• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Table of Contents
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Science issue round tables - Perspective...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Focus on change in extension: Farmers...
 Shared leadership, shared...
 Focus on change in extension: Can...
 Focus on change in extension: Transforming...
 Focus on change in extension: Extension's...
 Focus on change in extension: Role...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 Focus on national Ag R & Fund for...
 Focus on national Ag R & E policy:...
 People and places
 Subject index to articles
 Announcements






Title: Consortium news
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071918/00001
 Material Information
Title: Consortium news
Uniform Title: Consortium news (Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education)
Physical Description: 17 v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Publisher: Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Place of Publication: Walthill Neb
Publication Date: 1994-1998
Frequency: completely irregular
 Subjects
Subject: Sustainable agriculture -- Research -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Sustainable agriculture -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education.
Dates or Sequential Designation: No. 1 (Feb., 1994)-no. 17 (Jan./Feb. 1998).
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071918
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 36671832
 Related Items
Succeeded by: Inquiry in action

Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: USDA SAWG issues report
        Page 2
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: REE strategic plan
        Page 3
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: Science policy critiqued
        Page 4
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: Shared visions
        Page 5
    Science issue round tables - Perspective from Canada
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: Farmer scientific societies
        Page 7
    Focus on change in extension: Farmers in transition
        Page 8
    Shared leadership, shared responsibility
        Page 8
    Focus on change in extension: Can learning become the center
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Focus on change in extension: Transforming extension
        Page 13
    Focus on change in extension: Extension's opportunities
        Page 14
    Focus on change in extension: Role in information transfer
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: USDA facilities review
        Page 18
    Focus on national Ag R & Fund for rural America: Research, education and economics RFP update
        Page 19
    Focus on national Ag R & E policy: Land grant lobbying tightrope
        Page 19
    People and places
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Subject index to articles
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Announcements
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
Full Text
/A# '
/q 13


Consortium for

Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education


January 1997 Consortium News No. 13


Membership Reminder
Do you know if you're a
CSARE member? In
accordance with our new
member policy, once each year we
send the Consortium News to the
non-members as well as the CSARE
members on our mailing list. We
want to share our information, and
we want to encourage you remaining
non-members to get on board. If
you find a member form inside this
issue, it means you're not yet a
CSARE member because we've
never received a membership form
from you. Send it in today! This
issue continues a January special
bonus tradition by providing a
subject and title index of our first
dozen issues. Wow! We're begin-
ning our fourth year of publication.
Use your member form to request
back issues if you like. Thanks for
your interest and support.
What's Inside?
Focus on Nat'I Ag R&E Policy:
O REE StrategicPlan..............................3
O USDA SAWG IssuesReport............2
0 Science Policy Critiqued..............4.
0 USDAFacilitiesReview.................18
0 Land Grant Lobbying Tightrope......19
0 FundforRural America...................19
SharedVisions.........................................5
Science Issue Round Tables ..................5
Farmer Scientific Societies..................7.
Focus on Change in Extension:
0 Farmers in Transitio......................8.
O Shared Leadership/Responsibility............ 8
O Can Learning Become the
Center......................................... 9
S TransformingExtension.... 13
S ORole in Information Transfer...15
0 Announcements..................26
People and Places..............20
\ / Subject index to articles......22


GPRA Update

Juli Baker
Center for Rural Affairs

ast fall, USDA's Research,
Education and Economics
mission area (REE) released
the completed draft of their Strategic
Plan, intended to comply with the
1993 legislation, the Government
Performance and Review Act, also
known as GPRA. This legislation
mandated that all government
agencies and programs link their
work activities to real-world out-
comes, ensuring that government
activities be outcome-based, with
performance both measurable and
accountable to the public. Their
Strategic Plans, the overall mission
area plan and the individual plans
formulated by the four program
areas in REE, are intended to map
out their work outcomes and activi-
ties for the next five years or more.
The CSARE Research Policy Task
Force, with leadership provided by
its co-chairs, Stewart Smith, Univer-
sity of Maine, and Bob Gillespie,
Washington State University, submit-
ted a comprehensive response to the
original draft. After evaluating public
response to the original draft, REE
released its final draft in September
of 1996 (see analysis by Smith, this
issue). REE's next step to comply
with GPRA is to develop perfor-
mance objectives for their strategic
plans. These objectives and perfor-
mance measures are being developed
internally by REE staff.

During the last six months, REE staff
have focused on one of the five
intended outcomes of the strategic
plan, food security, as a test model
continued on page 3


Searching for the
"O"-Word:
Evaluating the USDA-CRIS
Database for Research Pertinent
to Organic Farming
Mark Lipson, OFRF

fr S e Organic Farming Re
Search Foundation has
recently completed a two-
year study analyzing the "organic
content" of USDA-funded
research. The National Organic
Policy Research Analysis
(NORPA) project was funded by
the Charles Stewart Mott Founda-
tion and the Jesse Smith Noyes
Foundation. The primary goal of
this study is to identify federally-
funded research that is directly
pertinent to the improvement and
understanding of organic farming
systems. This study is a practical
effort, performed from working
organic farmers' point of view.
Mark Lipson, a working organic
vegetable farmer and Chair of the
California Organic Foods Advisory
Board is the Project Coordinator.
Project Methods: Searching for
the "O"-Word
To assess the "organic content" of
USDA's research programs, we
used the Internet to search the
CRIS (Current Research Informa-
tion System) database. We
narrowed our initial search by
building a list of 75 keywords,
encompassing the topics likely to
include projects that we would
qualify as "organic research".
Querying the database with these
keywords produced approximately
4500 distinct project listings out of
about 30,000 in CRIS. A rating
system with nine categories was
continued on page 2









Focus on National R & E Policy


USDA SAWG Issues Report
Elizabeth Mansager Higgins
HenryA. Wallace Institute for
AlternativeAgriculture

Tn September the USDA announced
Sa new agency-wide policy directive
eLexpressing the Department's
commitmentto sustainable agriculture,
based on a Memorandum on Sustain-
able Development issued by USDA
Secretary Dan Glickman. That
memorandum supports sustainability
throughout the Department's programs,
and culminates the year-long work of
the 50-member interagency Sustainable
Agriculture Working Group, which
examined barriers to adopting more
sustainable farming methods. It also
responds to recommendations from the
President's Council on Sustainable
Development (see Alternative Agricul-
ture News, May, 1996).

"The purpose of this memorandum is
to state the Department's support for
policies, programs, activities and
education in sustainable development,
including sustainable agriculture,
sustainable forestry and sustainable
rural community development, and to
establish a mechanism to coordinate
these efforts across the Department,"
the memorandum reads. It goes on to
quote verbatim from the Working
Group's recommended commitment
statement: USDA is committed to
working toward the economic, envi-
ronmental, and social sustainability of
diverse food, fiber, agriculture, forest,
and range systems. USDA will
balance goals ofenhancedproduction
and profitability, stewardship of the
natural resource base and ecological
systems, and enhancement ofthe
vitality of rural communities.

In August the USDA's interagency
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
had released its report TowardaMore
Sustainable Agriculture. The report
identifies five issue areas where there
are barriers or opportunities USDA can
address to foster the full adoption of
sustainable agriculture. These issue
areas are Cultural and Social, Institu-
tional, Economics and Marketing,
Research, and Communication and
continued on page 6


OFRF continuedfrom page 1
devised to evaluate the projects.
Three categories ("Organic-Sys-
tem", "Organic-Component", and
"Organic-Educational") encom-
passed the range of "organic-
pertinence". In order to qualify as
organic-pertinent research a project
had to pass a dual test, meeting both
the "prohibitive" (could not include
materials prohibited for organic
farming) and "active" (described in
a context of non-chemical/ecologi-
cally-intensive farming methods or
systems) definitions of organic
farming.

The Results
317 distinct project reports were
identified as "organic-pertinent"
research. Of these, 15 projects
were top-rated as "Organic-Sys-
tems" research. 292 projects were
designated as "Organic-Compo-
nent", investigating a method or
technology permissible in certified
organic production and (apparently)
being studied in the context of a
non-synthetic-chemical system. Ten
projects were categorized as "Or-
ganic-Educational", producing
demonstration projects or marketing
analysis.

Funding amounts for the organic
projects have not yet been made
available to us by USDA. We
expect to have these data for the
final report, but this information
apparently is not routinely available
to the public.
Conclusions: What's Wrong With
This Picture?
Overall, we found a very small
number ofbona-fide organic farm-
ing system research projects with an
explicit focus on understanding or
improving the workings of real
organic production. The relatively
larger body of "organic-component"
projects represent a positive effort in
some areas, but the organic qualifi-
cation of many of these projects
must be inferred, as very few
contain explicit language referring to
an organic context. In many cases
this research is studying methods
that are already proven effective and
well integrated by organic farmers.
2


Very few of these projects are
breaking new ground where it is
needed.

The organic products industry has
grown by over 20% a year for each
of the last six years. U.S. sales for
1996 were over $3.2 billion. The
global market for organic foods is
estimated to reach $30 billion by the
year 2000. Nearly 5,000 U.S.
certified organic farmers of every
scale, growing every type of crop,
have undeniably demonstrated the
viability of organic farming systems.
This has been achieved with almost
no institutional support (and often
outright hostility) from the research
community. Despite these facts,
systematic research on organic
farming is still taboo in many
institutions. Despite a stated
Presidential national goal to dramati-
cally reduce pesticide use, despite
more than a decade of debate about
the meaning and content of "sustain-
able agriculture", there is no analysis
of the role that organic farming can
play in meeting national agricultural
and environmental needs, and there
is no explicit policy commitment to
even explore these questions. For
these reasons, research projects
pertinent to organic farming are
relatively few and far between.
Some do exist, and they represent
some interesting possibilities, but
they are not the result of any
coherent policy, nor are most of
them purposefully related to organic
farmers' needs.

A series of policy recommendations
has been prepared in light of this
analysis. The final report will be
available in February for $15 from
OFRF, PO Box 440, Santa Cruz,
CA 95061. Phone (408) 426-6606,
FAX (408) 426-6670, email
research@ofrf.org *
Note: On December 17*, OFRF staff
presented the draft results and
recommendations of the NORPA
project to a USDA briefingfor Deputy
Secretary Rominger, Undersecretary
Wotecki, and 15 other USDA officials.
The presentation was received with
great interest and participants clearly
expressed a desire for more informa-
tion and dialogue about organic
farming research possibilities.









Focus on National R & E Policy


The REE Strategic Plan
from a Sustainable Agri-
culture Perspective
Stewart Smith, Professor
Agricultural Economics,
University of Maine


its Research Policy Task
Force, reviewed and com-
mented on the proposed strategic
plan for agencies under USDA's
Under Secretary for Research,
Education and Economics (REE).
Programs under these agencies have
a profound impact on the type of
agricultural systems available to
farmers now and in the future.
Obviously, they are of great interest
to anyone concerned with sustain-
able agriculture. Since the REE
strategic plan is intended to guide
program development and adminis-
tration over the next five years, it is
important that it be supportive of, or
at least not adverse to, the promotion
of sustainable agriculture. In that
spirit the Task Force provided forty
pages of comments to the Under
Secretary. Many of those comments
were incorporated into a revised
strategic plan, resulting in a docu-
ment much more supportive of
sustainable agriculture, but one
which only allows, and does not
guarantee, that sustainable agricul-
ture can get the necessary support
required for substantial transitions.

The proposed plan was built around
five desired outcomes:
(1) an agricultural system that is
highly competitive in the global
economy,
(2) a safe and secure food and fiber
system,
(3) healthy, well-nourished children,
youth and families,
(4) greater harmony between
agriculture and the environment, and
(5) enhanced economic opportunity
and quality of life for citizens and
communities.
While those outcomes do not
identify specific programs that may
be implemented, they do determine
the boundaries of program develop-


ment. The Task Force wanted to
assure that those boundaries included
sustainable agricultural systems.

The first outcome, global competi-
tiveness, focused on increasing US
agricultural exports. The Task Force
pointed out that global competitive-
ness applies to supplying local
markets as well as foreign markets.
Furthermore, any consideration of
competitiveness should acknowledge
that fossil fuels are limited and will
eventually be more costly. REE
accepted these views, acknowledging
that helping farmers access local
markets is an important aspect of
global competitiveness and that "new
farming systems that reduce costs
over time" and "sustainable farming
systems that provide long-term
competitiveness" can help achieve
that competitiveness. While allowing
sustainable agriculture to be a
contributor to global competitive-
ness, the revised draft does not
indicate a preference for sustainable
systems.

Regarding the safe and secure food
and fiber system objective, the Task
Force requested changes in concepts
but left the specific language changes
to REE. The primary concern was
that the draft plan placed consider-
able emphasis in managing risk,
rather than avoiding risk. The Task
Force suggested that research should
look for farming practices that avoid
risk of food safety, for example,
rather than food systems that
manage these risks. The revised
draft did not reflect those concerns,
a result perhaps of suggesting only
conceptual changes without accom-
panying language changes. While the
revised language would not preclude
the development of sustainable
agricultural systems as a strategy to
manage risks from pests, for ex-
ample, it does not specifically refer
to such strategies and, more impor-
tant, it does not make the distinction
between reducing risk and managing
risk.

The Task Force had few comments
on the third desired outcome, healthy


and well-nourished children, youth
and families. We did suggest that
language regarding food access,
especially by low income families
and for culturally appropriate foods,
be strengthened, and that more
emphasis be placed on determining
the relationship between food
nutrition and alternative farming
systems. While these comments
were not specifically incorporated,
this section should still be friendly
towards sustainable agriculture. As
in the previous section, the Task
Force did not make specific language
suggestions.

While the Task Force complemented
REE for including the fourth out-
continued on page 4


GPRA continued from page 1
for developing performance
objectives and measures. This
process has apparently been
difficult but necessary, pinpointing
inherent problems with crafting
this type of process within a
government agency. Issues such
as interagency communications
and differences in information-
processing have led REE staff to
reformulate their approach to
performance evaluation. According
to Sara Mazi with USDA REE,
because interagency and
interprogram communications
were identified as a critical issue,
REE placed representatives from
multiple programs and agencies on
the teams that participate in the
process.

After REE staff refine this process
for developing performance
objectives and concrete measures,
the internal teams will apply the
resulting methodology to the
remaining four outcomes for the
Strategic Plan. This process is
expected to continue well into
1997. The process for the first
outcome may be completed by the
end of March. During this refine-
ment process, some alteration of
the final Strategic Plan draft is
expected.O









Focus on National R & E Policy


Science Policy Critiqued:
The Endless Frontier, or Frontiers
ofllusion? (Part 1)
Elizabeth Bird
Program on Agricultural Technology Studies
UW-Madison

SA justifies public expenditures on science? This
question increasingly draws the attention of
W research administrators and science policy critics
alike. It was the central question under discussion at the
Agricultural Research Institute's 45th Annual Meeting in
September 1996, titled "Survival inthe 21st Century:
Priorities for Agricultural Research." Coincidentally, about
the time I attended this meeting, I finished reading Frontiers
ofIllusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of
Progress, by Daniel Sarewitz. The resonance between the
book and the ARI Meeting presentations, particularly that by
Roger Pielke, is striking. Part 2 ofthis review (April 1997
issue) will focus on Sarewitz.
While the ARI Annual Meeting title begs the question,
"Who's survival?", the focus clearly was on the survival of
agricultural research funding itself. As an organization
composed primarily ofuniversities and agricultural corpora-
tions, ARI has been a principal advocate for agricultural
research programs and funds. It is quite telling that the
watchwords of this meeting were "reform," "accountability,"
"re-negotiating the social contract with science," "strategic
planning," "user needs," and "public values."
Mr. Gary Mitchell, Chief of Staff for the U.S. House
Committee on Agriculture, emphasized the "mantra of
reform." "Change now," he exhorted, "or be chopped in
the future." He asserted that the agricultural research
system needs to prioritize and be accountable channel-
ing funding to address the real needs of farmers who face
the loss of a safety net. Dr. Bob Robinson, Administrator
of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service, observed that society is re-negotiating
its contract with science institutions, asking tough ques-
tions such as "What are you doing? Why? How? Are you
doing it any better than the private sector? What is the
impact? Why should I invest?" These questions are at
the heart of implementing GPRA, the Government
Performance and Results Act (see Baker, and Smith, this
issue). Robinson noted that the guiding principles for
GPRA are "relevance, excellence and usefulness."

