In proceedings of the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants

"Changing Roles and Relationships of Consultants and University Extension"

Portland, Oregon January 21, 2000

The challenges that our agriculture communities face today are significant. If private contract researchers, crop consultants, and university based research and education faculty are successful at overcoming their differences and working efficiently together, American farmers will still have to struggle mightily to survive in the emerging global market economy. Steven Blank (1998) points out that American farmers and processors are caught in a remarkable squeeze play between global commodity prices established by low cost providers in the developing world and the local cost of production, which is based on local labor, input costs, and local land values. American farmers and processors who pay their labor between ten and fifteen dollars per hour (wages plus other payroll expenses) must compete with farmers and processors who pay labor five to ten dollars a day. Finished products are brokered in a market place where there are no boundaries, no loyalties, and no whining. In nearly every commodity market today, the current price is equal to or below the cost of production for most American farmers. Friction, interference, and confusion between the private sector and university based research and education communities are luxuries that we can no longer afford. These limitations can be minimized if we clarify the important differences in our separate missions.

Independent contract researchers and crop consultants sell their expertise and reliable service on the basis that these will improve the competitive abilities of individuals, businesses, and industries. Private sector researchers and consultants test, validate, and demonstrate new or unproven ideas and technologies that may be profitable. Independent researchers and consultants are learners and teachers. They help the agricultural community to anticipate, avoid, and if necessary, solve problems. Yes, there is considerable potential overlap between these activities and those of the university based research and extension faculty. What distinguishes their role is that the faculties operate from the public service sector. In the final analysis, the work of the university based research and education community is a social service. Oregon State University Extension Associate Director Peter Bloom (1999) describes the activity of the Land Grant University system as "learning for the common good". In order to remain connected to the agricultural community, extension faculty help growers to solve problems. Their primary focus, however, is on building learning capacity in the community.

American farmers will compete successfully in the global market place for several reasons. American farmers are more highly educated, and they have a better production infrastructure than farmers in the developing world. On average, American farmers have fewer production problems. They are more reliable, and they are less likely to catch their buyers short. Eventually, the brokers for the transnational agricultural corporations will learn to appreciate the reliability of the American farmer. American farmers are more highly regulated. Consequently, they are less likely to make mistakes with off-label uses of pesticides that could result in the tarnishing of brand name reputations. American farmers can and should market their reliability and their safety record to brand identified transnational corporations. But the defining difference between the American farmers and farmers in the developing world is there capacity for learning. American farmers are fast learners and will stay on the leading edge of production efficiency, environmental protection, and market growth with our help.

The private and public service sectors can work closely together to accelerate learning. The private sector should continue to focus on solving today’s most urgent problems. The public service sector must avoid being completely distracted by today’s urgent problems, and should remain focused on building learning capacity. The implementation of geographical information (GIS) and global positioning (GPS) systems provides a specific example. Private sector researchers and consultants are bringing these systems on line to provide services that will improve input and application efficiencies, and probably improve yields while reducing input costs. This is a winning technology that is inaccessible to most farmers in the developing world. Public service sector research and education faculty should continue to focus on how these technologies will enhance the ability of the American farmer to learn. Imagine how much faster we will learn and adopt new production systems when we have the capacity to test new ideas and technologies on a field scale using yield maps. Imagine how this will accelerate learning.

Integrated pest management (IPM) provides another example of the division of roles between the private and public sector research and education communities. Pest management programs change when new ideas and technologies reduce the cost of production and reduce pesticide inputs, in that order. For example, by monitoring pest population trends on a regional basis over several years, we can learn to identify outbreak years. In an outbreak year, we can stop scouting, initiate aggressive spray programs, and avoid economic wrecks that can take several years to recover from. We can identify below average years when normal or softer spray programs are adequate. The public service research and education community is in the best position to test, validate, and demonstrate compelling IPM technologies and systems over time because the public service sector is sheltered from risk aversion. The implementation and marketing of economically and environmentally efficient pest management systems will require a positive and intimate collaboration between the private and public sector research and education communities. And, this will happen because it is to our advantage. It will make us more competitive.

In these challenging times for American agriculture, private contract researchers, crop consultants, and university based research and education faculty have the capacity and the obligation to work efficiently together. We operate at different spatial and temporal scales. Private researchers and consultants must keep pace with the remarkably fast paced activity of today’s farmers, processors, and input providers. Public service sector research and education faculty must not allow themselves to become so caught up in today’s business that they loose track of their mission, to build learning capacity in the community over the long haul. We need both activities. We need to survive in today’s economy; we need to evolve. To evolve, we must become fast learners. To become fast learners, we must create a safe learning environment where there is a healthy balance between competition among regions and cooperation within local learning communities. We need to solve problems, and we need to learn to solve problems faster. When there is friction and confusion between private contract researchers, crop consultants and university based research and extension faculty, I always ask the following questions. Can we change fast enough to survive? Can we avoid hurting each other in the rush to do so? Yes, we can; we must.