For What It Is Worth – Priorities For University of Nevada’s College of Agriculture
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As part of the on-going process to deal with the proposed closure for Nevada’s College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) there are lots of different ideas. Those making the decisions for the University will have to respond to the $11 Million that needs to be cut regardless of the very strong desire for keeping the College of Agriculture…especially since agriculture is a very significant corner stone in the foundation of what a Land Grant University is supposed to be all about.
Just saying you want to keep the College of Agriculture doesn’t get the $11 Million saved. The approach taken by University officials to establish a set of priorities that fit what they want their future to be is also noteworthy and commendable – even if agriculture is on the outside looking in for what those priorities are…
Not having the exact details of what each of the specifics in their announced plans get you (in dollar savings terms) – this list of possible rankings might have consequences for further reductions elsewhere, but the general idea I’m trying to project is that these concepts need attention…with more information required to put them into a final form for complete consideration.
Number 1 Priority: Agricultural Research – this may or may not include having the Main Station farm still in operation, although the first choice would be to keep it going and use it for real live agricultural research that matters to Nevada farmers and ranchers. This should have an applied research focus with an involvement and interrelationship developed with agricultural producers to identify their production and business enterprise needs.
If the plan is approved to go forward with the selling off of the Main Station Farm in Reno, there needs to be controls put in place (probably legislative) to restrict the ability of the University System to obtain the proceeds of the sale. A trust fund should be established from the proceeds of these assets to be used to benefit agricultural education and research for Nevada.
From an organizational perspective, the idea of putting agricultural research under the Vice President for Research might be a workable approach, if the attention is given to using research facilities for production agricultural needs and establishing the framework of the connections for identifying those needs is pursued.
Number 2 Priority: The Department of Resource Economics – this function is extremely critical for the long-term benefit of Nevada agriculture, regardless of the commodity interest in question. While it might not continue as part of the College of Agriculture, there should be a section maintained somewhere in the UNR system for a group of go-to agricultural economists who are capable and interested in supporting the needs of Nevada agricultural producers. As was noted in the materials for evaluation of the work carried out by this department…
“The department has a significant grant record with half of the grant awards over the last three years going to two Extension specialists. The department has a strong research publication record.”
Based on this perspective, the possible solution would be to keep the Department intact (although there may be some replacement work required for persons leaving) and include it in the earlier mentioned Ag Research Center.
Number 3 Priority: Agricultural Animal Science – this element and set of study needs to be maintained in some form within the University program of education…at least to the degree of attention for a BS degree. Livestock production does constitute the largest segment of Nevada’s agricultural economy and having the course work and research capacity to provide necessary support should be a must for going forward – with or without a College of Agriculture to house the discipline. Should the decision of going forward not include a College of Agriculture, there still needs to be a department status or some other institutional framework to collect the teaching and research talents needed to provide education and research outputs that matter.
Number 4 Priority: Plant Science – this area of need doesn’t exist now, but need to be instituted. Nevada agriculture does grow things and those doing so have been without support since past College of Agriculture leadership decided to play their part in making the College of Agriculture irrelevant, doing away with the Plant Science Dept. Whether it is commodity level alfalfa production or vegetable/horticultural, direct to the consumer crop production…Nevada needs to have attention with agronomist (no there isn’t one now in the make-up of what we have), a soil scientist involved with production agriculture and similar experts who are capable of providing practical training and development support. As has been the context of other recommendations – implementing a Plant Science discipline should be provided for regardless of whether there is a College of Agriculture… or not.
Number 5 Priority: Department of Natural Resources – this component of the current CABNR system seems to be included in the steps going forward, housed in the College of Science. The key consideration for how natural resource needs will mesh with production agricultural needs is a critical concern that needs attention. Science is supposed to be an unbiased pursuit of facts without political considerations. If that were true in real life there wouldn’t be a concern of institutionalizing the areas of range science under the umbrella of the College of Science.
It would be difficult to keep a straight face while trying to believe that the move won’t have some anti-agricultural and negative production ramifications. There are strong advocates within the science community who do bring their biases to school with them…and from an agricultural perspective we need to have our own team of biased thinkers who are working to counteract the biased perspectives operating against us.
Summary:
This completes the list of points that I have to contribute to the discussion of where things go from here.
I recognize that others have their own lists and rankings and for some keeping the College of Agriculture as an institution has a strong basis for meeting the obligations of being a true Land Grant University. My perspective is more from a functional vantage point, being more concerned about the system for delivery of outputs and the interaction of agricultural producers with the institutions, however structured they might be.
I fully understand that by putting these ideas down in this fashion there will be those who want to take exception and I welcome that type of feedback and response with more ideas and approaches gaining attention. I’m not here to say that these ideas are the Right solution(s) – just that they are the priorities that I see as being important in going forward.
In some respects I don’t see the University of Nevada system being capable for being what Nevada farmers and ranchers need. Perhaps those needs should be factored in by elevating the Great Basin College to a higher profile, providing the necessary agricultural education from there. I also don’t hold any ties to UNR continuing as a Land Grant University. I contend that if they don’t warrant the designation by their performance – they ought not be permitted to continue with that distinction.
Tough choices lie ahead no matter what direction is selected. Those who care need to get actively involved in being part of the decision process and interacting in the process to put forward their ideas and priorities.
As part of the on-going process to deal with the proposed closure for Nevada’s College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) there are lots of different ideas. Those making the decisions for the University will have to respond to the $11 Million that needs to be cut regardless of the very strong desire for keeping the College of Agriculture…especially since agriculture is a very significant corner stone in the foundation of what a Land Grant University is supposed to be all about.
Just saying you want to keep the College of Agriculture doesn’t get the $11 Million saved. The approach taken by University officials to establish a set of priorities that fit what they want their future to be is also noteworthy and commendable – even if agriculture is on the outside looking in for what those priorities are…
Not having the exact details of what each of the specifics in their announced plans get you (in dollar savings terms) – this list of possible rankings might have consequences for further reductions elsewhere, but the general idea I’m trying to project is that these concepts need attention…with more information required to put them into a final form for complete consideration.
Number 1 Priority: Agricultural Research – this may or may not include having the Main Station farm still in operation, although the first choice would be to keep it going and use it for real live agricultural research that matters to Nevada farmers and ranchers. This should have an applied research focus with an involvement and interrelationship developed with agricultural producers to identify their production and business enterprise needs.
If the plan is approved to go forward with the selling off of the Main Station Farm in Reno, there needs to be controls put in place (probably legislative) to restrict the ability of the University System to obtain the proceeds of the sale. A trust fund should be established from the proceeds of these assets to be used to benefit agricultural education and research for Nevada.
From an organizational perspective, the idea of putting agricultural research under the Vice President for Research might be a workable approach, if the attention is given to using research facilities for production agricultural needs and establishing the framework of the connections for identifying those needs is pursued.
Number 2 Priority: The Department of Resource Economics – this function is extremely critical for the long-term benefit of Nevada agriculture, regardless of the commodity interest in question. While it might not continue as part of the College of Agriculture, there should be a section maintained somewhere in the UNR system for a group of go-to agricultural economists who are capable and interested in supporting the needs of Nevada agricultural producers. As was noted in the materials for evaluation of the work carried out by this department…
“The department has a significant grant record with half of the grant awards over the last three years going to two Extension specialists. The department has a strong research publication record.”
Based on this perspective, the possible solution would be to keep the Department intact (although there may be some replacement work required for persons leaving) and include it in the earlier mentioned Ag Research Center.
Number 3 Priority: Agricultural Animal Science – this element and set of study needs to be maintained in some form within the University program of education…at least to the degree of attention for a BS degree. Livestock production does constitute the largest segment of Nevada’s agricultural economy and having the course work and research capacity to provide necessary support should be a must for going forward – with or without a College of Agriculture to house the discipline. Should the decision of going forward not include a College of Agriculture, there still needs to be a department status or some other institutional framework to collect the teaching and research talents needed to provide education and research outputs that matter.
Number 4 Priority: Plant Science – this area of need doesn’t exist now, but need to be instituted. Nevada agriculture does grow things and those doing so have been without support since past College of Agriculture leadership decided to play their part in making the College of Agriculture irrelevant, doing away with the Plant Science Dept. Whether it is commodity level alfalfa production or vegetable/horticultural, direct to the consumer crop production…Nevada needs to have attention with agronomist (no there isn’t one now in the make-up of what we have), a soil scientist involved with production agriculture and similar experts who are capable of providing practical training and development support. As has been the context of other recommendations – implementing a Plant Science discipline should be provided for regardless of whether there is a College of Agriculture… or not.
Number 5 Priority: Department of Natural Resources – this component of the current CABNR system seems to be included in the steps going forward, housed in the College of Science. The key consideration for how natural resource needs will mesh with production agricultural needs is a critical concern that needs attention. Science is supposed to be an unbiased pursuit of facts without political considerations. If that were true in real life there wouldn’t be a concern of institutionalizing the areas of range science under the umbrella of the College of Science.
It would be difficult to keep a straight face while trying to believe that the move won’t have some anti-agricultural and negative production ramifications. There are strong advocates within the science community who do bring their biases to school with them…and from an agricultural perspective we need to have our own team of biased thinkers who are working to counteract the biased perspectives operating against us.
Summary:
This completes the list of points that I have to contribute to the discussion of where things go from here.
I recognize that others have their own lists and rankings and for some keeping the College of Agriculture as an institution has a strong basis for meeting the obligations of being a true Land Grant University. My perspective is more from a functional vantage point, being more concerned about the system for delivery of outputs and the interaction of agricultural producers with the institutions, however structured they might be.
I fully understand that by putting these ideas down in this fashion there will be those who want to take exception and I welcome that type of feedback and response with more ideas and approaches gaining attention. I’m not here to say that these ideas are the Right solution(s) – just that they are the priorities that I see as being important in going forward.
In some respects I don’t see the University of Nevada system being capable for being what Nevada farmers and ranchers need. Perhaps those needs should be factored in by elevating the Great Basin College to a higher profile, providing the necessary agricultural education from there. I also don’t hold any ties to UNR continuing as a Land Grant University. I contend that if they don’t warrant the designation by their performance – they ought not be permitted to continue with that distinction.
Tough choices lie ahead no matter what direction is selected. Those who care need to get actively involved in being part of the decision process and interacting in the process to put forward their ideas and priorities.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/7/2010 4:21 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Nevada College of Agriculture Land Grant University System
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Nevada College of Agriculture Land Grant University System
I would ask to see what other departments are taking a 'hit' to make up the money shortage. How about cutting some of the sport activites which provide benefits to a very select few individuals. I have nothing to do with UNR except watching their teams compete against other western universities, but I yet I feel a need to support the efforts to keep the college of agriculture alive and well. Where else are the rual farm and ranch kids of Nevada going to go to get their agriculture education? Nevada agriculture is unique to the state - so going to another out of state ag college is not the same as going to one that knows and teaches Nevada Agriculture. I have two ag degrees for Utah universities and yet when I came to Idaho to work in agriculture, I had to learn new concepts and new ways of producing crops and livestock from the land.
Reply to this
Les, you make several excellent points and give much on which to ponder. Thank you!
Reply to this
Doug, I agree with your comments that we need to settle on priorities for agriculture research and education in Nevada. I have taken some of your priorities and put them into a sort of proposal in the event that Glick gets his way in closing CABNR. I would sincerely appreciate if you would take a look at my ideas and pass them along to others if you find any of them to be of merit. You can read the proposed ideas at the following link. I have put together this proposal of ideas that I would like to throw out there for discussion. These ideas are not fully flushed out, but are designed to just be a starting point for Plan B in the event the College of Ag is closed. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28443841/Ideas-in-Response-to-Proposed-CABNR-Closure
In short, I propose 1) Creation of an Agriculture Research Institute, 2) a new way of teaching college-level agriculture in Nevada, and 3) maintenance of agriculture outreach through cooperative extension. I hope that folks might get a chance to read and discuss prior to the College of Ag advisory board meeting this week.
Good job with the blog. Also, I don't address the main station farm issue here, but I agree with Tamzen, who posted in your previous blogs about any sale of ag experiment station lands being held in trust for agriculture research or teaching. This is an important point to be pressed upon the CABNR folks and Glick during the program review process.
Reply to this
Regarding part 5: "Science is supposed to be an unbiased pursuit of facts without political considerations. If that were true in real life there wouldn’t be a concern of institutionalizing the areas of range science under the umbrella of the College of Science."
So true, Doug! Science has been emasculated by those who would skew it into something utterly unrecognizable (witness "global warming").
Regarding this part of the Summary: "UNR continuing as a Land Grant University. I contend that if they don’t warrant the designation by their performance – they ought not be permitted to continue with that distinction."
Very true. Here in Ohio, "cooperative extension" has become somewhat of a pathetic joke; the extension agent in our county is clueless about everything from farm fence to manmade drainage ditches to home cooking. He is confrontational with farmers and although he came here from Iowa, he has no provable ag background (or he slept through most of those classes).
I'd prefer to see a ten percent reduction from each of the ten colleges, not a forty percent disemboweling of the College of Agriculture.
Reply to this