Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:55:19.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responding to farmers' needs: An evolving land grant perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

John C. Gardner
John C. Gardner
Affiliation:
Superintendent and Agronomist, North Dakota State University, Carrington Research Extension Center, Carrington, ND 58421.
Get access

Abstract

Farmers and the agricultural research and extension community at the land grant universities have experienced an evolving relationship. The current call for reform in publicly sponsored agricultural research and extension is built upon more than a century of dialog. If specialization and discipline-oriented research is to continue, the ecosystem-based knowledge of the farmer will become increasingly valuable. Involving farmers more actively in research and education could be achieved in several ways. Outside the land grant system, nonprofit agricultural research and demonstration organizations are being developed. Within the public system we need a renewed emphasis on extension at the local level and a revitalized applied research effort aimed at solving problems of the agricultural ecosystem rather than single disciplines. A dynamic and resourceful agriculture could result from including the farmer as a full partner in land grant research and education.

Keywords

research policynon-profit organizationsextension serviceapplied agricultural research
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 170 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Anderson, R. H., and Thompson, R. L.. 1989. Branch agricultural experiment stations of the United States - a profile. Agronomy Abstracts of the 1989 Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
2.Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
3.Bonnen, J. T. 1986. The institutional structures associated with agricultural science: What have we learned? Presented at the Agricultural Science Policy Workshop, April 29–May 2, 1986, Agricultural Research Institute, Wayzata, Minnesota.Google Scholar
4.Busch, L., and Lacy, W. B.. 1983. Research for whom? In Busch, L. and Lacy, W. B. (eds.), Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
5.Buttel, F. H. 1985. The land-grant system: A sociological perspective on value conflicts and ethical issues. Agriculture and Human Values, Spring, 1985.Google Scholar
6.Buck, S. J. 1913. The Granger Movement. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.Google Scholar
7.Danbom, D. B. 1979. The Resisted Revolution: Urban America and the Industrialization of Agriculture, 1900–1930. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
8.Danbom, D. B. 1986. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from a historical perspective. In Dahlberg, K. A. (ed.). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
9.Danbom, D. B. 1990. Our purpose is to serve: The first century of the North Dakota agricultural experiment station. North Dakota Institute for Regional Studies, Fargo, North Dakota.Google Scholar
10.Feltner, K. 1988. Improving efficiency of branch station research. J. Prod. Agric. 1:368–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Franzel, S. C. 1986. Comparing informal and formal surveys. In Hildebrand, P. E. (ed.). Perspective on Farming Systems Research and Extension, Lynne Rienner Pub., Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
12.Hightower, J. 1973. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: A Report of the Agribusiness Accountability Project on the Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex. Schenkman, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
13.Holt, D. 1987. A competitive R&D strategy for U.S. agriculture. Science 237:1401–1402.Google Scholar
14.Jackson, W., and Piper, J.. 1989. The necessary marriage between ecology and agriculture. Ecology 70:1591–1593.Google Scholar
15.Jordan, J. P., O'Connell, P. F., and Robinson, R. R.. 1986. Historical evolution of the state agricultural experiment station system. In Dahlberg, K. A. (ed.). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
16.Lamm, T. 1989. Guidelines for developing university sustainable agriculture programs. Wisconsin Rural Development Center, Black Earth, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
17.National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
18.Stockbridge, H. E. 1891. First annual report of the North Dakota agricultural experiment station to the Governor, Feb. 1, 1891. Fargo: Daily Republican, Fargo, North Dakota.Google Scholar
19.Winkelmann, D., and Moscardi, E.. 1982. Aiming agricultural research at the needs of farmers. In Shaner, W. W., Philipp, P. F., and Schmehl, W. R. (eds.). Readings in Farming Systems Research and Development, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar