—— A sway or me axraxszou semen _ as 11-65 ammo gsmarmm as gamma: m2: {at {4:20 Mm af 5‘51. 5. WCZ‘iiGAM SYN-‘2 COLLEGE Afiimr Dwgéss Lemme“ 195 3 I .3.- i P l l I. I 1—— _ l‘ury ' ‘I'Iu =‘I ‘ g ‘ ‘ ‘ “# ‘ ‘ ! r y This is to certify that the r thesis entitled A “VII?" 0*“ 'an mi ‘-1:31017 3mm. E (‘1‘ 7}? OI'WFIO DE IT”? 7;"? OF AGAK U’LT'TE presented by Arthur T. lm"rr011 has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mdegree mW/é’f Major prof/essor D.tc/Q¢W‘Zdrl //‘j;5 0-169 ‘ “W i ,;,1 r f T * 1 r F.“ / ‘ -‘ l ‘;;,»,T" ' l. ‘ 'i r' 7: ‘ .27 l \ k T . 1 ' .\ « )7 ‘ ' - -, r .- ‘ .1 .574»- _ w .‘ l“. ‘ - . ’- k"!(7‘* ‘\./‘-?“~'¢’.J‘J" i; i'w . K 1“ _" " msx ~ ‘2 ‘2". a ‘ V' £37 L r'. NHJ .«El'. Y ‘t‘klfi? kr’: “F.- r“ «'1’ \fr ::{,1 f. 1’1", , "L373... “ 31$; 'J'r‘lr " J; ‘3’" . .312 I. -' ,'. v“ v u '. 'i-v.. '. “.1. '1‘- '0 ”15.21.51. ' .l 'l. h. l 13%" ‘ .’ am: .. In - if \.F;" '. -A .r‘ ‘ ’_.-"";:,In yt\li':- y ' ‘r‘l'fi 7 'l"_‘-'? I I / AMOTMWSIOIBNIGU OIMWOWMGI‘AGRIW ARTHUR mUGLAS Imam A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of EASTER OF SGIECI Department of Agricultural Extension 1953 TH HSIS CHAPTER A. B. CHAPTER A. B. C. D. CHAPTER A. B. TABLE OF CONTENTS I - INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II - HISTORY OF THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENSION WORK IN ONTARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUREAU OF INDUSTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . THE ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE . . . . . . . . THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENTAL STATION . . . . . . THE FARMERS' INSTITUTES . . . . . . e . . . . THE JUNIOR FARMERS . . . . . . . . . . . . OTHER EARLY FARM ORGANIZATIONS . e . . o . . . BEGINNINGS OF ORGANIZED EXTENSION WORK . . e . . . EXTENSION BY OTHER BRANCHES OF DEPARTMENT . . . o o EARLY EXTENSION WORK BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS . . . e SMIARY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 III - ORGANIZATION or mmsxon SERVICES IN THE DEPART; MENT OF AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXTENSION ACTIVITIES OF DEPARTMENT BRANCHES: NATURE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . e . 1. Agricultural Representatives Branch . . . . . . ii mmNN U1 \0 10 11 11 12 15 17 18 21 21 214 214 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.) CHAPTER III 3. (Cont'd) 2. Women's Institutes Branch . . . . . . . . 3. Livestock Branch . . . . . . . . . . . h. Crops. Seeds and Needs Branch . . . . . . 5. Dairy Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Farm Economics Branch . . . . . . . . . 7. Fruit Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Agricultural and Horticultural Societies Branch 9. Statistics and Publications Branch . . . . . 10. Provincial Entomologist . . . . . . . . C. EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 0? DEPARTMENT INSTITUTIONS . l. The Ontario Agricultural College ' . . . . . 2. The Ontario Veterinary College . . . . . . 3. The Horticultural Experiment Station . . . . h. Other Institutions . . . . . . . . . . D. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER IV‘- AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT SITUATION . . . A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. YOUTH AND JUNIOR EXTENSION WORK . . . . . . . D. HOME ECONOMICS EXTENSION WORK . . . . . . . E. THE ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE . . . . . . iii 26 28 29 29 3O 3o 31 31 32 32 33 3h 35 35 37 37 M1 he he h} TABLE or CONTENTS (CONT'D.) CHAPTER Iv (CONT'D) F. THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCHES . G. EXTENSION SERVICES IN THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRY 1. The Holland Marsh Area 2. Toronto—Hamilton Area . 3. The Niagara District . he Western Ontario e e e 5. The Georgian Bay District 6. Toronto EaSt . o O O 7. Summary and Conclusions. Horticultural Extension . H. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE ON CON- SERVATION . . . . . . I. SOME OPINIONS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL REPRESENTATIVES J O smmr O O O O O 0 CHAPTER. V - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . A e SWhIARY O 0 e O O O B. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . B IBLI OGR-APHY O 0 O O C O 0 iv he 5h 59 60 60 61 61 62 63 68 72 7h 71; 79 83 1. 2. 3. LIST OF FIGURES Main Lines of DeveIOpment and Cooperation of Department of Agriculture Extension Services . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of Agricultural Education Institutions, Experimental and Demonstration Fauna and Stations . . . . . . . . . . Organization and Chain of Extension Responsibility for.Adminis- trative Branches of the Department of Agriculture . . . . . DeveloPment and Communication between Administrative Branches and. Public 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e DeveIOpment and Communication between Institutions and Public. . Areas Served by Horticultural Extension Specialists . . . . . Page 19 22 23 3s 39 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY lhe Ontario Department of Agriculture is the administrative organ- ization representing the interests of the Provincial Government in Ontario's agriculture. lithin the Department of‘Agriculture, its agri- cultural extension services make an important contribution to the ad- vance of agriculture as an industry and as a way of life. !he allocation of extension funds and.personne1 and the most effective administration of extension services has become a.prob1em of some magnitude. The present distribution of extension personnel and funds and the existing organization of extension services within the Department has been criticized as not making most effective use of the investment in mhem. As originally conceived, organized extension services were to be made available to the farmer through the Agricultural Representatives Branch. This was to be achieved by making at least one college trained agriculturist available to each county. Such men were provided within a few years after the institution of the service. An empirical examination of the present organization of the Depart- ment of.Agriculture shows that several Branches and Institutions are participating in the extension program. These Branches and Institutions, in most cases, were not specifically charged with extension duties by any Act of the Legislature. They have become engaged in extension be- cause their administrators apparently saw a demand for more extension services which they have attempted to meet. The end result has been an overall extension service to Ontario agriculture that is composed of a number of contributing and only partially related segments. When a service or organization is made up of many contributing parts. it sometimes becomes a major administrative task to weld all the divergent contributions into an effective whole. This. in some instances. seems to be a problem in the extension service of the Ontario Department of Agriculture. Thejproblem exists in.maintaining the most effective administration and distribution of the contributed services to the over- all extension program. That there is an overlapping and a lack of coor- dination of some of these extension services is apparent. That there is official recognition of the existence of such a problem is evidenced by the appointment of an associate director of extension with the title of Coordinator of Extension. His duties are the coordination of extension services between the Ontario Agricultural College and the Agricultural Representatives Branch and other administrative Branches located at Toronto. Still further evidence that the problem exists is included in the report of the Committee of the Legislature on Conservation. This report recommended that all extension services of the Department. presently lo- cated in Toronto. be moved to Guelph and that the Director of Extension 1 should direct the whole program of agricultural extension for Ontario. 1 Select Committee of the Legislature on Conservation, Report and Recommendations. The King's Printer. Tomato. Ontario. 1950, 96 pp. This study. by analysing the present situation in the extension ser- vices in Ontario. will attempt to present evidence to bear on the hypo. thesis that a sometimes serious element of overlapping and duplication. and a lack of coordination exists in some phases of the present organi- zation of the extension service. An initial step in the consideration of a.problem and a possible solution to it. is an examination of factors that have contributed to the development of the problem. For the purpose of this study. such examination included a survey of the Institution and development of the present extension services. This survey of the history of the exten- sion services was done to more adequately present reasons lying behind the present organization of the service and to contribume to a more realistic analysis of the existing situation. A. METHOD In order to discover some of the reasons for the existing organizap tion of the Department of.Agriculture. a study of the early movements and actions of farm groups and associations and of early government agri- cultural organizations was made. Annual reports of the various farm groups. and of the Bureau of Industries. a government department. pro- vided such information as was necessary. These reports. going back as far as 181w. were available in the records of the Statistics and Publi- cations Branch. and from the records of the Fruit Branch and Agricultural Representatives Branch. Early organization of extension work and the development of the Agricultural Representatives Branch from its inception up to the present was traceable through the Annual Reports of the Minister of Agriculture. The first Director of Extension. now retired. provided further informer tion on early thinking and action on extension work in a.persona1 inter- view. The most recently available Annual Report of the Minister of.Agri- culture provided information on the present organization and activity of the Branches and Institutions of the Department of Agriculture. Annual Reports of the Ontario Agricultural College. the Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland. and interviews with the present Director of’Exten— sion. the Associate Directors of Extension. several Branch Directors. and the Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture were other sources of information for developing the study of the Department's present organi- ration and the scepe of its extension activities. Evidence to support or disprove the preposed.hypothesis of the study was provided from various sources. The writer's employment for a year and a half by the Fruit Branch of the Department of Agriculture provided part of the information for the case study of extension in the horticul- tural industry. Data for other case studies were compiled from inter- views with extension workers and from their annual reports. The report of the Committee of the Legislature on Conservation was consulted for its recommendations concerning extension organization. These recommendations represented the essence of opinion regarding extension as contained in briefs and in evidence collected from across the Province. B. DEFINITIONS Extension. For the purpose of this study. agricultural extension may be described as the carrying of the findings of the research labor- atories and experiment stations to those peeple who live in rural areas and make their living from the cultivation of the soil. Elsewhere extension has been defined as '. . . an out-of-school system for bringing the findings of science to the people in rural areas.s J. A. Garner described extension as originally being the dissemina- tion of the scientific knowledge of agriculture among the germ folk of the Province. This was done as far as possible by having the farmers themselves participate in the demonstrations and experiments. In recent years. extension has become much broader than originally conceived. Ex- tension these days tries to encourage our rural fell: to Join in programs which have as their general objective a richer and fuller life for every- one making a living from the land. Not only does extension encourage better methods of tilling the soil. and raising cr0ps and livestock. but it deals with nearly every phase of farm life. It touches young people through their Junior Farmers. Junior Institutes. and 14-3 Club work: it reaches women and their homemaking through the Women's Institutes: and this is in addition to its efforts to generally improve the farm prac- tices of the farmers themselves.3 The preceding descriptions and definitions of extension can be summed up adequately by the following definition from a United States 2 Reginald 8. Duncan. "Agricultural Extension in Ontario.” unpublished mimeographed manuscript of a talk delivered to a County Agent Conference. Indiana. 19214. 3 James A. Garner. Director of Extension. Ontario Department of Ag- riculture. oral communication. government publication. which defines extension as I'. . . the development of the people themselves to the end that they. through their own initia- tive. may effectively idfintify and solve the various problems directly affecting their welfare." Regulatory functions. Regulatory functions are the activities and duties of those Branches of the Department assigned the task of carrying out the provisions of certain.Acts of the Legislature. which. through direction. restriction. or inspection. have as their objective the better- ment of Ontario's agriculture. Overlgpoing. Por the purpose of this study. overlapping may be regarded as the excess duplication of certain extension services in a particular area or community by the different Branches or Institutions giving that service. Lack of Coordingtion. This can be described as a.1ack of overall direction of. or liaison between the different Branches and Institutions engaged in extension work in the Province. Joint Committee Report on Extension Programs. Policies and Goals. U. 8. Government Printing Office. l9h8. CHAPTER II HISTORI OF THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENSION WORK IN ONTARIO A. GENERAL The growth of agriculture during the last half of the nineteenth century was rapid. Paralleling this rapid growth in agriculture came increased industrialization and concentration of people in