EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Commission calls attention to California's worldwide leadership in agriculture and its extraordinary role as a stimulus to the state's economic well-being. The Commission warns, however, that agriculture can remain a mainstay of the California economy only with continued support by the state's institutions of public higher education at the historic level of excellence.

Commission deliberations led to the following expectations for the 21st century:

Larger farming operations will continue to dominate production but numbers of smaller "niche" farms will increase.

As growth continues, especially in the Central Valley, land and water available to agriculture will be in shorter supply, more expensive and more intensively managed.

Public policy as reflected in laws and regulations will be of extreme importance in determining how and where agricultural operations are conducted.

Agriculture will continue to be pressured to adopt practices responding to public concern over food safety, nutrition, environmental protection and sustainability of natural resources.

International trade will be of increasing significance especially in value-added products, an area in which California is a leader.

Availability of capital and financing will be a continuing concern to agriculture.

The Commission is confident that these challenges can be met and agriculture can continue as a key supporter of the state's economy, but only if institutions of higher education provide agricultural research, instruction and extension programs to match the need. In light of severe reductions in public funding of higher education in recent years, maintaining high quality agricultural programs will demand cooperation and collaboration by the California State University (CSU), University of California (UC), and California Community Colleges (CCC) to a far greater extent than in the past.

As a major step toward that goal, the Commission recommends that a permanent Joint Policy Council on Agriculture and Higher Education be created by the three systems at the earliest possible date. The Council's charge would be to encourage and facilitate cooperative and collaborative efforts among the systems in agricultural instruction, research and public service.

The Commission recommends that members of the Joint Policy Council be the UC Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Chancellors of UC campuses at Berkeley, Davis and Riverside, the Presidents of CSU campuses at Chico, Fresno, Pomona and San Luis Obispo, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and a President of a California Community College with a strong agricultural program. The Commission further recommends formation of an Advisory Board to aid the Council. This body would be composed of representatives of agriculture, natural resources and the public. To ensure effective lines of communication between the two groups, the Chair of the Advisory Board also should serve on the Policy Council.

The Commission recognizes the urgent need for a strengthening of support for agricultural research and for a vigorous effort in public service with a major emphasis on Cooperative Extension.

The Commission foresees an increasing need for broader programs of instruction for agricultural students to prepare them to participate effectively in global affairs, particularly marketing, and to pursue successful careers in a multicultural and technologically oriented society.

The Commission urges the higher education systems to facilitate dual or multisystem enrollments, thus aiding students in early completion of undergraduate requirements, The systems also are encouraged to ease student transfers, make greater use of technology for distance learning, link professional degrees with internships and other learning experiences in agriculture and establish courses available to all students that will illuminate agriculture's important contributions to society.

PREFACE

In its earliest discussions, the Commission on California Agriculture and Higher Education agreed that its report should be prefaced by an overview of California's agriculture and its influences on the state's general economy. The members believed this would be a useful introduction to their recommendations, whether the reader is only casually informed or already is acquainted with farming and its complex associated infrastructures. Such an exercise, they believed, would both articulate a "reason for being" for the Commission, and demonstrate how the well-being of all Californians is linked to the state's farm economy.

What follows is a personal effort to accomplish that purpose by assembling facts and insights as background to the Commission's studies of California agriculture and the farm-related programs of public higher education. The reader will observe that one consequence of this examination is to affirm that agriculture remains our state's foundation industry. Farming is not only a major provider of jobs in California, but also a renewable economic resource, therefore especially worthy of attention and nurturing.

Finally, this review enables us to understand and appreciate how the substantial and widely shared public benefits that derive from agriculture are made possible in large measure by the symbiotic connections between public higher education and all aspects and elements of California's farm system.

Consider the following:

• Commonalities shared by California's more than 250 commercially produced commodities are their great diversity, and, for almost all, their extreme perishability. These characteristics distinguish our region's farm production from any other area of the U.S. or the world. In turn, these unique factors. have created agriculture's role as a major player in our state's economic life.

• Ours is a "value added" agriculture, exerting great leverage on the state economy as a consequence of highly specialized harvest methods required for these crops, their critical needs for prompt post-harvest care and the complex array of marketing channels through which they teach consumers.

• Another major difference from other regions is the many advanced technologies employed to produce our multitude of commodities and deliver them to consumers. Recurring change as a result of consumer preferences or technological innovation is a springboard for incessant alteration of equipment and construction or refurbishment of facilities. Thus the economic impact of farm-related businesses is substantially enlarged by a constant stream of demand for investment capital and credit that flows from the dynamic changes occurring in markets and technology.

• Another significant distinction is the variety of skills employed in the sprawling, statewide infrastructure that services our farm products. Many operations are labor intensive, providing entry level employment to substantial numbers of workers with limited job skills. For many, employer provided training and education creates bridges to career and economic advancement. Meanwhile, these same enterprises require managerial and professional capabilities that rank at the top of the state's compensation levels, offering virtually unlimited goals for beginning workers.

• Research has established that agriculture supports 1.4 million full-time jobs in California. That's about one of every ten jobs in the state. Much of this employment is located far from farm fields. There are about 120,000 farm based jobs in Southern California, and another 60,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast. For the Central Valley, one-third of all employment is farm-related. In total, California families gain almost $60 billion in personal income annually from farm-based employment.¹

• In 1992, California's gross farm-gate income exceeded $18 billion. As these products moved through marketing channels they added an estimated $45 billion in value to the state's economy, equaling $63 billion (or about 9% of the total of all businesses).

• California's agriculture is an invaluable dietary and nutritional resource for consumers. We supply most of the nation's salad bowl ingredients, major shares of other vegetables, fresh fruits and melons and virtually all domestically grown table and wine grapes. Our state produces more than 90% of all U.S. processed tomatoes, about half of the world's output. We are an essentially exclusive domestic source for strawberries, almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, prunes, ripe olives and most canned fruits. Our wines are internationally acclaimed. We are the country's top dairy state, producers of premium quality cotton and rice, a leading source of citrus products and suppliers of a multitude of such exotic crops as artichokes, avocados and kiwis. Thus, California is blessed with a uniquely diverse and bountiful agriculture. No other region, state or foreign nation (not even ancient Egypt) has ever enjoyed such an abundant and varied agriculture as California in the 20th century.

