National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AT THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES

A PROFILE

Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System

Board on Agriculture

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1995

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

This study was supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 93-COOP-2-8575 and by the W. K. Kellogg Endowment Fund of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture also provided support. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authoring committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Colleges of agriculture at the land grant universities : a profile / Committee on the Future of Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

ISBN 0-309-05295-5 (alk. paper)

1. Agricultural colleges—United States. 2. Agricultural education—United States. 3. State universities and colleges— United States. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Future of Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture.

S533.C695 1995

630'.71'173—dc20 95-31198

CIP

©1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE IN THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

ANTHONY S. EARL, Chair,

Quarles and Brady Law Firm, Madison, Wisconsin

R. LEE BALDWIN,

University of California, Davis

JOHN C. GORDON,

Yale University

GORDON E. GUYER,

Michigan Department of Agriculture

FRED HARRISON, JR.,

Fort Valley State College

EDWARD A. HILER,

Texas A&M University

MARLYN L. JORGENSEN,

Jorg-Anna Farms, Garrison, Iowa

DARYL B. LUND,

Cornell University

THOMAS F. MALONE,

The Sigma Xi Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

MORTIMER H. NEUFVILLE,

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore

ELIZABETH D. OWENS,

ISK Biosciences Corporation, Mentor, Ohio

C. ALAN PETTIBONE,

Washington State University

ALLEN ROSENFELD,

Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, Washington, D.C.

CHARLES F. SAUL,

Agway, Inc., Syracuse, New York (Retired)

G. EDWARD SCHUH,

University of Minnesota

GEORGE E. SEIDEL, JR.,

Colorado State University

JO ANN DOKE SMITH,

Smith Associates, Irving, Texas

KATHERINE R. SMITH,

Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland

JAMES B. WYNGAARDEN,

Duke University

ELISABETH A. ZINSER,

University of Kentucky

JAMES J. ZUICHES,

Washington State University

Staff

NICOLE BALLENGER, Project Director

CARLA CARLSON, Director of Communications

DIBY KOUADIO, Research Associate

JANET OVERTON, Editor

VIOLA HOREK, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

BOARD ON AGRICULTURE

DALE E. BAUMAN, Chair,

Cornell University

PHILIP H. ABELSON,

American Association for the Advancement of Science

JOHN M. ANTLE,

Montana State University

MAY R. BERENBAUM,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

LEONARD S. BULL,

North Carolina State University

WILLIAM B. DELAUDER,

Delaware State University

SUSAN K. HARLANDER,

The Pillsbury Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota

RICHARD R. HARWOOD,

Michigan State University

T. KENT KIRK,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison, Wisconsin

JAMES R. MOSELEY,

Jim Moseley Farms, Inc., Clarks Hill, Indiana, and Purdue University

NORMAN R. SCOTT,

Cornell University

GEORGE E. SEIDEL, JR.,

Colorado State University

CHRISTOPHER R. SOMERVILLE,

Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California

JOHN R. WELSER,

The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Staff

SUSAN OFFUTT, Executive Director

CARLA CARLSON, Director of Communications

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

PREFACE

The colleges of agriculture have a proud history. They have contributed to remarkable advances in both farming productivity and agricultural science and technology, which in turn have contributed to the growth of the U.S. economy and the well-being of consumers the world over. It is because of this success that at the beginning of 1995 colleges of agriculture, now more than a century old, still dot the U.S. landscape. They can be found at land grant colleges and universities in almost every state and territory of the nation.

The colleges of agriculture are confronting significant challenges to their future. These challenges are the result of the changing role of farming in the United States and the corresponding changes in the interests of U.S. citizens in agriculture—that is, in the food, fiber, and natural resource complex. In 1862 when the colleges of agriculture were being instituted, farmers comprised more than one-half of the nation's working population. Agriculture-related interests of farmers, consumers, and other groups probably coincided reasonably well. Today farming represents only a small share of the U.S. economy, but the entire agricultural complex (including food and fiber production, processing, and marketing) is of significant economic importance and increasingly driven by consumer wants and concerns. Diverse groups, many of them now urban and suburban, are interested in how the workings of the agricultural complex affect nutrition and health, consumer and worker safety, convenience, the environment, and animal welfare and thus have a stake in research and education at the colleges of agriculture. The colleges' challenges are compounded by developments in science and its infrastructure—developments that are changing the research relationships among universities, government, and private industry—and by competing demands on limited budgets for publicly funded research and education.