towns and cities. Farming was no longer an occupation in which the farmer was con- cerned only with feeding himself and.his family. The increased urban populations had to be fed and.agriculture took on the status of an in- dustry. no longer concerned only with its own needs. but also with the food.needs of the whole province and country and even beyond. This changed situation meant that agriculture in general. and the individual farmer in particular. faced.nany problems with which they had not previously been concerned. The governments of these later days of the last century undertodk to try and solve some of the problems. many of a technical nature. which they could not account for. and to which they did not have any answer or solution. .A result of the growth of agriculture was the formation of various societies and associations by the farmers themselves. Presumably. they recognized a need for the pooling of some of their'problems and experb iences with others in similar situations. A.number of these societies and associations were started during the years between 1850 and 1890. The 1885 Report by the then Commissioner of Agriculture for the Province indicates that the following groups and organizations were in existence: The.Agricultura1 College. the Agriculture and Arts Association. the Electoral District or Twonship Horticultural Societies, the Bruit Growers' Association. the Entomological Society. the Poultry Association. the Dairymen's Association and the Bureau of Indus- tries have each in their respective sphere coptributed to advance the interests of Agriculture in the Province. At this time. 1885. the Bureau of Industries and the Agricultural College were the only government sponsored organizations concerned with Ontario's agriculture. B. THE BUREAU’OF INDUSTRIES The Bureau of Industries represented the early government's inter- ests in all the Province's industry. including agriculture. lumbering. mining. and manufacturing. Within this Bureau. a Commissioner of.Agri- culture was specifically charged with representing the government's interests in agriculture. The Bureau of Industries was the forerunner of the many government departments of the present day. The Commissioner of Agriculture and his interests eventually became the Minister of Agri- culture and his Department. C. THE ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE The Ontario Agricultural College was established in 187h, in an- swer to the demands of a few far-sighted farmers and educators who saw 1 Annual Report of the Bureau of Industries. which includes the Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for Ontario. printed by order of Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 1885. 2 the need for a more formal education in science and agriculture. In common with many similar institutions. its early years were uncertain. but it soon made a place for itself in the Province’s agriculture. Not only were farm boys sent to its classrooms to be taught. but its small staff was in demand for addressing meetings. organizing demonstrations. and the like. Thus. while the College was established for the purpose of in-school teaching and for research. demands on its facilities for extension purposes were frequent from its early days. Probably only the setting up of a separate extension service within the Department of Ag- riculture at Toronto slowed the growth of what might now be a large exp tension service at the Ontario Agricultural College. D. THE.AGRICULTURAL.ANDIEXPERIMENTAL UNION The Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union was femmed.about 1877. Its objectives were . . .to form a bond of union amongst the officers. students. and earstudents of the Ontario Agricultural College. to promote their intercourse with a view to mutual information. to discuss subjects bearing on the wide field of agriculture. to conduct experiments in this field and in union as far as possible. to secure thg cospera- tion of the agriculturalists of the country in the work. Thus these early organizers of the Agricultural and Imperimental Onion recognized the need for cooperative experiment and demonstration with Ontario farmers if more scientific farming methods were to be in- troduced. 2 The Ontario Agricultural College. Seventy-fifth Anniversary Book- let. Ontario Agricultural College. Guelph, Ontario. l9h9. 3 Agricultural and Experimental Union. Annual Report. contained in the Annual Report of the Minister of Agriculture for 1905. printed by order of Legislative Assembly. Province of Ontario. Toronto. 1906. The Experimental Union proceeded to organize cooperative experiments in better farming methods as recommended by the Ontario Agricultural Col- lege and other Institutions. Individual farmers were enlisted as co- operators and instructed by staff members and graduates of the College. By 1906 there were 3700 cosperators in the Province. carrying on experi- mental work in better farming methods. The success of this organization's work in fostering better farming methods spread to border states in the United Statfis where some of its experimental demonstration practices were adopted. 3L THE EARMERS' INSTITUTES In 187M. the first Farmers' Institutes were organized and the idea soon caught on. This farm organization was originally social in nature. but soon became a medium whereby farmers could get together socially. but at the same time discuss mutual problems. It was only a short step to invite prominent and successful farmers. rural press editors. college professors and others to address meetings on subjects relevant to cur- rent problems and interests. Bulletins and leaflets on a variety of subjects were distributed and the Farmers' Institumes became a pioneer media for dissemination of agricultural information. The Iarmers' Institutes later became known as Banners' Clubs. and in turn gave way. in the period 1935 - 19140. to the present Federation of Agriculture. ‘A. C. True. gigtogy of Agricultural Extension Ibrk in the United States.‘U. 8. Dept. of Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publication No. 15. 1928. 219 pp. 11 Rural farm women. whose menfolk were Farmers' Institute members. organized themselves into the women's Institutes. These Women's Ins stitutes grew in number and strength until today they are supported financially as a Branch of the Department of Agriculture. This Branch controls all extension work in Home Economics in the Province. r. THE JUNIOR FARMERS Younger farmers had always had a place in the Farmers' Institutes. but never had an organization of their own until 1911. In that year. following a series of short courses conducted by the Department of Agri- culture. a need was felt for a continuance of this class association and of studies in an organized form. The first Junior Farmer Associations were formed in 1911 in four counties and the idea soon was taken up across the Province. O. OTHER EARLY FARMER ORGANIZATIONS Other farm organizations. such as the Agricultural and Horticul- tural Societies. Fruit Growers'.Associations. Poultry. and Dairymen's '.Associations were formed during the latter half of the nineteenth cen- tury. They had as their general objectives the furthering of interests of the particular group which they represented. They provided a medium for discussion of common problems and spreading of information in their respective fields of interest. An early officer of the Fruit Growers' Association described the aims and objectives of their association as follows: '. . . by holding 5 Reginald 8. Duncan. unpublished manuscript entitled 'A.Ristory of Agricultural Extension in Ontario! on file in office of Director of En- tension. Agricultural Representatives Branch. Toronto. Ontario. 12 meetings . . . for discussion of all questions relatéve to fruit culture by collecting and disseminating useful information.“ All these organizations. in their own way. and in their own field. contributed to the early spread of agricultural information throughout the rural areas of Ontario. Thus was encouraged an early demand on the part of farmers for more information and for more help with their own particular problems. They recognized that they themselves or even the various organizations representing them. could not provide all the up- to-date information they needed to carry on a progressive agriculture which the advancing times demanded. And so it was that a few of the more progressive farmers. from time to time demanded that the government take steps to provide more agricultural education within or outside the schools. R. BEGINNINGS OF ORGANIZED EXTENSION WORK Periodically over the years. the idea had been advanced that ag- riculture should be taught in the public schools of the Province. As early as 1860. a book on agricultural education was published and in- troduced into the schools. but was not used. Later attempts to teach agriculture in the wheels also failed. probably mostly because of the lack of qualified teachers. — F Pruit Growers Association. Annual Report for 1885. contained in the Report of the Bureau of Industries. printed by order of Legislative Assembly. Province of Ontario. Toronto. 1886. Duncan McArthur. in an article on the history of agricultural ex- tension in Ontario. published in Canadian Countgyman and filed in a s€31l‘apbook of newspaper clipping in the possession of R. S. Duncan (no date given.). 13 In 1906. in a memorandum to the Minister of Agriculture. a former Deputy Minister. Dr. C. C. James. advanced the idea that a trained specialist in agriculture should be located in every county in the Pro- vince.8 Dr. James recommended that this trained specialist be paid by the Province and his services would then be at their disposal. This agent was visualized as being '. . . the moving spirit in every Early organization. - assisting. instructing. and advising."9 The report fur- ther recommended that these agents of the Department of Agriculture be placed in local centers with an office where individual farmers would be free to bring their problems. At the same time. Dr. Sneath. the Superintendent of Education for the Province. had been independently thinking along the same lines. Re submitted a similar. but independent. memorandum. in which he advo- cated the placing of Agricultural College graduates on the staffs of high schools to teach agriculture to secondary school students. Time not spent in the classroom was to be spent out in the country. particu- lO larly with the students' families. From the combined ideas of these two men was created the Act which authorized the placing of District Representatives of the Department of Agriculture in certain schools of the Province. ""‘1T"" Agricultural and Experimental Union. Annual Report. contained in Report of the Minister of Agriculture. printed by authority of Legisla- tive Assembly. Province of Ontario. Toronto. 1907. 9m. 1° Ibid. 1'4 The first six district Agricultural Agents were appointed.in June. 1907. making Ontario among the first areas on the continent to have such a trained agriculturalist available for consultation by the farmers. These first agents. called District Representatives. were of course. agricultural college graduates. Originally they were supposed to teach agriculture in the high schools of the towns in which they were located. However. agriculture teaching in the schools was not very successful and after five years. was dropped from the duties of the District Representa- tives. But their work in promoting better agriculture among the far- mers was eminently successful: it developed rapidly. Applications poured in from county councils requesting the appointment of a Represent- ative in their county. By 1917. ten years after the first District Representatives were appointed. M5 such Representatives were serving Ontario agriculture. Ry 1927. every county in Ontario had at least one Representative.11 In 1912. an assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture was appointed to take charge of District Representative work. In 1917. a Supervisor of District Representatives was appointed. The service continued to ex- pand rapidly. and by 1918, by Act of the Ontario Legislature. the name was changed from District Representative to Agricultural Representative. In 1920. the Agricultural Representatives Branch was established. and placed in the charge of the Director of Extension. 11 Minister of Agriculture. Annual Reports 1907 to 1929. printed by order of Legislative.Assemb1y, Province of Ontario. Toronto. See also. Reginald S. Duncan. unpublished.manuscript entitled 'A.History of Agricultural Extension in Ontario" on file in office of Director of Extension. Agricultural Representives Branch. Toronto. 15 It is interesting to note here that the designation "Agricultural Representative“ was first used about 1907 by Seaman.Knapp. a pioneer extension worker in.America. to describe his trained agricultural work- ers in the southern states.12 I. EXTENSION BY OTHER BRANCHES OF THE DEPARTMENT As mentioned.previously. the early’deveIOpment of the women's In-. stitutes paralleled that of the Farmers' Institutes. The Women's Insti- tute movement grew and during the first World War. the Department of Agriculture hired the first home economists to assist the Women's In- stitutes. Because the Department hired and.paid the home economics exp tension workers. the women's Institutes Branch and Home Economics Ser- vice came into existance. Rural women. through their local Women's Institute groups and their central organization. the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario. con- trol their own extension.program. The Women's Institutes Branch main- tains the staff of trained workers in Home Economics. and through its Director. the programs of this Branch are correlated with those of other Branches where necessary. host of the Branches of the Department have develOped because of the necessity of administering.Acts passed in the different fields of agriculture. The usual history is that associations or organizations consider there is a need for legislation on a subject and make repre- sentations to the Government for such legislation. When it is passed. 12 Jos h C. Bailey. Seaman A. Knapp. Columbia University Press. New Ybrk. 19 5. p.229 and p. 259. 16 13 the Government decides on the Department to administer it. With in— creasingly more regulations pertaining to agriculture being passed by the Legislature. a staff was required to administer these Acts. Thus. different Branches were set up to administer the Acts in different phases of agriculture. ane of these Branches themselves were actually created by a Leg- islative Act. They became established for administrative purposes and they administer such Acts as the Legislature has passed and which are assigned to a particular Branch by the Hinister of Agriculture. Since the duties and functions of these Branches have not been set forth by any.Act of the Legislature. it is quite easy to understand how some of them have become engaged in extension activities. In earlier years. when officers and staff members of the different Departments travelled over the Province in the course of their adminis- trative duties. they'were often asked for advice on particular crop and farm practice problems. A case in point would be the administration of various Head and Need Seed Control Acts by the Crops. Seeds. and Weeds Branch. Staff members were in contact with many farmers in the course of their duties under these.Acts. Eventually. these contacts led to representations by farmers for establishment by the Government for subsidized seed cleaning plants. Then came the organization of Seed.Fairs and Seed Exhibits at district exhibitions. In recent years there has been con- siderable work with the Ontario Crop Improvement Association. Postwar 13 Carl W. Caskey. Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture. Toronto. Ontario. written communication. November 7, 1952. 17 years have seen Crepe Branch fieldmen helping to organize Grassland Days. Weed Spraying Demonstrations. and similar activities. The original regulatory duties of the staff members of the Branch became interspersed with extension work. These extension activities became so numerous that fieldmen had to be taken into the Branch to do extension work exclusively. leaving administration of Acts and regula- tions to others. The above situation was variously repeated in several other Branches now engaged in extension activities. J. EXTENSION WORK BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS Through the years. several centers of agricultural education. and demonstration. teaching. and research were established in the Province. The Horticultural Experiment Station wasestablished at Vineland. in the Niagara district. as a center for horticultural research in that important fruit-growing district. Soon after this research station was established. the staff were in demand for addressing groups. visit- ing growers and advising on cultural problems. The appointment of a full time extension man to the staff was a logical move. In 1929. the Station began Spray Service to the Niagara District. At present there are two full time extension men and several part time extension workers on the staff. The Kemptville Agricultural School. at Kemptville. in eastern Ontario. was established in 1921 under funds granted by the Federal in Government. This school was to provide eastern Ontario with a center 1% Agricultural Instruction Act. 1912. which set aside a sum of ten million dollars to be spent over a period of ten years by the Pro- vinces for capital expenditures and staff additions on existing agri- cultural schools. to establish new ones. and for general agricultural education and demonstration. 18 for agricultural education through short. non-degree courses, and for extension and demonstration. Similarly the Ridgetown School and Experiment Farm. in Kent County in southwestern Ontario was established as a similar center for that part of the Province. K. SUMMARY Figure 1. on.page l9. summarizes graphically the development of some of the extension services now offered by several Branches and In- stitutions. This chart shows how some of the administrative Branches developed.partly as a result of activities of early farm organizations and groups. and partly as a result of the necessity for administration of certain Acts and regulations passed from time to time by the Legis- lature. Also indicated in Figure l are the main lines of present coop- eration between these Branches and Institutions. As agriculture grew in importance in Ontario. farmers formed various groups and associations to represent their interests in parti- cular phases of it. Part of the purpose of these groups was to provide a medium for farmers to talk over their'problems and to have various authorities address them. These groups. then, were early centers for the spreading of agricultural information. Directly or indirectly. some of them gave rise to formation of several of the present Branches of the Department of Agriculture. Earliest government interest in agriculture was through the Com. missioner of Agriculture in the Bureau of Industries. As these govern- ment interests increased. a separate Department of Agriculture under a 19 (Qflssekee-v *0 «QIQQs‘t I-IIIIIII ie~01~esfiod Agassi 0k «Kiosk (a..\ bee... (ssh o selk..v.& so see?“ I assesfi PSQ 3. a 2 a; 3. e3 3:: «2:16 .. azu aceges 360k ‘5 :3 Us; {103‘ Slaughe eta atesssfit u! 3* 3.338! 00“ 0‘ 50.59 Dish QR.£4U»° V60 nksesso Ea su‘ Us: secoxK n at doses. «see-93d 432‘ 1: esseafi atesu I: a a I. 33;..Vcenwassvs ~3th s.ll 0 Instill to“ Qo\n§”.~(u JUOGBQ V-sle‘eCt .. aflodsé 5:;an II I -' .I ‘8 0.03 §.3OU 0:0 l fiance’s? I I ll. I I {also a... solo!!! Vweaetsx. cl shun-“Min Elmsauitxx .. . ~03 IAN itJflKx g .‘ kahuna-xv“ \‘3‘ 3 . JsszQ (590g nix we. s\e\\§w 3535.131 sauerqtzm 0.5.: 392m¢ q. .uboa. w flu_>fiUM taflcufuw / of as 5.18m one no cd 5st 26 o 3.: /\/ 4:433 a a ._ A. a . m A I‘gfifluflé “\OO‘Ufl . fibigk g—oz $0 “.3059 c—"O £ ‘LQ angst i2 :3 . ‘19....51su ea .0 . noes...” isoaooan¢ 33.3.9.“ age-0.8.1: u 2.5323‘ rsslrsé ‘ 251-6 Minister was formed. It has grown to be one of the largest of the many Departments of the Provincial Government. The increasing complexity of agriculture led to a demand for more scientific information. a demand which was answered in part with the appointment of the first District Agricultural Representatives in 1907. This service grew into the present Agricultural Representatives Branch. which is the mainstay of present agricultural extension work in Ontario. Other Branches and Institutions found their staffs called upon for advice and extension work. and provision of an extension service became an established part of the functions of several Branches of the Depart- ment and of the Institumions established originally for teaching. re- search. and demonstration. 21 CHAP‘I‘B III ORGANIZATION OF EXTENSION SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. INTRODUCTION The Department of Agriculture is headed by the Minister of Agri- culture who is a member of the Premier's Cabinet. He is appointed to this position by the Premier from among the elected body of the Legis- lature. Under the Minister of Agriculture is the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister. These men are appointed officials. and as such are Civil Servants. All Branches and Institutions of the Depart- ment are responsible through the Deputy Minister to the Minister of Agriculture and through him to the Legislature. Figure 2. on page 22. charts the organization of the Agricultural Education Institutions. Experimental and Demonstration Farms and Sta- tions and shows the chain of responsibility as regards extension. Figure 3. on page 23. similarly charts the organization and chain of extension responsibility for the Administrative Branches of the De- partment. These charts show that. at least as far as extension is concerned. no Branch Director or Institutional head is responsible to anyone below the Deputy Minister or his assistant. This means. theo- retically. at least. that all extension activities must be coordinated through the Deputy Minister's office. 22 IIIquthmeee~neW +0 .316 c.3586 5. woman.- n_4.3..\.w$ 1a. 23.5 awfioc‘ 31:1.“ oac+1a~n~ts£§¢x .ii 3er 3s? £84k issuing ascend (af‘o 3“ I 3* 1h ‘tixt Q- (3.93% N3 «08:... um 23521.3 .2 3.6 5.3..) 2.3.3303 31 Fir- _ ‘ntoCuaMM Q “Euch— ¢.53.~wzo£dq vcc e1&:s£:e~4.fl ”so-3% 13.3.0 _ v 32.0 09310 a ha4s.s~«o> quaquuthT . as a?» :O 954.. :0 . | I lllll assume.» 3.2.: \cuzaeafim ids: saint * etc - 3... _ . .33» - 2... V we wkflwKW‘ ,Vecboxe!ew¢\w. _ WV .UCQ‘d Mc1k£ae3q szuc..>eaQ «39.2sz H . H _, H. _ amwwcc€x 233%...3‘ \fVUQ 9 N‘iW"\HAMQ £UV»~.\—t hflamé ~ 3524 #56» 333% 3‘5..me Na.3..4..naom thP $0 CMQAU ..... ,-------- .. 4.33 vacuity fiuwuoam #Ae£u ceradeCOmAO unannoeibw 9.33.7.0 ovsetou‘ fie L. we . «03.53.3fl atria;,4% u c w E oa3u~3fiZQ¢ mo wswEwya VG 23 n .qu .lnlll \. {21:353“ A. 5340 somntvhsm ¢.. VoOQQtU nu..~..£«35.£v¢ + .mi of resale; runawaemeeu fleeceuuwu..srcs£6 sownrOuxm we non—.4 42:0:an le3¢0§ am as; d ‘03 3.3 I 00:.39an as: 2% iaixiek V: 1 melanin» «31¢ v2.33.“ ELCK / ND v49. 1 ¢ ‘ ¢s<§.3 (tweet-m V917. us an «calm 3; 3% 4e: 1m :— es» l.£e*eoee.$ 1 3:2.“ ~39~q3¢i¢ n¢¢£2\ sh.” : 3 0% \ .3353. / 15am V 333.4 3: 2% Last ‘40 K 1..” firth 233 see: me & united. qaa==ee2‘w 3M3. town-9. In 2:53: ‘0 a e.» 00 a. Q 1 work. except Home Economics, carried on in the Province. Even as late as 1920. when a separate Branch for Agricultural Representatives and its office of Director of Extension was created, most extension work was apparently controlled by this Branch. The Director of Extension now is responsible for, and directs all extension work done by the Agricultural Representatives. But he is not responsible for, and does not necessarily have any control over exten- sion work done by other Branches. or the colleges at Guelph, or the Ex- periment Stations and Demonstration Farms.2 Thus. when the office of Director of Extension was first estab- lished in 1920, the holder was Director of Extension in fact, as well as in name. The other Branches and Institutions outside his Jurisdic- tion, had, with one or two exceptions, not commenced to do extension work. At the present time. some of these Branches and Institutions work some of the time through the Director of Extension. At other times, they work directly through the Agricultural Representative in a local county. Sometimes they carry out their own programs without consulta- tion with the Agricultural Representatives Branch. if R. 8. Duncan, former Director of Extension. Ontario Department of Agriculture. oral communication. 2 James A. Garner. Director of Extension, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Parliament Buildings. Toronto. oral communication. #1 It is to the benefit of the Extension Service that the best of re- lations apparently exists between the various Branch Directors. In their regular meetings together. there has recently been a move to dis- cuss the extension activities of the different Branches and relate them to each other and to those of the different Institutions. Such a c00peration now exists in the consideration of research projects to be carried out by the colleges at Guelph, and the Experi- ment Stations and even Institutions and organizations outside the Depart- ment of Agriculture. When a new problem or major research area isto be investigated, research men or administrative officers of all Institur tions or Branches that might be concerned. convene and discuss the prob- lem. Which Institution can best undertake the work is decided. or, as is the case in the current Legume Research Project, portions of the re- search are allotted to several research organizations. Such a spirit of cooPeration between Branches and Institutions en- gaged in extension may exist, but it does not often seem to be Opera- tive. B. DEFINITIONS In order to clarify and to better discuss extension, the total concept of extension work was broken down into more specific definitions. For the purpose of this study, these definitions were as follows: 3 James A. Garner. Director of Extension. Ontario Department of Agriculture. Parliament Buildings, Toronto. oral communication. 142 Provincecwide general extension refers to the broad, general ex- tension program in all its phases, as carried on by the county Agricul- tural Representatives. It is available to the whole Province. Province-wide specialized extension is specialized extension in various subject matter fields as opposed to the general program em- bracing all extension work. This specialized extension is offered by some Branches and Institutions on a.Province-wide basis. Specialized extension work within an area (or areas) is special- ized extension in various subject matter fields offered by an Institup tion or Branch to a certain small area or areas in the Province. 0. YOUTH AND JUNIOR EXTENSION WORK The organization and sponsorship of Junior and u-H Clubs seems, on the surface, to be without plan. Although five Branches and one Institution are active in organizing clubs, all such organization must be done on the advice of the county Agricultural Representative or his assistant. Since he controls all Junior work, there is little over— lapping. The result is a well-balanced. and well-coordinated program which has made young people's extension work a very important phase of the whole extension program. D. HOME ECONOMICS EXTENSION NORK All extension work in home economics is done through the Women's Institutes and the District Home Economists. They organize their pro- grams. where necessary and desirable, in cooperation with the county Agricultural Representatives. Any extension work done by specialists of Macdonald Institute at Guelph is done through the Women's Institutes Branch. h3 In this important part of extension work there is little overlap- ping of effort and the overall program seems to be well coordinated. Home economics extension holds an important place in the lives of many rural Ontario women. E. THE ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE The staff of this Institution is always available for consultation or advice to the Agricultural Representatives. The College, when asked.to. coOperates with the Director of Exe tension and the county Agricultural Representatives on some of their programs. The College also has a more or less independent, Province-wide specialized extension service. Its staff and extension specialists are generally available for specialized extension work anywhere in the Pro- vince. This, of course, does not mean that every request for extension services is indiscriminately answered. The College also extends a specialized extension service to one area which