research proposal in agriculture

Apply     MyCAS

• Faculty / Staff
• Learning Outcomes
• News Archives
• Academic Program
• Advising checklists
• Campus Resources
• Double Majors and Minors
• Animal Reproduction & Development
• Applied Genetics
• Bioproducts
• Biotechnology
• Climate and Biosystems Modeling
• Environmental Chemistry
• Food Quality
• Genomics/Bioinformatics
• Pest Biology & Management
• Plant Growth & Development
• Sustainable Ecosystems
• Water Resources
• BRR Timeline
• Finding a Mentor
• First Resume
• Initial Project Meeting
• Research Proposal
• Option Courses
• Laboratory Notebook
• Secondary Mentor
• Progress Report
• Final Seminar and Thesis Defense
• Grants and Scholarships
• Dress for Success
• Preparing for Graduate School
• Useful Resources
• Future Students
• Mentor's Checklist
• 2016 Scholars
• 2013 Scholars
• 2011 Scholars
• 2009 Scholars
• MSP Mentors
• 2015 Scholars
• MSP Scholar Graduates
• MSP Mentor Graduates
• Tips for Success
• News and Activities

The Research Proposal

During the first term that you are enrolled in research credits, complete a 2-3 page proposal that briefly and succinctly outlines your proposed research, containing:

• Introduction, leading to Problem Statement or Needs Assessment,
• Research Objectives,
• Expected Outcomes and Impact
• References (minimum 3-5 publications, properly formatted)

To do this, you should have planning meetings with your mentor. Your mentor will explain the project that s/he has in mind for you, or help you develop your own ideas for a project. Ask your mentor for background material to read such as research papers and grant proposals. Ask a librarian for assistance in looking for references on your research topic. You can contact a librarian by telephone or e-mail to set up an appointment, or email a brief project description to the BRR librarian, Hannah Rempel, at [email protected] , or call (541)737-9902. Or, use the list of specialized librarians by department/program, available at: http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/staff/sublist.html Submit a draft of your proposal to your mentor for suggestions and approval. When you are both satisfied with it, your mentor and secondary mentor must initial it and you must turn in a copy to the BRR office for your files. This proposal must be completed during the first term that you sign up for research (BRR 401) credits. This writing assignment partially fulfills the WIC requirements for BRR majors.

College of Agricultural Sciences Dean Dan Arp at the Pendleton Roundup

• Interesting
• Scholarships
• UGC-CARE Journals

45 Research Project Ideas in Agriculture – Innovative Approaches to Sustainable Farming

Explore 45 research project ideas in agriculture for sustainable farming.

Agriculture is a vast and dynamic field that plays a critical role in feeding the world’s population. As the global population continues to grow, the demand for food production is also increasing, making agriculture one of the most important sectors for ensuring food security and sustainable development. However, the challenges facing the agriculture industry today are numerous, ranging from climate change, soil degradation, water scarcity, and pest infestation to biodiversity loss and food waste.

To tackle these issues and promote sustainable agriculture, researchers and professionals in the field are continuously exploring new and innovative ways to improve agricultural practices, increase productivity, and reduce environmental impact. In this article, we will present 45 research project ideas in agriculture that can help address some of the most pressing issues facing the industry today.

These research projects cover a wide range of topics, from soil health and crop yields to livestock farming, aquaculture, and food systems, providing a comprehensive overview of the latest trends and innovations in agricultural research.

Whether you are a student, researcher, or professional in the field, these research project ideas can help guide your work and contribute to a more sustainable and resilient agriculture industry.

• Evaluating the effectiveness of natural pest control methods in agriculture.
• Investigating the effects of climate change on crop yields and food security.
• Studying the impact of soil quality on plant growth and crop yields.
• Analyzing the potential of precision agriculture techniques to increase yields and reduce costs.
• Assessing the feasibility of vertical farming as a sustainable solution to food production.
• Investigating the impact of sustainable agriculture practices on soil health and ecosystem services.
• Exploring the potential of agroforestry to improve soil fertility and crop yields.
• Developing strategies to mitigate the effects of drought on crop production.
• Analyzing the impact of irrigation management techniques on crop yields and water use efficiency.
• Studying the potential of biochar as a soil amendment to improve crop productivity.
• Investigating the effects of soil compaction on crop yields and soil health.
• Evaluating the impact of soil erosion on agriculture and ecosystem services.
• Developing integrated pest management strategies for organic agriculture.
• Assessing the potential of cover crops to improve soil health and reduce erosion.
• Studying the effects of biofertilizers on crop yields and soil health.
• Investigating the potential of phytoremediation to mitigate soil pollution in agriculture.
• Developing sustainable practices for livestock farming and manure management.
• Studying the effects of climate change on animal health and productivity.
• Analyzing the impact of animal feeding practices on meat quality and safety.
• Investigating the potential of aquaponics to increase food production and reduce environmental impact.
• Developing strategies to reduce food waste and loss in agriculture.
• Studying the effects of nutrient management practices on crop yields and environmental impact.
• Evaluating the potential of organic agriculture to improve soil health and reduce environmental impact.
• Investigating the effects of land use change on agriculture and biodiversity.
• Developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
• Analyzing the impact of agricultural policies on food security and sustainability.
• Studying the potential of precision livestock farming to improve animal welfare and productivity.
• Investigating the impact of agrochemicals on soil health and biodiversity.
• Developing sustainable practices for fisheries and aquaculture.
• Studying the potential of bioremediation to mitigate pollution in aquaculture.
• Investigating the effects of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture.
• Developing strategies to reduce water pollution from agriculture and aquaculture.
• Studying the impact of land use change on water resources and aquatic ecosystems.
• Evaluating the potential of agroecology to promote sustainable agriculture and food systems.
• Investigating the impact of climate-smart agriculture practices on food security and resilience.
• Studying the potential of agrobiodiversity to improve crop productivity and resilience.
• Analyzing the impact of agricultural trade on food security and sustainability.
• Investigating the effects of urbanization on agriculture and food systems.
• Developing strategies to promote gender equity in agriculture and food systems.
• Studying the potential of agroforestry to promote biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• Analyzing the impact of food systems on public health and nutrition.
• Investigating the effects of climate change on pollination and crop yields.
• Developing strategies to promote agrotourism and rural development.
• Studying the potential of agroforestry to promote carbon sequestration and mitigate climate change.
• Analyzing the impact of agricultural subsidies on food security and sustainability.

I hope this article would help you to know the new project topics and research ideas in Agricultural.

• agriculture research
• crop yields
• food systems
• livestock farming
• Project Topics
• Research Ideas
• soil health
• sustainable farming

100 Cutting-Edge Research Ideas in Civil Engineering

List of research topics in environmental engineering, 10 mind-blowing ai projects transforming medical imaging, most popular, scopus indexed journals list 2024, 480 ugc care list of journals – science – 2024, what is a phd a comprehensive guide for indian scientists and aspiring researchers, the nippon foundation fellowship programme 2025, fellowships in india 2024 -comprehensive guide, agi in research: unraveling the future of artificial intelligence, working sci-hub proxy links 2024: access research papers easily, abstract template for research paper, 10 types of plagiarism – every academic writer should know – updated, best for you, 24 best online plagiarism checker free – 2024, popular posts, top 35 scopus indexed journals in english literature, popular category.

• POSTDOC 317
• Interesting 257
• Journals 235
• Fellowship 134
• Research Methodology 102
• All Scopus Indexed Journals 93

Mail Subscription

iLovePhD is a research education website to know updated research-related information. It helps researchers to find top journals for publishing research articles and get an easy manual for research tools. The main aim of this website is to help Ph.D. scholars who are working in various domains to get more valuable ideas to carry out their research. Learn the current groundbreaking research activities around the world, love the process of getting a Ph.D.

Contact us: [email protected]

Google News

Copyright © 2024 iLovePhD. All rights reserved

• Artificial intelligence

Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program

Sustainable agriculture & food systems small grants program fy25/26, uc sarep sustainable agriculture & food systems 2025-26 small grants program , subscribe to our newsletter to receive alerts about future funding opportunities  .

DOWNLOAD RFP

The UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (UC SAREP) is a statewide program of University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR). UC SAREP envisions a food and farming system that:

• supports resilience through diversified production, marketing, and distribution systems,
• values all food system workers and supports their physical, economic, and social wellbeing,
• contributes to the health and vitality of urban, rural, and Tribal communities,
• is environmentally regenerative, using resources for production and distribution in a way that protects the environment in trust for future generations, including under changing climate conditions, and       
• is culturally responsive and reflects the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity of California.

Program Priority Areas

We are interested in projects that build the capacity of farming and food systems businesses and organizations to become reflective, adaptive learning organizations that can respond effectively to ecological, economic, and social change and disruption.

UC SAREP will fund projects that fall within two priority areas:

Priority Area 1:  Support California’s farmers, ranchers, and land stewards of all scales in piloting and transitioning to:

• environmentally regenerative approaches to producing crops and livestock (including but not limited to soil health, organic and agroecological practices, integrated pest management, crop diversification);
• pathways for realizing economic return from ecologically-sound crop management practices and fair labor practices;
• marketing and distribution strategies that support diversified, decentralized, and locally-based supply chains;
• strategies that promote producer-to-producer networking and/or producer-to-supply chain networking.

Priority Area 2:  Support California’s rural, urban, and Tribal communities in identifying and implementing strategies to:

• expand access to healthy, sustainably produced, culturally appropriate foods;
• ensure worker wellbeing across the food chain;
• minimize the community and environmental costs of food production and distribution;
• strengthen connections between consumers and producers;
• establish and strengthen producer-to-producer connections and producer-to-supply chain connections.

Priority will be given to projects that directly benefit and involve ANY of the following priority groups:

• SB535 Disadvantaged Communities  ( A map of disadvantaged communities in California can be found at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 .)
• Tribal communities, and/or
• socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, and land stewards . ( A “socially disadvantaged group” means a group whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination. These groups include the following: African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, Female farmers and ranchers (2020 Report to the California Legislature on the Farmer Equity Act).

Who May Apply

Eligible applicants include:

• farm or food system businesses* operating in California
• non-profit, tax-exempt organizations operating in California
• state and local government agencies, tribal governments, and
• California public and private institutions of higher education.

UC SAREP staff are not eligible to participate on the team of any project.

Applicants must demonstrate meaningful collaboration and involvement of stakeholders in the design and execution of the project. Priority is also given to projects that foster cross-collaborations between multiple types of applicants, contributing to a unified approach in addressing core areas of concern. For example, partnerships may involve farmers/ranchers or indigenous land managers working with agricultural or food system professionals. These professionals can include staff of community groups and/or non-profit organizations, public agencies, and tribal governments, as well as UC Cooperative Extension specialists and advisors, and researchers at community colleges or other institutions of higher education. Any of these partners can be the lead applicant organization.

Previous grantees are eligible to apply after they have submitted a final report for their previously funded project. 

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding eligibility.

*Please note:  Business applicants must demonstrate benefit beyond the immediate recipients. While equipment purchases and/or infrastructure improvements are allowable expenses, grants will not be awarded for the sole purpose of purchasing equipment or making infrastructure improvements at individual farms or businesses.

Funding Available

Individual grants will be limited to a maximum of $10,000, with one Applied Research Grant awarded up to $20,000. In the past two years, we have funded 25-40% of submitted proposals. Grants are cost-reimbursable on a quarterly basis. Invoices are required to be submitted for expenses incurred based on the approved budget. We expect that grantees will be notified by March 7, 2023. Due to the limited funds available, only one-year projects will be considered. Projects may begin as soon as May 1, 2024 and must be completed by April 30, 2025.

Please note, we are unable to offer no-cost extensions.  Any funds that are not expended by the end of the grant cycle, April 30, 2025, and not invoiced by the deadline, May 15, 2025, will be forfeited.   

Proposal Categories

Proposals are requested for three types of projects:

• Planning Grants
• Education and Outreach Grants
• Applied Research Grants

Each proposal must address one of the Program Priority Areas listed above.

Category 1: Planning Grants

Planning grants are intended to support processes that bring together diverse stakeholders to plan for larger, more complex research and outreach projects for which larger funds are being sought. Grantees may apply for up to $10,000.

Examples of previously funded Planning projects include: the creation of a new food policy council; exploring how green jobs for women farmworkers can improve their working conditions and the well-being of their communities; building a research team and developing plans for conducting a life cycle analysis of California’s beef production system; and community food access planning in East Salinas.

Category 2: Education and Outreach Grants

Education and outreach grants include educational events, materials and outreach components of research projects. Grantees may apply for up to $10,000.

Examples of previously funded Education and Outreach projects include: providing legal guidance to low-income entrepreneurs interested in urban and suburban farming, home-based food businesses and cooperatively owned agricultural companies in the San Francisco Bay Area; helping Southeast Asian and other small farmers in Sacramento connect with processors and buyers; implementing a bilingual educational campaign to communicate the importance of locally and sustainably grown produce from farmers of diverse backgrounds in Napa County; and developing and documenting opportunities and success stories for ecosystem services provided by rangeland stewardship.

Category 3: Applied Research Grants                        

These projects are intended to fund original, applied research in the above Program Priority Areas.

An example of a previously funded research grant includes funding to study the effects of livestock guardian dogs on wildlife species and the potential for conflict with recreationists. Research projects should include an outreach component.

Applied Research Grant I : Grantees may apply for up to $10,000.

Applied Research Grant II: Grantees may apply for up to $20,000.  Only one Applied Research Grant II will be awarded .  The project must clearly demonstrate the need for funding at a higher level, such as a requirement for specific equipment or specialized expertise without which the project would not be feasible at all.

For a full list of previously funded projects by this program, go to UC SAREP Grants Program | Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program (ucdavis.edu) .

Proposal Requirements

Proposal narrative (sections a-f).

All proposal narratives should address the following points. These will also serve as criteria against which proposals will be judged on a 100-point scale. The proposal narrative (sections A-F) should not exceed 5 single-spaced pages, 12-point font, including tables, figures, and photos. Figure and table legends cannot be smaller than 10-point font.

A. Relevance to Priority Area (10 points)

• State which category (Planning, Education and Outreach, or Applied Research) your proposal falls under and explain why this category is most appropriate for the project.
• State which Program Priority Area (listed above) your project relates to and describe how your project helps address the issues outlined for that priority.
• If applicable: Describe how your project is helping to create or strengthen organizations or systems that can respond or adapt effectively to ecological, economic, and social change or disruption.

B. Relevance to Target Audience (15 points)

• Define the target audience(s)/community for the project. If the primary applicant is a business, it is essential to describe the stakeholders beyond your operation who will be involved in the project.
• Describe the importance (need and/or demand) of the proposed project to this audience.
• Describe how the target audience/community is engaged in the development and implementation of the project. Provide evidence (letters of support or current/previous needs assessments) that the community is interested in the proposed project.
• Describe how the project will engage socially disadvantaged communities, Tribal communities, and/or socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, or land stewards. Please detail their involvement in the project conception, design, implementation, and impacts.

C. Goals and Objectives (20 points)

• Based on the needs of your target audience, state the goal(s) for the project. Goals are purpose statements about what you want the project to accomplish, or what specific changes you aim to achieve in the world. (They are not activities.)
• Under each goal, state measurable, outcome-oriented objectives necessary to reach that goal. Objectives are the specific actions you will undertake to achieve your stated goals.
• Goals and objectives of the project should be new or significantly expand a previous effort.

D. Methods/Activities/Timetable (15 points)

• For research and education/outreach projects, describe and justify your methods. For planning grants, describe and justify your activities.
• Include a timetable linked to the various activities and phases of the project. Funding is available for one-year projects only. The grant period is May 1, 2024 through April 30, 2025.

E. Products (10 points)

• Projects should include tangible products (for example, publications, web pages, social media posts, videos, radio shows, public art, decision support tools, reports, workshops and related materials, etc.). Innovative use of media is encouraged.
• Describe how information and results from this project will be extended to the target audience/community, and beyond to other potential statewide audiences.
• Planning Grant projects should articulate benefits and provide evidence that the planning will be used for a future research/education proposal.

F. Evaluation/Lessons Learned (10 points)

• Describe how you plan to evaluate and measure whether your stated objectives were met.
• Describe your plans for maintaining or expanding your project in the future (if relevant).

G. Capabilities of Project Team (15 points; not part of 5-page limit)

The Project Team is composed of the Project Director, any other key personnel from the applicant’s organization who will be overseeing or implementing the project, and key personnel from external project partners.

• Describe the specific roles of members of the project team, and their relevant experience as it relates to the proposed project.
• If applicable : Describe the project team's approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.
• Attach an abbreviated CV or resume (2-page limit) for the Project Director.
• Attach a letter of support from each collaborating organization, agency, or business. Letters should state how the organization will participate in the project.
• Describe the organization’s and/or project team's relationship, collaboration history and engagement with socially disadvantaged communities, Tribal communities, and/or socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, or land stewards.

