Agricultural Research at a Crossroads

Agricultural Research at a Crossroads

Richard Gray

Presidential Address to the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Professor,Department of Bioresource Policy, Business & Economics College of Agriculture and

Bioresources, Room 3E64, Agriculture Building, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8(phone: 306-966-4026; fax: 306-966-8413; e-mail: [email protected]).

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, and friends. I want to begin today bythanking the Canadian Agricultural Economics Society for this opportunity. It is bothan honor and a privilege to be able to address this group on a topic of my choice. Myaddress today is entitled “Agricultural Research at a Crossroads” and deals with thefuture of agricultural research in Canada, including the identification of some issues andresearchable areas for economists.

The hypothesis that I want to explore with you today is that agricultural researchis poised for significant growth and a positive change in direction. Despite more than acentury of profound success in agricultural research, in the last 20 years we have seen atrend of a reduction in real public expenditures on research. I believe there are severalmajor forces that will combine to reverse this trend, resulting in a major reinvestmentin agricultural research. These investments will allow the sector to accelerate the pace ofinnovation to address some of the major challenges facing the sector, and at the sametime, lead to more sustainable economic development on this planet.

I will begin with a brief overview of the history and the past breakthroughs ofagricultural research. I will then discuss the more recent trend of a reduction in agriculturalresearch expenditures, which will take us up to present day. This will be followed by adiscussion of several major forces that create a demand for agricultural research, whichwhen coupled with investment, could revitalize innovation in agriculture. I will then brieflydescribe some of the obstacles to revitalization. I will conclude with a discussion of severaleconomic and policy issues that I believe warrant further research.

A Past Century of SuccessCanadian agricultural research policy can trace it origins back to early nationhood.In 1878, the fledgling Canadian government released its National Policy designed todevelop the emerging manufacturing industries in Ontario and Quebec, while at the sametime encouraging westward immigration, agricultural settlement, and the developmentof a railroad (Fowke 1946). The policy protected eastern industry by maintaining hightariffs on manufactured imports, while westward expansion created a demand for theseproducts and established sovereignty over the western territories. The major impetusfor agricultural research in Canada began with the Dominion Experimental Farm Actof 1886, which established agricultural research stations across Canada. This Act wasconceived and passed at a time when the settlement of Western Canada had slowed

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 56 (2008) 1–11

1

2 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

despite the recent completion of the transcontinental railway, and the United States hadalready demonstrated the effectiveness of State Agricultural Colleges established underthe Morrell Act of 1862 (Fowke 1946). The decision to publicly undertake agriculturalresearch as part of the National Policy recognized the public good nature of research andthe corresponding lack of private sector research incentives.

The initial effort of the Experimental Farms was to undertake research aimed atadapting agronomic practices, plant genetics, and animal genetics to the local growingconditions. Some success came soon after their establishment with the discovery of sum-merfallow at the Indian Head Experimental Farm (Fowke 1946). This agronomic practice,which stored additional soil moisture in the drought prone semiarid prairies and releasedadditional nitrogen for crop growth, became quickly adopted in Western Canada. Thefirst major genetic breakthrough came with development of Marquis wheat released fromthe Indian Head Experimental farm in 1907. This variety not only produced high-qualitybread flour, it matured several days earlier than other varieties, making Marquis wellsuited to the short growing season of Western Canada. This single variety effectivelyestablished the wheat economy on the Northern Great Plains, and was the predominantvariety grown for more than 30 years in both Canada and United States. Even today,virtually all of the spring wheat varieties grown in the region can trace some of their rootsback to Marquis wheat (Holman 2007).

The Experimental Farms, now known as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada(AAFC) Research Stations, have continued to play a key role in the development ofboth crop and animal agriculture across Canada. Two of the more recent successes that Iam familiar with, are the development of Canola as a crop, and zero tillage as a seedingpractice. With a decade of breeding effort beginning in the mid 1960s, AAFC scientistswere successful in virtually removing erucic acid and glucosinolates from Rapeseed, trans-forming a crop formerly used as an industrial lubricant into a crop with premium edibleoil and a high-quality meal. The new double low genetics trademarked under the name“Canola,” now competes with wheat as the largest crop in Canada.

