related decision support systems 

(e.g., the Qreat Pt:~ins Framework lor Agrjcuhw~•t ~source Manageme nt [GPFARM)) 

which help land managers reduce their environmental impact and improve conservation 

on their lands. Similarly, ARS researchers have developed numerous manure treatment 

and application practices and technologies to ensure that the nutrients in animal manures 

are captured and utilized rather than lost to the environment 

Remote sensing research at ARS bas a long history of the development of methods, data, 

analysis and tools that are useful to NRCS for conservation planning and programs as 

well as to USDA- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and other agencies. 

One recent example is related to remote sensing techniques to map leaf area index (LAI). 

LAJ is a key parameter used in land surface flux estimates, water resource management, 

and crop growth monitoring. Current coarse resolution leaf area index tools - at the 

kilometer scale - are sufficient for global, continental, and regional scale 
149 

applications. Agricultural field scale applications. however, require leaf area index with 

both high spatial and temporal resolution. ARS scientists have developed an automated 

mapping method for leaf area index that generates a four-day time-series of a 30-meter 

leaf area index. This method was tested over central Nebraska from 2002 to 2012 and 

showed promise for generating frequent map leaf area indices at field scales - using data 

from current satellites. This approach demonstrates potential for crop modeling at field 

scales, which is information needed by NASS for crop condition monitoring and yield 

estimates. 

The above are clear examples of ARS efforts and tools that have been developed and 

which can be used in volunteer conservation programs or conservation activities on farms 

and ranches - across the country and throughout the world, either by direct access, 

through USDA conservation program office and NRCS conservation technicians. or by 

partJ1ering with ARS, NRCS or other USDA experts. 

Annually, NASS conducts the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (Phase II) that 

measures the on-farm chemical use and production practices of farmers. NASS surveys 

U.S. Farmers to collect information on the chemical ingredients they apply to agricultural 

commodities through fertilizers and pesticides. On a rotating basis, the program currently 

includes fruits; vegetables; major field crops such as cotton, com. potatoes, soybeans and 

wheat. Each survey focuses on the top-producing states that together account for the 

majority of U.S. acres or production of surveyed commodity. 

The Census of Agriculture, which is published every five years, publishes data on the 

number acres fertilizers, chemical and soil conditioners were applied. NASS also collects 

agricultural practices: such as tillage practices, irrigation practices and cover crop. 

NASS also collaborate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to collect data 

on the Conservation EITecls Assessment Project (CEAP). This is a multi-agency elTon to 

quantify the environmental effects of conservation practices and programs and develop 

the science base for managing the agricultural landscape for environmental quality. 

Project fmdings will be used to guide USDA conservation policy and program 

development and help conservationists, farmers and ranchers make more inlbrmed 

conservation decisions. 

ERS research examines bow economic incentives influence the adoption of management 

practices that can improve the environmenta l performance of agriculture and conserve 

scarce natural resources, including land, water, soil, air and biodiversity. Special attention 

is paid to the role of conservation programs in larmers' adoption decisions, ar1d of 

options for in1proving d1e economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness of those 

programs. Research efforts also examine potential environmental and land use 

implications offann commodity, crop insurance, and disaster programs. 

ERS research also examines options for improving the economic, environmental and 

distributional performance of voluntary programs. Design features examined include the 

baseline level of performance necessary to receive payments or participate in markets; 
150 

options for targeting specific producer types (e.g., socially disadvantaged farmers), 

regions, or environmental attributes; the use of auctions for soliciting nigh bene tit or 

lower cost offers; and procedures for selecting participants from among all applicants. 

Recent and current research include: 

• Conservation payments lead to improvement in environmental quality only if 

farmers and ranchers who receive them adopt conservation practices that would 

not have been adopted without the payment When a voluntary payment causes a 

change in practice(s) that lead(s) to improved environmental quality, these 

changes are "additional." ERS found that additionality depends largely on 

practice characteristics; practices that are expensive to install or provide only 

limited onfann benefits (such as structural and vegetative practices and nutrient 

management) are unlikely to be adopted without payments. The study found that 

it may be possible to design programs to increase additionality, and program costeffectiveness, by putting higher priority on practices that are less likely to be 

undertaken without payment support. 

• ERS found that conservation programs help farmers adapt to drought. Farms in 

more drought-prone regions are more likely to offer eligible land for enrollment in 

CRP- a !-percent increase in drought risk leads to a 2.4-percent increase in the 

offer rate. Irrigators facing higher drought risk are more likely to be enrolled in 

EQIP contracts with inigation practices. And crop farms facing higher drought 

risk are more likely to be enrolled in EQIP contracts with conservation tillage 

practices. 

• An ERS study found that environmental compliance incentives would be reduced 

on many farms, potenti ally increasing environmental quality problems, if direct 

payments were sharply reduced or eliminated to help reduce the Federal budget 

deficit. The study showed that making federally subsidized crop insurance subject 

to compliance could make up some of the lost incentive to farmers. The report 

was timely and relevant to the debate on re-linking crop insurance subsidies to 

environmental compliance. 

• ERS is conducting an ambitious set of experiments to test how alterations in 

design can improve the performance of voluntary conservation programs. 

Examples ofthese experiments include testing the efficacy of additional targeted 

outreach etlorts on participation in FSA 's microloans program, which provides 

loans up to $50,000 to farmers, with less stringent eligibility criteria, and aimed at 

nontraditional farmer subgroups. The CRP "nudge" experiment demonstrated 

how targeted outreach reminder letters can encourage additional offers to re-enroll 

in the program participation offarmers who had not previously applied to the 

program. 

• ERS is currently conducting research on the legacy effects of conservation 

programs. An aspect of conservation policy that has received little attention is 

how financial assistance may provide conservation benefits beyond the specific 

location and dur&tion of program participation. ERS researchers are using EQIP 
151 

administrative data along with satellite data to study the extent to which 

participation leads farmers to retain conservation tillage practices after the 

contract has expired or to adopt conservation tillage on non-contract fields, or the 

extent to which participation leads neighboring fanners to adopt conservation 

tillage on their land. 

• ERS researchers are examining reasons why conservation practices get dropped 

from contracts. ERS is using EQIP program administrative data to ascertain 

whether changes to conservation plans are due solely to adaptive management 

(adjusting to unforeseen weather or fmancial conditions) or to other reasons 

related to contract design. 

• ERS is currently conducting research on the mix and geographic location of 

conservation practices for most efficiently reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf of 

Mexico and to sub-basins within the Mississippi Basin. This research will 

provide information that could be used to more effectively target conservation 

effort for water quality protection. 

ERS also conducts research on agro-environmental issues that can inform 

resource management agencies such as NRCS. 

• ERS recently completed a study on the effects of land use on pollinator health and 

trends in pollinator forage quality as land uses and laod covers have changed in 

the United States over the last 30 years. The contribution ofCRP to forage 

quality was noted. 

• ERS analyzed .national and regional adoption of several important conservation 

systems, including no-till and strip till, cover crops, and nitrogen fertilizer 

management. Results show that farmers' adoption of these practices varies 

widely by crop and region. 

• ERS evaluated how changing environmental conditions due to shifts in 

temperature and precipitation patterns affect crop yields, crop-water demand, 

water-supply availability, fanner livelihoods, and consumer welfare. The study 

highlighted the adaptations farmers can make to mitigate the economic impacts of 

these changes, and regional variations in impact and response. 

NRCS is an important stakeholder for ERS research. When conducting research on 

conservation programs, ERS routinely seeks NRCS input so that the research best support 

NRCS's informational needs. NRCS has shared some of its survey and modeling data 

with ERS so that it can bener link conservation practice adoption to environmental 

quality measures. The study on reducing nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico would not 

have been possible without data from NRCS's Conservation Effects Assessment Progr<~m 

(CEAP), and administrative data for EQIP is critical for research on conservation contract 

design and on conservation program legacy effects. 
152 

ERS research on conservation policies and programs is dependent on high quaHty fann 

and field-level data. The Agricultural Resources Management Survey, managed by 

NASS and ERS, provides much of the practice and financial data that enables ERS to 

produce high-quality and timely research that supports USDA's conservation missions. 

A reduction in support for this survey would make it more difficult to conduct such 

research. 

NJF A supports research, education, and outreach on the scientific bases or translational 

difficulties that might relate to conservation practices. In tenns of efficacy of voluntary 

conservation programs, NIF A participated in the competitive funding of CEAP 

(Conservation Effects Assessment Program) through the National Integrated Water 

Quality Program (NIWQP) where 13 watershed studies were funded to evaluate the 

efficacy of several cropland/grazingland conservation programs through retrospective 

analysis. A summary and series of Fact Sheets on the outcome of those studies is 

accessible at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/dctail/national/tcchnical/nralceap/wsl?cid=stel 

prdbl047821. The lessons Learned from this synthesis strengthen the knowledge base for 

evaluating the impacts of conservation practices on water quality, improving 

management of agricultural landscapes for improved water resource outcomes, and 

informing conservation policy. 

Additionally, sustainable agricultural practices are intended to protect the environment, 

expand the Earth's natural resource base, and maintain and improve soil fertility. NIFA 

promotes sustainable agriculture through national program leadership and funding for 

research and extension, offers competitive grants programs and a professional 

development program, and collaborates with other federal agencies through the USDA 

Sustainable Development Council. 

15. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative addresses the critical needs of the specialty crop 

industry from plant breeding and genomics, to pest and disease management, and 

irmovative technologies. What are some groundbreaking research examples of how this 

program used? What is the return on investment of this program to the specialty crop 

industry and the economy? How are these funds being used to support both basic and 

applied specialty crop research? 

Response: A basic tenet of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) is that all 

projects funded produce outcomes that lead to a sustainable future for agricultural 

production, with a major emphasis of new knowledge being translated into useable 

infonnation that producers can implement during the life of the project. Since 2012, 

SCRJ has funded 83 projects totaling $193,041,063. 

Pollination is an absolute requirement for sustainable production of specialty crops. 

Declines in honey bee and native pollinator populations, as well as increased acreage of 

crops that require cross pollination, have threatened specialty crop producers. To address 

this need, NIF A, through SCRI, funded the integrated Crop Pollinator project led by Dr. 

Rufus Isaacs at Michigan State University. Research sites for this project have provided 
153 

visibility to the ICP project on over 10,000 acres of specialty crop fields across more than 

I 00 fanns. In Florida, the project has influenced how growers use pesticides, thus 

avoiding not just impacts on bees but also reducing groundwater contamination. In 

Pennsylvania pumpkins, one grower has cut honey bee stocking rate in half, from I to 0.5 

hives/acre without a decrease in yield. This has resulted in a savings of about $ 14,000 per 

year for this one grower. 

The Rosaceae crop family includes many important crops such as apple, blackberry, 

peach, pear, rose, strawberry, sweet and tart cherry, and roses. Growers of these crops 

have expressed a need for new varieties that display disease resistance and superior 

quality of fruits or flowers. Developing new cultivars of many Rosaceae crops can take 

longer than I 0 years, however. Since 2009, the SCRJ has invested more than $13,000,000 

in the RosBreed project, led by Dr. Amy lezzoni at Michigan State University. This 

project brings modern genomic and genetics tools, in a nationally coordinated effort, to 

augment the efforts of traditional breeders in the efl'orts to efliciently and effectively 

deliver cultivars with producer-required disease resistances and market-essential 

horticultural quality within time frames that arc useful to the commercial sector. By 

combining fundamental genomic discovery with practical breeding, the RosBreed team 

has been able to cut the time required to develop new cultivars in half, while saving 

individual breeding programs hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

16. As we prepare for the 2018 Farm Bill, there clearly are some areas where research and 

data can have a direct impact on how well the farm safety net functions. 

a. Federal Crop Insurance is a critical part of the farm safety net that is delivered 

through a partnership between USDA and private companies and agents. The cost 

in premiums to producers for these crop insurance policies is based on the level of 

risk for their particular crop,, location and coverage options. There are certain 

management practices such as cover crops or ditierent types of precision 

agriculture that appear to reduce the risks of losses in addition to other benefits to 

the environment and input costs. To what extent have the research agencies of 

USDA sponsored or summarized research projects that could be directly 

applicable to this question of risk reduction? Please summarize any specific 

results and the degree that risk was reduced. Have you coordinated with the Risk 

Management Agency to share these results, or used their program and actuarial 

needs to target future research? 

Response: There is growing interest in what farmers can do to improve soil 

quality (soil health) and how that may increase crop yields or reduce yield 

variability. For example, healthier soils can increase drought resilience by 

capturing and retaining moisture in the soil and making it available for plant 

growth. An extensive review of the agronomic literature by the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 

(http:itwww.nrcs.usda.gov:wos/portal!nrcs.'dctailfullisoils/h.:alth/ 

mgnti?cid=stclprdb 1257753) suggests that soil health can be improved under a 

wide range of soil and climatic conditions, but only through the consistent 
154 

application of a suite of practices over a period of years. Soil health can be built 

through long-term and continuous use of no-till, cover crops, double cropping, 

mulching, and rotation with permanent grass, such as pasture or hay. For 

example, continuous no-till used in conjunction with high residue/cover crops can 

have a positive effect on key soil properties including soil organic matter, soil 

aggregate size and stability, water infiltration, and water-holding capacity. There 

is also some research to suggest that precision agriculture can improve yields and 

reduce yield variability. ERS research shows that GPS mapping, guidance 

systems, and VRT reduce input costs and increase yields. 

While there is strong evidence that some practices could be used to improve soil 

health, there is no database linking the use of specific practices to yield 

experience that could be used to rate crop insurance premiums. In crop insurance 

analysis published to date, ERS has used statistical analysis derived from actual 

yield data and not from agronomic models. While the former approach is likely 

produce analysis that is representative of the real world, the downside is that it 

requires sufficient data to obtain statistically meaningful results; there is 

insufficient yield data linked to specific practices benefiting soil health that is 

available to ERS to date, to do analysis of how yield would change, and 

consequently how premium rates would change. RJ\{A already makes 

adjustments for many c.ommon practices that are known to impact 

yields. However, ERS has published research on the risk reduction provided by 

federal crop insurance more generally, and on the impacts of policy changes on 

risk reduction. ERS found that on average for the US, if farmers adopted the 

Revenue Protection insurance policy with a 75 percent coverage rate, their 

downside revenue risk protection increases by around 200 percent for com and 

soybeans and arow1d 550 percent for winter wheat 

(blip!>: I /www. ers. usda. gov/publ icationsipub-detailsi?pubid=4 55 1 5). 

Statistical analysis presented at an ERS-Sponsored workshop (The Economics of 

Soil Health, September 2015, 

https://www.farmfoundation.org/webcontcntJEconomics-of-Soii-Hcalth1914.aspx) show that soil quality is strongly predictive of yields and that models 

including measures of soil quality could be used to better predict insurance 

premiums. Nonetheless, links between the usc of specific practices and soil 

quality or soil health have not yet been clearly quantified and may depend 

signi1icantly on soil characteristics and climate. 

b. The Fann Service Agency's Agriculture Risk Coverage program relies of 

thousands of yields by crop and county in order to calculate guarantees and 

payments. The program relies particularly on yield data collected by NASS . 

through surveys of producers. In some cases, insufficient responses are received 

despite repeated attempts by NASS, but I understand that NASS does not have the 

option of increasing the sample size. [s this restriction of expanding the number of 

producers surveyed related to budget constraints or other restrictions such as the 

paperwork reduction act requirements? Are there any areas where added 
155 

flexibility would provide NASS county-level data more consistently, instead of 

requiring FSA to switch between data sources? 

Response: NASS contacts over 365,000 farmers throughout the country to collect 

data to publish county estimates. There are four modes of data collection: mail, 

internet, telephone and personal interview. NASS has partnered with associations 

marketing the survey which resulted in more counties published for the 

commodity of interest. An increase in resources would allow NASS to improve 

the marketing plan informing the farmers the benefits of responding to NASS 

surveys. Currently, NASS utilizes unpaid media opportunities such as USDA 

Radio, RFD-TV interviews, national news releases, reminders in weekly crop 

progress and monthly crop production reports, short items for use in FSA 

newsletters, USDA blogs when available and Twitter to gamer earned media 

coverage that encourages response to these and other surveys. We provide 

enumerator training materials, news release templates, survey cover letters, etc. 

for regional offices to localize so that our own staff have pc1tinent information 

and can leverage local knowledge and connections. Additionally, we've built 

partnerships with national commodity organizations for wheat, com, and 

soybeans to help further encourage farmers and ranchers to respond. All have 

included content in their member communications. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

l. New York has more than a thousand certified organic operations and many farmers I talk to 

have considered transitioning to organic- particularly young farmers who are looking to start 

farming on a modest scale without incurring huge debt. In the last ten years, we have tripled 

the number of organic farms and still our growers struggle to meet the demand for local 

grains and produce. Those farmers need research support like the grants made available 

through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI). While the 

organic industry has experience rapid gro\\<1h with sales reaching $47 billion last year, the 

ORET budget has stayed flat for nearly a decade. 

Can you discuss the ways in which your mission area supports organic production across the 

REE programs? 

How do you intend to increase the resources available to organic farmers, or those that are 

transitioning, so that we can meet domestic demand without having to rely so heavily on 

imports? 

Response: The United States has fast-growing consumer demand for organic food, as well as 

an expanding organic production sector-although some commodity segments, organic feed 

grains in particular, haven't kept pace. USDA is widening access for organic and 

transitioning farmers to crop insurance, conservation programs, and other farm programs. 

ERS research and analysis related to the organic farm sector, includes: 

• Expanding USDA's major economic producer survey (Agricultural Resources 

Management Survey) to, for example, provide information on the price premiums 
156 

needed to cover higher organic production costs in major crop and livestock 

sectors. ERS has included targeted organic oversamples in the ARMS survey to 

examine the dairy sector (in 2005,2010 and 2016), soybeans (in 2006), apples 

(2007), wheat (2009), and corn (2010). 

• Examining the challenges as well as the factors that positively influence farmers' 

decision to adopt organic production systems. 

• Calculating the trends in organic price premiums for various food products and 

agricultural commodities, and examining the market penetration of organic 

products at the retail level. 

A recent ERS Amber Waves feature discusses and illustrates the broad trends in U.S. 

organic demand, production, and trade, see "Growing Organic Dem~nd Provides HighValue Opportunities for !'vlanv Tvpes of Producers." 

Despite a sustained double-digit growth in annual demand for organic products, domestic 

production has not been able to satisfy that demand. It is only possible to meet the 

growing demand for organic products from domestic sources through the transition of 

new producers, land, and facilities into certified organic production. 

2. I am concerned about the concentration in production agriculture on many levels, but 

certainly in the way it that has limited the availability of regionally adapted seeds. Public 

plant breeding programs have declined significantly in the past 20 years and more in the 

Northeast than any other part of the country. This makes our growers more reliant on big 

corporations and limits their access to new varieties of seeds that grow best in their 

communities 

What are your plans to bolster plant-breeding programs at our land grant universities to make 

more regionally adapted seeds available to our growers and how will you ensure that these 

new varieties arc publical!y released? 

Response: USDA/ARS conducts plant breeding/genetic improvement projects for more than 

50 different crops. Most of these projects are closely coordinated with land-grant university 

effmts, many to the extent that they are actually "joint ARS-univcrsity" breeding projects 

which jointly release new varieties. ARS also partners closely with some commodity groups 

and seed companies to develop and release new varieties. In all cases, ARS designs its plant 

breeding/genetic improvement projects to complement and bolster-but not compete withuniversity and private-sector effmts. Many ARS plant breeding/genetic improvement 

projects could not operate without those strong partnerships, and vice-versa. 

During the period 2011-2016 USDA/ ARS released a total of almost 800 new varieties or 

improved germplasm for more than 50 crops. All ofUSDA/ARS' new varieties are released 

publically. Most of them are free of intellectual property rights. But, some arc protected by 

Plant Variety Protection Certificates (also known as plant breeders' rights) which enable 

companies to recoup investments in additional research and marketing while still making the 

valicties available for additional breeding by other public and private-sector organizations. 
157 

Because of the nature of crop genetic diversity, the highly variable conditions in numerous 

distinct local and regional growing regions, and the disparate demands oflocal and regional 

producers and their markets, the crop varieties ARS develops are adapted to production in 

specific growing regions. For example, in the N01theast U.S., ARS potato breeders in 

Beltsville, Maryland, and their university cooperators at the University of Maine and Cornell 

University, breed potatoes adapted for production in the Northeast. Other ARS breeders in 

Beltsville breed sweet pepper and tomato varieties resistant to the strong disease pressures 

that often occur in the Northeast and adjacent production regions. ARS apple rootstock 

breeders and their Cornell University cooperators in Geneva, New York, breed outstanding 

apple rootstock varieties that bolster apple yields and quality throughout the Northeast and 

other production areas. ARS plum and pear breeders in Kearneysville, West Virginia, 

publically release new varieties which underpin Northeast production of these fruits. ARS 

breeders and their Rutgers University colleagues in Chatsworth, New Jersey, publically 

release blueberry and cranberry varieties for the Northeast. ARS breeders in Washington, 

DC, publically release woody landscape ornamental (e.g., ornamental cherries, hemlocks, 

and red buds) varieties adapted to challenging Northeast urban and suburban growth 

conditions. Finally, ARS breeders in Beltsville publically release strawberry varieties, 

adapted to the diverse growing conditions of the Northeast and adjacent regions, which are 

significantly lengthening the production season and the profitability tor u-pick-it operations 

and fresh market sales. Similar examples of ARS/land-grant university partnerships that 

breed and publically-release regionally-adapted varieties could be recounted for the US 

Southeast, Midwest, Plains, Northwest, Southwest, Caribbean, and Pacific crop production 

regions. 

