National Academies Press: OpenBook

Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile (1995)

Chapter: 5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture

« Previous: 4 Research at Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture: The State Arm of the U.S. Public Agricultural Research System
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

5
THE EVOLUTION OF EXTENSION AT THE LAND GRANT COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE

This chapter introduces the third aspect of the colleges' tripartite mission, that of off-campus extension. It describes the funding base for extension, the geographic allocation of extension resources, and the allocation of extension resources among major program emphases. The data, provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Extension Service (now a component of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service), is used to compare the types of problems being addressed by extension staff in relation to those of interest to the colleges' research scientists.

  • The theory behind university extension is that education and research developments achieved through public funding should be more broadly available to those not attending the institutions and throughout one's lifetime. To realize that goal, programs were developed that geographically extended the availability of the educational resources of an institution by special arrangements such as correspondence courses and on-site consultations to persons otherwise unable to take advantage of such resources. The concept of "university extension" was introduced by U.S. colleges and universities working through city libraries. In the 1890s New York appropriated funds for university extension work and the University of Chicago included extension in its original plan of organization.

  • Agricultural colleges also began to look at the extension movement in the 1890s. For example, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey offered six lectures each on soils and crops, feeding plants, and animal nutrition at different locations around the state.

  • The 1914 Smith Lever Act established extension on a nationwide basis as a unique cooperative effort by federal, state, and local governments. The federal mandate came in response to concerns that information and technology being developed at the SAESs and USDA were not reaching many farmers, particularly those most in need of education. The colleges and SAESs were understaffed in relation to needs, and a gap was developing between professors on the campus and farmers in the fields.

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
  • In the decades that followed, this third function of the land grant colleges may have faced greater pressures for change than either campus instruction or research; and because of its relatively strong local base of support, it may have reoriented itself in response to local needs more than either research or campus-based teaching programs. The extension program's original mandate—to educate farmers regarding new farm technologies and ways in which farm life could be improved—has been challenged by a number of factors, principally the decline in farm population and the changing profile of farms and farmers themselves.

  • In 1988 the Cooperative Extension Service reformulated its statement of purpose to stress its role in helping people help themselves "through an educational process which uses scientific knowledge focused on issues and needs" (Rasmussen, 1989: p. 223). The statement is unbounded by discipline, audience, or geography, leaving open the question of who, primarily, extension should serve. In today's context, some have asked whether state and local extension services should continue to draw primarily from the research and programs of the colleges of agriculture or, instead, become a conduit for the research and programs of the entire university.

Although the role of the federal partnership has been declining, federal funds are increasingly earmarked for specific extension activities.

  • Table 5-1 shows that total cooperative extension funding to states grew more slowly during the 1982 to 1992 period than during the previous decade. At the same time, the role of the federal partner in providing extension services has been declining. Twenty years ago federal funds accounted for 42 percent of all funding; in 1992 the federal funds were only 29 percent (Figure 5-1). In fact, these numbers may understate the declining role of the federal and even the public sector; there is evidence of a growing role for private-sector firms in providing extension-type services to farmers in particular (Bradshaw and Marquart, 1990) (see box copy, p. 70).

TABLE 5-1

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

 

Year

Source

1972

1977

1982

1987

1992

Federal

$149

$198

$302

$319

$401

State

136

220

368

500

652

Local

70

105

182

229

333

Total

$354

$524

$852

$1,048

$1,386

 

SOURCE: Data were provided by the USDA Extension Service.

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

FIGURE 5-1

Between 1972 and 1992, federal funding of cooperative extension services decreased from 42 percent to 29 percent of total funding.

  • As the role for the federal partner has declined, Congress' role in directing extension programs has increased. Table 5-2 shows that in the last 5 years formula funds for extension have grown more slowly than "special" funds. Special funds are those earmarked by Congress for specific types of services. Urban and rural nutrition programs, such as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), have been a particular focus of Congressional earmarks. Water quality, pest management, and youth at risk have also been targets of earmarked funds. On the other hand, federal support for rural and community development programs has been inconsistent (Rasmussen, 1989).

Extension staff divide their time among farm service, community development, and consumer education programs, while research scientists target crop and animal production.

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

The Expanding Role of Private Crop Consultants

According to the American Association of Independent Crop Consultants, independent consultants now work with farmers on production issues, such as nutrient, pesticide, and fungicide requirements, on a one-to-one basis in much the same way that extension agents did in earlier years. These independent agents draw on the resources provided by the extension specialists at colleges of agriculture. They look to the Cooperative Extension Service to coordinate many of the farm service functions in their geographic area.

Independent crop consultants are typically educated at the land grant colleges because they are required to obtain a 4-year agricultural science degree before they can be certified. The association has produced position papers promoting revisions to curricula at the colleges, revisions designed to make coursework more pertinent to the in-the-field practice of crop consulting (Bradshaw and Marquart, 1990).

