DIncreasing government funding for agricultural research and development (R&D) would have significant environmental and economic benefits, according to a new paper commissioned by BTI and published in the Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economy. . Significant increases in research and development funding have been made to address extreme weather and new pest pressures, make U.S. farmers more competitive with international producers, and reduce the food system’s significant environmental footprint. More than that is needed.
However, increasing research and development funding will require significant new commitment from policymakers. After peaking in 2002, U.S. public spending on agricultural research and development has declined by about a third over the past two decades. Public agricultural research and development has historically been the backbone of U.S. agricultural innovation, lowering food prices, increasing food security, and enabling farmers to produce more with less land and other inputs. . Every $1 invested in public agricultural research and development has historically created $20 of value to consumers and society as a whole. Declining R&D spending therefore poses a major threat to continued agricultural progress and increased environmental sustainability.
This new study by Purdue University Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics Ulysse Baldos, Ph.D., is the first to examine the impact of U.S. public R&D funding on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use, as well as productivity and agricultural output. This is an estimate. , and price. Significant R&D funding has been found to be a cost-effective climate mitigation strategy. Specifically, the study found that doubling public agricultural research and development funding would reduce emissions at a cost of approximately $12 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, while increasing production and improving global land use. It has been shown that it is possible to limit agricultural production and lower prices for crops and livestock.
analytical approach
This analysis takes into account a number of key dynamics, including:
- Estimate the impact of U.S. public R&D funding on farm productivity based on historical statistical relationships.
- It assesses how U.S. R&D investments impact productivity in other parts of the world, which helps scientists and producers build on or adapt U.S. research internationally. It’s a kind of positive ripple effect.
- It uses a simulation of the world’s agricultural system (the SIMPLE model) to predict how changes in productivity will affect trade and production in different regions of the world.
- These changes in productivity and production in the United States and regions of the world are increasing greenhouse gas emissions from land use, agricultural deforestation and other land use changes, and the use of fertilizers, fuels, and other inputs on farms. Estimate how it will affect emissions.
Integrating these complex interactions between U.S. policy and global production provides unique insights into the value of R&D funding.
Projected impact of doubling U.S. public agricultural research and development spending
The analysis projects the impact of a 7% annual increase in federal, state, and other public agricultural R&D spending from 2025 to 2035, nearly doubling funding in 10 years. It shows what you are doing. Compared to the normal scenario where R&D funding grows at historical rates (about 2% per year), the doubling scenario has significant benefits.
- Agricultural productivity: Under a business-as-usual scenario, agricultural productivity is projected to increase by about 39% in the United States and about 40% globally by 2050. However, doubling R&D spending is expected to increase productivity by 62% in the United States and 44% worldwide.
- Farm production and prices: Doubling research and development spending would increase U.S. crop and livestock production by 70%, significantly higher than the 50% expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This will result in crop and livestock prices in the United States falling by about 30% and 40%, respectively, by 2050. This is a much steeper price decline than the 19% and 29% declines expected under normal business conditions. .
- Land use: As global demand for food increases, under a business-as-usual scenario, by 2050 the world will have approximately 94 million hectares of forest, grassland, and other land (an area the size of Texas, Iowa, and Illinois combined). (equivalent) will be converted to agricultural land. However, increased R&D funding and productivity could significantly slow this expansion of agricultural land. By increasing the international competitiveness of U.S. farmers, doubling U.S. R&D spending would lead to a slight increase in U.S. farmland, but global land use change would be about 17 million hectares, about the same as in Wisconsin. is predicted to decrease.
- Greenhouse gas emissions: Doubling research and development spending is projected to reduce global emissions by approximately 213.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2050 compared to a business-as-usual scenario. This is primarily driven by avoiding deforestation and other forms of land conversion into agricultural land. Emissions from fertilizers, fuel use, livestock, and other sources are also projected to decline as scientific advances and technological innovations enable farmers to use inputs more efficiently.
