When your state funding goes to zero, here is what you say:

"As the C-FAR Board of Directors has recently communicated, there has been a challenge placed before us regarding the elimination of the state's food and agricultural research line item (commonly known as the C-FAR appropriation). I need not repeat the Board's communication, but suffice to say this is a highly serious matter and one which will require the greatest engagement and consideration by all parties."

Those are the words of Kraig Wagenecht, the Executive Director for the Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research (C-FAR) which saw its budget wither away due to the loss of $2.275 million in appropriations from the State of Illinois.

"You know, I saw that line item go to zero, but I didn't know what was behind it all," said one knowledgeable observer of state appropriations related to agriculture. His observation was repeated frequently in the recent days following the decisions by Governor Pat Quinn on how to distribute funds that were pared back by the Illinois General Assembly, after declining his suggestion of raising taxes.

Comparatively, University of Illinois Extension received about 86% of what it sought. Soil and Water Conservation Districts received about 83% of requested funding. But C-FAR received nothing, and cannot pass that money on to university researchers in Illinois who make proposals to its board of directors whose members prioritize how the money should be spent.

Certainly, Illinois is a major agricultural state and while many other Cornbelt states spend tens of millions of dollars on research, Illinois is back to square one when the General Assembly established C-FAR in July 1995. That was done with the help of Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Corn Growers, and the Illinois Soybean Association among other commodity groups. But as the C-FAR membership expanded to gain political clout, its priorities changed, and in recent years the C-FAR research focus moved away from production agriculture, which gave birth to the organization 14 years ago.

Although nearly all agriculturally-oriented groups can be found on the organization roster, many of them are there to monitor C-FAR activities. They have not been overwhelming supporters of C-FAR's appropriation requests in recent years. That was obvious in the spring of 2008, when an informal survey of agriculturally-connected lawmakers who sit on the House Agriculture Committee were unable to list a single research project funded by C-FAR. Granted the survey was not comprehensive, but it gave a telling indication that C-FAR was losing its political support in Springfield.

At one time during the Edgar administration, C-FAR annual funding had been as high as $15 million with those funds distributed among researchers at the University of Illinois, Southern, Western, Northern, and Illinois State. But as budgets got tighter in the Ryan and Blagojevich administrations, C-FAR funding declined annually. Now, publicly funded agricultural research with Illinois tax dollars has collapsed. Has C-FAR as an organization collapsed? That is hard to say, but the big drivers may well step in to create another entity, over which they have more control, to fund agricultural research. Most lawmakers, including those in Chicago who think they have no connection to agriculture, would probably recognize the good work that comes from publicly funded research designed to improve farm profitability, develop new uses for commodities that expand economic development, and create more jobs in Illinois.

Agriculture, as an integral part of the Illinois economy, has a good relationship with the Illinois General Assembly. That has been seen in many positive initiatives supported by the Statehouse in recent years. And that strong relationship may indicate to agriculture's main forces they do not need dozens of fringe groups to help them lobby, and in doing so, sometimes lose the main focus.