IBJNews

Next up for Indiana biotech: Feed the world

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the potential payoff for health care innovation is less certain these days, the business case for new ways to produce more food has never been stronger.

That’s the analysis that lies behind BioCrossroads’ new report, “Food and Agricultural Innovation: 21st Century Opportunities for Indiana,” released Thursday by the Indianapolis-based life sciences development group.

Rapid population growth in Africa and Asia will demand a doubling of worldwide food production from current levels by 2050, according to one estimate from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

That means innovations to improve crop yields or to reduce the use of natural resources such as water and land is imperative, said report author Beth Bechdol, an Ice Miller LLP attorney and former official at the Indiana State Department of Agriculture.

Bechdol concluded that the places best positioned to produce those innovations are those that already have substantial amounts of ag production and ag research.

“It is the combination of traditional agricultural production capacity and the agricultural-related science and technology assets Indiana possesses that make it uniquely positioned to address and capitalize on the larger global trends that are going to reshape the agricultural industry over the next several decades,” Bechdol wrote.

Most of the rest of Bechdol’s report catalogs Indiana’s assets in those two categories.

Indiana’s biggest assets in ag research and development are Indianapolis-based Dow AgroSciences LLC, the Greenfield-based Elanco Animal Health division of Eli Lilly and Co., and Purdue University.

Those institutions are already doing their own work to commercialize ag-related products. But there are also some budding assets that could help in those processes or perhaps take technologies discovered by the large companies and turn them into startups.

For example, Bechdol noted, West Lafayette-based Cook Biotech recently formed a company called Cook Animal Health that is looking to commercialize ag technologies discovered by others. And an increasing number of venture capital firms, including Carmel-based Cultivian Ventures, are interested in funding ag tech companies.

On the production side, Indiana is the United States’ ninth-largest producer of crops and livestock, according to 2010 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In all, agriculture and ag-related businesses produce goods and services worth $16 billion statewide. They employ nearly one in five Hoosier workers and pay total wages of more than $4.3 billion, according to the BioCrossroads report. In addition, farmers generate an additional $1 billion in annual income for themselves.

But Bechdol and BioCrossroads want to create a separate group like BioCrossroads to get all those businesses talking to one another, so they can identify the best ways to advance the industry and spawn new participants in it.

“Indiana food and agricultural innovation stakeholders are well-positioned for their own business growth and expansion,” she wrote. “Greater coordination and collaboration among the various agricultural leaders could, however, foster even more economic development and help to reshape Indiana’s agricultural landscape, but it will require greater collective attention and engagement.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT