Educational Programs for Commercial Agriculture and Agribusiness
Selected problems and opportunities inherent in educational work with large Agricultural and Agribusiness firms are examined in this paper. The problems arise largely because of the increasing size and complexity of today's large firms; the nature of their requests for assistance; and existing means of teaching the personnel of those firms. The opportunities lie in helping solve their problems in a manner which retains University contact with this important audience without disrupting academic budgets and faculty relationships.
Changing Delivery Systems for Agricultural Extension: Discussion
The papers should be read in order: Hildreth and Armbruster give an overview of how we got where we are that, happy surprise, is not boring. At least one-half day of any New Agents' Training Conference could be replaced by reading their one sentence gem: "The major principles of extension programming (are) involving students in program development, presenting education in an informal setting, and focusing on practical information." And they conclude with the central problem of the future: The need for delivery innovations "will continue growing faster than funds." The casual reader may need reminding that the bulk of Hildreth and Armbruster' s remarks apply primarily to county extension work. But Brown sharply separates his remarks about county, area, and state professionals. The "age-old" extension problem is one of program balance between selected audiences, along with developing the necessary staff competence. Brown's analysis rests on the same rails as the first paper: "The harsh reality is that extension will have to operate with less. . . . Extension must," according to Brown, "reassess its real strengths and make adjustments to assure a high-quality program. This could mean dropping some programs completely. . . ." The difficulty of doing so was plaintively sounded almost a decade ago by Sprott: "The typical Extension Service worker ... seldom if ever discontinues doing any thing. Most Extension programs are taken on in addition to rather than in place of a current program" (p. 55). Brown sagely observed that "The new developments in electronics communication, individualized learning, data storage, retrieval, and analysis offer the potential of greatly increasing the capacity of the county agent to assist the commercial farmer with more complex problems." The stage is set for Diesslin, who enthused that the arrival of the computer on the farm offers potential that "is difficult to behold." Surely, we can agree, and we can all fervently hope with him that with the computer, "we have an opportunity to reestablish our leadership in the mainstream of American agriculture." And those of us who do not have elaborate (or in some cases, even infantile) systems can be grateful to the Kellogg Foundation, to Purdue, to Oklahoma State, to Michigan State, and to those other pioneers in computer applications in agriculture from whom we can borrow. Let no beginning state extension specialist ignore the guidelines that Diesslin lays out for implementing the FACTS system, particularly those dealing with using computers in their problem-solving capacity. Those guidelines could save years of floundering. So the computer can save us. But how? The life raft is simply too small for all of extension's programs. Some tough choices must be made about the audiences that will be served. Some programs will have to be dropped: indeed the Florida legislature has mandated that some nonagriculture programs be dropped. Hildreth and Armbruster' s notion of abandon-
The Stern Test of Objectivity for the Useful Science of Agricultural Economics
Agricultural economics as a discipline has long found itself in the dilemma that to realize its highest potential of service in meeting real-world problems, to hold public support, and to be called a science, it must not only perform well technically but also demonstrate unblemished objectivity. The challenge to objectivity is more pervasive than is generally realized. It is greatest in the field of policy, where political and private interests are expressed. It takes on more importance now that action programs for agriculture are apparently a fixture and there is such a close organizational tie in agricultural economics—unlike general economics—between work on policy and management counseling. Although compromises, active or passive, are doubtless few, the preserving of objectivity is of crucial importance.