Dr. David Shannon, Chief Scientist for the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the United Kingdom,
described research priority-setting in his country, noting
that "there has to be a customer for the research" that is
done. The U.K., he said, has moved from a "science
push," to a "user pull" system. He described the
ministry's four aims as: "Protect the public; protect and
enhance the agricultural and fisheries environment,
continued on page 17


REE continued from page 3

come, greater harmony between agriculture and the
environment, we thought it could be more supportive of
sustainable agriculture. For example, the proposed
language assumed that farm size would continue to
increase and USDA should provide expanding farms the
means of solving environmental problems. We suggested
that more emphasis be placed on developing diverse
farming systems, diversity in size of farms, and creating
economic opportunities for farmers and rural communi-
ties. Several of our suggestions were incorporated into
the document: It now looks to "ecosystems that support
us and other species", rather than simply the "environ-
ment"; it calls for maintaining "diversity within agroeco-
systems and surrounding ecosystems"; and it acknowl-
edges we need to know more about the impact of indus-
trial agriculture on surrounding ecosystems, economic
opportunities and social issues related to farms, rural
communities and consumers. Like the global competitive-
ness section, this objective can now accommodate
sustainable agriculture even though it does not commit to
specific sustainable agricultural programs.
The revisions to the final desired outcome, enhanced
economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans,
were generally consistent with the Task Force comments
but did not incorporate our language. The original
language called for economic growth and job creation,
with little attention to the quality ofjobs or the distribution
of benefits from growth. The Task Force suggested more
emphasis be placed on quality of development, including
the dispersed ownership of farms, businesses, and
productive assets. We also asked for a technology
assessment protocol to identify initiatives that would meet
these quality criteria. The revised plan did not include our
specific suggestions, but did include language calling for
more community empowerment to determine local goals
and objectives. Rather than assume a community would
want more jobs and growth, regardless of quality, the
current plan supports local communities in making those
choices. Again, this language is more sympathetic to
sustainable agriculture, but only opens the door for its
inclusion. It does not assure its inclusion.
The CSARE effort was worthwhile in helping the REE
strategic plan be more accommodating to sustainable
agriculture. Without our participation REE agencies would
be less apt to develop programs supportive of sustainable
agriculture. However, the revised plan does not assure
that sustainable agriculture interests will be served in
program development and administration or in resource
allocation. It does, however, provide broad enough
boundaries to assure that sustainable agriculture could be
a part of any or all of the five desired outcomes. It will
be up to its advocates to assure that sustainable agricul-
ture gets adequately served by REE agencies over the
next five years. *
Stewart Smith is Co-Chair of the
CSARE Research Policy Task Force








Shared Visions
Farming for Better Communities

Victoria Mundy
University ofNebraska,
Extension Education
hared Visions in Iowa is one of
the eighteen projects across the
United States that encourage
sustainable agriculture with the
support of the W.K. Kellogg Founda-
tion. Its concerns encompass
communities, marketing skills,
beginning farmers, profitability, and
environmentally-friendly production
practices.

Shared Vsions producers work
together in groups. They decide what
their communities and farms need -
they really develop a shared vision for
the group. Then they go to work to
make the vision happen. People from
the University of Iowa, the Practical
Farmers of Iowa, and the Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture help
the 14 Shared Vsions groups in Iowa.

Several groups concentrate on market-
ing. The Farm Fresh CSA draws most
of its members from rural Benton
County. In 1995, they had 22 mem-
bers, who received vegetables and
apples. They discovered that door-to-
door deliveries took too much time, so
this year they'll make a change or two
in the produce distribution system.

The Central Iowa CSA draws mem-
bers from around Ames, Iowa.
Members receive vegetables, of
course. But this CSA also links
consumers to local sources of meat,
eggs, honey, even baked goods and
fiber products. They hope to do more
of this in 1996.

The Eliza County group is developing
a directory of farmers who have
products for sale. In order to be listed
in the directory, producers must meet
certain standards. For example, they
must have aplan for sustainability.
The directory will be widely distrib-
uted.

The Franklin County group is in the
very early planning stages of producing
antibiotic-free pork. The market
potential is good, but they have lots of
work left to do as they figure out
continued on page 25


Katherine Barrett,
Ph.D. Candidate in Botany
University ofBritish Columbia

As the boundaries between
science, technology, policy
and ethics are blurred, the
call for public involvement in
deciding the goals of scientific
inquiry seems more warranted than
ever. But this call raises the ques-
tion: "How might scientists embrace
public involvement in scientific
decision-making?" This requires
consideration not only of the ends,
but also of the means of scientific
decisions. For scientists to want
public involvement, forums must be
available to ensure that theprocess is
fair, effective, and mutually benefi-
cial. This step is prerequisite also to
building a strong basis for public
confidence in scientific endeavours.

A look at recent Canadian initiatives
in this direction may provide insight
into the promises and pitfalls of
broadly based decision-making.
Perhaps the most extensive mecha-
nism for public participation in
Canada has been a form of multi-
stakeholder meeting known as
Round Tables. Following the
Brundtland Report (Our Common
Future, The World Commission on
Environment and Develop-
ment, 1987), the Canadian Task
Force on Environment and Economy
proposed the Round Table meetings
as a means to involve all sectors of
society in deciding both reactive and
proactive steps toward sustainability.

Round Table meetings have been
held at the national, provincial and
community level since 1988. How-
ever, opportunities for broad and
general public involvement are
greatest at the local level where
members are invited to participate
through advertisements, or are
recruited from local interest groups.
In this way, it is hoped that atten-
dance is representative of the entire
community. To date, Round Tables
typically have included members of
local government, farmer and labour


groups, Native peoples, the private
sector, environmental interest
groups, and university faculty and
administration. While the meetings
cover a wide range of policy issues,
research priorities for science and
technology are an integral part of the
Round Tables' agenda. Final
recommendations can be as specific
as setting goals for a particular
scientific study, or as general as
building a substantial and diverse
knowledge base for future research
and education.

A central and defining feature of
Round Table meetings is consensus-
based decision-making. By defini-
tion, this means that decisions are
not controlled by a particular inter-
est, but are built upon in-depth and
inclusive discussion. Consensus-
based decisions tend to be more
stable and mutually beneficial for all
participants (ideally for the whole
community). The Round Table
model is therefore one process
through which scientists might
welcome and benefit from the
involvement of the non-scientific
public.

However, multi-stakeholder meetings
such as Round Tables, are not
without problems. The most
commonly cited shortcomings are:
Ensuring fair and equal representa-
tion at the meetings; dissemination of
information about the issues at hand;
and reaching tangible goals in a
practical length of time (Round
Tables may continue for several
years).

Nevertheless, the Round Tables
offer an opportunity for the expertise
of both the scientific and non-
scientific community to be integrated
in a manner that is open, creative,
reciprocal and productive. In short,
they provide an atmosphere in which
scientists should want the public
involved in scientific decision-
making.*


Science Issue Round Tables -
Perspective from Canada M








Shared Visions
Farming for Better Communities

Victoria Mundy
University ofNebraska,
Extension Education
hared Visions in Iowa is one of
the eighteen projects across the
United States that encourage
sustainable agriculture with the
support of the W.K. Kellogg Founda-
tion. Its concerns encompass
communities, marketing skills,
beginning farmers, profitability, and
environmentally-friendly production
practices.

Shared Vsions producers work
together in groups. They decide what
their communities and farms need -
they really develop a shared vision for
the group. Then they go to work to
make the vision happen. People from
the University of Iowa, the Practical
Farmers of Iowa, and the Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture help
the 14 Shared Vsions groups in Iowa.

Several groups concentrate on market-
ing. The Farm Fresh CSA draws most
of its members from rural Benton
County. In 1995, they had 22 mem-
bers, who received vegetables and
apples. They discovered that door-to-
door deliveries took too much time, so
this year they'll make a change or two
in the produce distribution system.

The Central Iowa CSA draws mem-
bers from around Ames, Iowa.
Members receive vegetables, of
course. But this CSA also links
consumers to local sources of meat,
eggs, honey, even baked goods and
fiber products. They hope to do more
of this in 1996.

The Eliza County group is developing
a directory of farmers who have
products for sale. In order to be listed
in the directory, producers must meet
certain standards. For example, they
must have aplan for sustainability.
The directory will be widely distrib-
uted.

The Franklin County group is in the
very early planning stages of producing
antibiotic-free pork. The market
potential is good, but they have lots of
work left to do as they figure out
continued on page 25


Katherine Barrett,
Ph.D. Candidate in Botany
University ofBritish Columbia

As the boundaries between
science, technology, policy
and ethics are blurred, the
call for public involvement in
deciding the goals of scientific
inquiry seems more warranted than
ever. But this call raises the ques-
tion: "How might scientists embrace
public involvement in scientific
decision-making?" This requires
consideration not only of the ends,
but also of the means of scientific
decisions. For scientists to want
public involvement, forums must be
available to ensure that theprocess is
fair, effective, and mutually benefi-
cial. This step is prerequisite also to
building a strong basis for public
confidence in scientific endeavours.

A look at recent Canadian initiatives
in this direction may provide insight
into the promises and pitfalls of
broadly based decision-making.
Perhaps the most extensive mecha-
nism for public participation in
Canada has been a form of multi-
stakeholder meeting known as
Round Tables. Following the
Brundtland Report (Our Common
Future, The World Commission on
Environment and Develop-
ment, 1987), the Canadian Task
Force on Environment and Economy
proposed the Round Table meetings
as a means to involve all sectors of
society in deciding both reactive and
proactive steps toward sustainability.

Round Table meetings have been
held at the national, provincial and
community level since 1988. How-
ever, opportunities for broad and
general public involvement are
greatest at the local level where
members are invited to participate
through advertisements, or are
recruited from local interest groups.
In this way, it is hoped that atten-
dance is representative of the entire
community. To date, Round Tables
typically have included members of
local government, farmer and labour


groups, Native peoples, the private
sector, environmental interest
groups, and university faculty and
administration. While the meetings
cover a wide range of policy issues,
research priorities for science and
technology are an integral part of the
Round Tables' agenda. Final
recommendations can be as specific
as setting goals for a particular
scientific study, or as general as
building a substantial and diverse
knowledge base for future research
and education.

A central and defining feature of
Round Table meetings is consensus-
based decision-making. By defini-
tion, this means that decisions are
not controlled by a particular inter-
est, but are built upon in-depth and
inclusive discussion. Consensus-
based decisions tend to be more
stable and mutually beneficial for all
participants (ideally for the whole
community). The Round Table
model is therefore one process
through which scientists might
welcome and benefit from the
involvement of the non-scientific
public.

However, multi-stakeholder meetings
such as Round Tables, are not
without problems. The most
commonly cited shortcomings are:
Ensuring fair and equal representa-
tion at the meetings; dissemination of
information about the issues at hand;
and reaching tangible goals in a
practical length of time (Round
Tables may continue for several
years).

Nevertheless, the Round Tables
offer an opportunity for the expertise
of both the scientific and non-
scientific community to be integrated
in a manner that is open, creative,
reciprocal and productive. In short,
they provide an atmosphere in which
scientists should want the public
involved in scientific decision-
making.*


Science Issue Round Tables -
Perspective from Canada M









Focus on National R & E Policy


USDA/SAWG cont. from page 2

Outreach. The Working Group
reports findings on each issue area, and
makes recommendations for immedi-
ate action and items requiring more
study The Working Group also has
compiled an inventory of USDA
programs relevant to sustainable
agriculture. Both the inventory and the
Working Group report are available
from the Office of Sustainable Agricul-
ture Programs, USDA South Building
Room 3868, Ag Box 2223, Washing-
ton, DC 20250-2223.

One area where USDA has been
strongly criticized by proponents of
sustainable agriculture is research.
Currently the majority of USDA's
research programs do not provide the
information needed by farmers looking
to reduce chemical inputs or diversify
their farming systems. The Organic
Fanning Research Foundation has
found in its recent evaluation of the
over 30,000 projects receiving federal
funding from USDA in the Current
Research Information System (CRIS)'
that only 317 of the 30,000 projects
were pertinent to organic agriculture
and only 15 of these were for organic
systems research (Lipson, this issue).
For other areas of interest to sustain-
able agriculture they found similarly
low commitments of resources. The
SARE (Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education) program,
USDA's primary outlet for research on
sustainable agriculture practices. At $8
million per year, it is a very small
portion of USDA's overall agriculture
research budget.

The USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Working Group concluded that
"traditional disciplinary research
methods are poorly suited to solving
the complex problems that arise in
considering the sustainability of
agriculture" They confirm that most
USDA supported research efforts have
not focused on examining whole
systems or integration of multiple
perspectives through interdisciplinary
research, but rather focus on smaller
components of plant and animal
systems. They also found insufficient
collaboration between researchers and


farmers in setting research agendas and
designing research.

The recommendations of the Working
Group for immediate action include:
1. Develop a USDA supported
scholarship for post graduate research
and education programs on sustainable
agriculture.
2. Continue to support the USDA
SARE program and other programs
contributing to the achievement of
sustainable agriculture goals.
3. Establish an award program to
identify and reward university and
ARS scientists who successfully
incorporate creative, systems oriented
approaches in their research and
education program.
4. Involve producers, especially those
with sustainable agriculture expertise,
in developing research priorities,
making funding decisions, conducting
research projects, and implementing
education efforts based on research
results. This might even include
planning, conducting and evaluating
research within the USDA Agricultural
Research Service and the National
Research Initiative.
5. Examine the use of the Current
Research Information System for
documenting sustainable agriculture
research.
6. Encourage agricultural scientists to
include relevance to sustainable
agriculture in their research activities
and encourage collaboration on
interdisciplinary systems projects by:
expanding current grant programs to
include agricultural systems and
sustainable agriculture, allowing
planning grants for systems projects
within the NRI and giving more weight
to systems-oriented proposals in
current grants programs.
I in performance reviews, allowing
for the longer start up time, increased
management effort and lengthy data
collection needed for systems research
and projects evaluating sustainability;
and
crediting multiple authors equally on
publications resulting from systems
oriented research.

The Working Group's proposals for
items needing further evaluation
include:


1. Assess the research, development
and policy barriers to diversifying
agriculture and generating value-added
approaches to rural economic develop-
ment;
2. Fund new types of institutes or
centers that allow interdisciplinary
research that focuses on problem
solving rather than on publishing
refereed journal articles;
3. Expand sociological research to
provide USDA programs with a better
understanding of how and why
producers make or adopt changes in
their production systems.

The Working Group's conclusions
about the flaws in the current research
system's support for sustainable
agriculture are accurate, and their
proposed action items would constitute
a giant step toward USDA support for
sustainable agricultural systems. Even
so, they do not yet go far enough in
addressing fundamental flaws in
USDA research priorities. USDA
should require all proposed research to
show that it is not unsustainable, and
require research focused on narrow
components of plant and animal
systems to demonstrate how it will
contribute to information needed for
systems based research and sustainable
farming systems.

Moreover, the recommendations lack
any quantitative goals, timelines or
definitive targets by which progress of
the Department of Agriculture in
fostering sustainable agriculture and
interdisciplinary, integrated systems
research can be measured or evalu-
ated.

Overall, the report of the USDA
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
is an excellent beginning. We can hope
that their work does not end with this
report, but that the Department
continues to move forward to make
the changes necessary to both remove
institutional barriers to sustainable
agriculture and to encourage integrated
systems and interdisciplinary
research.*

'Most SARE projects are not available
on CRIS.















Th the last issue of the Consor-
tium News, several articles
.Ltalked about the need to link
science and social problems and the
importance of science serving the
broader public good. They recognized
that decisions about research priori-
ties are ethical decisions, and ones that
need to be made in the context of one's
culture and community. "The transfor-
mation of nature, in technoscience and
in other work, is a collective enterprise.
Thus new ways to remake nature must
necessarily involve new forms of social
relations" (Busch et. al). Farmer partici-
patory research provides one wayto make
these research decisions and to engage
an expanded scientific community in a
democratic process of social problem
solving.

These concerns regarding the link
between social value and scientific
research arise as our western culture
goes through a time of great change.
Science is changing as well. When
Kuhn (1971) talked about scientific
revolutions, he pointed out that the
process of paradigm shifts takes place
within a community of scientists. This
community forms a culture for itself
through meetings, conferences, publica-
tions, and formal and informal gather-
ings in which new ideas can be pre-
sented, argued and explored. The
conventional scientific societies consist
of those who have gone through
rigorous training and have developed
credentialed expertise in the field.
Farmer participatory research programs
provide an alternative model for how
the scientific process can combine good
research and broader participation of
citizens in experimentation and dissemi-
nation of new knowledge. In participa-
tory research, the research questions
start with the problems faced by the
farmers and ranchers. These innova-
tive farmers and ranchers are encour-
aged to work with university and
agency personnel to investigate more
sustainable farming systems. Organiza-
tions like Land Stewardship Project,
North Dakota Sustainable Ag Society
and Practical Farmers of Iowa provide
ways for these researchers to share


Barbara Rusmore
Artemesia Institute

What they are learning with a
wider agricultural community.
The social interaction allows for
efforts to be recognized, shared,
assessed, and implemented by a
much larger and ever-widening
community of scientists-
farmers, ranchers and technical assis-
tance providers. Through their work,
these organizations form the social
framework for a more diverse scientific
society that is actively inquiring into
social problems.