AAFC research scientists operating in western Canada assisted zero tillage seeding,which from a global soil resource perspective may be the most important agronomicinnovation of the past century. Local farmers and small machinery manufacturers reliedon AAFC to test, verify, and disseminate information about the various innovations asthe technology developed. During the late 1990s it was not uncommon to have over onethousand farmers attend conservation tillage field days, which demonstrated alternativedirect and zero tillage seeding systems. With widespread local adoption, the fledglingindustry was able to mature into a significant industry in western Canada, which nowexports machinery throughout the world.

One can ask whether agricultural research has been successful over the past century.To answer this question, I would like to show people Figure 1 that illustrates real wheatprices. The long-term downward trend in prices shows that global technology has in-creased grain production at a rate that not only has kept up with global demand growth,but also has actually driven prices down during the period. If Thomas Malthus werestill alive today he could see that his prophecy of demand outstripping food production,was trumped by a century of remarkable success in global agricultural research. From aCanadian perspective, the fact that agriculture in Canada has expanded during this longperiod of declining real prices suggests that research and productivity improvement has

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT A CROSSROADS 3

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

1926

1931

1936

1941

1946

1951

1956

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

Sask. Wheat Prices (2005$) trend

Source: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food Statistics (Saskatchewan Agricultural Food 2007).

Figure 1. Saskatchewan farm spring wheat prices 1926–2005 ($2005)

kept the industry viable despite eroding terms of trade. A large number of studies in theagricultural economics literature show a prevalence of high rates of return to agricultureresearch (For an overview see Brinkman 2004; Gray and Malla 2007). Based on thisevidence, the past century of agricultural research has been remarkably successful.

Recent Trends in Agricultural Research ExpendituresThere is a growing concern that agricultural research expenditures in Canada have de-clined over the past decade despite the numerous studies showing high rates of returnto research. As shown in Figure 2, there has been an overall reduction in AAFC expen-ditures with crop and animal research showing steep declines that are only somewhatoffset by investment in resource conservation and valued added food research. In termsof total Canadian effort, there has been an apparent drop in the number of crop breedersfor wheat, barley, oats, and flax. While Canola enjoyed a large influx of private breedersduring the 1980s these numbers also seemed to peak before the end of the past centuryand have declined since. One area of crop research that has shown some growth is in pulsecrops in western Canada. Despite gains in some crops, crop breeding effort and overallagricultural research, effort has shown a decline in the past decade.

As a footnote, the data for recent overall agricultural research expenditures in Canadais surprisingly difficult to find. The ICAR (Inventory of Canadian Agricultural Research)database established during the 1970s provided reliable estimates (particularly for public)expenditures until the mid 1990s. However, in the late 1990s the voluntary reporting toICAR began to decrease, and recently, because ICAR no longer seen as a reliable database,a decision was made to discontinue this data collection effort. The reporting problem wasdriven by the growing market concentration of private research, the changes to the natureof crop research, and the reorganization and complex funding arrangements used for


0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Mil

lion

s 20

06 $

Crop Research Resource Conservation

Animal Research Food Research

Source: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC 2007 Unpublished).

Figure 2. AAFC research expenditures by type 1996–2004 ($2005)

agricultural research. This chronologically growing gap in reliable research expendituredata is a concern for future transparency and policy research.

The reason for the overall decline in research expenditure is somewhat unclear.Public research expenditures may have declined as the governments chose to divert agreater proportion of their agricultural budget toward income safety nets, where long-term federal-provincial agreements received priority in the budget allocation process.Governments were not only fiscally challenged during this period, but low grain pricesand farm incomes increased the relative political demand for income support. I alsobelieve there was perception among policymakers that low incomes in the grain economymeant there were low returns to research. There may have also been a perception thatgovernment expenditures on research tended to crowd out private research, making publicexpenditure somewhat redundant for the sector.

A Revitalization of Agricultural ResearchI believe Canada is at a crossroads where we can plausibly foresee a reversal of the recentdownward trend in agricultural research. Accelerated demand growth for agriculturalproducts, combined with developments in biotechnology and general interest in innova-tion, could renew interest in agriculture research as a potential economic driver. I want to


take few minutes to elaborate on the factors that are increasing the interest in agriculturalresearch.

