Subject: NEWSLETTER: Consortium
From: [email-masked] (Gabriel Hegyes)
Date: 7 Jun 1994 02:42:24 -0400
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture

Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education -- 

Consortium News, Issue 2, May 1994

Consortium Organizational Structure

As we've begun to mold the Consortium's mission and near-term
agenda, the Steering Committee has recognized the need to
solidify an organizational structure.  Over the past few months
we've developed the proposal you'll find in this issue of the
newsletter.  It is a working model for the Consortium's by-laws:
a structure we can and will operate from, but still open to
change as we solicit your feedback and gain more experience.  As
the kinks are worked out, we will put a more formal set of
by-laws to a vote of the Consortium's membership within the next 
year.  

This is where you come in.  Inside you will find a membership
form with a modest request for dues to help pay for this
newsletter and overhead costs of your involvement in the
Consortium.  Please fill out the form, include your comments
about the organizational proposal, and let us know that you want
to be a part of this new effort to support research and education
for a sustainable agriculture.  If you're unsure what's in it for
you, see "Benefits of Consortium Membership," and "Survey Results
to Date."  

Send in your membership dues to ensure you will continue to 
receive the Consortium News.

Survey Results to Date

In the first issue of Consortium News we asked you to fill out a
survey on Consortium priorities.  So far the rate of return has
been fairly low, but we are nonetheless encouraged by the
results.  Respondents have provided a lot of good ideas, and
offered considerable enthusiasm and support for our current
course.  Few have rejected any of the suggested activities, and
support is well distributed among the seven main objectives. 
We've heard predominantly from agricultural scientists, but also
farmers and other folks.  We're also pleased with the number of 
referrals we're receiving.  

We really want to hear your ideas and priorities, so if you
haven't already, please dig out your first issue of the
Consortium News and take 20 minutes to fill in the survey and
return it to us.  If you've lost it or passed it on, just give us
a call.  We'd be happy to supply you with another copy.  

You will see a formal tabulation of the survey results in the
next issue of the Consortium News.  If your survey told us you'd
like to get involved, you will be hearing from us in the coming
weeks and months.

Accommodating Diversity in the Consortium

We expect all persons or organizations who become members of the 
Consortium will share a commitment to its overall mission and
goals.  However, the Consortium's members will also be quite
diverse in their views and in their ability to participate in
Consortium activities, particularly the development of public
policy-related recommendations.  In order to accommodate
diversity, we have turned to the model provided by the Midwest
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (MSAWG).  

The Working Group publishes policy related reports prepared by
members (recent examples include "Sustaining Land, People,
Animals, and Communities: The Case for Livestock in a Sustainable
Agriculture," and "Clean Water and Thriving Farms: Mutual Goals
in Sustainable Agriculture").  But before publication, reports go
through an extensive review process by all members, and member
organizations have the option to endorse or not endorse the final
report.  Endorsing groups are listed on each publication.  This
process has been both necessary and very effective for sustaining
the involvement of all MSAWG members in spite of disagreements on
some issues.  A subset of MSAWG, the Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (SAC), was created for members who wished to engage in
joint efforts to influence policy.  Many MSAWG members choose not
to belong to the Coalition, generally because their organizations
have a policy against belonging to action-oriented coalitions.  

These procedures and divisions have worked well for MSAWG and
SAC, and, to our knowledge, no members have ever felt wrongfully
represented as supporting something they didn't.  We have
incorporated a modified version of MSAWG's publication policy
into the "Working Model of Bylaws" enclosed herein (see #14). 
Our procedures will differ from MSAWG's in that we expect a
number of different ad hoc groupings of Consortium members will
wish to speak or act as a group for a specific purpose.  If 
members come to believe it necessary and appropriate, we could at
a future date adopt the SAC model of forming a sub-group of
members who wish to speak as a single entity on a variety of
policy matters.  For now, however, we believe such a proposal
would be premature.

Benefits of Consortium Membership

Individuals, organizations, university programs and other bodies
are all invited and encouraged to join the Consortium.  The
benefits of membership include a subscription to the Consortium
News, and opportunities to:

* write articles for the News;

* initiate or participate in Consortium task forces, committees
or activities;

* review and "sign on" to task force reports or other products;

* be referred by the Consortium for official advisory, planning, 
evaluative, or priority-setting bodies, or for other efforts such
as might be spearheaded by member organizations;

* gain information about others who share your interests or have 
resources you can utilize;

* voice your ideas and concerns (individually or as part of a
task force) to Congress, USDA or other agency administrators,
National Research Council Board on Agriculture committees,
advocacy organizations or others;

* interact and dialogue with supporters of sustainable
agriculture research and education outside your institution,
discipline or daily social milieu;

* participate in Consortium-sponsored workshops or receive other 
Consortium-developed services;

* be nominated for the Consortium Governing Council;

* vote for Governing Council members or on major organizational
issues.

The Consortium's special benefit to individual members is that it
offers you an organized way to have a stronger voice in public
policy debates and decisions regarding agricultural research and
education.

The Consortium's special benefits to organizational members
include access to the Consortium membership (through Consortium
News or the mailing list) for recruiting involvement in your own
activities or selling publications; and an avenue for organizing
common activities or sharing information with other similar
organizations (examples: farmer research groups; university
sustainable agriculture programs).

We encourage both individuals and their organizations to join the
Consortium.  As an individual, you may feel freer to sign on to a
task force position paper; and sometimes your individual voice is
distinct from your institutional voice.  Moreover, you may wish
to receive the Consortium News or other Consortium literature
individually so they do not get lost through institutional
routing or library circulation.  As an organization or institute,
you may wish to let other Consortium members know that you are
available to provide information or assist in joint efforts under
the Consortium's aegis; or perhaps you'd like members or
non-members (e.g. funders or constituents) to know that your 
organization or institute supports the Consortium's mission.  
Furthermore, institutional copies of Consortium literature can be
lent to members or student groups.  In addition, we hope all
programs and organizations, especially smaller ones, will be
empowered by formal association with a larger infrastructure for
sustainable agriculture research and education.  Joining as both
individuals and organizations will also help us know who we are
serving.  

Write for the Consortium News!

If you would like to write an article for the Consortium News,
please contact the editor, Elizabeth Bird.

Coming Up!

Conference on "Developing Sustainable Farming Systems: Social,
Economic, and Environmental Considerations" August 1-3 in Des
Moines.  Sponsored by the American Society of Agronomy's North
Central Region.  Conference will feature a Kellogg-sponsored
Integrated Farming Systems Workshop, sessions by the Registry of
Environmental and Agricultural Professionals, a Resource Fair and
more.  Contact Steve Oberle for information: 515-294-6691.

                 Working Model of Bylaws for the
    Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
                          May 1994

1. The Mission of the Consortium is to facilitate cooperation and

collaboration among researchers, extension workers, educators,
farmers, advocates and other professionals in order to enhance
their individual and collective capacity to conduct research and
education and to shape research and education policy toward a
more sustainable agriculture and food system.

2. The Objectives of the Consortium are to:

 a.  Facilitate information exchange about efforts to improve    
     opportunities and capacities in sustainable agriculture
     research, extension and education.
 
 b.  Monitor, evaluate, and influence institution or agency 
     structures to improve the environment for interdisciplinary,

     integrative, locally appropriate and sustainable agriculture

     research, extension and education.
 
 c.  Provide positive alternatives to current research/extension 
     agenda and funding priorities. Develop and promote
     information, position papers, or program reviews that can
     help shape priorities and the allocation of funding to
     advance sustainable agriculture research and outreach.  

d.   Provide collegiality and professional support for
     researchers, educators and extension workers oriented to a
     sustainable agriculture and food system.  Provide
     opportunities for improving individual and institutional
     capacities to address the needs of sustainable agriculture,
     family farming and rural communities.

e.   Build life-long educational systems that incorporate 
     experiential teaching/learning and promote integrative,
     creative and critical thinking, to further the prospects for
     a sustainable agriculture and food  systems.

f.   Educate others about sustainable agriculture research and 
     related public policy issues.  Improve communication and
     build bridges among all stakeholders. 
    
g.   Achieve full participation of scientists, extension workers
     and farmers knowledgeable about sustainable agriculture in
     advisory committees, review panels and official
     priority-setting bodies.

3. The Consortium is a membership organization with a Governing
Council, an Executive Committee which is a subset of the
Governing Council, and a paid Executive Director.  

4.  Membership is open to any individual or organization who
shares a commitment to the goals of sustainable agriculture and a
concern about helping research, extension and education
activities and institutions better advance those goals.

5.  Members will pay dues to join the Consortium, to help
underwrite the Consortium News and defray other expenses
associated with maintaining and soliciting member involvement in
Consortium activities.  Dues will be on a sliding scale of $10 -
$40 for individual members, and $35 - $60 for organizational
members.  

6.  The Governing Council will have up to 20 members, broadly 
representative of the membership, with regional balance, and
balance among university (both land-grant and non-land-grant and
both research and extension) and government agency employees,
farmers, advocates and others.  Governing Council members will
serve 3-year terms, and approximately one-third will rotate off
each year.  Those who are leaving will serve as a nominating
committee (with primary responsibility of soliciting nominees
from the membership).  The nominations will be put to a vote of
the membership (with information about nominees).  If, for
example, the number of openings is 5, the top 5 vote-getters will
be added to the Governing Council.  If this process fails to
achieve the balances noted above, the Governing Council will
devise a means of doing so.

