12 CapitalPress.com
May 8, 2015
‘Human interface’ will always be part of service
ROLE from Page 1
Advising the
advisers
Behind the scenes, though,
these private professionals often
seek advice from Extension spe-
cialists, West said. “The farmer
doesn’t see that interaction.”
Disseminating information
through private agronomists —
as well as nonprofi ts and other
entities — is a cost-effective
way of keeping university re-
searchers and Extension agents
relevant, said Scott Reed, direc-
tor of the Oregon State Univer-
sity Extension Service.
“We don’t have to do the
work the certifi ed crop advis-
ers are doing, but we can help
the CCAs be at the top of their
game,” Reed said.
Likewise, email and social
media have made it easier for
the Extension Service to com-
municate with farmers, he said.
Growers can also get training
through online learning mod-
ules instead of being instructed
one-on-one.
“The more we focus on ac-
cess rather than delivery, the
more effi cient we become,” he
said.
University representatives
are careful to point out that “hu-
man interface” will always be
part of the Extension Service,
but some say the increased re-
liance on technology comes at
a price.
“They no longer have the
presence or people on-farm that
they once had. That link has
weakened,” said Tom Peerbolt,
who runs a crop consulting
company for berry growers and
works closely with Extension.
The role of university re-
searchers at agricultural exper-
iment stations has also evolved
as they’ve become more reliant
on outside money for projects,
he said.
More of the reseachers’ time
is spent applying for grants,
and the studies tend to be more
high-level rather than applied
on-farm research, Peerbolt said.
As farm companies have
grown bigger and more verti-
cally integrated, they’ve been
investing in proprietary re-
search, he said. Smaller grow-
ers, however, don’t have this
option.
“The larger companies
are doing their own research.
They’re using knowledge as
part of their corporate advan-
tage,” Peerbolt said.
Growers fund
research
Growers, through their crop
commissions, are being asked to
fund a larger share of the work
done by university researchers
in recent years, paying not only
for projects but also for salaries,
said Mike Omeg, a cherry farm-
er near The Dalles, Ore., and
Capital Press board member.
As growers become more re-
sponsible for basic funding, the
university system begins to take
on the role of a paid consultant,
he said.
The question then becomes
whether it might be less expen-
sive to conduct research pri-
vately, as some cooperatives in
Europe have done, Omeg said.
“It’s defi nitely in the realm
of reasonable possibilities,” he
said. “You lose some control
when you hand the funds over.”
Realistically, though, re-
search and Extension must
diversify its funding base if it
hopes to stay viable, according
to university leaders.
Government funding
shrinks
The Extension Service has
traditionally been funded by the
federal, state and county govern-
ments, said Sonny Ramaswamy,
director of the USDA’s National
Institute of Food and Agricul-
Courtesy of OSU Extension
Robin Rosetta helped develop the new intelligent sprayer technology.
Courtesy of OSU Extension
Bernadine Strik, OSU Extension berry specialist shows off a variety
of blueberries she helped bring to growers in Oregon.
ture, which oversees and funds
the system.
After the 2008 fi nancial crisis
and the recession that followed,
states and counties slashed their
budgets for Extension, which
forced the federal government
to reduce its support, he said.
“If states aren’t able to match
those numbers, we will with-
hold our funds as well,” Ra-
maswamy said.
In 2010, state funding for
Extension Services dropped
nearly 16 percent, from $977
million to $823 million, and
has still not recovered, accord-
ing to USDA fi gures. Since
then, the federal contribution
has decreased about 18 per-
cent, from $567 million to
$465 million.
Due to these cuts, as well
as infl ation and the increasing
cost of healthcare and pen-
sions, the total “footprint” of
Extension Services across the
U.S. has shrunk by one-third
since the recession began, Ra-
maswamy said.
Financial pressures are like-
ly to continue unless Congress
and state legislatures begin di-
recting more revenue toward
the system, he said. “Absent
that kind of recognition, farm-
ers are going to have to bear a
bigger part of the burden.”
The Heritage Foundation, a
free-market think tank, argues
that a thorough re-examina-
tion of university agricultural
research is preferable to in-
creased funding.
Universities should focus
on studies that serve the pub-
lic good but aren’t likely to be
taken up by private research-
ers, said Daren Bakst, agricul-
tural policy fellow at the foun-
dation.
“There’s likely a benefi t
to this research, and I don’t
think that’s the problem. The
question is whether or not the
private sector would do it,” he
said.
Bakst said he’s “less sym-
pathetic” toward the Extension
Service’s role in disseminating
information, as this function is
more easily privatized.
“There is a clear way to pro-
vide a service to someone and
make money doing it,” he said.
Impartial research
While Bakst argues that
farmers can best decide for
themselves whose advice
to trust, others say the great
advantage of the Extension
Service is its reputation for
even-handedness.
University research and
Extension is unlikely to be
displaced by private compa-
nies because growers see the
public system as impartial,
said West of the University of
Tennessee.