How do such scientific communities
occur? The experience of the Alterna-
tive Energy Resources Organization
(AERO), a farmer and community
membership nonprofit in Montana,
provides an example. When AERO
began its program in sustainable
agriculture in the mid-80s, it surveyed
producers and their experimental
practices. The published survey helped
to create a sense of community; it let
people know about each other and
identified what was known and who the
researchers were.

In talking with producers and academic
scientists about research needs, AERO
concluded that encouraging producers
to continue and expand their experi-
mentation was the soundest research
strategy, and thus it established a
research grant program. This grant
program identifiedthe social vision and
values AERO was seeking and set
criteria for how research would take
place in small research groups.
To support these grants AERO helped
organize groups, provided them with
technical support and helped them
establish liaisons with each other and
with other researchers in the university
and elsewhere. By linking the local
participatory research clubs with
information and resources, AERO
enhanced learning. By encouraging the
clubs to work with their local experi-
ment station, county agent or NRCS
staff AERO drew the agencies into this
emerging scientific society. With all the
club members, AERO encouraged
exchanges of information and experi-
ence in multiple ways, including an



Farmer-Researcher Organizations as

Scientific Societies


annual meeting, farm tours, publishing
articles and hosting conferences.

This organizational framework has
provided the context for many different
research projects to occur simulta-
neously and to continue over a number
of years. A wide variety of research
topics are included in each request for
proposals, and funding is offered for up
to three years. Club research has
helped foster spin-off projects. In
several situations, a club's activities led
to establishing related commercial
ventures, such as the Pea and Lentil
Association, a trade association for
growers, and Timeless Seeds, a small
business marketing and distributing
legumes and other products grown by
sustainable operations.
Taken together, AERO's actions are
very similar to the operations of a
scientific support institution. Included
within this work are key elements of a
citizen-scientist democratic process for
developing new knowledge relevant to a
wider social good. Those who are
faced with problems are engaged in
researching solutions. There are
opportunities to work with a wider
community, exchange knowledge and
develop critical awareness about the
important questions that need research.
And collaborative action can be taken to
move toward a better world. Viewed
from the perspective of participatory
research, the farmers are scientists,
though their questions and methods
may differ. Rather than using statistics
alone tojudge validity, participatory
researchers rely on experience, observa-
tional skills and usefulness ofthe results
for a particular situation.

Agricultural organizations supporting
participatory research may recognize
themselves as a vanguard of a scientific
revolution. They link science to social
values in moving toward a vision of
sustainable agriculture as a different
way to direct our natural and human
resources. Participatory research
institutes play a crucial creative role in
building the new scientific community:
they provide producers, community
members, agricultural advisors and
scientists means to collaboratively
investigate and experiment with imple-
menting the new paradigm; and they
establish ways for these participants to
share and discuss what they are
learning, how to do relevant research,
and how their values guide their
choices. *








Shared Leadership,
Shared Responsibility

Chuck Francis and Heidi Carter,
University ifNebraska

& ur challenges in focusing people and resources on
opics related to sustainable agriculture require new
styles of leadership. Most events or projects now
involve coalitions or groups, and an increase in task forces,
ad-hoc teams, and committees that are typically not part of
traditional organizational structures. Leaders often have little
of the traditional authority and dominion over the reward
structure common in a classical hierarchy, and lack the
control over annual evaluations, salary incentives, promo-
tions, or other means to encourage activities in a particular
direction. In the absence of these contingent rewards, the
new leader has to employ what could be called inspirational
leadership. Traditional forms are referred to as "transac-
tional," while the emerging model depends on "transforma-
tional" leadership.
In two workshops conducted under the banner of Shared
Leadership, SharedResponsibility, we have brought
together extension specialists and educators, NRCS person-
nel, farmers, and non-profit representatives to explore and
practice the potentials ofa full range leadership model. The
concepts come from the book, Improving Organizational
Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership by
Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio from the Center for Leader-
ship Studies, School of Management, SUNY Binghampton,
New York. Facilitators (Dr. Dan Wheeler and Dr. Elizabeth
Birnstihl) led day-long workshops on how to identify the
traits of successful leaders, how to recognize our own
strengths as leaders, and how these principles can be used in
our own organizational environment. Small group sessions
identified the major challenges facing groups working in
sustainable agriculture, and how a full-range leadership
model can help us build on strengths and resources for
training people in the future.

Some ofthe characteristics oftraditional transactional
leadership include contracts for rewards of effort, expressed
as the classical incentives listed above. Leaders often set the
levels of expected performance and monitor progress,
intervening when things go wrong or when the project is not
moving fast enough. Such a leadership approach requires
the hierarchy of a private company or structure that permits
exercise of tight control. In contrast, in the emerging
transformational leadership model, the leader gives close
attention to all members of the team and encourages their
unique input to the group's tasks. The leader recognizes
individual and group creativity, questions assumptions,
seeks new directions, and relies on intelligence of team
members. In the new model, the leader inspires with a high
degree of optimism and frequent communication with the
team. The group develops a strong sense of mission and
commitment as it pursues a vision that has been derived
from interaction among all participants. In the full range
leadership approach, we recognize that each of us uses a
number of leadership methods, and we have to build on our
own unique skills.
continued on page 25


Farmers in Transition: Role
for Extension?
Kim L. Staritzky

TA at do farmers in transition to sustainable
agriculture need from cooperative exten
sion? As a graduate student at Cornell
University I embarked on a search to hear what
farmers in transition have to say about changes they've
made and the support they need. The following
synthesis derives from twelve interviews with men and
women farmers from across New York state who
produce a diversity of products.

The farmers in my study expressed needs for increased
access to sustainable agriculture information and
education. They seek educational approaches which
honor their values, experiences, ways of learning, and
complex circumstances. They were deeply concerned
with issues of family, environment, community, and
the future of farming farm transfer, and the next
generation.

Farmers expressed a desire for assistance (e.g. from
extension) in establishing mentor relationships and
apprenticeships whereby they might pass information
on to the next farming generation. One farmer shared
her idea of the importance of apprenticeships: "I'm
looking through the NOFA News these days at all the
different apprenticeships that are being offered and it
makes me feel very envious of young people coming
along now because they have the opportunity to learn
by doing. There's no substitute for that. You can go
and study all the classes in the world at college and
you come out knowing nothing. You might know the
theory behind it, but you don't know how to do it....I
got all sorts of educational advantages but I didn't
know how to farm. The apprenticeships are just a
wonderful opportunity." The farmers I interviewed
also wanted to hear the "old wisdom," for example
through an "old timers" speakers bureau sponsored by
extension.

Many farmers are engaged in filling in the information
gaps themselves through their own research the
farmer/scientist exchange can go both ways. They are
taking on the challenge of serving as educators them-
selves, reaching consumers, extension personnel,
environmental groups and other farmers.

Overall, farmers in the study challenged educators to
examine the many different ways which farmers are
most effectively learning about sustainable agriculture.
They require approaches which are farmer centered,
focused on local issues, and practice based. Through
the suggestions and ideas shared by these and other
farmers, educators and extension personnel can
improve their methods and find renewed roles which
serve the educational and informational needs of
farmers in transition to sustainable agriculture. *








Shared Leadership,
Shared Responsibility

Chuck Francis and Heidi Carter,
University ifNebraska

& ur challenges in focusing people and resources on
opics related to sustainable agriculture require new
styles of leadership. Most events or projects now
involve coalitions or groups, and an increase in task forces,
ad-hoc teams, and committees that are typically not part of
traditional organizational structures. Leaders often have little
of the traditional authority and dominion over the reward
structure common in a classical hierarchy, and lack the
control over annual evaluations, salary incentives, promo-
tions, or other means to encourage activities in a particular
direction. In the absence of these contingent rewards, the
new leader has to employ what could be called inspirational
leadership. Traditional forms are referred to as "transac-
tional," while the emerging model depends on "transforma-
tional" leadership.
In two workshops conducted under the banner of Shared
Leadership, SharedResponsibility, we have brought
together extension specialists and educators, NRCS person-
nel, farmers, and non-profit representatives to explore and
practice the potentials ofa full range leadership model. The
concepts come from the book, Improving Organizational
Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership by
Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio from the Center for Leader-
ship Studies, School of Management, SUNY Binghampton,
New York. Facilitators (Dr. Dan Wheeler and Dr. Elizabeth
Birnstihl) led day-long workshops on how to identify the
traits of successful leaders, how to recognize our own
strengths as leaders, and how these principles can be used in
our own organizational environment. Small group sessions
identified the major challenges facing groups working in
sustainable agriculture, and how a full-range leadership
model can help us build on strengths and resources for
training people in the future.

Some ofthe characteristics oftraditional transactional
leadership include contracts for rewards of effort, expressed
as the classical incentives listed above. Leaders often set the
levels of expected performance and monitor progress,
intervening when things go wrong or when the project is not
moving fast enough. Such a leadership approach requires
the hierarchy of a private company or structure that permits
exercise of tight control. In contrast, in the emerging
transformational leadership model, the leader gives close
attention to all members of the team and encourages their
unique input to the group's tasks. The leader recognizes
individual and group creativity, questions assumptions,
seeks new directions, and relies on intelligence of team
members. In the new model, the leader inspires with a high
degree of optimism and frequent communication with the
team. The group develops a strong sense of mission and
commitment as it pursues a vision that has been derived
from interaction among all participants. In the full range
leadership approach, we recognize that each of us uses a
number of leadership methods, and we have to build on our
own unique skills.
continued on page 25


Farmers in Transition: Role
for Extension?
Kim L. Staritzky

TA at do farmers in transition to sustainable
agriculture need from cooperative exten
sion? As a graduate student at Cornell
University I embarked on a search to hear what
farmers in transition have to say about changes they've
made and the support they need. The following
synthesis derives from twelve interviews with men and
women farmers from across New York state who
produce a diversity of products.

The farmers in my study expressed needs for increased
access to sustainable agriculture information and
education. They seek educational approaches which
honor their values, experiences, ways of learning, and
complex circumstances. They were deeply concerned
with issues of family, environment, community, and
the future of farming farm transfer, and the next
generation.

Farmers expressed a desire for assistance (e.g. from
extension) in establishing mentor relationships and
apprenticeships whereby they might pass information
on to the next farming generation. One farmer shared
her idea of the importance of apprenticeships: "I'm
looking through the NOFA News these days at all the
different apprenticeships that are being offered and it
makes me feel very envious of young people coming
along now because they have the opportunity to learn
by doing. There's no substitute for that. You can go
and study all the classes in the world at college and
you come out knowing nothing. You might know the
theory behind it, but you don't know how to do it....I
got all sorts of educational advantages but I didn't
know how to farm. The apprenticeships are just a
wonderful opportunity." The farmers I interviewed
also wanted to hear the "old wisdom," for example
through an "old timers" speakers bureau sponsored by
extension.

Many farmers are engaged in filling in the information
gaps themselves through their own research the
farmer/scientist exchange can go both ways. They are
taking on the challenge of serving as educators them-
selves, reaching consumers, extension personnel,
environmental groups and other farmers.

Overall, farmers in the study challenged educators to
examine the many different ways which farmers are
most effectively learning about sustainable agriculture.
They require approaches which are farmer centered,
focused on local issues, and practice based. Through
the suggestions and ideas shared by these and other
farmers, educators and extension personnel can
improve their methods and find renewed roles which
serve the educational and informational needs of
farmers in transition to sustainable agriculture. *









Focus on Change in Extension


Can Learning Become the Center of
Land Grant Universities and
Cooperative Extension?
Gerald R. Campbell,
Professor and Extension Specialist
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics and
Center for Community Economic Development
University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension

Note: The original version of these comments was
presented to stimulate discussion at the quarterly
meeting ofMinnesota Extension Service, campus faculty
and staff This is a work in progress and Dr. Campbell
welcomes your comments.

Introduction

I began a search in 1989 to sort out my experience of
l nearly 30 years as a student and teacher in five Land
Grant universities. I was motivated primarily by my
career shift into administrative positions as Associate
Dean for Cooperative Extension and later Vice Chancellor
for UW Extension. At this point in my journey I am
convinced that in Land Grant universities and Coopera-
tive Extension our tradition and opportunities call for us
to intentionally bring learning back to the center of our
work.

Land Grant Universities centered on being "Research
Universities"
Today, Land Grant universities have become "research
universities" with the prime elements of their culture
centered on the creation of new knowledge and new
applications of knowledge. My observation is that the
preference for the creation of new knowledge has so
deeply permeated the culture of Land Grant universities
and so skewed their work that they are dangerously close
to losing elements of the public support base on which
their fortunes have rested. The culture of the university
permeates the culture of the Cooperative Extension
institutions attached to the university.

The rhetoric of recent times often stakes the Land Grant
university's unique place in U.S. higher education on their
"world-class research, first-rate service and access to
affordable education for all." This was not always the
case. At the time of the Morrill Act in 1862 the chief
focus of Congress was access to education for the sons
and daughters of farmers, mechanics and laborers. They
sought to "democratize" education and the country by
increasing access for citizens who had been shut out of an
elitist system of higher education. They also encouraged
the application of knowledge to the issues confronted in
everyday life of farms, factories and households.

The University of Wisconsin
The University of Wisconsin provides an illuminating case


history. When UW first established an Agriculture
Department after the Morrill Act of 1862, its instruction
was in the style of the day, meant to elevate the mind, not
particularly practical. This style did not encourage many
farmers to send their children. Through heavy external
influence of a strong Board of Regents the UW built new
programs for farmers on a strong tradition of self educa-
tion and experimentation in agricultural societies. The
University established "Farmers' Institutes" to take its
knowledge to farmers where they were. The Regents
also established the "Short Course" which brought
farmers to the campus for courses during the winter.
In these early days, there was considerable discord
between farmers (sometimes including members of the
Board of Regents) and university researchers. In his
history of the UW College of Agriculture (formed in
1889), W. H. Glover writes of this period that the Dean
of the College and director of the Experiment Station was
not interested in buying harmony with the farmers if that
harmony came from, "...servile devotion of the staff of a
station to the immediate and superficial aims offarm-
ers. The University and its College of Agriculture
established its identity as the creator of knowledge. It
would interact with farmers but the University would set
the research agenda. That agenda would be firmly based
on science as applied at the experiment station.

The Broader University Extension Movement and the
Wisconsin Idea

The developments of agricultural extension at Wisconsin
were from the beginning influenced by developments in
the broader university extension movement elsewhere.
The farmers' institutes had been in part copied from the
"English extension movement" which had taken lectures
off campus and into towns and villages. The college
began agricultural extension with the Wisconsin Agricul-
tural Experiment Association in 1901. Under President
Charles Van Hise, the UW established the University-
wide Extension Division in 1907. Van Hise had increas-
ingly defined the importance of bringing university
knowledge to people across the state, and bringing
university faculty expertise to state legislative and other
governmental bodies and otherwise making itself useful to
the citizens. Van Hise was also a geologist and mindful of
the new universities (Johns Hopkins and the University of
Chicago) where creation of knowledge and graduate
study were redefining the idea of higher education. Van
Hise had a strong interest in establishing Wisconsin as a
university in the new pattern where the discovery of new
knowledge was as important as the teaching of existing
knowledge. He understood that if the public was to
support research to create new knowledge it must see that
research as beneficial to its interests.

The "Wisconsin Idea" of the university in service to the
state added a rich conceptual backdrop for the develop-
ment of agricultural extension. When the 1914 partner-
ship of University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and
continued on page 10 1








Focus on Change in Extension


Learning, continued from page 9
county government, which has come to be Cooperative
Extension was established in Wisconsin, it rested on an
existing culture. That culture is strategically centered on
the promise of the Land Grant university as a creator of
knowledge with classroom, laboratory and extension as its
vehicle for disseminating that knowledge. It is founded in
major part on the notion of knowledge as utilitarian and
the creation of new knowledge as an engine of economic
growth.
The Growth of the Land Grant University as a Re-
search University

I believe that this same story was repeated in only slightly
different ways across the United States. If we have an
identity crisis in Land Grant universities today about
research vis a vis teaching, its roots are in our beginnings.
Our identity as creators of knowledge was significantly
reinforced by the development of federal formula and
competitive grant funds for research. It was also rein-
forced by the continuing citation of the mantra of "re-
search based programs" as the distinguishing feature of
Cooperative Extension programs. Our identity as creators
of knowledge and the accelerated flowering of the
"research university" was reinforced after WWII as the
usefulness of war time research became widely apparent.
The GI Bill also filled university classrooms. The de-
mand for College teachers boomed and the cold war gave
impetus for even more federal funding for a vastly
increased scope of university research.