Given these longstanding (100+ years old, in the case of strawberries) cooperative ARS/landgrant university and private-sector partnerships, the infrastructure (including shared facilities 

and land) exists to bolster and expand these cooperative ARS/land-grant university programs 

for breeding regionally adapted crop varieties and making them widely available to growers 

in the Northeast and other production regions. This is particularly important now when a 

large cohort of senior ARS and land-grant university plant breeders have retired or will retire. 

A new generation of plant breeders must be trained to continue and extend these cooperative 

plant breeding programs that have long underpinned local, regional, and national crop 

production. 

The FY 2017 AFRI Foundational Plant Breeding for Agricultural Production priority area 

supports opportunities for researchers to develop publicly available seed and cultivars that 

are bred to be adapted to the soils, climates, and farming systems of farmers of all 

regions. Research can include, but is not limited to, prebreeding and germplasm 

enhancement, cultivar development, selection theory, applied quantitative genetics, and 

participatory breeding. Public release of germ plasm and cultivars are an integral requirement 

of AFRI funded breeding projects. In addition, the 2014 farm Bill enables eligible state and 

national commodity boards to submit topics for research and outreach that can be specific to 

their states or regions and are willing to equally co-fund through AFRI. In FY 2016, the first 

year of collaboration with commodity boards, two plant breeding projects were supported. In 

general, NIFA's AFRI program is highly competitive, with an average of only 13 percent of 

proposals submitted during the last three years being funded. This results in a huge number 
158 

of highly worthy proposals being unfunded. With additional ii.mding for AFRI, the agency 

can fund many more proposals, including in plant breeding. 

There are also two other NIF A programs that support opportunities for land grant universities 

to provide regionally adapted seeds and cultivars to growers. The Specialty Crops Research 

Initiative supports plant breeding, genetics, and genomics to improve crop characteristics in a 

wide variety of crops and crop families; and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension 

initiative supports priorities to strengthen organic crop seed systems, including seed and 

transplant production and protection, and plant breeding for organic production, with an 

emphasis on publically available releases. 
159 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. John Floras 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

1. One of the highlights of the U.S. agricultural research framework is our cooperative 

extension system to disseminate information learned in the latest research to the 

people who need it most. What are the greatest challenges for our extension system 

currently? How can we empower extension agents? 

Our Extension system has experienced significant budget cuts for decades. Funding 

from federal, state, local, and other sources is not what it used to be throughout our 

nation. As a result, the number of Extension faculty and staft from Extension 

specialists and educators to Extension agents, has been drastically reduced. Today, 

many of the counties, districts, or regions across the country employ very few agents, 

and some employ only one Extension agent. 

This reduced human capital is the single most important challenge facing our 

Extension system today. One Extension agent a/one could not effectively lead 

programs in and answer questions on issues as diverse as crop production and 

diseases, animal growth and wellbeing, organic agriculture and gardening, water 

and natural resources, ag policy and fiscal matters, food safety and processing, 

nutrition and human health, family wellbeing and community revitalization, youth 

development and leadership, just to name a few. 

Looking forward, we must restructure our system to take advantage of all the 

science, technology and communication methods available today. We must find the 

resources to adequately rebuild our human capital and expertise to cover all content 

areas needed. We must find sufficient funding to redesign our Extension system to be 

nimble, relevant and responsive. 

2. Can you discuss what you believe to be the greatest research gaps in our food system 

across the entire food supply chain? 

A. In my view, a major gap is that we've abandoned research and development at the 

land-grant universities in food processing and manufacturing and in food product 

development. Food scientists and food engineers with such expertise are becoming 

much less common at the /and-grants. That is a result of essentially no federal 

funding for research in this area. Lack funding also resulted in lack of graduate 
160 

student training, and thus, having fewer and fewer food scientists and food 

engineers going into this line of academic work. 

B. Using Kansas State University as an example, we have placed considerable effort 

and resources to develop strengths in selected crop and livestock sectors that fit 

our state. On the crop side, we are very good at wheat and grain sorghum. Our 

efforts, however, have been heavily slanted toward production of these grains 

largely for commodity markets. With grain sorghum, we've devoted almost all of 

our efforts from genetics to grain production up through harvest, and that is pretty 

much where our efforts cease. Although with our unique Department of Grain 

Sciences and Industry, we have done more with post-harvest handling and 

processing of wheat, in general, once the wheat is milled to flour, again, our efforts 

stop at that level of the value chain. The point is, as /and-grants, in general, we 

have left much of the value-added research and development to the private sector 

over the past 2-3 decades, and now the private sector is turning to us (the landgrants) for research and development, and we are finding ourselves thin in terms 

of the breadth of food science/product development skills to fully address those 

needs. It is reasonable to think we can generalize this situation to many states, 

especially in the north central region/corn belt. Neither USDA nor other federal 

funding agencies have research programs that allow faculty to develop research 

careers in these areas. 

C. As a nation, we have a huge food waste problem, as I noted in my testimony. In 

the United States, waste occurs mostly after all of the inputs and value-added have 

taken place. In general, that means in homes, restaurants and grocery stores. We 

have to figure out how to solve this complex problem. Our work (at Kansas State) 

through USA/0 in developing countries is focused on minimizing losses postharvest and sustainable intensification of food production. Post-harvest Joss, 

rather than post-processing/value-added Joss is the problem in most developing 

countries, but the United States can and should play a critical role there too for not 

only humanitarian reasons, but also because of the potential instability that comes 

with food insecurity. 

D. Finally, another important gap is the effective use of irrigation and other 

technologies to reduce water consumption in agricultural production and 

throughout the food system. The declining levels of underground aquafers across 

the country and around the world is a clear sign that urgent solutions are needed. 

3. How has Kansas State changed its extension framework to reflect the broad needs of 

rural communities, including economic development, community leadership, etc., rather 

than focus on agriculture alone? 

A. We put together a strategic plan with broad input from all of our stakeholders. The 

plan addresses issues pertaining to agriculture, natural resources, and the food 

system, but it also recognizes that we must help our communities, families and 

youth to develop, grow and prosper. To that end, we are partnering with other 
161 

entities and working closely with communities, and philanthropic foundations to 

provide human capital and operating funding dedicated to economic development 

and community vitality programs. 

B. In addition, we have initiated a program to help counties join forces and form 

larger districts. Each multi-county district now has more shared resources (more 

than one or two Extension agents) to address not only one or two major 

challenges, but many more. As a result, programs in most of our districts now 

include leadership development, community and board leadership, economic 

development, community discussion facilitation, needs assessment, and strategic 

implementation. 

4. Land grant universities and other research institutions conduct cutting edge research to 

address the latest challenges in agriculture, funding these projects through competitive 

grants or capacity funds. Less exciting, but equally important, is funding maintenance of 

the infrastructure involved with ag research. Can you describe where infrastructure 

funding typically comes from, and challenges associated with finding money to keep our 

research laboratories and farms up to date? 

This is a major, major problem. I referenced the Sightlines study in my written 

testimony for the record. At Kansas State University, we receive very minar 

investments from the main campus budget to address renovation and repair-it falls 

dramatically short of the need. Our main campus budget, like most, derives mostly 

from tuition revenue and a smaller percentage comes from state appropriations. As 

the Sightlines study noted, only 20% of colleges of agriculture invest at levels that 

would at least stabilize, if not decrease, the backlog of deferred maintenance; 80% of 

the campuses are investing capital at such a low level that they continue to add to 

the backlog of deferred maintenance every year. As a result, most colleges of 

agriculture continue to do modern science in ever aging facilities. 

At K-State, we recently completed our own infrastructure needs assessment, which 

showed that only about 20% of our facilities were satisfactory or better. The 

remaining 80% were in desperate need of repair, renovation or removal. The tatal 

amount needed to renovate and rebuild our facilities, and bring them up to 21" 

Century standards, was $550 Million. This is not an amount we can raise 

philanthropically. Together with our stakeholders, alumni and friends will do our 

part, but without state and federal support, we may never get there. 

5. The 2014 Farm Bill changed the matching requirements for funding to Land Grant 

Universities and for some of the competitive grant programs. Can you discuss how these 

changes have impacted your respective institutions? 
162 

The changes have not impacted us dramatically. Beginning on 10/1/2014, an 

additional requirement was made, but included exceptions, one of which is 1862 land 

grant institutions. Details can be found here, https:l/nifa.usda.qov/new-matchinqrequirement-(requentlv-asked-questions, under item #2. With this exception, we 

typically say in the budget justification: "Kansas State University is exempt from 

match as an 1862 Land-Grant Institution with a State Agricultural Experiment Station 

receiving funding under the Hatch Act of 1887." 

6. With an aging farmer population, agriculture needs to attract more young people, and 

our colleges and universities can help do that. Young people can help transform the 

agricultural industry by applying new technologies and new thinking. What are the 

greatest challenges for getting students at colleges and universities engaged in 

agricultural science programs and going into careers in agriculture? What are the 

greatest gaps in our current agricultural education programs? Can you describe the job 

prospects for students graduating with degrees in agricultural sciences? 

A few years ago, USDA and Purdue University published a study regarding the 

workforce needs in the US Food and Agriculture for the period of 2015-2020. It 

clearly showed that all the public and land-grant universities together would only 

produce about 60% of the trained workforce needed. Therefore, I suggest that the 

job prospects for students graduating with degrees in agricultural and food sciences 

are excellent and will continue to be for a long time. At K-State, we have grown our 

student numbers by 55% in the last 6-7 years, but we continue to have nearly100% 

placement of our graduates. The need is so large for some of our majors, that even if 

we produced 3-5 times as many graduates, we would still be able to place all of 

them. However, some of our programs are now at or near capacity. We simply don't 

have the faculty nor the infrastructure to accommodate many more students in those 

programs. In other programs, although we have the capacity, and the need is there, 

we cannot attract enough students. Somehow we have to make food and agriculture 

the #1 choice for high school students. And when they graduate from college, we 

must guide enough of them toward our graduate programs. Increased 

undergraduate scholarships for students to study agriculture, and improved funding 

for food and agricultural research, which supports graduate education, will definitely 

help attract more and better students our way. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. We know that by 2030 about 44 percent, or 400 million acres, of privately owned 

farmland will transfer to new ownership and I think we are going to need many new, 

skilled farmers to take over those operations. It seems we face a similar problem with 

our agricultural research workforce. 
163 

You mention in your testimony the need to recruit, train, and retain talented students to 

become the next generation of Ag researchers. Do you think that the Committee should 

consider increasing directing USDA to increase Food and Agricultural Science 

Enhancement (FASE) Grants that are set aside for new investigator grants and pre- and 

post-doctoral students? 

Such an approach sounds like a good start. However, what we really need is for that 

increase to come out of a larger pool of funds going toN/FA's AFR/ program. So if we 

could bring AFRI up to its authorized level, that would help fund this program and 

expand resources for other needed programs, existing or new. The fully authorized 

level, of course, is still a rounding error compared to NIH and NSF. Therefore, I would 

like to see both of these agencies, NSF and NIH, as well as other federal funding 

agencies, invest more in the sciences and engineering that underlie food and 

agriculture, including new investigator grants and pre- and post-doctoral students' 

support. 
164 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Kerry Hartman 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

1. In your testimony you recommend additional research investment in Tribal colleges that 

offer Forestry degrees. As USDA's Forest Service houses the largest forestry research 

institution in the world, I'm sure there are ample opportunities for collaboration. Can 

you give us some more detail about the importance of training forestry professionals at 

our Tribal colleges and universities? What types of jobs would these foresters take in 

the workforce after they graduate? 

Response: I'll have to answer this question from discussions I've had with other TCU 

faculty who actually have forestry programs. Very similar to many agricultural career 

areas forestry jobs could be involving biological botanical area, business 

entrepreneurship area or a tourism and/or cultural area. The natural resource 

botanical area would involve foresters, forestry technicians, horticulturalists, plant 

and soil scientists, and also geo-spatial analysts and technicians. Careers involving a 

business/entrepeneer could range from sawmill operators and owners to lumber jacks. 

Additionally forestry technicians would be needed. Forests could also provide jobs 

in the area of eco-tourism including plant and wildlife tour guides, ethnobotanical 

scientists and technicians and tribal cultural/historical experts. The Tribal Colleges could 

provide multiple levels of training ranging from certificate to Bachelor degrees to 

preparation for graduate studies. 

2. With an aging farmer population, agriculture needs to attract more young people, and 

our colleges and universities can help do that. Young people can help transform the 

agricultural industry by applying new technologies and new thinking. What are the 

greatest challenges for getting students at colleges and universities engaged in 

agricultural science programs and going into careers in agriculture? What are the 

greatest gaps in our current agricultural education programs? Can you describe the job 

prospects for students graduating with degrees in agricultural sciences? 

Response: The challenges involved with college students in agriculture programs 

would include many that are across all programs. Broad topic areas range from lack of 

academic preparation to family/social areas ranging from parenting to personal issues 

and must include the social and economic issues man of our students face in 

attempting to complete their degrees. In my previous answer I discussed the possible 
165 

careers and jobs that the TCUs could prepare students to have. Unfortunately, TCUs 

are in remote, underserved, and economically disadvantaged areas where it is 

extremely difficult to find and retain the highly qualified diverse pool of faculty that 

would be required for that broad variation of career preparation. These many 

scientists and faculty would also require sufficient lab and field supplies to prepare 

the future professionals in these varied fields. 

Today's rural youth are also very aware of the HUGE economic challenges facing any 

new young farmer/rancher trying to get established in the agricultural business. I 

believe that this is also a stumbling block for getting students into the agricultural 

fields. 

On the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation there are four high schools. Of those four high 

schools only one has an FFA Chapter or any level of farm or ranch course work. 

Therefore, the students on our reservation are simply not exposed to any middle or 

high school course work introducing them to the possible careers or education 

involving agriculture unless they are involved in 4-H. As stated in the previous answer, 

there is a grossly insufficient supply of educational and economic resources for new 

young farmers and ranchers. It is virtually impossible for a young person to start a new 

farm or ranch. The only way young people in our area make a career out of farming or 

ranching is through inheritance. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

1. According to some estimates, monarch butterfly populations have declined by nearly 90 

percent in the last 20 years. I have worked with the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the United 

States Department of Transportation on interagency actions and public-private 

partnerships to halt and reverse these declines. 

You explain in your testimony that you are currently working on a NIFA project to 

develop and sustain the environment needed to support native pollinators. Can you 

speak more about your research and the current problems pollinators face? 

Response: The focus of my current Juneberry research project is to investigate the 

identities, diversity, and status of the native pollinators and other native fruits. There 

has never been any scientific pollinator research in this geographic area of Western 

North Dakota. Previous research studies have been conducted in South Dakota's Black 

Hills, Montana's mountains and the Red River's tall grass prairie region. So there was 

little to no scientific evidence regarding the native pollinators, identification, diversity, 

and community. Therefore the first major topic of my research project is to survey, 

trap, and identify and quantify, as many different native pollinators as possible. We 

are in our second season of trapping and identifying pollinators and have determined 
166 

that Bumbus (bumblebees) are the most prevalent visitor and pollinator to the wild 

fruits on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. An additional goal of the research is to 

attempt to increase the nesting sites and food sources for the pollinators. We have 

therefore placed straw bale nesting sites and pollinator food plots and will attempt to 

document their impact on the pollinator community on the Fort Berthold Indian 

Reservation. As with all my previous NIFA Tribal College Research Grants the current 

project also includes an educational component which involves providing students 

information and resources on designing, conducting, and reporting scientific research 

and enhancing our College's Science Department through the inclusion of entomology 

coursework and curriculum modules. The ultimate outcome of the project will 

assumedly be a baseline of data and knowledge on native pollinators' community in 

Western North Dakota. 

Our current understanding of the issues facing our local pollinators is similar to those 

in many other areas of the country. There has been massive disruption and loss of 

their native habitat including nesting locations and food and nutrition availabilities. 

Locally there are little data to document the impact of pesticide use on the local 

pollinator populations, but it is logical to conclude that the many agricultural 

insecticides used in this area have had a negative impact on that population. Our local 

pollinators also face the additional challenge of a lack of knowledge regarding their 

identities and habits. Hopefully, my research will provide some scientific evidence 

relevant to these issues. 

2. My home state of Minnesota is home to four land-grant universities and colleges -the 

University of Minnesota, White Earth Tribal & Community College, Leech Lake Tribal 

College, and the Fond du Lac Tribal & Community College. 

Can you speak about the importance of Cooperative Extension programs in tribal 

communities? 

Response: Cooperative Extension programs offer a variety of important resources 

ranging from educational coursework to nutritional information and economic and 

agricultural resources. On the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation we have an NRCS 

Extension Agent who assists farmers with everything from crop rotation to installing 

water systems and tree rows. The Extension Agent also holds informational sessions 

and provides a wide range of products from information on seed mixes to access to 

trees for the area farmers and ranchers. There is also an NDSU Extension Agent who 

also serves the reservation. That person provides assistance and resources in many 

various ways ranging from assisting the Boys and Girls Clubs to organizing the local 

Farmer's Market to providing educational resources on a wide range of topics from 

water quality to child development. Local extension agents provide an extremely 

valuable service to the reservation community. 
167 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. We depend on pollinators for nearly $24 billion dollars of agricultural production each 

year. Native bees and wild pollinators account for one third of this total or $9 billion 

dollars. Like the more studied honeybee, native bees have suffered greatly over the past 

few years from exposure to pesticides, parasites, disease, habitat degradation, and 

decreased forage quality. 

You mentioned in your testimony that you've received some funding from the NIFA TCU 

program to improve the environment to support native pollinators which in turn will 

increase the yield of your june berry crop. I think a lot of New York specialty crop 

growers would be interested in your research since they benefit from native pollinators 

too. Could you describe your research and what you plan to do to sustain native 

pollinators? 

Response: As stated in my previous response, my research involves indentifying and 

increasing the native pollinators of the Indigenous wild berries of Western North 

Dakota. My current TGRG project also involves improving the resources and 

capabilities of our College's Science Department and our students' education. 

Specifically our research is identifying the local native pollinators, building nesting 

structures, and creating /food plots that they prefer. The results of my research will be 

disseminated to the Scientific community as well as the tribal and local farmers, 

ranchers, and home owners so that they can improve their efforts to increase the 

numbers of the local pollinators. 

Thank You very much for accepting these responses. 
168 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young 

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) 

1. You talked about the new National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), in Manhattan, 

Kansas. Can you both elaborate on the education and training needs to develop the necessary 

workforce that will be required to operate this critical facility? How are you tapping into and 

coordinating with the existing animal health expertise in the region, and how will you 

continue to develop skilled workers after the facility is operational? 

Response: To prepare for our research mission at NBAF, the education and training of 

veterinary and animal health research scientists are critical needs. Specifically, we need 

veterinarians to go through graduate programs to obtain their Ph.D in the following key 

scientific disciplines: pathology, virology, immunology, entomology, epidemiology and 

microbiology. In addition, scientists without veterinary degrees, but trained in these 

disciplines or in computational biology will be needed. Currently, ARS only has 44 

veterinarians working in our agency. It is critical that we train the next generation of 

veterinary scientists. Veterinarians and animal health focused research scientists are essential 

not only for animal health research but also for veterinary and medical entomology, food 

safety, and our biodefense research program. For NBAF, our objective is to ensure that a 

viable and qualified scientific workforce is available to implement a program with expertise 

in biodefense research, with a focus on foreign and emerging animal diseases, including 

dangerous zoonotic pathogens. The mechanism for identifying and training scientists in 

biodefense research will be established in collaboration with the College of Veterinary 

Medicine, Kansas State University, and with the guidance of the American Association of 

Veterinary Medical Colleges. ARS does not presently have high containment facilities 

(BSL-3E, BSL-3Ag, and BSL-4) to train biodefense research scientists in Manhattan, 

Kansas. Therefore, the research projects needed to obtain a doctoral degree in one of the 

seven core scientific disciplines listed above will be conducted at the Plum Island Animal 

Disease Center (PIADC), Orient Point, New York, and/or the research facilities of 

collaborators contributing to the implementation ofthe ARS biodefense research programs, 

including the Biotechnology Research Institute, in Manhattan, Kansas. In the 2017 

Appropriations, congress provided $1 million for ARS to begin workforce education and 

training to prepare workers for the NBAF facility. Once NBAF is operational, we will 

continue to train researchers in the unique skills necessary for work in high containment 

facilities at NBAF and in coordination with colleagues in other high containment facilities 

across the United States and the globe. 

2. You mentioned the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance. Various government 

agencies, medical professionals, agriculture stakeholders and public health organizations 

have been working collaboratively to further understand and curtail this threat. In addition to 

the research efforts of ARS mentioned during the hearing, please provide information that 

supplements this discussion regarding details of the surveillance monitoring that APHIS is 
169 

conducting, including how USDA is using voluntary National Animal Health Monitoring 

System surveys to analyze antibiotic use on farms, and through the food chain, to observe 

resistance trends? Please include a description of industry input and cooperation with this 

effmt and how and when results will be reported. 

Answer: Monitoring/surveillance, research, education, and outreach are interdependent. 

FSIS monitors for resistance through the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring 

System (NARMS) and ARS works closely with FSIS to fmther characterize emerging 

resistance. Communication of collaborative findings is through annual web reports, 

publications, and presentations, but can also be through blogs such as in the federal 

government's announcement of findings of colistin resistance in the U.S.last year: 

ht tps :: :www. usda.goY.' mcdia:blog:20 16. 05.26· pro act i Ye-efforts-us-federal-a2encies-enab I ccnrlv-ddcction-ncw-antibiotic. APHIS, in collaboration with NASS conducts on-farm 

sampling and surveys through the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). 

Monitoring helps to further inform research by identifYing how and why antibiotics are being 

used. APHIS communicates AMR-related information with producers and producer groups 

through several channels, including disseminating NAHMS findings via publications and 

presentations. ARS publishes and presents research. 

FSIS, APHIS, and ARS have an annual meeting where food safety researchers describe their 

current ongoing research, and FSIS/ APHIS define their needs and challenges faced in the 

field for researchers to address. Through ARS intramural research and NIFA-funded 

extramural research, USDA agencies are studying the ecology of AMR, exploring products 

to improve the health of animals to decrease the need for antibiotics and identifYing 

alternatives to antibiotics. In addition, the agencies are trying to identity better management 

practices to address AMR. NIFA-funded AMR studies can be found at: 

h ttp:.·!c ris. n i fa. usda. gov · cgibin ,;tartindcr.'()')path- 1':\stl ink I. txt&id~ anon&pass=&scarch=( GC~ A4171 l& fonnat= WEBTI 

TLESGIY. Research feeds into education/outreach. Through NTFA's Agriculture and Food 

Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive program, NTF A awards grants that target research and 

either an education or outreach component. Since grantees have to include an education or 

outreach component, results of research can be immediately communicated and applied in 

real-world situations. 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

I. Thank you for making necessary changes to the review process on the use of animals for 

research by the Agricultural Research Service. I am pleased that ARS now follows the 

requirements of the Animal Welfare Act that all registered entities follows, including an 

agreement between ARS and APHIS Animal Care. It is important that ARS facilities are 

inspected and undergo protocol reviews through a properly constituted Institutional 

Animal Care and Use Committee. In the process of implementing these changes, were 

any ARS facilities found to have violations directly impacting animal welfare? If so, what 

changes were made to address those concerns? Has USDA posted the inspection reports, 

as directed by the FY 17 omnibus? Can you explain the new role of the Animal Welfare 
170 

Ombudsman? The public has a strong interest in having these reports be accessible and 

transparent, and in ensuring that ARS facilities comply with the basic animal welf.are 

standards that other registered research facilities in the U.S. must comply with. 

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the significant progress that ARS has made 

relevant to animal welfare. We fully endorse the protections conferred to animals used in 

research, teaching, and testing through the Animal Welfare Act Regulations, and will 

continue to adhere to the spirit and intent of these regulatory principles. The policies and 

procedures we have implemented for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee 

(IACUC) membership currently exceed regulatory requirements, and we are actively 

working with industry and university partners to establish scientifically based standards 

and practices specifically designed for the optimum care of agricultural animals 

maintained in a production environment for research purposes. We are confident that 

these collective efforts will ultimately lead to enhanced management practices that will 

further improve the health and welfare oflivcstock and poultry under our care. 

The IACUC serves as a critical control point in the local oversight system, and ARS has 

strategically targeted efforts to ensure that all of the committees have the appropriate 

composition, training, and resources needed to administer these responsibilities 

effectively. Our success in achieving this goal has been validated through an internal 

inspection program established with our sister Agency, the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Care, and through numerous external 

assessments of ARS programs conducted by recognized authorities and experts in animal 

welfare. While specific locations have received advice to improve record keeping and 

animal care protocols, none of our locations are non-compliant and we have implemented 

a process of constant improvement. ARS has also implemented an expanded reporting 

system that gives employees and members of the public the open opportunity to raise 

issues about the care and use of animals at ARS locations. Individuals are encouraged to 

work through local representatives and also have the option of directly contacting the 

ARS Animal Welfare Ombudsman, who serves as a neutral third-party advocate for 

employees with concerns about animal welfare. There have been no repot1s or findings 

of animal neglect or mistreatment at any of the ARS locations. 

We appreciate the public's support for ARS, and understand the trust placed in our 

research is founded on our unwavering assurance we have committed to follow or exceed 

the same principles and standards required of universities and private industry. ARS is 

confident we have reinstated this trust, and are actively working to improve the public's 

understanding of our commitment to quality animal care. Inspection reports of ARS 

facilities are available on the APHIS Animal Welfare Act (A WA) Inspection and Annual 

Reports web-site. 

2. Organic agriculture now accounts for over 5% of total retail food sales, making it one of 

the fastest growing agriculture sectors in America. We know that the Organic Research 

and Extension Initiative has contributed to this success. Can you provide an update on 

what ARS is doing to support organic research? 
171 

Response: Listed below are a few representative ARS research accomplislm1ents from 2 

016 that support the organic sector. 

Reduced-till, but continuous cropping gives better yields and more nutritious 

organic crops. Reducing the number of times a field or garden plot is tilled alters 

soil chemical properties in ways that increase crop yield and nutrient density. 

ARS researchers found over a 30-year study that reduced tilling coupled with 

continuous cropping increased beneficial soil mineral concentrations; improved 

plant vigor; and annualized crop yield; and maintained beneficial soil pH and 

calcium concentration levels compared with conventional heavy tillage in a 

crop/fallow rotation. The higher levels of soil minerals also resulted in higher 

levels of these healthful minerals in the grown crops. This long-term research 

definitively shows that producers can better maintain long-term dryland soil 

fertility, increase crop yields, and provide consumers with a more nutrient dense 

product by adopting reduced tillage while cropping continuously. 

Updated tool for organic and conventional cover crop selection. Producers are 

interested in growing cover crops for the multiple benefits they may provide. 

However, there are many cover crop choices, many of which are unfamiliar to 

producers. ARS researchers developed an updated Cover Crop Ch~rl (CCC) as a 

user-friendly tool to determine the suitability of specific cover crops for 

addressing production and natural resource goals. The chart categorizes 57 cover 

crops based on the plant type and general growth characteristics, and provides 

basic descriptive information. The CCC is available via the internet and is being 

used by producers and conservation agencies to increase cover crop use. 

A hairy vetch/rye mixture stores more soil carbon and nitrogen than hairy 

vetch or rye alone. Scientists from ARS and Fort Valley State University, an 

1890 institute in GA, collaborated on a study of the effect of cover crop use on 

soil carbon and nitrogen retention. The research was targeted to small landholders 

and minority producers. Results showed that a hairy vetch/rye mixture stored 

more soil carbon and nitrogen than hairy vetch or rye alone, or the no cover crop 

treatment. Organic and conventional farmers can adopt the hairy vetch/rye cover 

crop mixture to increase carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling, and improve soil 

and surrounding environment. 

Nitrate contamination of surface water is reduced in organic 

systems. Environmental impacts associated with conventional agricultural 

production have encouraged producers to investigate alternative management 

practices, including organic farming methods. ARS scientists initiated a long-term 

study of tile drainage water nitrate losses from conventional (com-soybean) and 

organic (com-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa) grain cropping systems. The study 

demonstrated that average annual nitrate concentrations were lower in tile 

drainage water collected from the organically-managed rotation compared to the 

conventionally-managed rotation. Total nitrate loss for the conventional rotation 
172 

was nearly twice as much as from the organic rotation. These results suggest that 

organic farming practices can improve water quality, especially in tile-drained 

landscapes. 

Sustainable, profitable organic tomato production using biomass 

mulch. Plant-based mulch is a profitable alternative to plastic mulch in organic 

tomato production systems. Tomato producers are faced with uncertain yields 

and prices, and utilizing a production system that will reduce risk while 

maintaining yield may keep tomato producers economically sustainable into the 

future. ARS scientists compared the economics of 'conservation tillage 

production' using a variety of cover crops, such as cereal rye and crimson clover, 

and different tillage tools for fresh-market tomato production compared to a 

commonly-used plastic mulch, to determine the economic yield benefit. Rye and 

clover were just as effective as plastic mulch in controlling weeds and reducing 

soil moisture loss in tomato production, and net returns using a rye cover crop 

were 103% higher than plastic mulch in 2 of the 4 years. Net returns for clover 

were 119% higher in I out of the 4 years. Given tomato prices and weather 

conditions observed during the 2005-2008 growing season, the preferred 

treatment for a risk neutral producer would be a rye cover crop. For a strongly 

risk averse producer, all cover crop treatments were preferred to plastic 

mulch. The use of high biomass cover crops in tomato production, be it a 

conventional or organic production system, has the potential to be both profitable, 

and less environmentally risky than plastic mulch. 

Subsurface banding of organic poultry litter improves soil 

quality. Traditionally soil surface application of broiler litter exposes nutrients, 

particularly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), to potential loss, which reduces its 

value as a fertilizer, reduces growers' profits, and degrades air and water 

quality. ARS scientists evaluated the impacts of subsurface banding of pelletized 

broiler litter on organic and con vcntional cotton growth, yield, and N utilization 

and found that in the long-term, the practice resulted in greater cotton lint yield 

than surface-applied litter or commercial fertilizers at approximately equivalent N 

rate. This strategy reduces the use of costly inorganic fertilizers, improves soil 

quality, and enables growers to maximize the return on their nutrient management 

practices. If the technology is developed and commercialized as a practical 

option tor the producers, subsurface banding of pelletized broiler litter could be 

considered as an effective management practice for row crop productions, and, at 

some point, become a method of choice for applying solid manures. 

Novel and inexpensive hoe for weeding organic and conventional strawberry 

and vegetable beds. Controlling weeds along plastic mulch covered beds is 

extremely difficult because the rigid blades of standard hoes can easily tear the 

plastic. An ARS researcher developed a light-weight, adjustable and flexible 
173 

bladed hoe made from 100% recycled material that efficiently slices through 

weeds but not plastic mulch. This 'recycle strap hoe' was a major breakthrough in 

weed management in cover cropped furrows that are being promoted to conserve 

soil and reduce winter nmoff in strawberry fields. This novel hoe was rapidly 

adopted by small-seale farmers in California and Hawaii, and has broad 

application world-wide in plastic mulch-covered beds that are typically used for 

high value vegetables and berry production. The hoe also works well for hand 

weeding vegetables without plastic mulch. 

3. One of the highlights of the U.S. agricultural research framework is our cooperative 

extension system to disseminate information learned in the late-st research to the people 

who need it most. Can you explain how ARS shares information learned from its research 

with producers? 

Response: The primary method ARS scientists use to relay the detailed findings of their 

research is through the publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals. During the past 

5 years (2012-2016), ARS scientists have published more than21 ,000 articles in more 

than 150 different journals. ARS has worked hard to make these publications available to 

the public through the Web site of the National Agricultural Library (NAL), the largest 

and most accessible agricultural research library in the world. ln 2016, NAL's PubAg 

portal for literature searches and full-text access held more than 49,000 full-text journal 

articles by USDA researchers. 

ARS also shares its research findings through the collaborations it maintains with LandGrant University and industry researchers. Through these collaborations ARS is able to 

expand ils circle of knowledge, while leveraging resources to extend our research goals. 

Because the universities also integrate extension service outreach in their research 

programs, these researchers are able to share the knowledge from that collaborative 

research with fanners, producers, and backyard gardeuers in their areas. 

However, the most direct way ARS scientists are able to convey their research findings is 

through the open houses and field days many of our research locations have at various 

time:> of the year. The locations invite local stakeholders and producers, extension 

service personnel, industry researchers, government representatives, and the general 

public to tour the laboratories and fields where the research is on-going. Scientists 

involved in the research arc on hand to explain their research and to provide updates on 

their findings to date. The value of these field days is invaluable to stimulating 

interaction with the local conununities and identifying potential collaborators for future 

projects. 

4. In the 2014 Farm Bill, the application process for USDA research programs was 

improved in order to make the process more streamlined. Can you explain specifically 

what changes were made, and how the implementation has gone? 
174 

Response: NIF A has established govemment-wide forms tor research, streamlined the 

process for additional increments of funding for continuation awards, established the just 

in time pilot (where only proposals selected for funding will be required to provide all 

supplementary fonns and information), established a pre-application process, and 

streamlined matching. Opportunities to streamline in the future also exist as more 

functionality is achieved with the implementation of ezFedGrants. 

5. Agriculture is growing beyond our fam1crs' fields, and is now happening in many of our 

cities across the country. From small acre farms to rooftops and indoor vertical farming, 

new economic opportunities can be found through urban agriculture. Can you discuss 

research that needs to be done to support urban agriculture? 

Response: Urban agriculture requires long-tetm research focused on the overall goals of 

enhancing operational and production efficiencies; improving economic returns to 

producers; and reducing the environmental impact of urban agricultural 

production. Specific themes for such research include: Production Environment: 

Characterization of atmospheric gases, pollutants and light intensities experienced by 

crops grown in urban settings whether at ground-level or, but especially, on rooftops of 

high-rise buildings. Technologies for C02 capture and release into C02-starved 

greenhouse environments are particularly important for urban crop production during the 

winter months. Water: Technologies are needed for more effective usc and re-use of 

water, be it municipal or rain feed, and water runoff collection and recycling. 

Aquaculture: Technologies for aquaculture/aquaponics in urban settings, either as a 

stand-alone system or coupled with vertical fanning and hydroponic fatming. 

Postharvest Quality: Technologies are needed to assure food quality and food safety, 

via superior product handling/ processing/ packaging and storage for produce from urban 

agriculture. 

6. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest threats to public health. While there is 

speculation that antimicrobial use in food animals contributes to antimicrobial resistant 

bacteria, more evidence is needed to investigate those links as well as find solutions. A 

GAO report published on March 16, 2017 titled "Antibiotic Resistance: More 

Information Needed to Oversee Use of Medically Important Drugs in Food Animals", 

made three recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding this topic, though 

all focused on APHIS and FSIS. Can you please explain how the research and extension 

mission area at USDA is addressing antimicrobial resistance, including areas of research 

focus and efforts to share this information with producers? Can you explain how the 

research mission area at USDA coordinates with APHIS and FSIS on antimicrobial 

resistance? 

Response: Monitoring/surveillance, research, education, and outreach are 

interdependent. FSIS monitors for resistance through the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) and ARS works closely with FSlS to further 

characterize emerging resistance. Communication of collaborative findings is through 
175 

annual web reports, publications, and presentations, but can also be through blogs such as 

in the federal government's announcement of findings of colistin resistance in the U.S. 

last year: https:i/www.usda.gov.'media/lJiog/20 16 05 26mroactive-etfons-us-federal~ 

agencies-enable-carlv-detection-ncw-antibiotic. APHIS, in collaboration with NASS 

conducts on-farm sampling and surveys through the National Animal Health Monitoring 

System (NAHMS). Monitoring helps to further inform research by identifying how and 

why antibiotics arc being used. APHIS commUilicates AMR-related information with 

producers and producer groups through several channels, including disseminating 

NAHMS findings via publications and presentations. ARS publishes and presents 

research. 

FSIS, APHIS, and ARS have an annual meeting where food safety researchers describe 

their cunent ongoing research, and FSIS/APHIS define their needs and challenges faced 

in the field for researchers to address. Through ARS intramural research and NlFAfunded extramural research, USDA agencies are studying the ecology of AMR, exploring 

products to improve the health of animals to decrease the need for antibiotics and 

identifying alternatives to antibiotics. In addition, the agencies are trying to identify better 

management practices to address AMR. NIFA-funded AMR studies can be foUild at: 

http://cris.nita.usda.gov/cgibin/starfindcr/O?path=fastlinkl. t:xt&id=anon&pass=&search=(GC=A4171 l&fom1at=WE 

BTITLESGJY. Research feeds into education/outreach. Through NIFA's Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive program, NIFA awards grants that target 

research and either an education or outreach component. Since grantees have to include 

an education or outreach component, results of research can be immediately 

communicated and applied in real-world situations. 

7. With the average age of the American farmer increasing, we need to encourage the next 

generation to engage in agriculture in order to feed the future. How does your respective 

agencies and programs help bring America's youth into agriculture? What arc other ways 

to attract new farmers and ranchers? 

Response: The REE agencies employ over I 00 interns every year in addition to 

participating in numerous conferences and outreach activities. 

NIFA specifically brings America's youth into agriculture through several programs. 

• The 4-H Youth Development Program, or 4-H, is the youth outreach program 

from the land-grant institutions' cooperative extension services and USDA 

through NIFA. 4-H serves as a model program for the practice of positive youth 

development by creating positive learning experiences; positive relationships for 

and between youth and adults; positive, safe environments; and opportunities for 

positive risk taking. NIFA-supported 4-H programs reaches over 6 million 

children across the United States. 

NIFA's Agriculture in the Classroom Program (AITC) serves nearly 5 million 

students and 150,000 teachers annually through workshops, conferences, field 
176 

trips, farm tours, and other educational activities. AITC programs include 

working with state AITC activities engaged in a variety of issues relating to 

agricultural literacy. Other programs emphasized by the NIF A AITC office 

include Science literacy, Agricultural careers, Nutrition and Pre-service and 

professional develop opportunities for teachers. 

• The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program provides grants to 

organizations for education, mentoring, and technical assistance initiatives for 

beginning farmers or ranchers. Ensuring there will be a "new generation" of 

beginning farmers and ranchers, regardless of age or production choice, is 

especially important to the continuation of agricultural production in the U.S. 

Agricultural science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has 

been described as a "leaky pipeline," as fewer students remain as they progress through 

advanced study. NIFA's education programs are designed to enhance the pipeline 

through programs that support agricultural workforce development, increase student 

recruitment and retention, and build capacity. ARS, ERS, and NASS also engage students 

at all levels to help fill the pipeline. 

8. In the past few years, we have seen several devastating animal disease outbreaks in the 

U.S., including highly pathogenic avian influenza and porcine epidemic dian·hea vitus. 

Does USDA have the appropriate authority and funding to adequately prepare for and 

investigate the next animal disease outbreak? 

Response: Yes, the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) gives USDA the authority it 

needs to address large animal health emergencies, such as the 2014-2015 outbreak of 

highly pathogenic avian influenza (HP AI). The AHP A gives USDA a wide range of 

tools to address foreign animal disease outbreaks, which we utilize in coordination with 

our State regulatory partners, such as the ability to quarantine and restrict movement of 

animals. Additionally, the AHPA gives the Secretary, upon apportionment by the Office 

of Management and Budget, the authority to transfer emergency funding from other 

agencies and corporations of the Department-typically the Commodity Credit 

Corporation-to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to address 

outbreaks. This authority provided the overwhelming majority of the funding utilized to 

respond to the HPAI outbreak in 2014-2015. 

Beyond that, USDA requested additional funding for animal health emergencies in the 

2017 budget request. APHIS received an additional $24 million to improve the Agency's 

preparedness to detect, analyze, and respond to foreign and emerging animal health 

events. 

9. Can you discuss cunent research being conducted on pre-harvest interventions to address 

food safety concerns in meat and poultry? 

Response: The ARS Food Safety program develops and validates intervention strategies 

to assist in reducing or eliminating pathogens in food animals during production. 
177 

Reduced shedding of zoonotic pathogens by food producing animal::; subsequently helps 

reduce the pathogen load during slaughter/harvesting and subsequent processing and 

storage. The Program addresses the continued need to develop and subsequently combine 

new and/or innovative technologies. Interventions can he additive and/or synergistic, 

leading to improved control over pathogen growth without potential changes in food 

quality or reduction in nutrition. The challenge is that the pathogen load on a product 

must be significantly reduced by any processing intervention strategy to avoid the 

consequences in food production resulting from "dirty in, dirty out" processing. 

ARS specifically conducts research in meat to: 

• Characterize the ecological niches and reservoirs to identify mechanisms of 

foodbome pathogen, especially biofilms, for their ability to colonize and persist 

leading to the development of intervention strategies. 

• Develop and evaluate novel intervention strategies that reduce or eliminate the 

occurrence, transmission, or persistence offoodbome pathogens in host animals, 

including cattle and swine, and the environment. Survey ecological niches and 

reservoirs using a systems approach to identify sites for potential interventions to 

reduce foodborne pathogens. 

• Identify environmental and management (intervention) practices that influence 

antimicrobial resistance, colonization of lymph nodes, and colonization rates of 

cattle, veal, and swine. 

• Develop interventions that prevent/mitigate colonization of gut of food-producing 

animals (particularly lower Gl tract before slaughter) or that reduce 

pathogenic/antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in production environment. 

ARS specifically conducts research in poultry to: 

• Identify, develop, and test interventions, including exploring possible synergies of 

multiple interventions and altematives to antibiotics that can kill pathogenic or 

antibiotic resistant foodbome pathogens or mitigate their persistence, shedding 

virulence and resistance in the animal production environment. 

• Evaluate these products in multiple production/processing systems including 

conventional, pasture raised, and organic systems. 

Develop new vaccination strategic~> ba~ed on innate immunity to reduce 

Salmonella contamination in broiler chickens and turkeys. 

• Develop strategies to reduce foodborne pathogens by targeting host immunemetabolic signaling pathways affected by Salmonella and Campylobacter 

virulence factors. 

• Develop innovative strategies tor increasing disease resistance and improving 

immunity to foodbome pathogens of poultry using egg shell membrane 

technology. 

• Assess the impact of dietary regimens, housing systems, and different chicken 

genetic lines on Salmonella (S.) infections ofhe.ns, Salmonella contamination of 

the production environment and eggs, and physical and functional egg quality. 

• Assess the effects of key management practices using experimental and field 

models of different housing systems on hen health, microbial ecology of 
178 

foodbome bacteria, and antimicrobial resistance associated with egg 

contamination. 

10. What research is currently being done at your agencies on the effectiveness of voluntary 

conservation programs authorized in the Far:m Bill in addressing natural resource 

concerns, like water quality, drought., soil health, and wildlife habitat? Are there positive 

results or data from this research that you can share that will help justifY the federal 

investment in voluntary conservation programs? Can you explain how do your agencies 

work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service on research to demonstrate the 

environmental outcomes from conservation activities on farms and ranches? 

Response: ARS research supports the agencies that lead voluntary conservation 

programs and initiatives arising from the Fann Bill. Our scientists work very closely with 

NRCS and other agencies at USDA that implement conservation programs. Our scientists 

develop new cropping systems, management strategies, practices, tools and technologies 

that inform, strengthen, or provide the scientific underpinnings for things such as NRCS 

Conservation Practice Standards. Often our data and measurement protocols are used in 

quantifying the benefits of conservation programs. The expanding application of 

improved conservation management in areas such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, 

nutrient use efficiency and similar management practices, that have been extensively 

researched by ARS scientists, are documented by NRCS data through the National 

Resources Inventory (NRJ) and their beneficial impact on conservation accounted for in 

NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) regional and national reports 

and elsewhere. Another example is within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, where runoff 

of sediment and nutrients has been a documented problem. ARS research throughout the 

watershed and across the country is resulting in improved management practices that 

conserve soil and hold fertilizers and manure nutrients in place where they can be utilized 

by crops. EPA and USGS data over recent decades are demonstrating a positive trend 

resulting in improving water quality across the watershed. These examples, along with 

some additional recent accomplishments noted below, show how ARS research efforts 

support Farm Bill related conservation programs, helping ensure soil health, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat availability while also enhancing our ability to sustainably 

produce food, feed and fiber. 

ARS's collaboration with NRCS on the Conservation Effec·tS Assessment Project (CEAP) 

includes ARS leadership of the CEAP Water,;hed ~t! ss nt Studv (WAS), which 

involves more than 60 ARS scientists, plus additional technical support staff, working in 

14 benchmark watersheds at 12 ARS locations. The ARS-CEAP-WAS project is a fully 

peer-reviewed national effort that is highly relevant to the conservation policy of the 

USDA. In the CEAP-WAS, scientists collect, manage and provideata to researchers and 

other users, develop and validate models and tools, and measure and quantify water 

quality, water quantity, soil quality, and ecosystem effects of conservation practices at the 

watershed scale in a variety of hydrologic and agronomic settings. 
179 

One strategic conservation target for USDA conservation programs is reducing nutrient 

losses that impact the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes and water bodies across our 

landscape. This challenge is continental in scale, but involves the management of 

thousands of small watersheds comprising millions of farm fields. A new GTS-based 

conservation toolbox, called the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF), 

has been developed by ARS to address local planning needs on a site-specific basis, and 

is being trialcd in a range oflandscape and farm management settings across the 

Midwest. The ACPF toolbox is now available for download through the North Central 

Region Water Network website. The ACPF is based on a holistic planning concept that 

emphasizes soil health. ACPF considers key 'soil-building' practices that promote 

agricultural soil health (e.g., minimum tillage, nutrient management, cover crops) as well 

as additional conservation practices as needed to "h11p and treat" nutrient losses when and 

where they occur. The ACPF provides a way to identify those locations in agricultural 

landscapes where water accumulates and that are suited for the placement of "trap and 

treat" conservation practices. The ACPF is a set of tools, and the combined results 

provide an 'inventory' of conservation opportunities found in fields, below fields, and in 

riparian zones where water quality improvement and other ecosystem services can be 

realized. 

Soil organic matter is key to many aspects of conservation, including the ability of the 

soil to hold water and nutrients until the crop requires them. Additionally, increasing soil 

organic matter provides many ecosystem services and conservation benefits. ARS 

scientists have developed a research and data network called GRAC:Enet, (Qreenhouse 

gas Reduction through Agricultural ~arbon ]:;;nhancement network) which spans 36 ARS 

research locations collecting data on management practices that increase soil organic 

matter and soil carbon storage. This has resulted in development of standard sampling 

and measurement protocols, improved quantification of conservation benefits, notable 

improvements to the ability of both USDA and EPA to do required agricultural 

greenhouse gas inventory reporting, and provided much of the basis for development of 

decision support tools such as NRCS's COMET-Fann and COMET-Planner tools. 

The ARS Resilient Economic ,c\l(ricultural Practices (REAP; initially called Renewable 

Energy Assessment Project) effort has developed cropping systems, cover cropping 

practices, residue management and tillage harvest strategies. The goal of this effort is the 

utilization of crop residues in such a way that also maintains or enhances soil health and 

quality, allowing for increased utilization of the biomass produced, increased margin for 

the producer, and reduced negative impact on the environment. ARS REAP science has 

been utilized in conservation and renewable energy programs at USDA Rural 

Development and NRCS as well as by the Department of Energy. 

ARS scientists arc researching a variety of practices and technologies that improve the 

management and use efficiency of nutrients in agricultural systems. Research and data on 

precision fertilizer practices such as changing the timing of application or the placement 

of the nutrients have resulted in new strategies that increase the amount of nutrients used 
180 

by crops and reduce losses to the environment. Development of tools for quantifying the 

use, efficiency and loss of nutrients have been developed (such as the Nitrate Lcal"l1ing 

and Economic Analvs ~ Pa.:ka~te LN-LEAP]) as well as related decision suppon systems 

(e.g., the Gr~t Plnins Ft~mcwork for A!!Jicultural Rt-sourcr Manag~mcnt [GPFARM)) 

which help land managers reduce their environmental impact and improve conservation 

on their lands. Similarly, ARS researchers have developed numerous manure treatment 

and application practices and technologies to ensure that the nutrients in animal manures 

are captured and utilized rather than lost to the environment. 

Remote sensing research at ARS has a long history of the development of methods, data, 

analysis and tools that are useful to NRCS for conservation planning and programs as 

well as to USDA- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and other agencies. 

One recent example is related to remote sensing techniques to map leaf area index (LAl). 

LAI is a key parameter used in land surface flux estimates, water resource management, 

and crop gro\\1h monitoring. Current coarse resolution leaf area index tools - at the 

kilometer scale - are sufficient for global, continental, and regional scale 

applications. Agricultural field scale applications, however, require leaf area index with 

both high spatial and temporal resolution. ARS scientists have developed an automated 

mapping method for leaf area index that generates a four-day time-series of a 30-meter 

leaf area index. This method was tested over central Nebraska from 2002 to 2012 and 

showed promise for generating frequent map leaf area indices at field scales -using data 

from current satellites. This approach demonstrates potential for crop modeling at field 

scales, which is information needed by NASS for crop condition monitoring and yield 

estimates. 

The above an: clear examples of ARS efforts and tools that have been developed and 

which can be used in volunteer conservation programs or conservation activities on farms 

and ranches - across the country and throughout the world, either by direct access, 

through USDA conservation program office and NRCS conservation technicians, or by 

partnering with ARS, NRCS or other USDA experts. 

I I. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative addresses the critical needs of the ~-peciahy crop 

industry from plant breeding and genomics, to pest and disease management, and 

innovative technologies. What are some groundbreaking research examples of how this 

program used? What is the retum on investment of this program to the specialty crop 

industry and the economy? How are these funds being used to support both bas.ic and 

applied specialty crop research? 

Response: A basic tenet of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRl) is that all 

projects funded produce outcomes that lead to a sustainable future for agricultural 

production, with a major emphasis of new knowledge being translated into useable 

information that producers can implement during the life of the project. Since 2012, 

SCRl has funded 83 projects totaling $193,04 1,063. 
181 

Pollination is an absolute requirement for sustainable production of specialty crops. 

Declines in honey bee and native pollinator populations, as well as increased acreage of 

crops that require cross pollination, have threatened specialty crop producers. To address 

this need, NlF A, through SCRI, funded the Integrated Crop Pollinator project led by Dr. 

Rufus Isaacs at Michigan State University. Research sites for this proj ect have provided 

vi!\ibility to the lCP project on over I 0,000 acres of specialty crop fields across more than 

I 00 farms. ln Florida, the project has influenced how growers use pesticides. thus 

avoiding not just impacts on bees but also reducing groundwater contamination. In 

Pennsylvania pumpkins, one grower bas cut honey bee stocking rate in half, from 1 to 0.5 

hives/acre without a decrease in yield. This has resulted in a savings of about $ I 4,000 per 

year for this one grower. 

The Rosaceae crop family includes many important crops such as apple, blackberry, 

peach, pear, rose, strawberry, sweet and tart cherry, and roses. Growers of these crops 

have expressed a need for new varieties that display disease resistance and J>upcrior 

quality of fruits or flowers. Developing new cult-ivars of many Rosaceae crops can take 

longer than I 0 years, however. Since 2009, the SCRI bas invested more than S 13,000,000 

in the RosBreed project, led by Dr. Amy lezzoni at Michigan State University. This 

proj ect brings modern genomic and genetics tools, in a nationally coordinated effort, to 

augment the efforts of traditional breeders in the efforts to efficiently and effectively 

deliver cultivars with producer-required disease resistances and market-essential 

horticultural quality within time frames that are useful to t:he commercial sector. By 

combining fundamental genomic discovery with practical breeding, the RosBreed team 

has been able to cut the time required to develop new cultivars in half, while saving 

individual breeding programs hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

12. As we prepare for the 2018 Farm Bill, there clearly arc some areas where research and 

data can have a direct impact on bow well the farm safety net functions. 

a. Federal Crop Insurance is a critical pan of the farm safety net that is delivered 

through a partnership between USDA and private companies and agents. The cost 

in premiums to producers for these crop insurance policies is based on the level of 

risk for their particular crop, location and coverage options. There are certain 

management practices such as cover crops or different types of precision 

agriculture that appear to reduce the risks of losses in addition to other benefits to 

tbc environment and input costs. To what extent have the research agencies or 

USDA sponsored or summarized research projects that could be directly 

applicable to this question of risk reduction? Please summarize any specific 

•·esults and the degree that risk was reduced. Have you coordinated with the Risk 

Management Agency to share these results, or used their prog.ram and actuarial 

needs to target future research? 

Response: There is growing interest in what farmers can do to improve soil 

quality (soil health) and how that may increase crop yields or reduce yield 

variability. For example, healthier soils can increase drought resilience by 

capturing and retaining moisture in the soil and making it available for plant 
182 

growth. An extensive review of the agronomic literature by the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 

(http:.• \vwv.-. nrcs. usda. gov:wps· porta l'nrcs:detailfu 11/soils/hea I th· 

numl''1cid=stelprdbl257753) suggests that soil health can be improved under a 

wide range of soil and climatic conditions, but only through the consistent 

application of a suite of practices over a period of years. Soil health can be built 

through long-term and continuous use of no-till, cover crops, double cropping, 

mulching, and rotation with permanent grass, such as pasture or hay. For 

example, continuous no-till used in conjunction with high residue/cover crops can 

have a positive effect on key soil properties including soil organic matter, soil 

aggregate size and stability, water infiltration, and water-holding capacity. There 

is also some research to suggest that precision agriculture can improve yields and 

reduce yield variability. ERS research shows that GPS mapping, guidance 

systems, and VRT reduce input costs and increase yields. 

While there is strong evidence that some practices could be used to improve soil 

health, there is no database linking the use of specific practices to yield 

experience that could be used to rate crop insurance premiums. In crop insurance 

analysis published to date, ERS has used statistical analysis derived from actual 

yield data and not from agronomic models. While the fonner approach is likely 

produce analysis that is representative of the real world, the downside is that it 

requires sufficient data to obtain statistically meaningful results; there is 

insufficient yield data linked to specific practices benefiting soil health that is 

available to ERS to date, to do analysis of how yield would change, and 

consequently how premium rates would change. RMA already makes 

adjustments for many common practices that are known to impact 

yields. However, ERS has published research on the risk reduction provided by 

federal crop insurance more generally, and on the impacts of policy changes on 

risk reduction. ERS found that on average for the US, if farmers adopted the 

Revenue Protection insurance policy with a 75 percent coverage rate, their 

downside revenue risk protection increases by around 200 percent for com and 

soybeans and around 550 percent for winter wheat 

(https :: ·www.crs .usda. gov •pu blicatio us/pub-detai Is:'?puhid=45 515). 

Statistical analysis presented at an ERS-sponsored workshop (The Economics of 

Soil Health, September 2015, 

https : . .'\\ ww. fatmtounda lion. org,'wcbcon tent· Economics-of-Soi 1-Health-

!914.aspx) show that soil quality is strongly predictive of yields and that models 

including measures of soil quality could be used to better predict insurance 

premiums. Nonetheless, links between the use of specific practices and soil 

quality or soil health have not yet been clearly quantified and may depend 

significantly on soil characteristics and climate. 

b. The Farm Service Agency's Agriculture Risk Coverage program relies of 

thousands of yields by crop and county in order to calculate guarantees and 

payments. The program relies particularly on yield data collected by NASS 
183 

through surveys of producers. In some cases, insufficient responses are received 

despite repeated attempts by NASS, but I understand that N ASS does not have the 

option of increasing the sample size. Is this restriction of expanding the number of 

producers surveyed related to budget constraints or other restrictions such as the 

paperwork reduction act requirements? Are there any areas where added 

flexibility would provide NASS county-level data more consistently, instead of 

requiring FSA to switch between data sources? 

Response: NASS contacts over 365,000 farmers throughout the country to collect 

data to publish county estimates. There are four modes of data collection: mail, 

internet, telephone and personal interview. NASS has partnered with associations 

marketing the survey which resulted in more counties published for the 

commodity of interest. An increase in resources would allow NASS to improve 

the marketing plan informing the farmers the benefits of responding to NASS 

surveys. Currently, NASS utilizes unpaid media opportunities such as USDA 

Radio, RFD-TV interviews, national news releases, reminders in weekly crop 

progress and monthly crop production reports, short items for use in FSA 

newsletters, USDA blogs when available and Twitter to gamer earned media 

coverage that encourages response to these and other surveys. We provide 

enumerator training materials, news release templates, survey cover letters, etc. 

for regional offices to localize so that our own staff have pertinent information 

and can leverage local knowledge and connections. Additionally, we've built 

partnerships with national commodity organizations for wheat, com, and 

soybeans to help further encourage farmers and ranchers to respond. All have 

included content in their member communications. 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

I. Given that domestic production is not able to keep up with growing demand for organic 

products, and the fact that organic research benefits all farmers, what role can ARS play 

in fiuihering organic research, particularly for farmers interested in transitioning to 

organic? As we examine agriculture research in the next Farm Bill, how can we best 

focus organic research to increase our output of organic products? 

Response: The information below explains ARS' role in organic research. 

What role can ARS play in furthering organic research, particularly for farmers 

interested in transitioning to organic? The biggest challenges to increased domestic 

organic production today are: i) an insufficient number of organic farmers due to 

transition issues, and ii) insufficient yields in existing organic farms, due to production 

issues. ARS is well positioned to further both transition and production issues through its 

research, which has greatly improved our understanding of many aspects of organic weed 

control and soil fertility. 

How can we best focus organic research to increase our output a,{ organic products.?The 

focus should be on improving varieties of both crops and cover crops to meet specific 
184 

needs of organic fanners. ARS has a cover crop project to suppress weeds and maintain 

soil moisture, and to assess available gcnnplasm with insect and disease resistance that 

includes both crops and cover crops. Additionally, there is a need for more organic 

research to be conducted over the long term at a vatiety of locations, as production results 

are currently more site-specific for organic farming systems than for conventional 

farming systems due to the strong dependence of organic systems on soil types, weather 

and other local features. 

2. Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio is the newel>1 1890 land-grant, even though 

it has been around for quite some time. It's my understanding that CSU has already 

started a STEM summer program to engage middle-school students in agriculture related 

fields. How is ARS working with Central State and other HBCU's to increase capacity at 

the University and to best utilize its existing strengths? 

Response: ARS Midwest Area officials and scientists from the ARS research location in 

Columbus, Ohio, have met with Central State University representatives several times 

since August 2016 to discuss potential research collaborations. It was agreed that soil 

nutrient management is an area of common interest. 

ARS' overall support ofHBCUs and 1890 institutions, includes, but is not limited to, the 

USDA's 1890 National Scholar Program and the ARS Faculty Research Fellowships for 

Capacity Building at 1890 Land Grant Universities. In December 2016, a Central State 

University professor, Dr. DeBonoe Wishart, was awarded an ARS Faculty Research 

Fellowship for Capacity Building at 1890 Land Grant Universities to work with ARS 

researchers in Columbus. 

At Central State University, ARS provides ruition, fees, books, and salary for one scholar. 

The second-year student is an Agricultural Engineering major and currently gaining 

invaluable research experience at the ARS Sugarcane Research Unit in Houma, 

Louisiana. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

I. Minnesota farmers have been able to improve the efficiency of com production and have 

increased the yield of com per acre. In order to take advantage ofthese production 

improvements, it is critical that we expand the end uses for com and other agricultural 

conunodities to add value to every bushel. 

a. What research initiatives have the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) undertaken to expand the uses 

of agricultural commodities in non-food markets? 

Response: ARS engages in long-term problem-solving, postharvest utilizationresearch that does not involve foods (e.g. com) for non-food purposes. However, 

com stover and dried distiller grains (containing com kernel waste) are used as 
185 

feedstocks in biorcfining efforts by numerous ARS scientists generating new, 

commercialized products such as: sugars, biochars, carotenoids, lipids, acids 

(butaric, itaconic, triacedic, succinic), hydrogels, films/polymers, plashes, nylon, 

oaoomaterials, xylitol, antimicrobial agents, cosmetics and phannaceuticals. 

b. How could existing research programs be improved in the next Fann Bill to 

expand the uses of agricultural commodities and better leverage private and 

public investment'! 

Response: ARS is funded by the Agriculture Appropriation Bill tasked with longtenn, problem-solving research, such as solving wasted food/food waste; which is 

an excellent example of leveraging public and private investments utilizing 

agricultural cormnoditics. ARS in collaboration with industry has utilized gr'din 

and plant material -- be it from fresh fruit and vegetable processing or grain 

distillation (i.e. alcoholic beverage production)-- in product development 

generating new foods such as cookies, health-food bars, and non-gluten food 

wraps. This ARS/private investment, in addition to generating new foods from 

processing 'waste', has helped feed, with existing agricul!ural sources, the ever 

increasing population while generating new commercial enterprises. ARS is 

perfectly positioned to expand the aforementioned public/private investment 

examples to many other agricultural commodities. 

c. Wllat opportunities do you see for new programs to expand uses for agricultural 

commodities? 

