Not Your Father’s Extension Service

By Myron Just and Tracy Sayler

There is a changing role in less direct contact with the farmer, but an increased role in providing unbiased research information, providing diagnostic services, area specialists, and information through the Internet.

After growing up on a farm and finishing college in the New England area, Seaman Knapp and his wife Maria moved to Iowa in 1865 to raise Merino sheep – which perished in the first winter storm.  Armed with an undaunted spirit and an insatiable thirst for learning, the prairie pioneer later took up hog farming, employing new techniques he studied.  He became successful, and began writing articles and giving speeches to other frontier farmers, not wanting them to go through the trial and error type of learning as he did with his frozen sheep and start-from-scratch pig farm.

Knapp later headed one of the nation’s first land-grant colleges in Ames, then went on to educate farmers in the far Southern Plains to successfully grow upland rice and corn, and to control boll weevil in cotton. Skilled at utilizing resources and working with government, Knapp in the early 1900’s organized a movement to send trained agents to help educate farmers, the precursor of county extension agents, and to organize corn clubs for boys and canning and poultry clubs for girls – the beginnings of today’s 4-H clubs. 

His legacy became national in 1914 with passage of the Smith-Lever Act, which made extension and demonstration work a mission of the State Agricultural Colleges, and led to creation of the USDA’s Cooperative Extension Service.

Extension’s traditional role in rural America today is changing, just as farming and rural living have changed over the years.  One thing is clear: farmers have many more sources of information available to them than they did in Knapp’s day, or even 10 years ago. Many seed companies, agronomy and soil centers, crop consultants with toll free numbers, Internet services and web sites are offering services to answer technical and general questions which were once directed to extension agents and educators.  Leaner budgets for extension are also affecting change.

Extension leaders and farmers are keenly aware of these trends, but point out that farmers are still looking for an unbiased source of science-based information, and that the basic mission of what land grant universities and experiment stations continues, and still needs to be disseminated to the public through extension outreach.

They say that how they deliver information is changing with technology and farmers’ needs, and that in the complex, sophisticated, capital-intensive and global arena that agriculture operates in today. There is still a need for basic production research and outreach.  That in an increasingly commercial industry, farmers still need the extension service for researching product/practice performance, making unbiased evaluations, and providing information without a sales goal in mind.

Extension in the 21st Century
Duane Hauck, interim extension dean at North Dakota State University. says that the N.D. Extension Service has a great deal of interaction with commodity groups and other farm sector groups to identify crop and research needs. He sees more public/private leveraging of funds, more consumer-driven research, and production research more linked to end use.

Hauck says extension funding continues to be squeezed, and that non-public funding has shifted from about 5% of budget to 25-30% in recent years. Increasingly important sources of revenue include commodity groups, foundation grants, competitive grants from faculty and private sources. Hauck says they continue to look at their revenue stream to meet the needs identified by North Dakotans, from traditional crop and livestock needs to newer specialty crop areas like organic and biotech crops.

N.D. Extension continues to be county-based, but Hauck still sees more emphasis on multi-county and regional specialists. A lot of extension activity is directed at regional centers like Dickinson, Williston, Minot, Carrington and Langdon, as well as the main station in Fargo. Specialty crops have established a major presence in North Dakota, and receive a lot of extension involvement – research and outreach that might be ignored by commercial interests focused on larger acreage or larger revenue crops.

University of Minnesota extension dean Chuck Casey is seeing many of the same changes as his North Dakota counterpart. However, in Minnesota, his challenges are compounded by severe budget shortfalls at the Minnesota Legislature the past two sessions. The U of M took severe cuts, and the Extension Service has not been spared. Further compounding the extension funding dilemma at the county level were cuts the legislature made in funding for local government assistance, pressuring the ability of counties to fund extension programs.

Casey and extension leadership have been forced to downsize extension personnel and locations to meet budget constraints.  “Personnel is 80% of the budget, and it’s left little wiggle room,” he says.

The changes have not been without considerable controversy at the legislature and some rural areas.  Still, Casey is confident the basic work of the Minnesota Extension Service can be carried out to meet agriculture’s needs. He points out that there are fewer visits to the county extension office for traditional farmer questions. Consequently, budget combined with trend-driven changes have evolved to multi-county and regional offices and more area specialists.  Local county options to fund offices for 4-H and other activities remain.

Casey says the strong research base with Outreach Stations such as Morris and Crookston, the Main Station in St. Paul and area educators remains intact. “We are not changing what we deliver, but how we deliver research information and services and how we respond to agriculture’s needs,” he says.

Bev Durgan, associate dean for research and outreach, points out that despite an overall tightening of extension resources, and despite a reduction in wheat and barley acres, staff and funding of wheat and barley programs has remained intact. A small grains research initiative incorporating research and outreach on scab also is ongoing and has full funding. Even with significant changes within extension, she says the full compliment of winter meetings and other outreach on seed and disease research, varietal trials, weed control, and other production issues has continued without being affected much by funding cuts.

Both Durgan and Casey are pleased with the cooperative work with extension in the Red River Valley that goes on with North Dakota.  They say joint work to meet the needs of agriculture on both sides of the river has gone on for a long time (extension sugar beet research and outreach efforts, for example) and should continue.