H. Budget Requirements (5 points; not part of 5-page limit)

• Provide a complete budget in the indicated format and a separate budget justification that includes how line items are calculated.
• The budget should only describe funds requested from SAREP. If other funds are available to do the same work for a larger project, disclose the other funding and describe how the SAREP grant feeds into the larger project.
• Small* non-governmental organizations, tribal governments, and farm or food businesses may include indirect (overhead) costs up to 10% of total direct costs in their project budget. Indirect costs are not allowed for institutions of higher education and governmental entities.

* Small businesses are defined as entities that meet the same requirements as California Small Business Certification requirements (actual certification is not required): https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/Services/Page-Content/Procurement-Division-Services-List-Folder/Certify-or-Re-apply-as-Small-Business-Disabled-Veteran-Business-Enterprise

Format and Submission Requirements

Proposal must be in 12 pt. font size with one-inch margins. Please observe the word and page limits stated below. Refer to the Criteria/Requirements section for description of what should be in each section.  The entire proposal package with the exception of the Excel budget form must be combined into a single document in the order listed (proposal may be submitted as a .pdf, .doc, or .docx file.  PDF is preferred). The Excel budget spreadsheet can be uploaded separately as an .xls or .xlsx file.

Complete the Cover Page form provided.

The Cover Page consists of basic applicant information, as well as an abbreviated project title (3-word maximum), and a project summary (150-word maximum).

Body of Proposal  

Combine the following sections into a single document in the order listed.

Proposal Narrative: Sections A-F combined, must not exceed five single-spaced pages, 12 pt. font

• Relevance to Priority Area and Topics in this RFP
• Relevance to Target Audience (Justification)
• Goals and Objectives
• Methods/Activities/Timetable
• Evaluation/Lessons Learned
• Description of Project Team roles and experience
• Budget: complete the Budget Form provided and upload as a separate document
• Personnel costs (salary and benefits)
• Materials and supplies
• Sub-contractors
• Total direct costs
• Indirect costs
• Total costs
• Budget Justification
• CV or resume of Project Director, not to exceed 2 pages
• Letters of Support
• Tribal Council Approval (A letter from Chairperson on letterhead that states they are aware of the grant proposal.)
• Literature cited (if appropriate)

Required Forms

Budget Form

Submission Instructions 

Applications for the SAREP Small Grants program must be submitted via Google Forms.  Applicants must sign into Google in order to complete the form.  Applicants must complete the required questions in each section before advancing to the next section.  Applicants may go back to review and make changes to previous sections before submitting the form.  Once submitted, applications cannot be changed.  It is recommended to have all application materials compiled before beginning Google Forms.

Section I of the application, Project Information and Funding Request, requires applicants to respond to the questions in the Google Form.  The questions are an abbreviated version of the Cover Page.  Applicants must both respond to the questions in the Google Form and complete the Cover Page template provided as part of Section II.

Section II of the application requires applicants to upload the Cover Page and Body of the Proposal (sections A-I) in a single document.  Please refer to the Format and Submission section of the RFP for more details on what to include in the Body of the Proposal document (proposal may be submitted as a .pdf, .doc, or .docx file. PDF is preferred).

Once all sections of the form have been completed and the applicant is ready to submit, click the “Submit” button at the bottom of Section II.  There will be a confirmation screen confirming that your application has been successfully submitted and a copy of the application will be sent via email to the email address used to submit the application.

Submission and Review Schedule

Proposals must be received by Tuesday, January 9, 2024, 12:00 pm PST.  Proposals received after this deadline will not be considered for review.

All proposals will be reviewed by a committee of ANR personnel, outside reviewers with relevant experience, and members of SAREP’s staff.  We expect that successful applicants will be notified of awards by March 7, 2024.

For technical questions about the online submission process or disability accommodation, please contact Kristen Farrar ( [email protected] ) or (530) 786-0390. For questions about content or program requirements, please contact Sonja Brodt ( [email protected] ) at (530) 792-8249 .

===========================================================================

The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or status as a covered veteran (covered veterans are special disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, Vietnam era veterans, or any other veterans who served on active duty during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized) in any of its programs or activities. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University's nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Staff Personnel Services Equal Opportunity Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096.

SAREP_Small_Grants_Program_RFP_2024-25_FINAL.pdf

Small_Grants_Cover_Page_2024-2025.pdf

Budget_Template_2024-25 FINAL.xlsx

How to write a Research Proposal: Research proposal - examples

• Components of a research proposal
• Useful videos
• Common mistakes to avoid
• Sage Research Methods LibGuide This link opens in a new window
• Managing sources
• Request a literature search
• Research proposal - examples
• Creating a Gantt chart
• Free Apps for Research
• Academic writing

Research proposal - a guide

Writing a research propsal - a guide for staff and students developed by Prof Jana Olivier For the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences University of South Africa, 2019

• Writing a research proposal - a guide for staff and students

Writing a research paper - powerpoint presentation prepared by  Dr Ramodungoane Tabane for the College of EDucation  (2017)

• Writing a research paper

Recommended layout for Masters and Doctoral degree outlines for prospective applicants in the Department of Economics .

• M&D outline

For all Masters and Doctoral students in the C ollege of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences  and compiled by Prof Elizabeth Kempen (2020)

• CAES Procedures for Masters and Doctoral Degrees
• << Previous: Request a literature search
• Next: Creating a Gantt chart >>
• Last Updated: Sep 25, 2024 3:09 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unisa.ac.za/research_proposal

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on October 12, 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on September 5, 2024.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research proposals.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: “A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management”
• Example research proposal #2: “Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use”

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesize prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2024, September 05). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved September 28, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-proposal/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, writing strong research questions | criteria & examples, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

About Grants

The lifecycle of grants and cooperative agreements consists of four phases: Pre-Award, Award, Post-Award, and Close Out.

Access to Data

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture is committed to serving its stakeholders, Congress, and the public by using new technologies to advance greater openness.

Access Data Gateway

The Data Gateway enables users to find funding data, metrics, and information about research, education, and Extension projects that have received grant awards from NIFA.

View Resources Page

This website houses a large volume of supporting materials. In this section, you can search the wide range of documents, videos, and other resources.

Featured Webinar

Second annual virtual grants support technical assistance workshop.

Check out this five-day workshop in March 2024 workshop, designed to help you learn about NIFA grants and resources for grants development and management.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture provides leadership and funding for programs that advance agriculture-related sciences.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is the nation’s leading competitive grants program for agricultural sciences. 

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) awards AFRI research, education, and extension grants to improve rural economies, increase food production, stimulate the bioeconomy, mitigate impacts of climate variability, address water availability issues, ensure food safety and security, enhance human nutrition, and train the next generation of the agricultural workforce.

AFRI was established by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill and re-authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill. The program was re-authorized to be funded at $700 million a year. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 funds AFRI at $445.2 million.

NIFA provides AFRI grants to support research, education and extension activities in six Farm Bill priority areas:

• Plant Health and Production and Plant Products;
• Animal Health and Production and Animal Products;
• Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health;
• Bioenergy, Natural resources, and Environment;
• Agriculture Systems and Technology;
• and Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities.

AFRI-funded science is vital to meeting food, fiber, and fuel demands as the world’s population races toward a projected 10 billion by 2050 concomitant with diminishing land and water resources and increasingly variable climatic conditions. In addition, AFRI programs help develop new technologies and a workforce that will advance our national security, our energy self-sufficiency, and the health of Americans.

NIFA’s policies for accepting late applications are available at  https://nifa.usda.gov/resource/late-application-consideration .  If your application is delayed for a valid extenuating circumstances, please let the program contact listed in the Request for Application (RFA) know about the potential delay and submit all the required documentation after your application had been submitted to us.  NIFA will consider your request at that time based on the information provided.

Funding Portfolio

NIFA’s AFRI funding portfolio includes both single- and multi-function research, education, and extension grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance. AFRI-funded projects sustain all components of agriculture, including farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable energy, forestry (both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding. These projects also create jobs and help develop the next generation of agriculture and food scientists.

AFRI-funded integrated projects must include at least two of the three functions of agriculture knowledge – research, education, and extension – to ensure delivery of science-based knowledge to people, allowing them to make informed practical decisions.

In addition to Standard grants, the AFRI portfolio includes Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAP) and Food and Agricultural Science Enhancement ( FASE ) grants. CAP grants are large, multi-million dollar projects that often involve multiple institutions. FASE grants help institutions become more competitive and attract new scientists and educators to careers in high-priority areas of agriculture.

NIFA makes grants for high priority research, education, and extension, taking into consideration the determinations made by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board.

Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out the AFRI program, the Secretary may award grants to state agricultural experiment stations; colleges (including community colleges) and universities; university research foundations; other research institutions and organizations; federal agencies; national laboratories; private organizations or corporations; individuals; or any group consisting of two or more of the aforementioned entities.

Each grant program has its own unique set of requirements, the details of which are available within specific Requests for Applications in Part I, C. See the list of available AFRI RFAs.

• 2022 NIFA APHIS Program Priorities
• 2022 NIFA AFRI Foundational and Applied Science RFA Partnership Opportunity
• 2021 AFRI New Investigators Webinar Series   

Your feedback is important to us.

Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System (1989)

Chapter: 3 rationale for the proposal.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Rationale for the Proposal The fundamental reason for this proposal is that major challenges with substantial implications for the well-being of the United States are confronting the U.S. agricultural, food, and environmental system. A greater research and development (R&D) capacity is needed to fuel the necessary advances in science and technology to address these challenges. These chal- lenges are broad, and each relates to the entire agricul- tural and food enterprise and to the environmental and social quality of the nation. An overview of the challenges is contained in Chapter 4; a brief synopsis of each follows: Competitiveness and strong economic perform- ance are crucial for the economic vitality of U.S. agriculture and for agriculture's capacity to provide low-cost, nutritious food to consumers: increasing the efficiency and profitability of the food, fiber, and processing industries; reducing the environmental costs of such actions as pesticide use and waste manage- ment; making available, and using, modern equip- ment and technology that have state-of-the-art control and management systems and sensors. Contributing to human health and well-being is the goal of the entire agricultural and food system: increasing the nutrient availability of all foods; mak- ing optimally nutritious foods conveniently available to all Americans even while social patterns are chang- ing; and elucidating the full relationship between diet and health. Natural resources stewardship is necessary for maintaining the health of the environment: providing the basis for prudent long-term production systems and resource sustainability; minimizing direct costs to producers for maintaining environmental quality and indirect costs suffered by consumers when environ- mental quality is diminished; and ensuring high envi 17 ronmental quality, with its concomitant benefits for food, soil, and water. One way to deal effectively with the challenges and with the myriad of specific research needs is to exploit current opportunities in science and technology by expanding the nation's R&D system. This chapter presents the rationale for all aspects of the proposal except for that on program areas and sci- entific opportunities (which are discussed in Chapter 51: · Support for fundamental science is mainly a fed- eral responsibility. The agricultural, food, and environmental re- search system requires a substantial increase in fund- ing to conduct the needed research programs and to cover the necessary program areas adequately. The money should be new funding, not redi- rected funding. Responsibility for administering the additional funds should lie with the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture (USDA). The increased funding should be for competitive grants, not for some other form of allocation. · Competitive grants to principal investigators  should be complemented by multidisciplinary and research-s~engthening grants. A FEDERAL INITIATIVE Funding for research in science and technology comes from the state, private, and federal sectors. However, primary responsibility for supporting fun- damental research that benefits the nation as a whole has traditionally been assumed by the federal govern- ment; and neither the states nor the private sector can

18 be expected to underwrite a marked expansion in the overall science and technology effort in agriculture, food, and the environment. State Sector States are highly unlikely to provide additional funds for research, nor should they be asked to do so. First, state expenditures for agricultural research are already significant. Second, and even more important, the research to be funded by the program proposed here is of national importance rather than of directly local or state importance. Mainly through their land-grant universities, the states already do more than half of all research related to the agricultural, food, and environmental system. Since 1972, only about 30 percent of the states' re- search funding has come from all federal sources (about two-thirds of that from USDA). In 1988, when total funding for state research was $1,674 million, the states themselves provided $822.8 million, the federal gov- emment $577.3 million, and industry $99 million; the remainder came from sales and other income. Of the federal funding, $383.5 million came from USDA through formula and other funds and $45.4 million came through USDA competitive grants (see Appendix A). Given the pressure on states to fund state respon- sibilities that are continuously increasing, they will almost certainly not tee able to increase their proportion of research funding. For program reasons, too, funding for this expanded research program is a federal, not a state, responsibility. The research to be funded by the expanded competitive grants program will not-even in mission-linked and research-strengthening grants fund research that is narrowly focused on local, state, or regional needs. Rather, it will increase the fundamental understanding of basic biological and physical phenomena that relate to agriculture, food, and the environment, thus contrib- uting substantially to the national base of knowledge for the agricultural system and strengthen the national infrastructure of that system. Private Sector INVESTING IN RESEARCH search investments may retrench somewhat in the years ahead. Even if private sector R&D were to increase, however, its priorities would not fully match or encompass national needs because of product de- velopment and proprietary considerations. Level of Export The capacity of private firms to support R&D is a function of their gross sales, their profits, and the percentage of either gross sales or pretax profits that a company is willing to invest in R&D. The percentage of commitment of R&D funds ranges among compa- nies. As one might expect, to remain competitive and profitable, industries that place relatively less empha- sis on new technology tend to invest a smaller portion of their sales and profits in R&D; high-technology industries with higher returns in dynamic markets  invest more heavily. The food and the paper and forest products indus- tnes fall within a group of industries in which R&D investments are relatively low (see Table 3.1~. These two industries spent 9.4 and 10.3 percent, respec- tively, of pretax profits on R&D in 1987. This repre- sents the lowest level of R&D by all industries sur- veyed except for nonbank financial institutions. Not surprisingly, high-technology industries with patent protection and proprietary technologies were found to commit 30 to 50 percent or more of pretax profits to R&D (aerospace, 86.7 percent; chemicals, 31.8 per- cent; computers, 60.3 percent; health care, 52.6 per- cent). Prospects for Growth In the decade ahead, the following factors are likely to affect industrial R&D (see Appendix B): · Public policies that affect cropping patterns, natural resource stewardship goals, and the manner in which food safety and environmental problems are addressed. · Public sector R&D priorities and accomplish ments. Tax and monetary policy, general economic Like the state sector, the private sector plays a vital conditions, and interest rates. role in ongoing agricultural, food, and forestry research · Trade policies, both domestic and international. activities. However, it, too, cannot be expected to Policies affecting trade in technology and intel underwrite a marked expansion in the nation's overall science and technology effort in agricultural, food, and environmental research. Indeed, private sector re- national. lectual property. Governmentregulations, both domestic and inter

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.1 Private Sector Sales, Profits, and R&D for Selected Major Industries, 1987 (in millions of dollars) Net Industrial Sector Gross Sales Profits R&D Expense Percent R&D of Pretax Profits Aerospace $88,435.1$2,824.7$3,865.4 86.7 Automotive 246,847.411,125.58,653.0 54.6 Chemicals 112,053.17,403.84,168.3 31.8 Computers 107,976.88,836.28,804.1 60.3 Consumer products 71,288.83,302.71,426.1 25.1 Personal care 35,879.91,450.5968.7 38.2 Electrical and electronics 95,625.74,283.15,055.6 71.2 Fooda 88,622.63,362.0578.4 9.4 Fuel 285,216.35,493.71,906.2 12.2 Health care 70,252.76,404.15,554.9 52.6 Manufacturing 64,650.82,170.81,462.6 40.2 Metals and mining 26,028.1583.8306.3 31.7 Nonbank financial 9,698.3767.657.4 6.4 Paper and forest products 42,071.22,456.6429.3 10.3 Telecommunications 52,551.13,278.02,909.5 55.9 NOTE: Industry composites are Strom Business Week (see Source below). aThe food industry composite includes 25 companies with gross sales of $88.6 billion, including two seed companies (whose percent R&D of pretax profits are 50.9 and 86.8) and several major food processors and manufacturers representing all segments of the industry. SOURCE: Business Week. June 20, 1988. A perilous cutback in research spending. Pp. 139-162. Gross and net farm Income, and export demand and performance. Corporate consolidations and methods of financ- ing mergers. Various scenarios for the relationship between these policy and economic factors, on the one hand, and sales, profits, and private sector R&D, on the other, are presented in Appendix B. If a strong and sustained economic recovery in the farm sector in the l990s were coupled with expanded crop production, private sector R&D might rise by as much as 9 to 13 percent. But such an eventuality, although possible, is not highly probable. Rather, a continued period of little or no increase in commodity prices is more likely, which may hold down increases in production levels. In addition, public policies and regulations may impose new costs related to food safety and 19 natural resource stewardship. In this unfavorable scenario, private sector R&D might decline by 5 to 7 percent during the next decade. Focus of Private Sector R&D Private sector firms finance R&D from the sale of current products or from investment capital that seeks  a return through future product sales. Thus, industrial R&D usually emphasizes areas of commercial or near-term interest and may give only modest attention to areas of research that however important are not related to a marketable product or service. Such areas will probably be addressed only by publicly funded R&D programs. The following list of some research areas relevant to alternative agricultural practices illustrates the large number of research areas that are important to the

20 long-term economic and environmental performance of U.S. agriculture and that need public funds: Interactions among cropping pattems, tillage, soil fertility, and nonchemical pest control methods and the effects of such practices and interactions on farm profitability, water quality, and the long-term productivity of soil and water resources. The development and testing of biologically and ecologically sustainable production practices, man- agement support, and diagnostic tools that improve the options for managing soil nutrients, crop pests, or animal diseases. Effects of technological change on patterns of on-farm and rural employment as they relate to em- ployment and worker health and safety in agricultural and forest product industries. · Analysis and estimation of the costs of off-farm, nonpoint pollution efforts and policies and the effects of government programs and policies in shaping on- farm decisions that, in turn, significantly affect the attainment of goals for natural resource stewardship and environmental quality. Effects of technology and policy on the nutri- tional attributes of foods and on the health of the nation's population. Effects of alternative policies on the perform- ance of a given sector or across sectors (crop producers and livestock producers, for example) in relation to such issues as profitability, environmental protection, food safety, and human health. Diffusion of R&D Results The private sector's focus on areas of commercial interest is related to another aspect of industrial R&D: the proprietary nature of some research results. When scientific and technological advances have prospec- tive commercial applications, companies withhold publication of research advances as trade secrets or until they are assured of patent protection and applica- tion development. The proprietary considerations that underlie such reticence are reasonable and likely to remain strong. Globally, food product and agricultural input indus- tries have become more highly competitive; and a corporation's potential profitability as well as the markets its products can realistically penetrate in the United States and abroad will be determined by the corporation's ability to generate end use new informa I~ESTING IN RESEARCH lion in product design, obtain strong patent positions in emerging areas of technology, and improve its manufacturing processes. These factors are rein- forced by the trend toward greater corporate consoli- dation (see Appendix B). Federal Sector The federal governmentrecognizes its responsibil- ity as a major source of support forbasic research. The President's budget request for fiscal year (FY) 1990 states, in the special analysis of the research compo-  nents, that "even in an environment of continuing fiscal austerity, Federal support for basic research, especially at universities, is an important factor in generating new knowledge to ensure continued tech- nological innovation. It is an essential investment in the Nation's future. The Federal government has traditionally assumed a key role in support of basic research because the private sector has insufficient incentives to invest in such research" (Office of Management and Budget, 1989, p. J-8~. As stated above, the substantial increase in support for competitive grants proposed here would apply to the entire agricultural, food, and environmental sys- tem, not to specific applications or geographic areas. That increase should therefore be funded by the fed- eral government. A $500 MILLION INCREASE This proposal calls for a major expanded invest- ment to accelerate the rate of discovery in the agricul- tural, food, and environmental sciences. The pro- posed increased investment of $500 million is justi- fied on at least two counts: (1) agricultural research yields a high rate of return on investment, and (2) current funding for the agricultural research system cannot adequately support either the in-depth studies or the broad scope of science and technology neces- sary to maintain the competitiveness and sustainabil- ity of the overall agricultural, food, and environmental system. Investing in Agriculture Investment in agricultural research strengthens both agriculture and science because progress in agricul- ture and advances in science are reciprocal. Advances in science promote progress in agriculture; for ex

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL ample, new discoveries in genetics continue to lead to crop and animal improvements through breeding. Conversely, research on agricultural problems fre- quently provides the model system for basic scientific discoveries; for example, work on potato diseases led to the discovery of viroids previously unrecognized disease agents that attack humans, animals, and plants. Public investments in agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research are also warranted because they have a well-documented high rate of economic return. The minimum annual rate of return a private company expects from plant capacity, inventory, or other in- vestments is 12 to 15 percent. In contrast, each public dollar (federal plus state) invested in agricultural re- search results in much higher returns to society through a net reduction in unit costs; for some investments, studies have shown that the returns can be as low as 45 percent and as high as 130 percent (Evenson, 1968; Evenson et al., 1979; Ruttan, 1982; Fox et al., 1987; Capalbo and Antle, 1988~. Such studies derive the return to food and agricultural research by estimating the reduction in costs of consumer products made possible by efficiency gains following technological innovations. The benefits from most categories of food and agricultural technological innovations are estimated to span 20 to 30 years. Hence, annual returns compound to several multiples of the initial Investment. The public receives this return on investment in agricultural research not in the form of a dividend check but at the supermarket checkout counter and in a myriad of everyday products and activities that improve the U.S. standard of living and quality of life. In the United States, food claims a smaller share of personal consumption expenditures than it does in any other nation just 17.4 percent in 1988 (Council of Economic Advisers, 198S, Table B-15, third-quarter estimate)- and the food is of high quality. Public R&D investments have other benefits as well. For example, the resulting expansion of the knowledge base makes it possible to respond to con- sumer demands for varied and high-quality produce year-round, low-fat and low-cholesterol products, more nutritious snacks, and microwaveable products. Like- wise, public R&D investment in research on resource conservation methods and food safety technologies can help accelerate the adoption of production prac- tices that are not only sustainable and less likely to pollute the environment but that are also helpful in minimizing the chances that microbiological orchemi- cal contaminants will create a food safety hazard. 21 In addition, food and agricultural research has a positive effect in terms of the distribution of wealth and quality of life among all members of society (White, 1987~. Poorer families andindividuals tend to spend a higher portion of their disposable income on food and pay a relatively smaller portion of income in taxes. Research and other public policies and pro- grams lower the cost of food, and in this way they provide a proportionately greater benefit to citizens on the lower end of the income scale.  Adequacy of Funding An annual increase of $500 million will enable the USDA's competitive grants program to meet two objectives: (1) attract new talent into agricultural, food, and environmental research and (2) expand the scope of agricultural, food, and environmental re- search. The size and duration of grants and the number of grants available need to be substantially increased, however, to achieve these objectives. The pool of talented scientists is large enough to put such an expanded program to good use. Three factors determine the amount of support needed for an expanded competitive grants program: (1) the size of the average adequate grant for each grant type, (2) the average adequate duration for each grant type, and (3) the minimum funding level that is desirable for each program area and capable of allow- ing all six program areas to be covered. The number of grants thus derived is then evaluated for its reasona- bleness, given the needs of the program areas, the number of investigators funded in the current com- petitive grants program, and the availability of scien- tists to seek the grants. The analysis shows that the overall $550 million program should support the fol- lowing: About 800 principal investigator grants for an average duration of 3 years. Totalannualexpenditure: $250 million. About 180 fundamental multidisciplinary team grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual expenditure: $150 million. · About 60 mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants for en average duration of 4 years. Total annual expenditure: $100 million. · Research-strengthening grants to institutions for programs and to individuals for fellowships. Total annual expenditure: $50 million.

22 Size and Duration of Grants The grants awarded by USDA's competitive re- search grants program have always been characterized by inadequate size and duration. This is one reason that the full range of scientific and engineering talent in the United S tales has not been more involved in research on food and agricultural problems. The average annual size of USDA competitive grant awards per principal investigator is now about $50,00~an amount too small in most instances to support research adequately. The cost of conducting food and agricultural research differs little from the cost of conducting research in other areas. In fact, expenses per investigator can be markedly higher in certain areas of food and agricultural research, in con- trast to areas in which less equipment and less field experimentation are necessary. In agricultural, food, and environmental research today, as in research in other areas of science, relatively few types of studies can be adequately undertaken with a research budget of less than $ 100,000 per year per principal investigator. To do high-quality research on a grant of $50,000 per year, most researchers must secure additional support or in-kind contributions from other sources. Those funds are often difficult or impossible to get or may require compromises in the research plan. Table 3.2 describes what a typical principal investi . . . ^. ~ INVESTING IN RESEARCH gator's grant budget would be under $46,000 and $ 100,000 awards. Table 3.3 delineates the personnel costs under both award levels to show how limited the options are with the smaller grant: A principal inves- tigagor could afford, for example, the assistance of either a graduate student, a technician, or partial sup- port of a postdoctoral fellow. In contrast, an award at the higherlevel would provide a principal investigator with sufficient funds to pay for research supplies and to support at least one graduate student, one postdoc- toral research fellow, or both. This provides a key means of attracting young scientists to careers in agricultural and food science. These figures are par- ticularly sobering since competitive grants are a major source of support for graduate students the nation's future scientists. A program's grants should not only be sufficient in size but they should also be large enough to compete for the attention of scientists currently working in other areas. The average size of currentUSDAgrants $50,00~compares unfavorably with the average sizes for National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health ~IH) grants, which are $69,600 and $154,900, respectively (see Table 3.4~. The proposed average grant size for the expanded USDA program - 100,000 per year per investiga- tor makes the USDA grants not only sufficient but also competitive with NSF and NIH grants. TABLE 3.2 What a USDA Competitive Grant Can Buy (in dollars per year) Average Grant Size Personnel Equipment Supplies Travel Publication  Miscel- Indirect laneousa Costs 46,000 23,000 4,600 5,800 1,100 500 4,700 13,200 (28,700- (11,300- (3,000- (1,000- (500- (100- (1,000- (7,800 60,000) 34,000) 9,000) 13,100) 2,000) 600) 15,000) 22,500) 100,000 46,000 11,300 17,000 1,600 800 1,600 27,800 (74,000- (24,800- (3,000- (5,000- (500- (500- (500- (11,000 139,000) 82,000) 29,000) 32,000) 7,000) 1,200) 3,500) 39,000) NOTE: The sum of all budget categories adds up to more than the average size of a grant because each grant does not allocate monies to all the budget categories. Only the supplies and indirect costs categories are allocated in all grants. Values in parentheses are ranges. This category includes equipment maintenance contracts, animal care facility fees, subcontracts to outside services, etc. SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.3 Representative Personnel Expenditures under a USDA Competitive Grant (in dollars per year) 23 Average Grant Size Total Principal Post Personnel Investigator doctorate Graduate Under Student graduate Technician 46,000 (28,700 60,000) 100,000 (74,000 139,000) 23,000 (11,30~ 34,000) 46,000 (24,80~ 82,000) 7,800 (4,500 15,000) 13,000 (6,000 30,000) 23,000 (17,00~ 28,000) 28,000 (20,000 61,000) 13,000 (4,500 25,200) 15,500 (8,000 3l,000) 3,000 (1,000 5,000) 4,700 (1,500 12,000) 12,000 (2,900 21,000) 20,800 (10,00~ 30,000) NOTE: The sum of all personnel categories adds up to more than the total personnel category because each grant does not allocate monies to all the personnel categories. Values in parentheses are ranges. SOURCE: Data are based on a review of 20 randomly selected grants and were compiled by the Competitive Research Grants Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1989. TABLE 3.4 Comparison of Competitive Grant Programs Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation, and National Institutes of Health, FY 1988 NIHc  Parameter USDAa NSF Total NIGMS Number of proposals1,4663,586 19,205 2,709 Number of grants funded339683 6,212 1,044 Percentage of proposals resulting in grants23.1%19.0% 32.3% 38.5% Amount requested (in millions of dollars) Amount awarded in new grants (in millions of dollars) Percentage of requested amount awarded Average amount of new awards (in thousands of dollars/year)$50.0 $339.2 $1,096.7 $37.2 10.9% $61.5 5.6% $69.6 $3,728.7$461.5 $1,098.5$167.4 29.0%36.0% $154.9$156.2 aData represent grants from the Competitive Research Grants Office of the Cooperative State Research Service. They do not include Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Program, Special Research Grants Program, or National Needs Graduate Fellowships. bData are fornew awards excluding continuation payments forawards made in previous years. Combined data from three of the six divisions of the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Includes the Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, Division of Cellular Biosciences, and Division of Molecular Biosciences. CData represent grants to individual investigators, which are predominantly grants coded as ROT, and exclude continuation payments for awards made in previous years. Data from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) are a subset in the total for all of NIH. SOURCE: For USDA, adapted from data compiled by the Budget Office, Cooperative State Research Service. For NSF, adapted from data compiled by the Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. For NIH, National Institutes of Health, Division of Research Grants. In press. NIH Data Book 1989. Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health.

24 The duration of grants is important, too, because only in a few selected areas of research can significant experimental results be attained within 1 or 2 years. Research in genetics and plant breeding that needs data from at least four or five growing seasons cannot rationally be proposed for completion within a 2-year grant period. Similarly, worthwhile projects that involve extensive field or clinical work require not only the support of skilled laboratory and field person- nel but also sufficient time. Another example of research that requires a longer time frame is the effort to break through long-standing barriers to knowledge of basic plant or animal growth processes or barriers to knowledge of ecosystems for sustainable agriculture- breakthroughs that are prerequisites to developing more efficient systems of production. Still another example of research that requires a longer time frame is the pursuit of economically viable new uses of existing crops a pursuit that may entail the applica- tion of genetic engineering techniques to develop new traits in plants, agronomic and production research and plant breeding to bring yields up to profitable levels, engineering and food processing research to I - ESTING IN RESEARCH develop efficient technologies for handling and con- verting materials, and changes in agricultural com- modity and conservation policies to accommodate the needed adjustments in regional cropping patterns. It is difficult to persuade talented scientists to invest time in preparing and conducting research programs when the time allowed for the research is too short for them to achieve meaningful results and when there is uncertainty about whether a grant will be renewed and the funding continued so Mat the work can be completed. It is also difficult to persuade new postdoctoral fellows to relocate if they can only be guaranteed partial support for 2 years. It is difficult, too, to conduct strong graduate-level research training programs if only short-term partial funding is avail- able. These programs generally run at least 3 and often 4 years, but the average duration of USDA competitive grants has been 2 years (see Table 3.59. The difficulty and uncertainty connected with plan- ning a graduate research program with only 2-year grants has discouraged many scientists and their stu- dents from applying for the short-term grants. The best solution is the most direct one. Average TABLE 3.5 Competitive Grant Funding per Principal Investigator in Agriculture, Biology, and Biomedicine, FY 1986 Total Size of Average Grant Average Award Agency Program Award Duration (millions of Sponsoring Agency Dollars (years) dollars) USDA Competitive Research 46,200b 2 Grants Office 48.8 NSF Directorate for 70,000 2-3248.9 Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences DOES Biological Energy 72,000 3-3.511.8  Research Division NIH 164,000 3-3.54,900.0 Values given for FY 1986 awards include both direct and indirect costs. Average for all grants awarded, including forestry and small business innovation awards. COnly plant biology- and biotechnology-related grants; the average grant size over the entire Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences was $65,000. ~DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. SOURCE: National Research Council. 1987a. Agricultural Biotechnology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

RATIONALE FOR TIlE PROPOSAL TABLE 3.6 Goals for the Distribution of Funds with an Increase in the USDA Competitive Grants Program to $550 Million Goal Average Length Millions Percent of Granta Type of Grant of Dollars (years) Principal investigator 250 46 3 Fundamental multidisciplinary team 150 27 4 Mission-linked 100 18 4 multidisciplinary team Research-strengthening 50 9 3b aProgram administrators need maximum flexibility in detennining the appropriate length of grants; the table shows overall averages. gibe size and duration of research-strengthening grants, depending on the need for fellowship or program support. USDA competitive grants to principal investigators should be more nearly comparable in duration, as in size, to the grants made by NSF and NIH (2 to 3 and 3 to 3.5 years, respectively). This change alone will enable the USDA competitive grants program to go a long way toward attracting more top-notch, new sci- entific talent to the sciences basic to agriculture, food, and the environment. It is a necessary first step in meeting the research and educational challenges that lie ahead National Research Council, 1988b). Number and Size of Grants by Type Recent funding levels for the USDA competitive research grants program have ranged from $46.0 million in 1985 to $39.7 million in 1989 (see Table A.19), and the program has been able to award, on average, less than 400 grants each year. (See the box "Counting Grants," and for a comparison of USDA grants with those of NSF and NIH, see Table 3.4.) Each year, hundreds of technically meritorious pro- posals submitted to the USDA competitive grants program go unfunded, and if funding prospects were better, many more proposals would probably be sub- mitted. Given the number of high~uality proposals, the number, size, and duration of grants in the current program for even the limited program scope are en- tirely too small. Goals for the distribution of funding by type of 25 grant should apply to the total program, not to each of the six major program areas. The awarding of funds should be governed by the creativity that scientists demonstrate in proposing to tackle problems and by the relevance of the proposals, not by a priori distribu- tional goals. But the distribution of funds through the four types of grants would also depend, to some degree, upon the goals and priorities set for research. In a period when a major new area of science is first being explored like plant molecular biology prin- cipal investigator and fundamental multidisciplinary team grants will probably be the types most commonly  sought and awarded. When new plant biotechnolo- gies are being adapted and assessed for widespread commercial use, a different mix of grant types will be expected, including mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants. The distribution of funds by grant type and across the six major program areas will also be influenced by the priorities of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Growing concern about both the protection of water quality and changes in global climate, for example, might lead to an increase in the funding appropriated to the natural resources and the environment program area. Targets for the distribution of funds by type of go ant arepresentedinTable3.6. These are goals to strive for rather than binding rules, and they apply only to a fully funded program. The emphasis given to principal

26 INVESTING IN RESEARCH Counting Grants Within each fiscal year, funds are obligated to new grants, continuing grants, and supplemental funding. In counting and comparing the total number of proposals submitted, grants awarded, and grants funded, one runs the risk of mixing apples with oranges. Most grants cover a time period of more than 1 year, and a grant awarded for a 3-year period, for example, may appear in the statistics overtime either as one grant or as three grants, depending on whether it is a simple or a continuing grant. In the case of a simple grant, the full 3 years of funding are obligated in 1 fiscal year, so the grant appears only once in the statistics. But in the case of a continuing grant with incremental funding from different fiscal years, the grant counts over time as three grants, even though ~ went through only one competition (the first year). Supplemental funds are small additions to a grant to cover an unanticipated need to complete the research, such as the need to purchase a special instrument. Thus, statistics on the SUCCESS rate of grant applications can compare the number of proposals received and reviewed within a fiscal year with the number of new grants competitively awarded in that year, but not with the total number of grants funded during that same year. The USDA Competitive Research Grants Office makes simple grants and has few, if any, continuing grants. In contrast, both NSF and the institutes at NIH obligate roughly two-thirds of their funds to continuing grants in each fiscal year. The data presented in Table 3.4 include only proposals and grants that were competitively reviewed in FY 1988. investigator grants is appropriate because scientists- indeed, scholars as a group-work particularly well in individual creative endeavors, pursuing their own interests to achieve maximum progress. In the NSF, NIH, and USDA competitive research grants pro- grams, principal investigator grants have been, and continue to be, highly successful in advancing sci- ence, and they constitute the primary basis of research progress. They must be given a major emphasis in the expanded USDA competitive grants program. Assuming that a principal investigator grant repre- sents funding for one senior scientist, a student, and a technician for 3 years; that a fundamental multidisci- plinary team grant represents funding for at least two collaborating senior scientists and staff for 4 years; and that a mission-linked multidisciplinary team re- search grant represents funding for a team headed by four senior investigators for 4 years, then one can construct a table (see Table 3.7) showing the estimated number of grants and scientists that might be funded after the expanded competitive grants program reaches its fourth grant~ycle year. Since the size and duration of research-strengthening grants will vary depending on the need for fellowship or program support, their number is not included in the estimates in Table 3.7. Thus, a $500 million increase added to the current appropriation of approximately $50 million would provide approximately 1,042 grants to be awarded each year, not counting research-strengthening grants. The expenditure per "rant would very from an average of $312,000 per 3-year grant for a principal investiga tor ($104,000 per year) to $1.6 million per 4-year mission-linked multidisciplinary team research grant ($100,000 per year per investigator). Still excluding research-strengthening grants, an estimated 4,832 principal investigators or senior scientists would be supported in any 1 year more than five times the number under the current program (which supports about 850 scientists per year: about 425 scientists working in the first year of a 2-year grant and 425 in the second year). The more than doubling in the average annual size of grants of principal investigators would also allow the investigators to secure the help of several thousand more laboratory technicians, post-  doctoral assistants, and graduate students (see Tables 3.2and3.3~. In comparison, NIH awards about 6,000 grants annually. Theselastan average of3 years end provide about $160,000 annually per ~ant, generally to one principal investigator. About one-third of the propos- als submitted each year to NIH result in grant awards. NSF awards about 2,200 biosciences grants each year twice the number proposed for the expanded USDA program; about 20 percent of the proposals result in grant awards. (For comparative data for FY 1988, see Table 3.4.) The estimates in Table 3.7 of the funding available for grants do not account for the administrative cost of the program. If the administrative cost is 3 percent, then $15.5 million must tee subtracted from the award totals, removing funding equivalent to 150 investiga- tors from the total of 4,832 researchers.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL Availability of Scientists The current pool of talented scientists is more than sufficient to ensure a strong response to the expanded program by top-quality scientists. This conclusion is based on the size of the pool of agricultural and biological scientists who are expected to be interested in the expanded program. This group is already interested in the current program, as indicated by the high proportion of proposals judged meritorious that go unfunded each year. The proposed expansion in program scope and the increased size and duration of grants should secure their interest even more. In addition, the proposed expansion will also provide for graduate assistantships and postdoctoral appointments that will maintain a continuing influx of high-quality young scientists. Comparable data for physical and social scientists and engineers cannot be examined because the scope and emphasis of the current pro- gram do not attract their attention, but it is wholly reasonable to expect them to be highly interested in the 27 expanded program, as they are for comparable NSF and NIH programs. As Table 3.7 shows, the estimated 1,042 grants awarded per year would support 4,832 scientists. This represents 56 percent of the 8,654 agricultural scien- tists working in traditional agricultural science fields, mainly at land-grant universities (Table 3.8~. How- ever, the grants will also go to scientists outside the traditional agricultural science fields, just as grants in biomedicine go to scientists both inside and outside biomedical fields. To illustrate the potential involve- ment of scientists outside traditional agricultural sci- ences, consider only the 40,416 biological scientists (see Table 3.8~. If all 4,832 grants were awarded to these scientists, the US DA program would tee support- ing about 12 percent of them. But, of course, a mix of scientists will be supported. If the proposed program were to fund agricultural and biological scientists in the same proportions as at present (about 70 percent of the grants now go to scientists at land-grant universi- ties), then about 3,382 agricultural scientists (about 39 TABLE 3.7 Estimated Number of Grants and Scientists Supported through a USDA Competitive Grants Program of $550 Million Per Year Type of Grant Total New Funding (in millions of dollars) Total Award/GranP (in thousands of dollars) Number of New Grants/Year Number of Active  Grits. Number of Researchers Receiving Suppo~ear Principal investigator $250 Fundamental mulh disciplinary team Mission-linked mulii disciplinary team 100 Research strengtheningC 50 150 $312 833 1,612 NA 8002,400 2,400 180720 1,440 62248 992 NANA NA Total 550 1,042 3,368 4,832 Assumptions used in making calculations, in addition to the distribution of funding among grant types shown in Table 3.6, are as follows: (1) Principal investigator grants: one principal investigator per grant, $100,000 per year, average length of 3 years. (2) Fundamental multidisciplinary team grants: average of two principal investigators per grant, each at $100,000 per year; for this calculation average length is assumed to be 4 years. (3) Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants: average of four principal investigators, each at $100,000 per year, average length of 4 years. bEstimates based on the number of new grants awarded each year times the average length of grant. CResearch-strengthening grants would vary in size and number and are not estimated here (NA, not applicable).

28 TABLE 3.8 Percentage of Scientists by Field at Four-Year Colleges and Universities Receiving Federal Science Agency Support, 1987 Field of ScienceaPercent Receiving and Selected Number atUSDA Disciplines Colleges/USDA Comp. NSF NIH within Fields Universities Funding Grants. Grants Grants Agricultural scientists8,654 63.33.2 4.8 1.6 Economics-related1,838 68.1NA 1.0 0 Plant biology-related2,511 63.6NA 6.0 1.5 Biological scientists40,416 9.5<0.1 15.8 45.6 Agriculture-related biological6,778 28.2<0.2 17.6 19.2 Plant-related1,098 48.0NA 29.0 5.5 Environmental scientists7,375 4.6<0.1 35.5 1.5 Hydrology and water resources293 23.2NA 27.3 0 All scientists185,746 6.80.2 12.1 18.5 NOTE: NA, Not available; percentage cannot be estimated on the basis of available information. aFields of science are as defined and grouped by the 1987 Survey of Doctorate Recipients conducted for the National Science Foundation by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council. bPercentage of scientists receiving USDA competitive grants is estimated on the basis of the following assumptions: 70 percent of an average of 425 grants awarded annually are received by agricultural scientists; 30 percent of grants are awarded to agriculture-related biological scientists. These assumptions are consistent with data provided by the Competitive Research Grants Office on the distribution of USDA competitive grant awards. These are not part of the land-grant university agricultural experiment station system. SOURCE: Compiled by Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, based on data front the National Science Foundation. 1988b. Table B-29 in Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States. NSF Report No. 88-331. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation; data were also provided by the Office of Scientific and Engineenng Personnel, National Research Council, derived from a special analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (1989). percent of their total) and about 1,450 biological scien- tists (about 3.6 percent of their total) would be sup- ported. In comparison, about 45 percent of the 40,416 biological scientists conducting research in 1987 re- ceivedNIHgrants. Therefore, the 1,042 grants awarded per year are still insufficient to fund agricultural scien- tists even to the level of NlH's funding of biological scientists and can involve biological scientists only to a very small extent. Thus, 1,042 grants per year should be seen, over the long term, as only a minimum number of grants for the USDA competitive grants program. SUPPORT WITH NEW MONEY This proposal for new funding for an expanded grants program comes at a time of fiscal stringency for INVESTING IN RESEARCH the United States. Yet, the needs and opportunities warrant the proposed action. This section presents three reasons for the need for new, not redirected, funding: (1) the consequences of the past 25 years of no real R&D growth for agriculture, (2) the need to retain the state-federal partnership, and (3) an evalu- ation of the trade-offs required by the fiscal realities. Consequences of the Lack of R&D Growth From l955 through 1965,USDA research budgets  grew in real terms, but from 1965 to the present, they have shown no real growth when corrected for infla- tion (see tables in Appendix A). Based on 1982 constant dollars, the purchasing power of USDA re

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL search appropriations in 1965 was $788 million dol- lars; in 1988 it was $778 million. Not only has funding for agricultural, food, and environmental research changed little in absolute terms during the past 25 years, but as a percentage of total federal appropriations for nondefense R&D it has also been unchanged-consistently 5 percent or less. Yet, the environment in which agriculture must operate has changed substantially. The macroeconomic condi- tions that effect the farmer end producer global trade policy, the federal budget, and the value of U.S. currency-have changed a great deal. The regulatory climate is different and in flux, which increases the complexity and expense of doing business throughout the agricultural and food sector. And science and technology continue to evolve, altering farming prac- tices, markets, the cost of inputs, and overall produc- tivity. The lack of real growth in the R&D sector of the agricultural, food, and environmental system has four mayor consequences. First, without the prospect of a sufficient and acces- sible source of funds, the agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research system will find it difficult to bring younger scientists into the system and induce them to establish research careers there. This takes on greater significance since the large cohort of highly produc- tive scientists who have been in the system since the l950s will soon be retiring. Second, without growth, opportunities for gradu- ate education and research experiences within the systemcannotbemaintained. Yet,graduate education is a major product of the U.S. research system. Some would even argue that it is its most important product. Educational opportunities emphasizing agricultural research are the source of the skilled talent on which agriculture depends. Third, the no-growth condition of agricultural R&D funding has, in effect, decreased funding because simply "keeping up" requires spending more than normal inflation would suggest. This is partly because the entire character of science has changed, particu- larly science for agriculture and biology. Instruments, techniques, and supplies have become extremely sophisticated and accurate. as well as much more expensive, so it costs more to perform high-quality science today than it did 10 to 20 years ago. In addition, since many of the problems are now more multifaceted, more emphasis must be placed on mul- tidisciplinary work, and this, too, has raised costs, particularly in the field- and clinic-based studies nec 29 essary to understand the complex phenomena in- volved in agriculture. Moreover, intensifying the consequences of no R&D growth, the price indices for research generally run ahead of normal inflation indi- cators, thus depressing even further the purchasing power of a grant. Fourth, the lack of real growth in federal funding for R&D has meant that new scientific opportunities and necessary new programs have been funded through an internal redirection of federal funding, as is the case for intramural research programs within USDA.  Redirection of state funds and the securing of new state funds have also occurred through interactions within the state-federal partnership in research. In a very real sense, the agricultural research sector has already been redirecting its funds. However, new demands are being made on the research system. For example, new information and analysis are required within the regulatory environ- ment. Much more caution and thoroughness are required in developing and using new technologies, such as biotechnology for plants and animals, than have been required for conventional plant and animal breeding in the past. And there are research questions connected to the relationship between agriculture and the environment-for example, when the environ- ment is actually or potentially polluted by the contin- ued use of pesticides and natural and chemical fertil- izers, by agricultural and food processing wastes, and by leachates. Thus, when viewed from a number of perspectives, the current no-growth policy in agricultural R&D is putting at risk the vitality of the entire U.S . agricultural and food enterprise. State-Federal Partnership The partnership between the states and the federal government in research, development, and applica- lion related to the agricultural and food sector involves both state end federal agencies and scientists. Through the state agnculturalexperiment stations (SAESs) and Cooperative Extension Service systems, it involves the land-grant universities, the colleges of 1890, and the Tuskegee Institute; through the Agricultural Re- search Service, Cooperative State Research Service, Extension Service, and, to some extent, the Economic Research Service and U.S. Forest Service, it involves USDA. The partnership is strong and well estab- lished, and one of its key elements is collaboration in research and application. This collaboration is helped

30 by the fact that the federal government provides each state with formula funds that the state matches or exceeds. In 1988 the federal contribution of formula funds for research ($201.8 million) funded only 12 percent of the SAKS research program of $1,674 million (see Tables A.14 and A.15~. States use a large portion of their total research funds to do research that is relevant to the entire nation. Although valuable, this research has been done at the expense of state responsibilities for technology devel- opment and application, for site-specif~c research, and for stronger linkages between research and extension. One recent example of nationally relevant research by states is biotechnology research, which many states have emphasized and which, in most instances, is fundamental research. The significance of an ex- panded USDA competitive grants program is that it would use federal funds to provide major necessary support for fundamental research of national value, thereby lessening some of the competition for state funds, which could then appropriately be applied, in part, to state and regional problems. The state-federal partnership has been, and will continue to be, a key factor in converting research results, whether fundamental or applied, into tech- nologi~es and knowledge that are usable by producers and processors and then, through the cooperative extension system, in getting them applied. There are no excess funds in this partnership for doing this essential job. As noted elsewhere in this proposal, if funds are taken away from the partnership or redi- rected to other activities-even to an expanded com- petitivegrantsprogram thenation's capacity to keep research, development, and application flowing will be diminished. Fiscal Realities Finally, there is the matter of fiscal realities: Is funding available? Where would it come from? What are the implications of shifting funds from one pro- gram to another? At this time of fiscal constraint, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government must reduce the national debt and at the same time set priorities among competing federal expenditures to enact programs that maintain the welfare, infrastruc- ture, security, and continued economic growth of the United States. They must also address public con- cerns for maintaining global competitiveness, increas INVESTING IN RESEARCH ing the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply, and protecting environmental resources. The goal of simultaneously reducing expenditures and attending to essential national needs requires fiscal prudence. Trade-Offs Given the current era of fiscal constraints, this proposal for an increased investment in the agricul- tural, food, and environmental research system re- quires that several possible trade-offs be considered.  The $500 million for competitive grants could come from sacrificing other USDA research pro- grams. Can some current research programs be dis- continued in an effort to strengthen competitively supported research? The necessary funds could be directed to re- search from other USDA budget categories. Com- modity price supports, for example, have decreased from $26 billion to $11 billion during the pest 3 years, as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved. Should $500 million of those savings and of future budgetary savings be redirected toward research, or should they be directed toward reducing the national debt, toward some combination of the two, or toward progress outside of agriculture? The funds couldbe shifted from other parts of the federal budget into USDA. Does the consistently high return on the agricultural research investment over- ride the need for funds in other areas of national interest? The investment in agricultural, food, and envi- ronmental research could be deferred until deficit re- duction has been achieved. But investing new funds now can hasten future economic growth and scientific benefits. What will be gained-or lost by postpon- ing the investment? Redirection within the USDA Research Budget As discussed above, the USDA research budget has not increased in real purchasing power for the past 25 years. Thus, agricultural research is already substan- tially underfunded, given the continuing needs and the many new needs. It follows that a redirection of funds within an appropriation that is already too small will not allow the agricultural, food, and environmental research system to address fully the challenges con- fronting it. However, some might argue that current

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL funding is less than suitably used. Atleast three points should be made in response. First, many observers believe that the political prospects for redirection are nil to modest. Second, any funds derived from redirection within the USDA research budget would diminish the capac- ity of the research and delivery system itself. It is this very system that is responsible for capturing the re- sults from competitively funded, formula- and state- funded, and other research, formulating them into technologies and applications and then delivering them to users. Redirection of funding would under- mine not only the system's capacity for innovation but also continuing efforts to strengthen its research capa- bilities. Thus, taking funds from the research and delivery system would diminish it precisely when it needs to be more effective. Third, redirection runs the risk of destroying some of the"muscle" of quality research in intramural and formula-funded research while attempting to cut out any 4`fat.'' The proposed increase in funding for competitive O ~ research grants is justified. This proposal strongly recommends against the redirection of funds within the USDA research budget for the reasons given above. If no growth in the USDA research budget is possible, then decisions to redirectUSDA's research funds are judgments that elected and other public officials may choose to evaluate. Investment of Subsidy Savings As U.S. agriculture gradually returns to economic health and as global commodity prices increase, the federal budget appropriations currently needed for price support programs may be released. If that occurs, pant of this funding should be reinvested in research programs that can strengthen the knowledge that supports the production of agricultural commodi- ties and the food and fiber industries of the country. Such redirection is appropriate because the research will directly benefit those commodities: the increased knowledge will be the basis on which profitability is increased and new uses for agricultural commodities are created. Investment Using Non-USDA Funds Beside reinvesting savings from the decreases in subsidy payments, another possibility is reinvestment from other nonresearch portions of the federal budget. 31 This alternative may be possible, but it would require major budgetary decisions and analyses that are out- side the scope of this proposal. There is also the possibility of reinvesting other parts of the nondefense federal R&D budget into this expanded program. While possible, this would be a difficult and unreasonable thing to do at the lame the nation as a whole is trying to reinvest in its research infrastructure and the federal government is commit- ted both to doubling the NSF budget and to funding  major research initiatives in relevant areas, such as the human genome project. Investment Now For three reasons, a $500 million increase in re- search funding is needed at this time. The first reason is economic, the second is scientific, and the third combines both. First, agricultural research gives a high return on investment (see"Investing in Agriculture" in the section "A $500 Million Increase" above3, and the high return strongly confirms the economic value for the nation of investing in agricultural and related research. In addition, investment in the environmental component of the system will have a substantial direct monetary value as less expensive and more effective environ- mental management systems are used (involving more effective, less environmentally problematic fertiliz- ers, insecticides, and herbicides and their integrated systems). Furthermore, money spent ensuring envi- ronmental quality for the agricultural and food system will keep problems from building and will thus save on future remedial costs. A second reason for increasing research funding by $500 million now is the combination of existing pro- gram needs and scientific opportunities applicable to agriculture: Increased funding can be used to major advantage. The necessary scientific talent in the physical, biological, engineering, and social sciences as well as in agriculture and related disciplines is also available and ready to compete for this new funding. Moreover, USDA has shown that it can professionally administer and manage a competitive grants program. The third reason that this substantial increase should be enacted in a single year is a reflection of the broadened scope of agricultural, food, and environ- mental research and of the importance of sustained agricultural advancement for the U.S. economy. The agribusiness complex contributes an estimated 18

32 percent of the gross national product (Harrington et al., 1986~. Farming itself accounts for 2 percent; the '`upstream" industries that supply farming equipment, feed, seed, fertilizers, and financing account for about 2 percent; and the "downstream" industries that retail, transport, process, and manufacture products from the commodities supplied by farms account for the re- maining 14 percent. In addition, the ties between farming and its linked industries continue to increase because the value added to agricultural products be- yond the farm continues to increase. For example, the activity in `'downstream" industries, corrected for inflation, doubled from 1960 to 1980. In 1987 the U.S. gross national product was $4.5 trillion (Council of Economic Advisers, 1989~. The 18 percent contributed by the agribusiness complex would be roughly $815 billion. This means that the estimated $1.04 billion in 1990 federal obligations for agricultural R&D (Office of Management and Budget, 1989) represents a research investment of less than 0.13 percent of agriculture's annual contribution to the gross national product. In light of the value of the agricultural complex to the U.S. economy, a major investment in research seems appropriate. The in- crease will thus provide substantial economic benefits for the nation. Given the overall fiscal problems facing the nation, the appropriation of the full $500 million increase may not be possible in 1 year. Even so, a commitment of this magnitude is essential, and any stepwise increase in funding should reach the full increased amount as soon as possible, preferably within 3 years. The actions taken by the federal government should also firmly state the goal of increasing the investment in research through competitive grants. A CENTRAL ROLE FOR USDA The competitive grants program proposed here should be the responsibility of USDA. The specific organizational environment for the proposed expanded program within USDA is analyzed in Chapter 6. This section discusses some of the reasons for locating the program in USDA and then surveys the kinds of links the expanded program could be expected to have with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the SAESs, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) system, and other federal agencies. First, the expanded program should be placed in USDA because the U.S. Congress has designated it as INVESTING IN RESEARCH the federal agency responsible for advancing the agri- cultural sciences and developing technology appli- cable to food, fiber, and forest product industries and for responding to issues-such as environmental concerns related to the production and processing sectors. The department has special responsibilities and expertise in agricultural production, food safety, environmental protection, and human nutrition. Its . . . ~ . mission agencies ant programs focus on conserving resources, tracking nutritional status, enforcing qual- ity standards and grades for food and forest products,  guarding against the spread of disease, managing forests and wildlife, and helping marketing systems work more efficiently. The department administers several programs that develop new knowledge and technology and other programs that help refine tech- nology and transfer it into widespread use. Second, USDA has responsibility for the national laboratories for agricultural research (ARS), for fed- eral agricultural regulatory and economic analytical services, and-in cooperation with the states-for the network and capacity for transferring technology to productive use. That network includes the ARS, the SAESs, and CES. It also extends outward to other federal agencies. Third, USDA has proved itself able to manage a competitive grants program characterized by high quality, timeliness, and professionalism. Linkages with ARS The mission of ARS is to develop, refine, and adapt science and technology to advance USDA's basic goals. Well over half of the federal government's current investment in food and agricultural R&D goes to support ARS research basic, applied, and mul- tidisciplinary. Ongoing ARS programs correspond closely to the proposed six major program areas. ARS scientists can participate in the expanded competitive grants program by applying for grants, by identifying the mission-linked research needs and priorities of USDA and other federal agencies, and by serving on peer review panels. ARS scientists and engineers have experience in key engineering disci- plines, instrumentation, new product and process development, natural resource stewardship, and other critical areas. Moreover, ARS scientists are among those most familiar with mission agency needs and with ongoing government regulatory, grading, and related program activities.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL Linkages with State Agricultural Experiment Stations SAESs encompass those faculty and scientists at land-grant and similarly chartered universities who are involved in the agricultural research system and who generally receive part of their support from state and federal funds appropriated to the SAESs. A major fraction of all public funding for research on agricul- ture and food is spent through the SAESs, and the combined state and federal support for the SAESs is approximately three times the federal support for ARS (see tables in Appendix A). The work of the SAESs involves basic research on fundamental biological processes, more applied work on the problems and issues confronting agricultural and food production systems, and technology development and application (aided by the CES and the private and federal sectors). Many SAKS scientists have combined teaching, re . . . search, or extension appointments. Strong collaborative relationships exist between SAKS and ARS scientists throughout the country. Many ARS scientists are located at universities and may even have adjoining laboratories with their SAKS colleagues. The role of the SAESs and their participating scientists has become broader, not narrower, in recent years. They are involved not only in their traditional responsibilities in agricultural research but also in laboratory-based fundamental research such as mo- lecular and cellular genetics, and they interact closely with non-SAES biological scientists. Concurrently, SAKS scientists are also involved in the assessment and implementation of agricultural policy issues. For example, throughout the SAKS, extensive work has been done to respond to issues on water quality, pesticide use, and the competitiveness of agriculture. In addition to competing for grants from the ex- panded competitive grants programs, SAKS scientists will have important roles to play in serving on com- petitive grants program advisory committees and peer review panels, defining program priorities, identify- ing mission-linked research issues, and reviewing multidisciplinary research proposals. Important but sometimes ignored in the university- based agricultural research system are the scientists who are not operationally within the SAKS system but who are interested in and contribute to research impor- tant to agriculture. This group includes scientists at the land-grant universities outside the colleges of 33 agriculture, human ecology, and veterinary medicine and scientists at non-land-grant universities, both public and private. This group must be seen as potential collaborators with USDA in developing and applying new results and technologies to the agricul- tural, food, and environmental system. Linkages with the Cooperative Extension Service The CES, assisted by the Extension Service of the USDA, brings research applications and education to  users and communicates users' special needs to the research community. The CES uses a network of extension specialists and county-based agents who are supported through combinations of federal formula funds, state funds, and county or regional funds. This confederation of extension agents is unique in provid- ing the communication and education link between users and researchers. In an expanded competitive grants program, the CES system would have a particularly critical role in mission-linked team research projects. These projects would be multidisciplinary, would range from basic laboratory research to applied laboratory and field work, and would include a knowledge and technology transfer component. Because many SAKS scientists have partial extension responsibilities, they are also well positioned to help plan and carry out both the applied research and the technology transfer compo- nents of mission-linked multidisciplinary team re- search. The CES has communications networks for foster- ing and using new knowledge, refined technologies, and improved production methods. Extension person- nel can also help recognize and pursue opportunities for partnerships between the public and private sectors and for dialogue among state and federal agency . . . . . . personne , interested citizens, private organizations, and industrial leaders. Linkages with Other Federal Agencies There is substantial cooperation and communica- tion between USDA research agencies and most other federal research agencies. The Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences, in particular, has been helpful in fostering interagency communication about overall scientific activities and priorities, and the Users Advisory Board provides helpful analyses. An expanded USDA competitive grants program will

34 have a more important government-wide role in ad- vancing the science and technology capability relative to the needs of several mission agencies (e.g., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for food safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for environ- mentally safe methods of pest control, and the U.S. Department of Energy for biological energy sources and waste management). As this occurs, USDA will have more opportunities to receive input from active scientists in other agencies and to coordinate research activities and exchange research information-par- ticularly with NSF and NIH- in the day-to-day plan- ning and administration of competitively awarded programs. THE ROLE OF COMPETITIVE GRANTS Competitive grants are not the only mechanism for distributing the new $500 million allocation for re- search, but they are best suited to stimulating new research activity in specific areas of science. This section discusses the federal R&D funding mecha- nisms and covers in detail the particular advantages of competitive grants. Federal R&D Funding Mechanisms The federal investment in agricultural, food, and environmental research is distributed by four different funding mechanisms: intramural research conducted by USDA staff, formula funds to the SAKS s, grants for special R&D initiatives, and competitive grants. Intramural Funding Intramural funding is the principal form of support for ARS, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Economic Research Service and provides their long-term, mis- sion-oriented research activities with the stability that is essential for continuity of effort. Agricultural and food research activities that re- quire a steady effort over many years to obtain signifi- cantresults are often pursued most affectively through intramural and formula funding mechanisms. Ex- amples include long-term breeding programs that select and breed plants and animals for desirable traits over several generations, soil and water conservation re- search that must focus on how to stabilize land or protect water quality, and nutrition research on the INVESTING IN RESEARCH effects of dietary patterns on physiological develop- ment as children move into and through adolescence and in the aging population. In addition to long-term research projects and re- search studies that require extended monitoring pro- grams, intramural funding also maintains the research talent and infrastructure necessary to respond rapidly to national or regional emergencies, such as pest outbreaks. Formula Funding Formula funds are federal allocations to the SAKS  in each state and territory. These allocations require matching state support. The formula refers to the distribution of the federal payments to each of the states and territories. Congress last revised the for- mula in 1955. (See Appendix A for details of the formula.) Formula funding provides a relatively stable re- source base and is an important source of support for a variety of important activities, including long-term studies; for the more applied research that helps states meet their responsibilities for food safety, nutrition, pesticide safety, and animal care and disease preven- tion and for assisting states working on multistate, regional problems; as well as for graduate student training. Special Grants Special research grants are a flexible and adaptive funding mechanism to target new resources to pariicu- larly pressing problems that are often specific to a single state or region of the country. For example, agronomic or pest problems would demand in-depth knowledge of the local or regional production prac- tices as well as knowledge of natural resource condi- tions and limitations, pest pressures, and economic and policy considerations. Such problems typically demand swift action and may be only periodic. These grants generally last for a finite period of time, some- times only 1 year, and they are usually specifically identified in the appropriations bill for USDA re- search. Competitive Grants Competitive grants are the proven and most appro- priate mechanism to attract and retain people from throughout the nationts scientific community to do

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL top-quality fundamental research and the more ap plied research in promising areas of science and tech nology. Grants are awarded on the basis of quality and technical merit, as judged by experienced scientists serving on peer review panels. The peer review process is used to select research that is both relevant and of high scientific quality. The annual cycle of proposals and awards keeps the focus on research that insufficiently funded, or not awarded. Funding for is at the forefront of science and technology. lengthy research, such as that for long-te~m plant, Research in genetics, chemistry, economics, and animal, social, and ecological studies, is sometimes applied mathematics are examples of areas that are not more difficult to secure through competitive research location-specific and in which the pursuit of agricul- grants; thisis usually deals with through a combination rurally related basic research can contribute to future of renewal grants and institutional support. Securing advances in agriculture across the nation. support for multidisciplinary work through competi Competitive grants have been used with high effec- live grants is allegedly difficult because the evaluation tiveness by NSF and NIH. The strengths of the paradigms often come from single disciplines end the competitive "rants funding mechanism are elaborated scientists on peer review panels may from single in a subsequent section. ~~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 35 can be particularly onerous when the duration of grants is too short, as is now the case with the USDA competitive grants program. There is also some uncertainty and anxiety about the continuity of fund- ing, particularly at the time of renewal; some institu- tions try to handle this uncertainty by providing bridg- ing support in the event that the renewal is late, FY 1988 Distribution of Funds In FY 1988, the combined research outlays for ARS and the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) totaled $911.5 million. Of these outlays, $559.5 million (61 percent) went to ARS and $352 million (39 percent) went to CSRS (see Table A.5~. For CSRS, FY 1988 expenditures totaled $383.5 million (see Table A.14), slightly higher than the FY 1988 budges obligations (see thebox"Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures" in Appendix A). Of these expenditures, formula funds accounted for $201 .8 million (53 percent), competitive grants $45.4 million (12 percent), and special grants $51.8 million (14 percent) (see Table A.14~. The Advantages of Competitive Grants The competitive grants mechanism is advocated in this proposal because it has three major strengths: Responsiveness and flexibility · Talent and openness Balance among funding mechanisms Before discussing the strengths, one should note the reservations some people have about the competi- tive grants mechanism. Some believe that an inordi- nate amount of time is required to prepare applications for competitive grants and their renewals; this burden disciplines and the scientists on peer review panels may not be equally knowledgeable in all the disci- plines covered by the proposal. Some people are also concerned that competitive grant research programs avoid applied research. That concern is understandable and was unavoidable in the past because competitive grants from NSF are in-  tended for research at the forefront of a discipline and not for mission-oriented research; and the mission of NIH competitive grants is biomedical, not agricul- tural, problems. In an expanded competitive grants program in USDA, the mission will be agriculture, and the distinction between basic and applied research should not be of concern. The distinction should be between high-quality and relevant research, on the one hand, and pedestrian and inappropriate research, on the other. In agricultural, food, and environmental research, many of the more interesting problems are in settings that have en applied character (such as ecosys- tem studies in relation to sustainable agriculture); these kinds of studies are intended to be funded under the proposed competitive grants program within USDA. Some of the conditions noted above, such as the time required to prepare competitive grant proposals and the risk of losing continuing support, are neces- sary to ensure the highest quality of science. Other conditions, such as those dealing with multidiscipli- nary and applied research, can be suitably dealt with by new approaches like those presented in this pro- pos~. Notwithstanding the reservations, competitive grants are the preferred way to award the funds for the research envisioned by this proposal.

