Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R2
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R3
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 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
OCR for page R4
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R5
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R6
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R7
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R8
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R9
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R10
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R11
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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).
OCR for page R12
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R13
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile CONTENTS PREFACE v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi 1 HISTORY AND OVERVIEW OF THE LAND GRANT COLLEGE SYSTEM 1 2 U.S. AGRICULTURE YESTERDAY AND TODAY: THE COLLEGES' CHANGED ENVIRONMENT 18 3 THE COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE: ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDENTS AND GRADUATES 34 4 RESEARCH AT LAND GRANT COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE: THE STATE ARM OF THE U.S. PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SYSTEM 58 5 THE EVOLUTION OF EXTENSION AT THE LAND GRANT COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE 67 6 THE SHIFTING BASE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR LAND GRANT COLLEGE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION 75 7 PROFILES OF THE LAND GRANT COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE 83 APPENDIX 105 REFERENCES 133 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 135 INDEX 141
OCR for page R14
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R15
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R16
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R17
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R18
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile 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
OCR for page R19
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AT THE LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES
OCR for page R20
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile This page in the original is blank.