NREC secures consistent research funding

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Ten years ago, the Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council was formed to ensure funding for its so-titled purposes.

Prior to the state legislature’s bill creating NREC, Illinois funded nutrient research and education beginning in 1989 with a designated fertilizer tonnage fee for the Fertilizer Research and Education Council.

However, in 2004 FREC funds began being diverted to the state’s General Revenue Fund for other unrelated programs. That practice continued for multiple years as did state budget cuts impacting support for research at universities.

NREC’s formation included a $1 per ton fee for fertilizer sold and a law prohibiting those funds from being “swept” to other programs. Of that fee, 75 cents per ton goes to NREC for investment in research and outreach programs, and the remaining 25 cents per ton is earmarked for the Illinois Department of Agriculture to administer the state’s Fertilizer Regulatory Programs.

Matt Duncan, Illinois NREC vice chairman and Research Committee chair, discussed the program in a recent interview.

What are some of the organization’s successes over the past decade?

Duncan: The first win was the legislation that created it. Prior to NREC we had funding for research like this, but it was very intermittent. Due to the way the legislation was written, sometimes the funding came, sometimes it didn’t.

This legislation allowed us to get consistent funding. The 75-cent tax per ton of fertilizer sold goes directly to the NREC account which then allows us to consistently fund research. In nutrient management and environmental quality type research, you can’t have intermittent funding because one year of data doesn’t have much meaning.

The impacts of climate and weather variability from year to year is huge, so you need at least three years of research in most cases, sometimes more, to be able to really get any confidence that what you’re seeing could have meaning and be an actual, hey, this is how things work, and have some value.

With that consistent flow of funding opportunities, we’ve been able to fund dozens of graduate and PhD researchers from universities throughout Illinois for the last 10 years to the tune of about $30 million. That’s resulted in well over 70 peer-reviewed publications, as well as numerous field days, grower events and things like that to share that information.

The formation of NREC also happened on the heels of the demise of the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research. C-FAR continues to hold annual meetings but the office closed in 2010 after the second year of no state funding. At its peak, C-FAR received $15 million in 2000, 2001 and 2002 for research at Illinois universities. The creation of NREC came at an opportune time because of the funding gaps.

Duncan: If you look at nutrient efficiency type research in the state, there was not a lot. There was some, but it wasn’t near to the level there is now and really, I think the NREC structures is a large part of that.

What happened from my experience was a lot of the research at the academic level moved into the genetic side of things. This is when all the seed traits were coming around and so a lot of the work came more into the direct crop protection versus crop health, more of a fertility component.

How is the research information disseminated once completed?

Duncan: There are multiple pathways for that information to get out. Some of it is directly through NREC. We have a website where all of those research results are posted. NREC puts together publications, as well. We’ve had guides come out, including a turf guide, three cover crop guides, and a maximum return to nitrogen guide that have all come out of the research through NREC.

Then, of course, part of the requirement for researchers to be funded is they have to have a plan for education and outreach and publications. They are very strongly encouraged to publish in a peer reviewed journal to get an audience broader than just Illinois and also peer reviewed journals bring some credibility to that research because now it’s not just that researcher’s opinion, there is other researchers in that field who have read through it and said it is sound.

There are numerous field days throughout the year where the research gets talked about. There are some demonstration locations, as well, that are hosted where farmers can come to a local location for firsthand interaction with those researchers.

That’s something that’s also improved since the inception. Prior to NREC with that intermittent funding methodology we had then as well as early NREC, the vast amount of research was coming out of the University of Illinois. There’s nothing wrong with the University of Illinois, but it was fairly narrow geography relative to the state.

So, over these last 10 years we’ve really made an effort to reach out to and try and make sure that we are doing what we can to encourage the researchers from Southern Illinois University, Western Illinois University and other locations to submit proposals. We’ve been able to do a lot of work on WASCOBs (Water and Sediment Control Basins), some of the water control structures that is really more of a southern Illinois portion of the state with its topography.

So, we’ve had funding through multiple universities beyond just the University of Illinois now which I think is great because it should bring more value to a bigger proportion of the farmers.

Three years after NREC was formed, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture finalized a statewide Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy with a goal of reducing the state’s phosphorus and nitrate-nitrogen loads by 25% and 15%, respectively, by 2025 and an eventual target of a 45% reduction. NREC was involved in the strategy’s development. Will we reach those NLRS goals?

Duncan: I think it can happen. The challenge in both from a science perspective is nitrogen and phosphorous movement doesn’t necessarily happen in the same conditions. So, sometimes if your goal is strictly to correct one thing, it may not be the best option for the other thing.

It’s a challenge to manage it to meet guidelines that also will keep the balance needed for what’s in the field for the farmer. We have to focus on environment, but we also have to focus on production levels and on economics. We can do something that’s wonderful for the environment but if it loses money for the farmer and reduces grain yield, that doesn’t help the farmer and it doesn’t help the communities if food production is getting more limited.

So, you’ve got to find that balance and I do think that’s in part why it takes a while to get to reaching goals like these reduction goals. It takes longer to fine-tune that balance, and that balance in southern Illinois is probably a little bit different combination of practices than it is in central or in northern Illinois.