36 Responsiveness and Flexibility A key strength of the competitive grants funding mechanism is responsiveness end flexibility. Respon- siveness and flexibility jointly are the ability to iden- tify and support potentially important areas of re- search areas that are emerging but that have not yet been designated significant. Responsiveness means being hospitable to-and strongly encouraging-work at the forefront of an area of science. The basis of the competitive research grants system is doing a definable piece of work within the bounds set by the grant's funds and duration. Virtually by definition, competitive grants programs have the capacity to be responsive. Future funding can be redirected without unduly disrupting previously funded research studies. Over relatively short periods the program can significantly and systematically change the emphasis on the area of research to be funded. Its commitments are for finite lengths of time and for relatively small amounts of money. Thus, such a program is less likely to get locked into supporting research whose relevance to significantproblems might become marginal as advances are made elsewhere in science or as social needs or economic opportunities change. It can afford to support risky but potentially promising work and to make awards to promising but not yet fully established younger scientists. A competitive grants program can also be respon- sive to changing USDA mission agency needs by making additional or new grant support available in particular program areas. Such needs can be high- lighted in annual program announcements, and efforts can be made to notify the science and engineering communities of the new program areas. Notwith- standing the desire to respond to new opportunities and to change as needs dictate, frequent and extensive shifts in priorities should be avoided because continu- ity and stability are hallmarks of high-quality science. A further aspect of responsiveness is the capacity to promote communication and links across scientific disciplines and between program sectors. Such com- munication and links are built into the administra- tive processes of the program at every stage. People from various disciplines and from all segments of the scientific community academia, industry, and gov- emment are necessarily brought together to discuss and refine program priorities, establish proposal re- view criteria, and serve on peer review panels. Scien- tists who submit grant proposals receive constructive critiques on their proposals from peer review panels WRESTING IN RESEARCH end administrative staff. Even the process of develop- ing proposals particularly those involving multidis- ciplinary team research requires considerable dia- logue. Talent and Openness In addition to its responsiveness and flexibility, an expanded USDA competitive grants program will have the advantage of being able to attract additional scientists to the agricultural, food, and environmental  system and to retain them. It will do so by expanding opportunities for scientists who are currently involved in agricultural research; by drawing productive, proven scientists from other areas into agricultural research; by attracting and retaining new, younger scientists into agricultural research at the beginning of their careers; by removing financial and other barriers impeding women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled individuals and providing them with greater opportunities for research; and by encouraging and supporting work across all the program areas areas in which many scientists both inside and outside agriculture are strongly interested. An expanded competitive grants program offers an important new opportunity for top-quality scientists currently involved or interested in agricultural re- search to be significantly more involved. This is particularly important for scientists who are involved with USDA's current program: the grants are too limited in funds and time; · scientists working in plant biology: funding from both USDA and NSF is altogether too limited; scientists involved in animal-oriented studies: the biomedical programs of NIH are not applicable to their research unless the animal biology they are studying is congruent with the human and medical focus of NIH; and · scientists wishing to study environmental, engi- peering, markets and trade, or social and policy issues: normal funding sources from USDA are not available for those scientists outside the ARS-CSRS research system, and for those who are already part of that system, funding is limited. New talent will be attracted to research important to agriculture because people throughout the science and engineering communities both new, younger scientists and established scientists will,perhaps for the first time, seriously consider how they could

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL participate in agricultural research and, reciprocally, how their research activities could advance the sci- ence and technology interests relevant to U.S. agricul- ture, food, and the environment. An illustration of this kind of successful involvement is NIH's use of com- petitive grants to attract and retain researchers for biomedical science. NIH grants are one of the main reasons for the exceptional advances recently made in understanding molecular and cellular genetics and in elucidating the biology of growth and development- advances that lie behind the development of the entire biotechnology industry. The competitive grants approach is successful for biomedicine and should be equally so for agriculture. For that to occur, however, it will be necessary to make the size and length of the grants competitive with other grant forms and thereby secure the interest and com- mitment of researchers. As important as attracting and retaining new talent is the need to encourage and support members of groups that have not traditionally been part of the agricultural, food, and environmental system: women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled individu- als. Relative to their proportion of the general, univer- sity, or research community populations, these groups have been significantly underrepresented in the scien- tific disciplines involved in agriculture. Evidence suggests that many women, members of other underrepresented groups, disabled individuals, and young scientists trained in basic science depart- ments outside colleges of agriculture are discouraged from pursuing careers in food and agricultural scien- tific disciplines because of the lack of financial support in the system and, in some cases, because of their sense that greater professional challenges can be found elsewhere (National Research Council, 1988b). This proposed grants program would help significantly in addressing this need. Thus, a competitive grants mechanism gives scien- tists and scholars in public and private universities, government laboratories, and not-for-profit research locations a fair and equitable chance to obtain addi- tional support. The benefits of increased funding would be distributed widely. The openness of the competitive grants mechanisms is important for at- tracting top-quality scientists to agricultural research. Balance among Funding Mechanisms Each of the four funding mechanisms now support- ing agricultural, food, and environmental research has 37 a valuable role to play in ensuring that the vital basic (or fundamental), applied, technology development and transfer, crisis driven, and long-term forms of research are being met. Different needs are best met by different funding mechanisms. The most immedi- ate ways of doing this are to (1) attract new talent into the research system and (2) help active scientists take greater advantage of the developments rapidly occur- ring across all fields of science. Both of these can best be done with competitive grants, yet the presentUSDA competitive grants program now awards far too few  grants to fully perform the task. Moreover, at present there is marked imbalance across federal funding mechanisms (see the section "Federal R&D Funding Mechanisms" above). In terms of total public and private support for all components of the agricultural, food, and environ- mental research system, competitive grants play an even more modest role. Total support for agricultural, food, and environmental R&D within ARS, CSRS, and the SAKS s was about $2.2 billion in 1988, but only 2.5 percent of that was awarded competitively. (The $2.2 billion includes about $900 million from USDA and about $1.3 billion from state governments, com- modity organizations, and product sales and other private sources.) Other agencies with a strong record in advancing science and meeting national needs allocate a much larger portion of their R&D expenditures through the competitive grants mechanism: NIH allocates 83 percent and NSF allocates 90 percent (see Table 3.9~. The applied, regional, and site-specific nature of many agricultural, food, and environmental research and engineering issues makes it appropriate for a consid- erable portion of total agricultural research funding- perhaps one-third to two-thirds, depending on the area of science-to continue moving into the system through federal and state formula funds and other noncompeti- tive mechanisms. The $1.2billion in state government and private support to SAESs is outside the pool of funds that might be allocated competitively and na- tionally.~ One way to redress the imbalance is to secure more competitively awarded support for agriculture from other agencies (principally NSF and NIH). Although support from these sources has been crucially impor- tant in advancing basic science in fields key to agricul- ture, food, and environmental research, it is generally directed at priorities and applications other than those most critically needed to advance the agricultural and food sector. In addition, competition for these funds

38 - Cq Lo - - o o W Cq o I: ·_ - 00 An - A: ~o4 o o W m CQ .~ Cal I: ~4 an  be it: TIC w Cat hi; . ~ L ·~= ~ hi O == ~ O ~ ~ ~ W C_) 0 As NEW ~ L W ~ 5 ~ := .c Cat G) ~ O (V L4 ~ PA C: - , A ~ ~ o oo 0 oo oo ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~oo o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~ _ tn _ rA VJ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ O~ ,,8, c,> ~ 1 ~o' 8 1 1 c<, ~ <) ~: L4 =4 ~0 c: L4 1 Y~ l 3 ! _ l ~ L4 P~ - o  C) -° ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 1 C~ ~ 00 ~ w) 1 8 '~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ', ~ _. I ', tn 1 ~ w) °° ~ ~1tn C-1 == <) ^ a~ ~c) 2 ~ ~ ~y~ CO _ 3 ,, ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ° sm~o C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4' ln 00 00 00  8 ~ ~ ~ =, ~ ~Co~ t ~oo l . ~_ C ~W .= ~ o ~ ~o e ~ U ~u `, - E~ D ,~ f: , ~ - 0 00 a ~ Z ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ =-.s ~ _4 0 C~ O Cts ~ _ _ U) ~ ~ C3= E ~ _ £ ~ ~ P! 2_= e U' ~ o Z. ~ ~ ~ X o 9 ~ '~ ~ V, ~ C ~ ~C o, o~ - y ~ C ;, == .. 3 ~ _ _ ~ ~ . 3 5 E ~ 2 ~c ~ ~ c' 5 ~ 5 5 8 E E ', 5 ~, E e g 8 ~

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL is increasing. Much of the knowledge and techniques discovered by scientists who received NSF and NIH grants can be applied to agricultural research. An expanded USDA grants program will increase the application of this new knowledge to address the needs of the agricultural, food, and environmental system. Reciprocally, scientific developments brought about by USDA-supported work will advance funda- mental knowledge, for example, by increasing the understanding of genetic, physiological, and ecologi- cal processes. A second way to obtain a better balance among funding mechanisms is to redirect funding currently in the intramural, formula fund, or special grants pro- grams to competitive grants. But such redirection, as noted earlier, would likely damage the agricultural research system as a whore. Furthermore, es problems become more complex and as more rapid responses are needed to keep up with global competition, it will be essential to keep the ARS, SAKS, and CES sectors as fully funded as possible, lest their ability to accept and use new knowledge, develop new technologies, and help with technology application decreases even further. It has been suggested, for example, that USDA might allocate all its research support through a na- tional competitive grants program. If that were done, just under one-half of total state and federal agricul- tural research support would be competitively awarded. But doing that would require the ARS to close and would completely eliminate formula funds and spe- cial grants. That would be a mistake. Competitive grant program expenditures should grow relative to those of the intramural, formula, and special grant funding mechanisms but should neither replace nor dwarf them. Given the needs and opportunities, at least 35 percent of the total USDA investment in R&D should be awarded nationally through competitive grants. Although 35 percent for competitive grants is consid- erably lower than the percentages in NSF and NIH, it is more than seven times USDA's current level of 5 percent. ATTENTION TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH Multidisciplinary research is the term used in this 39 common research problem and that has an integrated plan of study. A multidisciplinary project requires research "in" the disciplines and at the same time draws research and results "from" the disciplines to form a study that integrates the disciplines and results to examine systematically the various facets as well as the totality of the problem. As used here, multidisci- plinary research designates both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, even though the three terms have somewhat different meanings. The attention given to multidisciplinary research in the proposed expanded program for agricultural, food, and environmental research is based on the premise that many of the most significant, interesting, and  difficult problems be they fundamental or mission- linked-are inherently multifaceted. Four examples illustrate the point: · Understanding the dietary patterns appropriate for good health requires research in biochemistry, physiology, genetics, nutrition, psychology, and soci- ology. Understanding plant pathogenesis requires re- search in plant pathology, biochemistry, plant biol- ogy, cell biology, ecology, and population biology. Developing sustainable animal agricultural sys- tems requires research in agronomy and soil science, ecology and ecosystems analysis, animal nutrition, population and community biology, economics, and other disciplines. Controlling the postharvest losses of crops in- volves a combination of the ability to resolve engi- neering problems in the harvesting, sorting, and re- frigerating equipment and an understanding of certain aspects of plant breeding, genetics, pathology, nutri- tion, toxicology, and plant science; only such a com- bination can address crop quality, control of posthar- vest diseases, nutrient loss during storage, and control and detection of mycotoxins. . To realize the full potential of science and technol ogy in agricultural, food, and environmental research, the USDA competitive grants program should direct up to 50 percent of its support to multidisciplinary research (through multidisciplinary team grants, both fundamental and mission-linked). This emphasis is meant to stimulate more multidisciplinary team re search and to strongly encourage it among senior scientists. proposal to describe research that combines expertise The word team in multidisciplinary team research from two or more disciplines into a shared focus on a implies that there is more than one senior scientist or

40 principal investigator. As described earlier in this chapter, fundamental multidisciplinary team grants are conceived of as the involvement of, on average, at least two senior scientists as principal investigators; and multidisciplinary mission-linked teams would involve about four senior scientists (see Table 3.7~. But the terms team and multidisciplinary may also suggest the concept of a research center. That associa- tion is incorrect, however, because center implies a larger research group, a more permanent or long-term association, and a physical facility, whereas the mul- tidisciplinary team grants proposed for the USDA competitive grants program are intended to go to small teams of probably two to four scientists and to extend for no longer than one grant cycle, with the possibility of one renewal. The association of multidisciplinary team with center should be avoided. Both types of multidisciplinary "rants proposed for the competitive grants program will involve multidis- ciplinary team research and will address fundamental science and engineering questions. The difference between them is that fundamental multidisciplinary grants should be for pioneering research at the fore- front of science and engineering disciplines. Mission- linked projects should address major science and engineering questions and perform basic research on understanding the phenomena being studied. They are also to link the work with more applied problems. Examples of mission-linked projects might be re- search that addresses both the source of the commod- ity and the market for a new product by studying the enzymatic, microbiological, or genetic basis for new uses of commodity materials or by combining agro- nomic, economic, and ecosystem research to deter- mine the optimum balance of components for a more sustainable and profitable crop and animal agricul- tural system. The key aspect of mission-linked multidisciplinary grants-their direct connection to the more applied problems-can be facilitated, and in some cases en- sured, if teams applying for grants of this type are required to include people from the applications sec- tor. Such people could be from private industry (e.g., from a food processing company), from government (e.g., a department of agriculture or health), or from a land-grant university (e.g., from cooperative exten- sion). In multidisciplinary team research, the proposed research can be carried out only with the full interac- tion and integration of the combined expertise and I^ESTING IN RESEARCH talents of the members of the team. If the proposed research can be conducted by the team members separately, it does not qualify as multidisciplinary team research. Multidisciplinary team research presents a number of conceptual and practical difficulties. Chief among them are issues of leadership, management, coordina- tion, rewards, and satisfaction. Scientific problems and their relation to new research findings-evolve continuously, sometimes rapidly, and keeping up requires good coordination and the ability to change research plans expeditiously, as necessary. In addi-  tion, integrating the work of several researchers, even those with a common plan of study, constitutes a personal, managerial, and leadership challenge to principal investigators; when there are several princi- pal investigators, coordination, discussion, and agree- ment usually take more care and time than when the research is directed by a single principal investigator. Then, too, rewards, advancement, and satisfaction within the profession and within the university envi- ronment, and sometimes within the industrial or gov- emmental environment, have traditionally been based on work done individually, not that done as part of a team. All of these difficulties together constitute a management and leadership challenge for an institu- tion, and resolving the difficulties is essential for the long-term success of multidisciplinary team research. Granting agencies have customarily awarded grants to single investigators within one scientific discipline; thus, the reviewing mechanisms are generally set up on a disciplinary basis. Involving reviewers from several rather different disciplines is considerably more difficult. Reviewers must give careful consid- eration to the composition of the research team; the quality and creativity of the scientific approaches being proposed; the extent of direct working involve- ment by the appropriate individuals, agencies, and institutions; and the ability to manage the project effectively. For the Wanting agency, managing the review of multidisciplinary team grants is exception- ally important. Some of the management issues are discussed in Chapter 6. Notwithstanding the difficulties, multidisciplinary research is clearly worth doing because of the multi- faceted nature ofthe problems both the fundamental and the more applied problems that are common in the agricultural, food, and environmental system. It is also worthwhile because of the unexpected synergism and creativity that good collaboration may generate.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES The proposed research-strengthening grants have two goals: (1) to help institutions and academic departments develop competitive research programs in areas of research important to their regions and (2) to attract more talented young scientists and engineers into careers in high-priority areas of national need in the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences. Thus, two types of research-strengthening grants would be offered: 1. grants to institutions and academic departments and programs to strengthen the capacity and competi- tiveness of their research in areas significant to their region; and 2. fellowships to broaden and strengthen the hu- man resources in the agricultural, food, and environ- mental system. Grants to institutions, departments, and programs would be for research program development, retrain- ing, and instrumentation (but not for buildings and capital expenditures). These grants would be targeted at institutions that aspire but are currently unable- to develop nationally competitive proposals to submit to federal funding agencies. Many agricultural, food, and environmental issues are unique to certain re- gions; so the whole system land-grant universities, state colleges, and private universities will become stronger and more responsive as a broader array of 41 institutions attain the capacity to compete for grants on a national basis. These grants would thus help over- come the geographic and institutional unevenness in the nation's ability to pursue research and technology development. NSF'sExperimentalProgramtoStimu- late Competitive Research initiative could serve as a good model. In some cases, the need for a research-strengthen- ing grant will be revealed when reviewers identify specific weaknesses or constraints in a grant proposal. A proposal may go unfunded, for example, because investigators either lack access to a certain instrument or research method or have inadequate experience in using it. Or an investigator or research team may not display enough familiarity with related scientific developments or with multidisciplinary research. In such cases, a research-strengthening grant could prove to be appropriate and constructive support. Fellowship support would be for both graduate and postdoctoral research studies. These fellowship ok portunities would supplement, not replace, USDA's successful and nationally competitive higher educa- tion fellowship programs (National Research Coun- cil, 1989c). NOTE 1. In virtually all of the states there are systems of peer review for allocating state and industrial support. Further, some of the SAKS use internal competitive  grants programs to allocate portions of their state and industrial support.