The acceleration of demand growth is coming from a number of forces related toincome growth. Over the past two decades the world has seen rapid income growth,particularly in China and India. As these very populous countries continue to grow it willincrease demand for protein. While these nations have increased their own agriculturalproduction a great deal, it is becoming increasingly apparent that demand growth is likelyto outstrip supply growth for the foreseeable future. In high-income countries, incomegrowth has meant an increase in the demand for food variety and safety. This has placeda market premium on innovation and the development of safer supply chains and newfood products.

A second important source of accelerated demand growth for agriculture is the recentcreation of the biofuels industry. According to USDA (2007) estimates, the United Statesalone is expected to use over 85 million tons of corn this crop year in their ethanol industry.Ethanol is equally important and has a longer history in Brazil where ethanol productionis more commercially based on sugarcane. Biodiesel production has increased rapidlyin Europe and is beginning to take hold in other countries that have made the decisionto mandated use. This relatively new biofuel demand is equivalent to over a decade ofregular expansion in global grain production. Is it any wonder that we have seen grainstocks decrease and grain prices increase? While the recent period of higher grain priceswill surely slow or even stop the expansion of the biofuel industry, the industry is poisedto expand whenever grain prices fall relative to fossil fuel prices.

With the creation of the biofuel industry, agriculture has become a residual supplierto a much larger fossil fuel market. This will create a more elastic demand for grain,which could serve to remove the historic treadmill effect of increasing supply againstan inelastic demand. This new demand for agricultural production should create higher,possibility more stable, commodity prices into the future. It has already been apparentthat the industry has increased the relative price of energy versus protein in feed rations.The large quantities of distillers’ grain and oil meal could also have profound effectson the size and location of the global livestock industry. I have to agree with MarleneBoersch’s (2007) statements that the large biofuel industry has created new paradigm forworld grain markets. This grain market paradigm will surely increase the demand foragricultural research.

The aging and increasing obese population in many countries should also increaseboth the scope and demand for agricultural research. Health budgets in many countries,including Canada and the United States, are growing far faster than the general rate ofinflation. Many observers suggest the health budget will create a fiscal crisis in Canadaunless obesity and noncommunicable disease costs are curtailed. Many experts are lookingtoward changes in diet as part of the solution. This health agenda will require morenutritional research and will eventually create a demand for new, more functional foods.The development of these new products will begin with health-related nutritional researchand will eventually require agricultural research as part of the innovation process.

The accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) could affect the long-run demand foragricultural research as wealthier consumers can afford to choose stronger environmentalpolicy. This will eventually constrain the resources that can be used in agriculture andcould serve to create a demand for renewable bioproducts. Agriculture will increasingly


be looked upon a solution provider for the production of renewable fuels and the seques-tration of carbon. The extent to which climate change and GHG mitigation will play arole in agricultural research and policy will depend on the immediate public concerns. Inthe short run, political pressure for policy will be driven by extreme weather events thatrefocus the often-fickle public attention to GHG mitigation. Whether there is scientificbasis for it or not, GHG mitigation will also be used to sell protection and investment inthe biofuel industry in Canada and elsewhere.

Perhaps the largest force to revitalize interest in agricultural research will come fromnew scientific discoveries in biotechnology. While transgenic technologies have created agreater potential for genetic modification, it is the related fields of structural genomics,plant physiology, metabolomics, transcripomics, and proteomics that offer even greaterpotential for increasing productivity. These fields of study create the potential to dis-cover the mechanisms by which plants work. This increased understanding may leadto nongenetic ways to increase plant and animal productivity. By way of illustration, Iwas at a recent meeting where one of the speakers, Dr. John Thompson, a Professor ofbiology from the University of Waterloo, was describing his work with “Factor 5A.” Histeam discovered that in one form this Factor 5A would suppress deoxyhypusine synthase(DHS), which internally signals plant cells to die (Wang et al 2005). With knowledge ofthis relationship his team was able to develop a transgenic Canola plant with lower levelsof DHS and yields that were up to 65% higher than that of conventional varieties. Thisand other similar advances in biotechnology create the potential for a far higher rate ofinnovation in agriculture.