will be further described in the section dealing with ex- tension in the horticultural industry. In 1950, an Associate Director of Extension was appointed to the Agricultural Representatives Branch with his office at the Ontario Ag- ricultural College. His title was Coordinator of Extension Services. and his duties were to coordinate the extension programs of the College and the Agricultural Representatives Branch at Toronto. The fact of his appointment can be taken as an official recognition of the exist- ance of a considerable amount of overlapping and lack of coordination between the extension programs of the College and other Branches and Institutions. ‘ Much has been done in the past two years to correlate the exten— sion work of the College and of Toronto and 3f other Institutions, but there is still much more that could be done. Most of the work of Extension Coordinator seems to be directed towards matters of detail rather than the overall program. One of his duties is the assignment of various specialists to such events as Field and Demonstration Days, meetings, Exhibitions, and Conventions. Before his appointment, each Institution and Branch sent specialists to such events as they saw fit or as their funds permitted. Perhaps this situ- ation was desirable from the specialists' point of view, but certainly not from the standpoint of the most effective use of extension funds and personnel. The extension work of the College came into existence in response to a demand rather than as an offered service. With the exception of its Department of Public Relations, there is no department in which ex- tension work is not secondary to classroom teaching and research. As indicated in Chapter III, several of the departments have extension specialists on their staffs. These specialists are on full time ex- tension and are required to give little, if any, classroom instruction. The Poultry. Soils, and Field Craps Departments have such specialists. Other departments such as Horticulture, Animal Husbandry, Agricultural Economics, and.Agricultural Engineering have staff members doing ex- tension work who are also expected to do classroom teaching or research. h E. I. McLeughry, Associate Director of Extension, Ontario Agri- cultural College. Guelph. Ontario, oral communication. As a result, they can hardly do Justice to any of the Jobs. This is unfortunate. because such departments are in a position to offer an extension service that no other Institution or Branch can provide. A case example that might be cited here is to be found in the De- partment of Horticulture's extension work among growers of greenhouse crepe. Greenhouse flower and vegetable crops are a small but valuable and growing industry in the Province. The department's staff includes one man who is a specialist on greenhouse culture. He has an excellent reputation in Ontario and beyond and the demands on his time for ad- vice on.problems. addressing meetings, and so forth, are many. Yet he is expected to do classroom teaching and to direct research work in greenhouse crepe and to answer a volume of mailed queries on greehhouse problems. The situation Just described is apparently a result of a lack of sufficient funds to employ another man for greenhouse work. or else it is a lack of realization of a responsibility to fill a demand for more extension services to this phase of the agricultural industry. This is an example of a.paucity of extension service in a field that has asked for it. It can be contrasted with examples of duplication and apparent waste of personnel time in other fields. Such a field is in Agricultural Economics. This College Depart- ment was conducting studies on costs of producing canning crops. The Farm Economics Branch of the Department of Agriculture in Toronto was also conducting a study of the costs of producing canning crops. The natural supposition was that the Farm Economics Branch and the Agricul- tural Economics Department of the College were cOOperating in such a a study. However; it was reported.by a field.worker gathering statistics for the Agricultural Economics Department of the College, that his work jpath had kept crossing with that of a similar fieldmen for the Farm Ico- nomics Branch who was working in the same area. thus revealing two work» ers functioning in the same area on the same project, but independently of one another.5 In the above described case. it was apparent that there was a com- plete lack of coordination of’programs of the Department at the College and the'rarm Economics Branch at Toronto. That they were each unaware of what the other was going is incomprehensible. The suggestion that the heads of the Branch and the College department were often.at logger- heads is a probable explanation of this glaring case of duplication of a service. but does not make it any the less excusable. ‘Iith the whole large field of agricultural economics to work in, there would seem to be no need for any duplication of extension services. The foregoing example points up the need for even further coordination of services between the college and other Institutions and.Branches. In the several preceding paragraphs, examples of inefficient or in! effective extension services were set forth. These examples are not given with any idea of trying to show that the college's extension ac- tivities are inefficient or fall short of the goal. Such is not the case. Much of the extension work such as soil testing and fertiliser recommendations. fare planning. the spray services. and so on. are exp tension services not offered by any other Institution or Branch. And 5 rield.worker. Department of.Agricultural lconomics, Ontario Ag- ricultural CollogO. Guelph. Ontario. oral communication. 1l? in giving these services, the college must make them fit into an often 'limited budget and personnel. When the annual budget for the Ontario Agricultural College is ‘voted.by the Legislature on the recommendation of the Minister of Ag- riculture. no specification or breakdown is made as to what propgrtions of the money is to be used for teaching. research, or extension. Since extension work was never a designated part of the college's functions, its extension service must usually be satisfied with that part of the budget left after teaching and research requirements have been met. Since most of the extension work in the Province is carried on by the Agricultural Representatives and other Branches, this arrangement seems logical. But at the same time. under the existing organization of extension. recognition should be given to the fact that certain depart- ments, at least, at the college provide extension services which are not provided by any other Branch or any other Institution. Adequate finan- cial resource should be provided for such extension services. This might be accomplished by curtailing present extension work by those de- partments which give a service already offered by other sources, in favor of those departments with an otherwise unprovided program. It is entirely logical that research and teaching staff members should be called on for some extension work. .After all. these men are, in most cases. experts in their field, and their