“I think our role will al-
ways be to provide an unbi-
ased source of information,”
he said.
Extension agents are
well-positioned to guide
farmers who are facing pol-
icy predicaments regarding
species, water, air quality and
pesticides, said Barbara Al-
len-Diaz, director of Cooper-
ative Extension at the Univer-
sity of California.
“All of these types of is-
sues, we have Cooperative
Extension folks intimately
involved in navigating the
discourse,” she said. “That’s
what a public university can
bring to the table.”
Particularly in the West,
land grant universities serve
niche regional crops that of-
ten aren’t lucrative enough
for many agribusiness fi rms
to pursue, said Ryan Davis,
Northwest regional technol-
ogy specialist with Wilbur
Ellis, an input supplier whose
agronomists commonly ad-
vise farmers.
“It’s not something the
private sector will jump on
because it doesn’t appear to
have that big payoff,” he said.
University faculty also
conduct fundamental research
that doesn’t have an easy re-
turn on investment, he said.
For example, Wilbur Ellis
employees are more likely to
collect soil electroconduc-
tivity data for an individual
farm, while the university
system will draw correlations
between that information and
crop yields, Davis said.
“They do that baseline
work and then we take it to
the grower,” he said.
Farmers benefi t
In situations where the
private and public sectors are
rivals, that’s often benefi cial
to farmers, said Jim Peterson,
vice president of research at
Limagrain Cereal Seeds, a
crop breeding fi rm.
“Everyone needs to ap-
preciate that competition is
a good thing, especially with
plant breeding,” he said.
On the other hand, it’s un-
productive for university and
private breeders to be overly
duplicative of each other’s
efforts, so in some instances,
they’d best serve growers by
joining forces, Peterson said.
Limagrain, for example, is
partnering with the University
of Idaho on wheat breeding.
It makes sense for univer-
sity researchers to concentrate
on basic research that’s more
risky from the market per-
spective, such as studying ba-
sic genetics and biochemical
pathways, he said.
“We don’t want to run the
public programs out, we want
to work with them to bring the
best product to market,” Pe-
terson said.
The university system al-
ready has facilities and sci-
entists at multiple locations,
so it’s logical for private
companies to use that “infra-
structure” rather than build
it themselves, said Paul Mc-
Cawley, association director
of Extension at the University
of Idaho.
“For them to replicate that
would be far more expen-
sive than for us to do it,” he
said.
Extension now concentrates
on major crops such as small
grains, tree fruit, vegetables
WSU from Page 1
efforts by using the Internet.
Other parts of Extension such
as 4-H remain in place, Koe-
nig said.
Extension now concentrates
on major crops such as small
grains, tree fruit, vegetables
and grapes, he said. “Personnel
are now highly educated and
accomplished faculty and spe-
cialists.”
Extension still supports for-
ages, small fruits, small farms
and other crops, but with less
investment and fewer people,
he said.
Extension employees also
rely on technology — including
an array of specialized websites
— to deliver information and
decision-making tools to help
farmers make better, more time-
ly decisions, Koenig said. “De-
cision-support tools represent a
new frontier in Extension pro-
gramming, and we are investing
heavily in their development.”
The web-based tools link
real-time data from WSU’s Ag-
WeatherNet stations, commodi-
ty markets and the WSU Variety
Testing Program to help farmers
to predict disease and insect
growth and forecast outbreaks,
estimate wheat yields, calculate
fertilizer rates, schedule irriga-
tion and predict the potential for
frost or cold damage, Koenig
said.
Smaller staff
Today’s WSU Extension has
fewer employees. Before the
recession hit in 2008, WSU Ex-
tension had 563 employees —
192 faculty members, 287 staff
members and 74 students. Last
year, Extension had 8 percent
fewer employees overall, with
the largest reduction in faculty.
The number of staff and stu-
dents remained about the same,
at 284 and 79, respectively.
“We have maintained staff
and student positions, but have
signifi cantly fewer permanent
faculty positions now than in
2009,” Koenig said. This is a re-
fl ection of Extension receiving
more funds through grants for
specifi c research projects.
In 2008, WSU Extension
had a total budget of $55 mil-
lion, including $15 million in
state funding through WSU,
$10 million from counties, $5
million in federal funding and
$25 million in grants and other
forms of revenue.
Six years later, the bud-
get is larger but signifi cantly
different. Less money comes
from the state and counties, but
funding from grants and other
forms of revenue has jumped
nearly 50 percent.
Of Extension’s total $62
million 2014 budget, $12 mil-
lion was state funding through
WSU, $8 million was from the
counties, $5 million was feder-
al funding, and the remaining
$37 million was grants and
revenue, comprising 60 per-
cent of the total budget.
been fully assessed, he said.
New York apple trees are
about a week behind in blos-
som development because of a
cold winter and may not reach
full bloom in the western part
of the state until May 18 or 20,
Allen said.
