Is Extension
 Too Conservative? 

I've been posed this question several times over the years by producers and folks working for various agricultural companies.  It's a question I sometimes think about and try to answer in my own mind.  I figure if several people take the initiative to ask the question, then more must be at least thinking about it.

The question of whether or not extension, or more specifically UW Extension, is too conservative usually comes-up when a new crop production practice or product is not immediately endorsed and recommended by extension folks like myself even though a company or producer claims the practice or product is the greatest thing since hybrid corn was developed.  This scenario is occurring more and more often in recent years as new products are exploding on the market place.

First, I think it is important for people to understand that extension "hangs its hat" on making recommendations based on unbiased research results.  Without this information, it's rare that a product or production practice will gain an endorsement from university extension.  Research, when done correctly, takes replications and several years to complete.   Often, companies will use universities to test their products and supplement their own research before a product reaches the market for producer use.  In this case, university information is readily available and a recommendation formulated.  In other situations, products are promoted for use before they are university tested even though the company has claimed to have run a thorough testing program.

To be sure, many agricultural companies have outstanding research and development programs that spend millions of dollars to get products on the market.  The fact remains, however, that these dollars need to be recovered in product sales and successes are measured as such.  More and more, it's my perception that the university testing phase is by-passed or less than thorough product testing is done before reaching the market.  I can think of three herbicides released in the past several years where widespread problems occurred after one or two years of use.  I find it difficult to believe that these problems (i.e. crop and non-target plant injury) could not have been documented with more complete testing.  The big loser is the crop producer even when a company decides to pay for damages.

Products and practices are evaluated by universities on their economic merit.  New corn hybrids or crop varieties with unique traits often reach the marketplace at an increased cost to producers and no performance history.  How can extension be expected to endorse their use and know that they are acting in the public good?  Yes, the testing will come but it will be during the same time as the producer is expending input dollars to also see if the product has utility.  The problem is that a producer is often using the product without any controlled check for comparison.  Maybe the product will prove profitable to use.  Maybe not.

I always like to cite the examples of Bt corn and multileaf alfalfa varieties.  In both cases the immediate perception is that these products must be better than everything else being marketed.  In fact, research and producer experience verified that this was simply not the case.  This is not to say that the Bt and multileaf traits don't have utility, but rather that having the traits don't automatically make a specific corn hybrid or alfalfa variety immediately superior in performance.

There will always be those producers who grab new technologies or management practices and employ them either on a complete or trial basis.  This is not necessarily bad.  From these producers come important experiences and new ideas that eventually will be researched.  Some of these will be tested by universities and eventually endorsed.  However, some of these new technologies and practices will fail miserably.

As new products or management practices are proposed without any unbiased performance testing, I've always recommended that producers use them on a limited basis (or in some cases not at all) until more information is learned.  I think this is still sound advice.  If this is viewed as conservative, I'll plead guilty.