During this period Land Grant universities took their
faculty's inclination toward discovery of new knowledge
fueled by outside funds, to fundamentally redefine what a
Land Grant University was. The self governing faculty
culture helped move the university away from its early
emphasis on teaching to an emphasis on research. Across
academe, research universities were the ones to be
emulated. These universities were also the source of
nearly all new Ph.D.s who became university faculty and
took the identity they learned as graduate students as a
model for their own careers. From the mid 1950s to the
mid 1970s these new Ph.D.s found little difficulty in
securing new faculty positions. They also found a
relatively generous climate for funding their research
interests.

During the 1960s Land Grant Universities grew rapidly as
the "baby boom" began to come to college. By the end
of this period the strains of growth in many directions and
the political turmoil within and outside the university was
taking atoll on all of our large universities. During this
period there was certainly turmoil at Land Grant Universi-
ties but their colleges of agriculture also saw some of their
greatest successes as domestic agriculture became more
and more technologically complex, the international green
revolution was in full swing, and new developments in
basic biological sciences and early developments in
computer technology all fueled the technology of discov-
ery. For extension this meant a growing stream of new


ideas and technologies to bring to farmers, agribusinesses
and farm families. When I interviewed for a faculty
position, including some extension funding, at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin in 1972, I was assured by those in the
agricultural extension program leadership as well as the
campus-based faculty, that at Wisconsin "extension"
really meant "applied research." I am sure this was meant
to reassure me that I would not need to worry about
much real engagement with those outside the university
except to "extend" my research results.

The university orientation toward research began to draw
outside attention in the 1970s. This attention was in part
a reaction to the campus disturbances during the Vietnam
war, but was also associated with the environmental
movement and other societal forces which questioned the
products of science and technology. The 1970s also saw
the controversies over displacement of farm labor by
machines and the beginning of health concerns over the
use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. For Land Grant
university Colleges of Agriculture the 1970s saw the
publication of the critical report "Hard Tomatoes, Hard
Times" by Jim Hightower questioning the priorities of
agricultural experiment stations.

In the 1980s the concern about universities spawned a
number of critical essays and books. The general critique
of public institutions and the particular conservative
critique of universities as centers of "political correct-
ness" brought the university's identity to public and
legislative attention. The critique gained ground as a
greater share of the public had direct experience with
university education and as the "baby boomers" heard
their children complain about how they were being
treated. This led to calls for accountability, proposals for
legislatively mandated faculty teaching loads, the creation
of systems for reviewing tenured faculty, and a general
tightening of the scrutiny by governing bodies for public
and private higher education.
The Debate Over the Roles of University Faculty

The public and legislative critiques of the 1970s and early
1980s, the enrollment downturn of the 1980s and the
growing number of new Ph.D.s who could find only part
time faculty positions began to raise questions about the
roles of university faculty. The name most often associ-
ated with renewing these broad discussions of faculty
roles is Earnest Boyer. Until his death in 1995, he was a
visionary and forceful leader of the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. In that role Boyer led
the development of the 1990 study Scholarship Recon-
sidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. I cannot
overstate the profound impact which Professor Boyer's
book has had. It resulted in thousands of campus
discussions about the evolving roles of faculty. It spurred
the rewriting of tenure and promotion criteria at some of
the nations most prestigious Universities.

In my personal case it gave explanations for the unease I
felt in reconciling my academic life which centered on








Focus on Change in Extension


teaching, on and off campus, in an academic department
and a college where the culture favored research. Boyer
said clearly what most in American higher education
knew, that higher education had "moved from an empha-
sis on the student to an emphasis on the Professoriate,
from emphasis on generalized education to specialized
education, and from loyalty to the campus to loyalty to
the profession." (p.13)

Scholarship Reconsidered concentrated on revealing
what university faculty were actually doing and the
schizophrenia they felt in a culture which pulled them
away from their desire to make a difference in the lives of
their students, and to make a difference in the communi-
ties in which they lived. Scholarship Reconsidered made
meaning of the Carnegie Foundation survey findings by
describing faculty work. It identified four types of
scholarship and recognized the diversity of contributions
today's faculty make. These were described as"..the
scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration;
the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of
teaching." (p.16) The Carnegie Report explicitly called
for movement away from the teaching vs. research vs.
service language of the past. Its arguments allowed me to
see that I had been doing all four forms of scholarship.
In my case those forms of scholarship took place in the
context of budgets associated with research, resident
instruction and extension. On reading Scholarship
Reconsidered it was clear to me that all these forms of
scholarship were taking place around me and that what I
did was often inaccurately described by naming it with
the budget categories that supported the work. Even
though Wisconsin had a philosophy of "integrated"
teaching, research and extension departments, each of us
knew who the extension, research or teaching faculty
were.
Scholarship Reconsidered and the Reflective Practi-
tioner

During the same period that Land Grant (and many
other) universities were establishing and building their
identity as "research universities," Donald Schon of MIT
had been studying professionals and how they do their
work and how they learn. He reported his results in the
book The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. In essence Schon said that redefining
scholarship would be a difficult case of cultural change
because of the conventions and well practiced set of
behaviors which universities have built up over time.

Fundamentally, Schon argues that Universities have
accepted an epistemology (a way of knowing) which he
calls "technical rationality." In this model, widely adopted
from German University practice in the 1890s and early
1900s, knowledge is built from initial abstract proposi-
tions. These propositions are then tested with empirical
investigation guided by the scientific method. The
investigation produces results which can be applied and
taught usually in the form of well defined and well


behaved problem situations. He argues that this model of
"technical rationality" encourages a highly specialized and
compartmentalized university with each of the disciplin-
ary departments developing its own specialized jargon,
theory, applications and control of the curriculum. That
curriculum puts theory and well-defined applications
ahead of direct experience.

Schon contrasts the universities' abstract and constrained
world with the world of the university trained working
professional toiling in the "swamp" of professional
practice. In the "swamp" of practice none of the theory
or well-behaved problems of the discipline seem to fit the
unruly facts and behaviors found on a daily basis. Schon
longs for a melding of the theory and abstraction with the
knowledge gained through active practice. This melding
is evidenced in what he calls the reflective practitioner
and the process of action research which moves freely
from experience to abstraction and back again in a real
learning system. Schon contends it will be very challeng-
ing to move universities to the proposed new definitions
of scholarship without changing fundamentally the ways
of knowing.

The New American Scholar

Eugene Rice at the American Association of Higher
Education (AAHE) has been leading AAHE's initiative to
examine evolving faculty roles since moving there from
work with Boyer on Scholarship Reconsidered. In a
recent paper he concludes that between the 1950s and
1970s, the University came to be characterized by some
widely accepted assumptions. These assumptions
became so ingrained in faculty thinking that they were
seldom discussed. Further, the assumptions led to
behaviors that were inconsistent with serving a number of
constituencies including undergraduate students and the
public. The assumptions were further brought into
question as the dearth of faculty positions in the 1970s
and 1980s meant fewer and fewer new faculty were able
to live by the assumptions that their senior colleagues had
come to define as the reality of faculty life.

The assumptions made apparent by Rice are listed below.
They are inconsistent with historic and continuing rhetoric
about a responsive and engaged university. If the as-
sumptions are true then much of what our brochures and
reports have said leaves us with a "truth in advertising"
gap.
* Research is the central professional endeavor of
academic life.
Quality in the profession is maintained by peer
review and professional autonomy.
Knowledge is pursued for its own sake.
Pursuing knowledge is best organized by disci-
pline (i.e., by discipline-based departments).
Reputations are established in national and
international professional associations.
continued on next page w









Focus on Change in Extension


* Professional rewards and mobility accrue to
those who persistently accentuate their specializa-
tions.
* The distinctive work of the academic profes-
sional is the pursuit of cognitive truth.

Rethinking Professional Work

Land Grant universities are at a critical time. One can
feel it in the air as tradition contests with reform. The
new relationships we need to recapture public support are
consistent with the Reflective Practitioner (in contrast to
the Expert). Much of our Land Grant university history
has used the technical rationality perspective to drive us
toward the "expert" model. The demeanor of "research
based" university professionals has too frequently been
condescending to our students but especially so to those
outside the university. This "expert" stance results in
resentment against academic professionals and the general
rejection of and hostility toward many professions
founded on and practicing the expert model today. It also
prevents us from fully being true to our professed interest
in learning. If the search for truth is to serve well the
citizens who fund their university, we must be fearless in
admitting the ideas, knowledge, experience and participa-
tion of our students and our citizens. This calls on us to
be both teachers and learners. Fundamentally it calls on
us to reexamine our identity.

Putting Learning at the Center

If we believe we should center the work of Land Grant
universities and Cooperative Extension on learning, how
would we get there? A similar question was asked by the
faculty of the Weatherhead School of Management at
Case Western University. Richard E. Boyatzis, Scott S.
Cowen and David A. Kolb provide a very interesting
description of the innovations they created with their
colleagues. They point out that most educational innova-
tions begin by assuming that there will be no change
where change is essential. For Cooperative Extension a
prime example is the insistence that our work is "research
based." Relying only on "research based" learning
severely limits our capacity to use all elements of accu-
mulated knowledge.

Boyatzis et. al. found the following to be critical ele-
ments:

* The essential question which we would ask over
and over is "How does this structure, practice,
method, habit or tradition promote or inhibit
learning?"
Assess outcomes to measure the value added by
Extension activities. So long as we measure quality
based on inputs like the terminal degrees held by
extension workers or the number of publications they
create, we will be locked into our current technology
of producing learning and will not be able to take
advantage of new opportunities.
Become a learner centered institution. Land Grant


universities and Cooperative Extension have a long
history of trumpeting responsiveness to students.
However, we still have not figured out our students'
preferences for learning time, style or technology.
Further, too few of us, administrators and faculty
alike, demonstrate the tentative, uncertain, groping,
collaborative and supportive behaviors which are part
of a shared commitment to learning.
* Learning must become central to all of the fields
in which we operate. In extension there has long
existed a divided culture between those trained in
extension and continuing education and those trained
in the agriculture, natural resources, youth develop-
ment and family subject matters associated with
cooperative extension. We should use the expertise
on learning we already have within the university to
improve the learning experiences we are trying to
create.
* Ongoing conversations with stakeholders. In
extension such conversations seem to be intense and
broad followed by years of scattered and unorganized
efforts. We simply have not developed a philosophy
that stakeholder engagement is part of an ongoing
continuous learning process. A real commitment to
learning would make us more willing to move away
from our frenetic activity delivering programs and
move toward a more strategic model of delivering
learning activities.

A broad commitment to learning will help us realize the
Land Grant and Extension promise in building a demo-
cratic, compassionate and progressive society. It also
could help us build organizations which provide the
opportunity for faculty, staff, students and citizens to be
mutually engaged in work which allows them to realize
their aspirations. I believe making learning the center of
Land Grant universities and Cooperative Extension will
be supported by a public which eagerly joins in a partner-
ship to meet the challenges of our particular places and
creating a sustainable future.*

REFERENCES
Boyatzis, Richard E., Scott S. Cowen and David A. Kolb, Innovation in
Professional Education: Steps on a Journey From Teaching to
Learning, The Story of Change and Invention at the Weatherhead
School of Management, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,
1995.
Boyer, Earnest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation For The Advancement of
Teaching, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1990
Glover, WHJFarm & College: The College OfAgricultural Of The
University Of WIsconsin A History University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison,WI, 1952, P. 112.
Rice, R. Eugene, "Making a Place for the New American Scholar," pp.
8-9, 4th AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles & Rewards; Atlanta 1/96.
Schon, Donald, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action, Basic Books Inc., 1983 and "The New Scholarship Requires a
New Epistemology", Change, November/December, 1995, pp27-34.









Focus on Change in Extension


Transforming Extension
John Gerber, Director
UMASS Extension

C cooperative Extension has been busy at strategic
planning, futuring and the like for some time, but
truthfully, I've not noticed a great deal of creativity
in much of this activity. Of course, Extension is part of a
university culture that is itself fairly old and stodgy.
Organizations like Extension are born, nurtured into
maturity, live and are productive, and at some point
weaken and die or, they may be reborn. Rebirth
however, requires courage and creativity, to let go of
outmoded ways of thinking while remaining true to the
mission of the public university.

The first idea that needs to "go" is the assumption that
knowledge must be validated by university trained experts
to be "true." This academic fundamentalism is expressed
in our desire to make recommendations that others should
carry out. We advise, consult and teach. We are proud of
our ability to persuade others to act in ways we believe
best. We do all this with the authority of science and over
80 years of tradition telling us this is the best and perhaps
the only way to work. We identify questions and seek
solutions within a community of"knowers" and then
transfer the results of our work to a very separate commu-
nity of"doers." The disconnection between the develop-
ment and utilization of knowledge hampers the ability of
the public university to serve its mission of creating,
preserving and transmitting knowledge in service to the
public good.

At a time when the Cooperative Extension System is being
widely criticized, it might be quite normal to be risk
averse: who would be crazy enough to make the claim that
valid and useful new knowledge might be generated by
individuals or agencies external to the university? After
all, if groups of citizens can organize to research, learn
together and make decisions on issues that affect their
lives, maybe the universities and their extension programs
aren't needed?

I think universities and their extension systems are needed
to provide technical expertise with a strong grounding in
the academic disciplines; however, to serve our public
mission we must learn to work in new ways. Some of us
are trying to "invent" new ways of working. For example,
UMASS Extension has helped establish a Community
Research Network in partnership with the Loka Institute
and several community-based organizations around the
nation (see "Community Research," Consortium News
#12). We are investigating the idea of local extension
offices as "science shops," along the lines of the model in
the Netherlands where citizens can get help in solving
problems of importance to themselves, their neighbors and
their neighborhoods. Cooperative Extension should be


actively involved in the creation of local science shops and
support the Community Research Network by working
with local nodes in the network.

To participate in community-based learning, universities
must change their focus from individual learning to encour-
age cooperative and interactional learning, using techniques
such as study circles and participatory research. Transmis-
sion of knowledge must be less of a one-way "down-
loading" from the expert to the user and more of a sharing
among a community of learners. In a farming situation,
this would mean that agricultural researchers are recog-
nized for their ability to contribute to a learning situation
through a process which tests a hypothesis and seeks to
identify and validate universal principles. Farmers on the
other hand contribute to the learning situation through their
more intuitive understanding of the complex interrelation-
ships intrinsic to agroecosystems. The extension educator
working in this environment should be a facilitator of the
learning experience, not an all-knowing expert in command
of solutions which create dependency relationships be-
tween the knowledge providers and the knowledge users.
Research and education should result in relevant informa-
tion produced and shared in a democratic and community-
based manner.

In Massachusetts, the former Cooperative Extension
System is undergoing a dramatic institutional transforma-
tion. Following a period in which cuts in state funding
resulted in the loss of about 60% of the field-based staff
and 30% of the campus-based staff, Extension in Massa-
chusetts was ready to try something new. Beginning in
1993, we adopted a process of strategic marketing that will
radically transform Extension in incremental steps. In this
context strategic marketing is recognized as more than just
promotion or public relations-it is a means of restructur-
ing to address issues of "product, price, place and promo-
tion." In our "product" planning for example, we have
examined our extension programs for efficacy and contri-
bution to our public mission, allowing us to make difficult
choices among programmatic alternatives. In our "price"
discussions we have examined the likely future of funding,
the cost and appropriate pricing structure for doing busi-
ness in an organization that has lost much of its public
funding. In our "place" discussions we have examined the
best means for our stakeholders to access our products,
comparing traditional tools such as newsletters and meet-
ings with other means such as computer communications,
study circles and science shops. Once these plans are
made and first steps are taken toward a new organization,
we do our "promotion." Our newly re-named organization,
UMASS Extension, is no longer seen by key funders and
decision-makers at the University of Massachusetts as an
80-year old, county-based program near the end of its
useful life, but as a vibrant and vital learning organization
key to the future of the public land grant university. This
strategic marketing effort has been quite different from
continued on page 14 w









Focus on Change in Extension


Dr. Oran Hesterman on

Extension's Opportunities

Elizabeth Bird
Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems
UW-Madison

In a Symposium on Privatization of Information at the 1996 American
SSociety of Agronomy meetings, Dr. Oran Hesterman of the W.K.
L Kellogg Foundation spoke on the topic, "If Not Information Transfer,
Then What? Extension's Future Role in Agriculture and Rural Commu-
nities." Drawing in part from Kellogg's experience with the Integrated
Farming Systems projects it has funded around the country, Hesterman
argued that Extension needs to reconceive its role. His talk, which sought
audience participation, generated some heated discussion from some
extension agents who feel their primary role remains information transfer.
Others in the audience supported Hesterman's views.

