page 5b
:f 1
WW
,y
A' fid K "v. '
f1
agriculture and home economics, which
arc easier to handle than more
controversial issues.
College research has been reluctant to
enter into controversy because it is not
used to arquing. hi; said. Today, they
teach a farmer how to feitihe and what
the best feitilizei are, rather than
studying the benefits of county
consolidation, he said.
Another factor that has affected
research is the interest in having technical
findings communicated, Evans said.
Information on fertilize! is pushed by
companies who product.1 and benefit from
the lescarch, the stoies that sell it and the
farmers who will ultimately use it, he
explained.
On the other hand, improvement of
county roads does not enjoy such
widespread interest. The taxpayer is not
interested in it because he feels that it
will add to his tax burden. Al the same
time however, the taxpayer is paying for
more agiiculture oiicnted research which
benefits him less, Evans explained.
Evans mentioned tax assessment as a
major faim problem. He said that per
capita, with all counties averaged
together, $7.41 is assessed on agricultural
property for every $1 on non agricultural
property.
He said that the tax is aimed at land
Over the years land grant colleges have
lost the impetus to respond to people and
the needs of the rural community, said
Bert Evans, economist and cooperative
extension specialist at UNL from 1961 to
1972.
Although included in the Smith-Lever
and Hatch Acts, which established the
research areas of land grant colleges,
research in community development has
only been minimal, according to Evans.
This includes problems with housing,
improving farm income, causes and
possible remedies of poverty among rural
people, health and rural education, he
said.
Both John Adams, director of the
Cooperative Extension Service, and
Howard Ottoson, director of the
Agriculture Experiment Station at UNL,
agree that there has not been enough
research in rural community development
in the past but gave different reasons for
it.
Adams said that limited funds and a
realtively small staff have accounted for
the lack of research while Ottoson said
that it is a comparatively new area of
interest .
According to Evans, part of the reason
is that there is a lack of understanding of
minority interests. Research has tended
to ignore old people, the small farmer and
community problems while emphasizing
farm technology.
Leaning back in his office chair, Evans
said that land grant college research
focuses on technical problems of
and capital, which the fanner needs to
opei ate.
According to Adams, research projects
are planned about a year in advance with
specific priorities m mind. These
priorities are set by extension service
employees and volunteers throughout the
state, who meet and decide what is most
important for their county, district and
the state, he said.
Since many of the iura! community
development appropriations are
eai marked in Washington, the states are
given the decision whether to accept the
funds and do the lesearch or turn it
rlown, he1 explained.
What Evans wants to see oiganized is
what he called Citizen Non Credit Higher
Education. I his concept of community
education would help give background
information on social and economic
issues concerning them. Il would also be a
way to act upon the rural community
problems that have been ignuied up to
now.
The best way to educate citizens is
through the land grant college system
which already has the necessary
connections at the grassroots level, hi'
said.
In that framework, students and
faculty with specific expertise could meet
Turn to page 6b
V Or v'.rf
I J ,1
ru f j J , . J"
f t ' ' ' i 1 v
. - . 4 Jr..
it"
i v- I
' . 5 .. a, . Ji . ,?
Bert Evans