This book provides an analysis of funding for agricultural research in the United States and presents a proposal to strengthen this system. Its premise is that a judicious but substantial increase in research funding through competitive grants is the best way to sustain and strengthen the U.S. agricultural, food, and environmental system. The proposal calls for an increased public investment in research; a broadened scientific scope and expanded program areas of research; and four categories of competitively awarded grants, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary research.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Open access
• Published: 22 September 2024

Research in agriculture and food security: retrospects and prospects

• Fabio G. Santeramo 1  

Agriculture & Food Security volume  13 , Article number:  42 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

210 Accesses

Metrics details

Research in agricultural science has deeply evolved during the past decades, shifting attention from local to global issues, from production functions to market dynamics and equilibrium models, from orthodox economic theories to multidisciplinary frameworks. While evolving, agricultural science has constantly targeted solutions to feed the world [ 1 ]. These tendencies have been parallel to the development of new paradigms for agriculture, moving toward complex agri-food systems inspired to principles of security, resilience, sustainability and inclusiveness [ 2 ], that require technological innovations, financial support, policy interventions, regional and international cooperation and a long run vision [ 3 ].

The complex, multifaceted and multidisciplinary nature of the agri-food systems is also reflected in the dynamic conceptualization of food security. In the late nineties, it has been recognized that thinking about food security has shifted from global and national to household and individual, from a food first perspective to a livelihood perspective, and from objective indicators to subjective perception [ 4 ]. Far from being defined as the condition of a country to have “ access to enough food to meet dietary energy requirements ” [ 5 , p. 5], food security evokes a multidimensional, multilevel, multiactor framework, conceptualized as resting on three [ 6 ], four [ 7 ] or even six pillars [ 8 ].

The “ challenge of feeding 9 billion people ” [ 9 ] is further complicated by novel threats and contests, spanning from climate changes [ 10 ], pandemics [ 11 ], and geopolitical tensions [ 12 ], as well as by the need to face food insecurity in developed economies [ 13 ], where income inequality [ 14 ], food waste [ 15 ], poor nutrient intakes [ 16 , 17 ], and complex value chains [ 18 , 19 ] drive food insecurity in apparently wealthy conditions [ 20 ].

These issues call for a tremendous effort in research to produce evidence-based recommendations and orient entrepreneurs, consumers, and policymakers’ decisions. As one of the leading journals in food security, the pioneering advances in research reported in Agriculture & Food Security have far reaching implications both for the developing world and for developed economies. The Journal has a solid tradition in promoting high-level research within the field of food security research, to foster actions, projects, and interventions for more sustainable, resilient and inclusive agri-food systems. Its mission is to welcome research spanning a large range of relevant academic disciplines, including agricultural, ecological, environmental, nutritional, public health and policy. In its large scope, the Journal welcomes diverse topics, including agricultural and environmental sciences, agricultural and food economics and policy, food technology and innovation, information sciences and decision theory, health economics and policy for food and nutritional security. A renowned and widely representative Editorial Board ensures excellence and guarantees unbiased gender, geographic and topic representation of scholars based in least developing countries, emerging economies and developed countries.

Agriculture & Food Security currently has two ongoing collections pointing at timely research that should be promoted in agricultural science. The Climate and Food Security collection will shape the debate on the climate–agriculture–food security nexus. The rationale behind the collection it straightforward. Being responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, food systems need to be reformed to be inclusive, sustainable and resilient. This transition can be achieved through policy reforms, social innovations, new business models and technological advancements [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The collection Building Resilience through Sustainable Food Environments and Diets promotes discussion on sustainable food environments and diets that are healthy, nutritious and secure. It addresses the complex interplay between agricultural practices, environmental sustainability, and food security. The challenge will involve changes in consumers preferences, marketing strategies, and policy legacies, reflected in food claims, sustainability labels, voluntary standards, and so on [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. With such a terrific agenda, Agriculture & Food Security is committed to continue serving as a platform to host excellent and impactful research that will feed debates and inform decisions: we are committed to serve academics, policymakers and the whole society.

Tamburino L, Bravo G, Clough Y, Nicholas KA. From population to production: 50 years of scientific literature on how to feed the world. Glob Food Secur. 2020;24: 100346.

Article   Google Scholar  

Schneider KR, Fanzo J, Haddad L, Herrero M, Moncayo JR, Herforth A, Remans R, Guarin A, Resnick D, Covic N, Béné C, Cattaneo A, Aburto N, Ambikapathi R, Aytekin D, Barquera S, Battersby J, Beal T, Bizzoto Molina P, Cafiero C, Campeau C, Caron P, Conforti P, Damerau K, Di Girolamo M, DeClerck F, Dewi D, Elouafi I, Fabi C, Foley P, Frazier TJ, Gephart J, Golden C, Gonzalez Fischer C, Hendriks S, Honorati M, Huang J, Kennedy G, Laar A, Lal R, Lidder P, Loken B, Marshall Q, Masuda YJ, McLaren R, Miachon L, Muñoz H, Nordhagen S, Qayyum N, Saisana M, Suhardiman D, Rashid Sumaila U, Torero Cullen M, Tubiello FN, Vivero-Pol J, Webb P, Wiebe K. The state of food systems worldwide in the countdown to 2030. Nat Food. 2023;4(12):1090–110.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Santeramo FG, Kang M. Food security threats and policy responses in EU and Africa. Sustain Horiz. 2022;4: 100044.

Maxwell S. Food security: a post-modern perspective. Food Policy. 1996;21(2):155–70.

Pinstrup-Andersen P. Food security: definition and measurement. Food Secur. 2009;1:5–7.

Barrett CB. Measuring food insecurity. Science. 2010;327(5967):825–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Santeramo FG. On the composite indicators for food security: decisions matter! Food Rev Int. 2015;31(1):63–73.

Clapp J, Moseley WG, Burlingame B, Termine P. The case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy. 2022;106: 102164.

Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas S, Toulmin C. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 2010;327(5967):812–8.

Wheeler T, Von Braun J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science. 2013;341(6145):508–13.

Laborde D, Martin W, Swinnen J, Vos R. COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science. 2020;369(6503):500–2.

Dell’Angelo J, Rulli MC, D’Odorico P. Will war in Ukraine escalate the global land rush? Science. 2023;379(6634):752–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Santeramo FG, Carlucci D, De Devitiis B, Seccia A, Stasi A, Viscecchia R, Nardone G. Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry. Food Res Int. 2018;104:39–47.

Otsuka K. Food insecurity, income inequality, and the changing comparative advantage in world agriculture. Agric Econ. 2013;44(s1):7–18.

Santeramo FG. Exploring the link among food loss, waste and food security: what the research should focus on? AgricFood Secur. 2021;10(1):26.

Colen L, Melo PC, Abdul-Salam Y, Roberts D, Mary S, Paloma SGY. Income elasticities for food, calories and nutrients across Africa: a meta-analysis. Food Policy. 2018;77:116–32.

Santeramo FG, Shabnam N. The income-elasticity of calories, macro-and micro-nutrients: what is the literature telling us? Food Res Int. 2015;76:932–7.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Reardon T, Liverpool-Tasie LSO, Minten B. Quiet revolution by SMEs in the midstream of value chains in developing regions: wholesale markets, wholesalers, logistics, and processing. Food Secur. 2021;13:1577–94.

Santeramo FG, Jelliffe J, Hoekman B. Agri-food value chains and the global food dollar: the role of trade and services. Food Policy. 2024;127: 102706.

Drewnowski A. Food insecurity has economic root causes. Nat Food. 2022;3(8):555–6.

Schoneveld GC. Transforming food systems through inclusive agribusiness. World Dev. 2022;158: 105970.

Santeramo FG, Saha A. A climate justice revolution for trade policies in agrifood. New York: Mimeo; 2024.

Google Scholar  

McGreevy SR, Rupprecht CD, Niles D, Wiek A, Carolan M, Kallis G, Kantamaturapoj K, Mangnus A, Jehlička P, Taherzadeh O, Sahakian M, Chabay I, Colby A, Vivero-Pol J, Chaudhuri R, Spiegelberg M, Kobayashi M, Balázs B, Tsuchiya K, Nicholls C, Tanaka K, Vervoort J, Akitsu M, Mallee H, Tachikawa M. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat Sustain. 2022;5(12):1011–7.

Piracci G, Lamonaca E, Santeramo FG, Boncinelli F, Casini L. On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: a meta-analysis. Agric Econ. 2024;55(2):329–45.

Barrett CB. Overcoming global food security challenges through science and solidarity. Am J Agric Econ. 2021;103(2):422–47.

Schleifer P, Sun Y. Reviewing the impact of sustainability certification on food security in developing countries. Glob Food Secur. 2020;24: 100337.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Economics and Rural Development, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences, Vilnius, Lithuania

Fabio G. Santeramo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio G. Santeramo .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Santeramo, F.G. Research in agriculture and food security: retrospects and prospects. Agric & Food Secur 13 , 42 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00495-z

Download citation

Published : 22 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00495-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Agriculture Project Proposal Template

Used 9,582 times

4.2 Rating ( 47 reviews)

e-Sign with PandaDoc

Agriculture Project Proposal

Prepared for:

​ [Client.FirstName] [Client.LastName] [Client.Company] ​

Prepared by:

​ [Sender.FirstName] [Sender.LastName] [Sender.Company] ​

l. Applicant Details

II. Business Details

A. nature of business.

(describe your current agriculture business operations)

B. Property Details

(describe the property thoroughly)

III. Agriculture Proposal Details

Type of proposed activities:

A. Project Description

Property Address: (insert address)

Property Details: (insert details)

B. Long Term Project Impact

(Detail the long term impact of the proposed project on your business)

C. Agriculture Best Practice Justification

D. compliance plan details.

(Explain how you will monitor the project to ensure that agriculture best practices outlined in this proposal template are adhered to.)

E. Qualifications

(List the experience, education, and additional qualifications for the owner and any managing partners or supervisors)

IV. Funding Schedule

V. Risk Analysis

VI. Project Background

​ [Sender.State] is one of the richest resources for producing food, fiber, and clothes. However, where they stand apart from the rest is the fact that they’re on the forefront of sustainable development, meaning that we do not need to deplete resources the way we did originally, with [Sender.State] ’s recent advancements in technology.

VII. Project Justifications

(Add details on why you want to pursue this project, what makes it different from other projects, etc.)

VIII. Scope of Work

(Create a listicle to carefully write down all the work responsibilities you will take on for the sake of this project.)

IX. Project Objectives

(Include a summary of what you aim to achieve with this project — what your project goals are, how you plan to make them happen, etc.)

X. What Sets Us Apart

(Description)

XI. Next Steps

The following table highlights the required next steps to ensure the project achieves all desired milestones according to their respective deadlines.

XII. Declaration

I, the undersigned, swear that the information contained in this agriculture project proposal is true and accurate, and that we have complied with all relevant standards and regulations while preparing and submitting this proposal.

​ [Sender.FirstName] [Sender.LastName] ​

​ [Sender.Company] ​

​ [Client.FirstName] [Client.LastName] ​

​ [Client.Company] ​

Care to rate this template?

Your rating will help others.

Thanks for your rate!

Useful resources

• Featured Templates
• Sales Proposals
• NDA Agreements
• Operating Agreements
• Service Agreements
• Sales Documents
• Marketing Proposals
• Rental and Lease Agreements
• Quote Templates
• Business Proposals
• Agreement Templates
• Purchase Agreements
• Contract Templates

Agriculture Research

Ai generator.

Industrial areas are associated with concentrated pools of personal and economic opportunities. However, urban imagery is misconstrued as the sole concretization of progress. We are abandoning agricultural lands in search of greener pastures in the cement and steel wonderland. We are converting fertile fields into urban projects, gambling our food source, for one. To mitigate future more devastating losses, academic institutes have poured hard work into writing researches in agriculture.

Agriculture research can be either or both qualitative and quantitative research . Agricultural science is not a new idea. It started roughly around the time when man learned he could grow his food. The concept was simple: “Plant A is edible, Plant B is not. Let’s plant more of A.” As humans practiced growing plants and animals for general consumption, we learned better ways to generate a better yield. Soon, we developed tools for the trade: chemicals, machines, and their derivatives that make farming more systematic and efficient.

Why We Research

More than 20,000 years since man’s first attempt at cultivation , yet a lot about agriculture is still an open question. Farming is not just about sowing seeds and reaping fruits. Complex processes occur between the planting and harvesting periods. In the past, farmers rely on trial-and-error methods to find out what works for them. Not having a strong and reliable foundation for our next move could mean our families would be hungry indefinitely. Just producing food wasn’t enough.

Food security

The marriage of agriculture and education allowed better crop management. We increased the yield and nutritional value of plants while making them grow healthier. We saw development in farming methods and innovations based on research and scientific investigations. An in-depth understanding of plant biology allowed for improved food production and reduced damages from pestilence and acts of God.

It is in the genes

Rice is one of the primary agricultural commodities in the world. Rice flowers bloom at a specific period in the morning, at times for two hours, for a few days. In that short time, the plant must be able to pollinate successfully. However, favorable weather will not discount the impact of pests and infections on the plant’s normal life cycle. One of the things that agricultural research scientists in the lab have worked on is tinkering with the genes of different rice varieties to extend or shorten the flowering time and making the plant resistant to fatal infestations and conditions.

Bigger is better

Another feat in the history of agriculture is farmers transforming corn into what it is today. In the past, a starkly different-looking plant would bear small fruits, not unlike the size of our fingers. The early civilization in Mexico did not have the present knowledge and resource about corn’s biology and genetics. It took several thousands of years of selectively cultivating the desirable traits of the plant teosinte into the hearty sized corn cob that we know and love today.

But not always

Not all agriculture research has turned out desirable, however. For years, people have worked on producing a big, juicy variant of red tomatoes. Researchers have tinkered with the genes that influence the size of the fruit. By doing so, they have unintentionally affected the genes that make the tomatoes taste good. Therefore, some big tomatoes today aren’t palatable as the genetic pathway responsible for its distinct sweetness was accidentally altered.

Nevertheless, agricultural science is hard at work on its effort to keep the world fed and healthy. It is unswayed in finding better ways to produce food that meet the demands of the modern world.

Price For Progress

However, it seems that the modern world is the giant goliath of farmers and scientists. Our idea of progress and advancement left out the contribution of agriculture in the past. Not to mention, people now prefer working in offices and establishments. The rise in population, decreasing land area to grow food, and the declining number of people who see farming as a good job to get all threaten our food security.

In urban areas, indoor gardening is gaining momentum. The rising prices of commodities makes growing your food a sensible choice. However, we should note that that small space in your apartment balcony or that small strip of land beside your house can’t feed you and your family forever.

10+ Agriculture Research Examples

If we can’t regain the farm lands or provide support to the dwindling population of farmers, we will face food crisis. We need to intensify agricultural research to prevent global hunger.

1. National Agriculture Research Example

Size: 91 KB

2. Global Agriculture Research System Example

Size: 727 KB

3. Agriculture Research in Development Example

Size: 271 KB

4. Agriculture Investment Research Example

Size: 405 KB

5. Computer Application in Agriculture Research Example

Size: 299 KB

6. Standard Agriculture Research Example

Size: 251 KB

7. Printable Agricultural Research Example

Size: 984 KB

8. Long Term Agriculture Research Example

Size: 654 KB

9. Agriculture Assessment Ethics Research Example

Size: 284 KB

10. Sample Agriculture Research in Development Example

Size: 145 KB

11. Public Agriculture Research Example

Size: 124 KB

Getting Started

The following are reminders on how to make writing your agricultural research papers less arduous.

1. Define The Problem

Your first step to any research is identifying the area that you wish to work on. A literature review is a good way to start your case. Reading on updated and recent materials regarding your chosen topic will help you explore the problem and determine its place in the context of society. Is the problem urgent? Is your contribution original? By spotting the gaps in related literature, you can give new information or significantly improve current practices.

2. Write A Proposal

Drafting a research proposal requires the researcher’s familiarity with the chosen topic and thesis design. Reviewers will look into your capacity to perform the study before it is approved. The convincing pledge of skill is found in your literature review. When you are vying for a study grant, you should consider the interests of the institution that you are approaching. Their priorities should be aligned with the goals of your research.

3. The Common Good

Since you are proposing a study in agriculture, you should be aware of the goal of this community. Your expected findings should be beneficial to the farmers and the agricultural sector. The problem should be specific, clear, relevant, and timely. Even if the result will be negative, the study should still have something useful to provide the community. Don’t forget, your research must follow all the ethical guidelines for research.

