The quiet crisis threatening our food security and the urgent need for research investment
Imagine a world where your grocery bill increases year after year, where once-common fruits and vegetables become seasonal luxuries, and where farmers face increasingly frequent crop failures despite working harder than ever. This isn't a dystopian fiction scenario—it's a potential future that the United States may face if current trends in agricultural research investment continue.
This article explores whether publicly funded agricultural research is heading toward crisis and what can be done to change course.
Agricultural productivity isn't just about growing more crops—it's about producing more food with the same or fewer resources. For years, productivity gains meant Americans enjoyed stable food prices while farmers became increasingly efficient. But that trend is now slowing alarmingly.
The causes are twofold. First, climate change is directly damaging agricultural outputs. Research shows that an increase of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) lowers productivity by more than 10%7 .
Second, public investment in agricultural R&D has stagnated. While private sector research has grown, it often focuses on technologies that come with high costs for farmers7 .
The trajectory of agricultural research funding tells a troubling story. Since 2002, inflation-adjusted public funding for food and agricultural research has declined by about a third4 . More recently, despite the growing challenges, the FY24 federal budget actually cut key programs—the flagship Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) was reduced by nearly $10 million, rolling back its funding to FY22 levels despite a rising percentage of worthy applications going unfunded4 .
In March 2025, researchers from Cornell University, the University of Maryland, and Stanford University published a significant study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that quantified exactly what's needed to overcome this challenge1 7 . The research team aggregated 50 years of data on how temperature fluctuations affect agricultural outputs and how research investments boost productivity.
Their approach was comprehensive—analyzing weather patterns down to 2.5-square-mile plots across the U.S. and calculating how knowledge gained from R&D contributions has enhanced productivity over time. They then modeled future climate impacts and determined the level of research investment needed to compensate.
The study presented two alternative investment pathways to maintain agricultural productivity through 2050:
| Investment Strategy | Annual Increase | Total Investment by 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage Growth Pathway | 5% to 8% per year | $208 billion to $434 billion |
| Fixed Additional Investment | $2.2 billion to $3.8 billion per year | Not specified |
Average annual growth in public R&D spending
Annual growth needed to maintain productivity
What does publicly funded agricultural research actually look like in practice? Let's consider a hypothetical but representative example: testing drought-resistant corn varieties under realistic field conditions.
Unlike laboratory research, agricultural field experiments must account for tremendous natural variability in soil composition, moisture, slope, and other factors. If researchers simply planted two varieties in adjacent plots, any differences in yield could be due to these underlying variations rather than the varieties themselves2 .
To address this challenge, researchers use specialized experimental designs. For testing multiple crop varieties or practices, the randomized complete block design is particularly effective2 3 . Here's how it works:
"Does new drought-resistant corn Variety A outperform conventional Variety B under water-limited conditions?"
The research field is divided into sections (blocks) that are as uniform as possible in soil type, slope, and other characteristics.
Within each block, both varieties are planted in randomly assigned plots. This process is repeated across multiple blocks (typically 4-6 replications).
At harvest, yields are measured separately for each plot, and statistical analysis determines if observed differences are likely due to the variety or just random variation.
| Block | Variety A (Drought-Resistant) | Variety B (Conventional) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 158 | 142 |
| 2 | 162 | 145 |
| 3 | 155 | 138 |
| 4 | 160 | 140 |
| Average | 158.75 | 141.25 |
This experimental approach allows researchers to isolate the effects of the treatment (in this case, the crop variety) from natural field variability. Statistical analysis (typically Analysis of Variance or ANOVA for multiple treatments) then determines whether observed differences are "statistically significant"—meaning they're unlikely to have occurred by chance alone2 3 .
Agricultural research relies on various reagents and chemicals to test new approaches to crop improvement. These substances help researchers understand plant nutrition, protect against pests and diseases, and modify soil conditions.
| Chemical | Primary Research Use | Function |
|---|---|---|
| Calcium Nitrate | Fertilizer studies | Provides readily available nitrogen and calcium to plants; enhances cell wall structure6 |
| Sulfur | Soil amendment and disease control | Provides essential nutrient; acts as fungicide to control fungal infections6 |
| Potassium Chloride | Plant nutrition studies | Supplies potassium necessary for photosynthesis and water regulation6 |
| Lime | Soil pH experiments | Adjusts soil pH levels, making essential nutrients more available to plants6 |
| Glyphosate | Weed management studies | Controls weeds without harming crops when applied correctly6 |
Identifying beneficial traits at the molecular level
Monitoring crop health and environmental conditions
Optimizing farming practices and data analysis
The evidence is clear: publicly funded agricultural research stands at a critical crossroads. Without significant new investment, the United States faces declining productivity, more frequent government bailouts for struggling farmers, increased reliance on food imports, and greater environmental degradation as farmers use more land and chemicals to maintain production1 7 .
As Ortiz-Bobea starkly summarizes: "It is a fork in the road where we need to decide what kind of ag sector we want"7 . The required investment—while substantial—pales in comparison to the costs of inaction. More importantly, as the research shows, we've made similar investments before with tremendous success. The question isn't whether we can afford to make these investments, but whether we can afford not to.