139 



basic research, rather than from the release of new varieties in crops 

 such as soybeans and wheat. 



Why is this significant? Because, plants are constantly under attack from 

 a variety of natural forces, including drought, insects and diseases. A 

 variety that thrives one year may not perform as well the next. History 

 reflects this in the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, the powdery mildew 

 devastation of the French wine industry in 1848, red rust in wheat in 

 1916 and 1917 and rust in Brazilian coffee in 1969. Additionally, there 

 are the continuing problems of chestnut blight and Dutch elm disease. 



The pervasive effects of diseases caused by viruses, which are notorious 

 not only for their adaptability but their propensity to mutate to create 

 new strains or races of diseases, mean that a new widespread disease or 

 pest outbreak may only be one season away. 



In the past, commercial breeding programs have been successful in 

 developing a broad spectrum of resistant varieties. For example, today 

 U.S. farmers have the choice of selecting from approximately 340 

 different varieties of soybeans, covering all ten maturity groups, which 

 offer resistance to phytophthora root rot. 



An important function of plant breeding research is to offer farmers 

 choices so that they can select the varieties that work well for them. 

 Pioneer has always carried a selection of varieties of varying maturities, 

 disease resistance, and other characteristics so that farmers can choose 

 the variety that best meets their needs. 



However, farmers can choose from a selection of varieties only when 

 there are enough economically successful breeding programs to provide a 

 choice. If the current situation continues and the exodus of commercial 

 research becomes complete, agriculture will be woefully under equipped 

 to deal with the next potentially devastating outbreak of disease or pests. 



It might seem reasonable to ask: If what we need is more research 

 investment, why wouldn't it be simpler to increase funding for public 

 agricultural research? There are two reasons why that may not be 

 appropriate: efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is doing things the 

 right way. Effectiveness is doing the right things the right way. Private 

 sector research is product-oriented research; public sector research often 

 is not, and justifiably so. It is not necessary that every research project 

 produce results, but when the future of agriculture is on the line, it is 

 important that every project be judged by whether or not it does produce 

 results. 