Response: The research conducted by the USDA ARS supports the rural 

communities oftbe United States by providing more efficient, environmentally 

safe, and profitable methods and technology for the Nation's fanners and 

producers of food, feed, and fiber. In this effort a few examples of foreseeable 

postharvest utilization-research efforts that expand agricultural commodities are: 

• Simpler, cheaper, and more accurdte methods for mycotoxin detection and 

removal that will reduce exposure to human toxins (e.g., vomitoxin and 

fumonisins) and facilitate U.S. grain exports; 

• Novel alternatives to antibiotics that address the emerging problem of 

antimicrobial resistance; 

New renewable agriculture-based lubricants and lubricant additives that 

reduce automobile emissions, improve fuel efficiency, and extend engine life; 

• Next-generation, plant-based packaging materials for fresh food products (i.e .. 

meat and produce) that reduce microbial contamination, including antibiotic 

resistant bacteria; 

• New food products from food waste that promote human health using waste 

cereal grains, oilseeds, and non-traditional food plants; 

• Environmentally friendly biological control agents for insects (i.e., 

mosquitoes that transmit the Zika virus) and microbial pests and pathogens of 

plants and animals. 
186 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Gary McMurray 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

1. Given your role on one of the Scientific Advisory Council members for the Foundation 

for Food and Agriculture Research, can you discuss your experience of working with the 

FFAR? What are the greatest strengths of funding research in this novel way? What are 

the greatest challenges? 

Answer: I have been involved at FFAR since the advisory councils were created in the Spring 

of 2016. Originally, I was on the Food System Innovation council, but in December of 2016, 

they reorganized the councils to align more closely to the research priorities for FFAR and I 

moved to the Food Waste and Loss council. I believe that the first year of being on the 

council has been one of great change as FFAR has attempted to build a new organization to 

address the major issues it has identified. I think that this is to be expected with any new 

organization and I believe that the new structure is very good. I believe that the 

organization is nimble in that it can fund high quality projects very quickly and that is 

unusual for most agencies. They have assembled an extremely experienced group of council 

members with a diverse set of backgrounds which I believe is very important to obtaining 

the goals of FFAR. The greatest challenge FFAR has is their ability to raise matching funds. 

For example, it can be difficult for junior faculty to obtain matching funds from industry at 

the level required for some of the larger grants. In addition, understanding the selection 

process and how and why FFAR moves forward with some projects/priorities and not 

others, is something the community as a whole does not understand clearly. 

2. You mentioned your work on sensor technology. Can you discuss how you are applying 

this technology to address challenges in both plant and animal health? 

Answer: We are using a variety of different sensors in both plant and animal health. We are 

using imaging with machine learning algorithms in poultry grow out houses to monitor the 

weight of the birds in real time. We also use imaging of plants from low flying unmanned 

aerial vehicles to monitor the growth rate of individual plants. In agriculture, identifying 

plants or animals that are statistically different is an early indicator of disease infection and 

this allows for early interventions. 

We are also using the micro-gas chromatograph that we have developed for identification 

of diseases in both plants and animals through the analysis of the volatile organic 

compounds emitted by plants and animals when infected by a disease. This sensor provides 

a unique insight into what is happening at the cellular level of the plants and animals. This is 
187 

a new sensing modality, but one that could have significant impact for early disease 

detection in plants and animals. 

We are also developing novel root sensors to monitor changes in the root mass over time. 

At this time, the only method to examine the roots is to use a shovel to dig up the plant or 

tree to examine the roots not a very practical method for an actual farm. We are 

developing techniques that would provide farmers with a minimally invasive technique of 

monitoring the root mass using a technology called electro-resistive tomography and 

electro-capacitive tomography. 

For live animals, we are actually monitoring the sounds that chickens make in a poultry 

grow-out house. These sounds can be used to monitor an entire flock to determine stress 

due to temperature or ammonia levels in the house or infection due to a variety of diseases. 

This technique can provide an early warning detection systems and a general animal 

welfare indicator for animal production. 

3. In your testimony you discussed bringing engineering and robotic technology into the 

agricultural space. Robots can now be used to milk cows and has other applications 

across the industry. This new technology is even more important now due to the 

challenges many specialty crops growers face with workforce uncertainty and pest and 

disease. Can you explain how your research on robotics can be used to help solve 

current challenges faced by specialty crop growers? Can you describe the value of 

integrating science to find innovative solutions to today's problems? 

Answer: The application of robotic systems has grown dramatically in the past few years. 

The number of industries outside of automotive and electronic manufacturing that use 

robotics as a key part of their operations is amazing. There are several key areas in 

agriculture where robotics is making and will provide significant value to the growers. The 

first is harvesting. The business case for automation is simple: we are growing more 

specialty crops that need to be harvested several times over the season and a judgement is 

required by the human to decide what is ready to harvest. Given the significant issues with 

labor supply for these types of tasks, turning to automation is a natural fit and there are 

several systems coming out that will attempt to solve this problem at an affordable price 

point. 

The other major task that is ideally suited for robotics is crop maintenance. Given that we 

lose 12% of our crops to disease and another 16% to pests, robotic systems give the grower 

the ability to scout the fields on an almost continuous basis with a combination of 

unmanned aerial and ground vehicles (UAVs and UGVs). The next task is the development 

of sensors and the analytical capability to interpret the data to identify diseased plants and 

pests on an individual plant basis. By doing this, the goal would be to reduce the loss of 

plants due to disease or pest and thus directly improve the yield of the farms. It would also 

allow for targeted interventions that could dramatically reduce the cost and unintentional 

drift of chemicals during traditional spraying operations. 
188 

The sensing required to identify presymptomatic plants and plants infected with pests is a 

very difficult problem. Current techniques can identify plants after they have suffered 

rather significant damage and have affected a rather large area. Identifying this on a plant 

by plant basis is very challenging. This is a great example of how the collaboration between 

engineers and scientists can solve big problems. As an engineer working in robotics for over 

25 years, I was not even aware that the ability to detect infected plants was a critical 

problem. The scientists were keenly aware of the problem but they had resigned 

themselves to the fact that no solution existed. When the two groups began to talk, we 

quickly realized that robots were the key enabling technology for this problem because of 

their ability to provide the 24/7 coverage of the fields that was necessary (this was a topic 

of much work in the military and security industry for years). We also realized that we could 

apply concepts from the chemical and biological sensing communities of the military to the 

tasks of detecting the volatile organic compounds emitted by the plants. Only through 

getting experts in these very different technical domains were we able to recognize and 

brain storm a solution to the problem. 

I feel that this is not an unusual experience. The type of basic science that USDA and other 

federal organizations has funded for years has made significant discoveries. However, it 

requires the union of scientists and engineers to transfer that knowledge from the 

laboratory into a practical solution for the real world. 

When I look at the other critical problems facing agriculture, I see that this same process of 

bringing in experts in diverse domains is critical to solving them. This includes problems 

such as high throughput phenotyping, water optimization, food safety, and automation of 

field tasks. 

4. With an aging farmer population, agriculture needs to attract more young people, and 

our colleges and universities can help do that. Young people can help transform the 

agricultural industry by applying new technologies and new thinking. What are the 

greatest challenges for getting students at colleges and universities engaged in 

agricultural science programs and going into careers in agriculture? What are the 

greatest gaps in our current agricultural education programs? Can you describe the job 

prospects for students graduating with degrees in agricultural sciences? 

Answer: Georgia Tech is not a land-grant institution and does not an extensive background 

in agricultural sciences when compared to traditional land-grants. However, we are very 

interested in engaging with students around the technology for agriculture. We are 

currently running two classes at Georgia Tech in a former NSF program called VIP (Vertically 

Integrated Projects). These are project classes that are open to sophomores, juniors, and 

seniors from all engineering and computer science majors and they work with a faculty 

member and their graduate students on a long-term project. Currently, we are teaching one 

class on agricultural robotics and another class on technology for humanitarian aid and they 

are both very popular. 
189 

For our students, we find that they are very open to all problems where they feel that they 

can make a difference. These classes provide an environment where the professors are 

leaders in their areas and they bring in experts from the other relevant domains so that the 

students can contribute in a meaningful way. 

At the U.S. non-land-grant engineering research universities, agriculture is not typically a 

central research domain. While there are individuals that are doing some work in 

agriculture, there is no systematic education of the critical problems or opportunities in this 

space. Our students are looking for opportunities to solve the critical problems of the day. 

NIFA's leadership has made efforts to reach out to these non-traditional entities, but I feel 

that USDA should find a way to engage with the major engineering schools in a more 

systematic manner to bring the problems of agriculture to the forefront of engineering 

research. In this way, graduate students and the undergraduate will be exposed to the 

problems and opportunities in agriculture. Given the inherent multidisciplinary nature of 

agriculture, this will lead to new opportunities for the land-grant and non-land grant 

institutions to develop the required transformational innovations that are required to feed 

the world in 2050 and beyond. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. We have a real shortage of skilled agricultural labor in New York and I saw in the written 

testimony that Georgia Tech is working with some very systems to reduce labor inputs 

in fields, orchards, and processing plants. 

Two things in your testimony jumped out at me, the first is the sophistication of the 

visual and robotic systems created at Georgia Tech and the second is their tremendous 

complexity. I am a bit concerned that the cost of these systems will put them out of 

reach for all but the largest companies or farmers. 

As you conduct your research, do you think about technology that is appropriate to 

farmers who grow or process at different scales? 

Answer: The cost of new technology is always an issue that concerns many end users. 

However, I have seen and continue to see the cost of these systems coming down 

dramatically as new innovations occur. For instance, much of research benefits from the 

use of a 3D camera- a camera that can provide the 3D location of points that it sees. 

Fifteen years ago, researchers were paying $30,000 for a single camera. Today, we can 

purchase an Xbox Kinect camera for $150 and get the same performance. The same is 

true for robotic arms. Instead of paying $100,000 for a robotic arm, we can currently 

purchase a similar arm for approximately $25,000. The cost of unmanned aerial vehicles 

has dropped even more dramatically in the past 10 years. I believe that if the research 
190 

community can develop the technology to provide outstanding value to the farmers, the 

free market system has been very successful at reducing the price to an affordable level. 

The issue of scale in engineering is always important. For many problems, the issue is 

how do we do things faster and better? This can many times lead to expensive solutions 

that are not affordable to average farmer. I believe that the market will deploy these 

solutions once the value of the technologies has been proven; however, this still 

requires more research. 

2. I saw that some of the research at Georgia Tech is focused on detecting pathogens like 

Salmonella in poultry. 

Food safety is very important to me and I know everyone on the Committee shares my 

concern. 

Can you tell us about the research on Salmonella detection and where you think we 

might see this technology deployed- in the processing plant or on the farm? 

Could the use of pathogen detection technologies change the way poultry farmers care 

for their flocks? Could it be used to make management decisions like whether to 

administer antibiotics? 

Answer: At GTRI, we have a long history of developing sensors for novel applications. 

For the Department of Defense, we have developed a variety of sensors for the rapid 

detection of chemical and biological agents. Building on this technology, our team has 

developed sensors that can detect the presence of Salmonella and Avian Influenza for 

the poultry industry. 

Our work has mainly focused on the food processing environment to provide feedback 

to the plant operations staff on the effectiveness of the chemical interventions. For this 

task, our focus has been on the collection of water samples at various points in the 

processing plant. We are exploring the use of nano-particles to extract out any 

Salmonella that might be present and concentrate it down to a sample that can be run 

through our micro-fluidic device. This device can provide an answer the presence or 

absence of Salmonella in several minutes. 

In the live production of poultry, rapid detection of pathogens requires a physical 

sample from the bird for testing. This is expensive and difficult given the size of the 

flocks. However, we are developing other technologies that can help farmers manage 

their flocks without taking physical samples from each bird. One project that has 
191 

tremendous promise is our bird audio work. This project continuously listens to the 

sounds of the birds to detect the unique sounds that the birds make in response to 

stress (temperature or ammonia levels) or a disease. In addition, we are deploying 

mobile robots that can build 3D models of the birds to monitor their weight gain as well 

as look at other physical parameters such as the gait of the birds or mobility of the birds. 

The application of this technology to actual managing of a poultry flock is an example of 

potential collaboration between the engineering and animal science community. The 

development of new sensor systems and the various methods of deploying them is a 

strong point of engineering. However, the engineers need to partner with the animal 

science to understand how to interpret the data and use the data to improve the health 

ofthe flocks. The general question of how this data could help growers make decisions 

about when to administer antibiotics is an open question and one worthy of more 

research. 
192 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes tor the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

I. Dr. Ramaswamy, the Organic Transitions Program supports "the development and 

implementation of research, extension and higher education programs to improve the 

competitiveness of organic livestock and crop producers, as well as those who are adopting 

organic practices." Various colleges and universities arc eligible entities for these grants, and 

prioritization for the program occurs in consultation with the National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB). How has this 

consultation process incorporated the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that the NAREEEAB 

consult with industry groups and make recommendations based on that consultation? 

Response: The NAREEEAB provides general oversight and advice for all research, 

education, and economics programs of USDA's REE mission area, including the Organic 

Transitions Program (OTP) managed by NIFA. The advisaty board meets two times a year 

and the executive committee meets via teleconference at least once a month. Information 

about OTP and other NlFA programs are shared with the NAREEEAB. During the last few 

years, the advisory board has undertaken "adequacy and relevance" analysis of REE 

programs, including nutrition, food safety, and climate change; likely undertaking such an 

analysis of OTP and other programs, as well. Additionally, the National Organic Standards 

Board provides input to NIF A about the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension 

Initiative (ORE!) and the OTP program, which has helped NIFA develop priorities of 

relevance to the organic industry. 

2. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP), under NIFA, was 

created to provide educational and technical assistance to new farmers. The Agricultural Act 

of 2014 provided more than $100 million in mandatory funding for this program. Beyond 

BFRDP, there was an additional S83 million provided in mandatory funding to new and 

underserved farmers, for Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Fatmers and 

Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers and CRP-TIP. New farmers were also eligible 

for federal crop insurance premium reductions, using mandatory funds from the 2014 Farm 

Bill. The upcoming reauthorization is unlikely to result in new mandatory funding, and the 

BFRDP is one of the 2014 Fmm Bill programs without a budget baseline after fiscal year 

2018. How has the work of the BFRDP helped address the issues related to the rising average 

age of U.S. farmers, as well as the overall decrease in number of farmers and ranchers? 

Could limited funds be better utilized tor beginning farmers and ranchers more broadly? 

Response: The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) provides 

grants to organizations for education, mentoring, and technical assistance initiatives for 

beginning farmers or ranchers. Project work ensures that there will be a new generation of 

beginning farmers and ranchers regardless of age or production choice which is important to 
193 

the continuation of agricultural production in the United States. In accordance with the 

Agricultural Act of2014, priority is given to partnerships and collaborations led by or 

including nongovernmental, community-based organizations and school-based agricultural, 

educational organizations with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach. 

At least 5 percent of the funds support programs and services that address the needs of 

beginning farmers or ranchers with limited resources; socially disadvantaged beginning 

farmers or ranchers; and farm workers desiring to become farmers or ranchers. Also, at least 

5 percent of the funds support programs and services that address the needs of veteran 

farmers and ranchers. A third party is currently conducting the first ever comprehensive 

evaluation ofBFRDP funded projects to date, by analyzing qualitative and quantitative data 

from project reports, conducting additional evaluation activities as needed, and assessing the 

long-term impacts of completed projects for which data has not yet been collected. The 

results from this evaluation should be complete and publicly available by mid-2018. 

3. Please provide a breakdown of the funds allocated to each Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative (AFRI) priority areas since the enactment of the Agricultural Act of2014. 

Additionally, please provide the percentage of the total funds each priority area has received 

annually, out of the overall funding provided to AFRI. 

Response: The information on the breakdown of the funds allocated to each Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative (AFRI) priority areas since the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 

2014 is provided for the record. The AFRI Program is currently receiving proposals for 

Fiscal Year 20 17; therefore, no awards have been made using FY 2017 funds. 

SubTotal $281,813 96% 1305 95% $271,234,358 

1 •Paymen\stoStates.ft.maunt $192,740,853 $297,111,946 

Federai Admin/Sma!J Business/Biote<:h.Risk/Peer Pane! Costs $23,668,147 $27,888,054 

AppropnationAmount $316,409,!XX! $32S,oo::l,OCO 

Untracked Data $1M27,548 4% $15,037,SZ6 5% 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

I. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2017 (P.L. 115-31 ), Congress directed NIFA 

to give priority to projects addressing the opioid abuse epidemic in rural communities 

when considering applications for the Rural Health and Safety Education Competitive 

Grants program. Are there additional N!FA programs or projects that can improve the 
194 

health and wellbeing of rural communities and small towns, including by addressing the 

opioid epidemic? Please describe. 

Response: Economic productivity in tural America is linked to the health and well-being 

of its individuals, families, and communities. Supported in part by NIFA 's Smith-Lever 

funds, Cooperative Extension Services at land-grant universities across the nation are 

empowering local residents to lead healthier lifestyles and prevent chronic diseases and 

other health issues through unbiased, research-based programming and informational 

resources. The opioid epidemic is a major issue that rural communities across the country 

are facing. 

Through Smith-Lever funds, Michigan State Extension delivers a program titled Personal 

Action Toward Health (PATH) to Michigan residents, including those in rural areas, 

focused on long-term pain management issues. Examples of subjects covered in PATH 

include appropriate use of medications and how to evaluate new treatments. To further 

bolster efforts in the state to combat the opioid epidemic, in May, Michigan State 

Extension hired an Extension Educator to serve as the state lead for opioid abuse 

prevention coordination. Other related Extension programs focus include a farm stress 

reduction program which addressed mental health among farm families. 

Also through Smith-Lever funds, the Ohio State University Extension has partnered with 

the College of Pharmacy on campus to expand the use of the Generation Rx program in 

communities across Ohio to prevent the misuse of prescription drugs. Extension 

educators will be trained to use Generation Rx opioid educational resources and then 

build community coalitions to support these educational efforts. To address mental health 

in rural Ohio, OSU Extension was awarded a grant from the North Central Regional 

Center for Rural Development to train Extension educators on the Mental Health First 

Aid Program, which builds mental health literacy skills to help someone who is 

developing a mental health problem or experiencing a mental health crisis. 

2. The 2014 Farm Bill changed the matching requirements for funding some of the 

competitive grant programs. Can you explain how the implementation of these programs 

has gone from your perspective? What feedback have you heard from various 

stakeholders? 

Response: In accordance with Section 1492 of the National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as added by Section 7128 of the 

Agricultural Act of2014, the recipient of an award must provide funds, in-kind 

contributions, or a combination of both, from sources other than the funds provided 

through such grant in an amount that is at least equal to the amount awarded by NIF A 

unless one of the exemptions described herein is applicable (7 U.S.C 3371 ), which is 

extended to any institution receiving Capacity Funds, such as the 1862, 1890, and 1994 

Land-Grant Universities, Colleges or Schools of Forestry, Veterinary Medicine, or 

Human Sciences, along with Non-Land Colleges of Agriculture. The exceptions extend 

to applicants at institutions who partner with any of these institutions. NIFA is further 
195 

required to waive this match where proposed research or extension activities are 

consistent with the priorities established by the National Agricultural Research, 

Education, Extension, and Economics Advisory Board. This matching requirement has 

created undue burden for implementation, including the need for NIF A staff time and 

infrastructure for vetting of institutional applicants, without accomplishing any real 

leveraging of funds due to the large number of exemptions/exceptions/waivers. 

3. Obviously not every research proposal to NIFA can be funded. For NIF A competitive 

grants, about 13% of proposals are funded. If all proposals submitted to you in the past 

year were funded, how much money would that be, broken out by ranking categories 

(outstanding, high priority, and medium ptiority)? 

Response: Answer: The totals for FY 2015 received grant proposals is submitted for the 

record: 

Fiscal Year 2015 Submission Totals: 

Outstanding/High priority: $!,272,893,173 

Medium priority: $94,600,856 

Low priority: $2,275,473 

Others*: $108,329,746 

*S I 07M of Others were not revtewed by the full peer panel due to not makmg the review 

threshold; remaining proposals were rated Major Changes Needed Before Funding. 

4. What areas of focus does NIFA have regarding rural communities (beyond agriculture)? 

Response: One of the priorities enshrined in the Agricultural Act of2014 is Agricultural 

economics and rural communities, which grants NIF A the authority to continue programs 

that advance science for that priority. Competitive programs like the Rural Health and 

Safety Education Competitive Grant Program address the needs of rural Americans 

through individual and family health education programs delivered through cooperative 

extension. Additionally, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) program 

area of Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities (AERC) supports projects that 

improve agricultural sustainability, protect the enviromnent, enhance quality of life for 

rural communities, and alleviate poveny. In FY 2016, AFRI AERC supponed projects in 

live program areas: I) economics, markets, and trade; 2) environmental and natural 

resource economics; 3) behavioral economics; 4) small and medium-sized farms; and 5) 

rural entrepreneurship. 