4. Be Two Steps Ahead

Create a visual roadmap for your research project. Flow charts and research plans are organization tools that will help you a great deal during your entire endeavor. They keep you grounded on the things you have to perform. You can also track your progress the whole time using Gantt charts , and see to it that your goals are achieved. Cover your bases and plan a successful study ahead.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Agriculture Research Proposal
• Samples List

An research proposal examples on agriculture is a prosaic composition of a small volume and free composition, expressing individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue and obviously not claiming a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.

Some signs of agriculture research proposal:

• the presence of a specific topic or question. A work devoted to the analysis of a wide range of problems in biology, by definition, cannot be performed in the genre of agriculture research proposal topic.
• The research proposal expresses individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue, in this case, on agriculture and does not knowingly pretend to a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.
• As a rule, an essay suggests a new, subjectively colored word about something, such a work may have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary, critical, popular scientific or purely fiction character.
• in the content of an research proposal samples on agriculture , first of all, the author’s personality is assessed - his worldview, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of an research proposal in agriculture is to develop such skills as independent creative thinking and writing out your own thoughts.

Writing an research proposal is extremely useful, because it allows the author to learn to clearly and correctly formulate thoughts, structure information, use basic concepts, highlight causal relationships, illustrate experience with relevant examples, and substantiate his conclusions.

• Studentshare
• Research Proposal

Examples List on Agriculture Research Proposal

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

research proposal on farmer groups and agricultural development in Sanga Sub county, Kiruhura District in Uganda

The study will be carried out in Sanga Sub County in Kiruhura district. It will aim at investigating the roles of farmer groups in agricultural development in the Sub County. The study will specifically identify the farmer groups in Sanga Sub County in Nyabushozi county, Kiruhura district, establish the farmer group contribution/roles in agricultural development in the area of study, analyse the challenges met by farmer groups in a bid to bring about Agricultural development in Sanga Sub county, Kiruhura district and will explore ways of overcoming challenges faced by farmer groups in Sanga sub county. The study will use a descriptive research design. Data will be analyzed using frequency counts and percentages which will be derived from questionnaires and interviews. The study will use a sample size of 120 respondents. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY WILL BE PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER, 2014.

Related papers

Although in Uganda, the group approach has been found to be essential for farmers' accessibility to extension services among others, the perception of farmers on its performance is rarely sought. This study aimed to conduct an evaluation of the group approach to agricultural development from the point of view of the farming community in Sanga sub-county, Kiruhura District. The objectives of the study were to establish the perceptions of the farmers on the role of farmer groups, their perceptions of the challenges and possible solutions that would make group participation an avenue for individual and community development. A survey using a random sample of 117 farmers was conducted in June 2014. Employing a descriptive study design, responses on their opinions were weighted using a Likert Scale. Key informants consisting of district officials, staff of non-governmental organizations and selected farmer groups were also interviewed. The results show that group membership was positively and significantly associated, at the 5% level, to the level of education. Although the sex of the respondent was not significantly associated with group membership, non-group respondents felt there was gender-based discrimination in access to group services and benefits. While the respondents acknowledged the importance of farmer groups as avenues for the provision of agricultural inputs and extension services, inaccessibility to land and production funds propelled poor participation in farmer groups. Efforts to improve this access especially to young farmers, improve infrastructural development would enhance the contribution of the farmer group approach to sustainable agricultural development.

Agricultural knowledge and information play a major role in agricultural development, particularly in food production in Uganda. One of the influential extension approaches used for the past decades has been extension-centered approach which focused more on improving efficiency in agricultural production rather than the educational process. The new National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) extension program has emphasized a farmer-centered approach. The purpose of the study was to explore the farmers\u27 experiences and perceptions of the NAADS agricultural extension systems/program in Kabale district, Uganda. The study addressed two main research questions: (1) What are the perceptions of farmers regarding the NAADS information delivery approach; and (2) What is the level of farmers\u27 comprehension and the extent to which they have applied the skills and new technologies learned from education extension programs.;Qualitative design through interviews from selected farmers w...

Farmer groups are a widespread feature in Sub-Saharan African countries, and have become particularly important in Hoima district, mid-western Uganda. Recent surveys have revealed the importance of SmallHolder Farmer Groups in Uganda as a method for generating food, income, and employment. Government and Non-Governmental Organisations have encouraged rural farmers to join SHFGs so that extension services and agricultural inputs can be easily provided. Little information currently exists about the functioning of these groups, and whether their effectiveness can be improved. Research on FGs usually concentrates on the allegation that membership to the groups empowers farmers. This study investigates empowerment and SmallHolder Farmer Groups in Hoima district so as to find out whether SHFG membership is a basis of empowerment to smallholder farmers. The findings reveal that membership in itself has a fractional contribution to empowerment, whereas access to agricultural information and...

This study was conducted to investigate farmers’ knowledge and challenges encountered in order to inform stakeholder’s decisions and recommend priorities for improved livelihoods in Bukedi subzone. Data was collected from 336 respondents through face to face household interviews using pre-tested semi-structured questionnaires and analyzed using SPSS software. Results showed that rice and cassava were the most important crops in wetlands and dry lands respectively. Most of the livestock species kept were of indigenous genotype. The number of cattle and goats owned per household were not significantly different (P &lt; 0.05). Busia district had the highest number of cattle owned per household. Animal draught power was important for opening up land in all districts. The proportion of households keeping farm records was still very low although Tororo district had the highest number of famers who kept records. Lack of awareness and limited capacity were key reasons for failure to keep fa...

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education

This paper is based on participatory development research carried out in Soroti district of Uganda with the aim to assess the impact of agricultural development among poor farmers. The central argument in this study is that a combination of farmer empowerment and innovation through experiential learning in FFS groups and changes in the opportunity structure through transformation of LGA staff, establishment of subcounty farmer fora, and emergence of private service provider, has been successful in reducing rural poverty. Based on an empirical study of successful adaptation and spread of pro-poor technologies, the study assesses the well-being impact of agricultural technology development in Soroti district, Uganda. It further analyzes the socioeconomic and institutional context under which pro-poor technologies are adopted by poor farmers. 1. Poverty alleviation and smallholder agricultural development Poverty prevails in Sub Saharan Africa. The proportion of absolute poor people in...

This publication integrates theory and practical work arising from courses in Farming Systems and Farmer Participatory Research held at the Institute of Natural Resources and associated institutions in KwaZulu-Natal during 1996 and 1997. The courses were conducted as part of a project supported by the UK. Government&#39;s Department for International Development and managed by the UK Natural Resources Institute (NRI). Objectives of this publication are 1) to provide reference material in Farming Systems and Farmer Participatory Research for interested audiences in KwaZulu-Natal and elsewhere; 2) by integrating theory and practice, to demonstrate how the principles, approaches and methods of FSRJFPR can be applied to real situations; 3) to record the situation, suggestions and priorities of rural and peri-urban families in Vulindlela District, as recorded by course participants; 4) to provide a springboard of information for further development initiatives in Vulindlela and elsewhere...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 2016

Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2019

Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2017

International Journal of Agriculture

The Palgrave Handbook of Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa, 2020

Agricultural Systems, 2004

Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2006

Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2021

Development in Practice, 2015

Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2015

The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies, 2021

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

10+ SAMPLE Agricultural Project Proposal in PDF

Agricultural project proposal, 10+ sample agricultural project proposal, what is an agricultural project proposal, what is agriculture, types of agricultural products, benefits of agricultural projects, tips on how to write an agricultural project proposal, what are some examples of agricultural project proposal objectives, what are some different types of agriculture, what are common examples of agricultural branches.

Agricultural Experiment Station Project Proposal

Farm for Biodiversity and Agricultural Project Proposal

Facilitating Efficient Agricultural Market Project Proposal

Agricultural Research Project Proposal

Agricultural Research Agribusiness Project Proposal

Agroclimatic Zone Agricultural Project Proposal

Agricultural Research Division Project Proposal

Agricultural Engineering Project Proposal

Agricultural Research Project Proposal Preparation

Upland Agricultural Extension Project Proposal

Agricultural Field Crop Production Project Proposal

Tip 1: identify the main problem, tip 2: solution, tip 3: resources and budget, tip 4: timeline, tip 5: agricultural method, share this post on your network, you may also like these articles, title project proposal.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the essentials of crafting an effective Title Project Proposal. Whether you're applying for a grant, pitching a new project, or seeking approval…

25+ SAMPLE Construction Company Proposal in MS Word

Navigating the intricate world of construction demands a seasoned company with a proven track record. Our comprehensive guide on the Construction Company Proposal is your blueprint to understanding the…

browse by categories

• Questionnaire
• Description
• Reconciliation
• Certificate
• Spreadsheet

Information

• privacy policy
• Terms & Conditions

• Browse Works

Agriculture

Browse agriculture topics/papers by subfields, agriculture research papers/topics, production, economics, properties and industrial uses of essential oil of patchouli (pogostemon cablin): a review.

Patchouli, botanically known as Pogostemon cablin Benth., belongs to the family Lamiaceae and is renowned for its significant medicinal and aromatic attributes. The primary purpose of its cultivation is to obtain its valuable essential oil, which is obtained by distillation of leaves and tender herbs. Patchouli and its essential oil have various medicinal and aromatic properties, which are used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, aromatherapy, food flavor, toiletries, perfumery and agarbatti produ...

RESOURCE USE AMONG CASSAVA FARMERS IN CROSS RIVER STATE, NIGERIA

Agriculture is the major and most certain path to economic growth and sustainability in Nigeria (Chigbu, 2008). According to Ikpi, Olayemi and Kadu (2002) agriculture encompasses all aspects of human activities – being the art, act, a cultural necessity and science of production of food (goods). All these simultaneously create another activity chain that satisfies social and economic needs (Chigbu, 2008).According to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2009) Nigeria is endowed with an ...

Farmer's shade tree species preference and evaluation of selected soil physicochemical properties under the tree canopy in coffee based agroforestry systems in deder district, east Hararghe z

ABSTRACT The study was conducted at Deder District, in East Hararghe Zone, Eastern Ethiopia. The aim of the study was to investigate farmers’ shade tree species preference and evaluate selected soil physicochemical properties under and out-side shade tree canopy. To address the objectives of this study, all necessary data were collected through key informant interview, questionnaire survey and soil sampling. A total of 15 key informants and 60 households were participated for preference ran...

ASSESSMENT OF THE PEDAGOGICAL COMPETENCY NEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE TEACHERS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN TAMALE METROPOLIS IN NORTHERN REGION

The purpose of this descriptive study was to assess pedagogical competency needs of agriculture teachers in Senior High Schools in Tamale aimed at determining their perceived level of importance, ability, and most suited training needs based on Borich’s Needs Assessment Model. To keep Senior High School agriculture teachers up-to-date of their pedagogical competency needs, the professional development needs of the agriculture teachers must be assessed regularly for efficiency. Based on the ...

LARGE-SCALE LAND ACQUISITIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENTS IN GHANA - IMPLICATIONS FOR LAND MARKETS AND SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

The participation of large-scale agricultural investors in African land transactions raises concerns about the impacts on a rather hitherto local and smallholder dominated land market. However, there is still limited empirical study on how large-scale agro-investments have influenced changes in land markets and smallholder participation in agricultural land markets in West Africa. Hence, this study examined how large-scale land acquisitions in Ghana have influenced land market changes and imp...

ROLES AND CHALLENGES OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES FOR FOOD SECURITY IN WA WEST DISTRICT

The Agricultural Sector is important for supplying foods to the world's population. A country's resourcefulness in developing its agricultural sector is an indication of its ability to provide sufficient food for its population. In Ghana, agriculture involves crops, fisheries, livestock and all other related activities. However despite its role, food security still remains a challenge in the Wa West district. The study sought to find out the role and nature of Agricultural extension services ...

PARTICIPATION IN “PLANTING FOR FOOD AND JOBS” PROGRAMME AND COMMERCIALIZATION AMONG MAIZE FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN SAVELUGU MUNICIPALITY, GHANA

Ghana’s “Planting for Food and Job” programme aims to improve farmers’ access to farm inputs. The idea is that through improved access to quality seed varieties, fertilisers and good agronomic practices, output would increase leading to an increased market surplus. This study sought to investigate whether engagement in ‘Planting for Food and Job’ (PFJ) programme influences farm households’ maize commercialization level in Savelugu Municipality, in the Northern Region of Ghana. T...

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF IMPROVED SORGHUM VARIETIES AMONG FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN NORTHWEST GHANA: A PROBIT ANALYSIS

In an attempt to boost sorghum production, the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute in Ghana, over the years, has released a number of improved sorghum varieties to farmers in northern Ghana. The purpose of this study was to estmate the level of adoption, and to identify the factors that influenced the adoption of the improved sorghum varieties, using a probit model. It was found that age, available family labour, non-farm income, farmers' perception about the varieties, farm size and far...

THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY ON SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION FARMERS IN THE SISSALA WEST DISTRICT, NORTHERN GHANA

The government of Ghana and Non-governmental Organizations have constructed a number of small scale irrigation dams and dug-outs in the Sissala West District of the Upper West Region. The purpose of the small scale irrigation dams is to give irrigation farmers access to enough water during the dry season. The variation of rainfall and high temperatures poses serious threat to dams, hence making it difficult for the reservoirs to have enough water for irrigation activities. The study investiga...

GENDER DIMENSIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON CROP PRODUCTION AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES IN THE NADOWLI-KALEO DISTRICT, GHANA

Climate change has become a well-known global issue which has the greatest impact on agriculture which is the mainstay of the people in Nadowli-Kaleo District. Although climate change affects everyone but its impacts are differently distributed among males and females. This study analyzed the gender differentiated impacts of climate change on agricultural production and the adaptation strategies by the farmers in the Nadowli-Kaleo District. The study adopted both qualitative and quantitative ...

FARMERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR PRIVATE IRRIGATION SUPPLY IN NANDOM DISTRICT, GHANA

This study investigated farmers willingness to pay (WTP) for private irrigation in Nandom district, Ghana. The study randomly sampled 236 farmers and analyzed data using descriptive statistics and ordered logit regression model. Results revealed that 94.5 percent of the farmers were WTP for private irrigation services with a mean of 35.83 cedis. Farmers’ WTP is determined by income, age, farm size, engagement in an off-farm occupation, labour hours invested in farm operation, yield losses e...

ADOPTION OF GREEN REVOLUTION SERVICES AND POVERTY REDUCTION IN GHANA

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) the technological advances of the Green Revolution (GR) have not been very successful. However, the efforts being made to re-introduce the revolution call for more socio-economic research into the adoption and the effects of the new technologies. The paper discusses an investigation on the effects of GR technology adoption on poverty among households in Ghana. Maximum likelihood estimation of a poverty model within the framework of Heckman's two stage method of cor...

RICE IMPORTATION LIBERALIZATION IN GHANA: IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALLHOLDER RICE PRODUCTION IN NORTHERN GHANA

The case of rice import liberalization in Ghana is an interesting and highly distinctive one. One of the policies of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) is to support an increase in local rice production in order to reduce imports by about 30% as part of efforts to promote food sufficiency. Its strategy aims to increase mechanization, the cultivation of inland valleys, effective and efficient use of existing irrigation systems and further development of irrigation. Ironically, this po...

PROBLEMS TO STANDARDIZATION AND MARKETING OF TRADITIONAL HERBAL MEDICINE IN THE BUlLS A NORTH DISTRICT

Traditional medicine has been in practice in Ghana for several decades and the patronage is high. Several people use it and believe in it. However, traditional medicine in the Builsa North District is not standardized; hence, the research was to investigate the problems to standardization, and marketing of traditional herbal medicine in the Builsa North District in the upper east region of Ghana. Focus was on the discovery of the raw materials for the medicine, the processing and preparation ...

Determinants for rainwater harvesting adoption: a case study of smallholder farmers in Murang’a County, Kenya

Abstract Rainwater harvesting has been practiced among smallholder farmers for centuries in many parts of the world. Recently, it has gained more attention due to the reported increasing water demand and the need for sustainable water management. Drawing on data from a cross sectional survey of 384 household heads (HH), the research study explored the determinants for rainwater harvesting among smallholder farmers in Murang’a County, Kenya. Multistage random sampling technique was employed...

Agriculture is the cultivation of land and breeding of animals (livestock), plants and fungi to produce food, feed, fiber and many other desired products to sustain and enhance life. The study of agriculture can lead to a variety of careers, including those associated with consulting, farming, management and research. Afribary publishes latest agriculture topics for students. Browse through Agriculture projects, agriculture project topics, Agriculture thesis, seminars, research papers etc. All papers and research works in agriculture and its sub-fields.

Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Terms | Copyright | © 2024, Afribary Limited. All rights reserved.