Hesterman cited the following evidence that Extension's role requires
change:
* With advances in information and communications technology, infor-
mation is changing faster than even public universities can keep up
with;
* Many farmers possess considerable expertise already;
* Most farmers do not turn to Extension as their primary source of
information.
* Agribusiness increasingly is adopting a service (information transfer)
orientation;
The National Research Council's 1996 Board on Agriculture report,
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: Public Service
and Public Policy (reviewed in Consortium News #10), recommends
that Extension should focus on public goods that cannot be privatized;
Patterns of declining funding suggest the importance of publicly sup-
ported information transfer is also declining;
With the evolution of integrated farming systems, the technology
transfer paradigm is less and less relevant to increased system complex-
ity.

In light of this evidence, Hesterman put forward his own vision for the
future roles of Extension. Instead of transferring technologies, Extension
should:
4 Facilitate learning, particularly co-learning by teams of scientists and
farmers;
Help farmers and rural citizens make effective use of communications
and information technology;
4* Focus on capacity-building and leadership development;
o* Assist in food and farming systems re-design, which will require
learning systems thinking;
o Assist communities to address complex problems and issues such as
land use, area-wide integrated pest management, and watershed plan-
ning.

Hesterman concluded that as a community based organization, Extension
has a great opportunity to play a critical role in the future. *


Extension, continued from page 10.

earlier attempts at strategic planning
which resulted in little more than
lengthy documents and frustration.

Strategic marketing has been an
exciting journey that has stabilized our
funding base, at least for now. Along
the way we made the first steps to
strengthen the relationship between
research and extension by forming
cross-functional work teams which
plan, act, are budgeted, and soon will
be evaluated as teams regardless of
each individual's university appoint-
ment. We initiated a training program
for ourselves that will help us learn to
work as a learning organization that is
team-based and customer focused.
We targeted three areas for continued
financial investment: leadership,
technology and implementation of our
marketing plan.

We collapsed 21 independent pro-
grams into four interrelated efforts in
Agroecology, Nutrition Education,
Youth and Family Development, and
Natural Resource/Environmental
Conservation. We made extraordi-
nary efforts to identify the stakehold-
ers in these four programs and
listened carefully to their needs, using
focus groups, structured interviews,
surveys and even a random telephone
survey of "average citizens," thus
strengthening our connection with
those communities we serve. We are
experimenting with new ways of
learning such as consensus confer-
ences, and working in new partner-
ships such as the CRN. We've
rededicated ourselves to working with
individuals, businesses, families and
communities in ways that serve both
their particular needs AND the public
good. And throughout the process we
have become recognized as a leader in
strategic marketing, addressing the
underlying issues which prevent a
university's transformation as required
to thrive in the next century. I think
we have found a way to re-discover
the land grant mission of public
service and find our way home.*








Focus on Change in Extension


Extension Role In
Information Transfer

Edward (Ted) Wilson, Deputy Administrator,
USDA CSREES

Iwas asked to give a national perspective of the
Cooperative Extension Service's role for a session on
the Privatization of Information at the 1996 American
Society of Agronomy meeting (Note: this article is
adaptedfrom the text of the talk). I will focus on this,
but information transfer won't be the main thrust of my
presentation because information transfer isn't the main
thrust of the Cooperative Extension System. Extension's
mission is education. Information transfer is a compo-
nent of non-formal education, just as it is a component of
formal education.

Transferring suggests conveying to users information and
advice regarding adoption of specific technologies,
practices and systems of technologies and practices.
Education goes beyond transferring information and
advice regarding specific practices and technologies.
Education empowers people by helping them to under-
stand and apply: (1) principles concerning relationships
among basic concepts; and (2) effective individual and
group decision-making processes. This helps users to
make correct selections of specific practices, technolo-
gies, and systems, assessing the payoffs of adopting
alternative practices and technologies. The purpose of
education is to enable people to cope with existing and
changing conditions by increasing their ability to solve
problems. Educating people increases not only their
comprehension, but also their ability to analyze, synthe-
size, and evaluate.
The reason I distinguish information transfer from
education is that Extension's comparative advantage lies
not in information transfer but with non-formal education.
The private sector is becoming very effective in transfer-
ring information. They can customize it for a producer
and deliver it in a very timely manner. As the private
sector can do this they should. And the public sector
should support them in doing this. Non-formal educa-
tion-the teaching of principles and concepts and deci-
sion-making skills is much more of a public sector role
and the role to which Extension should be devoting more
of its attention.

The growing private sector role in providing technology,
information and advice to farmers means that public
extension can redirect its efforts toward those areas
where private incentives are lacking. Extension can put
more emphasis on programs with broad public benefits
and on clientele with limited means to pay. This in-
creased involvement of the private sector in information
and technology transfer is particularly welcome in an era
of budget tightening and the need for increased efficiency
in the use of public funds.


The theme of the recent Cooperative Extension System
Strategic Framework is Partnership forming partner-
ships that transcend boundaries among and between the
private sector, land-grant institutions and other colleges
and universities. The Certified Crop Advisors program
sponsored by the American Society of Agronomy, which
now has over 800 Certified Crop Advisors, is an example
of partnering which complements the programs of the
Cooperative Extension Service.
The Cooperative Extension system faces a number of
challenges and opportunities for the future. These factors
may have significant impacts on extension's program
delivery systems, and its structure, and on the mix of
clientele served. On the other hand, the mission of the
Cooperative Extension Service continues to be as relevant
today as when it was conceptualized through the Smith-
Lever Act in 1914. The mission is to enable people to
improve their lives and communities through learning
partnerships that put knowledge to work.

Some factors that will influence the future of agricultural
extension and research are: changing demography and
changing farm structure; telecommunications; global
competitiveness; public expectation and perception; fiscal
constraints and accountability.

Changing Demography and Farm Structure

The changing demography will have a greater impact on
education and extension programs than on research. For
example, the movement of the population from rural to
urban and suburban areas has not only shifted the
fulcrum of need but also shifted the political power base.
This has prompted some Extension Services to increase
their programming in urban areas; the one result has been
some criticism by the farm sector that extension is
abandoning agriculture; this may or may not be the case,
but the perception is still there.
A second demographic change is the rapidly increasing
ethnic and minority groups. Members of these groups
often need flexible professional development opportuni-
ties and education to help them keep up with changing
family, social, cultural, professional and work environ-
ments. Our education and extension programs will need
to develop a variety of delivery methods and to have each
option affordable and accessible to all ethnic and minority
groups.
Another significant challenge stems from the changing
structure of the farm sector, with an increase in the
number of small part-time operations. An increase in the
large commercial farms, a trend toward industrialized or
vertically integrated operations, and a decline in the
number of mid-size operations.

Extension grew up with the mid-size farms and designed
most of its programs and education information strategies
to serve this audience. It will be necessary for extension
to develop the capacity to serve this new multi-level
agricultural structure.

continued on next page Mr









Focus on Change in Extension


Telecommunications

Advances in telecommunications
provide the greatest opportunity and
challenge facing our education and
extension programs, and could result
in revolutionary changes in our
university outreach programs. It
provides the opportunity for our
universities to become truly engaged
with their communities. Through a
variety of delivery methods, the
university now has the opportunity
of reaching all those who need its
services.
Global Competition

U.S. agriculture has for years
enjoyed a positive balance of trade;
this year agricultural exports are
expected to exceed $60 billion with a
positive balance of trade in excess of
$20 billion. However, the competi-
tive position that the U.S. now holds
in international markets is a concern.
The dominance the U.S. once
enjoyed as an abundant supplier of
low-cost commodities may no longer
hold true. Other countries have
begun to catch up, and in some cases
surpass the U.S. agricultural produc-
tivity growth in certain areas, and the
result is a weaker competitive
position.

Global competition will further
intensify with full implementation of
GATT, NAFTA and with the new
freedom to farm provisions of the
1996 Farm Bill

This global competition should
stimulate new lines of research and
new extension program foci and
priorities. The need to be more
competitive internationally could lead
us to focus on value added products,
new uses for agricultural commodi-
ties, and a systems approach to our
research and extension programs
focusing on issues rather than
disciplines and looking at the farm
unit as a food, feed and fiber
production system, not an isolated
set of production issues.

Public Expectations and Percep-
tion

The Public investment in agricultural


research is approximately $3.2
billion per year and $1.4 billion for
cooperative extension each year for
a total investment in agricultural
research and extension of $4.6
billion. In return for this invest-
ment, the public increasingly
expects us to address issues that are
of concern to them, they expect to
be involved with our priority setting
process, and they expect to see new
science and technology that signifi-
cantly improve the quality of life.

On the other hand, the public
perception is that we often do
science for scholarship and to
promote our disciplines rather than
to address society's issues. The
perception is that we give little
attention to the long term conse-
quences of our research, that is, the
impact on the environment, the
quality of our water, soil and air.
The American public is no longer
concerned with food availability,
instead the concern is for the
quality of the environment. These
concerns are, and will be translated
into public policies that affect the
funding of agricultural science and
therefore, the future direction for
agricultural research, education and
extension.

Fiscal Constraints and Account-
ability

Fiscal constraints and accountability
are two inseparable factors that will
also impact the future direction of
agricultural research, education and
extension. This country is faced
with an enormous fiscal demand
which is fueled by programs such
as Medicaid, Medicare, welfare
problems, the cost of cleaning up
the environment, and the cost of
maintaining an enormous defense
establishment. If we look at the
expense side of the ledger along
with an ingrained resistance to
increasing state or Federal taxes and
a serious deficit problem, there
emerges a worrisome conclusion:
that agricultural research, education,
and extension will experience
declining appropriations or at best
flat budgets with marginal increases
in special emphasis areas.


At the same time that we face
declining budgets, there will be
increased requirements to be ac-
countable to the public and to
contribute to the goals of public
policy. The Government Perfor-
mance and Results Acts of 1993
aims at revolutionizing the way the
Federal Government does business.
The Act institutionalizes an account-
ability system based on performance
measurement-setting goals and
objectives and measuring progress
toward achieving them.

In my optimistic view, publicly
funded agricultural research, educa-
tion, and extension will continue to
deserve and receive public support.
Why? Because we will meet the
GPRA accountability standards and
we will continue to address impor-
tant public needs. We work in the
public interest producing a public
good; however, that will not be
enough to secure increased funding.
The level of funding will be influ-
enced by our skills in demonstrating
our accomplishments and how these
accomplishments impact societal
issues.

These and other factors will influ-
ence the structure, program content
and program delivery systems of our
future Cooperative Extension
Service. However, the mission of
the system is as relevant today as it
was in 1914. The system will
develop partnerships with the private
sector and other educational institu-
tions to meet the expanding agenda
of the multi-level agricultural sector,
and the rural, urban and suburban
population. The extension programs
of the future must be broadly
relevant to the U.S. public. The
Cooperative Extension System will
welcome the private sector's increas-
ing role in information and technol-
ogy transfer because this will enable
the public system to focus of
programs which proved public good
in the national interest. Such goods
include enhanced human health and
safety, economic opportunity,
environmental quality, and sound
information for public and private
decision making on important public
policy issues related to the food and
agricultural system. *







Science Policy, cont. from page 4

protect animal welfare, and support
competitive agriculture, fishery and
food industries;" a rather different
list-and different order- than one
would find in this country.

The presentations that focused most
substantively on the social contract
for publicly supported research were
those of Dr. Fred Buttel and Dr.
Roger Pielke. Buttel focused on
how the public agricultural research
system could do a better job of
directing public research for the
public good (see Consortium News
#12 for a version of his talk).
Speaking early in the agenda, Pielke
set the historical context for contract
re-negotiation, providing touchstones
that echoed through the remaining
presentations and the participatory
workshops that followed. (The text
of all the meeting presentations and
the workshop results will be available
soon in a conference proceedings to
be published by ARI; call 301-530-
7122 or email ari@nalusda.gov to
order a copy.)

Pielke, the author with Radford
Byerly of "The Changing Ecology of
United States Science" (Science vol.
269:1531-1532), reviewed the social
contract that has prevailed in science
policy since World War II and
Vannevar Bush's seminal report,
Science: The Endless Frontier. "In
its simplest formulation," according
to Pielke, this social contract as-
serted "that if the scientific commu-
nity received public funding and
relative autonomy, then society
would benefit as a result." This
social contract is important "because
it shapes the expectations that the
public and policy makers have for
what science can do, and it also
shapes the justifications that scien-
tists use when they come before
policy makers to request funding."
This recent social contract "stands in
sharp contrast" to the prior science
policy, the "Doctrine of Useful
Knowledge." Under this doctrine,
so-named by historian Bruce Smith,
"the scientific community had to first
show some benefit before funding
would be received. A good example
of this was the Department of
Agriculture's response to Texas cattle
fever in the late 19th Century. Cattle
were dying, no one knew why, and
Europe closed their beef markets to


the United States cattle. In re-
sponse, the Department of Agricul-
ture set up a Bureau of Animal
Industry and took a problem
approach...and the scientific commu-
nity responded with a solution to that
problem."

The assumptions underlying Science:
The Endless Frontier, were the
following:
* "that scientific progress is
essential to the national welfare
'as part of a team';
* "a metaphor that science pro-
vides a reservoir of knowledge,
and this knowledge sits where
society can tap and apply it to
national needs;
* "scientific progress results from
the free play of free intellects
working on subjects of their own
choice in a manner dictated by
their curiosity. This, of course is
the need for autonomy for
researchers."

Bush's report persuaded policy
makers that "science is a proper
concern of government; and federal
funds should be made available."
That policy framework has lasted
more than 50 years. Today, how-
ever, there are many calls for
change, including from prestigious
institutes and policy makers. Pielke
offered three reasons for the
changes:
O "the end of the Cold War, which
took with it the end of a serious
and large justification for much
of federal research;
"the pressures on the federal
budget; and
O "calls for improved government
performance and accountability."

The process of change, according to
Pielke, reveals that "the categories
[of basic and applied research] are
somewhat murky and not always
ideal in describing the relationship
between science, technology,
innovation and the real world," and
that the linear model of innovation
fails as "research doesn't always
progress from basic to applied to
development. Sometimes it works in
reverse." Pielke introduced the
term, "use-inspired basic research,"
coined by historian Donald Stokes,
"meant to encompass both consider-
ation of practical uses and advance-
ment of knowledge." This term

17


struck a strong chord with confer-
ence-goers and was used repeatedly
through the remainder of the meet-
ing.

The process of change, Pielke
argued, also "has revealed our lack
of expertise in the relationship of
science and society....In the past it
would be enough to fill up the
reservoir with knowledge. We
wouldn't have to worry about how it
would get downstream. It would
simply flow downhill....In the future,
consideration of use and advancing
fundamental understanding will have
to co-exist in a healthy
relationship....In recent years we've
been asking the wrong question of
our Federal science policy, 'what is
the proper role of government in
funding science?' Instead we should
be asking, 'what research will
support the Federal Government in
meeting its missions?'"

Pielke concluded that "we must call
into question the assumptions that
we have held in the past as fact. We
must question the sustainability of
the Vannevar Bush social contract."
He suggested we focus attention on
questions such as:
* "How does Federally supported
science contribute to the national
welfare today?
"Is the effective application of
existing knowledge more impor-
tant than generating new knowl-
edge?
"If the linear model of innova-
tion is wrong, can we in fact
model the delivery of benefits?
"In what ways can social
problems be translated into
researchable scientific questions?
"How can this be done without
political bias?
"How can the U.S. better
appropriate the benefits of the
research it supports?"

Pielke exhorted the scientific com-
munity to "lead the debate because if
it does not, then others with less
knowledge and less concern for
science certainly will." He suggested
that a new social contract "would
agree science is essential to the
national welfare...; would require [of
science] a more robust and respon-
sive relation with its environment
than the misleading and isolating
reservoir model; and science would
be more problem oriented." Science
would be use-inspired. *









Focus on National R & E Policy


Review Ahead for Federal Research Facilities

Dr Anne idaver, Head, Dept. ofPlant Pathology
University ofNebraska, Lincoln


m"e 1996 Farm Bill directs USDA to develop a
S"Strategic Planning Task Force" which will conduct
a research facilities study. The duties of the
Strategic Planning Task Force as stated in the Farm Bill
are as follows:
"The task force shall review all currently operating
agricultural research facilities constructed in whole or in
part with Federal funds, and all planned agricultural
research facilities proposed to be constructed with Federal
funds, pursuant to criteria established by the Secretary, to
ensure that a comprehensive research capacity is main-
tained."