The five NIFA Regional Rural Development Centers (RRDCs) play a unique role in 

USDA's service to rural America by linking the research and educational outreach 

capacity of the nation's land-grant universities with communities, local decision-makers, 

entrepreneurs, families, and farmers, and ranchers to help address a wide range of 

development issues. RRDCs collaborate on national issues that span regions, and also 

respond to emerging issues, generate credible science-based information to clarify these 

issues, and create public-private partnerships to address them. 
196 

5. In the 2014 Farm Bill, the application process for USDA research programs was 

improved in order to make the process more streamlined. Can you explain specifically 

what changes were made, and how the implementation has gone? 

Response: NIF A has taken many steps to minimize the burden and streamline the 

application process for NIFA financial assistance awards by establishing governmentwide fonns for research, streamlined the process for additional increments of funding for 

continuation awards, just in time pilot (where only proposals selected for funding will be 

required to provide all supplementary forms and information), pre-application process, 

streamlining matching, and opportunities to streamline in future as more functionality is 

gained with the implementation of ezFedGrants. 

6. Agriculture is growing beyond our farmers' fields, and is now happening in many of our 

cities across the country. From small acre fanns to rooftops and indoor vertical fanning, 

new economic opportunities can be found through urban agriculture. Can you discuss 

research that needs to be done to suppot1 urban agriculture? 

Response: NIFA supports a broad spectrum of urban and community based agricultural 

projects through competitive grants programs and capacity programs, and indirectly 

through grants awarded and administered through regional centers. NIFA defines urban 

and community based agriculture as agricultural practices that take place within a 

community setting. Across our granting programs, we funded 127 projects related to 

urban and community based agriculture at a value of $34,773,341 in fiscal year 2015. 

States reported $2,703,000 expended on related capacity projects in the same year. 

Between 2009 and 2015, NIF A awarded a total of 831 competitive projects related to 

urban and community based agriculture at a value of$198,2!4,308, with States reporting 

capacity expenditures of$9,502,000. Of this total. $41,271,174 was awarded through the 

Community Foods Projects grant programs. Capacity funding is NIFA's support for 

research and extension activities at land-grant institutions through grants to the states on 

the basis of statutory formulas, as detc1mined by the Congress. See chart below 

illustrating NIF A administered research, education, and extension funding for urban 

agriculture related projects. 

Competitive Capacitv Total 

2009 $22,200,036 $607,000 $22,807,036 

2010 $33,744,367 $832,000 $34,576,367 

2011 $39,849,622 $806,000 $40,655,622 

2012 $26,309,244 $883,000 $27,192,244 

2013 $21,926,265 $1,483,000 $23,409,265 

2014 $19,411,433 $2,188,000 $21,599,433 

2015 $34,773,341 $2,703,000 $37,476,341 

Total $198,214,308 $9,502,000 $207,716,308 
197 

7. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest threats to public health. While there is 

speculation that antimicrobial use in food animals contributes to antimicrobial resistant 

bacteria, more evidence is needed to investigate those links as well as find solutions. A 

GAO report published on March 16,2017 titled "Antibiotic Resistance: More 

Information Needed to Oversee Use of Medically Important Drugs in Food Animals", 

made three recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture regarding this topic, though 

all focused on APHIS and FSTS. Can you please explain how the research and extension 

mission area at USDA is addressing antimicrobial resistance, including areas of research 

focus and efforts to share this information with producers? Can you explain how the 

research mission area at USDA coordinates with APHIS and FSIS on antimicrobial 

resistance? 

Response: Monitoring/surveillance, research, education, and outreach are 

interdependent. FSIS monitors for resistance through the National Antimicrobial 

Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) and ARS works closely with FSIS to further 

characterize emerging resistance. Communication of collaborative fmdings is through 

annual web reports, publications, and presentations, but can also be through blogs such as 

in the federal govemment's announcement of findings of colistin resistance in the U.S. 

last year: https ://www. usda. gov /media/blog/20 I 6/05/2 6/proacti ve-efforts-us-federalagencies-enable-early-detection-new-antibiotic. APHIS, in collaboration with NASS 

conducts on-farm sampling and surveys through the National Animal Health Monit01ing 

System (NAHMS). Monitoring helps to further inform research by identifYing how and 

why antibiotics are being used. APHIS communicates AMR-related information with 

producers and producer groups through several channels, including disseminating 

NAHMS findings via publications and presentations. ARS publishes and presents 

research. 

FSIS, APHIS, and ARS have an annual meeting where food safety researchers describe 

their current ongoing research, and FSIS/ APHIS define their needs and challenges faced 

in the field for researchers to address. Through ARS intramural research and NIF Afunded extramural research, USDA agencies are studying the ecology of AMR, exploring 

products to improve the health of animals to decrease the need for antibiotics and 

identifYing alternatives to antibiotics. In addition, the agencies are trying to identifY better 

management practices to address AMR. NIF A-funded AMR studies can be found at: 

http://cris.nifa. usda. gov I c gibin/starfinder/O?path~fastlink I .txt&id~anon&pass~&search~(GC~A41 71 l&formaPWE 

BTITLESGIY. Research feeds into education/outreach. Through NIFA's Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative (AFRJ) competitive program, NIFA awards grants that target 

research and either an education or outreach component. Since grantees have to include 

an education or outreach component, results of research can be immediately 

communicated and applied in real-world situations. 

8. With the average age of the American farmer increasing, we need to encourage the next 

generation to engage in agriculture in order to feed the future. How does your respective 
198 

agencies and programs help bring America's youth into agriculture? What are other ways 

to attract new farmers and ranchers? 

Response: The REE ageneies employ over I 00 interns every year in addition to 

participating in numerous conferences and outreach activities. 

NJFA specifically brings America's youth into agriculture through several programs. 

The 4-H Youth Development Program, or 4-H, is the youth outreach program 

from the land-grant institutions' cooperative extension services and USDA 

through NIF A. 4-H serves as a model program for the practice of positive youth 

development by creating positive learning experiences; positive relationships for 

and between youth and adults; positive, safe environments; and oppmtunitics for 

positive risk taking. NIFA-supported 4-H programs reaches over 6 million 

children across the United Stales. 

NJFA's Agriculture in the Classroom Program (A lTC) serves nearly 5 million 

students and 150,000 teachers annually through workshops, conferences, field 

trips, farm tours, and other educational activities. AITC programs include 

working with state AITC activities engaged in a variety of issues relating to 

agricultural literacy. Other programs emphasized by the NIFA AITC office 

include Science literacy, Agricultural careers, Nutrition and Pre-service and 

professional develop opportunities for teachers. 

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program provides grants to 

organizations for education, mentoring, and technical assistance initiatives for 

beginning farmers or ranchers. Ensuring there will be a "new generation" of 

beginning farmers and ranchers, regardless of age or production choice, is 

especially important lo the continuation of agricultural production in the U.S. 

Agricultural science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has 

been described as a "leaky pipeline," as fewer students remain as they progress through 

advanced study. NIF A's education programs are designed to enhance the pipeline 

through programs that support agricultural workforce development, increase student 

recruitment and retention, and build capacity. ARS, ERS, and NASS also engage students 

at all levels to help till the pipeline. 

9. In the past few years, we have seen several devastating animal disease outbreaks in the 

U.S., including highly pathogenic avian influenza and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. 

Does USDA have the appropriate authority and funding to adequately prepare for and 

investigate the next animal disease outbreak? 

Response: Yes, the Animal Health Protection Act (ARPA) gives USDA the authority it 

needs to address large animal health emergencies, such as the 2014-2015 outbreak of 

highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAJ). The ARPA gives USDA a wide range of 
199 

tools to address foreign animal disease outbreaks, which we utilize in coordination with 

our State regulatory partners, such as the ability to quarantine and restrict movement of 

animals. Additionally, the ARPA gives the Secretary, upon apportionment by the Office 

of Management and Budget, the authority to transfer emergency funding from other 

agencies and cmporations of the Department-typically the Commodity Credit 

Corporation-to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to address 

outbreaks. This authority provided the oveiWhelming majority of the funding utilized to 

respond to the HPAI outbreak in 2014-2015. 

Beyond that, USDA requested additional funding lor animal health emergencies in the 

2017 budget request. APHIS received an additional $24 million to improve the Agency's 

preparedness to detect, analyze, and respond to foreign and emerging animal health 

events. 

10. Can you discuss current research being conducted on pre-harvest interventions to address 

food safety concerns in meat and poultry'' 

Response: NIFA has funded 20 projects on pre-harvest food safety focused on meat and 

poultry, ranging from $50,000 to $25,000,000. These projects include research, 

education, and extension activities to reduce Shiga Toxin Producing E. coli (STEC) in 

beet; and Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry. Some projects are focused on 

reducing antimicrobial resistance. Four of the projects were or are currently being 

conducted at the Michigan State University. 

Dr. Shannon Manning just completed a project to improve the understanding of the 

factors affecting colonization and shedding of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli 

(STEC) in catUe. Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are major pathogens of 

humans, resulting in severe 11lness and occasionally death. About 29% of the cases in the 

U.S. are attributable to beef The information generated enhances our efforts to control 

this deadly pathogen and was provided to USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service to 

infom1 their regulatory decision-making. 

Dr. Julie Funk just completed a project on the epidemiology of shiga toxin-producing 

Escherichia coli (STEC) in pigs. This project filled a critical information gap regarding 

the prevalence of STEC on commercial swine farms, the factors associated with shedding 

of S TEC by swine, and the relationship between STEC isolated from swine to those 

isolated from cattle and humans. The information generated was provided to USDA's 

Food Safety and lnspection Service to inform their regulatory decision-making and to 

representatives of the swine industry. 

Dr. Linda Mansfield is working on two projects focused on improving the understanding 

of Campylobacter jejuni. Campylobacter is a major cause of gastroenteritis with vomiting 

and diatThea. 

II. What research is currently being done at your agencies on the effectiveness of voluntary 

conservation programs authorized in the Farm Bill in addressing natural resource 
200 

concerns, like water quality, drought, soil health, and wildlife habitat? Are there positive 

results or data from this research that you can share that will help justify the federal 

investment in voluntary conservation programs? Can you explain how do your agencies 

work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service on research to demonstrate the 

environmental outcomes from conservation activities on farms and ranches? 

Response: NIF A is conducting research, education, and outreach on the scientific bases 

or translational difficulties that might relate to conservation practices. In terms of efficacy 

of voluntary conservation programs, NIFA participated in the competitive funding of 

CEAP (Conservation Effects assessment Program) through the National Integrated Water 

Quality Program (NIWQP) where 13 watershed studies were funded to evaluate the 

efficacy of several cropland/grazingland conservation programs through retrospective 

analysis. A summary and series of Fact Sheets on the outcome of those studies is 

accessible at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/ws/?cid~stel 

prdb1047821. The lessons learned from this synthesis strengthen the knowledge base for 

evaluating the impacts of conservation practices on water quality, improving 

management of agricultural landscapes for improved water resource outcomes, and 

infonning conservation policy. 

Additionally, sustainable agricultural practices are intended to protect the environment, 

expand the Earth's natural resource base, and maintain and improve soil fertility. NIFA 

promotes sustainable agriculture through national program leadership and funding tor 

research and extension, offers competitive grants programs and a professional 

development program, and collaborates with other federal agencies through the USDA 

Sustainable Development Council. 

12. The Specialty Crop Research Initiative addresses the critical needs of the specialty crop 

industry from plant breeding and genomics, to pest and disease management, and 

innovative technologies. What arc some groundbreaking research examples of how this 

program used? What is the return on investment of this program to the specialty crop 

industry and the economy? How are these funds being used to support both basic and 

applied specialty crop research? 

Response: A basic tenet of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) is that all 

projects funded produce outcomes that lead to a sustainable future for agricultural 

production, with a major emphasis of new knowledge being translated into useable 

information that producers can implement during the life of the project. Since 2012, 

SCRI has funded 83 projects totaling $193,041,063. 

Pollination is an absolute requirement for sustainable production of specialty crops. 

Declines in honey bee and native pollinator populations, as well as increased acreage of 

crops that require cross pollination, have threatened specialty crop producers. To address 

this need, NIFA, through SCRI, funded the Integrated Crop Pollinator project led by Dr. 

Rufus Isaacs at Michigan State University. Research sites for this project have provided 

visibility to the ICP project on over 10,000 acres of specialty crop fields across more than 
201 

I 00 farms. In Florida, the project has influenced how growers use pesticides, thus 

avoiding not just impacts on bees but also reducing groundwater contamination. In 

Pennsylvania pumpkins, one grower has cut honey bee stocking rate in half, from I to 0.5 

hives/acre without a decrease in yield. This has resulted in a savings of about $14,000 per 

year for this one grower. 

The Rosaceae crop family includes many impot1ant crops such as apple, blackberry, 

peach, pear, rose, strawberry, sweet and tart cherry, and roses. Growers of these crops 

have expressed a need for new varieties that display disease resistance and superior 

quality of fruits or flowers. Developing new cultivars of many Rosaceae crops can take 

longer than I 0 years, however. Since 2009, the SCRI has invested more than $13,000,000 

in the RosBreed project, led by Dr. Amy lezzoni at Michigan State University. This 

project brings modem genomic and genetics tools, in a nationally coordinated effort, to 

augment the efforts of traditional breeders in the efforts to efficiently and effectively 

deliver cultivars with producer-required disease resistan~es and market-essential 

horticultural quality within time frames that are useful to the commercial sector. By 

combining fundamental genomic discovery with practical breeding, the RosBreed team 

has been able to cut the time required to develop new cultivars in half, while saving 

individual breeding programs hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

13. As we prepare for the 2018 Farm Bill, there clearly are some areas where research and 

data can have a direct impact on how well the farm safety net functions. 

a. Federal Crop Insurance is a critical part of the farm safety net fhat is delivered 

through a partnership between USDA and private companies and agents. The cost 

in premiums to producers for these crop insurance policies is based on the level of 

risk for their particular crop, location and coverage options. There are certain 

management practices such as cover crops or different types of precision 

agriculture that appear to reduce the risks of losses in addition to other benefits to 

the environment and input costs. To what extent have the research agencies of 

USDA sponsored or summarized research projects that could be directly 

applicable to this question of risk reduction° Please summarize any specific 

results and the degree that risk was reduced. Have you coordinated with the Risk 

Management Agency to share these results, or used their program and actuarial 

needs to target future research? 

Response: There is growing interest in what fa1mcrs can do to improve soil 

quality (soil health) and how that may increase crop yields or reduce yield 

variability. For example, healthier soils can increase drought resilience by 

capturing and retaining moisture in the soil and making it available for plant 

growth. An extensive review of the agronomic literature by the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/health/ 

mgnt/?cid~stelordbl257753) suggests that soil health can be improved under a 

wide range of soil and elimatic conditions, but only fhrough the consistent 
202 

application of a suite of practices over a period of years. Soil health can be built 

through long-term and continuous use of no-till, cover crops, double cropping, 

mulching, and rotation with permanent grass, such as pasture or hay. For 

example, continuous no-till used in conjunction with high residue/cover crops can 

have a positive effect on key soil properties including soil organic matter, soil 

aggregate size and stability, water infiltration, and water-holding capacity. There 

is also some research to suggest that precision agriculture can improve yields and 

reduce yield variability. ERS research shows that GPS mapping, guidance 

systems, and VRT reduce input costs and increase yields. 

While there is strong evidence that some practices could be used to improve soil 

health, there is no database linking the use of specific practices to yield 

experience that could be used to rate crop insurance premiums. In crop insurance 

analysis published to date, ERS has used statistical analysis derived from actual 

yield data and not from agronomic models. While the former approach is likely 

produce analysis that is representative of the real world, the downside is that it 

requires sufficient data to obtain statistically meaningful results; there is 

insufficient yield data linked to specific practices benefiting soil health that is 

available to ERS to date, to do analysis of how yield would change, and 

consequently how premium rates would change. RMA already makes 

adjustments for many common practices that are known to impact 

yields. However, ERS has published research on the risk reduction provided by 

federal crop insurance more generally, and on the impacts of policy changes on 

risk reduction. ERS found that on average for the US, if farmers adopted the 

Revenue Protection insurance policy with a 75 percent coverage rate, their 

downside revenue risk protection increases by around 200 percent for com and 

soybeans and around 550 percent for winter wheat 

(https ://www.ers. usda. gov /publications/pub-details/?pubid=4 5515). 

Statistical analysis presented at an ERS-sponsored workshop (The Economics of 

Soil Health, September 2015, 

https://www.tarmfoundation.org/webcontent/Economics-of-Soil-Health1914.aspx) show that soil quality is strongly predictive of yields and that models 

including measures of soil quality could be used to better predict insurance 

premiums. Nonetheless, links between the use of specific practices and soil 

quality or soil health have not yet been clearly quantified and may depend 

significantly 011 soil characteristics and climate. 

b. The Farm Service Agency's Agriculture Risk Coverage program relies of 

thousands of yields by crop and cow1ty in order to calculate guarantees and 

payments. The program relies particularly on yield data collected by NASS 

through sw-veys of producers. In some cases, insufficient responses are received 

despite repeated attempts by NASS, but I understand that NASS does not have the 

option of increasing the sample size. Is this restriction of expanding the number of 

producers SW"Vcyed related to budget constraints or other restrictions such as the 
203 

paperwork reduction act requirements? Are there any areas where added 

flexibility would provide NASS county-level data more consistently, instead of 

requiring FSA to switch between data sources? 

Response: NASS contacts over 365,000 farmers throughout the country to collect 

data to publish county estimates. There are four modes of data collection: mail, 

internet, telephone and personal inter·vicw. NASS has partnered with associations 

marketing the survey which resulted in more counties published for the 

commodity of interest. An increase in resources would allow NASS to improve 

the marketing plan informing the farmers the benefits of responding to NASS 

surveys. Currently, NASS utilizes unpaid media opportunities such as USDA 

Radio, RFD-TV interviews, national news releases, reminders in weekly crop 

progress and monthly crop production reports, short items for use in FSA 

newsletters, USDA blogs when aYailable and Twitter to garner eanted media 

coverage that encourages response to these and other surveys. We provide 

enumerator training materials, news release templates, survey cover letters, etc. 

for regional offices to localize so that our own staff have pertinent information 

and can leverage local knowledge and cmmections. Additionally, we've built 

partnerships with national commodity organizations for wheat, com, and 

soybeans to help further encourage farmers and ranchers to respond. All have 

included content in their member conununications. 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

1. It is my understanding that there is a new interpretation concerning the use of State 

Match funds for the 1890's programs listed in a NIFA communication dated 10124116. 

Per this document, prior approval of"Education Activities" is now required. However, 

the last published NIF A F AQ published in 2003, indicates that pre-approval of 

"Educational Activities" was not required and, in fact, were the responsibility of the 

University. Again, it is my understanding that this new interpretation is currently being 

applied to program reviews of expenditures made prior to the publication of the new 

interpretation. When N1F A is conducting a program review of expenditures prior to the 

posting of your new interpretation of October 24, 2016, which standard is used for 

expenditures? Shouldn't the expenditures be evaluated using the description given in the 

FAQ? Otherwise, doesn't this place an undue burden on the !890 Institutions to have to 

return funds used in manner accepted at the time of the expenditure? Please explain. 

Response: NIFA has been monitoring matching funds to ensure expenditures are 

reasonable, necessary, allocable, and expended consistent with the purpose of the law. To 

date, no education activities costs have been disallowed. However, in finding that match 

was being used to support the salaries of faculty for teaching of undergraduates, NJF A 

reviewed its regulations and guidance. The governing regulation, 7 CFR 3419, requires 

prior approval for qualifying education activities. The FAQ mentioned in the question is 

related to guidance and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was never finalized. NIFA 

issued clarification about the prior approval requirement in 7 CFR 3419 and indicated 
204 

that it would be implementing those requirements going forward. recognizing the 

previously un-finalized guidance UniYersities have been operating under. Additionally, 

NTF A is preparing a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) amending 7 CFR 

3419 to clarify allowable educational activities as well as matching requirements. The 

NPRM is expected to be published in Fall 2017, with universities being provided 60 days 

for notice and comment. 

2. Since most States that have both 1862 and 1890 institutions submit a joint plan of 

agricultural research work, how can the Committee encourage states to match each 

institution in the state at the equivalent amount, up to I 00%? 

Response: NIF A is compiling a list of total funding NIF A provides by state to 1862 and 

1890 institutions. l862s are required to provide 100% match; 1890s may request a waiver 

of up to 50% of match. For some programs, matching funds can be provided from any 

non-federal source (excluding tuition and fees). NIF A has just begun collecting 

infmmation about whether the match was provided by the state, rather than another 

source. When NIFA has a more complete picture of where matching funds have 

originated, NIFA plans to share such information on its website. 

3. Is Central State University (CSU) fully participating in the capacity (1890 extension and 

Evan Allen research) funding formula? If not, at what time will CSU fully participate 

based on the formula? Are there any criteria CSU should be aware of that will make them 

prepared to fully participate? Or is the $1 million CSU receives for each capacity 

program based on the fonnula? 

Response: The Agricultural Act of 2014 designated CSU as an 1890 Institution. While 

the designation was effective upon enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014, however, 

per the funding restrictions contained in the law, CS U was not eligible to receive certain 

formula funds, including Section 1444 and Evans-Allen Research funds, until FY 2016. 

CSU is fully participating in capacity (1890 extension and Evans-Allen research) 

funding. Iu FY 2016, under Section 1444, 1890 extension, CSU received $1,151,046 and 

in FY 17, the proposed funding level is $1,151 ,046, which will be adjusted once tinal 

budget calculations are made. For Section 1445, Evans-Allen funding, in FY 2016, CSU 

received $1,117,200, and in FY 2017, the proposed funding level is $1,117,200, which 

will be adjusted once final budget calculations are made. CSU receives its annual Section 

1444 and 1445 funding based on the same fonnula as other 1890s. CSU received 

Facilities funding in FY 2015, the tirst year they became eligible, also based on formula. 

Additionally, CSU has been added as an eligible entity for competitive funding 

oppottunities that arc open to 1890 Institutions. 

4. Given that domestic production is not able to keep up with growing demand for organic 

products, and the fact that organic research benefits all farmers, what role can NIFA play 

in furthering organic research, particularly for farmers interested in transitioning to 

organic? As we examine agriculture research in the next Farm Bill, how can we best 

focus organic research to increase our output of organic products? 
205 

Response: Despite a sustained double-digit growth in annual demand for organic 

products, domestic production has not been able to satisfy that demand. It is only possible 

to meet the growing demand for organic products from domestic sources through the 

transition of new producers, land, and facilities into certified organic production. 

5. In recent years, NIFA has funded a number of Community Food Projects across the 

country. How have these programs helped promote nutrition and increase access to 

healthy foods in program communities? 

Response: The Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program (CFP) has 

existed since 1996 as a program to light food insecurity through developing community 

food projects that help promote the self-sufficiency of low-income communities. CFP is 

designed to increase food security in communities by bringing the whole food system 

together to assess strengths, establish linkages, and create systems that improve the selfreliance of community members over their food needs. There are several CFP examples 

in Ohio that have promoted nutrition and increased access to healthy foods in 

communities. For example, the Unea1thing Franklinton's Potential: Cultivating a Vibrant 

Foodscape is a three-year endeavor (commenced in 2016) that involves three distinct 

components to address the need to: improve healthy food access through a neighborhood 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program; strengthen community self-reliance 

and inspire community empowerment through cooking classes and workshops on 

nutrition, food processing, and leadership; expand participation of low-income 

Franklinton residents in programming that improves affordable healthy food access. 

Second, the Trumbull Neighborhood Partnership and partners will complete a 

Community Food Security Assessment process and community input sessions to develop 

a Community Food Strategy Plan that includes recommendations and goals for 

addressing food security needs in Warren, OH by the end of August 2017. 

6. Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio is the newest 1890 land-grant, even though 

it has been around for quite some time. It's my understanding that CSU has already 

started a STEM summer program to engage middle-school students in agriculture related 

fields. How is NIFA working with Central State and other HBCU's to increase capacity 

at the University and to best utilize its existing strengths? 

Response: NTF A's 1890 land-grant institutions programs are intended to strengthen 

research, extension and teaching in the food and agricultural sciences by building the 

institutional capacities of the 1890 Institutions. The following 1890 programs increase 

capacity and help 1890 institutions utilize their existing strengths: 1.) 1890 Institution 

Teaching, Research, and Extension Capacity Building Grants Program, which is intended 

to support research, teaching, and extension by awarding grants that address key 

problems of national, regional, and multi-institutional importance in sustaining all 

components of agriculture, including STEM education, farm etllcicncy and profitability, 

ranching, renewable energy, forestry (both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural 

communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, family and consumer 

sciences, biotechnology, and conventional breeding; 2.) 1890 Facilities Grants Programs, 

which is intended for the acquisition and improvement of agricultural and food sciences 

facilities and equipment, including libraries, so that the 1890 land-grant institutions, 
206 

including Central Stale University, may participate fully in the development of human 

capital in the food, agricultural, and human sciences, including STEM education; 3.) 

Evans-Allen Research Program, which supports agricultural research activities at 1890 

Land-Grant Universities, and support student expericntial1eaming opportunities; 4.) 1890 

Extension Formula grants, which assist diverse audiences, particularly those who have 

limited social and economic resources, to improve their access to positive opportunities 

through outreach education. 

In addition to funding, NIFA also provides programmatic leadership to increase capacity 

at the MSis, including HBCUs, and to best utilize their existing strengths to enhance 

research, extension, and teaching in the food and agricultural sciences, inc1uding STEM 

education. For example, in FY 2016, NIFA conducted several outreach activities, 

especially webinars, for MSis to increase their awareness ofNIFA competitive grant 

opportunities and enhance their competitiveness. The 1890 Faculty Engagement Project 

provided an opportunity for 1890 faculty members to strengthen their research skills and 

expand their professional networks in the areas of animal health, well-being, and food 

security. To improve post-award management, NIFA also incorporated a number ofMSI 

workshops in the annual National Extension and Research Administrative Officers 

Conference (NERAOC) and site visits to campuses. Several workshops focused on best 

grants management practices and policies for the 1890 Land Grant Universities at 

NERAOC. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar 

1. Minnesota fanners have been able to improve the efficiency of corn production and have 

increased the yield of com per acre. In order to take advantage of these production 

improvements, it is critical that we expand the end uses for com and other agricultural 

commodities to add value to every bushel. 

a) What research initiatives have the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) undertaken to expand the uses of agricultural 

commodities in non-food markets? 

Response: Since 2008, NIFA has invested over $190 million in support of projects on 

expanding the uses of agricultural and forestry commodities in non-food markets, 

including bioenergy, bioproducts, and biomaterials. 

One project at the University of Minnesota is developing several processes to treat waste 

materials generated from intensive agricultural activities and develop valuable 

bioproducts to recycle nutrients, including: (i) co-digesting swine manure with other 

carbon-rich waste materials to increase the biogas generation and pretreat the biomass for 

phosphorus recovery; (ii) thermally treat the digestion eftluents for fungal growth; (iii) 

growing filamentous fungal cells on to produce fungal biomass as biological phosphorous 

fertilizer and to enable the digestion eftlucnt with a more balanced nitrogen/phosphorous 

ratio for use as a soil conditioner and crop fertilizer. 
207 

In addition to commodity food crops, Minnesota has a strong forest products industry that 

would benefit from diversification. On November 14, 2016, with jet fuel made from 

forest operation woody residuals and mill waste, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 730 flew 

from Seattle-Tacoma Aitport to Reagan National Airport, the first ever commercial flight 

using jet fuel made from lignocellulosic biomass. A spinoff ofthe technology developed 

in this project could be used to convert com stover to jet fuel. This project was funded by 

NJF A through an AFRI grant to a team of university, govemmcnt, and private sector 

partners led by Washington State University. 

Similarly, in partnership with the Department of Energy, NTF A provided funding through 

the Biomass Research and Developmeot Initiative (BRDI) to Domtar Paper Company, 

LLC, which was able to successfully convert lignin, a heretofore waste material, into 

drop-in liquid fuel. This project resulted in the preservation of over I 00 forest product 

industry jobs. 

b) How could existing research pro grains be improved in the next Farm Bill to expand the 

uses of agricultural commodities and better leverage private and public investment? 

Response: The authority provided through the 200R and 2014 Farm Bills for NIFA to 

support research, education, and extension efforts supporting the bioeconomy has had a 

significant impact on expanding the use of agricultural and forestry commodities, and 

leveraged significant private and public investments. For example, the Nmihwest 

Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA) project led by Washington State University was 

provided $40 million through an AFRI grant for producing jet fuel, from forest operation 

residuals and mill waste. The project successfully created jet fuel which was used by 

NARA industrial partner, Alaska Airlines, to fly a commercial airliner from Seattle to 

Washington, DC, noted above. This project leveraged an additional $110 million in cash, 

and materials, and facility access from a number of private and public partners. 

Continued authority in the next Farm Bill and increased funding through AFRI and BRDI 

will be critically important to continue to achieve the promise of the bioeconomy. 

Increased R&D funding would also strongly enhance the Small Business Innovation 

Research Program (SBIR) which historically has received many proposals on developing 

non-food uses for commodity food crop and their residuals, e.g. corn and soybean. 

Recent examples include: Improved Soybean Feed for Use in Aquaculture (Arcadia 

Biosciences, Arizona), Product Recovery from Novel Fermentation Processes for BioManufacturing High-Value Chemicals from Renewable Feedstocks (Lygos, California), 

Utilize Com Derived Products Driveo From Ethanol Production for Horticultural Weed 

Control, A Natural Fertilizer with Enhanced Plant Growth (Summit Seed, 111inois), and 

Biomass-Based Commodity Polymers from 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural (Lynntech, Texas). 

Also, Commodity Boards can propose topics to co-fund with NIFA through AFRI's 

competitive awards programs. If a commodity board is specifically interested in 
208 

development of new, non-food uses of a particular commodity, this mechanism could 

allow them to work with APR! to ptioritizc funding for such efforts. 

c) \Vhat opportunities do you see for new programs to expand uses for agricultural 

commodities? 

Response: As previously mentioned, continued authority in the next Farm Bill and 

increased funding through APRI and BRDI will be critically important to continue to 

achieve the promise of the bioeconomy. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. I understand that NIF A will be required to vacate its current administrative offices in 

Washington, D.C., in the near future. 

Can you provide me with further information about your plans for the relocation and the 

expected costs? Do you require additional resources to facilitate this shift in location? 

Response: NIP A's lease of the General Services Administration (GSA) commercial space at 

the Waterfront Center, 800 9th Street SW, Washington, DC expires in January 2020. The 

predominant bulk ofNIFA's staff is located in the Waterfront Center, although NIFA has the 

Office of the Director in USDA's main Whitten Building. 

GSA manages the lease renewal process and monitors Government wide standards for 

allowable space based on agency employment data. The USDA Office of Operations and 

GSA worked with N1PA to develop the lease prospectus package, which includes the 

Program of Requirements for our space needs in 2020. GSA also contracted with an 

architecture and design firm, Metropolitan Architect and Planners (MAP) to assist with this 

process. GSA submitted the lease prospectus package to the Office of Management and 

Budget for approval in Spring 2017. Current estimates for costs, excluding ongoing GSA 

Rent and Department of Homeland Security costs, are about $21 million over a two-year 

period beginning in FY 2018, which is not included in NIP A's budget request. 

2. A number of individuals have raised concerns regarding the inequitable funding of some 

1890's institutions when compared to 1862's in the same state. While New York lacks an 

1890, the situation in North Carolina provides an example of this funding imbalance. 

Currently North Carolina A&T, an 1890 institution, receives less state matching funding for 

grants from NIP A than their fellow 1862 institution in the state, North Carolina State 

University. 

While NCSU receives well above the I to I matching funding from the North Carolina 

General Assembly, NC A&T receive 0.8 to 1 in funding it needs to meet its federal matching 

requirements for grants from NIF A. 

These grants include research, extension, and capacity funding for 1890 institutions. 
209 

It is my understanding that states must submit a work plan to NIFA that outlines how 1890's 

and 1862's will use the funding they received from USDA and from their state. 

Please provide a list of total funding by state to 1890 and 1862 institutions so that the 

Committee can determine whether state governments are meeting their obligation to match 

the federal funding provided by to Land Grant Universities. 

Response: In 2015, North Carolina A&T (NCAT) matched their full extension amount and 

received a wavier for 25% of their match requirement ($1 ,055,188 of $4,215,640) of EvansAllen research funds. In FY 2016, NCAT received a waiver for 17% ($626,672 of 

$3,698,071) of their extension match requirement. For research, NCAT received a waiver of 

24% of their matching requirement ($1,031 ,460 of$4,250,701 ). 

The list of matching for 1890 and 1862 institutions is submitted for the record. 1862s are 

required to provide 100% match. I890s may request a waiver of up to 50% of match. For 

some programs, matching funds can be provided from any non-federal source (excluding 

tuition and fees). Where this is the case, NIF A has just begun collecting information about 

whether the match was provided by the state, rather than another source. When NIF A has a 

more complete picture of where matching funds have originated, NIF A plans to share that 

information on its website. 

3. New York has more than a thousand certified organic operations and many fanners I talk to 

have considered transitioning to organic -particularly young fanners who are looking to start 

farming on a modest scale without incurring huge debt. In the last ten years, we have tripled 

the number of organic farms and still our growers struggle to meet the demand for local 

grains and produce. Those fanners need research support like the grants made available 

through the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI). \Vhilc the 

organic industry has experience rapid growth with sales reaching $47 billion last year, the 

ORE! budget has stayed flat for nearly a decade. 

Can you discuss which of the priority areas for the ORET grant program warrant more 

significant investment to help organic farmers meet the demands of this growing market 

segment? 

Response: All eight priorities included in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

2017 Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative's Request for Applications 

address critical needs of the U.S. organic industry. However, if limited to one, priority one 

captures the most essential elements and has the potential for greatest impact. 

Priority 1: "Conduct advanced o/t~farm crop, livestock or integrated livestock-crop 

research and development that emphasize observation of, experimentation with, and 

innovation for organic farms, including production, marketing and socioeconomic issues. 

These issues could include both identification of factors reducing yields, efficiency, 

productivity, and economic returns on organic farms and the economic and 
210 

socioeconomic contributions of organic farming to producers, processors and local 

communities. " 

4. I am concerned about the concentration in production agriculture on many levclsj but 

certainly in the way it that has limited the availability of regionally adapted seeds. Public 

plant breeding programs have declined significantly in the past 20 years and more in the 

Northeast than any other part of the country. This makes our growers more reliant on big 

corporations and limits their access to new varieties of seeds that grow best in their 

communities. 

Can you discuss how NIF A supports plant-breeding programs, including organic seed 

production, through AFRI, OREI or other programs? 

Response: The FY 2017 AFRI Foundational Plant Breeding for Agriculrural Production 

priority area supports opportunities for researchers to develop publicly available seed and 

cultivars that are bred to be adapted to the soils, climates, and farming systems of fanners of 

all regions. Research can include, but is not limited to, pre breeding and gennp1asm 

enhancement, cultivar development, selection theory, applied quantitative genetics, and 

patticipatory breeding. Public release of gcnnplasm and cultivars are an integral requirement 

of AFRI funded breeding projects. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill enables eligible state and 

national commodity boards to submit topics for research and outreach that can be specific to 

their states or regions and are willing to equally co-fund through AFRI. In FY 2016, the first 

year of collaboration with commodity boards, two plant breeding projects were supported. In 

general, NIFA 's AFRI program is highly competitive, with an average of only 13 percent of 

proposals submitted during the last three years being funded. This results in a huge number 

of highly worthy proposals being unfunded. With additional funding for AFRI, the agency 

can fund many more proposals, including in plant breeding. 

There are also two other NIF A programs that support opportunities for land grant universities 

to provide regionally adapted seeds and cultivars to growers. The Specialty Crops Research 

Initiative supports plant breeding, genetics, and genomics to improve crop characteristics in a 

wide variety of crops atld crop families; and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension 

initiative supports pliorities to strengthen organic crop seed systems, including seed and 

transplant production and protection, and plant breeding for organic production, with an 

emphasis on publically available releases. 
211 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15,2017 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Sally Rockey 

Chairman Pat Roberts 

1. One of the main intents behind the creation of FFAR was to focus on bold and innovative ideas, 

and to help meet the demand for high risk, high reward agricultural research. While agriculture 

has benefited over the last several decades from research following the Dust Bowl and World War 

II, the growing world population indicates a clear need for resourceful and forward-thinking food 

production. What types of projects is FFAR working on that fulfill this need for unique and risktaking research ideas, with the potential for significant gains? 

After the June 15 research hearing, FFAR announced one of the Foundation's most innovative and 

cutting edge research partnerships yet. The Crops of the Future Collaborative is an international, 

multi-million-dollar consortium that brings together eight companies and research organizations to 

accelerate crop breeding. Together, members of the collaborative will target crop characteristics 

that no company or organization alone could invest in without substantial risk. This collaboration 

will accelerate discoveries by sharing costs, risks, and rewards among partners and making the 

results publicly available for the research community to build upon. Target crop characteristics 

might include enhanced nutritional qualities or ability to withstand environmental challenges such 

as drought, heat, or flooding. Ultimately, knowledge generated by the Collaborative will be publicly 

available through scientific publications and informational platforms, benefiting public and private 

crop breeding efforts. 

Another prime example of a unique research initiative with significant impact potential is an 

upcoming project investigating how to make photosynthesis, the process by which plants produce 

energy from the sun, more efficient, which could break through the plateau that breeders now face 

in terms of significantly increasing yield for staple crops. Increased yield will allow more food to be 

produced on the same amount of land with even less inputs, essential for feeding the world's 

burgeoning population. 

FFAR recently awarded funds in support of Crops in silica, a project to develop a suite of virtual plant 

models with potential to help resolve a growing gap between food supply and demand in the face of 

a changing climate. Fully realized, Crops in silica will give crop researchers a tool to examine the 

effects of those challenges on a molecular, cellular, and organ level within a plant to more quickly 

and accurately determine the best targets for breeding of new important traits and to accelerate 

our ability to get new crop varieties into the hands of producers. Replacing the need for field trials 

with virtual modelling technology will significantly shorten the time it takes to develop crops that 

are bred to withstand tomorrow's challenges. 

2. As I viewed the $200 million dollars provided by the last Farm Bill as a "seed investment" to 

establish FFAR, can you elaborate on specific plans to generate new funding that will enable FFAR 

to be a sustainable tool to support agriculture research into the future? 
212 

After spending the first year and a half establishing strategies, partnerships and processes and 

launching initial programs, FFAR is gaining a reputation for funding game-changing research. This is 

the first step in becoming an impactful, sustainable organization. 

It takes time to develop fund raising programs. To date, the Foundation's focus has been on raising 

matching funds so research initiatives can progress. We now have approximately $100 million 

awarded or in the pipeline to award. It takes 12 to 18 months to establish the relationships with 

funding partners necessary to build this pipeline. Many of these relationships began with the 

Foundation's board members. 

Another component of our work towards organizational sustainability is the active pursuit of 

philanthropic contributions to FFAR. There is a critical need for science and technology to address 

challenges to providing sufficient, sustainable food to meet demands here in the U.S. and globally. 

FFAR is establishing itself as an organization that offers a solution to these challenges. 

Now the Foundation's fund raising focus is broadening as we explore sources for matching funds and 

additional revenue streams. These include garnering additional donation revenue through major gift 

fund raising, board donations, online fundraising, events and the Combined Federal Campaign. 

FFAR will continue to use our significant network built during and since our startup to draw potential 

individual donors into our mission. The Foundation is already well connected to industry, 

associations and foundations and is developing a plan for initiating relationships with individuals to 

support innovative food and agriculture research to provide endowment funds or funds directly for 

research. Many of these relationships will begin through our board members. 

For the first time in 2017, the Foundation has made a fundraising 'ask' of board members. As is 

typical for leading non profits, FFAR expects to have 100 percent board giving. 

In April, FFAR launched our 'Donate Now' website so we may enlist the public in the Foundation's 

mission. We drive potential donors to the webpage through public relations and social media 

efforts. In 2018 FFAR will hold its first fundraising event and enroll in the Combined Federal 

Campaign. 

The Foundation supports scientists in all stages-basic, applied and entrepreneurs. Going forward, 

agreements with grantees will be structured to ensure the Foundation benefits when research 

efforts are commercialized. FFAR is reviewing effective models for these agreements and currently 

negotiating for the first time with a grantee to provide intellectual property revenue to support 

future Foundation research through royalties. Given it can take multiple years for new research to 

be translated into commercial products and adopted by industry, intellectual property is a long-term 

revenue source. 

Thus, while the Foundation has made significant progress raising funds to match research 

investments, it is clear making the Foundation fully sustainable will take more time. 

3. You indicated that continue success will be reliant on support from Congress in the form of a 

statutory reauthorization and full funding. One of the largest challenges Congress faces in the next 
213 

Farm Bill will be to find the resources needed to cover current needs as well as any new 

authorizations. Is the funding you are requesting to cover the operating and administration costs 

of FFAR, towards matching federal funds to support f\lture research programs, or both? How are 

continued funds consistent with the intent that FFAR be self-sustaining? 