The increased potential for agricultural research is taking place at a time of growinginternational recognition of innovation as a source of economic growth. The theories ofendogenous growth, which emerged in the 1980s, set the stage for political acceptanceof the notion that institutions, knowledge, and infrastructure play an essential role innational productivity and productivity growth. This perspective has led to a renewedinterest in the knowledge economy and a general increase in the research expenditures inmost OECD countries, including Canada (see Figure 3). As part of the effort to increaseinnovation many countries have also changed how research dollars are allocated and howthe public research sector interacts with the private sector.

If agriculture is recognized as an area of potential wealth generation, the generalincrease in research expenditures should spill over to agricultural research expenditures.Similarly, the institutions that govern agricultural research could be modified as part of anational innovation strategy. In Canada some of the intention to change research struc-tures is already evident in a recently released science and technology strategy (IndustryCanada 2007). Among the policies contemplated is the consolidation of government andUniversity research activities.

In summary, it would appear that “the stars have aligned” for a renewed invest-ment in agricultural research. High-income growth, increased biofuel production, andgrowing environmental concerns suggest stronger markets for agricultural products forsome years to come. This should stimulate the demand for the creation and adoption ofnew technologies. At the same time, biotechnology and advances in related sciences haveincreased the speed and, particularly, the scope of the potential gains from life scienceresearch. Moreover, the renewed potential agricultural research is occurring at a timewhen investment in innovation is recognized internationally as a key to economic growth.


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

%

Australia

Canada

Japan

Mexico

New Zealand

Turkey

United States

OECD total

Source: OECD (2007).

Figure 3. Total research and development expenditures as a percentage of total GDP

Given the combined effect of these forces, it would be surprising to me, if we did not seea renewed and revitalized interest in agricultural and life science research.

Obstacles to Ag Innovation RenewalThus far I have painted a picture of a very bright future for agricultural research. Thereare, however, several potential threats and obstacles to the successful revitalization ofagricultural research. I want to spend a few minutes identifying and discussing each ofthese threats.

The greatest threat to increased research expenditures is a global economic recessionthat starts in the United States eventually forced to deal with a fiscal crisis and a structuraltrade deficit. If a U.S. recession, triggered by a reduction in the Iraq war effort, is largeenough it could spill over to it trading partners, creating a global recession and a stagnationof agricultural markets, or at the very least a sharp reduction in fiscal capacity andreduction in both private and public research expenditures.

A second threat is a future lack of trained personnel in the research community. Alarge percentage of pubic and private crop breeders are nearing retirement age in Canada.Unless there is immediate action to recruit and train Ph.D. students in the breeding ofCanadian crops, the human resource could become a severe constraint to revitalizationof the research. This suggests that any delay in adopting a revitalization strategy couldmake capacity building more difficult to achieve.

A third threat comes from within the leadership of the agricultural sector. Some farmleaders by necessity are often preoccupied with short-term income needs of their elec-torate. While recognizing the benefits of agricultural research, short-run income shortfallsoften create demand for income support versus long-term investments. If these voices areloud enough, politicians, also with short-term tenure, comply with the demands to divertfunds from long-term investments to short-run income support programs.

A related threat to continued public and producer-funded research originates fromthe ownership and pricing of research output. The development of genetic fingerprinting


combined with strengthened intellectual property (IP) rights has been effective in creatingincentive for private firms to invest in research, protect their discoveries, and to profitablysell them. This opportunity to profit from research has spilled over to public institutions.Many public research institutions, particularly universities, now routinely patent IP andsell it to the highest bidder, returning the rents to the institution and often to the scientistsinvolved. While this practice can provide additional research revenue to the institution,it can profoundly affect the downstream benefits from research, which could eventuallyaffect the producer and public support for public research.

The economic affect on downstream users of selling research output to the highestbidder is not trivial. Lets take a very simple case of new technology that can be fullyprotected IP. Suppose the demand for technology is downward sloping and linear. Thearea under the demand curve and above the marginal cost of supplying the technologyrepresents the total potential downstream benefits (i.e., the producer surplus) that arerealized if the technology is sold at a marginal cost. If this same technology is licensed orsold to the highest bidder with exclusive property rights, the profit-maximizing monopolistwould sell the technology at a price halfway between marginal cost and the intercept ofthe demand curve. In this case, the benefits going to downstream industry, would beonly one-quarter of the potential benefits, while the rents extracted by the monopolistwould be one-half of the potential benefits, and one-quarter would be dead weight loss.In this case, the downstream users would have far less incentive to support the researchof the public institution, either indirectly by lobbying for taxpayer support for research,or directly with levy-funded research.