Interpretation of this statement suggests the Strategic
Planning Task Force has four basic functions to perform:

1 Define the "comprehensive research capacity" of the
nation;
2. Apply review "criteria" established by the Secretary;
3. Develop a review process based on these criteria; and
4. Carry out the review process.

The task force must work with the various partners in
design, development and implementation of this review so
the final product, a 10-year Strategic Plan for agricultural
research facilities, is viewed as credible, of value, and
useful to all partners.

The primary focus of the task force will be the review of
federally owned and funded agriculture research facilities
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal
investment responding to national priorities. At this time
these priorities are:
+ An agricultural system that is highly competitive in
the global economy;
+ A safe and secure food and fiber system;
+ Healthy, well-nourished population;
+ Greater harmony between agriculture and the
environment; and
+ Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life
for Americans.

Decisions about the future of these laboratories have
major implications for the nation's entire agriculture
research enterprise. The review of the federally owned
and funded agricultural research facilities is expected to
address the following issues:

+ Comparative advantage, or special capabilities, includ-
ing physical infrastructure, of the various laboratory
systems in meeting each of the national needs outlined


above. These capabilities shall be compared, insofar as
possible, with capabilities of other research institutions,
such as other Federal laboratories, universities, contract
laboratories, and industrial laboratories.

+ Alternative management and funding options for
agriculture research to enhance quality, cost-effective-
ness, and increased responsiveness to national needs;
alternatives may include privatization of laboratories or
programs within laboratories.

+ Relations between parent agencies and partners with
attention to layers and detail of management that may put
unnecessary cost and quality burdens on the research
effort.

+ Methods agencies use for selecting their research
laboratories versus other research institutions of perform-
ing agricultural research activities (e.g. peer review of
proposals for fundamental scientific research.

+ The process agencies use for performing work at the
facilities under review for other agencies and for non-
government entities, and opportunities for lowering
barriers to inter-laboratory and interagency cooperation.

+ Redundancies and possibilities for restructuring,
consolidation or closure, redirection, or reassignment to
other agencies in the total system.

+ New facilities required to advance agricultural research
where current facilities are inadequate for the purpose.

The 15 members appointed by the Secretary to this task
force will be from nominations submitted by the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Eco-
nomics Advisory Board; 48 names have been submitted
to the Secretary from a total of 144 nominations. The
status of nominations and the task force will be discussed
at the March meeting of the Advisory Board. The
appointment of the task force is to be complete within 6
months of passage of the 1996 Farm Bill and the report
of the task force is to be submitted to the Secretary and
congressional agriculture committees no later than 2 years
after the task force is established. *

Anne Vidaver is a member of the REE Advisory Board,
and the Board of the Wallace Institute for Alternative
Agriculture.











Fund for Rural America:
Research, Education and
Economics RFP Update
Juli Baker
Center for Rural Affairs

Sthe 1996 Farm Bill, Congress set aside $100 million
Sa year for the next three years for special rural
development and research/extension initiatives. Sixty-
six million of this money, called the Fund for Rural
America (FRA), was divided between the two mission
areas: Rural Economic and Community Development,
(formerly Farmers Home Administration) and Research,
Education and Economics (REE, home to Cooperative
Extension and Agricultural Research Service, as well as
other programs). Allocation of the remaining money was
left to the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion.

USDA issues its request for proposals (RFP) in late
January 1997 for funds designated for Research, Educa-
tion and Economics, a minimum of $33 million per year.
This call will emphasize proposals that address the
following three areas: environmental stewardship; rural
economic enhancement; and global competitiveness, farm
profitability and/or farm efficiency. USDA reviewers will
give highest priority to those proposals that intersect all
three areas and second-highest priority to those that link
two. Proposals that address only one of the three areas
will be assigned a lower priority.

One innovative aspect to the RFP will be the availability
of planning grants. These short-term mini-grants are
intended to "level the playing field," allowing organiza-
tions or groups unaccustomed to the grant application
process to use it to develop and refine their grant propos-
als. USDA hopes one outcome of these planning grants
will be innovative partnerships developing in rural areas.

Evaluating the FRA grant proposals will require a large
cadre of reviewers with diverse expertise. This is an
important opportunity for people interested in sustainable
development to help guide USDA research funding.
Review panels may need not only individuals with
academic backgrounds but business people, rural commu-
nity leaders and others with expertise in such diverse
areas as agricultural production systems, and rural
economic and community development. We encourage
CSARE members with demonstrated expertise related to
the three areas outlined above to volunteer for these
review panels. *

To obtain the RFP or to submit your name as a possible
reviewer, contact Dr Colien Hefferan at USDA REE:
TEL: 202/720-4423; ADDRESS: Rm. 305A, Whitten
Bldg, USDA, Washington DC 20250; EMAIL:
chefferan@reeusda.gov.


The Land Grant Lobbying
Tightrope
Mike Hogan
Extension Agent and Sustainable Ag Coordinator
Ohio State University Extension

TF ar most people the term lobbying conjures up
images of wining and dining and bestowing gifts and
favors upon legislators. While most agricultural
scientists, Extension personnel and other land grant
university employees do not engage in these stereotypical
lobbying activities, many do express opinions or provide
information to legislators from time to time. Do these
types of activities constitute lobbying? Are these activi-
ties legal or ethical? The answer is a resounding maybe!

For example, some at USDA will argue that any indi-
vidual who receives federal funding such as a grant,
should not engage in lobbying efforts with legislators.
Others point out that since such federal funding may not
constitute the single source of funding for most agricul-
tural scientists or Extension personnel, such persons
should not be prohibited from lobbying.

It's A Fine Line

It is often difficult to distinguish lobbying from legitimate
attempts to educate legislators about a public institution's
efforts and impact. Many units of land grant universities
(experiment stations, Extension Services) now have
highly visible, coordinated efforts to educate legislators at
all levels of government about the scope and impact of
the work they do. The current environment of account-
ability demands that institutions and agencies engage in
these types of activities, but also makes it more difficult
to distinguish between lobbying and providing informa-
tion. A now retired state Director of Extension once
referred to the fine line between lobbying and education
as "dancing on the edge of sin".

Do Your Homework

Many universities and agencies of government have very
specific guidelines and policies on how employees may
interact with legislators when acting as official representa-
tives of the university or agency. Being aware of these
policies and communicating with department heads,
directors, and other administrators is clearly the best way
to determine the most appropriate behavior in individual
situations.

Citizens May Lobby

Most employees also have the right to lobby legislators as
private citizens. In fact most employees probably have
more latitude and potential for impact when lobbying as
continued on page 25


Focus on National R & E Policy











Fund for Rural America:
Research, Education and
Economics RFP Update
Juli Baker
Center for Rural Affairs

Sthe 1996 Farm Bill, Congress set aside $100 million
Sa year for the next three years for special rural
development and research/extension initiatives. Sixty-
six million of this money, called the Fund for Rural
America (FRA), was divided between the two mission
areas: Rural Economic and Community Development,
(formerly Farmers Home Administration) and Research,
Education and Economics (REE, home to Cooperative
Extension and Agricultural Research Service, as well as
other programs). Allocation of the remaining money was
left to the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion.

USDA issues its request for proposals (RFP) in late
January 1997 for funds designated for Research, Educa-
tion and Economics, a minimum of $33 million per year.
This call will emphasize proposals that address the
following three areas: environmental stewardship; rural
economic enhancement; and global competitiveness, farm
profitability and/or farm efficiency. USDA reviewers will
give highest priority to those proposals that intersect all
three areas and second-highest priority to those that link
two. Proposals that address only one of the three areas
will be assigned a lower priority.

One innovative aspect to the RFP will be the availability
of planning grants. These short-term mini-grants are
intended to "level the playing field," allowing organiza-
tions or groups unaccustomed to the grant application
process to use it to develop and refine their grant propos-
als. USDA hopes one outcome of these planning grants
will be innovative partnerships developing in rural areas.

Evaluating the FRA grant proposals will require a large
cadre of reviewers with diverse expertise. This is an
important opportunity for people interested in sustainable
development to help guide USDA research funding.
Review panels may need not only individuals with
academic backgrounds but business people, rural commu-
nity leaders and others with expertise in such diverse
areas as agricultural production systems, and rural
economic and community development. We encourage
CSARE members with demonstrated expertise related to
the three areas outlined above to volunteer for these
review panels. *

To obtain the RFP or to submit your name as a possible
reviewer, contact Dr Colien Hefferan at USDA REE:
TEL: 202/720-4423; ADDRESS: Rm. 305A, Whitten
Bldg, USDA, Washington DC 20250; EMAIL:
chefferan@reeusda.gov.


The Land Grant Lobbying
Tightrope
Mike Hogan
Extension Agent and Sustainable Ag Coordinator
Ohio State University Extension

TF ar most people the term lobbying conjures up
images of wining and dining and bestowing gifts and
favors upon legislators. While most agricultural
scientists, Extension personnel and other land grant
university employees do not engage in these stereotypical
lobbying activities, many do express opinions or provide
information to legislators from time to time. Do these
types of activities constitute lobbying? Are these activi-
ties legal or ethical? The answer is a resounding maybe!

For example, some at USDA will argue that any indi-
vidual who receives federal funding such as a grant,
should not engage in lobbying efforts with legislators.
Others point out that since such federal funding may not
constitute the single source of funding for most agricul-
tural scientists or Extension personnel, such persons
should not be prohibited from lobbying.

It's A Fine Line

It is often difficult to distinguish lobbying from legitimate
attempts to educate legislators about a public institution's
efforts and impact. Many units of land grant universities
(experiment stations, Extension Services) now have
highly visible, coordinated efforts to educate legislators at
all levels of government about the scope and impact of
the work they do. The current environment of account-
ability demands that institutions and agencies engage in
these types of activities, but also makes it more difficult
to distinguish between lobbying and providing informa-
tion. A now retired state Director of Extension once
referred to the fine line between lobbying and education
as "dancing on the edge of sin".

Do Your Homework

Many universities and agencies of government have very
specific guidelines and policies on how employees may
interact with legislators when acting as official representa-
tives of the university or agency. Being aware of these
policies and communicating with department heads,
directors, and other administrators is clearly the best way
to determine the most appropriate behavior in individual
situations.

Citizens May Lobby

Most employees also have the right to lobby legislators as
private citizens. In fact most employees probably have
more latitude and potential for impact when lobbying as
continued on page 25


Focus on National R & E Policy









People and Places


T-eath takes two cherished
L-advocates of sustainable
agriculture research and education:

Father Norman White In Grati-
tude for a Generous Life

After a heart attack and surgery,
Father Norm White died Wednesday
noon, August 28. We thank this great
man for the strength of his love for
land, people and church.

Norm was a leader with warmth and
conviction, committed to care for
"hurting farm families" and speaking
up for justice. We of the Churches'
Center for Land and People have
benefited from his generous sharing,
inspired by his nerve and verve. He
has been friend and mentor affecting
circles and circles through his preach-
ing and teaching, his participation in
boards of rural organizations, his
pastoral presence to many. We will
miss him greatly. May he rest in peace.
- Miriam Brown CCLP

Norm White was among the founding
members of CSARE, and a tireless
supporter of our work. His commit-
ment and optimism never failed to
brighten a day's work. Elizabeth
Bird, Editor.

Dr. Jack Warner In Memory

We've lost a member of our IFO
(Innovative Farmers of Ohio)family. In
September, Dr Jack Warner passed
away unexpectedly at home on his
farm. Jack and his wife, Dr Louise
Warner are founding members and
dedicated supporters of IFO. They also
founded the Stratford Ecological
Center to help educate school children,
farmers and University educators
about the great potential for sustain-
able agriculture.
A highly educated and highly intelli-
gent man, Jack also relished the
physical labor involved with farming.
When there was hay to be baled, fence
to be built, or manure to be spread
Jack wasn t a supervisor At the end of
the day his hands and clothes were as
dirty as anyone else's.

This, I think is what made Jack unique.
His enjoyment and respect for ideas, as


well as his enjoyment and respect for
labor is a combination that is all too
rare. It is a combination that I'm sure
helped Jack keep things in perspective.
We would do well to pursue this blend
in our own lives.
- Charlie Eselgroth, IFO President

Jack and Louise Warner also were
among the founding members of
CSARE. They participated in an early
workshop during which I remember
Jack's comments blowing away the
chaffof rhetoric to get to the critical
kernel with both humor and aplomb.
Look for a feature on Stratford in the
April issue. Elizabeth Bird, Editor


SARE member Dr. Leonard Bull
became Associate Vice Provost
for International Programs atNC State
last August. In that role he is respon-
sible for all student, faculty and
institutional programs dealing with
International activity for the University.
Prior to this post he was Assistant
Director oftheNC Agricultural
Research Service, and he remains the
Assistant Dean of the College of Ag
and Life Sciences for International
Programs. Bull is President-Elect of
the American Society of Animal
Science and a member of the National
Research Council Board on Agricul-
ture. He headed Animal Science at
NC State for 7 years.


f'SARE member Dr. Bob Miller
-retired last summer from his post
as Dean of the College of Resource
Development at the University of
Rhode Island. After a summer of
tennis and golf, Miller found he was
bored with retired life and went back
to work. He's currently serving as a
consulting administrator for UMass
Dartmouth's Center for Marine
Science and Technology, a newly
developing academic program area.
His one tie to agriculture in this
temporary position is leading the
development of an aquaculture
program. On the horizon for the
Millers as soon as they're able to sell
their Rhode Island home, is to pur-
chase Betty Miller's family farm in
northwest Wisconsin. They'll be a
welcome addition in CSARE's
headquarters state. Bob Miller may
currently be reached at 508-999-8925;
rlmiller@umassd.edu; 1346 Curtis
Comer Rd., Wakefield, RI 02879.


QSARE member Dr. Rick Welsh
has recently become the Direc-
tor of the Southern Region USDA-
SARE program, while CSARE
Governing Council member Paula
Ford has left her position with that
program (more on her in April).
Welsh is a 1995 graduate of Rural
Sociology at Cornell, where he
worked with Judy Green in the
Farming Alternatives Program. Most
recently Welsh was a Postdoctoral
Associate with the Policy Studies
Program of the Wallace Institute for
Alternative Agriculture where he
authored a report on the industrial-
ization of U.S. agriculture. Welsh's
wife, Mary Graham, is on the faculty
at Georgia State University.

Tr Dennis Keeney and Dr.
LJStephanie Gilbert have been
selected for the Council for Agricul-
tural Science and Technology (CAST)
Phase II Coordinating Team for
"Scientific Societies: Conversations on
Change." Keeney is Director of the
Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, and Chair of
CSARE's Reward Systems Task
Force. Gilbert is ICM Project Man-
ager/Crop Advisor, Androscoggin
Valley Soil and Water Conservation
District, South Portland, Maine.
Following a March 1997 workshop,
the Team will continue for 2 years the
process started in 1995 to examine
critical changes in the workplace, and
needed visions, strategies and direc-
tions within scientific societies, their
membership, and land grant universi-
ties.

Keeney hopes to explore how scientific
societies can foster innovative reward
structures that encourage scientist and
educator responsiveness to the
changing agricultural and political
environment. Keeney has led the
Leopold Center through a futuring
exercise leading to the current plan of
operations, and he has chaired the
American Society of Agronomy
Strategic Planning committee. Several
Leopold Center projects, most notably
the EPA sponsored project examining
the role of sustainable agriculture and
the pesticide industry in the future of
agriculture, have directly used future
search techniques.

Stephanie Gilbert brings to the "Con-
versations" a unique background as a
continued on page 25








Save the Family Farm!

A Bioethical Imperative

Commentary by Van Rensselaer Potter,
Hilldale Professor of Oncology, Emeritus, UW-Madison

I has become apparent that health care and land care
Must be dealt with on a global scale. Sustainable
agriculture and bioethics are intertwined imperatives.

There has been an increasing awareness that agriculture,
to be sustainable, must be coupled with environmental
protection and restoration. But "sustainable agriculture"
calls for more than attention to the fragile ecosystem. We
are in need of a widespread realization that sustainable
agriculture is a moral issue. The very survival of the
family farm and the local community is at stake. Up to
now, however, the words "ethics" or "bioethics" have not
appeared in connection with the pragmatic approach.

So far, local efforts to achieve sustainable agriculture
have over-shadowed global concerns. Yet the need for
sustainable agriculture is highlighted by the fact that an
adequate food supply for the malnourished and the well-
fed segments of the world population into the twenty-
second and twenty-third centuries and beyond is not now
assured.

Global bioethics calls for the mobilization and coordina-
tion of agricultural, environmental, medical, and religious
efforts to achieve a moral sustainable agriculture, human
health, human dignity, and human rights on a world-wide
basis. While the efforts of agricultural, environmental,
and medical ethicists are secular, they must be open to
the contributions of religious efforts. At the same time
the religious forces need to be open to each other and to
be willing to cooperate with the secular forces to work
toward a global bioethic. The evils of the present world
culture are not all secular.
Though none has yet integrated the ethics of sustainable
agriculture with a global bioethic as I envision it, a variety
of publications of the last decade are useful resources.
The Natural Step is evolving as a world-wide movement
that originated in Sweden. Karl-Henrik Robert, M.D.
mobilized a broad array of professionals to take environ-
mental and economic descriptors to the schools and the
citizenry, wedding economics to ecology without preach-
ing morality. Robert emphasized that long term reason-
able profits required stability. It was found that the more
informed people became, the more they tended to take a
moral view. Thus it appears that instead of proceeding
from a global ethics to survival, the Natural Step has
proceeded from survival (stability) to an ecological ethics
that is an important part of Global Bioethics.

In parallel with The Natural Step, the views expressed in
the book The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of
Sustainability by Paul Hawken argue the moral and
practical logic of sustainable business practices.


The concept of "sustainable survival" as opposed to
"sustainable development" was recently outlined by the
present authors in a journal that for the first time em-
braces the phrase Global Survival in its title: Medical
and Global Survival is a quarterly launched in March
1994 and now is available on the Internet at www.healthnet.org/MGS/MGS.html>.
In 1988 the Journal ofAgricultural Ethics was launched.
The name was changed to Journal ofAgricultural and
Environmental Ethics in 1991, providing a ray of hope in
integrating the two specialties.

One of the most successful comprehensive efforts is the
Bioethics Program at Iowa State University with Philoso-
phy Professor Gary Comstock as its Director. Ag
Bioethics Forum is the program's newsletter. Comstock
and colleagues have presented a week-long presentation
of the "ISU Program in Ethics and Environmental, Food,
and Agricultural Biotechnology" at the University of
Illinois, Michigan State University, and Purdue. The ISU
Program is indeed a ray of hope for the integration of the
ethical specialties.

A new journal called Ecosystem Health, with Volume 1 in
1995, seems to continue the fragmented approach, not
mentioning "sustainable agriculture" when they state their
mission as "integrating ecology, ethics, environmental
management, and medicine". However, in Volume 1
number 3 they published an article with the title "The
Potential of Agroecosystem Health as a Guiding Concept
for Agricultural Research". The author equates
"agroecosystem health" with "sustainable agriculture"
without, however, mentioning the threats to individual
farmers and local communities.

In 1991 Charles V. Blatz, professor of Philosophy at the
University of Toledo performed a heroic task in assem-
bling the work of 53 contributors in Ethics andAgricul-
ture: An Anthology on Current Issues in World Context.
The book is arranged in four major sections dealing with
agriculture's goals, practitioners, conduct and develop-
ment.

An article by Blatz appears in a remarkable journal,
Agriculture and Human Values, in the second of two
issues devoted to "Alternative Conceptions and Models of
Sustainability" (Vol. 9, No. 3, Summer 1992) and "The
Human Dimensions of Sustainability" (Vol. 9, No. 4, Fall
1992), with a total of 12 articles and 6 book reviews.
Only a few dealt with ethical issues or a long time frame.
Deserving mention is The Sociology of US Agriculture:
An Ecological Perspective (ISU Press). The authors, as
sociologists, are more concerned with human ecology (the
society) than the non-human, biological and physical
environment.

"Plant trees for posterity" is not just a
figure of speech, it is a moral impera-
tive! The answer to the old saw
"What has posterity ever done for
me" is simple -"Posterity has
given you a mission in life". U ( j














SUBJECT

ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE AG











COMMENTARY








CARE NEWS















































IDENTIFY RESEARCH NEEDS


Subject Index of Articles in Consortium News

Title Author
A Case Study ofResearch Relevancy Classification Bird, George W.
Commentary: The Idea ofPrecise Farming Alessi, Sam
Farm Monitoring Tools Boody, George
Other Efforts to Assess Sustainability ofResearch Bird, Elizabeth
Reviewing Commitments to SA Research Bird, Elizabeth
Simple Frameworkfor Evaluating Sustainability Stockle, Claudio
Social and Economic Issues Related to Precision Farming Hewitt, Tracy & Smith, K.
Sustainability Scale to Target Farm Program Benefits? Painter, Kate
Where Do You Stand on SITs? Ventura, Steve
Educational Environments Duesing, Bill
Is Australia the Future for USAg Policy? Worstell, Jim
Ken Taylor A Rich Legacy Stark, Margo
Land Grants Lost: Special Interests and the Public Good Gerber, John
Perspective: Strategic Science Voland, Rick
Science Issue Round Tables: Perspective from Canada Barrett, Katherine
SWCS Takes Position on SA Bird, Elizabeth
A Review ofConsortium Mission and Objectives Bird, Elizabeth
A WordAbout the Consortium'sName Bird, Elizabeth
Accommodating Diversity in the Consortium Bird, Elizabeth
Bass, Jones, Lengnick, North andRusmore Win CSARE Elections
Benefits ofConsortium Membership Bird, Elizabeth
Branch Station Closures Guldan, Steve
Candidate Bios & Statements
Consortium Ballot Results Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium Director's Report Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium Gathers Steam Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium History and Purpose Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium Memberships Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium Transition Klemme, Rick
CSAREBylaws Bird, Elizabeth
CSAREMembers Invited to Madison in June Bird, Elizabeth
Elections Background Bird, Elizabeth
Farm BillAction Network Bird, Elizabeth
Governing Council Elections. Bird, Elizabeth
Governing Council Nominations Bird, Elizabeth
Governing Council Nominations Open Bird, Elizabeth
Looking for More than a Few Good People Bird, Elizabeth
Member Dues Critical Bird, Elizabeth
Membership Reminder
NewActivities Planned Bird, Elizabeth
Newsletter Soon to be Member Privilege Bird, Elizabeth
Nominees for Election to 3 Year Terms on GC Bird, Elizabeth
Organizational Structure Bird, Elizabeth
Projects Getting Under Way Bird, Elizabeth
Results of Organizing Meetings Bird, Elizabeth
Results of Survey Bird, Elizabeth
Rewards for Sustainable Ag Research & Education
SocialDimensions ofSA Task Force Bird, Elizabeth
Survey Results to Date Bird, Elizabeth
Who is the Consortium? Bird, Elizabeth
Who Is the CSARE Steering Committee? Bird, Elizabeth
Do Grassroots and Prof Soc. Research Agendas Mesh? Bird, Elizabeth
Farmers in Transition: Rose for Extension? Staritzky, Kim
Fish AreAgricultural Products, Too. Goldburg, Becky
Fresh Breezes A Sea-Change at the Joint Council? Bird, Elizabeth


Newsletter
No. 5, March 1995
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 5, March 1995
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 2, May 1994
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 6, June 1996
No. 5, March 1995
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 2, May 1994
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 5, March 1995
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 5, March 1995
No. 2, May 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 11, Oct. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 2, May 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 4, Dec. 1994


Page
9
5
4
5
3
5
5

4
5
6
8
2
1
10
5
8
13
7
5
1
5
2
insert
1
3
1
1
2
1
6-8
28
4
2
1
2
1
28
1
1
2
1
5
5
2
2
2
1
7
5
1
7
3
8
11
3











SUBJECT

IDENTIFY RESEARCH NEEDS
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE








NATIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS






























































PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS


Title Author
Members Identify Research Gaps and Opportunities Enshayan, Kamyar
Can Learning Become the Center? Campbell, Gery
Community Outreach:A Central Role for UniversityFaculty? Bird, Elizabeth
Extension Role in Information Transfer Wilson, Ted
Extension's Opportunities Hesterman, Oran
NESAWG Dialogues with Northeast Region Land Grant Directors Ruhf Clarke & Lawrence
Public Research for the Public Good Buttel, Frederick
Transforming Extension Gerber, John
1995 Appropriations Krome, Margaret
Analysis New Directions for USDA Bird, Elizabeth
Campaign for SustainableAg Bird, Elizabeth
Chapter 3 Update DeWitt, Jerry
Do Grassroots and Prof Soc. Research Agendas Mesh? Bird, Elizabeth
Energy andAgriculture Bird, Elizabeth
Extension Roles in Information Transfer Wilson, Ted
Farm BillAction on Research andExtension Bird, Elizabeth
FederalAppropriations Update Krome, Margaret
Focus on the 1995 Farm Bill Bird, Elizabeth
Fresh Breezes A Sea-Change at the Joint Council? Bird, Elizabeth
Fund forRuralAmerica Hassebrook, Chuck
FundForRuralAmerica Bird, Elizabeth
Fund forRuralAmerica Hoefner & Bird
FundforRuralAmerica Update Baker, Juli
Funding Victoryfor Sustainable Ag Programs Krome, Margaret
GPRA Baker, Juli
GPRA Update Baker, Juli
GPRA-What ItMeansforAg Research &Ext. Bird, Elizabeth
HouseAg Research Hearings Baker, Juli
House Research Title Update Bird, Elizabeth
Land Grant Lobbying Tightrope Hogan, Mike
NASULGC Working Groups Bird, Elizabeth
NewARS Integrated Farming systems Program Krome, Margaret
News from USDA Bird, Elizabeth
No Rest for the Righteous-Appropriations FY97 is Upon Us Krome, Margaret
NRIReviewed Bird, Elizabeth
NRI Update AREI Updates
Other News of the President's Budget Bird, Elizabeth
President's Budget Bird, Elizabeth
Private Research Continued Faster Growth... Bird, Elizabeth
Professional Societies Lobbying for Research Funding Bird, Elizabeth
REEEAdvisoryBoard DeVries, Brad
Regional SA. Working Groups Meet to Discuss SARE Higgins, Liz
Review Ahead for Fedl Rsch Facilities Vidaver, Anne
SARE Chapter 3 Hoeffer, Ferd
Science Policy Critiqued Bird, Elizabeth
Searching for the "0" Word Lipson, Mark
SustainableAg Programs Down the Tubes? Krome, Margaret
The REE Strategic Plan from a SustainableAg Perspective Smith, Stewart
USDA News Bird, Elizabeth
USDA SAWG Issues Report Higgens, Elizabeth
USDA's Science Agenda: Serving the Nat' Interest? Bird, Elizabeth
USDA-REE's Strategic Plan Baker, Juli
We Held Our Ground-$$ in FY97 Krome, Margaret
Word from Washington, DC Hoefner, Ferd
CASA: California Alliancefor SA Mundy, Victoria
Center for Sustaining Ag and Natural Resources Granatstein, David
CIAS andMultidisciplinaryResearch Bronsdon, Jennifer


Newsletter
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 11, Oct. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 6, June 1996
No. 3, Aug. 1994
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 7, Oct 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No.3, Aug. 1994
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 3, Aug. 1994
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 5, March 1995
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 6, June 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 5, March 1995
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 2, May 1994
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 6, June 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996


Page
3
9
1
15
14
2
13
13
12
1
3
8
3
6
15
Insert A
1
2
3
3
13
17
19
16
17
1
3
3
13
19
6
2
6
16
7
5
11
8
5
8
17
4
18
6
4
1
1
3
3
2
3
9
1
1
1
10
2











SUBJECT

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

















RESEARCH NETWORKING










REVIEWS














SOCIAL ETHICS



SURVEYS & SIGN-UPS




SUSTAINABLE AG EDUCATION


Title Author
Cuba's Sustainable Agriculture Wagner, Lowell
Extension for Sustainable Communities Ikerd, John
Farming Systems Research in Beltsville Baker, Juli
Goals of the World SustainableAgAssoc. Madden, J. Patrick
IFS Projects Across the U.S. Build Local Leadership Mundy, Victoria
IPM-Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Plans Activities Sorensen, Dr. A. Ann
Role of Weed Science in Sustainable Agriculture Mortensen, Dave
SA Research at the ARS-Beltsville Center Baker, Juli & Hall, John
Science & Environmental Health Network Raffensperger, Carolyn
SharedLeadership, Shared Responsibility Francis & Carter
Shared Visions Mundy, Victoria
State of the South Worstell, Jim
Status ofBoard on Ag Study Bird, Elizabeth
A Farmer's Perspective on Farming Systems Research Rosmann, Ron
Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing Bird, Elizabeth
Community Research Bird, Elizabeth
Evolutionary Learning Rusmore, Barbara
Farmer Participatory Research: from ag practices... Rusmore, Barbara
Farmer Research and Network Building Rusmore, Barbara
Farmer Research and Network Building Rusmore, Barbara
Farmer-Researcher Organizations as Scientific Societies Rusmore, Barbara
Better Row to Hoe Bird, Elizabeth
Change in Mission ofthe Land Grants Bird, Elizabeth
Community Outreach: A Central Role for University Faculty? Bird, Elizabeth
Land Grant Study Schaller, Neill
NESAWG Dialogues with Northeast Region Land Grant Directors Ruhf Clarke & Lawrence
Planting the Future Bird, Elizabeth
Planting the Future with Helpfrom Coop. Ext. Bird, Elizabeth
Science Policy Critiqued Bird, Elizabeth
The Future ofthe Land Grant Colleges ofAgriculture Bird, Elizabeth
The Way: An Ecological World-view Bird, George W.
USDA SAWG Issues Report Higgens, Elizabeth
Constituting Nature, Manufacturing Plants Busch, Lacy, etal.
Public Research for the Public Good Buttel, Frederick
Save the Family Farm Potter, Van
Campaign for SA Bramel-Cox, Paula
Farm BillResponse Form Bird, Elizabeth
Incentives andBarriers to Public Interest Research
Survey to Determine Consortium Direction Bird, Elizabeth
Agroecology Graduate Program Swisher, Mickie
B.S. in SA Univ. Vermont Bird, Elizabeth
Consortium's Education Task Force Francis, Chuck
Education for SA Year Long Electronic Conference Schuck, Nancy Grudens
Education for SA Year-Long Electronic Conference Schuck, Nancy Grudens
Education Task Force Proposal Francis, Chuck
Extension andEducation Maderialsfor SA Bird, Elizabeth
Graduate Minor in Sustainable Agriculture Sheaffer, Craig
Has Teaching Been Changing in LG Universities? Francis, Chuck
K-12 Education in S.A. Helm, Tom
On-line S.A. Education Conference Schuck, Nancy Grudens
Public Education for SA Thomas, Shan
Report ofSAEd-Share-L Electronic Conference Grudens-Schuck, Nancy
Research Methods in Ecological Ag Francis, Chuck
SA education for Beginning Farmers Fraas, Wyatt
Undergraduate Education in SA Francis, Chuck


Newsletter
No. 6, June 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 6, June 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No. 6, June 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 11, Oct. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 4, Dec. 1994
No. 6, June 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 10, Aug. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 13, Jan. 1997
No. 3, Aug. 1994
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 11, Oct. 1996
No. 1, Feb. 1994
No. 9, Apr. 1996
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 5, March 1995
No. 7, Oct. 1996
No.3, Aug. 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 2, May 1994
No. 6, June 1996
No. 2, May 1994
No. 12, Nov. 1996
No. 8, Jan. 1996
No. 2, May 1994
No. 2, May 1994


Page
4
15
5
8
5
10
5





5
6
1

1
14
20
7
3


3
7
10
9
1
2
2
10
5
4
3
7
2
9
13
21
insert
insert
7
insert
insert
8
1
12
9
1
2
1
12
2
3
2
6
9
11
2








CSARE Members Invited, continued fom backpage.
the Reward Systems Task Force (how to proceed from the
survey results); the Social Dimensions Task Force (how to
promote tools for integrating social considerations into
research planning and extension activities); theMulti-
Dimensional Research TaskForce (planning capacity-
building workshops); andNational Research Policy Task
Force (strategies to shift national resources toward sustain-
able agriculture). (Ifyou've indicated an interest in these or
others, we'll be in touch.)