7.  The Governing Council will select from among its members an 
Executive Committee of 5 members.  For purposes of policy
decisions a quorum of the Governing Council will consist of a
majority of its members.  In general, the Governing Council will
endeavor to make decisions by consensus, but if it is necessary
to vote, approval will require two thirds of those voting yes or
no.

8.  The Consortium's mission, its overall objectives, its
governing structure, and Governing Council membership will be set
by votes of the membership.  Major policy shifts, such as would
be enumerated in the bylaws, will require a two thirds majority
of those members voting.  

9. The Governing Council will be responsible for establishing
procedures and promoting activities to carry out the mission and
objectives.  The Governing Council will be guided by its own
deliberations and by the advice, priorities and initiatives of
the membership (conveyed, for example, through surveys,
correspondence, and task force activities).  

The Governing Council will decide whether an activity that may be
proposed by members will go forward under the Consortium's aegis.
It will assist initiating members in identifying other task force
members if appropriate, and approve task force membership.  It
will monitor Consortium activities and, following review by the
membership, approve or disapprove publication or dissemination by
the Consortium of any task force product (see #13 below).  A
Governing Council member will serve as a "liaison" to each
Consortium task force or committee.  That liaison will help task
forces initiate work, help sustain task force progress, and
report to the Governing Council.  The liaison may or may not
serve as a task force member.  The Governing Council will also
identify priorities for the disposition of the Executive
Director's time and funds that may be raised for Consortium
activities.  All Governing Council members will be free to
participate as ex officio members on any Consortium task forces
or standing committees.  

10.  The Executive Committee will work with the Executive
Director to interpret and carry out the Governing Council's
policies and priorities, including providing feedback and
guidance to the Executive Director on fundraising proposals and
the newsletter.

11.  The Executive Director will help develop task forces and 
activities, recruit participants, raise funds and administer
resources, provide quarterly financial reports to the Governing
Council, provide technical or logistical support as needed, help
coordinate Consortium activities, analyze policy developments and
inform Consortium members, facilitate communications with
policy-makers or other interested bodies, facilitate Governing
Council and Executive Committee meetings and communications to
the Consortium membership, publish the newsletter, facilitate
Consortium publications, and facilitate follow-up and outreach to
task force work.  The Executive Director will serve as an ex
officio member of the Governing Council and Executive Committee. 
With the assent of the Governing Council, the Executive Director
may provide substantive leadership to a Consortium activity. 

12.  According to priorities set by the Governing Council and
when necessary, the Executive Director will work with task force
leaders to raise funds for a specific project.  For the
disposition of general funds that may be raised, each task force
will receive a small budget to underwrite the cost of needed
conference calls or mailings.  Above and beyond this, the task
force chair will submit a proposed budget to the Executive
Committee which will disburse funds in accordance with 
priorities set by the Governing Council.  

13.  The institutional home of the Executive Director will serve
as the Consortium's fiscal agent.  The Executive Director will be
an employee of the host institution, in service to the
Consortium.  A memorandum of understanding between the host
institution and the Consortium Governing Council will describe
the Director's duties and accountability to the Consortium.

14.  The Consortium as a body will not take positions on
policy-related matters.  The Governing Council (G.C.), and
Executive Director (E.D.) will serve as a central source of
information about the Consortium's broad purposes and about its
activities, structure etc.  However, neither they nor members
will be empowered to articulate public policy positions on behalf
of the Consortium and its full membership.  All members will be
invited to review a task force product.  Any position,
recommendation, evaluation or analysis developed by a task force
for publication by the Consortium will be reviewed by all members
who have indicated they wish to do so.  Task forces will work to
accommodate the concerns or advice received from these reviews. 
A final draft, marked "not for circulation," will be distributed
to all interested Consortium members who may then indicate if
they would like to formally support the report by being
identified as supporters on the final published version.  
As members review a draft, the Governing Council will also do so.

After broad review by Consortium members and consideration of
conflicting perspectives, and only with the assent of the
Governing Council, a document may be published under the
Consortium's aegis and members of the task force, supporters, and
the Governing Council will be empowered to speak on behalf of its
findings.  However, none of these parties will be empowered to
represent the position as a "Consortium position", but rather
that it represents the Governing Council, the task force members,
and any Consortium members who have chosen to support it.  Any
document or statement of a position developed under the
Consortium's aegis will clearly state that the views expressed do
not represent the views of all Consortium members, but only those
of members explicitly listed.  This policy assumes that there may
always be members (e.g. institutes or organizations) who are
unable to be a party to a position taken by a subset of
Consortium members; that complete agreement on issues is 
unlikely among all Consortium members, at least in the early
stages; and that majority votes may be undesirable if they should
cause some members to abandon their membership.  If these
assumptions appear to be unwarranted or a pressing need for a
"Consortium position" arises, the Governing Council will
reconsider this policy and submit any proposed changes to a vote
of the membership as described in #8 above.