The connection between public research support and public benefits is even moretenuous when international buyers and sellers are involved. A good example of incon-gruent incentives is the case of Factor 5A. The technology was developed at a Canadianpublic university. Some of the resulting technology has now been exclusively licensed bySenesco, a U.S. firm, to Bayer CropScience, which has plans to incorporate the technologyin hybrid Canola seed (Senesco 2006). While the short-term benefits of capitalizing onpublic-funded discoveries are clear, the long-run effects on the public support for theseinstitutions could be detrimental to the funding of basic science.

The problems of access to technology and freedom to operate also threaten researchrevitalization. These problems increase the cost of research, reduce beneficial researchspillovers, reduce private competition in research, and in some cases prevent the com-mercialization and use of viable technologies. The problem begins with several pieces ofproprietary IP used in the development of new research product, which is a particularproblem in biotechnology and agricultural research given the sequential nature of mostinnovations. If there is no agreement prior to the research each IP owner can potentiallyblock the commercialization of the output, and will use this leverage to bargain for ashare of the rents. With many IP owners, a “hold up” is likely to occur at the stage ofcommercialization, as any owner can demand a disproportionate share of the rents. Inany case, obtaining “freedom to operate” by securing an agreement from all of the IPowners can be a costly, lengthy, and risky process.

To overcome this problem, large companies have literally bought the companiesthat own the needed pieces of IP. This agglomeration effect has left smaller companiesand many public institutions without access to key pieces of technology and freedomto operate. Many observers, including Richard Jefferson of Cambia (2007) suggest that


freedom to operate issues have severely hampered the development second generation ofconsumer-driven genetically modified traits. Public institutions are now discussing betterways to share and manage IP to increase the freedom to operate (PIPRA 2007). Withouteffective solutions, freedom to operate will continue to hamper the effectiveness of publicresearch and smaller firm private research.

A more insidious effect of IP protection has been the reduction in sharing ideasamong researchers. A survey of public and private Canola breeders revealed that theneed to protect IP has meant that scientists no longer talk about their research while itis in progress, but rather share ideas and germplasm only after the research has becomeprotected IP (Galushko and Oikonomou 2007). This delayed sharing of knowledge slowsthe rate of innovation and reduces the overall effectiveness of research. This effect willbe most apparent in small companies and fragmented public institutions, which rely on anetwork external research as a source of knowledge.

In summary, while the future looks very positive, there are also many threats to therevitalization of agricultural research. A U.S.-led recession could reduce global economicgrowth. Short-term political needs of the agricultural sector could divert resources awayfrom research. A failure to develop institutions and policies to address distributionalissues, freedom to operate issues, and coordination issues could make research expenditureless effective and reduce political support. I believe our profession can play a role inunderstanding these threats and can play a role in developing policies and institutions tomitigate them.

Researchable IssuesAgricultural research has a long history of success and remains important for produc-tivity improvement, future growth, and prosperity of the sector in Canada. Agriculturalresearch is at a critical crossroads with many forces suggesting that we are on a cusp of arevitalization of agricultural research with several potential obstacles on this path. Someof these obstacles can be addressed with applied economic research. A few of the researchtopics that I see as important are as follows:

Transparency and Economic Impacts of ResearchEstimated high rates of return tend to increase the political support for agriculturalresearch. Although this is not a new story it has to be updated and frequently retold toretain currency. This is not only true for policymakers but is increasingly important forproducers who have to make decisions regarding research levies. For many purposes, theresearch must go beyond the overall return to examine the distribution of both costs andbenefits for both private and public research. With the durability of knowledge stocksand the prevalence of research spillovers this work remains challenging.

Measuring the Commercialization of ResearchInnovation occurs when the products of research are put into commercial use. Researchis needed to understand those factors that contribute to greater commercialization. Thisexamination must begin with economically relevant measures of commercialization. Morework is needed to quantify commercialization and the factors that contribute to it.


Freedom to OperateFreedom to operate is an increasingly important barrier for undertaking research andthe commercialization of research. Conceptual research is needed to understand freedomto operate issues and how the type of knowledge and the forms of IP affects them. Thisconceptual research could be accompanied with research into alternative institutionalarrangements that can address these issues.

Research Spillovers, Incentive Effects, and Downstream PricingThe IP rights can reduce research spillovers and improve incentives, but at the sametime IP rights can create downstream pricing effects. More work is needed to understandindustry behavior and to help determine the optimal IP rights for particular types oftechnology.

Research Coordinating and Sharing MechanismsThe nonrival nature of research creates returns to scale and benefits from sharing knowl-edge. Despite apparent benefits, research effort is becoming increasingly fragmented andcollaboration more difficult among both public and private researchers. Economic re-search is needed to explore incentives and institutions that can create greater collabora-tion.

International Surveillance for Better InstitutionsMany countries are grappling with agricultural research policy and institutional devel-opment. The growth of private sector research and the existence of IP rights, along withchanges in research technologies, have meant that policies and institutions to govern theseprocesses may also have to change. Economic research is needed not only to help in policydesign, but also to understand how to adapt successful policies existing elsewhere for usein Canada.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, there is a great deal of interesting economic research to be done in developing thefuture of agricultural research policy. The possibilities and potential impacts of agricul-tural research are truly profound. If we help our policymakers “get it right” this centurycould live up to its billing by Venter and Cohen (2004) as “the century of biology” withagricultural research playing an important role in global development.

REFERENCESAAFC. 2007. AAFC Research Expenditures by Type and by Station. (Unpublished) Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada. July, 2007.Boersch, M. 2007. Presentation made at Grainworld 2007, Winnipeg (January 25, 2007).Brinkman, G. L. 2004. Strategic policy issues for agricultural research in Canada. Current Agricul-ture, Food & Resource Issues 5: 131–47.Cambia. 2007. Misuse of intellectual property rights is crippling biotechnology. Home pageon-line.http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/158/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/Misuse_of_IP.pdf (accessed June 24, 2007).


Fowke, V. C. 1946. Canadian Agricultural Policy: The Historic Pattern. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.Galushko, V. and E. Oikonomou. 2007. IP Protection in Canadian Agriculture: A Shift to “Tragedyof Anticommons”? Policy Brief No. 4, Canadian Agricultural Innovation Research Network.http://www.ag-innovation.usask.ca (accessed October 2007).Gray, R. and S. Malla. 2007. The Rate of Return to Agricultural Research in Canada. Policy BriefNo. 11, Canadian Agricultural Innovation Research. http://www.ag-innovation.usask.ca (accessedOctober 2007).Holman, D. 2007. Plant breeders rights and open source crop germplasm. M.Sc. thesis, Universityof Saskatchewan.Industry Canada. 2007. Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. http://ic.gc.ca/epublications (accessed June 24, 2007).OECD. 2007. Main Science and Technology Indicators Sample Issue. http://www.oecd.org. (ac-cessed June 14, 2007).PIPRA. 2007. Public Intellectual Property for Agriculture Website. http://www.pipra.org/ (ac-cessed June 24, 2007).Saskatchewan Agricultural Food. 2007. Agricultural Statistics. http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/apps/agriculture_statistics/HBV5_P2.asp (accessed June 27, 2007).Senesco. 2006. Bayer CropScience Licenses Rights to Senesco Technologies’ Gene Technology11/9/2006. http://www.senesco.com/newsitem.php?id=115 (accessed June 24, 2007).USDA. 2007. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates 449. United States Departmentof Agriculture. http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/ (accessed July 14, 2007).Venter, C. and D. Cohen. 2004. The century of biology. New Perspectives Quarterly 21 (4): 73–77.Wang, T.-W., W. Y. Wu, C.-G. Zhang, L. M. Nowack and J. E. Thompson. 2005. Enhancing growthand seed yield in canola by suppression of deoxyhypuysine synthase expression via vacuum-infiltration of Agrobacterium. Abstract from Plant Canada 2005. http://www.senesco.com/mediaitem.php?id=14 (accessed June 24, 2007).

Documents

Agricultural Research at a Crossroads