The Changing Roles and Relationships with Consultants and University Extension
Dr. Bill B. Dean
Professor and Horticulturist
Washington State University
USA
Historical:
Agriculture in the United States is young compared to many other regions of the world. Even when we consider the cultivation of plants by Native Americans, our agrarian legacy is short compared to that of Asia and Europe. Although young in age, agriculture in the U.S. has been innovative in technology development, adoption, and transfer through a robust educational system (both formal and informal). Although many events may be pointed to as the beginning of significant agricultural transition points in the United States, few have had more lasting effects than have the legislative acts which formed the Agricultural Experiment Stations, Land-grant Colleges, and the Cooperative Extension Service.
The Land-grant Colleges that began in 1862 became the leaders in educating students in farming and the mechanical arts. Experiment Stations formed in 1887 developed new information and technologies which could be taught in the classroom or on farms through local agents hired through the Cooperative Extension Service which was established in 1914 (The Legacy, A Centennial History of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations 1887-1987). It has been the combined effect of these three institutions that has brought a young agriculture to the point of sophistication we have in the U.S. today. Although the legislation that formed these institutions has not been changed, these institutions have evolved considerably and the private sector has taken on many of their responsibilities in part or in total.
Early in the history of this country, farmers were poorly educated and knowledge of how to farm in the climates of the Atlantic coast was limited. In order to develop an agricultural base that would sustain the colony’s populations, these deficiencies needed to be addressed. George Washington called for a board of agriculture to be formed that would develop experimentation in the growing of crops in 1796. Although the board was not created at the time, his public statement of the need forged the way for future establishment of an experimental farm system to develop a knowledge base for crop growing. The second area of deficiency was in the poor literacy of farmers in the colonies. Most farmers did not have a high school education, and therefore college education was not a matter of choice. When Land-grant Colleges were formed in 1862, many of them provided remedial education in order to bring students up to college level. This was a difficult and seemingly self-defacing means for colleges, but necessary at the time.
As farmers became literate and interested in new techniques or processes for their farms, farming clubs were formed to discuss advances, newsletters were developed to spread information and educational programs were developed for rural farmers. Extension Agents provided a key link to rural areas following the formation of the Cooperative Extension Service in 1914. By 1930, there were Land-grant Colleges, Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension Agents spread across the country reaching virtually every corner of agriculture. Although it took nearly seventy years from the time that Land-grant Colleges were formed to get to this position, the country was poised for a rapid rise in agricultural productivity. This rise followed the technological advances that were to come during the next fifteen years as a result of World War II and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Pesticide and fertilizer use increased rapidly and the development of hybrid seeds and new knowledge that was funneled through the educational system allowed productivity to reach unprecedented levels.
Today:
The productivity in US agriculture continues today and results in less land being farmed each year while total output increases. What changes have occurred and how does the consulting business fit into the changes that are occurring?
1) What are the consulting resources growers have at their disposal in the United States?
3) What are the benefits of each consulting segment?
Consulting resources:
The resources growers have available to them include state, county and federal employees that work for Cooperative Extension, representatives from fertilizer and chemical companies, fieldmen from processing and packing companies and independent consultants. The mixture of these resources gives the growers much flexibility in who they chose to work with and also provide checks and balances in the system. I will try to describe each of these consulting options, their advantages and disadvantages, and the cost to growers.
Cooperative Extension:
Employees with the Cooperative Extension Service are paid from the federal government, by each state, by a county government, or a combination of these governments. A county agent is often the first line of contact with growers. This individual lives and works in the vacinity of the communities that they serve. The county agent is most often one of the first people contacted by growers when a problem or technical question needs answered. The agent may provide a solution or provide guidance as to where to locate the appropriate resource that can resolve the issue. County agents do not charge for their services as they are paid through tax dollars. The key characteristic of a well qualified county agent is that this person knows the area agriculture well enough to be informed of general problems that occur and knows who to call or where to find answers. The information that agents have at their disposal is databases as well as people and technical publications. These agents today are stretched to cover many areas of expertise and geographically different regions at times. This makes it difficult for them to be much of an expert, but rather causes them to be a generalist in several areas. The agent also serves as a primary provider of educational programs that educate farmers about the problems they are or will be addressing and general information important to the public. This differs from the original county agents in the 1940’s and 50’s who often were perhaps the only source of information, and perhaps the best source of information to farmers.
Extension Specialists are a second public source of consultation to farmers. Specialists are state employees such as myself, who receive some operational funding from federal sources as well as from the state that they work. Because of legislative ruling, we too are prohibited from receiving pay for consulting in our areas of expertise. Our services are available to farmers on an as needed basis and as time allows. Specialists as the word implies are people who have developed a knowledge base that concentrates on specific disciplines, crops or technology. In my case, I am a vegetable Extension Specialist who concentrates on the growing and marketing of vegetable crops in an irrigated production region. I answer calls from farmers and consult with them without charge or refer them to other resource people if I feel someone else can answer their questions more appropriately.
Research Scientists at public universities are available for consulting and their services may require the farmer to pay consulting fees. Each state may have different policies regarding the acceptance of outside payment for services within the state’s boundaries. I believe that it is important for a scientist to remain unbiased in dealings with potential fund granting companies and subsequent potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, consulting within the person's area of expertise (especially in legal matters) needs to be evaluated carefully. These people are of extreme value in complex and highly technical problem areas. They can be contacted with very specific questions that they have detailed expertise.
The United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service has scientists located in farming areas for the purpose of conducting research in accordance with specific research objectives. Scientists are not allowed to consult for fees in their research area. They are allowed to receive support for their research projects exclusive of personal salaries and therefore provide direct benefit to many individual farmers and industries. USDA/ARS Scientists are valued resources much like the university scientists for their detailed technical knowledge.
Private sector consulting has many facets. Some "consulting services" are less obvious than others and are difficult to determine the real cost to a farmer. Some easily identifiable consulting services are provided by independent crop consultants, field-persons from processing companies, field-persons from chemical and fertilizer dealers, field representatives from chemical or fertilizer producers and representatives from equipment or supply companies (i.e. irrigation supplies, instrumentation companies and parts companies).
The most obvious consultant group although perhaps not the largest number in our area, is the independent consultant. This individual is available to perform a number of tasks from insect monitoring, soil nutrient and moisture assessment to crop maturity, harvest evaluation, and resolution of environmental issues ,etc.. They may provide a single service or multiple services depending on their expertise and desire to perform specific tasks. The services are usually priced at a rate that is competitive in the market, commensurate with the economic value of the service and the uniqueness of the service. Straight consulting time for "advise" on general farming practices may be on an hourly, daily or seasonal rate established by the consultant and perhaps negotiated based on the specifics of the task. Rates for consulting vary from $50 to $200 per hour or $200 to $1000 per day. Private consultants have the option of selecting which types of services they provide, which crops they are going to consult about and when they will be available for consulting. This makes the private consultant a very focused individual who is dedicated to helping a client succeed and therefore much valued for his or her knowledge about the specific situation of a farmer. This individual is probably able to maintain the least amount of service bias of the commercial consultants. Other than the value of consulting service itself, the consultant does not usually receive benefit from advising one product over another or in prescribing " not needed" or "ineffective" materials. This consultant usually provides the broadest range of services that are most likely to be most the technically and economically beneficial to the grower.
Consultants associated with soil analysis laboratories are often specialists in disciplines of soil sample collection and analysis only. They may add to these services soil moisture analysis and other soil related technology or plant tissue analysis such as petiole analysis for nutrient needs determinations or crop feed value as is the case with alfalfa hay analysis. The fees charged for this analysis are based on competitive pricing and vary depending on the analytical cost. A part of the service provided with these analysis might be advice on the nutrient needs of the crop from which the sample was collected. These individuals provide a valuable service both directly to farmers and to independent crop consultants who often do not have their own laboratories. They rely on requests for services from consultants and also obtain business directly through advertising and other consulting that they may provide.