The colleges of agriculture in the land grant university system are truly public institutions created and shaped by federal legislation that endowed them with three functions—to instruct students, to perform agriculture-related research, and to provide extension services to farmers; and these functions are still largely supported by state and federal funds. The colleges' contributions—to agricultural output in general

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

and farming productivity in particular through research and extension and to the education of those who farm, manage agribusinesses, lead communities, teach, and conduct scientific research—are the result of the public's investments. It is thus appropriate, and in fact important, to expect accountability with respect to the system's use of public dollars and to evaluate the evolution of the colleges' work in relation to changing public needs and priorities.

This publication is the first of two volumes by the Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System, convened by the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture. The committee's charge is to assess the adaptation of the land grant colleges to the public's changing needs and priorities and to recommend public policy and institutional change that can enhance the colleges' role in serving the national interest. The committee recognizes that its work must be underpinned by a solid understanding of the colleges' roots; evolution; activities in relation to national, state, and local needs; and potential for change. The committee, in addition to capitalizing on its members' diverse backgrounds and expertise, has been garnering knowledge through a two-stage process. The first stage is an assessment of data and information that describes the colleges, their activities, and their operating context. The second stage is an up-close examination of the interface between college activities and public needs through a series of forums held at land grant colleges in Connecticut, Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, and South Dakota in the spring of 1995. (Written public comment was also provided by the citizens of California, where a forum was scheduled but, regrettably, cancelled due to coinciding activities of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.)

This volume, to be complemented by the committee's deliberative report, presents much of the data generated during the first stage of the process. It draws heavily on data and information already in the public domain that pertain to the colleges' activities. For example, the Current Research Information System (CRIS), administered and maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), reports sources of funding for agricultural research activities and describes the allocation of those funds, institution by institution, among research goals, program areas, and commodities. The Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS), sponsored by the USDA and maintained at Texas A&M University, reports trends in enrollment, graduates, and degree programs at colleges of agriculture and related colleges and schools, and student and faculty demographics. Most of the CRIS and FAEIS data is self-reported by the colleges of agriculture and other reporting institutions. This publication reproduces data using categories developed by those information systems in collaboration with reporting institutions.

The committee recognizes that the data in this volume represent a starting point. Oftentimes the presentation of data raises at least as many questions as it answers. For example, the research data collected by CRIS and presented in chapters 4 and 7 offer a way to track the types of problems the college system is attempting to solve; alone the data do not allow an assessment of the quality of the system's research or its success at solving agricultural and food systems problems. (A summary of results of studies assessing the economic returns to agricultural research is presented in Chapter 2.)

The answers to questions of quality or successful problem solving require more research and analysis and pose methodological challenges not at all unique to the agricultural research system. The education data presented in chapter 3 are, likewise, useful for evaluating whether the colleges of agriculture are attracting more or fewer of the nation's students, including women and minorities, and which academic specializations offered are of most and least interest to their students. These data do not by themselves indicate the quality of the college of agriculture education, the nature of curricula changes, or the responsiveness of college course material and training to the needs of the students' future employers. These questions are of interest, but they require additional analyses outside the scope of this report. The data

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

presented to describe cooperative extension are also limited. They aid the understanding of the allocation of extension resources to different program areas; however, measures of the quality or success of these delivery services and of how well the allocations of extension resources correspond to community demands would also be highly desirable.

The committee notes two additional caveats with respect to the use of the data. First, the data are sometimes presented in such a way as to emphasize the size differences among the individual colleges in the nationwide system. Size differences are at times emphasized to highlight the need for an understanding of the distributional implications of national policies and programs for agricultural research and education. Data on size differences are not offered as measures of quality differences in either research or education programs across large and small colleges.

Second, the data offer snapshots of the college activities and programs at particular points in time. These static pictures do not necessarily capture the dynamics of the colleges' attempts to meet medium-and long-term goals in response to changing student and constituent demands. The ability to adjust over time to those changing interests and needs is constrained by resource availability, including financial resources and the knowledge and skills of the faculty, scientists, and staff.

Chapter 1 is a review of the history of the land grant system, reflected in federal legislation beginning in 1862, and an overview of the system as a whole as it is today. The colleges were instituted to serve specific needs appropriate to the nation's character at that time. The initiation of the colleges of agriculture—both the "1862s" and the historically black "1890s"—reflected the nation's largely rural population and farm-economy base—and the racial separateness of the time. It is important to understand these roots. Since the system was designed to serve the public of yesterday, how is it adapting to changing times to serve the public of today and of the future?

Chapter 2 explores the colleges' operating environment. It reviews the characteristics of the U.S. economy and farming's role during the system's early years and goes on to illustrate how very different the U.S. economy, agriculture, and farming are today. First, and perhaps foremost, the United States is now a country of urbanites and suburbanites, few of whom retain ties to farming. Second, the majority of U.S. farm output is provided by only a small percent of all farms, and for the majority of the remaining farms farming receipts provide only a portion of the farm family's total income. Third, many of today's rural communities, although often less well-off economically than nonrural communities, have little or no economic base in farming.

The original colleges were mandated to serve the needs of the farmer, farm family, rural community, and national economy, which were closely intertwined in the system's early years. They were also mandated to do research because farms were too small to do their own. Indeed, if a farmer were to invest in developing new production technologies, the technologies could too quickly and easily be adopted by neighbors for the investment to pay off. Today's conditions are very different for some farmers. Today successful commercial farmers may oversee a huge corporate enterprise; interact productively with private seed, chemical, equipment, crop consulting, and biotechnology firms; conduct their own research or contract with private research firms; and have an array of sophisticated production and information technologies available. At the same time, a large share of the nation's smaller volume, part-time, limited-resource, or "hobby" farmers may share few or none of these traits. It is important to understand these changes. If today there are very few farmers in relation to urbanites, suburbanites, and nonfarm rural dwellers—and there are in fact many different types of farmers—how does today's college of agriculture define its constituency and shape a new public service role in a modern context?

Teaching, research, and extension are explored in chapters 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Each of these three functions has evolved somewhat differently in response to different administrators, constituent pressures, university rewards and incentives, and

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

funding bases. Chapter 3 considers the role the colleges play in educating the nation's undergraduate and graduate students and how the changing demand for that education is reflected in enrollment, number of graduates, and number and category of degree programs. A comparison of the distribution of students across academic specializations with the distribution of research specializations might form the basis for discussing the congruence between the teaching and research programs or for suggesting changes in curriculum and faculty expertise. The data show that a relatively small number of the schools educate a disproportionately larger share of the students. Chapter 3 also reports demographic characteristics of an important category of college of agriculture graduates—Ph.D. agricultural scientists who often become college teachers, scientists, and administrators. The demographic characteristics of the colleges' clientele have changed dramatically over time. Not only are nonfarm constituents much more influential, but also communities in some parts of the country are much more ethnically diverse. Have demographic characteristics of college staff and graduates changed, too? How important might a more diverse set of characteristics be to addressing the needs and priorities of a more diverse public?

Research and extension functions are explored in a similar manner in chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Of particular interest in Chapter 4 is the allocation of research funds and staff to different types of research problems. Examining the distribution of research funds might reveal something of the types of problems the system is attempting to solve or the needs it is attempting to address. Although data on research expenditures or scientist years are measures of research input, rather than output or benefits, they might be useful first approximations of what types of interests or goals are primarily served by the system's research. Understanding who benefits from research, for example, could lead to new proposals for who should pay the colleges' research costs. In addition, a comparison of those allocations today with allocations in the past may be a useful indicator of the colleges' progress in adapting to the demands of a changing clientele. Comparisons of how research scientists and extension staff use their time—found in Chapter 5—may also lead to interesting questions: What do the results of these comparisons suggest about the future of the research-extension interface that has characterized the colleges' traditional work?

Chapter 6 explores the system's components from a different perspective—that of the federal-state-private sector partnerships that jointly support the system's three functions. The nature of the colleges' continuing ties to the federal government, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are clearly unique among the nation's science and research institutions. These ties include federal funds for research and extension allocated to each state using a formula that has changed little if at all over the decades and a federal requirement for state matching grants, which is what drew the states into the partnership. If legislators were proposing a formula-based funding mechanism today, against the context of today's state economies, how might it differ from the one proposed many decades ago? Despite the continuing federal presence in the system, that role is significantly smaller today than in the past, and the roles of state governments and the private sector are larger. The data in this chapter provide a starting point for asking questions about the future role of the federal government in the system and what its purpose or goals might be.

Chapter 7 offers yet another perspective on the system's components by providing a closer look at individual colleges and at their similarities and differences within the system as a whole. The pressures weighing on the colleges of agriculture are not borne equally by the many separate institutions. Across the country, states differ significantly in the prominence of their rural versus urban populations and the demographics of their communities; the characteristics and importance of their farm, food, fiber, and natural resource sectors; the makeup of interest groups and political forces; and the traits of their higher-education systems. Thus each college has a somewhat different constituency and faces a somewhat different set of pressures for change. In their

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

earlier years, colleges were probably more similar than they are today; and yet today they are probably still more similar than their distinct environments would suggest. The data in this chapter could provide a first step toward assessing whether the colleges are independently and differently adapting to change. The data may serve as the catalyst to thinking about how the system might evolve to include a set of institutions more specialized in terms of functional orientation (what they do); emphasis on teaching, research, and extension programs (in whose interest they do it); and the nature of their public and private partnerships (who supports what they do). In addition, the data seem to identify pronounced differences across institutions—for example, the size of research expenditures. These differences may initiate questions about the future of smaller institutions and whether there is a potential role for federal policy in balancing the inherent advantages of larger ones.

In sum, this publication represents the culmination of the first stage of the committee's study of the colleges of agriculture. The deliberative report composed of conclusions and recommendations for institutional change and public policy will follow. The data in the report, compiled from many published or publicly available sources, and adhering to the categorization of data established by those sources, were collected to facilitate the committee's deliberations. These data might not provide clear answers, but they do help in formulating and exploring well-founded questions. The data are being published to contribute to the public's understanding of this distinctly public system and to the public debate regarding its future.

Anthony S. Earl, Chair

Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication was compiled with help from many people who provided data, assisted with data base searches, and suggested literature sources. We especially thank Sherry Stebenne Whately, project coordinator, USDA Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS) and John Myers, director, and Dennis Unglesbee of the USDA Current Research Information System (CRIS).

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES

1-1

 

Locations and Names of 1862 and 1890 Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture and Related Colleges and Schools of Forestry and Veterinary Medicine

 

3

1-2

 

Chronology of Major Legislation Affecting the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture

 

9

2-1

 

Total U.S. Population Statistics Compared to Farm Population Statistics, 1984–1992

 

19

2-2

 

Productivity and Input Use in U.S. Agriculture (1982 = 100)

 

20

2-3

 

Studies Reporting Estimated Annual Rates of Return on Investments in U.S. Agricultural Research and Development, 1958–1990

 

21

2-4

 

Dollars (billions) Spent on Food Consumption and U.S. Farm Value's Share

 

22

2-5

 

Total U.S. Farms and Concentration of Farm Output, 1900–1992

 

25

2-6

 

Financial Characteristics of Farm-Operator Households, by County Group, 1990

 

25

2-7

 

Production Specialization in the U.S. Farm Economy

 

27

2-8

 

The Food and Fiber Sector's Contribution to the U.S. Economy, 1982–1992

 

29

2-9

 

Total Cash Receipts (thousands of dollars) from Farming, 1990

 

30

2-10

 

U.S. Employment on Farms and in Farm-Related Industries, by State 1990

 

32

3-1

 

Fall Enrollment, by Degree Program, at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1984–1993

 

38

3-2

 

Fall Enrollment, by Region, at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1990 and 1992

 

39

3-3

 

The Ten Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture Leading in Total College of Agriculture Undergraduate Enrollment, Fall 1992

 

43

3-4

 

The Ten Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture Leading in Total College of Agriculture Graduate Enrollment, Fall 1992

 

43

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

3-5

 

Fall Enrollment, by Degree Program, of Female, Ethnic Minority, and Foreign Students at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, 1984–1993

 

44

3-6

 

Graduates in Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, from All Degree Programs, by Region and Institution Classification, 1992

 

44

3-7

 

Number of Graduates in Various Agriculture Disciplines, by Degree Program, from All Institutions, 1992

 

46

3-8

 

Percent of Degrees in Various Agriculture Disciplines Conferred by Non-Land Grant Universities, by Degree Program, 1992

 

46

3-9

 

Number of Degree Programs in Agricultural Sciences and Renewable Natural Resource Specializations at Land Grant Institutions, 1984–1985 and 1991–1992

 

49

3-10

 

Number of Employed Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees, by Discipline, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991

 

53

3-11

 

Employment of Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees (percent), 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991

 

54

3-12

 

Prevalent Demographic Characteristics (percent) of Employed Scientists Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1991

 

54

3-13

 

Women and Ethnic Minority Scientists (percent) Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991

 

55

3-14

 

Scientists (percent) Less Than 35 Years Old Holding Doctorate Degrees, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991

 

56

4-1

 

Federal Appropriations (current dollars in millions) for USDA Research Agencies, 1980–1995

 

59

4-2

 

Federal Appropriations (real dollars in millions) for USDA Research Agencies, 1980–1993 (1987 = 100)

 

60

4-3

 

Federal Agency Appropriations (millions of dollars) for Research and Development at Universities and Colleges, 1996–1991

 

61

4-4

 

Total Research Expenditures (millions of dollars), by Institution Classification, 1972–1992

 

62

4-5

 

Research Expenditures (thousands of dollars), by Institution Classification and ESCOP Program Area, 1992

 

64

4-6

 

Scientist Years (full-time equivalents) by Institution Classification and ESCOP Program Area, 1992

 

64

5-1

 

Sources of Funds (millions of dollars) Allocated to States for Cooperative Extension Work, 1972–1992

 

68

5-2

 

USDA Appropriations (millions of dollars) for Cooperative Extension

 

70

6-1

 

Sources of Support for Research and Extension Activities at the 1862 and 1890 Institutions and Related Colleges and Schools of Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, 1972–1992

 

76

6-2

 

Sources of Federal Funds (thousands of dollars) to the 1862 and 1890 Institutions and Related Colleges and Schools of Forestry and Veterinary Medicine, 1972–1992

 

77

6-3

 

Special Research Grants Allocated to 1862 Institutions, Ranked by Amount Received, 1992

 

81

6-4

 

Sources of Other Federal Funds (nominal dollars in thousands) Received by 1862 SAESs, 1972–1992

 

82

7-1

 

Changing Names of 1862 Colleges (percent)

 

84

7-2

 

Number of Resident Instruction Faculty in Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Forestry, by Academic Rank, 1993

 

88

7-3

 

Agriculture and Natural Resources and Forestry Faculty and Graduate Assistants (full-time equivalents) Employed in Resident Instruction, Cooperative Extension, and Research in Land Grant Institutions, Fall 1993

 

89

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

7-4

 

Classification of 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Stations as Commodity Research Clusters

 

94

7-5

 

Commodity-Specific Research Funds (percent) as Allocated by the Nine Commodity Research Clusters

 

96

7-6

 

The Five 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Stations Conducting the Highest Percentages of Research, by Commodity or Commodity Group, 1992

 

97

7-7

 

Total Research Expenditures (thousands of dollars) of State Agricultural Experiment Stations, by Institution and Funding Mechanism, 1992

 

98

7-8

 

Classification of 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Stations as Research Funding Clusters

 

101

7-9

 

Breakdown (percent) of Total of Federal and Private Research Funding to 1862 State Agricultural Experiment Funding Clusters

 

101

7-10

 

Amount (percent) of Funds Received for Research and Development by 1862 Land Grant Universities from Their Three Primary Federal Funding Agencies, 1991

 

102

Appendix Tables

1

 

Distribution of U.S. Population, 1990

 

106

2

 

Number of Graduates in Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resource Disciplines, by Region and Degree, 1992

 

109

3

 

Allocation, by Region, of Extension Staff (full-time equivalent staff years) among Base Programs, 1992

 

114

4

 

Allocation of Research Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Among CRIS Research Program Groups, by Institution, 1992

 

118

5

 

Forest Resources Research Expenditures (thousands of dollars) Ranked by Allocations to 1862 and 1890 Institutions and Forestry Schools, 1992

 

124

6

 

Allocation (percent) of Commodity Research Expenditures among Specific Crops and Animals Research, by 1862 Institution, 1992

 

128

FIGURES

1-1

 

Map showing locations of the 1862 and 1890 land grant colleges and universities

 

8

1-2

 

Map showing locations of forestry and veterinary medicine colleges and schools

 

16

2-1

 

Map showing dependence on income from farming, by county type

 

26

2-2

 

Map showing patterns of agricultural specialization

 

28

3-1

 

Four geographic regions of the United States as determined by USDA

 

41

3-2

 

Regional breakdown of undergraduate and graduate enrollment at land grant colleges of agriculture, by region, 1992

 

42

3-3

 

Degrees conferred in agriculture, food, and natural resources, 1992

 

45

3-4

 

Regional breakdown of doctorate degrees conferred by land grant and non-land grant institutions, by academic specialization, 1992

 

48

3-5

 

Number of bachelor degree programs in agricultural sciences and renewable natural resources at land grant institutions, 1984–1985 and 1991–1992

 

52

3-6

 

Number of master's programs in agricultural sciences and renewable natural resources at land grant institutions, 1984–1985 and 1991–1992

 

52

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

3-7

 

Number of doctorate programs in agricultural sciences and renewable natural resources at land grant institutions, 1984–1985 and 1991–1992

 

52

4-1

 

Distribution (percent) of research expenditures, by ESCOP program area, at 1862 institutions, 1972–1992

 

65

5-1

 

Sources of funding, as percent, for cooperative extension services, 1972 and 1992

 

69

5-2

 

Allocations of extension staff (full-time equivalent staff years) among base programs, by region, 1992

 

71

5-3

 

Geographic distribution of extension staff, 1992

 

72

5-4

 

National allocation, by program, of extension staff and SAES research scientists for 1992

 

73

6-1

 

Federal sources of research expenditures at 1862 state agricultural experiment stations, 1972-1992 (real dollars)

 

79

7-1

 

Allocation of research expenditures among CRIS research program groups, by institution, 1992

 

90

7-2

 

Allocation of forest resources research expenditures (percent) by 1862 and 1890 institutions and forestry schools, 1992

 

92

7-3

 

Allocation (percent) of commodity research expenditures among specific crops and animals research, by 1862 institution, 1992

 

93

7-4

 

Identification of states by principal type of commodity research conducted at their state agricultural experiment station, 1992

 

95

7-5

 

Sources of total research expenditures by state agricultural experiment stations, by institution and funding mechanism, 1992

 

100

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AT THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
Page R20
Next: History and Overview of the Land Grant College System »
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Although few Americans work as farmers these days, agriculture on the whole remains economically important—playing a key role in such contemporary issues as consumer health and nutrition, worker safety and animal welfare, and environmental protection. This publication provides a comprehensive picture of the primary education system for the nation's agriculture industry: the land grant colleges of agriculture.

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities informs the public debate about the challenges that will shape the future of these colleges and serves as a foundation for a second volume, which will present recommendations for policy and institutional changes in the land grant system.

This book reviews the legislative history of the land grant system from its establishment in 1862 to the 1994 act conferring land grant status on Native American colleges. It describes trends that have shaped agriculture and agricultural education over the decades—the shift of labor from farm to factory, reasons for and effects of increased productivity and specialization, the rise of the corporate farm, and more.

The committee reviews the system's three-part mission—education, research, and extension service—and through this perspective documents the changing nature of funding and examines the unique structure of the U.S. agricultural research and education system. Demographic data on faculties, students, extension staff, commodity and funding clusters, and geographic specializations profile the system and identify similarities and differences among the colleges of agriculture, trends in funding, and a host of other issues.

The tables in the appendix provide further itemization about general population distribution, student and educator demographics, types of degree programs, and funding allocations. Concise commentary and informative graphics augment the detailed statistical presentations. This book will be important to policymakers, administrators, educators, researchers, and students of agriculture.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!