Charles Knapp is an economist, educator, former university president, executive higher education search consultant, and the great-great grandson of Seaman Knapp. In 1997, he gave a lecture “Applying Seaman Knapp’s Ideals in the New Millennium,” which is still applicable today, and can be found online at www.reeusda.gov/part/gpra/knapp.htm   (a biography on Seaman Knapp, source for the introduction of this article, can be found online at www.rogerknapp.com/knap/seamanknappHistory.htm )

How would the widely regarded father of the Extension Service view changes taking place today?  Charles Knapp said this: “There is much I cannot speculate on about the legacy of Seaman Knapp, but I can say this – if he were faced with the environment we have today, he would not be defensive, but instead he would be furiously looking for ways he could take advantage of the situation to better our prospects.”

“I can do no less than encourage you to embrace the changes that will occur and put them to good use in expanding the scope and importance of land-grant universities in the next century. I believe that the elements which Seaman Knapp thought were so important at the founding of the Cooperative Extension movement – constant learning, adaptability to change and innovation – will be even more important in the coming century than they have been in this one. It now falls to us to apply these lessons wisely.”

Quotes and Comments on Extension Trends and Challenges

How are changes taking place in Extension Service affecting agriculture?
“There are fewer people working directly with producers; growers want Extension to have a local presence. With the new Minnesota Extension structure, that local/county presence is diminished,” says David Torgerson, executive director, Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers.

Rep. Doug Magnus, Slayton, Minn., and Rep Gene Nicholas, Cando, N.D., both farmers, say they believe farmers and the Extension Service as a whole are adjusting well to changes taking place in agriculture and technology, as well as to how research and information on ag and related technology is delivered. A wide variety of public and private sources of information are only a call or mouse click away. Farmers still want and need Extension research for the basic research and unbiased and comparative testing work they do. “That work has not been curtailed,” they say.

Neil Fisher, administrator of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, believes basic needs are still being met, with both farmers and Extension using technology to access and deliver information.  It means less paper, probably fewer meetings and more electronic information. “Information may actually be more timely and more detailed, although it is less personal,” says Fisher.  Nicholas adds: “much of the information at NDSU is on their web page, instantly available, 24 hours, with county links and links to other states.”

Comments on an increasing share of Extension budget coming from commodity groups, grants and fee income rather than public funding:
“When a budget shortfall occurs, we need to get money from other sources. Perhaps there will be even better accountability for money spent,” says Rep. Maxine Penas, Badger, Minn.

Some say the trend encourages farmers to take more ownership of research needs and outcomes.  Rep. Al Juhnke, Willmar, Minn., worries that less public funding could lead to more biased information. Rep. Dean Urdahl, Grove City, Minn., says, “ I am in favor of any combination of funding sources that enhances local Extension programs.”

Is the hundred year-old Land Grant University/Extension mission valid? Does it need updating?
Rep. Nicholas says “it is still valid to have a land grant university dedicated to agriculture research and extension, even though the research and the delivery may be different.” Rep. Penas says, “certainly Minnesota has changed in 100 years, and Extension has to change too.”

Is there opportunity for more collaboration and less duplication across state lines as Minnesota and North Dakota have done in sugar beets and potatoes?
The MAWG’s Torgerson believes there are ways to increase collaboration, and points out that the wheat organizations he works with have helped fund wheat research in North and South Dakota as well as Minnesota. They also invite N.D. Extension personnel to speak at meetings with Minnesota growers.

Rep. Nicholas sees room for even more collaboration as long as similarities exist across broad areas.  “There is probably a lot more collaboration going between states and even Canada than most farmers realize,” he says, citing canola and no-till research and outreach with Canada, and the Northern Crops Institute at NDSU, as good examples of many years of regional cooperation. “Collaboration is good,” Rep. Penas says, and quips that farmers and Extension seem to work across state borders more cooperatively than hunters and fishermen.

To what extent has or can the traditional role of extension agents/educators be replaced by private sources?
Rep. Nicholas says private industry has a lot more consultants in the field now than it used to have, but he also sees a lot of cooperation between private and public sources. Torgerson says Extension specialists continue to be held in high regard for providing an unbiased source of sorting out information in a very scientific and competitive age.

Rep. Magnus, points out that more and more, there are fewer general practitioners and more specialists in almost any business, whether it be medicine or agricultural consulting. “We go to the weed specialist, disease specialist, nutritionist, marketing specialist or oncologist, cardiologist or dermatologist, and we probably can’t afford to have one in every community.”

What do you see as the most important role and service of Extension to agriculture and rural communities in the 21st Century? 
Says Rep. Urdahl: “Provide research and assistance to help ensure Minnesota’s commitment to agriculture and our rural economy.”  Torgerson adds: “To find ways to maintain and improve the profitability of agriculture as things continue to change at a very fast pace.”

The NDWC’s Fisher sees the key mission of Extension as “continuing to provide solid unbiased, credible information that agriculture and consumers need in this complex world.”

Rep. Gene Nicholas sees even more computer-based technology. More long distance learning. Immediate response to pressing questions through email and cell phone. Even more video conferencing to shrink time and distance and keep remote places connected.

He gives examples: If he or his son have questions from their farm, they can email questions and usually get a prompt reply from an Extension specialist by email. And Nicholas points out that with a digital camera, or even cell phone with a digital camera, it is possible to remotely photograph a diseased plant, electronically send it to a distant plant pathologist, discuss the problem with both viewing the sample, diagnose the problem and suggest corrective measures.  “It is like the doctor with an x-ray in a satellite clinic, discussing a problem with a specialist far away while the patient is sitting in the office,” Nicholas says.