                   CONSORTIUM MEMBERSHIP FORM

NAME

TEL

FAX

ADDRESS

E-MAIL

(If you've given us all this information previously, your name
and
state will be adequate for us to identify you.)

Please tell us about yourself:

PROFESSION (e.g. scientist, educator, farmer etc.)

CHARACTER OF WORK (e.g. entomologist, farming systems specialist,
grain and livestock farmer, market gardener, national policy
advocacy etc.)

SPECIALTIES 

TYPE OF INSTITUTIONAL HOME (if any; e.g. land-grant university,
non-
profit research organization, private school etc.)

RELATED ORGANIZATIONS YOU BELONG TO

COMMENTS ON MODEL BY-LAWS

Self-determined Sliding Scale for Dues to the Consortium (please
enclose check payable to the Center for Rural Affairs). 
Suggested
dues levels are shown in parentheses.

Individuals     $10 (e.g. students, low-income farmers) 
             to $40 (e.g. full professors, executives)

Organizations   $35 (e.g. grass-roots organizations)
             to $60 (e.g. land-grant university programs)

Return to:
Elizabeth Bird
Center for Rural Affairs
P.O. Box 406
Walthill, NE  68067

Focus: Education for Sustainable Agriculture

Editor's Note: Many have expressed strong interest in having the 
Consortium be involved in improving educational systems for
sustainable agriculture.  This issue of the newsletter highlights
a variety of educational innovations that are all in development.

The Consortium's Education Task Force

An informal group assembled at the first meeting of the
Consortium
in Bellevue last October to explore the feasibility of a national
effort to improve education in sustainable agriculture.  Some
suggested that the next national meeting on sustainability be
dedicated to education.  This is a good idea.  Perhaps a better
one
is to use all available electronic communication techniques to
begin
a "polylog" among interested people to share ideas, materials,
and
approaches to education in this arena.  The recent (and ongoing)
electronic discussion on "indicators of sustainability"
coordinated
by Bob Hart at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania has attracted
great interest and participation, and currently has more than 100
people enrolled.  Perhaps we could use something like this,
combined
with fax messages and telephone conference calls, to move the
agenda
ahead.  This type of involvement could get people discussing the
issues and sharing available information as a potential prelude
to
a national conference (could be electronic, simultaneous regional
or state meetings, educational fair for sharing materials, or
some
other innovative approach) to be held in a year or two.  There
will
be a conference in Lincoln on "Sustainable Development for the
Northern Plains, U.S. and Canada" in May of 1995.  Perhaps we
could
piggy back with that conference that will include a number of
case 
studies and success stories in development in the region.  There
are
other options.  Please send your ideas to Elizabeth Bird (address
on newsletter-head) or Chuck Francis, 222 Keim Hall, University
of 
Nebraska, Lincoln, NE  68583-0910; (402) 472-1581; 
[email-masked].  
Chuck Francis, University of Nebraska

Undergraduate Education in Sustainable Agriculture

Extension educators and other land-grant faculty, farmers, and
non-
profit group specialists, have conceived a North Central Regional

Institute for Sustainable Systems.  This "university without
walls" 
would coordinate experiential education as a complement to formal

classroom activities.  Undergraduate students taking a minor in 
sustainable systems would spend one intensive year in learning
modules on systems design and analysis, on-farm or in-industry
activities through an entire growing season, rural community
surveys
and evaluation, and seminar settings to summarize and discuss the

experience.  Along with "faculty" comprising educators from 
universities, colleges, and other professions, the students from
around the region would convene in one central location for part
of
the program and then be dispersed on farms for the growing
season. 
They would receive academic credit for both learning modules and
the
independent educational experiences on farms.  The proposal is
being
presented in June to the deans of colleges and universities from
the
region, and will be sent to foundations and USDA to explore
funding
opportunities.  
Chuck Francis, University of Nebraska

K-12 Education in Sustainable Agriculture

A National Institute for Youth Sciences (NIYS) has been
established
at the Milton Hershey School in Pennsylvania.  The private
residential school was established eighty-five years ago and
endowed
by the chocolate magnate Milton S. Hershey and his wife
Catherine.

The Institute will link the School's model science education
programs with other K-12 school systems and higher education as
well
as agricultural, environmental, and science related organizations
across the nation.  Committed to the development of holistic
education involving interdisciplinary learning, the Institute
will
strive, as Barry Lopez has written, "to create some place between
the extremes of nature and civilization where it is possible to
live
without regret."