The independent crop consultant business really got off the ground during the 1970s, although private consultants in cotton-producing regions have been active for 40 years. Other private crop consultants work for the fertilizer and other chemical dealerships.

TABLE 5-2

USDA Appropriations (millions of dollars) for Cooperative Extension

 

Funding Mechanism

Year

Formula

Speciala

Other

Total

1980

200.7

78.3

6.5

285.5

1981

217.6

80.1

5.9

303.6

1982

232.6

76.8

6.3

315.7

1983

247.6

75.6

5.4

328.6

1984

253.2

75.6

5.5

334.3

1985

260.2

77.6

5.9

343.7

1986

260.2

78.9

5.5

344.6

1987

254.1

78.6

6.3

339.0

1988

260.8

80.2

16.9

357.9

1989

260.8

82.0

18.6

361.4

1990

265.1

86.4

18.2

369.7

1991

276.4

103.4

18.7

398.5

1992

288.5

110.0

20.9

419.4

1993

288.5

118.0

18.4

424.9

1994

298.1

117.4

19.1

434.6

1995b

298.1

121.4

13.2

432.7

NOTE: Totals include appropriations for other federal agencies, federal administration, legislative set-asides, and allocations to states.

a "Special" funds are those earmarked by Congress for specific types of services.

b President's budget request.

SOURCE: Data were provided by the USDA Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

FIGURE 5-2

During 1992 extension staff divided their time (full-time equivalent [FTE] staff years) among base programs involving farm service, community development, natural resource management, and consumer education programs.

  • Extension specialists are located at every land grant college of agriculture, and extension agents operate in almost every county in the nation. Figure 5-2 shows the distribution of each region's extension staff among Cooperative Extension's seven base program areas. Extension staff are located mostly in the south (Texas has by far the largest program) and in the north-central region of the country (there staff are more evenly distributed across states). About 30 percent of extension staff are located in the west and northeast in approximately equal numbers (see Appendix Table 3 for state-by-state extension staff allocations). The regional distribution of extension staff roughly mirrors the regional distribution of the nation's rural population (Figure 5-3).

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

FIGURE 5-3

In 1992 the largest number of extension staff was in the southern region. The geographic allocation of extension staff relates closely to the distribution of the nation's rural population.

  • Agricultural competitiveness and profitability were the goals of the largest base program in 1992, accounting for about one-third of all extension staff years. However, the efforts of 45 percent of extension staff were targeted toward the four related goals of community development, family development, youth development, and leadership development—programs that may be applicable in both rural and urban areas (Figure 5-4).

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×

FIGURE 5-4

Charts show national allocation, by program area, of extension staff and SAES research scientists for 1992.

  • The averages cited above belie some pronounced differences across states. For example, California, with a highly developed commercial agriculture, devotes more than one-half of its extension staff years to "agricultural competitiveness and profitability"; while West Virginia, with a larger low-income population, allocates two-thirds of its extension staff to programs aimed at the development of communities, families, youth, and leadership (Appendix Table 3).

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." National Research Council. 1995. Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4980.
×
  • Extension staff—both specialists at the colleges and agents at the county level—often draw on information generated by the research of SAES scientists. The allocation of extension staff and research scientists among program areas is, however, quite different. Of the research scientists' time, 64 percent was allocated in 1992 to research that could directly benefit farm productivity (such as research on plant and animal systems) and the sales of farm products (such as research on "processing for value added"). Only 13 percent was directly targeted toward social science issues (which would include rural, community, and leadership development) (Figure 5-4).

  • Similarly, 10 percent of extension staff was assigned to nutrition, diet and health programs, in contrast to the 4 percent of research scientists that reported research in these areas (Figure 5-4).

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

  • Does the research-extension continuum, for which the land grant system is so well known, still function well? Is extension responding to a different set of national, state, and local needs than is college-based agricultural research?

  • Would an expansion of nutrition and social science research provide a sounder base for extension activities in nutrition education and community and rural development?

  • What is the role of independent private crop consultants and agricultural input firms vis-à-vis public extension services?

  • What indicators might be developed to measure the benefits of public investments in extension programs?

SUGGESTED READINGS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Extension Service. Cooperative Extension Roles and Relationships for a New Era. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990.


Feller, Irwin, et al. Agricultural Technology Delivery System, 5 vols. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1984.


Natural Resources and Environment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. AREI Updates: Crop Consultants, No. 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995.


Rasmussen, Wayne D. Taking the University to the People: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperative Extension. Ames:Iowa State University Press, 1989.

Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 67
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 68
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 69
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 70
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 71
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 72
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 73
Suggested Citation:"5 The Evolution of Extension at the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture." 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 74
Next: 6 The Shifting Base of Financial Support for Land Grant College Research and Extension »
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!