s ^,S.<^-i-fr /v u d ^^c ^'^)?- Qass Book s vJ VV J V — .A^ i^l"^ «- 63d Congress '2d Session. '[ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Report No. 110. COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. December 8, 1913. -Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed. Mr. Lever, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the A following REPOET. [To accompany H. R. 7951.] The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7951) to provide for cooperative agricultural extension work between the agricultural colleges in the several States receiving the benefits of an act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and of acts supplementary thereto, and the IJnited States Department of Agri- culture, having considered the same, report it back to the House with amendments and with the unanimous recommendation that the biU as amended do pass. This bill provides for tlie inauguration of cooperative agricultural extension work through "field demonstrations, publications, and otherwise," to be carried on in accordance with plans mutually r.greed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the land-grant colleges receiving the benefits of the first MorrUl Act. In practical effect it undertakes to provide such machinery as will bring to the attention of the farmer, the farmer's wife and children, in the most strikir.g manner such demonstrated truths and practices of successful {.griculture which, lived up to, make rural living desir- able and profitable as an occupation. It provides the connecting link between the sources of information in matters relatirg to f.gri- cultural life and the people sought to be reached with such informa- tion, and furnishes an added f.gency to our system of agricultural teaching. It carries out to the farm the approved methods and practices of the agricultural colleges, experiment stations, the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and the best farmers, and demonstrates their value under the immediate environment of the farm itself, thus providing the means by which the organized agricultural institutions of the country may be made to serve all the people, as should be the case, rather than a limited and i)rivilcged few. Under the plan pro- vided in this bill the information which has been accumulatmg fo^" n\3 2 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WOHK. \ more tlum luilf n ccMliirv and rcscrvoiriii^ in <)ur (•()llr<,'('s aiul other institutions orj^anizt'd in tlu' interest of aj^rienltnre is to he nni(h' availahh' to the mass of the ])eoi)le in such fashion as will hiiiii; the best results in the matter of im])rove(l rural conditions and rural livinj;. There is no more ini|)ortant work for the ai^neultural institutions of the eountrv than that of strenjrtheninan financial inde])endence and social pr>»«rress; but the farmer does not know what the scientist is doin<; and has no way of leai'nin<; of his discoveries. Sullicicnt information has been «;athered and is awaitin*; distribution to revo- lutionize rural con litions in this country in the next ten years, but it is dead information until it becomes vitalized by the service to which the farmer puts it. The loj^ic of the situation forces the nocessitv for ])rovidinjj: adequate machinery by which the storehouse of information may be opened to those who stand upon the outside. Conj,Tess itself has committed the country to a j)olicy of encoura^n^. promoting:, and developinn(ion of this House that feature of the bill which provides authority for the itinerant teaching of home ecoiu)mics or home management. This is tho first time in the history of the country that the Federal Government has sliown any tangible purpose or desire to help the farm woman in a direct way, to solve her manifold ])roblems, and lessen her heavy burdens. The drudgery and toil of the farm wife have not been ap- preciated by those ii])on whom the duly of legislation devolves, nor lias proper weight be(>n given to her influence upon rural life. Our efforts heretofore have been given in aul t)f the farm man, his horses, cattle, and hogs, but his wife and girls have been neglected almost to a point of criminality. This bill provides the authority and the funds for inaugurating a system of leaching the farm wnfe and farm girl the elementary pruiciples of home making and home manage- ment, and your committee believes there is no more important work in the country than is this. That there is abundant r(>ason for tiie encouragement of rural activities along lines of greater production and more profit can hardly be disputed. It is only necessary to call attention to the fact that for tiie })ast 80 years there has be(>n a constant drift of rural population toward towns and cities. In ISSO. 70.5 per cent of the population of the country was classed as rural, while in 1!)10 only 53.7 per cent is classed as rural, and when consideration is given to the fact that po])ulation in villages, cities, and towns of 2,500 or less is classed as rural, it is safe to assume that only about 'M\ per cent of our population actually live upon the farms. The deserted farm homes, the increasing tendency toward a system of farming by absenteeism, the growth of tenancv, all furnisli danger signals to those who have eyes to see. The deserted farm home will ceas(> to exist only wlien farm life is made as attractive and profitable as is city life, and this result can be attained only through a systematic effort to reilirect rural methods and ideals. Another danger signal is furnish(>(l in the fact that soil fertility is unilenial)ly decreasing. esp(>cially in the older Stales, and production COOPEEATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 7 fails to keep pace with the demamls of the nonagricultural classes. Reliable figures show that in acreage of agriculture per 1,000 inhabi- tants there has been a decrease in seven and an increase in only three during the last 10 years, as follows: Per cent. Corn decrease. . 14.4 Wheat do. ... 30. 5 Oats do 1. 7 Barley increase. . 42. 3 Rye decrease.. 11. 7 Buckwheat do 10. 1 Potatoes increase. . 3. 1 Hay and forage decrease . . 3. 2 Tobacco do 2. 9 Cotton increase.. 9. 1 Wliat is true. of our cereal and forf.ge crops is true also of meat production. During the last census period there was an increase of 20 per cent in popidation with a decrease of 21 per cent in beef- producing cattle, 7^ per cent decrease in the number of hogs, and 14^ per cent decrease in the number of sheep. Reliable authority shows that in 1907 the number of beef cattle in the country amounted to 51,566,000, while in 1913, six vears later, the number had decreased to 36,030,000, or a decline of 30 per cent. In 1906 the United States exported cattle to the number of 525,000 head, and in 1912 exported only 105,000 head, or a decline in our exportation of cattle in six years of 75 per cent. In 1906 the United States imported 16,000 head of cattle and in 1912 imported 318,000 head of cattle, or an increase in our importation of cattle of 2,000 per cent in six years. It is said that we consume 91 per cent of our wheat and 98 per cent of our corn. These figures are conclusive of the fact that we must learn to produce more or accustom ourselves to eat less. Your committee believes that the agricultural potentiality of this country has not begun to be developed and that we are in fact only in the pioneer stfge of agriculture; but whatever may be the juogment of the committee in tiiis respect, it is certain that a proper rtgard for the future and a full ap])reciation of tendencies make imj^erative the inauguration of some kind of system to check these tendencies and safeguard the future, and it is thought that the demonstrated effect- iveness of extension teaching wherever it has been tried furnishes the remedy. The fundamental' pur{)oses of this bill have received the most emphatic indorsement of agricultural thinkers of the country, the rural press, influential business organizaf'ions, and agricultural and labor organizations. President W. O. Thom])son, of the University of Oliio, and chairman of the executive committee of the Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment ^Stations, in his statement before the committee most heartily approves the purposes and principles of the bill, as did Director E. IT. Jenkins, of the Connecti- cut Experiment Station and president of the Association of Ex- periment Stations. The bill was most heartily commended by Mr. Arthur E. Holder, legislative committeeman of the American Federation of Labor. In furnishing his views to the committee as 8 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAI. EXTENSION WORK. to tlu (U'sirahilily <>f llu^ piissn^j:!' of (his hilj, Sc.cn'tnrv of A^'riciilt iiro Jloiiston says: I havi' carefully roud the hill and it seem.-^ to me to lie adiniral'Iy drawn to ac- eoiii])liph the i)urj)()se8 in view. The I)e])artnient of A^rriculture and (he different Stale e effectively transmiKed (o (he farmer. Ap a matter of fact, va»*t numliers of farmers either do not receive tlie information or ressed wi(h it and to he induced to ai)|)ly it. It seems very unfortunate wiien we are sjuMidinj; so mucli money to ohtuin information (hat we can not secure a wider aj)i)lica(ion of it. I am esi)e(ially im])ressed witli tiie <-oo|»era(ive features of the hill. I helieve that the jirovisions hearing on (his jHiint will se( ure a lietter unders(andinp and a fuller roordina(ion of effort on (he i)ar( of the Federal I)e])artment of A trri culture and the Stale agencies. The two are working to the .ssame end and should work in the closest harmony. The hill contemplates that the different agencies shall, in cooperation, carefully devise and execute i>rojec(s. This in itself will he an immen-'^e advance. I think it clear that if the I'edend (lovernment is to make a])j)r<)j)ria(ions for such a purpose as this hill contemplates, it slioidd he in jmsition to .-^ee that llie money is apjtlied for the j)urj«)sf8 intended and is api)lied eHiciently. The fact that the iiill ])rovides that the work shall lie carried on in sucli manner as may l)e mutually agreed u])ou iiy tiie Se«Telary of .\griculture and the State college or colleges, will guarantee the applica- tion of the money in accordance with the intention of Congress and will .se( ure efficiency. I do not now see how it would l)e possihle to make a wiser arrangement. Ih addition to this your committee calls attention to the fact that diirin<; the last session of the last ('on<^ress the House, without a dis- sent int; voice, passed a I)ill identical in the primary ends souj^ht to be accomplished showinjj a d 'cided feehii": in favor of the purposes of this proposi'd lej^islntion. It is jirojier to call the attention of the House to a fundamental differeiice in the hill referred to above and the bill now reported favoral)ly from the committee. The Avork to be d')ne is the same in each, l)uf the method of di)in.ir it differs somewhat. The bill pass(>d by the last Conjjress provid 'd for the establislimeiit of ajjricultural extension departments in connection with the land-grant coUej^es of the States.' Tliis bill provides for the inaujruration of cooperative a«^ricultural extension work l)etween the land irrant colleo;es and the United States Department of Ai^riculture, the work to be carried on in such manner as may be nuitiially arrived ujion l)v th(> land i^rant coUej^es and (he Secretary of Ac^rieulture. It will be observed that the central idea of the machinery of this bill is that of close coopera- tion between (he Stat(>s and tli(> Fedc^ral (Jovernment in undertakinc; a ^reat work. This bill presents a vital and to some extent a new prin(ij)le in the matter of Federal and State relations which the com- mittee beheves is justified by the situation. The Federal (lOvernment is being called upon constantly for funds to conduct work within the States and it is safe to assiune, judgino; th<^ future by the pjust, that the demand for ap|)ropri!itions for such work within the States will inerejise rather than diminish. The Federal (lovcuninent can juid should be helpfid to the States in com- plying with legitiimite demands for funds, but your committee believes that there shoidd be kept in mind always certain guiding Crincij)les. The committee would emphatically oppose any action y the. Federal (lovernment ItMuling to a centralization of power and domintition of work, although the committee as emplmticidly believes tluit if the Federal (lovernment appco|)iiales money for Work within the Staters it must assume a certain amount of responsi- COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 9 bility for the expenditure of this* money to the Congress and the people of the United States. It is the duty of the Federal Govern- ment to appropriate funds in order to stimulate public sentiment and to encourage the desire to meet these funds with moneys appro- priated directly by the States ; and to aid and assist in the coordina- tion of all such work in order to avoid waste and unify effort all along the line. Tlie principles involved are those of cooperation, the P'ederal Government aiding by advice and assistance in coordinating effort and the States performing the more important details of the local work. This bill places the responsibility for the actual con- duct of the work proposed in the agricultural college and provides specifically for the adjustment of work to local conditions through a cooperative relationship established between the college of agricul- ture and the Secretary of Agriculture. There is thus avoided any possiblity of developing a centralized and dominating agency, as is also avoided any possibility of forcing upon the States types or kinds of work not readily adapted to the needs of the people. It is hardly necessary to urge the self-evident truth that the Federal Gov- ernment, with the broad powers that Congress has given and is giving it in the matter of investigational work in agriculture should have some machinery by which this valuable work may be put into the hands of the individual farmers on their own farms. But the committee is firmly convinced that if the Federal Government should undertake this work of the institutions within the States, conflict, chaos, duplication, and waste must inevitably result. There is no question, however, that by wise admiinstration, through the ma- chinery of this bill, proper relations can be established, maintained, and these dangers avoided. These vital questions were early recognized by the wSecretary of Agriculture, who called a conference for the purj^ose of discussing the question of relationships with the executive committee of the Association of American Agricultural (Alleges and Experiment Stations As a result of this and other conferences, the executive committee foimulated and presented certain prinei])les as follows: The executive committee of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations desires to express to the honorable Secretary of Aoji- culture its great gratification at the attitude of his department in its effort td bring aboiit a closer and more efficient relationship between the work of the department and that of the colleges and experiment stations. (1) The executive committee heartily indorses the suggestion of the Secretary that as a means of inaugurating and perpetuating an intelligent and sympathetic cooperation of these agencies, there be established a permanent committee on the general relations of the department and the colleges, said committee to be made up of representatives from both the department and the association. RE!=iEAKCH, (1) The executive committee cordially agrees with the point of view of the Sec- retary that the primary function of the Federal department is to undertake the study of problems that are more particularly regional, interstate, and international in character, and that upon the stations should rest the responsibility of investigating the problems that arise within their respective States. This general policy is not to debar a union of effort by the department and a given station in the study of a jjroblem whenever it becomes evident that such cooperation is necessary or will tend to a more successful outcome. (2) Whenever the department finds it desirable to study a problem within a given State, harmonious relations and an intelligent understanding woufd undoubtedly be promoted by a c-onsultation between the department and the state's station prior 10 COOPERATIVE AGRICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. to ita inauii^uratioD In do so, it should lend sympathetic and advisory support. (3) rufjualiCu'd approval is >:iven to the |»roj)OHai of tlic Secretary that in orpenition there be orpinized a joint committee on rrelation of research, to be made up of representatives from tiie department and the college and station association, one function of said committee to bo the preparation lor early i>ui)liiation by the department of a list of scientifjc project*) to lie undertaken by both llie department and the stations. This committee should also be empowj'red lo assist in any feasible way in correlating the work of the national and State research agencies in such manner as shall promote efiiciency in 8<'curing results. (4) K<|ually cniphaiic approval is given to the j)lan of holding group conferences between the .■icienlilic specialists of the department and the stations. It would seem desimble and jK-rhaps necessary that, owing to financial conditions within the asso- ciation and stations, the necessary expenses of such conferences should be met from a fund administered by the department. (5) It seems to be mutually agreed that in order to make available to students of science the research work of the dei)artnient and stations, and to promote its stand- ing in the scientilic world, there should be |)ubli.>*everal States as provided by law, on the ba-sis of the funda- mental provi.-^ions enil»o(lied in the I.ever bill (II. R. 1()92). (d) It is understood that the ajipropriations made for extension service by the several States shall be under their control. (e) It is further understrKxl that the (Federal) moneys api)ro])rialed to extension service shall all be expended under the plans and agreements mutually approved by the department and college.^, and that no outside cooperative arrangement for main- taining extension service shall be made with any corporation or commercial liody, excepting a.-; a corporation or commercial body may wish to donate funds to be admin- istered in extension service exclusively by the colleges of agriculture in con.'*ultation with the de|)artment. The <*»)inmitt<'(' ctilU at tent ion to the fuct that in t lu' c.-^ixMial matter of o.\l(Misi(iM service the vittil pfiiiciples set f< il h hy tluM", mniitleeare all foimd iti this hill. The Secietary of Ai,'rictilt life has appicivet! the recoiiimeiKlatioiis made hy the executive eoniinittee and lias stated in lu>arin«js before your eomtnittee and elsewhere that the extension work provided for in this hill shotdd he condiieted win lly undei the direction of the collej^e < f a<;ri(iiltin-e. the Stale lenders to he rect g- nizehotiId he jointly ji<;r(M'd lo hy the depart- ment titid the colleLre.'^. F^\ce|)t in this respect this hill d( es not differ from the one passed in tlte last ('on<;ress. For the infiirmation of the House y. \\r c mmittcM' lie.i^s t(» std)niit the followinj; hrief jinalysis i f the hill hy >ecli<»ns: Section 1 authorizes the inatif^iiration tf apienltnral extension W(»rk in each State in (onneetion with its hind-i^rjint collejje latnre of ea<-h State the anthoritv to desi'Miate COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK. 11 which of the college or colleges receiving the benefits of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, and known as the first Morrill Act, shall administer the funds appropriated by this bill. Section 2 defines the character of the work to be undertaken as consisting in the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons not resident in the several colleges through field demonstrations, publications, and other- wise. This work is to be carried on upon plans mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the several land-grant colleges. Section 3 is the appropriating section of the bill and provides the sum of $480,000 for each year, $10,000 to be paid annually to each State which by the action of its legislature assents to the provisions of this act. This is a straight, unconditional appropriation to the several States. The additional sum of $300,000 is appropriated for the fiscal year following that in which the foregoing appropriation first becomes available, and for each year thereafter for nine years the sum exceeding by $300,000 the sum appropriated for each pre- ceding year, and for each year thereafter there is permanently pro- vided the additional sum of $3,000,000 for each year, making a total appropriation for the tenth year of the life of the act and thereafter annually of $3,480,000. The additional appropriations, this sum of $3,000,000 annually are to be allotted to the several States in the proportion which their rural population bears to the total population of the United States, as determined by the next preceding Federal census. The Census Bureau defines as "urban population that re- siding in cities and other incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more, including the New England towns of that population." Pro- vision is also made that no payment out of the additional appro- E nations shall be made in any year to any State until an equal sum as been appropriated for that year by the legislature of such State or provided by State, county, or local authority for the maintenance of the work provided in the bill, the idea being that some authority other than the Federal authority must provide a sum equal to the additional appropriations made by the Federal Government. To illustrate, the allotment of a given State might be $50,000, which the State would receive if it should duplicate this amount, but it might happen that the State would desire to appropriate for such a purpose only $25,000, and under the provisions of the bill would therefore be entitled to only $25,000 of the Federal funds in addition to the $10,000 which is appropriated unconditionally. In requiring the States to duplicate the amount of the Federal appropriation the bill is undertaking to encourage them to greater activity along lines of demonstration work. For the convenience of the House the committee submits the following table, showing the total population of the United States, by States, and the total rural population, by wStates, and the amount of these additional sums to which each State will be entitled under the basis of allotment as provided in the bill when the act shall mature at the end of 10 years, to which must be added for each State the sum of $10,000 unconditionally appropriated. 12 COOPERATIVE AOBICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. The table is as follows: SUte. United SUUs. Alabama Arizona Arkansas. .. Caliiomia... Coiurado Conneolicut. Delaware. . . Fiorlda GeorRia Idalio Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky... Ix)uisiana... Maine. Maryland Massnohiisetts^. . Miciu;:aii Minnesota Mis3i.ssippi Missoiifi Montana Nebraska Nevada New iiampshire. New York New Jersey New Mexico North Carolina... North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Orei;on Pennsylvania.. Khode Island.. South Carolina. South Dakota.. Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia WashinKlon... West Virginia. Wi.soonsin Wyoming Total popu- lation. 91,972, 2M 138,093 204,364 574, 449 377,549 799. 0J4 114,766 202,322 762,619 609,121 325,591 638, 591 700, 876 224,771 690,949 289,906 656, 3S8 742, 371 795, 346 366,416 810, 173 075,708 (97, 114 293,335 376,053 192,214 81,875 43 ,(,572 113,614 537, 167 327, 301 206, 287 677,056 767, 121 657, 155 672, 765 665,111 642,610 615,400 683,888 184,789 896,542 373,361 355,966 061,612 141,990 121,119 Xa, 860 146,965 Total rural population. 49,348,883 1,767,662 141,094 1,371,768 907, 810 394,184 114,917 106,237 633,639 2,070.471 255,696 2,161,662 1,557,041 1,644,717 1, 197, 159 1,734,463 1,159,872 360,928 637,154 241,049 1,483,129 1.226,414 1,689,803 1,894,518 242,633 881,362 68,508 176, 473 1,928,120 629,967 280, 730 1,887,813 613,820 2,101,978 1,337,000 366, 705 3,034,442 17,966 1,290,668 607,215 1,743,744 2,968,438 200,417 187,013 1,686,083 636, 460 992, 877 1,329,640 102,744 Percent of I total rural population in the United States and by States. Amount of appropria- tion allotted each State. 63.7 $3,000,000 3.58 .29 2.78 1.S4 .SO .23 .21 1.08 4.10 .62 4.38 3.16 3. 13 2.43 3.51 2.36 .73 1.29 .49 3.01 2.48 3.22 3.84 .49 1.79 .14 .35 3.91 1.28 .67 3.83 1.04 4.26 2.71 .74 6.15 .04 2.62 1.03 3.53 5.99 .41 .38 3.21 1.08 2.01 2.69 .21 107,400 8,700 8:3,400 66,200 24,000 6,900 6,300 32,400 125,700 15,600 131,400 94.800 93,900 72,900 105,3)0 70.600 21,900 38,700 14,700 90,300 74,400 96,600 115,200 14,700 53,700 4,200 10,500 117.300 38,400 17,100 114,900 31,2(X) 127,800 81,300 22,200 184,600 1,200 78,600 30,900 105,900 179,700 12,300 11,400 96,300 32, 400 60,300 80,700 6,300 Of course tlic next census iiuiy show n little cliaiij^c in tlie relative positions of the several vStates with respect to their rural i)opulatioiis and, hence, the above tahlc wouM have to \)c niodiiied to meet such a change. Section :i ju-ovides further that before the funils appropriated by tliis bill shall become ])ayable to any college for any fiscal year, plans for the work to be carried on under it sliall be submitted by such college and ap])roved by tlie Secretary of Agriculture, Section 4, authorizing the ap])ointiiient by the Secretary of Agri- culture of a direct(»rof cooperative agricultural extension work was stricken from the bill as being unnecessary. The remaining sections, 5, (■), 7, S, and 9, deal laigclv with the adininistrative features of the bill and follow closely the I ditch and Ad.Mius Acts. COOPEEATIVE AGEICULTUBAL EXTENSION WORK. 13 The committee recommends the following amendments: On page 2, line 22, after the word "Agriculture," strike out the comma and the words "or his representative" and the comma. On page 3, line 20, beginning with the words ''Provided further,'^ that entire proviso down to and including the period on page 4, was stricken from the bill and the following substituted for it: ''Provided further. That before the funds herein provided shall become available to any college for any fiscal year plans for the work to be carried on under this act shall be submitteel by the proper officials of each col- lege and approveel by the Secretary of Agriculture." This language was thought to convey the ieiea of the bill more clearly. On page 4, line 13, the word "the" was inserted before the word "cooperative," and on the same line, after the word "work," the period was dropped and the worels "provided for in this act" added. On page 4, as already explained, section 4 was eliminated. The sections of the bill following this are renumbered to conform to this committee action. o ?>: 5 BRARY OF CONGRESS D00e74m77M