Additional funding for the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research would allow the 

Foundation to solidify itself as an institution that facilities scientific progress, funds innovation, and 

contributes to the success of food and agriculture as an active player in the agricultural research 

arena. 

The Foundation's unique matching model created by Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill has been the 

impetus for the partnerships and projects launched to date. The long-term success of this model 

depends upon additional congressional investment to allow the Foundation to continue attracting 

new partners to grow the funding pool for food and agriculture research. 

Although the Foundation is working toward the ability to independently support it self, continued 

support for FFAR with authorization to spend up to 5 percent of funds on operating costs would 

allow the Foundation to devote resources toward launching innovative research projects, including 

those with potential to generate revenue through intellectual property. 

One opportunity offered by the FFAR model is the Foundation's ability to attract nontraditional 

funders to food and agriculture. Cultivating new relationships outside of the traditional food and 

agriculture research arena has high impact potential, but also requires significant Investment of staff 

resources. Short-term operating stability would allow more focus on establishing long-term 

partnerships with unique funding partners. 

The Foundation is committed to becoming a sustainable institution that continues to complement 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture through unique public-private partnerships, a flexible and nimble 

grants structure, and a focus on innovative science. Continued congressional support would greatly 

enhance and accelerate our ability to do so in the short term. As noted above, the key to t he 

Foundation's success to date has been the Congressional investment and required matching funds, 

which together serve as a magnet for funding partners. Removing this defining component of the 

Foundation's model at this early stage of the new organization would halt momentum and make it 

much more difficult to become sustainable. 

4. The Agricultural Act of 2014 laid out seven areas of significance FFAR should be focused on 

addressing Including: 

1. Plant health, production, and plant products 

2. Animal health, production and products 

3. Food safety, nutrition, and health 

4. Renewable energy, natural resources, and the environment 

5. Agriculture systems and technology 

6. Agriculture economic.s and rural communities 

In the last two years, FFAR has established a narrower framework of Challenge Areas including: 

• Food Waste and Loss 

Forging the Innovation Pathway to Sustainability 
214 

Overcoming Water Scarcity 

Protein Challenge 

Urban Food Systems 

Making "My Plate" Your Plate 

• Healthy Soils, Thriving Farms 

While I understand the intent of these Challenge Areas is to guide the proposal and awarding 

process, I am concerned these categories are too prescriptive and could potentially dissuade the 

bold and innovative research FFAR is meant to achieve. For example, in a recent interview when 

discussing the Protein Challenge, you stated that one of the goals of this challenge is to find 

alternatives to animal proteins available to feed a burgeoning population worldwide. USDA's 

Economic Research Service has indicated that as the middle class expands globally, meat 

consumption is also growing and we are seeing increased demand for animal protein, particularly 

in areas like the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and South America. How can you 

ensure that your challenge areas are inclusive to a broad range of bold and innovative ideas, while 

at the same time not favoring short term, consumer driven trends that may not realistically 

address the challenge of feeding a growing population 1 

The seven Challenge Areas were established with input from external groups, the Foundation's 

Advisory Councils, and the Foundation's board based on areas where FFAR could generate the 

greatest possible impact through our public-private partnership model. The Challenge Areas are 

intentionally broad and designed to attract bold, innovative research with potential to catalyze realworld results that move the food and agriculture community closer to solutions within each area. 

From a strategic standpoint and in particular to continue generating support and partnerships, it 

was important for the Foundation to narrow its initial focus. As new challenges arise and current 

ones begin to be resolved, the Foundation expects to add and subtract Challenge Areas accordingly. 

With that said, the Foundation reserves a portion of our research portfolio for research 

opportunities that fulfill our mission as outlined in the 2014 Farm Bill, but fall outside the current 

Challenge Areas. Current examples include the Pollinator Health Fund, which will have implications 

for the agricultural system and the Crops of the Future Collaborative described above, which takes 

advantage of the opportunity to build on recent technological advancements in crop breeding. 

The Challenge Areas are designed to evolve with the needs of the agricultural industry. FFAR 

understands the high demand for animal-based protein in the U.S. and globally. The Foundation 

recently adjusted the goals of the Protein Challenge to focus on advancing the sustainable 

production of high-quality, animal-sourced foods with emphasis on improving antibiotic 

stewardship, environmental sustainability, and farm-animal health and productivity. The intent of 

this Challenge Area is to ensure our continued ability to meet the growing demands for animal 

protein referenced in the question above with the limited natural resources available. Research 

programs launched to date have focused on animal protein from aquaculture, pork, and poultry 

sources. 
215 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

1. Agriculture is growing beyond our farmers' fields, and is now happening in many of our cities 

across the country. From small acre farms to roof tops and indoor vertical farming, new 

economic opportunities can be found through urban agriculture. Can you discuss research that 

needs to be done to support urban agriculture? 

FFAR believes that urban agriculture is one critical component of a thriving future for our 

agricultural systems, our economy and our ability to produce food for burgeoning urban 

populations. It is also an area, because of its newness, where research is necessary to propel the 

field forward. Thus, FFAR developed Urban Food Systems as one of its seven Challenge Areas. 

There is much research to be done to develop the opportunities offered by urban agriculture. 

FFAR is targeting areas of research that create economic opportunities for farmers, as well as 

the afford ability of nutritious and healthy food for consumers. 

Urban settings provide unique environments for farmers, from degraded and polluted 

lands/waters, to roof top and vertical farms. FFAR is pursuing research funding partnerships 

with the private sector that increase the economic viability for urban farms. These include 

developing the types of crops that can be grown in different environments (vertical farms, 

aquaponics, greenhouses, marginal environments), and technological advances in production 

methods that increase the profitability of urban agriculture. Increasing the economic viability of 

urban agriculture will eventually take advantage of new markets, increasing the economic 

viability of more nutritious and healthy products. 

As part of FFAR efforts to build new partnerships and increase collaboration in this rapidly 

progressing area of agriculture, the Foundation will hold a convening event in fall2017 with 

potential partners and stakeholders. 

FFAR is also pursuing research that investigates how changes in food systems not only empower 

consumers to purchase and consume more healthy food, but also promote the economic 

sustainability of local systems over time. FFAR is also interested in future research on how to 

influence consumer behaviors that increase consumption of healthy, nutritious food. 

2. Can you address how FFAR is working to address challenges for rural communities? If FFAR is 

not currently working in this space, what opportunities to you see for the future of FFAR to 

help rural communities? 

Currently, FFAR does not have a specific program for rural communities, but rural communities 

will certainly benefit from a number of projects and programs that FFAR is supporting. For 

example, our Making My Plate Your Plate Challenge Area concentrates on food access and 

assuring nutritious food is available to all. One program that FFAR is developing within this area, 

called Tipping Points, will take a holistic approach to understanding food access programs and 

how best to achieve improved health outcomes, whether the intervention programs be in cities 

or in rural communities. Additionally, the vitality of farms is at the core of the Foundation's 

work, which provides for economic resiliency in rural communities. 
216 

3. One of the highlights of the U.S. agricultural research framework is our cooperative extension 

system to disseminate information learned in the latest research to the people who need it 

most. Can you explain how FFAR plans on sharing information learned from research it 

supports with producers? 

Every research proposal that FFAR supports requires the submitter to describe how that 

research will address an issue for the food and agriculture industry. For research that is on the 

applied end ofthe spectrum, successful proposals involve producers in the research process and 

include a plan for quickly spurring results into application. 

For example, the Foundation's National Cover Crop Initiative in partnership with the Samuel 

Roberts Noble Foundation is designed to generate new knowledge for farmers on the specific 

cover crops that will produce the greatest soil health, yield, and economic and environmental 

benefits for their specific land environments. 

Researchers from the recently funded cover crop project will make improved cultivars 

commercially available to farmers as one of their primary objectives. Each of the five fieldtesting locations associated with the project will host a field day where farmers can learn about 

available cover crop germ plasm as well as management of cover crops in their systems. 

Several FFAR programs specifically take advantage of the cooperative extension system. For 

example, the Foundation's emergency pest and pathogen response program, Rapid Outcomes 

from Agricultural Research (ROAR), encourages applicants to work with the cooperative 

extension system to disseminate findings for preventing and mitigating pest and pathogen 

damage. 

Later this month, FFAR will announce a new initiative to maximize on-farm efficiencies by 

finding ways to prevent crop loss and identifying potential new revenue streams for producers. 

Research will be conducted on-farm in partnership with producers to ensure practical, viable 

outcomes. In addition to publishing results in academic publications, the research team 

developed a communications plan to disseminate information to farmers and extension 

educations. Strategies include working with regional commodity groups to share information 

with members, targeting farming journals and popular press and presenting results at 

agricultural industry conferences. 

Lastly, Dr. Rockey has met with Extension leadership through ECOP on numerous occasions 

including in June 2017 to expand our working relationship with this vital part of the agricultural 

enterprise. 

4. The FFAR was created to support both domestic and international agricultural research, can 

you describe how the FFAR is supporting international agricultural research? 

FFAR partners with international organizations and supports work that has international 

implications. On June 29, the Foundation announced the launch of the Crops ofthe Future 

Collaborative, a multi-million-dollar, international consortium that will fund research to 

accelerate crop breeding. The consortium brings together international companies and 

foundations to support research with global implications. 
217 

The Foundation is in the process of developing another similarly structured, international 

initiative focused on reducing post-harvest food loss and is expected to launch later this year. It 

will include research based in Africa, Asia, South America and the U.S. 

Additionally, FFAR is partnering with another leading foundation to support research toward 

increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis. This research has the potential to reverse the 

plateau that research toward increasing crop yields has reached and significantly improve yields 

staple crops grown in the developing world. Research will be conducted both domestically and 

internationally. This project is ongoing and FFAR's participation is expected to be announced in 

2017. 

5. Agricultural commodity groups could be great partners for funding FFAR research projects. 

Are checkoff dollars from commodity checkoff programs eligible to be used as non-federal 

matching funds? 

FFAR has formally partnered with state-level commodity groups to support research efforts 

including the Iowa Corn Promotion Board, Indiana Soybean Alliance, and the Indiana Corn 

Marketing Council. As you know, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research must match 

research investments with non-Federal funds. From our conversations with national-level 

commodity checkoff programs, some groups consider checkoff program funds to be federal 

while others do not. The Foundation is focused on supporting science that improves productivity 

and profitability for farmers and ranchers. As such, commodity associations and checkoff groups 

are natural and essential partners for the Foundation. However, currently only those checkoff 

groups that consider their funding to be non-federal are eligible to contribute matching funds to 

FFAR research. 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

1. The Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research is a unique institution that leverages public 

funds with private research dollars. In just the last two years, I have watched FFAR establish a 

board, form new partnerships, create investment priorities, and begin granting funds to 

researchers. 

Since FFAR has only recently started funding researchers and is still adding partners, can you 

tell us a bit about the demand for collaboration with FFAR and whether you think that 

additional support from the Committee is warranted? 

You mention in your testimony that becoming a self-sustaining Foundation is a core part of 

the five-year plan. FFAR will clearly need support while it works towards independent funding 

but could you tell us about that plan and how FFAR will self-sustaining? 

The innovative FFAR model as defined in the initial authorization only works if the Foundation 

continues to receive financial investment from Congress. If FFAR does not bring funds to the 

table, the Foundation loses its leverage with partners. The ability to leverage FFAR funds is the 

draw. 
218 

With that said, FFAR is working to solidify our reputation as a neutral, trusted funding partner 

for innovative agricultural research. Looking to the future, FFAR expects that our demonstrated 

success will attract non-Federal support from philanthropists who understand the gravity and 

importance of the food and agriculture challenges we face, and see the Foundation's ability to 

bring partners together to address those challenges. 

FFAR is continuing to build on short-term successes, having built a credible, nimble organization 

with a low operating cost offive percent, established research priorities, and launched a giving 

program. With a strong baseline for future success, FFAR is now exploring ways to generate 

revenue from IP and seeking major gifts. Further detail is outlined in response to Question 2 

from Chairman Roberts. 

2. We depend on pollinators for nearly $24 billion dollars of agricultural production each year, 

much of it in specialty crops. Honeybees contribute $15 billion dollars and native bees and 

wild pollinators account the remaining $9 billion dollars. Pollinators have suffered greatly over 

the past few years from exposure to pesticides, parasites, disease, habitat degradation, and 

decreased forage quality. 

I know the Pollinator Health Fund is one of FFAR's major initiatives. Can you tell us about the 

fund, some of the partner groups, and what research you expect to see supported by the 

initiative? 

The Pollinator Health Fund is an exciting investment in the health of our nation's pollinators and 

one that will yield results that are applicable both domestically and internationally. The 

Foundation has committed $10 million to the Fund. The current research focus is on four areas: 

1. Understanding Multiple Interacting Stressors: No single factor is responsible for 

pollinator losses. Pests, pathogens, land use, agrochemicals, nutrition, and 

environmental changes are just a few of the factors affecting pollinator health. The 

Foundation is funding studies that take into account these interacting stressors. 

2. Best Management Practices and Their Application: Best management practices guide 

beekeepers, growers and land managers on how to improve the health of pollinators. 

While there are many sets of best management practices available for pollinators, very 

few have been scientifically vetted through applied research studies to ascertain which 

practices are best, under what circumstances, and with what expectation of 

pollinator/colony survival and productivity. Pollinator projects will be interdisciplinary, 

accounting for the biological, social and economic dimensions of efforts to improve 

pollinator health and engage private partners to test practices in real world situations. 

3. Technology Transfer: The technology that could improve the health of managed and 

native pollinators ranges from improved agricultural machinery to novel pest control 

strategies to selectively bred lines of parasite-resistant bees. The Foundation will fund 

two lines of inquiry: 1) the promising technological advances that are ready to move 

from the preliminary research to the at-scale field testing phase and 2) high-risk projects 

that have minimal preliminary data but potential for great impacts on pollinator health. 

Projects will involve industry partners with an interest in taking developed technologies 

to market plus social and economic analyses of adoption potential for the new 

technology. 
219 

4. Outreach and Education: Everyone from home gardeners to commercial farmers can 

improve pollinator health through individual actions. Activities like planting pollinator 

gardens in urban areas, training future pollinator taxonomists, and coordinating land 

management activities with beekeeping schedules can impact pollinator health. The 

Foundation seeks to promote innovative outreach and education projects that reach 

new demographics and communities to raise awareness around pollinator health and 

encourage the adoption of activities that promote pollinator health. 

FFAR issued a competitive, public call for pre-proposal applications in February 2017 and is 

currently reviewing final proposals invited in June 2017 from approximately 40 research teams. 

The portfolio of successful proposals will address pollinator issues across the country's 

geographic regions and diverse cropping systems, including pollinator-dependent commodities 

as well as pollinator-independent commodities with impacts on pollinator health. The Fund will 

devote considerable resources to high-intensity agricultural areas that present major 

opportunities for improvement of pollinator health. 

The Foundation will notify successful grantees and matching partners in late 2017 and expects 

partners providing matching funds to include community groups, universities, non-profit 

organizations, conservation groups, and businesses. 

FFAR expects to award up to $5 million through this initial program, which is half of the 

Foundation's commitment to the initiative. FFAR will formulate future Pollinator Health Fund 

strategies in 2018. 
220 

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes for the 2018 Farm Bill 

June 15, 2017 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Steve Wellman 

Senator Debbie Stabenow 

1. The witnesses today have all painted a great picture of the importance of research to all 

sectors of agriculture, however I am concerned that countries like China, India, and 

Brazil are overtaking the United States in terms of total invest in Ag research. How can 

farmers and ranchers best communicate the importance of public investment into 

agricultural research and the need for additional resources? 

As individuals and through farmer and rancher associations we can communicate the 

need for increased funding for public research to policy makers and the media. We can 

collaborate with Universities to demonstrate positive results and benefits from past 

research projects. Organizations such as Supporters of Agricultural Research (SoAR) 

can also be helpful providing information on how public investment in ag research has 

and can benefit the U.S. agriculture sector and eventually the U.S. consumer. 

Over the past year, SoAR has initiated two broader campaigns aimed at communicating 

clear, easy-to-understand results from research funded by USDA NIFA and the 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). This campaign known as 'Retaking the 

Field' brings farmers and scientists to Capitol Hill and to science reporters in 

Washington so that they can explain in practical terms the relevancy of agriculture 

research. From this Retaking the Field series, articles have appeared in the New York 

Times, the Washington Post and in various media outlets throughout the Midwest. 

More can be done especially in terms of how USDA communicates the value of 

agriculture research. The last AFRI synopsis was published after fiscal year 2015. 

USDA's information technology and website can be modernized and made more user 

friendly like some of the other federal research agencies namely those of the NIH which 

communicate in real-time research awards by Congressional district and the practical 

outcomes of that research. 

2. Mr. Wellman, you list a number of conservation practices on your farm including 

"contour terraces, no till farming, cover crops and nutrient management such as grid 

sampling plus variable rate application of nutrients and seed are implemented." Over 

time, have you noticed that these practices have made your crops more resilient to 

adverse weather relative to your neighbors? If so, would you support policy that would 

recognize the reduced risk from these conservation practices through a lower premium 

or other incentive related to crop insurance? 
221 

These conservation practices have been implemented over several decades on our 

farm. Most of these practices are common place in my area and used by the vast 

majority of farmers. Over this time, several government cost sharing programs (e.g. cost 

share for design and building terraces, the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)) 

have been available and used to implement some of these practices. The cost sharing 

helped get the practices introduced and demonstrate their value to farmers. I believe 

each practice has helped measurably improve conservation of our resources while 

increasing our production. A financial incentive for implementing practices such as 

these definitely speeds up the rate of farmer/rancher adaptation. CSP has been helpful, 

but due to funding restrictions it hasn't reached nearly as many producers that have 

expressed interest. A broader based program could be a way to dramatically increase 

producer participation of implementing beneficial practices. The crop insurance program 

is such an important risk management tool for producers, I hesitate to involve it with this 

type of incentive program. We certainly would not want to create obstacles for farmer 

participation in the crop insurance program. 

3. With an aging farmer population, agriculture needs to attract more young people, and 

our colleges and universities can help do that. Young people can help transform the 

agricultural industry by applying new technologies and new thinking. What are the 

greatest challenges for getting students at colleges and universities engaged in 

agricultural science programs and going into careers in agriculture? What are the 

greatest gaps in our current agricultural education programs? Can you describe the job 

prospects for students graduating with degrees in agricultural sciences? 

From the standpoint of agricultural research, a concern of mine and one that I have 

heard expressed by university faculty and leadership is agriculture research is terribly 

underfunded, meaning grants are small and the length of the grants are short. Because 

of this, university agriculture deans and ag-related leaders encourage students to look 

at other scientific arenas which have funding to do their studies. USDA research funding 

ranks well down the list of prospective research funding after many other federal 

agencies and even non-government sources. This concerns me because if students are 

encouraged to look outside of agriculture research to pursue funding for research 

interests they may never come back to agriculture and will pursue education and 

careers in fields outside of the agriculture industry. 

Connections between industry and college programs need to continue and be funded so 

these students will want to further their education in agriculture, which will guide them to 

careers in either ag-related companies or back to the family farm. Family farms continue 

to benefit from those who go into other ag-related fields and share that information with 

their family who still operate the farm or when they come back to join the family 

business. 

Agricultural science graduates will have numerous opportunities when looking for fulltime employment. The impact of science and research on farming and ranching 

continues to grow at a fast pace. It seems the discovery and implementation of new 
222 

technologies plus advancements in scientific knowledge happened faster each year. Ag 

businesses, universities, farms and ranches will all need educated employees. 

Senator Sherrod Brown 

1. Soybeans are one of the most important crops in my state and as you know, when 

prices are flat, every bushel counts. We have seen significant gains in yields over the 

past several decades-that is due in part to the research that has been undertaken by 

ARS. Can you explain to the Committee what USDA funded research has meant to your 

industry and Ohio farmers? 

USDA research has powered several value-added opportunities for soybean farmers 

across America. Examples include low-linoleic soybeans and soybean oil which 

improve the nutritional profile of foods, the growing use of biodiesel to fuel 

professional truck drivers moving 80% of our economy and even the foam now used 

by large automobile manufacturers is made from soybeans. 

Specifically, a recent USDA AFRI grant combined with funding from farmer check off 

dollars allows a multi-disciplinary team of researchers from 19 universities to 

develop new diagnostic tools and pathogen control strategies to treat one of the 

most disruptive pathogens in soybean fields. 

It is difficult to determine which public research has benefitted farmers. The following 

question needs to be asked; Are the results of public research quickly and effectively 

distributed to those of us in production agriculture? Communication between those 

conducting the research to the farmers who implement the results of such research 

needs to be improved. Producers should be invited to participate early on in the 

research process so the end results are actually practical and applicable to the 

farmers and ranchers. 

0