Another look at the Extension funding issue

When I was a teenager, I convinced my folks that I would raise feeder pigs in an effort to bolster my college fund. My mother—who had heard plenty of my get-rich quick schemes before—called the county Extension agent, Bill Wood. He came to the farm from Mankato, offered me some pointers about where the pens should be and what the pigs should be fed.

He spent a few hours helping a fledgling stockman get a grip on the realities of fattening out feeder pigs.

I became a big fan of Extension that day. As you probably guessed from last week’s column defending the Cooperative Extension system from budget cuts, I remain a big fan of Extension. Where else can you get all this information that Extension provides—for free? I digress a bit, though.

A caller wanted me to explain more about the land-grant process. It’s a bit complicated, but I’ll try to boil it down.

The Morrill Act called for each eligible state to receive 30,000 acres of federal land, based on each member of Congress the state had as of the 1860 census. The land, or proceeds from its sale, was to be used to establish and fund the university’s agriculture and mechanical arts programs. The Act was amended in 1862 to extend to the Confederacy and eventually to every state and territory. Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17.4 million acres of land to the United States and territories.

A second Morrill Act was passed in 1890 and was the source of funding for several of America’s historically black colleges and universities.

To keep their status as land-grant colleges, agriculture and engineering programs—plus the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps—must be maintained by the college.

About ag experiment stations and cooperative Extension

In 1887, Congress began funding Ag Experiment Stations and some veterinary programs under the auspices of land-grant universities. In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act provided federal funding to “extend” outreach into virtually every county of every state.

At that time, 50 percent of the nation lived in rural areas and 30 percent of the workforce was involved in farming.

In the 100 years since, Extension has changed and evolved. The mission, however, has stayed intact: help farmers and ranchers achieve greater success, assist families with nutrition and home economics and prepare today’s youth to become leaders tomorrow.

Last week’s column focused primarily on the work of state and area Research and Extension workers. (The Kansas land-grant university, Kansas State University, created an entity encompassing both. Now it’s known as K-State Research and Extension).

The state and area portion of the system gets most of its funding from federal and state sources, which have been cut for years. To keep programs intact, many of these professionals seek funding outside the federal and state system—from private companies, or through checkoff organizations. As one former Extension employee wrote, “…they simply can’t raise enough to undo the damage of the last 30 years.”

The county level

In Kansas, each county funds about 80 percent of the local budget, with the rest funded by the state. The last 15 years or so, many Kansas counties have merged county Extension offices into Extension districts, with specialists for agronomy, family and consumer science, 4-H and animal science. Again, they are funded predominantly by the counties within the district. These local entities don’t support the state programs.

This system, when created, was a modern marvel. It has changed with the times. Some are good changes, some maybe not. But as it did with one young pork producer more than three decades ago, Extension has made a positive impact on the lives of countless Americans.

Bill Spiegel can be reached at 785-587-7796 or [email protected].