• It is no coincidence that California possesses both a world class agriculture and a public higher education system recognized internationally for its agricultural programs. These programs have launched generations of farm operators, managers, educators, researchers and advisors. Their accomplishments have brought honor to the institutions that produced them. However, continuity of these educational achievements is now seriously jeopardized by recent draconian cuts in public support of higher education's agricultural programs. At risk here is pervasive, long term damage to agriculture - and consequently to California's economic health - that is certain if these public higher education programs are permitted to decline into mediocrity because of inadequate funding.

• How much California would suffer from any future diminution of agricultural business activity is demonstrated by agriculture's current position of strength in the state's overall economy. With the state continuing to experience its most protracted and pervasive economic recession since the Great Depression, agriculture has been virtually alone among bellwether industries with its unyielding support of California's economic well being.² This recession is multi-sourced, and thus especially tenacious and menacing. It has been led by deep cutbacks in federal funding for aerospace and defense industries and for military installations. Barring a global crisis, these cuts promise to be permanent and may become even greater. High technology industries that contributed so greatly to the state's rapid economic growth in recent decades are being impacted by ferocious global competition. This has caused substantial job losses as employers have downsized and restructured operations to enable their products to compete globally. The prospects of lower operating costs have also motivated other businesses and individuals to relocate to other states and overseas sites.

• It would be foolhardy to interpret agriculture's relatively strong showing as evidence that it is competitively invincible. To the contrary, our flagship industry's position in global markets, as well as in the U.S., is under increasing threat from ambitious competitors. Commonly, the governments of foreign competitors are supportive partners, eschewing for the most part costly regulations ingrained in U.S. practices, and often extending direct subsidies and other material encouragements.

• Our state's enormous population growth since mid-century has greatly reduced the water and land resources available for farming. This means the industry's future viability hinges largely on the ability of operators and researchers to increase output per resource unit. The challenge to agriculture is clearly defined: we must learn to produce much more with fewer resources. Otherwise, our agriculture will progressively diminish, as will its vital contributions to California's economic well-being.

• Comparable issues of scarcity are posed to public higher education and most particularly to its agricultural programs. Clearly, if these agricultural programs are to continue at historic levels of excellence, it is critically important to devise means by which much more can be obtained from much less public support.

William F. Allewelt, Jr.
Chair, Commission on California
Agriculture and Higher Education

Davis, California
December 29, 1994

INTRODUCTION

The Commission on California Agriculture and Higher Education was created at the initiative of the Agricultural Education Foundation (AEF). Since 1970, the AEF has sponsored the highly successful Agricultural Leadership Program for individuals early into careers in farming or related businesses and professions.

Impetus for the Commission's formation came from the serious diminution in recent years of public funding for the agricultural programs of the California State University System (CSU) and the University of California (UC). This reversal of long-standing support threatens a continuing decline in the quality of these programs, unless existing resources can be reorganized and augmented to maintain past standards of excellence.

Clearly, that can happen only if the involved institutions become willingly and mutually committed to a concerted and vigorously pursued effort. The success or failure of such an effort will have lasting effects on the future course of the state's agricultural and associated enterprises - and on the millions of Californians whose jobs directly or indirectly depend on a healthy farm economy. A 1992 White Paper produced by the AEF expresses grave concern at the prospective damage from this funding reversal: "A critical element on which California (agriculture) has established and maintained its position of leadership is the contribution of higher education... (Today) the tandem forces of substantially fewer resources and much greater demands on higher education institutions create an environment in which significant change is inevitable."

As a beginning step to contend with these changing conditions, the Paper advocates "...discussion within the academic community and the private sector to identify relevant issues with respect to higher education and agriculture, and to raise serious questions with respect to the way in which resident instruction, research and cooperative extension needs are met in the future."

Formed in late 1993, the Commission is composed of 21 members appointed jointly by the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Agricultural Education Foundation, the Chancellor of the California State University System, and the President of the University of California. Members of the Commission were drawn from the academic community, from agriculture and farm-related businesses and professions and from the public. (The members are listed on page 2 of this report.) At the invitation of the Commission's Chair, representatives of the California Community Colleges (CCC) have also participated actively in its discussions.

Financial support has been provided by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The UC and the CSU systems have provided clerical assistance and use of campus facilities. Each also supplied a highly knowledgeable representative to provide informational and organizing support to the Commission.

Background information provided to Commission members included the California Master Plan For Higher Education, studies by the State Legislature bearing on higher education and various enactments governing cooperation between the Land Grant University (UC) and the federal government in research and extension. Opinions and observations of faculty members of the respective systems were solicited and distributed to the Commission. These served as helpful resources in the preparation of this report.

The Commission has functioned as an independent body of citizens, with freedom to develop its views and its own plan for conduct of its work. It has attempted not to intrude on matters clearly the responsibility of campus faculty and administrators. Rather, it has focused on concepts it considers useful in guiding higher education to maintain the excellence of its agricultural programs while dealing with the consequences of substantially eroded public funding.

Discussion within the Commission has been searching and intense, but amicable and cooperatively-spirited, and has reflected a balance of views from the academic, agricultural and public communities.

At the Chair's direction, three subcommittees were formed to pursue priority concerns. Other members of the Commission, community college representatives and interested private citizens were encouraged to join these smaller work groups voluntarily, and many did.

The first of these subcommittees was charged to develop a vision of agriculture into the early decades of the 21st century and to identify its needs from public higher education. The second group was asked to examine existing system resources and to appraise their adaptability to agriculture's future needs, especially in light of lessened public funding. The third subcommittee was formed to develop strategic guidelines for intersegmental cooperation in identifying and pursuing opportunities to bring about required change in existing programs to sustain their excellence.

What follows is derived directly from the deliberations of these subcommittees and from the full Commission's discussions after receiving each group's report. Throughout this process the Commission's work has advanced on the basis of consensus, seeking to evolve a final report that would be an acceptable expression on behalf of the many diverse interests represented - even if not wholly agreed upon by each of them.

SUMMARY OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

The Commission foresees that in the 21st century, larger commercial farming operations will continue to produce the greater part of the state's agricultural output. The presumption that these operations will continue to increase in size implies declining numbers for those positioned between the largest and smaller farms. Factors expected to contribute toward reduced numbers of mid-sized farms are: (1) dynamic changes in the marketplace that can destroy less diversified operations, (2) the added costs and management distractions of proliferating regulatory burdens, and (3) increasing difficulties in financing high-risk farms.

On the other hand smaller, intensively-managed operations that supply highly specialized market niches appear likely to continue to expand in numbers, as will small-scale farms whose operators derive important portions of income from off-farm employment. This changing agricultural matrix will call for an even broader range in the response of public higher education's programs for instruction, research and outreach.

Programmatic priorities in public higher education's services to agriculture will be shaped profoundly by two forces - the declining availability of vital resources and public policy. Both land and water available to agriculture are expected to be in shorter supply, more expensive and ever more intensively managed. Public policy will be of utmost importance in determining how and where agricultural operations are conducted.

Public concerns over the use of chemicals in food production, issues of food safety, nutrition and environmental quality, and competition for recreational opportunities will exert persisting pressure on agriculture to develop practices that can both respond to these concerns and sustain economically viable farming operations. Solutions to these issues must come primarily from the agricultural programs of higher education.

There is increasing, tangible evidence that farming practices can become more productive, water efficient and environmentally benign by adopting biotechnological and other scientific and engineering innovations that are just beginning to emerge from both public and private research. A crucial need will be to instruct and equip future farm operators to manage these new practices for results that prevent market inroads from less rigorously regulated global competitors.

Market demand appears certain to expand substantially for many of California's traditional commodities and for newer exotic crops adaptable to our growing conditions. This market growth will be powered by increasing worldwide awareness of the vital link between good health and dietary choices and by new demands resulting from economic growth in California's overseas markets, especially in the Pacific Rim.

Global marketing, led by value-added products, will become even more significant to California's future agriculture, increasing the already important leveraging effects of these kinds of products on the state's general economy. To exploit such marketing opportunities, more farming operations vertically integrated into a variety of forms can be expected, as well as a proliferation of strategic alliances between farming and marketing enterprises.

However, constrained availability of investment capital and financing probably will be a persisting challenge because of limited knowledge within financial and other institutions of the highly specialized needs of agriculture and its associated industries.

Despite continuing challenges from resource limitations and public policy issues and a general public unfamiliar with the agricultural economy, the historic resourcefulness of California agriculture gives credence to the Commission's expectation that it will remain a mainstay of the state's economic well-being. A critical proviso to this optimistic conclusion, however, is an underlying assumption that agriculture will continue to receive the vital services of public higher education at the same level of excellence that has so distinguished them in the past.

(See Appendix for full subcommittee reports.)

CONCLUSIONS

The Commission's view of future agriculture recognizes an urgent, continuing need for a vigorous continuum of basic and applied agricultural research. Strengthened cooperative relationships among all public higher education institutions can enhance these research efforts.

This vision of the need and what can be accomplished impels the Commission's recommendation for lasting initiatives to increase research funding from both private and public sources. These opportunities merit highest priority attention and support by all concerned interests.

Because of the changes foreseeable for agriculture, the Commission also recognizes a persisting demand for wide-ranging services from UC Cooperative Extension (CE) and related public outreach by the CSU and CCC systems. Increased CE involvement in urban programs is a valuable use of this unique resource, but must be managed so as not to reduce the quality and content of its historic services to agriculture.

The Commission foresees substantial opportunities for cost-effective improvements in the deployment of public higher education's outreach services. For example, advanced communications technologies can strengthen link-ups between the field and researchers and with other outreach systems. These technologies would also make more feasible, prudent consolidations of administrative facilities and staff.

The Commission also identified a potential for economies and enhanced effectiveness through more structured working relationships among UC Cooperative Extension and CSU and CCC outreach programs, possibly sharing both personnel and facilities. Care must be taken to accomplish such cooperation or consolidations without sacrificing CE's financial support and vital working relationships with local governments.

The Commission urges public higher education systems to join in developing curricula more relevant to requirements for future farm operators and agribusiness managers than is provided by traditional agricultural studies. The urban background of most students makes it essential to expose them to production agriculture, but for these future leaders to succeed in global markets and in a multicultural and technologically oriented U.S. society they will need to be proficient in diverse skills that go far beyond traditional science-focused instruction. These should include, at a minimum, competencies in oral and written communication, quantitative and qualitative analysis, foreign languages, computer applications and human relations. In addition to acquiring these skills, the fact that most beginning students will not have farming backgrounds suggests the need for internships that supply hands-on experience in appropriate stages of agricultural production and marketing.

Institutional cooperation is urged to enhance student learning by: (1) facilitating transfers and dual enrollments within and between systems, (2) offering advanced professional degree programs that provide both research and internship experience and (3) establishing undergraduate curricula that illuminate agriculture's place in an interdependent modern society-and public policy's impacts on this role. It is advocated that the latter curricula be available to all students, irrespective of major courses of study.

The Commission especially recommends use of educational technology for distance learning. This capability could become extraordinarily useful with such diverse applications as instruction in vital but lightly enrolled classes and major course studies, the elimination of unneeded intra and intersystem redundancies, and faster completion of degree requirements through multisystem enrollments.

The Commission is convinced that substantial gains can be obtained in the delivery of public higher education's agricultural programs through intersegmental cooperation and collaboration. However, it is also made evident that even if these efforts are vigorous and effective they will not be sufficient by themselves to address, in the long term, the many complex and far-reaching issues involving agriculture and aligned public interests. In addition, resources now available to the CSU and UC agricultural programs are substantially reduced below four years ago. As such, they are clearly inadequate to fund the type and magnitude of agricultural education, research and outreach necessary to fulfill the expanding future needs of the farm community and the associated dependencies of California's general economy.

PERMANENT COUNCIL PROPOSED

The Commission took note of the many cooperative and collaborative undertakings that have already been initiated in the agricultural programs of public higher education systems - for example the ongoing dairy project involving resources contributed by both Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo and UC Davis, and the distance learning program in entomology and range management between CSU-Fresno and CSU-Chico. However, it is evident that much more than periodic ad hoc efforts will be required to capture the economies and enhanced programmatic effectiveness that will be necessary to sustain excellence in the future delivery of multisystern agricultural programs.

To this end, the Commission urges the administrative heads of the respective systems to create a permanent standing body specifically charged to nurture these efforts. The Commission proposes that this group be titled "The Joint Policy Council on Agriculture and Higher Education" (Policy Council) and recommends that its membership consist of the UC Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Chancellors of UC campuses at Berkeley, Davis and Riverside, the Presidents of CSU campuses at Chico, Fresno, Pomona and San Luis Obispo, the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and a President of a Community College with a strong agricultural program. In addition, the Chair of the Advisory Board (see below) should also serve on the Policy Council. It is recommended that the Policy Council be co-chaired by the UC Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources and a President of one of the CSU campuses.

Further, the Commission proposes that the system leaders also form an Advisory Board to the Policy Council, with membership drawn from recommendations made by farming, agribusiness and public constituencies. The Advisory Board would be charged to make recommendations to the Policy Council and to report on its overview of progress of Policy Council initiatives. To keep open effective lines of communication between the two groups, the Commission recommends that the Chair of the Advisory Board serve as a member of the Policy Council.

It is recommended that a joint meeting of the Policy Council and its Advisory Board be held at least annually to enables full exchange of views on issues bearing upon charges to the respective groups. Additional meetings should be subject to the call of the chairs, as should separate meetings for either group. The Commission recommends that all duly called meetings of either group should be announced in advance to the public with invitation for interested persons to attend.

It is recommended the Policy Council establish standing committees on agricultural instruction, on research and on outreach, as well as such ad hoc committees as may be required. It is further recommended the Policy Council designate the composition and chair of each committee. The committees should be charged to bring about implementation of initiatives adopted by the Policy Council, and also to originate and propose to the Council strategies and plans for cooperative and collaborative action between and within the systems.

Accordingly, it is suggested that each of these standing committees be chaired by an agricultural dean, or by an individual of comparable academic responsibility and with expertise in the committee's area of concern. Other members should include concerned faculty, as well as industry and public representatives from the Advisory Board.

It is the Commission's judgement that these proposed consultative, decision making and action structures could enable concerted and timely interaction among concerned parties to sustain excellence in the agricultural programs of higher education. These are trusts that must be kept to serve agriculture's future needs and the much broader interests of the general public.

The Commission believes strongly that campus CEO's should actively participate in the Policy Council's undertakings. This would ensure them direct input to and awareness of cooperative and collaborative initiatives and, of equal importance, it would convey to their respective campuses that decision makers at the highest system levels are committed to these endeavors. The Commission urges that, if for any reason a Policy Council member is unable to attend a duly called meeting, any designated alternate must know the issues to be acted upon and be appropriately authorized to act on behalf of his or her superior.

Formation of the Policy Council and Advisory Board as permanently standing bodies, specifically charged to bring about necessary and constructive change in agricultural programs by vigorously pursuing cooperation and collaboration among the systems, is the centerpiece recommendation of this Commission. Accordingly, the Commission appeals to the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University System, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to accept the substance of its recommendations and to bring about the formation of the Policy Council and its Advisory Board at the earliest feasible date.

SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS

In line with its charge to study only the agricultural programs of the UC and CSU systems, the Commission has dealt with instruction, research and outreach in the areas of natural resources only as these are directly related to farm production. Notwithstanding, the Commission recognizes that issues involving management of resources such as land, water, timber and wildlife hold great significance for the conduct of future agriculture. Programs addressing such subjects are critical to the state's future economy and the welfare of its people.

Therefore, the Commission proposes that the Policy Council consider establishing a permanent standing committee or committees charged to identify and pursue opportunities for constructive cooperation and collaboration between and among the natural resources programs of the CSU and UC systems.

The Commission also recognizes that, in addition to the UC and CSU agricultural programs, several other institutions are involved in the delivery of agricultural education within California. To avoid unnecessary duplication of these other programs and ensure optimum use of available resources, the Commission urges concerned parties - the agricultural industry, the general public, the providers of agricultural education in grades K-12 and representatives of the California Community Colleges - to consider forming a commission to examine these other agricultural education programs. The Commission further suggests that a group representative of these interests might wish to draft a "white paper" describing the purpose and goals of the proposed new commission and, if appropriate, to seek funding for its operations.

APPENDIX

A. Comments by William F. Allewelt, Jr.

B. News release

C. Report of Subcommittee (1)

D. Report of Subcommittee (2)

E. Report of Subcommittee (3)

COMMENTS BY WILLIAM F. ALLEWELT, JR.
DECEMBER 29,1994

It is appropriate to close this report with a personal expression of appreciation for the invaluable contributions of the many individuals who have been a part of the Commission's endeavors, and also to thank entities that helped make our work possible. I am joined in these acknowledgments by the Commission's two vice chairs, Dr. Kenneth R. Farrell and Dr. Harold H. Haak, my stimulating and resourceful companions in our leadership of the Commission's progress over this past year.

Especially, I want to record my abiding respect and wholehearted gratitude for the dedicated service of all Commission members. Their report consolidates a stream of independent ideas and suggestions developed from countless hours invested by each member, privately and in group discussions. At all times we were focused on the Commission's fundamental charge: to propose means to materially aid our state's agriculture and public higher education to adapt successfully to the shared challenges posed by our vision of what lies ahead in the 21st century.

I am confident I speak for each colleague in saying that if we are proven by future events to have succeeded in that purpose, it will be sufficient reward for the very substantial investments of thought, energy and time made by each over this past year.

It is also appropriate to extend grateful acknowledgment to the helpful contributions made by representatives of the California Community Colleges, who readily accepted our invitation to join with us to assure our understanding and appreciation of their system's vital agricultural programs. The diligence and commitment of these associates made them invaluable additions to our council and welcomed friends.

Especially deserving of recognition are the Commission's executive secretary, Henry Schacht, and our resource associates, Dr. Carl L. Pherson, representing the California State University System, and Dr. Robert K. Webster, for the University of California. Henry was much more than a recording secretary. For me, his warm and encouraging companionship was an inspirational presence that gave added substance to the meaning of our long friendship. His gifted writing consolidated the thoughts and opinions of Commission members into unifying statements.

Bob and Carl were untiring and unfailing in their efforts to gather and distribute information critical to the Commission, to see to the countless details of meeting arrangements and schedules and to supply knowledgeable guidance to all of us.

It should to be noted that each managed their many services to the Commission on top of ongoing heavy academic and administrative work loads. Their willingness is an appropriate measure of their devotion to the institutions they serve.

We also acknowledge the generous hospitality of the California Farm Bureau Federation in hosting the first two meetings of the Commission. In the Farm Bureau's conveniently located Sacramento headquarters, both sessions were extremely well attended by the Commission's busy membership (100% at the charter meeting, and almost as much for the second session!), and by audiences of concerned government, industry and public representatives.

And, finally, a debt of gratitude is owed by all of the people of California to the Kellogg Foundation for its essential funding in support of the Commission's work. Without the vision and generosity of that institution the preceding report would not have been possible.

Templeton, CA . . . Formation of a blue ribbon citizens' Commission on California Agriculture and Higher education was announced here today by the heads of the California State University System, the University of California, and the Agricultural Education Foundation.

CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz, UC President J. W. Peltason, and Don Talley, Arroyo Grande rancher and chairman of the AEF, said, "This independent Commission will develop a model for agricultural education, research, and extension of knowledge in the state's institutions of higher learning as we look ahead to the 21st century."

W.F. Allewelt, Jr., Modesto, was named Commission chairman. Allewelt has been prominent in agriculture and food processing, having been chief executive officer of two major cooperatives, Tri Valley Growers and Sun-Diamond Growers. He is chairman of the Agricultural Issues Center at the University of California.

Vice Chairmen are Dr. Kenneth R. Farrell, vice president-agriculture and natural resources, University of California, and Dr. Harold H. Haak, president emeritus of CSU-Fresno and former senior vice chancellor for academic affairs in the CSU system.

Henry M. Schacht, Oakland, agricultural writer and consultant, will act as executive secretary.

Members named to the Commission from the CSU system in addition to Dr. Haak are Daniel P. Bartell, dean, School of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, CSU-Fresno; Dr. Thomas E. Dickinson, dean, School of Agriculture, CSU-Chico, Dr. Joseph J. Jen, dean, College of Agriculture, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo; and Professor Peggy S. McLaughlin, associate dean, College of Agriculture, California Polytechnic State University-Pomona.

University of California members in addition to Dr. Farrell are Dr. Charles E. Hess, director of international programs and former dean, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, UC-Davis; Terrell P. Salmon, director of ANR Programs, North Region; Dr. Dennis E. Teeguarden, professor emeritus, Department of Forestry, and former associate dean, College of Natural Resources, UC-Berkeley; and Dr. Seymour D. Van Gundy, dean emeritus, College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, UC-Riverside.

Two public members named are Joan C. Hanley, businesswoman, Rancho Palos Verdes, and trustee, Pomona College, and Brenda W. Jahns, attorney, Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliot, Sacramento.

Members representing agriculture and agribusiness include Michael E. Fitch, Walnut Creek, vice president-agribusiness affairs, Wells Fargo Bank; Phillip K. Freese, Oakville, wine industry consultant; J. Less Guthrie, Guthrie Ranches, Porterville, past-president, California Cattlemen's Association; Rodger B. Jensen, Pinedale, president, S&j Ranch, Inc.; Loyd W. McCormick, attorney, senior partner, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco; Robert F. Nottelmann, Nottelmann Orchards, Chico; Alvin J. Quist, Quist Dairies, Fresno; Bob L. Vice, president, California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento.

Liaison to the Commission from the universities will be provided by Dr. Carl L. Pherson, associate dean, School of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, CSU-Fresno, and Dr. Robert K. Webster, professor of plant pathology, UC-Davis.

The Commission's formation was stimulated by a "white paper" issued by the Agricultural Education Foundation, a private nonprofit corporation founded in 1970 to sponsor a statewide Agricultural Leadership Program.

The Foundation has worked closely with the CSU and UC systems. Its program has graduated hundreds of men and women in agriculture and related fields who now occupy leading positions in agriculture, business, industry, and government.

Chancellor Munitz and President Peltason commented, "The Foundation paper recognizes the financial constraints we face and the social and demographic changes with which we must deal. The Commission will seek input from a broad range of institutions and citizens. We expect its final report to stimulate productive change in our institutions."

Chairman Talley of the Foundation board added, "Higher education has contributed in major and diverse ways to the development of California's world-renowned agriculture and the rich rewards it has provided to society as a whole. I look to the Commission to be of far reaching assistance to the university systems as they plan to support a continuing viable and productive agriculture."

Support for the Commission is to be provided by a W.K. Kellogg Foundation grant of $90,000. The CSU and UC systems will provide "in kind" contributions including clerical help and use of meeting facilities.

The W. K. Kellogg Foundation was established in 1930 to "help people help themselves." As a private grantmaking foundation, it provides seed money to organizations and institutions that have identified problems and have designed constructive action programs aimed at solutions. A majority of the Foundation's grantmaking is focused on the areas of youth; leadership; philanthropy and volunteerism; community based, problem-focused health services; higher education, food systems; rural development; groundwater resources (in the Great Lakes area); and economic development (in Michigan). Programming priorities concentrate grants in the United States, Latin America, the Caribbean and southern Africa.

Report of Subcommittee (1)

OF THE COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

The Subcommittee was charged with developing a "vision" of early 21st century California agriculture, its magnitude and characteristics, major challenges and opportunities.

The Subcommittee has come to the following conclusions:

Agriculture and its related industries will face unprecedented challenges and opportunities in management of natural and human resources, competition for capital and labor, and in global marketing.

California agriculture can be expected to continue to be a dynamic producer of wealth, a leading provider of employment at all stages of food and fiber production, processing and marketing, and a vital mainstay of the state's economy. To accomplish this, it must achieve positive responses to numerous foreboding issues noted in this report.

In its analysis the Subcommittee has included the following forecasts:

1. Less land will be available to agriculture in the state, particularly the higher-quality irrigated land. Land will be generally or expensive and will be farmed more intensively.

Commercial operations presently producing the larger share of agricultural output and income will continue to become fewer and larger.

Their increased size will permit them to diversify effectively and develop flexibility in cropping patterns. This larger scale will be necessary to absorb the increasing management overhead required to comply with intensifying numbers and complexity of regulations applicable to farming, a dominant factor in discouraging continued operation of middle sized, family managed farms.

At the same time there will be an increased number of small farms and ranches producing specialty products and services for niche markets and of smaller operations depending upon off-farm income for economic viability.

Water available for agriculture will be more expensive and likely to be in smaller supply. There will be opportunities to enhance the supply by conservation, new irrigation techniques, and increased use of reclaimed water from urban areas.

2. Future agriculture will demand a more highly trained managerial and technical force with diverse skills and expanded knowledge of all aspects of operations. Labor productivity will increase through use of advanced technology.

3. Public policy will be of utmost importance in determining how agriculture and related businesses will fare in coming decades.

Government regulation will continue to be an issue, particularly in the areas of environmental conservation and protection, food safety concerns, and employment of chemical aids.

The availability of traditional chemicals to agriculture will be further limited by both regulatory and economic factors.

As a result, agriculture will depend increasingly on integrated pest management, development of non-chemical pesticides, and on biotechnical advances which can produce more "natural" controls through such approaches as plant breeding.

Food safety and nutrition will continue to be leading subjects of public policy. Consumption of particular food products will be encouraged by government. Fresh fruits and vegetables will benefit from demand stimulated by governmental and other nutritional advisories.

Concentration on reducing air and water pollution, protecting wetlands and plant and animal species, and increasing opportunities for public recreation will bear heavily on many agricultural operations, increasing costs and proscribing opportunities.

Use of public lands by farmers and ranchers, for example, will be more restricted.

It is expected that direct government support of traditional agricultural programs will be lessened.

Long-standing, established private property rights and water rights will continue to be challenged by non-agricultural interests and government initiatives.

4. California agriculture and related businesses will continue as major players in an increasingly globalized market.

Market conditions, domestically and overseas, will lead California to concentrate on value-added food and fiber products. These will create expanding opportunities for advancements in post-harvest handling, as well as packaging, new product development, and adapting traditional products to appeal to cultural and other demand-enhancing factors in growth markets.

Emphasis will grow on marketing to Central and South America, Mexico, and Canada, as well as Asian markets, as their economies continue to expand. European markets will continue to be of importance to segments of California agriculture such as producers of dried fruits and nuts despite European Community protectionism. Trade with the nations of Eastern Europe may be expected to expand.

Conditions of trade will be directly affected by international and regional trade agreements. It will be a continuing vital concern to California that agreements seek to alleviate persisting problems with non-tariff barriers, such as phytosanitary standards imposed by importing countries.

In response to both financial and marketing considerations, California may expect to see more instances of agriculture and related businesses combining in vertical integration. These can be expected to come about through a variety of associations. As examples, entrepreneurial venture growing directly from farming operations; formation of new cooperatives or modifications of existing ones; producing farms joining up in longer term arrangements with corporate processors and marketers.

The present rapid spread of new information and technology worldwide ill challenge California's historic advantage in those areas, encouraging more intense competition from other countries enjoying like resources of land and climate.

5. More capital will be needed by agriculture and related businesses to adopt new technological advances and to make a transition to new marketing strategies.

Availability of affordable capital will continue to be an issue for California producers and processors.

Lenders will continue to give more attention to short-term factors such as cash flow, as opposed to longer-term prospects.

Agriculture and related businesses face rising challenges in arranging financing, because of decreasing expertise in such enterprises at all levels in lending and investment institutions. This leads to unfavorable perceptions of farm and farm-based activities as increasingly risky and difficult to appraise. Furthermore, uncertainties raised by public policy initiatives may also act to reduce the availability of capital and increase its cost to agriculture and related businesses.

6. Greatly enhanced and diverse management skills will be required for future farming operations and related businesses. These will be critical necessities in advancing the use of new technology in farm operations, in successful development and distribution of value added products, and in expanding shares in the global market place. Such advanced skills will be equally vital in those entrusted to deal skillfully with the complexities and limitations of the expected regulatory environment.

The demand for such vital human resources promises expanding opportunities for diversity in ownership and at all levels-of management. Especially valuable attributes would include cultural sensitivity and multilingual skills.

Education and training of students to prepare them for their opportunities to successfully guide future agriculture and its commercial infrastructure poses an enormous dependence of these industries on the performance of higher education in developing these future owners and managers.

Sincerely,

Henry Schacht

Executive Secretary

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE (2)

OF THE COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

April 18, 1994

The subcommittee's charge is to identify future needs of agriculture that can be met by the state's institutions of higher education through their programs of instruction, research and extension.

The objective is to draw upon the resources of these institutions in maintaining and enhancing the ability of California agriculture to compete in the global environment of the rapidly approaching 21st century.

The Subcommittee's considerations have been based upon and extended from the vision of 21st century agriculture developed by Subcommittee & (1) of the Commission.

The Subcommittee believes that public understanding and recognition of the value of agriculture to society is crucial to future support for higher education in the fields covered by this report. It suggests that the final report of the Commission contain a statement illuminating why it is in the public interest to prove . de adequate support through a variety of sources for agricultural instruction, research and extension.

The Subcommittee divided its deliberations into three segments:

1. Research

The Subcommittee agreed that both basic and applied research are needed in a proper balance which will combine attention to immediate practical problems of agriculture and its allied industries with the search for those fundamental scientific discoveries from which applied research flows. Both approaches are vital to reaching the desired ends.

Two influences were identified which tend to encourage basic research. One of these is the greater availability of Government support funds for basic research. The source of funds clearly his a decided influence on the direction that research will take.

The second influence is the higher value placed on basic research by the scientific community. This bias is reflected in the peer review systems through which institutions of higher education reward research faculty.

There is a perceived danger that the combination of these influences will serve to encourage undue de-emphasis of applied research.

The Subcommittee urges that appropriate administration and faculty give attention to these contemporary influences to the end that a desirable balance of basic and applied research can be reached.

The Subcommittee agrees that colleges and universities should encourage team research and multidisciplinary approaches to research projects.

The Subcommittee recognizes possibilities for expansion of cooperative research between the University of California and the California State University systems. It urges that the two make every reasonable effort to collaborate in order to assure maximum return on the resources available.

The subcommittee adopted the following statement:

Agricultural research has been and will continue to be the essential basis for an abundant supply of wholesome, nutritious and affordable food available to consumers in great variety and convenient form.

Research contributes directly to management of compelling public issues including land use, economic employment of water and other natural resources, as well as protection of the environment.

Research serves to enhance the quality of life, both rural and urban.

The public investment in agricultural research has been returned many times over in benefits reaped at every level of society.

The Subcommittee recognizes further that the achievements of research to this time will not suffice to meet the world's future needs for food and fiber. A rapidly expanding world population will demand substantial increases in supply in the years immediately ahead. New knowledge will be indispensable to reaching the objective of an adequately-fed world.

While huge advances in agricultural productivity have been achieved during the past century, largely through the development of chemical aids to production, agricultural researchers will face new and severe challenges during the coming century, now only a few years away. The pressure to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals will pose a particular problem to increasing output of a quality food supply.

As these worldwide needs are becoming clear, however, public funding of agricultural research has been on the decline. In view of this trend it appears obvious that greater financial support for research will be needed from private sources.

In this connection, while California agricultural interests presently contribute just over 10% of the total budget of the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of California, this amount is less than one-tenth of one percent of the annual farm gate value of the state's agricultural production.

The Subcommittee suggests that serious consideration be given to the idea of an industry-based and financed commission which could establish agricultural research priorities, call for and evaluate research proposals from any source, and sort out projects for funding. The concept as presented to the Subcommittee is one of providing a uniform mechanism for providing and managing private sector funds.

The public has an enormous stake in agriculture's continued ability to provide the essentials of life. Agriculture is also a key to the preservation of open space and the sound management of natural resources. In addition, agriculture makes a very significant contribution to the economy, providing directly or indirectly about one in every ten jobs in California. It is particularly alarming that the public generally seems unaware of these facts or if informed of them, not to appreciate their significance to all of society.

2. Public Service

Agricultural faculty and staff in the UC and CSU systems provide a valuable service to the public by disseminating information in a variety of ways and providing on-campus experiences. The Subcommittee strongly supports a policy recognizing such public service as important in evaluating performance of faculty and of Cooperative Extension personnel when they are reviewed for promotions and merit increases.

Cooperative Extension is an integral part of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. It is integrated with the UC research program and through its campus- and county-based academic personnel is the basic link between the University's Agricultural Experiment Station and local communities throughout the state.

The extension approach to conveying information has been recognized worldwide as a model for technology transfer.

The Subcommittee believes that future agriculture will have at least as great a need as in the past for CE's vital link between the University's research arm and the local farm communities throughout the state.

Funding for Cooperative Extension is presently provided by the University of California (60%), the federal government (20%) and county governments (20%).

The reduction in funding in recent years points to a continued need to seek support from private sources, grants, contracts and cost recovery, to increase emphasis on area or regional programming, and to adopt state-of-the-art communications techniques. UC intends that its research and extension centers placed strategically in the state will become of increasing importance.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Extension effort be enhanced by increased cooperation and collaboration with the CSU system and the community colleges. There is evident necessity for the CSU and UC systems to explore all possible means by which this end can be accomplished. The present relatively informal interaction could well be increased through a more formal relationship, which would better utilize resources in support of agriculture. Basing of CE personnel on CSU campuses is a possibility. CE and CSU cooperation could help to bring the resources of both systems to bear on issues important to local communities and to regions of the state.

Opportunities are seen for CSU student interns to become involved in CE research and county offices. This extends also to students in community colleges. College Facilities could be made available, as is presently being done at a number of community colleges, for CE projects in which students could take part.

Cooperation in meeting the needs of urban residents is another possibility, although full development of this approach would require added financial support. There is a present trend, encouraged by federal funding targeted to specific urban programs, toward broadening the role of CE well beyond its traditional service to agriculture and to involve it more heavily in dealing with societal issues most prominently found in the urban setting. The subcommittee believes that this trend should not be allowed to impair CE's historic support for agriculture and its attention to rural issues. This applies even though further involvement in urban areas should broaden public support.

The Subcommittee expects that CE will continue to serve as a valuable link between the University's research arm and the local communities throughout the state. In doing so its effort will be enhanced by increased cooperation and collaboration with the CSU system and the community colleges.

The Subcommittee took note of and listed below a number of elements endangering CE's traditional role as the essential link between researchers and those dealing in the field with agricultural and human and natural resource issues. To this time CE has verbally provided a conduit for continuous exchange of information between the parties and established an extensive system of field trials to test the application of research results.

In recent years, however, this proven system has been threatened by a decline in state and county funding.

At the same time CE is being called upon to increase its involvement in urban youth programs and other endeavors earmarked by federal funding. These are of value to society but may redirect CE staff away from their historic connection to rural areas.

As these apparent challenges to CE have accumulated in recent years, many CE veterans, both specialists and advisors, have reached retirement age or have accepted retirement offered by UC because of the drastic reduction in public funding. These losses have been mitigated to some extent administratively but they remain real. They are a cause of real concern to CE's clientele. The continued effectiveness of CE as the link with the Agricultural Experiment Station at UC, as well as contact with researchers at CSU, is vital to identification of problems facing agriculture and to their solution.

3. Agricultural Instruction

The Subcommittee recognizes an opportunity for the UC and CSU systems to cooperate more fully than at present in offering courses and providing other forms of instruction, such as seminars between campuses. A common academic calendar would be helpful where possible in encouraging campuses to schedule courses cooperatively. It will be important to associate the community colleges in these endeavors because of their traditional role in preparing students for enrollment in the CSU and UC systems, and also because rising student fees may be expected to encourage more qualified students to enroll in community colleges.

In the case of high cost and low enrollment areas of specialized instruction, proactive steps are needed to assure that wasteful duplication is eliminated. Cooperative efforts across campuses employing distance learning and instructional techniques are especially encouraged. In addition, campuses, especially within the CSU system, should be encouraged to develop instructional and applied research programs that represent commitments to develop unique areas of excellence.

Cooperation between UC and CSU systems is also encouraged for development of professional master's degrees in agriculture which will provide for student internships in private industry. Such a degree would combine a broad undergraduate program with more specialized graduate instruction which could include research experience and industry internship. As an example, the Master of Agriculture and Management Degree offered at UC Davis in animal science combines curricula in the Graduate School of Management and the Department of Animal Science. Holders of this degree may look toward careers in a variety of agricultural industries.

It is also suggested that UC and CSU develop programs to make it easier for students to transfer to and from each system as well as from the community colleges.

There are opportunities as well for programs allowing students to take courses on other campuses than those on which they are enrolled. This may require development of financial aid for students taking advantage of the opportunity.

Easing the process of transfer from community colleges into the CSU and UC systems should have the highest priority. The Subcommittee strongly supports closer interaction among these institutions in order to improve counseling and clarify the regulations regarding transfer. Agricultural faculty and administrators are urged to assume responsibility for such improvements.

Discussion of types of curricula required to meet the needs of the next century as seen by the Subcommittee (1) report developed a perceived need for a broadening of instruction. In addition to specialty skills in various fields such as plant and animal science, students need aid in developing other skills important to their future careers. These would include skills in communications, interpersonal relations, quantitative analysis, computer science, languages, economics and business management, and others not associated in the past with agricultural instruction.

The Subcommittee strongly endorses action by agricultural faculty to design and offer courses giving insight into public policy issues affecting agriculture and to assure that these will be offered to the general student body. Such courses should emphasize the essential role that agriculture plays in our society.

The Subcommittee agreed that while colleges of agriculture will not necessarily offer all the elements of the broad education regarded as required to meet the need of students in the future, they should be available to students in agriculture and required of them.

It was agreed that institutions of higher education should take into account the need for students to gain understanding of a multicultural and global society. Future students in universities and colleges will have more diverse backgrounds than in the past. The agricultural industry will necessarily draw heavily from this student population. It will be important to accommodate these students' needs for a quality education in order to prepare them properly for careers in food and agriculture.

Since many students will come from nonagricultural backgrounds, it is essential that they be given an opportunity for hands-on experience in situations requiring problem solving. The Subcommittee encourages industry and the professions to become involved in providing students with high-quality learning experiences. Such involvement can include participation in course work, equipment of campus facilities, and provision of student internships. All parties concerned could benefit from such an association.

The Subcommittee believes it to be critical that administration, faculty and students recognize the fact of rapid and dynamic change in the coming years, creating an evident need for continued learning and professional development beyond the undergraduate student experience. Institutions of higher education should now be preparing staff and curricula to fit these circumstances.

Faculty may also find it helpful in planning future curricula to enlist the advice of external advisors from agriculture and industry. Such counsel can be particularly useful in planning for the education of those who will become agriculture's future leaders and managers at the highest levels.

Sincerely,

Henry Schacht

Executive Secretary

REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE (3)

OF THE COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

September 7, 1994

The Subcommittee was charged with the task of developing strategic guidelines for cooperation and collaboration between the California State University system and the University of California in their agricultural programs. In pursuing this charge the Subcommittee has also sought the participation and counsel of the California Community Colleges with the view of including them in planning for the future of agricultural higher education.

Building upon the reports of Subcommittees (1) and (2) of the Commission, subcommittees (3) now recommends:

1. A Joint Policy Council on Agriculture and Higher Education shall be created jointly by the President of the University of California and the Chancellors of the California State University system and the California Community Colleges.

The Council shall be charged with fostering cooperation and collaboration among the three systems in their agricultural programs. The objective shall be to meet the future needs of the agricultural industry, thus in turn enhancing the vital public benefits including an abundant food supply, creation of employment both on and off the farm, and stimulation of general business activity, all of which result from a strong agricultural economy.

This concerted effort shall be designed to ensure optimum use of available resources in developing an integrated intersystem approach to achieving continued excellence in agricultural instruction, research and outreach.

2. Members of the Council shall be the University of California Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Chancellors of the UC campuses at Berkeley, Davis and Riverside; the Presidents of the CSU campuses at Chico, Fresno, Pomona and San Luis Obispo; the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the President of a Community College campus with a strong agricultural program; and the Chairman of the Council's Advisory Board.

The Council shall be co-chaired by the UC Vice President, Agriculture and Natural Resources and by a President of one of the CSU campuses named.

3. The Council shall establish standing committees on agricultural instruction, research and public outreach, as well as additional ad hoc committees as may prove useful. The composition of the committees shall be determined by the Council and shall include representatives of agricultural industry and of the public. Such committees shall be responsible for developing cooperative efforts in their respective areas.

4. An Advisory Board composed of representatives of agriculture, agribusiness, natural resources and the public shall be appointed by the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University system, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Its purpose shall be to consult and advise with the Council and its committees.

5. The Council and its Advisory Board shall meet together annually, and more often if deemed necessary, to receive and act upon reports and recommendations from its committees. Meetings shall be public.

As examples, the Council shall pursue, but not be limited to, such efforts as: sharing of new educational technologies among systems, facilitation of student transfers among systems, sharing of facilities@and personnel where appropriate, consolidation of outreach facilities when advantageous to optimize use of available resources, endorsement of faculty reward for public outreach, and encouragement of public and private support of agricultural research and educational programs.

It is recognized that at times it may not be possible for appointed members to be in attendance at Council meetings. in that case it is intended that they shall designate representatives to attend in their stead. For example, a UC chancellor may be represented by an executive vice chancellor or provost, a CSU president by a vice president, and the chancellor of the Community Colleges by a deputy chancellor.

Sincerely,

Henry Schacht

Executive Secretary

Back to the JPC Homepage

Email Questions or Comments to the JPC Coordinator

Last updated: 03/21/2001