Field persons for fruit and vegetable processing companies are an important part of the consulting industry in the State of Washington. Most processors provide field representatives to growers as advisers (consultants) when they contract the crop from the grower ahead of the season. The field people provide a range of services from general advice on crop production to more detailed advice on fertilizer program, pest control practices and irrigation scheduling. These services vary between companies and the cost of the service is included (but usually not detailed) as part of the crop contract. In other words, the services provided are included in the processor’s cost of doing business and they account for these services as a part of their overall business costs and do not necessarily indicate to the grower what these costs are specifically. These consultants have allegiance to the processor first and the farmer secondarily. Usually the recommendations provided by the consultant (field person) will benefit both equally, however, a built in bias is obvious.
Commercial consultants may work for large companies whose goal is to provide a broad range of services along with products to farmers. This includes fertilizer dealers, chemical dealers, and equipment dealers or companies that provide a mixture of these products. The cost for these individuals is often also hidden in the price a farmer pays for the product or piece of equipment. These individuals provide an important contribution because they have very detailed knowledge about products and their use. This reduces the risk to growers of using a good product improperly and causing harm to the crop, individuals or to the environment. The service provided usually includes follow-up also that can be very beneficial. These individuals have obvious bias and can not be thought of as a source of information that deals with all available alternatives. This group is used by loyal customers of specific types of equipment or technologies more so perhaps than in the area of pesticides or fertilizer products.
How do all these "consultant" types interact? What allows the system to function as it does? I have seen how the mixture of public and private sector consultants has evolved into a highly synergistic team of individuals. These seeming unrelated individuals have learned how to supplement their knowledge and expertise with the knowledge and expertise of others in the system so that the client is best served, is successful and therefore pleased to continue the use of their services.
A county agent has a specific need in his area for information of specific use for farmers with regards to a recurring problem. He develops an information workshop as a two-day event to provide the farmers with education about the subject and potential solutions to the problem. The speakers for the workshop are Extension Specialists to define the nature of the problem, university and USDA/ARS researchers to provide detailed information on the subject and possible remedies, and representatives from two chemical companies who think they have a solution for the problem. The audience consists of farmers, independent consultants, field representatives and processor representatives. The open sharing of information results in the farmers having confidence that a resolution to the problem is available. There also seems to be more than one alternative for curing the problem. Following the general lecture, discussion groups are formed which provide an opportunity for farmers to interact about testing the potential solutions in their fields. Arrangements are made and a plan is developed. Teams of individuals form as a result of previous friendships or mutual respect and objectives for the tests are developed. The teams usually consist of the County Agent, a Specialist to design the experiment, the farmer and a field representative from the chemical company who supplies the test product. A private consultant my help run the test and soil or other needed analysis may be performed by another private-consulting laboratory. Using the information provided by the USDA/ARS and university scientists, a test is conducted and the results shared and appropriate time for the other growers and consultants to learn about the success or failure of the potential solution to their problem.
The key elements in this scenario, I believe, are:
The success of agriculture in the United States is based on the key elements identified above. Although the economic system that we live in is capitalistic, there are checks and balances in the system that allow information to flow to those who seek it, not just those who can afford to pay for it. As long as there are public "consultants", all farmers will be served even if the amount of technical information may be reduced, small farmers will be served as well as large farmers. The consultant with the most desire to perform a service, the best information, and the ethics to provide it properly will be the most successful in the long run. This person will remain one step ahead of others in the competitive race.
Consultants will have a few secrets that make them more successful than their competitor. However, totally secretive consultants will eventually also discover that others do not share with them either.
I believe like our founding fathers, that education is paramount to success. In their case it was for the success of our democracy. In my case, I believe agriculture will be most successful when farmers possess enough information to make timely fundamental decisions about the system of farming that they have chosen. A successful system also requires mutual respect and cooperation from people who possess knowledge and are willing to share it.
Tomorrow: "Changes in the Future"
Cooperative Extension and University Specialists budgets will continue to erode. There is not much support on the University campus for the narrow focus of traditional Cooperative Extension activities and the expanding areas of human resources and at "risk individuals" programs. There is a need for the work performed by this traditional resource, but the general public does not see this as a high enough priority to pressure legislators to appropriate funds for their effective functioning. The activities that we traditional Extension employees have provided will need to be provided by the private sector or supported monetarily through the University system. It is the challenge of you from the consulting industry to select the path you wish to follow and to do it before the resources have been depleted beyond recovery.