November is traditionally associated with gratitude for a bountiful harvest, celebrated at the Thanksgiving holiday. December is associated with, among other things of course, gift giving and receiving, celebrated in Chanukah, Kwanzaa and Christmas. So this seems an appropriate time to reflect on the contributions horticulture makes to holiday celebrations and also on whether recent developments at the federal level represent a nicely wrapped package for horticulturalists or something more like a lump of coal! Hopefully no switches! These days do children even know what coal lumps and switches are?

Horticulture certainly contributes greatly to seasonal festivities. Think about Thanksgiving and Christmas without pumpkin pie, sweetpotatoes, green bean casseroles, mashed potatoes, cranberries, creamed corn, and the amazing cornucopia of other fruits and vegetables that along with friends and family make the day special! Who even needs a turkey? Imagine Christmas without the poinsettias, Christmas trees, wreaths, holly, mistletoe, and other ornamentals that define the season for many Americans!

But what do we in horticulture have to be thankful for or celebrate this time of year? We’ll be keeping our members abreast of progress (or lack thereof) on the Farm Bill and the Specialty Crops Initiative as it winds its way through Congress. Immigration is another pending issue for our industry, but in this column I wanted to talk about a recent national forum directly affecting horticultural research. This forum was sponsored by CSREES (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service). CSREES is the part of USDA that, among other things, helps fund research at land-grant universities and partner organizations. They offer grants through a number of programs, including the NRI (National Research Initiative), SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research), Integrated programs, and a number of special projects such as the Citrus Tristeza SRGP (Special Research Grant Program). They also fund forums to gather stakeholder input. In fact, funds from the Competitive Programs Unit of CSREES were used to support a Stakeholders Workshop held before the 2005 ASHS Annual Conference in Las Vegas, which was attended by representatives from virtually all the working groups in all ASHS Divisions.

Although CSREES programs fund both agronomic and horticultural research, at the 2005 Las Vegas Workshop many ASHS participants expressed frustration in obtaining federal research funding and voiced their perception that the NRI programs were overly oriented towards molecular approaches. These concerns were articulated at the Las Vegas Workshop in a presentation by Bill Randle based on his ESCOP/ACOP Leadership Developmental Training Program. Bill’s report analyzing 2002–04 funding trends in the NRI suggested that faculty in applied departments at land-grant institutions were not competing successfully and that model systems represented a disproportionate share of funded research (45%) compared to other plant systems.

Are these concerns justified? A response to the Randle study from Dr. Gail McLean and Dr. Liang-Shiou Lin, National Program Leaders, Competitive Programs Unit, USDA CSREES, appeared in the 2005 ASHS Newsletter to address these concerns. They pointed out that “Of the $124.5 million awarded for plant research, land-grant universities and colleges received $92.8 million or 74.6% while submitting 70.6% of the proposals”:. Further, “of the proposals submitted from land grant universities, 80.6% were from agricultural departments which in turn received 76.6% of the funding awarded to land grant institutions and 57.1% of the total overall funding for plant sciences.” Overall, they concluded “…both land-grant universities and their agricultural departments compete quite successfully for NRI funding.”

Fast forward in time to the 20 November 2007 CSREES Plant and Pest Biology Stakeholders Workshop, held in Alexandria, Va. These workshops are now held every 2 years to solicit feedback. As ASHS President, I presented our members’ research priorities, based on an update prepared by current Research VP Marc van Iersel, of the 2005 Las Vegas Stakeholder Workshop report. Other attendees at the CSREES Workshop included commodity associations, such as the United Fresh Produce Association and the Nursery and Landscape Association; other scientific societies, such as the Tri-Societies and Plant Biologists, and representatives from the land-grants and experiment stations. Altogether there were almost 30 presentations, highlighting the diversity of groups competing for constant program funding dollars.

So what came out of that meeting that our members should appreciate or even celebrate? In my presentation and position paper, I pointed out the contributions of our industry: Horticultural crops are grown in almost every state, although California and Florida are the most important states in terms of crop value; from 2002 to 2005, the value of horticultural crops rose from 20.6% of all agricultural crops to 50%; production of horticultural crops is labor-intensive, so these enterprises add value and jobs to rural economies across the nation; in addition, consumption of fruits and vegetables per capita in increasing and is increasingly critical to improved nutrition and reduced obesity.

What are we asking for as a Society? In addition to specific research priorities, we identified approaches we would like to see implemented: application of model system knowledge to applied problems; emphasis on practical applications of research through integrated and other programs; more horticulturalists on grant panels; multidisciplinary, regional and cropping systems-oriented approaches; and increased overall funding for horticultural crops, representative of their importance.

What has changed since 2005? Have our concerns been addressed? The good news on these fronts is that CREEES administrators reported progress (from an ASHS perspective at least!) in encouraging crop rather than model systems research; more integrated (research, extension and education) programs and a requirement for education and extension components in many programs. Other developments to celebrate are the inclusion of horticulturalists on panels and initiatives such as a Rosaceae genome database, the result of a partnership with NSF. The SBIR program, in particular, has emphasized horticultural proposals. Further good news is that most of the ASHS research recommendations (invasive species; postharvest; improving crop ecosystem efficiency and sustainability; and improving resistance to environmental stress) were also priorities for the other groups, suggesting a consensus around these critical issues.

So what’s the bottom line? What can we celebrate as we look to 2008? It would be interesting to rerun a study like Bill Randle’s using 2004–07 NRI funding to see if there are identifiable shifts. The new integrated programs and the inclusion of educational and extension components are certainly encouraging, at least as opportunities for collaboration. In the meantime, we can appreciate that CSREES is responsive to our concerns and we can continue to provide feedback to them. For example, there was a high turnout and interest level in Scottsdale, Ariz., at the USDA/CSREES Grantsmanship workshop. ASHS members will need to continue to be proactive in informing themselves on relevant program opportunities. Hopefully we can conduct similar sessions at future conferences. We will be including new funding opportunities in our newsletter, but members can also contact Program Leaders directly for suggestions on relevant opportunities. By continuing to provide feedback to CSREES and other federal agencies and the congressional leadership both as a Society and as individuals, our concerns are more likely to be addressed. On the other hand, there are a lot of competing research needs, and relatively few dollars to go around, so we also need to be realistic, and appreciate the greater attention given in the past few years to both our industry, our Society, and our research needs.

Mary Peet
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Originally published in ASHS Newsletter December 2007.