The AFHVS/ASFS conference will have a great line-up of
activities. The meetings will begin Thursday with a tour of
nearby dairy rotational grazing farms. Tentative plans
include a presentation byWillie Lockeretz of Depression-era
farm and rural life art; a local foods picnic/banquet with
panel discussion by area farmers and food entrepreneurs;
and a "Rural Voices" play. Keynote speakers will include
Harriet Friedmann, expert on the global food system and
currently working with the Toronto Food Policy Council.

Proposals for papers or panels are still welcome (at least
through mid-February), so if you want to participate, call the
CSARE-Madison office for information. *

A Few Good People! continued from backpage.
We also need information about these service opportunities.
If you know of an event or situation where the sustainable
agriculture community might benefit from having a Consor-
tium member participate, please let us know!

To provide or request information, contact Juli Baker,
CSARE Policy and Outreach Director. To volunteer, send
your resume to Betsy Didrickson at the Madison CSARE
office bjdidric@facstaff.wisc.edu. Find addresses in
Consortium News credits, p. 27.

Think about it. We need more than a few good people to
serve...

Tightrope, continued from page 19.
private citizens, as opposed to when they act as official
representatives of an institution. When lobbying as a
private citizen, employees should refrain from using
official letterhead, penalty mail, or other resources of the
institution. While identifying yourself with a particular
job title and institution is likely acceptable in such in-
stances, it must be clear that you are not claiming to
officially represent the institution. In some instances even
this type of behavior may not be acceptable to individual
administrators and institutions. Common sense and good
judgment typically substitute for the lack of institutional
policies in this area.

The need for agricultural scientists, Extension personnel
and other agency employees to provide information to
legislators for decision-making is real, especially in light of
the plethora of often opposing viewpoints which legisla-
tors get from various agricultural lobbyists and organiza-
tions. How to provide such information in an effective,
coordinated, and ethical fashion is the dilemma. In an
upcoming issue we'll take a look at how some institutions
handle this dilemma.*


Shared Leadership continuedfiom page 8.
The full-range leadership model that incorporates transfor-
mational elements has been widely tested in commercial
industry, universities, and other organizations. It appears to
have good potential for application in our designing learning
and decision making environments in sustainable agriculture.
The 116 participants in workshops in Wisconsin (June 24-
26) and North Dakota (July 24-26) were enthusiastic about
the ideas and applications for our future training programs in
agriculture. The workshops were sponsored by the North
Central Sustainable Agriculture Training Program funded
through SARE Professional Development Program (Chapter
3) funding.

Follow through on the ideas and materials presented in the
programs was enhanced by training materials contained in 3-
ring binders distributed to participants. In the North Central
region, you can locate one of these resource binders through
the state sustainable agriculture coordinator in Cooperative
Extension, who can also tell you who attended from your
state. An abridged version of the binder has been assembled
and can be ordered from the Center for Sustainable Agricul-
tural Systems, University of Nebraska (ask for Green Book,
Volume 5). TEL: 402-472-1581. O


Shared Visions, continuedfrom page 5.

production practices, labeling laws, and other regulations.

Other Shared Hsions groups concentrate on alternative
crops and innovative production practices. There are two
beginning farmer groups. One group uses HRM as a
planning tool. Some groups concentrate on management-
intensivegrazing.

There's a lot more happening with Shared Visions than will
fit in one column! These folks clearly are busy, committed,
and excited. That's something sustainable farmers have in
common no matter where they are. *
Reprinted from the Nebraska Sustainable
Agriculture Society Newsletter

People and Places, continuedfiom page 20.
dancer and design teacher as well as crop specialist. She is
particularly interested in helping to redefine the agricultural
professions, their research tools, and purposes. Gilbert
serves on the Northeast Regional SARE Planning Committee
and has recently played a major role in organizing a 2-day
participatory research and education workshop in sustainable
agriculture. She also initiated the first Maine farm study
circles in on-farm crop research.

CAST disseminates information on agriculture technology
issues to policy makers and the media. CAST membership
includes scientific societies, private corporations, nonprofit
groups, and over 3000 private individuals. The Conversa-
tions on Change Program is supported by the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, Farm Foundation, University of Illinois and
WorkSpan, Inc. *









Publications


Masculinity at Risk:
Pesticides and Male Fertility,
1996. Caroline Cox. Presents
overview of pesticide impacts on
male fertility. US$3. Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesti-
cides (NCAP), P.O. Box 1393,
Eugene, OR 97440; 541-344-5044;
fax 541-344-6923; ncap@igc.org

Pesticide Risk in Groundwater,
1995 Marco Vighi and Enzo Funari
(eds.) Technical overview of issues
related to pesticides in groundwater,
including monitoring pesticide levels,
evaluating groundwater vulnerability,
health implications of contamination
and pesticide management. $79.95.
Specify Catalog Number L439 OB
73714393, CRC Press, Inc., 2000
Corporate Blvd. NW, Boca Raton,
FL 33431; 407-994-0555 or 800-
272-7737; fax 407-998-9114,or
800-374-3401.

Critical Condition: Human
Health and the Environment,
1993. E. Chivian, M. McCally, H.
Hu and A. Haines (eds). Examines
health impacts of global environ-
mental degradation, including global
warming, ozone depletion and toxic
pollution of air, water and soil.
Includes discussion of pesticide
hazards due to water and food
contamination. $15.95. The MIT
Press, c/o Uniserv Inc., 525 Great
Road, Littleton, MA 01460; (617)
625-8569,toll free (800) 356-0343;
mitpress-orders@MIT.EDU

English/Spanish Spanish/English
Illustrated Agricultural Dictio-
nary, 1993. Robert Rice, Jr.
Provides translation for range of
agricultural terms, including tools,
processes, insects and other words
related to plants, soil and crop
production. $27.95 Thomson
Publications, P.O. Box 9335,
Fresno, CA 93791; phone (209)
435-2163; fax (209) 435-8319.

Concentration in Agriculture: A
Report of the USDA Advisory
Committee on Agricultural
Concentration, 1996. Examines
corporate concentration in livestock,


poultry and meat industries in U.S.
No charge. USDA, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Information Staff,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC
20090-6456; phone (202) 720-8998;
fax (202) 720-7135.
Non-Governmental Organizations
and Biotechnology: A Directory,
1996. Center for Applied Studies in
International Negotiations (CASIN).
Brief summaries of more than 200
NGOs from around the world that
work on biotechnology issues,
including contact information, staff,
budget, objectives and activities.
CASIN, Programme on Non-Govern-
mental Organizations, 11A, Avenue
de la Paix, 1202 Geneva, Switzer-
land; phone (41 22) 734-8950; fax
(41 22) 733-6444.

Local Crop Development: An
Annotated Bibliography, 1996.
W.M van der Heide and R. Tripp,
eds. Summarizes more than 250
books, journal articles and mono-
graphs related to conservation and
development of crop genetic diversity
by farmers worldwide. Overseas
Development Institute, Regent's
College, Inner Circle, Regent's Park,
London, NW1 4NS, England; phone
(44 171) 487-7413; fax (44 171)
487-7590; email odi@odi.org.uk;
http://www.oneworld.org/odi/

For ALL Generations: Making
World Agriculture More Sustain-
able, edited by J. Patrick Madden
and Scott G. Chaplowe. Available
from the World Sustainable Agricul-
ture Association, 8554 Melrose Ave.,
West Hollywood, CA 90069, 310-
657-7202. I0

Cyberspace


The Agriculture Fact Book,
1996, is now available at the
USDA Home Page:
t http://www.usda.gov


Corporate Watch Web Site Online
http://www.corpwatch.org

The site is designed to provide up to
date information and analysis on
social, ecological and economic
impacts oftransnational corporations.
26


Growing Together: Community
Gardening and Food Security.
Sustainable Food Center. 35 page
handbook covers details of establish-
ing a community garden. Free!!
Call 800-882-5592 or write SFC,
attn. Garden Guide, 434 Bastrop
Hwy., Austin, TX 78741. Other
SFC publications include a how-to
manual for starting a farmers market
and Growing Smart, a compilation
of Texas sustainable ag success
stories.

Knee Deep in Grass: A survey of
twenty-nine grazing operations in
Minnesota. MISA and Minnesota
Extension Service. Farm families
say their quality of life improved
after adopting MIG! $5 + shipping.
Minnesota Extension Service Distri-
bution Center, Univ. of Minnesota,
1420 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN
55108-6069, 800-876-8636.




Conferences


February 20-21, 1997,
Louisville, KY: Worldviews:
Global Forms of "Being"
Through Indigenous Knowl-
edge. Contact: National Center for
Diversity, Louisville, KY, 502-227-
5904.


February 28-March 1, 1997,
Lawrence, KS: Science and its
Critics. Contact: John Pattinson,
Univ.of Kansas, Continuing Educa-
tion Bldg., Lawrence, KS 66045-
2607, 913-864-3284, or visit:
http://kuhep4.phsx.ukans.edu/
-baringer/scicrit.html

New Web Site!
University of Wisconsin
Centerfor Integrated
Agricultural Systems

Includes program information,
full text research briefs, and
publication ordering information
as well as other hot ag links -
check it out!

http://www.wisc.edu/cias







March 7-8, 1997, Sinsinawa, WI:
Upper Midwest Organic Farming
Conference/From the Soil to the
Sale: Building Farms and Com-
munities Contact: 715-772-6819.

April 14-15, 1997, Athens, GA.
Interactions: Investigating Ecosys-
tem Dynamics at the Watershed
Level. Contact: Soil & Water
Conservation Society, 800-THE-
SOIL, swcs@swcs.org or visit:
http://www.swcs.org

May 2-4, 1997, University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR. Public
Interest Science Conference: How
Public Interest Scientists Have
Made An Impact From Toxics To
Biodiversity. Contact: 541-346-
5194 or pisc@darkwing.uoregon.edu.
See PISC at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/-pisc

June 3-5, 1997, Manhattan, KS:
Wind Erosion: An International
Symposium/Workshop. Contact:
USDA's Wind Erosion Research
Unit (WERU), sym@weru.ksu.edu,
Wind Erosion Research Unit,
Throckmorton Hall, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
913-532-6495; FAX: 913-532-
6528; http://www.weru.ksu.edu/

June 8-19, 1997, Winnipeg,
Manitoba (8-12), Saskatoon,


Saskatchewan (15th-19th): XVIII
International Grassland Congress
'97: "Grasslands 2000". Contact:
amc@superet.ab.ca; (403) 244-
4487; FAX: 244-2340.

June 25-28, 1997, Cambridge/
Boston, MA: The 3rd International
Interdisciplinary Conference on the
Environment. Contact: Demetri
Kantarelis 508) 767-7557 or Kevin L.
Hickey (508) 767-7296; Fax: (508)
799-4502;
dkantar@eve.assumption. edu or visit
http://www.assumption. edu/html/
academic/conf/iicecall.html

July 30-31, 1997, Ames, IA: The
Leopold Centerfor Sustainable
Agriculture's 10th Anniversary
Conference. Contact: Rich Pirog,
Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, 209 Curtiss Hall, Iowa
State University, Ames, IA 50011.
515-294-3711;rspirog@iastate.edu


Internships

Apprenticeship for 1997 season
available from April 1 to Oct. 31 at
organic farm on Narragansett Bay.
College credit possible. Contact:
Casey Farm, 2325 Boston Neck Rd.,
Saunderstown, RI 02874-3820. Or
call 401-295-1030/nofari@ids.net


Opportunities


University of Maine Coopera-
tive Extension Proposes Re-
gional Compost School.

The objective of the school is to
provide training to people interested
and/or involved with medium and
large scale composting operations.
The course will be offered as a
certificate program by UMCE and
will train personnel to be qualified
Compost site operators.

SThe school will be offered four times
per year. Contact: Neal D. Hallee,
Waste Management Specialist, 207-
581-2722,
nhallee@umce. umext.maine. edu

A Learning Communities
Project seeks teams of people
working on sustainable
agriculture issues.

The project, Kellogg funded and
following up the Integrated Farming
Systems Initiative, will assist partici-
pants to become more effective
social change agents. Workshops,
one-on-one training, travel and
exchanges are all offered. Call
Barbara Rusmore at 406-443-4095
or Hal Hamilton at 606-986-5336.


Consortium News
Editor. Elizabeth Bird Production: Betsy Didrickson EditorialAdvisors: Rick Klemme, CIAS UW-Madison, John Gerber, UMASS
T e mission of the Consortium is to facilitate cooperation and collaboration among researchers, extension
workers, educators, farmers, advocates, and other professionals in order to enhance their individual and
collective capacity to conduct research and education and to shape research and education policy toward a more sustain-
able agriculture and food system.


CENTER FOR RURAL AFFAIRS
W5706 County Road D
Montello,WI 53949
(608)589-5890 fax (608) 589-5226
Policy & Outreach Director: Juli Baker
jb2cra@maqs.net


CSARE c/o CIAS
1450 Linden Dr. Room 146
Madison, WI 53706
(608)265-6483 fax (608)265-3020
Organization & Development Director: Elizabeth Bird
eabird@facstaff.wisc.edu


Executive Committee: Jill Auburn, U.C. SAREP and SAN; Lorna Butler WSU Puyallup, Rural Sociology; Rick Klemme, Director, U.W.
Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems; Ron Kroese, Director, National Center for Appropriate Technology; Jim Worstell,
Coordinator, Delta Land and Community Inc. Governing CounciL" Sam Bass, Tri-County Coordinator and Supervisor of 1890 Ext
Programs (SC); Paula Bramel-Cox, ICRISAT, Director of Genetic Resources; Kate Clancy, Syracuse University; Cornelia Flora,
Director, ISU North Central Regional Center for Rural Development; Paula Ford, Southern SARE/ACE Program Manager, U. Georgia;
Richard Harwood, MSU C.S. Mott Foundation Chair of Sustainable Agriculture; Keith Jones, Dirfor Ag and Rural Dev., Sustainable
Food Center; Fred Kirschenmann, North Dakota Farmer; Laura Lengnick Research Agronomist, USDA/ARS; Matt Liebman, U. Maine
Sustainable Agriculture Program; Karl North, Owner/Operator Northland Sheep Dairy; Barbara Rusmore, Organizational Consultant
and Adult Educator; Savanah Williams, Virginia Farmer and Rural/Urban Organizer and Educator
27








Looking For More Than A Few
Good People!
Juli L. Baker
CSARE Policy and Outreach Director

W e -need you! Your expertise.. .your knowledge..
your willingness to serve!
Are you a farmer? A scientist? An advocate? An educator?
A member or beneficiary of the research and education
community? A concerned individual? Are you looking for a
way to have meaningful input about issues you hold dear?
The Consortium is developing a nominating committee.
The committee will identify and nominate Consortium
members and others in the sustainable agriculture/sustain-
able development arenas to serve on advisory boards,
councils, committees, as speakers at symposia and confer-
ences, and in other circumstances where citizen or expert
input is needed. This last year, we identified and nominated
several members to serve on USDA advisory councils and
individuals to attend government listening sessions about
federal agricultural policy.
We need volunteers, both to serve on the committee
itself and to be nominated for these advisory or speaking
positions. If you have expertise in a relevant area or
experience that could benefit the sustainable community
and are willing to serve, please contact us!
continued on page 25


%ol i"*t ,0, 4


CARE

.a .e search and Educatioun
c/o CIAS University of Wisconsin
1450 Linden Dr., Room 146
Madison, WI 53706





i l,, ll,,,l ll I ,,ll ,1 ,,i1 1 !!l,,,
Pee itr lildebrand
Food and Resource
University of Florida
Gainesville FL 32611


CSARE Members Invited to Madison
in June
Elizabeth Bird
CSARE Organization and Development Director
Mark your calendars for June 5-8 to come to Madison for
CSARE Members and Task Force meetings and the
joint annual conference of the Agriculture, Food and Human
Values Society and the Association for the Study of Food and
Society. In addition to holding business and planning meet-
ings, CSARE will sponsor several conference sessions,
perhaps:
* Thriving Outside the Mainstream: Building Local and
Regional Peer-Support Networks
* Doing "Multi-Dimensional" (i.e. interdisciplinary, partici-
patory, community-oriented and/or systems) Research:
Grappling with Problems in the Real World
Farmers as Collaborative Researchers and Network
Builders: Learning from Each Other
Institutional Incentives and Barriers to Sustainable Food
Systems Research and Extension: Discussion of Reward
Systems TaskForce Survey Results
Panel on National Agricultural Research Policy: Needs
and Strategies
Workshop: Technology Assessment as a Research
Planning Tool

Task Force meetings will likely include the Education Task
Force (discussion on completed evaluation and next steps);
continued on page 25


Non-profit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Permit #658
Madison, WI 53706




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs