# Alfalfa Checkoff.



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

It all begins in January 2017.....Progressive Forage Grower.

Regards, Mike

http://www.progressiveforage.com/news/industry-news/first-ever-alfalfa-checkoff-kicks-off-january-2017


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

Finally, a plan to develope research that is both guided and funded by producers. I'm on board!


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

I didn't notice Pioneer or maybe I missed their parent company?

Larry


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

Pioneer sold their alfalfa line a couple years ago.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

I bought Pioneer alfalfa seed from the same guy that was selling Pioneer corn / soybeans this year, the bags were marked Pioneer. All the information is still on the Pioneer site (regarding alfalfa seed) I planted 55Q27 this year, because the 55H94 was sold out, in my area.

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/seeds.html

https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/alfalfa/seed-guide

Do you know who is bagging / marking / selling as Pioneer?

Larry


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

DuPont, owner of Pioneer, sold their alfalfa program to S and W Seed company. Pioneer still sells alfalfa seed, which comes from S and W, but Pioneer has chosen not to participate in the alfalfa checkoff. That will affect my purchasing decisions, since I am a supporter of producer funded research.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Thanks IA, that is why I was looking at who was contributing to the check off. I will be making the same decision, being they (S&W or Pioneer) are not participating.

Larry


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

How much better can alfalfa be? I would love to see varieties more tolerant of lower pH. Birds foot Trefoil is a very expensive substitute for those soils.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

IAhaymakr said:


> DuPont, owner of Pioneer, sold their alfalfa program to S and W Seed company. Pioneer still sells alfalfa seed, which comes from S and W, but Pioneer has chosen not to participate in the alfalfa checkoff. That will affect my purchasing decisions, since I am a supporter of producer funded research.


Dan,So the check off goes to public reaserch like universities?Or to private reaserch?

It all gets pretty confuseing who is paying who for what.

I'm not against it but I like to know what I am paying for.I do get a nice shiney magazine from my corn,soybean and beef check off dollars.My point being some check off dollars do some good but some is wasted IMO.


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

hillside hay said:


> How much better can alfalfa be? I would love to see varieties more tolerant of lower pH. Birds foot Trefoil is a very expensive substitute for those soils.


Have you noticed corn yields improving over the years? Millions of dollars go to research for improving corn every year and it shows. Just think what alfalfa might do with that kind of support.


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

swmnhay said:


> Dan,So the check off goes to public reaserch like universities?Or to private reaserch?
> 
> It all gets pretty confuseing who is paying who for what.
> 
> I'm not against it but I like to know what I am paying for.I do get a nice shiney magazine from my corn,soybean and beef check off dollars.My point being some check off dollars do some good but some is wasted IMO.


The alfalfa checkoff dollars will be collected by participating seed companies on a voluntary basis and grants will be awarded to anyone in the industry who can effectively conduct research that is deemed necessary for improving alfalfa seed and forage production. Likely universities will be frequent recipients, although forage programs at our land grant universities are severely lacking at the present time. The National Alfalfa and Forage Alliance (NAFA) is responsible for collecting and dispersing the funds and will require no compensation for any administrative costs.


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

r82230 said:


> Thanks IA, that is why I was looking at who was contributing to the check off. I will be making the same decision, being they (S&W or Pioneer) are not participating.
> 
> Larry


Actually S and W is participating. Maybe Pioneer will get on board soon as well.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

Dairyland is another big name that I didn't see on the list of seed companies who are participating.


----------



## sethd11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Dairyland is my favorite alfalfa seed hands down. In my area.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

I've planted a lot Dairyland over the years. Great alfalfa. Plant all our alfalfa from a local seed man lately. $169/bag.

I may try some Americas Alfalfa or Alforex this year just to mix it up a little.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

I was thinking about planting some Dairyland alfalfa this spring.....was surprised they weren't on the list of participating companies. You guys that plant Dairyland, what varieties do you like?

I have been planting mostly Pioneer alfalfa but tried some WL and I'm liking it better than the Pioneer so far.


----------



## sethd11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Last stuff I planted was. Dairyland 2420 branch rooted. Before that it was the first generation hybrid stuff. Both are frickin awesome. I'm pretty sure dairyland did sell their msunstra hybrid technology so I'm sure other people have that now too. Still I've tried lg and pioneer and something else but on my ground dairyland is the nicest.


----------



## cyclonic (Jan 16, 2015)

I may be partial (I'm a Dairyland seed dealer and also a grower), but the Dairyland 3400 hybrid line is the best I've ever had. Makes beautiful, hi yielding, great standing plants.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Would contributing to the checkoff be like giving a money to your competition?...from a seed sales point of view? Why would they want to pay their own R&D for something to make a profit while paying for a generic R&D for everyone. Sounds like they would all throw their money in one pot and everyone gets a trophy. Maybe I dont understand it properly. 
Skip A Rope


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

glasswrongsize said:


> Would contributing to the checkoff be like giving a money to your competition?...from a seed sales point of view? Why would they want to pay their own R&D for something to make a profit while paying for a generic R&D for everyone. Sounds like they would all throw their money in one pot and everyone gets a trophy. Maybe I dont understand it properly.
> Skip A Rope


Why I don't support ANY of these "check-offs"... they're all "rip-offs" of one sort or another.

If they weren't, they'd be VOLUNTARY or allow refunds...

Later! OL J R


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

So how are the funds going to be collected? A surcharge on each bag of seed sold?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

mlappin said:


> So how are the funds going to be collected? A surcharge on each bag of seed sold?


Third paragraph from the top....

"The NAFA board of directors voted unanimously to begin the national checkoff program to facilitate a farmer-funded program to advance industry research. The U.S. Alfalfa Farmer Research Initiative, implemented voluntarily by seed brands, will be assessed at the rate of $1 per bag of alfalfa seed."

Regards, Mike


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

luke strawwalker said:


> Why I don't support ANY of these "check-offs"... they're all "rip-offs" of one sort or another.
> 
> If they weren't, they'd be VOLUNTARY or allow refunds...
> 
> Later! OL J R


It's obvious from both of your comments that you are uninformed as to how the alfalfa checkoff will be administered and what it's goals are. Please take a moment to learn about it before being so critical. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then at least find some peace in the fact that it IS completely voluntary. So you will be able share the rewards that producer funded research provides without ever spending a dime.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IAhaymakr said:


> It's obvious from both of your comments that you are uninformed as to how the alfalfa checkoff will be administered and what it's goals are. Please take a moment to learn about it before being so critical. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then at least find some peace in the fact that it IS completely voluntary. So you will be able share the rewards that producer funded research provides without ever spending a dime.


Since Luke has only posted 1 comment on this particular thread and it quoted my post, I will assume that I was also included in your admonishment that "both" of use are uninformed and need to quit being so critical.
If you will take the time to reread MY post, you see that it IS a question and was desirous of an answer. I believe it to be a valid question. If my question was offensive or the scrutiny was too tough for the proponents and needs to be answered in the above manner, I will remain ignorant.

As I understand, the "voluntary" part is on the part of the seed company. The "assessed" part falls on the grower, he can avoid it by choosing a brand other than those of the ones that will "assess" him/her the tax.

SKIP A ROPE, Mark


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

Actually Mark, I did read your post and didn't respond directly to your question because of its content. If you read up on the objectives, goals, and implementation process of the alfalfa checkoff you will understand why I didn't address your question. Please don't take my comments as offensive. I confess to becoming defensive about any negativity toward the checkoff since I was a part of the process, and voted for it wholeheartedly, as did every producer in the room. In fact, we as producers were supportive of a significantly higher checkoff but others in the industry were against it. Ultimately it's one dollar per bag, and you as a purchaser of alfalfa seed can elect to not participate if you really believe it's not a wise use of your funds. Other crops such as corn and soybeans have made tremendous advances through the years as a direct result of millions of dollars spent on research. Those crops have had associations actively pursuing their goals for decades. Alfalfa is the third most valuable crop in the US, but it's only in the last few years that we have been able to get a few dollars sent our way from ARS to fund research. The checkoff program is simply another tool to help maintain the support that NAFA has recently earned in Washington. Again, I don't mean to be condescending, but the negative remarks obviously came from a misunderstanding of what the checkoff program is really about.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IAhaymakr said:


> Actually Mark, I did read your post and didn't respond directly to your question because of its content. If you read up on the objectives, goals, and implementation process of the alfalfa checkoff you will understand why I didn't address your question. Please don't take my comments as offensive. I confess to becoming defensive about any negativity toward the checkoff since I was a part of the process, and voted for it wholeheartedly, as did every producer in the room. In fact, we as producers were supportive of a significantly higher checkoff but others in the industry were against it. Ultimately it's one dollar per bag, and you as a purchaser of alfalfa seed can elect to not participate if you really believe it's not a wise use of your funds. Other crops such as corn and soybeans have made tremendous advances through the years as a direct result of millions of dollars spent on research. Those crops have had associations actively pursuing their goals for decades. Alfalfa is the third most valuable crop in the US, but it's only in the last few years that we have been able to get a few dollars sent our way from ARS to fund research. The checkoff program is simply another tool to help maintain the support that NAFA has recently earned in Washington. Again, I don't mean to be condescending, but the negative remarks obviously came from a misunderstanding of what the checkoff program is really about.


I agree that I am uninformed and meant no offense by the question. It's actually pointed more at looking for a motive for the seed producers. To me, it would be like Monsanto supporting a "weed checkoff" or something where the money would go a university somewhere to find a cure for a specific weed. If the answer is found by a university which was multi-company funded through a checkoff or some other lab group that was funded by the checkoff, the whole of the "weed killing" market would get the answer because EACH paid for the research. If Monsanto finds the answer in their OWN lab, they get the patent, they get the sales, and they reap the profits (as they should).

The way I see it, they already have a "checkoff" of sorts in that they use some of the profits for their R&D...it's built right into the price and you don't see it. The REAL checkoff, you DO see because it is earmarked for program. The checkoff MUST have a different goal than the particular improvement of genetics? such as promotion?...but if it is promotion, why would universities be involved?

There's ALWAYS a motive and it is not necessarily bad, I'm just too uninformed of the program to see the motive for the seed/genetic producer.

You may to pretend to know as little as I do about it to understand my questions maybe? It's like trying to walk someone through the ballistics of making a 1000 yard shot only to find out that the explainee doesn't even know what a rifle is.

If anyone knows, the answer still eludes me and the question remains.

73, Mark


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

Sometimes it's hard to look at situations through someone else's glasses. You are correct that seed companies already budget for R&D, and to some extent that is why they resisted the alfalfa checkoff at a higher level. The key point here is that the money collected will go to fund research projects beyond what seed companies are interested in conducting. It is really disappointing to learn how little is happening in the forage departments, where they still exist, at our land grant universities. The trend toward shrinking forage projects is what we are trying to reverse. This effort is truly a small one, but we have to start somewhere. 
It still amazes me that there is this much controversy over a dollar per bag of seed. That's a few pennies per acre over the life of a stand. 
As a side note, the biggest developments in seed technology in recent years, specifically low lignin/ aka Harvextra, is the result of a consortium between the major players in the seed industry. And they are continuing to work together on new projects as well. There are some really exciting new developments coming our way in the next few years...


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

Just to add, there is no motive for the seed producers to support this initiative. They are quite simply the only viable mechanism for collecting a little money from producers who care enough to fund advancement of the crop. How else would you collect it? Thru hay sales? Think about how impossible that would be. Again, this program is really just a baby step toward organizing support for a crop that hasn't had much in the past. When we ask for funds in DC, they listen, but also want to know what we are doing for our own cause as well. This is a major step toward demonstrating to them that we are worthy of consideration for further funding.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

I might be more supportive of checkoffs if they didn't use all the money for lobbying efforts and flying fatcats all over the country and the world on big "promotional" soirees, big exclusive "black tie dinners" and generally having a high time burning big bucks that come from the farmer/rancher's hard earned income. THAT's what I see ENTIRELY too much of...

Then of course the "industry specialists" who generally are the same cast of robber barons that CONSISTENTLY work AGAINST the small(er) producers and come up with stupid communistic ideas like mandatory premise ID and RFID animal identification, which works SOLELY to transfer funds from the hardworking farmer/rancher into THEIR (and their big corporate sponsor's) pockets and consolidate their hold and control over the very "industry" they are SUPPOSED to represent.

"Research" is a laudable goal, but usually is money squandered in endless "research grants" going to harebrained ideas trotted out by university types who would have to "get a real job" if they can't get research grants, but who are too far afield or not useful enough to be employed in big corporate R&D... which is why they're not working for one of the big agribiz's anyway... and so they stay safely ensconced in the halls of academia proposing various "research" that is usually muddled and of dubious use or purpose and open ended enough to be virtually never-ending, assuring that when they DO "complete this level of research" there's always some "follow on" project that they need funded next to keep them in research grants...

Personally I can find better uses for my money. It'd be different if farmers and ranchers were paid what stuff is "really worth", but we're not. It's a competitive world and money is tight enough as it is, without having it wasted on baloney...

Later! OL J R


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Vol said:


> Third paragraph from the top....
> 
> "The NAFA board of directors voted unanimously to begin the national checkoff program to facilitate a farmer-funded program to advance industry research. The U.S. Alfalfa Farmer Research Initiative, implemented voluntarily by seed brands, will be assessed at the rate of $1 per bag of alfalfa seed."
> 
> Regards, Mike


reading comprehension, flexibility and eyesight all steadily going to hell in a handbasket


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

mlappin said:


> reading comprehension, flexibility and eyesight all steadily going to hell in a handbasket


This caught me as one of the funniest damn things I've heard in ages. I saw a tshirt a few years ago saying "where are we going, and why are we in this hand basket?"


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IAhaymakr said:


> Sometimes it's hard to look at situations through someone else's glasses. You are correct that seed companies already budget for R&D, and to some extent that is why they resisted the alfalfa checkoff at a higher level. The key point here is that the money collected will go to fund research projects beyond what seed companies are interested in conducting.





IAhaymakr said:


> Just to add, there is no motive for the seed producers to support this initiative. They are quite simply the only viable mechanism for collecting a little money from producers who care enough to fund advancement of the crop. How else would you collect it? Thru hay sales?


On one hand, I know human nature a little and know that most people would not give any $$ if called and asked for it. On the other hand, the voluntaryism (if that is a real word; spell check sure don't like it!!) appears to have been bought or co-opted or whatever if in that " companies already budget for R&D, and to some extent that is why they resisted the alfalfa checkoff at a higher level". That may have been not meant as I read it, but I tend to pay close attention to words; I apologize if I misinterpret.

My suspicious mind begs the question of "if the higher levels of the seed companies resisted it, how were they convinced? With a portion of the proceeds being retained for handling the money for the checkoff? How much of a percent? They shouldn't be forced to pay their own bookkeepers to keep track of and fwd the money without compensation...but 10% or so, I would call a buy-off of the seed companies.

Is the Checkoff voluntary in any other way than to opt to choose a different supplier? Is it refundable?

Respectfully Asked, Mark



luke strawwalker said:


> I might be more supportive of checkoffs if they didn't use all the money for lobbying efforts and flying fatcats all over the country and the world on big "promotional" soirees, big exclusive "black tie dinners" and generally having a high time burning big bucks that come from the farmer/rancher's hard earned income. THAT's what I see ENTIRELY too much of...
> 
> Then of course the "industry specialists" who generally are the same cast of robber barons that CONSISTENTLY work AGAINST the small(er) producers and come up with stupid communistic ideas like mandatory premise ID and RFID animal identification, which works SOLELY to transfer funds from the hardworking farmer/rancher into THEIR (and their big corporate sponsor's) pockets and consolidate their hold and control over the very "industry" they are SUPPOSED to represent.
> 
> ...


While you may be TECHNICALLY be considered correct, I must dissent...

...it's spelled balogna

Skip a Rope, Mark

...cause I've had a glass or two of bourbon and everything is funny, that's why!


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

While you may be TECHNICALLY be considered correct, I must dissent...

...it's spelled balogna

Skip a Rope, Mark

...cause I've had a glass or two of bourbon and everything is funny, that's why!

Spelled While you may be TECHNICALLY be considered correct, I must dissent...

...it's spelled balogna

Skip a Rope, Mark

...cause I've had a glass or two of bourbon and everything is funny, that's why!

Spelled BOLOGNA around here.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

stack em up said:


> Spelled BOLOGNA around here.


I'm half-lit and YOU sir are correct. Balogna was nowhere near right!!  :huh:

Mark


----------



## IAhaymakr (Jun 4, 2008)

All I can say guys, is that I can't believe the direction this has gone. I was there when the issue was debated and discussed at length, and from that experience can assure you all that the initiative was born of the best of intentions, and would be administered at no cost by NAFA. Yes, the seed companies have been asked to be a mechanism for collection of the $1 per bag, which again is voluntary. You don't have to pay it if you don't want to. Voluntary. Optional. So if you absolutely can't trust that this might actually be a good thing, by all means don't participate.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IAhaymakr said:


> I was there when the issue was debated and discussed at length, and from that experience can assure you all that the initiative was born of the best of intentions,


That's why I asked the questions; they were not rhetorical. I'm sure such the same questions were asked and answered when debated, but I wasn't there.

Skip A Rope, Mark

PS, I reread my post and it *does* seem a little argumentative. I did not mean it that way.

I trailed off in my mind after offering that I knew a little about human nature...people ain't gonna give if you call them, My fingers didn't type the rest of my thought that they might not have a problem if the "tip jar" is on the table in front of them when they pay the seed bill.

For the rest, curiosity still has me confounded on the motive of the seed company.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

$1/bag is pretty cheap to me. I plant about 20 acres a year so for me it'll cost $8. I think I've said it here before, I lose more than that in the washing machine!


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

stack em up said:


> This caught me as one of the funniest damn things I've heard in ages. I saw a tshirt a few years ago saying "where are we going, and why are we in this hand basket?"


You'll like my new t-shirt then, it always gets me at least one free drink. I love it, the wife says he ain't stupid.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

That dollar a bag is gonna be mighty expensive when the market is flooded with alfalfa if this leads to greatly increased yields, Course I suppose if everybody was smart they'd cut back on acres that was planted to alfalfa and just grow what the markets can support, just like the guys that grow corn, beans and wheat do.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

There's some sort of a checkoff program and everything you sell . I can think of soy beans, beef, milk, well I guess maybe not corn, but then look at it. I Envision a lot of times what these programs do is research things like if the product you're producing could be tweaked in some way to increase its usefulness so more of it could be sold. Off the top of my head an example would be. Research feeding alfalfa to beef cattle, and finding a market that would be excited over that type of meat. If you're producing a product that sells itself I guess it isn't necessary


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

mlappin said:


> Course I suppose if everybody was smart they'd cut back on acres that was planted to alfalfa and just grow what the markets can support, just like the guys that grow corn, beans and wheat do.


 You're joking aren't you


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

endrow said:


> There's some sort of a checkoff program and everything you sell . I can think of soy beans, beef, milk, well I guess maybe not corn, but then look at it. I Envision a lot of times what these programs do is research things like if the product you're producing could be tweaked in some way to increase its usefulness so more of it could be sold. Off the top of my head an example would be. Research feeding alfalfa to beef cattle, and finding a market that would be excited over that type of meat. If you're producing a product that sells itself I guess it isn't necessary


The Pork checkoff brought you "Pork! The other white meat."; the Beef checkoff brought us "Beef! It's what's for dinner.", the Milk checkoff brought us "Milk! It does a body good.", there is turkey burger and turkey bacon, and I could assume that there was some kind of checkoff that did some great marketing. The marketing by the checkoffs arguably help the producers, buyers, processors, the grocery stores, etc that are effected by each commodity. If I'm remembering correctly, the Beef Checkoff took-on one of their own one time; Oprah ( a bovine in her own right) made disparaging remarks about beef that hurt the industry and the Beef Checkoff was there to help mitigate the damage.

The above examples were from a marketing standpoint and marketing takes $$$; extra sales benefit all along the commodity chain. Giving the money to the universities (who, for the most part are liberal and already tax-payer funded) for "research" seems counter-productive for the seed developers (who have their own labs and can control the waste-spending.)

The sheep checkoff (the only one that effects me) probably does SOME good. It used to be voluntary
and I didn't mind that it took a few cents cwt contribution. It is no longer a contribution, but is compulsory; and it rubs me the wrong way because I don't have a clue what they do to promote. I'm sure they lobby DC for certain things, do a little marketing of wool products or meat? I'm sure I could find out if I were to join a "sheeptalk" forum; someone would probably gladly explain it.

Stack, I agree with the 1 buck thing and that it's negligible. I explained to people that I sometimes indulge my conscience by paying for someone's meal without them knowing, giving a little kid money for a toy that I can see he wants (as long as his parents are in agreement and the kid merely wants it and didn't sass his mom when she told him "No" the first time.). I've been guilty of sending a few sawbucks to St Jude's Chilluns hopcycle or the Shriners Hopcycle, but wouldn't give a single mite to Sally Struthers for her BS "save the children" crap. I buy raffle tickets nearly every time they are offered; my questions are always the same- "what's the money gonna go for?". I don't care what they're offering to the winner, 'cause it ain't gonna be me anyway.

Before I ever squandered a penny on St Jude's, et al, I found answers to my concerns prior to doing so; I had a darn good idea what my money (and more imporantly to me, MY support) were going to be doing on my behalf. I used to drink a pepsi or two a day, til I realized that both Coke and Pepsi contribute heavily to abortion issues; I quit cold-turkey THAT DAY.

If an entity can't/won't show me or tell me where my money is going, I reckon they are hiding something and therefore I shy away.

Heck, I don't even know why I care. My ground is too dang poor for alfalfa innieweigh; I just found the checkoff interesting and potentially a good thing. Can't get no legitimate answers to legitimate questions? Guess I will have to throw in with Luke on this one.

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

I agree with glass's assessment above... BUT, there is a BIG difference between voluntary CHARITY giving and being *forced* to "contribute" to some stupid checkoff which is RARELY operated to your benefit or with which you necessarily agree. A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!

I support my church and the charity work they do; we contribute to St. Judes and other children's charities, including an independent orphan's home... When Dad passed away, we asked folks to contribute to the Shiner VFD instead of sending flowers and stuff, because those guys did a lot to help him when he'd fall and couldn't get up and my siblings and I were either working or out of state-- he was really thankful to those guys and talked about them a lot.

As for other comments made that "the checkoff was instituted with the best of intentions"... Well, there's an old saying... and the pathway to HELL is paved with 'em...

Good intentions doesn't mean a good outcome. Maybe it'll work and I'm just jaded-- usually new and smaller things of this sort DO work out fairly good, in the beginning, anyway. Then they get bigger and get co-opted or shanghaied for people HIDING behind good intentions but looking to leverage things to increase their control, get something for nothing, or globe-trot around like a bigshot on someone else's dime... That's how it USUALLY turns out in the end (look at the big, long-term checkoffs like beef, cotton, etc.)

Later! OL J R


----------



## vhaby (Dec 30, 2009)

luke strawwalker said:


> "Research" is a laudable goal, but usually is money squandered in endless "research grants" going to harebrained ideas trotted out by university types who would have to "get a real job" if they can't get research grants, but who are too far afield or not useful enough to be employed in big corporate R&D... which is why they're not working for one of the big agribiz's anyway... and so they stay safely ensconced in the halls of academia proposing various "research" that is usually muddled and of dubious use or purpose and open ended enough to be virtually never-ending, assuring that when they DO "complete this level of research" there's always some "follow on" project that they need funded next to keep them in research grants... "
> 
> __________________
> 
> ...


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

vhaby said:


> luke strawwalker said:
> 
> 
> > "Research" is a laudable goal, but usually is money squandered in endless "research grants" going to harebrained ideas trotted out by university types who would have to "get a real job" if they can't get research grants, but who are too far afield or not useful enough to be employed in big corporate R&D... which is why they're not working for one of the big agribiz's anyway... and so they stay safely ensconced in the halls of academia proposing various "research" that is usually muddled and of dubious use or purpose and open ended enough to be virtually never-ending, assuring that when they DO "complete this level of research" there's always some "follow on" project that they need funded next to keep them in research grants... "
> ...


 Vincent ,in Lay terms what type of research do you see being done


----------



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't grow alfalfa so never looked at this. Interesting thread, obviously a lot of bad weather around the country so Haytalkers have lots of free time


----------



## vhaby (Dec 30, 2009)

endrow said:


> Vincent ,in Lay terms what type of research do you see being done


The easiest way for me to answer your question is for you to view the web site of the Texas A&M-Overton Research and Extension Center. There are 13 such Centers in Texas in addition to the research conducted by faculty at the main campus in College Station. Type:

Overton.tamu.edu

Click Research

and click on any of the five ongoing research programs listed to read some of what is going on in research. But to read about results from numerous previous studies, click on Search Historical Publications.

This will bring up a window wherein you can click on author, title, key word, or year to read short reports detailing research results, mostly all written in lay terms.

Vincent


----------