“But I don’t get hung up on
bloom dates. We tend to catch
up. We have plenty of mois-
ture. The trees haven’t had any
winter damage and are full of
energy,” he said.
The weather is warming
and should stay warm, he said.
New York and Michigan
each typically harvest about
30 million boxes of fresh and
processing apples. Both are
expanding acreage.
Armock said the fruit ridge
area of Michigan, where most
of the apples grow in the west-
ern central part of the state,
appears to be headed for a nor-
mal May 10 to 12 full bloom.
The weather is warming and is
forecast to stay warm, he said.
“I would say without frost
in play, we have the potential
to have a good crop. Not a
huge crop, but a good crop,”
he said.
Farmers have noted the dif-
ferences.
“We don’t have as much
hand-holding as we did from
Extension, but they still are
the conduit for information
coming directly from the re-
searchers,” said Ron Jirava, a
Ritzville, Wash., wheat farmer.
“It’s a good thing somebody
invented cell phones, because
that’s pretty much the way I
communicate with these guys
now.”
Extension provides a good
channel for farmers who don’t
have established relationships
with WSU breeders or re-
searchers, Jirava said.
Extension is a valuable tool
for farmers looking to change
their practices and make
the best decisions, said Tom
Kammerzell, a Colfax, Wash.,
rancher.
“Nobody wants to start
out with a loss,” Kammerzell
said. “If you’re trying to decide
something that hasn’t been done
before, they can set it up so you
have less of a chance of a fail-
ure.”
Kammerzell has been work-
ing with WSU Extension to
research riparian areas for live-
stock. Having Extension in-
volved as a third party makes
the information more credible,
he said.
Farmers can use technol-
ogy to access research on-
line, but that only goes so far,
Kammerzell said. “Some-
body in Ohio isn’t going to
give you the same valid in-
formation as somebody sit-
ting in your own county.”
Koenig said Extension is
probably not entirely out of
the woods fi nancially, but he
remains optimistic, as com-
modity groups such as wheat
and tree fruit growers have
increased their investments in
Extension and research.
Washington Grain Com-
mission CEO Glen Squires
WSU Extension funding changes
While total overall funding increased by more than 14 percent in
2014 compared to 2008, state and county funding fell nearly 17
percent. The shift in funding from more stable government sources
to less reliable grant funds affects the way Extension is staffed.
Before state
budget cuts ...
$55 million
Washington shipped 98 million boxes of 2014 apples
for this time of year, he said.
Shipments have been run-
ning around 3 million boxes
per week but will slow down
when cherries and other fresh
fruit and produce enter the
market in June.
The early spring may bring
Washington’s cherry crop ear-
ly, but there’s a lot of time and
weather to go before apple
harvest that could mitigate any
earliness for apples, Matthews
said.
There hasn’t been spring
frost damage but damage from
last November’s freeze hasn’t
Farmers’ reaction
Groups’ investments
$25 million
APPLES from Page 1
grade and how much can be
exported overseas will be the
main factors determining the
size of carryover, he said.
“There is a price that mid-
dle class consumers in Third
World countries can afford
and want to afford our apples.
We’re probably at those pric-
es,” Matthews said.
Washington had shipped
98 million boxes of 2014 ap-
ples by April 27 with 46 mil-
lion left to go, Matthews said.
That’s about 15 million boxes
more left to go than normal
said his organization gives
funding directly to Extension,
but there are also Extension
components in a lot of other
WSU research it funds.
Squires said there has a
been a “tremendous, positive”
response to the small grains
work done by WSU profes-
sor and endowed chair Drew
Lyon since the restructuring of
Extension. His work includes
integrated weed management
in dryland small grain produc-
tion.
A few years ago, the Wash-
ington tree fruit industry gave
a $32 million endowment to
WSU, including $12 million
to Extension, $12 to research
and $8 million to research and
Extension centers.
The Washington Tree Fruit
Research Commission expects
most research projects to also
have an Extension component,
said manager Jim McFerson.
Research and Extension proj-
ects are often blended to have
meaningful outcomes that im-
pact the industry, he said.
“In the old days, Extension
was like a bullhorn blaring out
how-to instructions to farmers,
but that model doesn’t work as
well anymore,” he said, citing
the industry’s shift to electron-
ic and digital communication.
“It doesn’t take away the im-
portance of the human interac-
tion — it’s not just about tell-
ing us what to do and how to
do it better, it’s about listening
and fi guring out what the most
important problems are, where
our resources are and how to
bring those resources to bear
on whatever the priority might
be.”
... and after cuts
$62 million
Funding
sources
$37 million
Grants and revenue
$5 million
Federal
$10 million
Counties
$15 million
$5 million
$8 million
$12 million
State through WSU
2008
2014
Employee makeup: then and now
Employee type
2009
2014
Percent
change
Faculty
Staff
Students
Total
192
287
74
563
155
284
79
518
-19.3%
-1%
6.8%
-8%
Source: Rich Koenig, WSU Extension director
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press