Previous Article |
Table of Contents
| Next Article 
ARTICLE In 1862, almost 50% of all United States residents lived on
farms, which employed almost 60% of the labor force. The business of
the day was agriculture, and the land grant college of agriculture (LGCA) system was mandated ... to
teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the
mechanical arts. ... to promote the liberal and practical education
of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in
life (1862 Morrill Act).
Initiated in 1862 with the passage of the first Morrill
Act, and expanded in 1890 with the passage of the second Morrill Act, the LGCA system was the first embodiment of a post-Civil War national philosophy about higher education The 1862 Morrill Act produced land grant colleges in every state and
territory and the District of Columbia. The 59 resulting colleges
(including three within the University of California system and six in
U.S. territories) are known as the 1862 colleges or "1862s." The
second Morrill Act, which mandated access to African Americans, gave
rise to a set of historically Black colleges located in southern states
and known as the 1890 colleges or "1890s." There are 17 1890 institutions As full-fledged universities grew up around the original
colleges, the LGCAs continued to have a unique relationship with the
public and the federal government The two Morrill acts and two subsequent pieces of land grant
legislation, the 1887 Hatch Act and the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, together
endowed the LGCAs with a three-part mission of teaching, research, and
extension. Extension was designed to link the colleges' academic and
research programs to societal needs through a public service function
that includes extended education and technology transfer. Motivated by
the desire to draw each state and territory into supporting science and
education related to agriculture, land grant legislation created a
federal-state partnership in agricultural research and technology
transfer. The partners have traditionally been the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), at the federal level, and every state and
territory, through their land grant colleges and associated state
agricultural experiment stations and extension services, at the state
and local levels. Cementing the partnership is a financial arrangement:
each state and territory receives federal funding through USDA for its
agricultural research and extension programs, contingent on each state
and territory matching these federal funds. Recently, about 30% of all research expenditures by LGCAs'
state agricultural experiment stations derived from federal funds; state appropriations and private funds accounted for 51 and 19%, respectively. Of the 30% of expenditures supported by federal funds,
about one-third came from formula funds, 10% come from competitive
research grants administered by USDA and specifically designated for
food and agricultural system research, 13% come from congressionally
designated special grants, and 44% come from non-USDA agencies
including the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Agency for
International Development, the National Science Foundation, and others.
Land grant colleges' extension services are supported by federal,
state, local government, and private funds. Recently, state appropriations contributed 47%, federal funds contributed 29%, and
local government and private support accounted for 24%. The federal
funds are drawn from USDA-administered formula funds (69%), congressionally designated funds (28%), and other federal sources (3%). Federal funding for teaching programs in food and agricultural sciences has been minimal in relation to support for research and
extension (USDA-administered programs total $18 million); a formula
such as those used to fund research and extension has never been
adopted, nor is it proposed here.
The Colleges' Contemporary
Context
Since the colleges' early years, the nation has
experienced dramatic changes in the business of farming. First, in good
part because of the colleges' contributions to agricultural knowledge and farm technology, farming today is an industry based on science and
technology. The productivity of farm labor has increased almost 7-fold
since 1948 as a result of the development of modern farm technology,
the use of more capital relative to labor, and improvements in the
quality of inputs and managerial practices.
Second, the profile of a farm has changed dramatically since the LGCA
system's early years. Family farms still account for the majority of
farms in the United States; however, the contemporary family farm is
often a complex business entity, and family farms range in size from
small scale specialty farms to very large scale, commercial
organizations. Farming has also become a highly concentrated industry,
thus a relatively small share of all farms produce a significantly
larger share of all farm output. Associated with the great size
disparity among U.S. farms is the fact that there are farmers of
significantly different economic means, educational backgrounds,
research capacities, and information needs.
Third, some segments of the U.S. food and agricultural sector are
increasingly industrialized. In other words, farming, processing, and
marketing are increasingly coordinated activities controlled through
ownership or contractual arrangements by a single firm or
"integrator." In such operations, the seed, animals, or feed used
for production may be owned by the integrating firm, which has a
technical and professional staff that provides context-specific information to contractors based on proprietary data and research. These developments are requiring LGCAs in some parts of the country to
rethink their partnerships with some farm and ranch client groups.
Along with changes in the farm sector, the national interest in the
performance of the food and agricultural system, of which farming is
one component, has evolved over the decades to reflect a wider array of
public expectations. The modern food and agricultural system
encompasses primary production, processing, marketing, retailing, and
consumption Major Conclusions and Recommendations
The committee assessed the adaptations of each of
the three functions of the LGCAs 1. the need for greater relevance and accessibility through
programs that embody an expanded view of the modern food and agricultural system and through inclusion of a wider array of students,
faculty, and clientele of diverse backgrounds and perspectives;
2. the need to remove historic barriers and, indeed,
encourage research, teaching, and extension collaborations that cross disciplines, institutions, and states; to encourage faculty and student
exchanges; and to make all programs in the system accessible to as wide
a variety of stakeholders as possible 3. the need for stronger linkages among the equally important
functions of teaching, research, and extension and the need to
reinvigorate the colleges' role as models of the land grant concept
and philosophy; and finally,
4. the need for heightened accountability and quality through
competitive processes for funding, guiding principles for the use of
public (especially federal) resources, and more regular and critical
evaluations of publicly funded programs.
Committee on the Future of the Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture
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 Lansing,
Michigan
FRED HARRISON, JR.
Fort Valley State College
EDWARD A. HILER
Texas A&M University
MARLYN 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 SAUL
Agway, Inc.
Syracuse, New York
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
JAMES WYNGAARDEN
Duke University
ELISABETH A. ZINSER
University of Kentucky
JAMES J. ZUICHES
Washington State University
Staff
NICOLE BALLENGER
Project Director
DIBY KOUADIO
Research Associate
JANET OVERTON
Editor
VIOLA HOREK
Project Assistant
FOOTNOTES
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94,
pp. 1610-1611,
March 1997
From the Academy
the concept of higher education of a
practical nature for citizens of ordinary means.
16 public state colleges and Tuskegee University.
one that has lasted more than 130 years and has some distinctive features. In initiating this study, the
National Research Council felt that an assessment was needed of whether
these long standing institutional arrangements continue to work to the
advantage of the nation and, indeed, to the advantage of the LGCA
system.
Institutional funds
for both research and extension programs are allocated based on
formulas for which the major components are the percentages of the
nation's rural and farm populations located in each state and
territory.
activities that now provide 18% of U.S. employment, 16%
of "value added" to domestic production, and substantial
contributions to the nation's export earnings. The food and
agricultural system includes, as well, the interaction of these
economic activities with natural resources and the environment; human
communities and their well being; and consumer health, safety, and
ethicsinteractions often difficult to evaluate in economic terms but
clearly valued by contemporary society. Expanding global population,
tightening global resource constraints, and environmental quality and
food safety concerns combine to underscore the need for continued
improvement in the productivity and sustainability of the food and
agricultural system and the quality and safety of its products.
teaching, research, and extensionto
the colleges' contemporary environment and the U.S. public's changing needs and priorities. A national science and education infrastructure that underpins continued advances in performance of the food and agricultural system, and federal support of that infrastructure, remain
squarely in the national interest. The committee identified, however,
four principal areas for change. Specifically, within the LGCA system
there is:
that is, there is a firm need to
create a "new geography" that cannot be confined to a locality;
State governments are not required to match
federal funds designated for research and extension programs at 1890 institutions. The matching requirement for the funds to 1890s was
omitted by legislators because they feared that states would not agree
to provide the matching funds and, thus, federal funds to those
institutions would be lost.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ARTICLE