Considering the total cost and total climate benefit of doubling R&D, we find that climate mitigation through R&D costs approximately $12 per tonne (mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Masu. This value is within the range of previous less accurate estimates. For example, an expert from the USDA Economic Research Service concluded in his 2013: [historically] R&D investments in U.S. agriculture help avoid greenhouse gas emissions at an effective cost of $8 to $13 CO2 equivalent per year “It will cost less than $25.”
However, the benefits of increasing public agricultural R&D may be even greater than those presented here. Our analysis only considers land use changes due to agricultural land expansion and omits land conversion to pasture for livestock grazing. Additionally, we only consider the benefits of R&D spending up to 2050. This is a limitation because the benefits of R&D investments are often realized decades after the initial investment. For example, some investments in research and development in the period 2025-2035 may not be fully realized until 2075-2085.
Impact: Increase in agricultural bills, annual expenditures, and state budgets.
This analysis provides compelling evidence for policymakers, especially those in Congress, to act decisively and increase research and development funding. Federal funding for research, given the huge potential for research and development to improve farmers’ productivity and global competitiveness, lower food prices in the long term, and dramatically reduce agricultural land and carbon emissions. Doing so should have bipartisan support.
Congress can increase funding for research programs such as the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (FFAR) and the Specialty Crop Research Initiative through the Farm Bill, which must be passed approximately every five years. Learn more about Breakthrough’s Farm Bill recommendations here.
However, most of USDA’s research and development programs, such as the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), are funded through annual spending bills in Congress. To double federal research and development funding, these bills would require Congress to significantly increase spending on agricultural research, particularly USDA research programs, each year.
Beyond the farm bill and annual spending package, Congress could pass additional legislation to keep USDA’s research activities in line with inflation and address rising research costs. For example, the American Growth Act proposes funding increases for USDA’s research, education, and economics mission areas by 5 percent annually over the next 10 years, adjusted for inflation.
State legislatures and other non-federal agencies can also play an important role in increasing the nation’s agricultural research funding. USDA estimates that approximately 20% of public agricultural research and development spending comes from state agencies. But state funding has been declining rapidly, falling by about 13% from 2013 to 2019 after adjusting for inflation.
A call for far-sighted policy making
Invigorating U.S. agricultural research and development requires not only reversing declining spending trends, but also significant progress. The need for innovation in U.S. agriculture is greater than ever, given growing challenges such as extreme weather events, supply chain disruptions, and the urgent need to reduce the environmental impact of agricultural production. . Significant new investment in agricultural research will bring significant benefits. These funds are critical to maintaining America’s dominance in global agricultural exports, controlling future food inflation, and positioning the agricultural sector as a leader on climate change and other environmental issues.
The responsibility for initiating this transformative change lies directly with policy makers. Now is the time to invest boldly in research and development at all levels of government. We know that investing today is essential if America is to build a sustainable, productive, and resilient agricultural future.
Considering the total cost and total climate benefit of doubling R&D, we find that climate mitigation through R&D costs approximately $12 per tonne (mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Masu. This value is within the range of previous less accurate estimates. For example, an expert from the USDA Economic Research Service concluded in his 2013: [historically] R&D investments in U.S. agriculture help avoid greenhouse gas emissions at an effective cost of $8 to $13 CO2 equivalent per year “It will cost less than $25.”
However, the benefits of increasing public agricultural R&D may be even greater than those presented here. Our analysis only considers land use changes due to agricultural land expansion and omits land conversion to pasture for livestock grazing. Additionally, we only consider the benefits of R&D spending up to 2050. This is a limitation because the benefits of R&D investments are often realized decades after the initial investment. For example, some investments in research and development in the period 2025-2035 may not be fully realized until 2075-2085.
Dan Blaustein-Rejto is Breakthrough’s director of food and agriculture programs. Follow Dan on X @danresito