Use of agriculture and the environment as vehicles for teaching
real
world science provides exceptional flexibility for sequential 
development of age appropriate curriculum suited to applied and 
experiential learning methodologies.  Further, the relational
dynamics inherent in understanding the sources of food, clothing
and
other essential products employing natural resources and the
environment provides students with positive peer influences,
interactive group learning, self image and esteem building, and
the
chance to more authentically self assess than is possible in
traditional settings.

Current NIYS initiatives include:  1) project leadership and quid
pro quo funding with the University of California, Davis, for the

development of a national framework for agricultural literacy; 2)

national leadership in the design and development of K-12
curriculum
and project models for sustainable agriculture; and 3) the design
and implementation of a state-of-the-art Ag-Science Program for
the
Milton Hershey School.

Drawing upon 500 of the School's nearly 10,000 agriculture acres,
the NIYS and Penn State University are designing five K-12
agricultural and environmental science education research centers
which will include residential capabilities for students,
visiting
educators, research fellows, and guests.  Additionally, a
curriculum
clearing house is being established that will provide extensive
technological capabilities for electronic networking and
telecommunications.

In addition to UC Davis and Penn State, collaborations and
partnerships are currently being established with the University
of Louisville, Institute for the Environment and Sustainable
Development, The National Environmentally Sound Production
Agriculture Laboratory - University of Georgia, The Agway
Agriculture Group, EPA, Hershey Foods Corporation, Lebanon Valley
College, various K-12 school systems, Cooperative Extension
programs, and private agencies and organizations.

For more information, contact Tom Helm, Director NIYS c/o Milton
Hershey School, P.O. Box 830, PA 17033; TEL: (717) 534-3537; FAX:
(717) 534-3779
Tom Helm, Director NIYS

Graduate Minor in Sustainable Agriculture

The University of Minnesota, St. Paul campus, is currently
developing a minor in Sustainable Agriculture that will be
available to students enrolled in a graduate major program.  The
minor includes coursework and an apprenticeship.  Courses
designed specifically for this program integrate biology,
ecology, and agriculture; and sociology, history, philosophy, and
economics.  A unique feature of the curriculum is the use of
decision case studies, a methodology that confronts students with
real-life situations and puts them in the role of decision-maker.

The classroom becomes the ground for developing skills in
critical evaluation, needed to solve the problems facing
agriculture today.

The apprenticeship program will give students an opportunity to 
experience sustainable agriculture issues first-hand.  In
cooperation with producers, nonprofit organizations, or governing
agencies, and University faculty, the student may design and
conduct an apprenticeship of two to three months duration.  The
apprenticeship will be optional, but highly recommended.  By
emphasizing interdisciplinary coursework and apprenticeships, the
minor in Sustainable Agriculture will provide students with
knowledge and experience in diverse areas and an holistic
perspective that is necessary to understand and develop
sustainable agricultural systems.

The program was designed with the cooperation of local grassroots
organizations such as the Land Stewardship Project and the
Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture Energy and Sustainable Agriculture
Program, and the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture.

These groups, as well as local producers applying sustainable
farming methods, contribute to the unique quality of the program
through their involvement in University colloquia and the
apprenticeship program.  

For more information contact Mary Brakke, Department of Agronomy
and Plant Genetics, Phone: (612)625-3754; FAX: 625-1268; e-mail: 
[email-masked]  
Craig Sheaffer, University of Minnesota

Public Education for Sustainable Agriculture

The goals of the Institute for Agricultural Biodiversity, in
Decorah, Iowa, are to foster and preserve genetic diversity in
agriculture, and promote agricultural literacy.  The Institute
has three program elements: information dissemination to farmers,
agricultural activists, academicians and policy makers; direct
programs of genetic conservation of heritage cereal grains and
livestock; and a general education facility called a "Farm Park."

Through the development of the Farm Park we have also gained
opportunities to expand agricultural literacy through liberal
arts education.  

The Farm Park in Decorah is a display and education facility
located on the Luther College campus.  The rehabilitated barn, on
the National Register of Historic Places, provides ample space
for educational displays and classroom instruction.  About 25
acres surrounding the barn will display heritage grains and
livestock breeds with accompanying interpretive material.

The interpretive and educational materials are directed to a
non-farm audience.  Agricultural illiteracy is growing like weeds
-- taking root through neglect and spreading unfettered.  Even
here in Iowa, with fully 13% of our people still on the land, we
have adults and children coming through the The Farm Park in
Decorah who do not know that livestock eat hay; many don't know
what hay is.  The Farm Park's material includes some basic
technical and scientific background, but emphasizes the
historical, cultural and ethical realms in agriculture.  The
materials are available for use in classrooms of various grade
levels.

The development of the Farm Park has sparked a renewed interest
in agricultural education among Luther College faculty.  We have
provided guest lectures, independent study and internships for
classes ranging from biology to religion.  Opportunities are now
developing to make agricultural literacy a more integral part of
the liberal arts curriculum.  We hope this will better prepare
consumers and policy makers for the social, economic and
political decisions they will be asked to make.

We are interested in communicating with others who work with
non-farm audiences and liberal arts college curricula.  If you
would like to submit an article or recive the IAB newsletter,
contact us at IAB, 2132 Pole Line Road, Decorah, IA  52101; TEL:
(319) 382-5947; FAX: (319) 387-1657.

Sustainable Agriculture Education for Beginning Farmers

     Young and beginning farmers are a critical audience for 
sustainable agriculture education.  Half of U.S. farmers are over
age 50 and control over half of the farmland.  And studies have
shown that most farmers who adopt "sustainable" farming practices
do so at a young age. Now is a critical time to change the
direction of U.S. agriculture by encouraging and influencing
young farmers.

     The Center for Rural Affairs' (CRA) Beginning Farmer
Sustainable Agriculture Project works to engage and encourage
young and beginning farmers in two ways.  First, local groups of
farmers (the Beginning Farmer Support Network) meet regularly to
share ideas, experiences, support, and continuing education
activities on sustainable agriculture. Our expectation is that
these activities will contribute to the young farmers' success,
and encourage their use of sustainable farming practices. 
Second, a select group of beginning farmers and their families
are cooperating with CRA to share their farm entry strategies,
decision-making processes, and financial progress.  The
University of Nebraska and the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture
Society (NSAS) cooperate in the project, which is funded in part
by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation,
the Pew Charitable Trusts, and USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program. This article reviews what the
Center for Rural Affairs has learned about educating beginning
farmers.  It does not necessarily reflect the views of funders.

     Informational meetings in 1991 helped us identify areas of 
interest.  Subsequent workshops brought beginning and
established, sustainable farmers together to meet one another and
learn about alternative farming strategies.  Some workshops were
organized by NSAS, which will provide continuing support to the
beginning farmers. 

    We found that presentations by farmers conveyed more
credibility than those by scientists or educators.  Farmer
presentations also instilled some confidence in beginning farmers
that their ideas or innovations, while unusual locally, were in
fact accepted practices.   One farmer, following group
encouragement for his grazing techniques, convinced an
established neighbor to try the same practices to reduce
pesticide application and improve animal performance.

    Of the numerous sustainable agriculture topics presented in
1992 and 1993, only one, whole-farm planning and goal-setting,
was widely adopted by the twelve families who were closely
monitored.  A series of multi-day courses (co-sponsored by the
Center for Holistic Resource Management in Albuquerque, NM) had
emphasized individual farm resources and family goals in
achieving success on each farm. The introductory course generated
such enthusiasm that three groups formed to continue discussion
of pro-active farm management.  Participants also demanded three
follow-up courses on financial planning, grazing planning, and
land monitoring.  Some of the participants have made changes such
as reducing acreage to allow more intensive management on the
remaining farm, diversifying the farm enterprise mix, reducing
purchased supplies, planning for and identifying farmland for
purchase, and increasing profitability of the farm.
  
   The beginning farmers made minimal use of other practices
featured in the workshops.  We learned that farmers must first
perceive their current practices as inadequate.  Moreover, some
of the techniques presented in the workshops require specialized
equipment or extra time. "Alternative" crops or methods may also
entail additional risk, since they have not been proven by these
farmers on their land.  We suspect it will take several exposures
to alternative agriculture ideas or several years' experience
before many new practices are applied.  

     Group members attended meetings for social, business and 
educational reasons. Child care was usually arranged to allow
whole families to attend. The groups also initiated additional
educational activities including lectures, and farm tours.  "The
support group is doing a heck of a lot to help us," said one
couple.  "The year that we got involved we ended up buying the
farm, and the group really helped us to say 'Okay, it is doable,
we can do it'."  Said another farmer, "I like being a part of the
support network - it's so valuable to have a sounding board.  It
keeps us from rushing into decisions by thinking them through
more and getting some feedback before we go through with things."

     The three groups who had shared a common, intensive seminar 
experience continued to meet and exchange ideas while three other
groups met only when project staff arranged activities for them. 
Members of inactive groups complained that their meetings were
not sufficiently directed or interesting, did not meet their
needs, or absorbed too much time.  "Ownership" of the group
process may have been lacking, but we also learned that a support
network of beginning farm families could not be expected to be
totally self-directed from inception.  The groups seemed to need
outside assistance in planning meetings, developing meeting
skills and in facilitating discussions.

     Our experiences and discussions with the twelve beginning
farm  families cooperating in the study of successful entry
strategies reveal that beginning farmers have special information
needs in starting and running their businesses.  For example,
time limitations imposed by off-farm jobs have encouraged some
couples to take home-study courses.

     Beginning farmers' financial limitations necessitate
information geared toward lowest-cost and least-input methods of
farming.  They don't need to know about specialized equipment so
much as how to use existing equipment in new ways.  They want to
achieve maximum profit with available resources: e.g. "how to get
the quickest gain on pigs with the crops from this farm using the
buildings already in place and the time and labor I have
available". 

     They also may need basic information, such as how to adjust 
equipment for varying soil or crop conditions, or how to read a
market sheet for per-pound or yield-grade marketing.

     Beginning farmers need to be able to make decisions using
such information in the context of their diversified, integrated
farms.  We concluded that effective educational materials go
beyond single expert-authored articles, to convey new procedures
in relation to other farm practices or resources.

     An interim report on the project's design and findings is 
available for $4.00 ($4.20 NE residents) from: Center for Rural
Affairs, PO Box 736, Hartington, NE 68739.  
Wyatt Fraas, CRA Beginning Farmer Sustainable Agriculture Project
Leader

Extension and Education Materials for Sustainable Agriculture

One of the products of 1993 workshops in Ames and Lincoln was a
two-volume set of educational materials with this title.  These
include  reference materials, overheads, lists of topics in
courses on agroecology, sustainable agriculture, and sustainable
development, and other educational ideas.  The project was
sponsored by the North Central Region SARE and ACE Programs, and
the editors of the books are James King and Charles Francis. 
Copies are still available at no charge while the initial supply
lasts from the Center for Sustainable Agricultural System , 220
Keim Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0949. We
request that people who receive the books send their own course
outlines and any relevant modules, references, or materials to
Jim King to include in another volume that hopefully will be
forthcoming.  
Chuck Francis, University of Nebraska

Has Teaching Been Changing in Land Grant Universities?

A paper is in press with the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
on the status of sustainable agriculture programs in land-grant
universities. Results from a nationwide survey of faculty and
administrators indicate that these programs have had less impact
on teaching than on either research or extension.  This finding
was consistent across all regions of the U.S.  In addition to
survey results, the article also provides summaries of the
programs in seven states that have been working in this area for
some years:  Maine, California, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois,, Ohio,
and Nebraska.  Copies of the article, "Impact of Sustainable
Agriculture Programs on U.S. Landgrant Universities" by C.
Francis, C. Edwards, J. Gerber, R.  Harwood, D. Keeney, W.
Liebhardt, and M. Liebman, are available before publication from
the Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, 220 Keim Hall,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0949, or by
subscription to the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.
Chuck Francis, University of Nebraska

Coming Newsletter Issues

Review of the National Sustainable Agriulture Coordinating
Council's agenda for agricultural policy reform.

John Gerber on the responsibility of land-grant colleges to serve
the public good. 

Review of Agriculture Research Alternatives

FOCUS ON STRATEGIC SCIENCE (last half)

Daschle was particularly interested in how this system might be
used in making management decisions.  Thus far, Oregon Invests!
has functioned only for informing the public about the likely
impacts of individual research projects.  But Dutson agreed that
it could help manage resource allocations, and explained their
plan to use the system to analyze where research dollars are
being put to the best use.

Daschle wondered about the potential contentiousness of
determining a given project's value to society, and expressed
particular interest in the evaluation of social impacts,
particularly impacts on family farms.  Dutson explained that
project-by-project professional review by agricultural and
resource economists was an effort to minimize the potentially
political character of the process.  He and Dr. Dave Ervin, 
head of OSU's Agricultural and Resource Economics Department, 
acknowledged the difficulty and uncertainty of assessing impacts,
given that, "Most of the research evaluations in the past, in
fact, have looked backward, and this one looks forward (p.27)." 
They remain fairly modest in their claims for the program.  For
example, they do not try to use it to compute a rate of return on
investment, since social and environmental factors cannot be
reliably quantified.

Asked to respond to the potential of the Oregon Invests! model
for managing the federal research system, Acting Assistant
Secretary Plowman noted that USDA will be required by the 1993
Government Performance and Results Act to identify and measure
achievement of performance goals, and that "we should be very
busy in looking at all the possible models to help us do that,
and this is one of them that we will be very interested in
looking at (p.30)."

Dr. Dutson added that a national data base system is under
consideration by a joint ESCOP (Experiment Station Committee on
Organization and Policy) and CSRS (USDA's Cooperative State
Research Service) Committee on Communications, and that grants
have been made to North Carolina State University and Rutgers
University to explore possibilities.  Dr. Terry Nipp, consultant
to ESCOP and also a hearing witness, added that the Oregon
program has garnered a great deal of interest through the ational
land-grant system.

In the end Senator Daschle agreed with the calls for identifying
goals and measurable objectives for the research and extension
system, and supported the development of management information
systems, but he nonetheless remained concerned about the
immediate task of evaluating changes in priorities: "Budget does
reflect commitment; budget does reflect our ability to anticipate
a certain degree of outcome....I think that prioritization is a
function of investment, and that is really what we are talking
about here (p.39)."  He had looked for evidence of a priority
shift in budget allocations, and had not found it.  

Daschle's final question to USDA representatives concerned the 
Department's failure to develop satisfactory guidelines for the 
implementation of the national research and extension purposes.  
Discussion in the hearing suggested that those guidelines would,
at a minimum, provide a strategy for arriving at a coherent set
of priorities targeted to achieve the purposes, develop a
management information system, and provide incentives for change
in the scientific "infrastructure."  

Daschle expressed surprise and disappointment at "the sort of
generic and very vague statements of purpose that you provided"
following the previous year's hearing request for the guidelines
the Department claimed to have developed.  The "guidelines" the
Department had provided consisted of memos restating the purposes
and directing agencies to "comply" with them.  Daschle argued
that "to be able to specifically and with some clarity outline
exactly what our guidelines are by which to judge our activities
and research goals seems to me to be so fundamental, and yet I
get really just restatements of purpose, which is not the same as
a guideline....There are no guidelines today....I have never all
of this time been satisfied, nor have any of my colleagues, as we
envisioned guidelines to be articulated in the bill.  Here it is,
1993, and we still don't have anything of that sort (p.40)."  

Plowman deferred to Acting Director of ARS, Dr. Finney, who
responded only that ARS has begun to require all projects to
identify the percentages by which they contribute to one or more
of the purposes. Daschle was interested in receiving the numbers,
but did not consider this accounting procedure an adequate
substitute for guidelines.  It is merely an accounting procedure,
in that it requires all projects to be quantified as contributing
100% to one or more of the purposes.  The policy does not entail
evaluations of how well the purposes are being advanced, nor a
procedure for ensuring that priorities or reward structures are
designed to best advance the full range of purposes.  

Neither Plowman nor Finney described any new attempt to issue 
guidelines.  Daschle concluded from USDA's failure to produce
guidelines that, "It is something that we are going to revisit
legislatively (p.41)."

Elizabeth Bird, Center for Rural Affairs

(Background reading from CRA: Research for Sustainability? The
National Research Initiative's Social Plan for Agriculture, 1991
[$8]; Sustainable Agriculture in the National Research Initiative
1991 [$5]; "Report Card on USDA Research Policy," 1992 [free].)

Perspective: Strategic Science

Agriculture is not alone in discussions about research
priorities. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) chairs a committee
that supervises most of the federal non-defense, non-agricultural
research, and is arguing for these agencies to fund more
"strategic" research.  The journal Science has carried several
articles about her discussions including "The Hand on Your Purse
Strings" (pp 192-194) and "Science in the National Interest" (pp
221-222) in the April 8, 1994 issue (vol. 264).

Her committee supervises appropriations for the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
and the research funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).  In all, the committee supervises $88 billion, so any
changes in funding policy influence the priorities throughout US
science.  These changes in priorities for science may in
themselves carry along agricultural research.

Sen. Mikulski is arguing for more emphasis on "strategic"
research, in short a better connection between science funding
and national needs. "Without a national strategy in science, and
the will to see that this strategy gets implemented, federal
science funding is sure to become a continuing target of
opportunity for what I call the 'cut cruisers' in Congress."
[They are also called "budget hawks."]  

Agricultural research is often a target for legislators eager to
expose waste.  Subsidies for honey and funding for asparagus
research have been recent targets despite skillful legislative
friends.  These 'cut cruisers' have no great respect for
research, nor for agriculture, so it becomes even more 
important to articulate a clear vision for how sustainable
agriculture research addresses national needs and priorities.

Sen. Mikulski's idea of "strategic" science includes both applied
and basic research, but both need to be related to identifiable
national goals.  Actually she has only argued for 60% strategic
research, 5% more than the NSF currently funds.  She proposes
that NSF re-organize itself around specific problems in the
manner that NIH is organized around problems like cancer and
mental health.  Research within these programs includes basic and
applied projects, but they relate back to central problems,
instead of bounding themselves within disciplines.  Advocates 
for sustainable agriculture research often promote the need for
more multi-disciplinary research.  Organizing research around
problems would encourage cooperation across disciplines, and
focus attention on the needs of society rather than on the latest
techniques.  "Strategic" research in agriculture could involve a
goal like reducing soil erosion with a sub-project on intensive
rotational dairy grazing, or a goal like reducing pesticide use
with a sub-project on improving root health with manure and
compost.

The most important point may be that the whole agricultural 
research community including sustainable agriculture proponents
will need to seek common priorities and an identifiable vision. 
Otherwise, the requests for research funding may be drowned by
the cries for anti-crime legislation and tax reform.  
Rick Voland, University of Wisconsin