knowledge should not be confined to the classroom. The staff members of the Ontario Agricul- tural College seem to be ready to provide a specialized extension program, 5 B. 8. Duncan, former Director of Extension, Ontario Deparment of Agriculture, oral communication. w __ hS 'within the limits of their time and the available financial resources. to the Province. That this program, in some of its phases, lacks effective coordi- nation with those of other Institutions and.Branches, cannot be blamed entirely on the administration of the college. This administration is partially responsible to the Minister of Agriculture and his Deputy and it would seem their responsibility to provide more overall supervision of the extension activities. The appointment of an Extension Coordina- tor seems to have been a step in the right direction. He should direct the extension activities of the college and other Branches and Institu- tions along correlative paths and bring serious discrepancies and du- plications to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. I. THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCHES The varying extension activities of each of these Branches have been described in Chapter III. Further discussion of the role of sevb eral of the Branches in Junior and “-3 Club work and in women's activ- ities was provided earlier in the present Chapter. The Crops. Seeds and Needs Branch has five fieldmen or specialists on its staff and the Livestock Branch has four. These men are college trained specialists in these particular fields. Their Jobs are primar— ily extension work. They have little or no concern with administration of Acts or regulations. These Branches work through the Agricultural Representatives Branch, and the county Agricultural Representatives, thus contributing to the 1*9 Province-wide general extension program. They also independently pro- ‘Vide a specialized extension service on a Province-wide basis. Their specialists are available to farm groups and organizations for aid in 'programs and projects. Such extension service need not be requested through the Agricultural Representative nor provided through him. The activities of these Branches are entirely free from the Jurisdiction of the Director of.Extension and the coordination of their programs is on a voluntary bases. It depends on the desire to cooperate on such mat- ters existing between the various Branch Directors. It is one function for Branch fieldmen to be a focal point or “spark“ for extension projects in a county or area. Such projects might concern farm crops. livestock. farm machinery, or some other phase of the farming operation. Good extension organization would seem to have the specialist providing this "spark" to start the project in response to a request by the local Agricultural Representative. One county Agricultural Representative aptly commented on the situation as follows: '. . . instead of us calling the signals and the specialists taking the ball, sometimes they call the signals and we ta ta 7 have to he the ball.” Instead of the local county Agricultural Representative being re- sponsible for all extension activities within his own county. we have a situation where a specialist from a Branch, in no way responsible to the Director of Extension, can come into a county and proceed to organize a 7 County Agricultural Representative. Ontario Department of Agri- culture, oral communication. 53 project and expect the local Representative to cooperate with him. This is very upsetting to the Agricultural Representative's previously arranged jprogram. It makes program planning most difficult. The county Representative has two ways of coping with such a situav tion. He can refuse to cooperate with the specialist and ignore his project. or he can attempt to find time in an already busy schedule to work along with it. That the county Agricultural Representatives cannot find time, when planning his season's program. to include projects to suit the demands of everyone's interests is evident. He must plan his program so as to in— clude those projects and activities for which there seems to be most de- mand. or which he judges to be most worthwhile. Naturally, some groups or areas of the county are sometimes disappointed. or even resentful. The Branch specialists are free. within certain broad limits, to direct their particular projects and programs as they see fit. Gener- ally they coOperate with the Agricultural Representatives. One former specialist never seemed to see fit to cooperate with the local extension workers. however. The following situation arose.8 In a certain county. a small, but noisy minority had made it known that they thought the local extension staff was ignoring them. Exami- nation of the annual reports of the extension staff of this particular 9 county indicated that such was not the case. But since the group was a 8 County Agricultural Representative, Ontario Department of Agri- culture, oral communication. 9 Annual Report. County Agricultural Representative, on file, On- tario Department of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings. Toronto. small part of the total rural pOpulation of the county. and since their interests. in many ways, ran counter to the majority, it was difficult to plan a program to entirely fit their needs. The previously mentioned specialist came into the area and proceeded to organize a project which threw the whole extension program in that part of the county off balance for a.part of the year. It resulted in bickering and dissentions which forced the eventual replacement of the local extension staff. This case study does not intend to absolve the local Agricultural Representative from all the blame for the situation arising. But it does illustrate what can happen when the county Agricultural Represen- tative does not have complete control over all the extension work in his own county. Still another case can be cited of local programs being upset by extension specialists over which the county Agricultural Representative or the Director of Extension had no control.10 A Grassland Day had been arranged for the eastern part of the Pro- vince. It had been planned the previous winter and hence its organiza- tion was included as a part of the year's program for the extension staffs of the neighboring counties. The organization of a similar Grassland Day for southwestern Ontario was suggested but had been drOpped in favor of another large Field Day for that part of Ontario later in the season. But during the spring. in response to a still existing demand for a Grassland Day, the Crops Branch proceeded to "spark" its organization 10 Annual Report, County Agricultural Representative, on file, De- partment of Agriculture. Parliament Buildings. Toronto. for late June. The county Agricultural Representatives in the area could do little else but re—arrange their early summer programs so as to allow themselves and many of the local leaders time to participate in this Grassland Day program. Since it had been previously decided not to hold one that season in that part of the Province. the fact that extension men from a Branch over which the Agricultural Representative or his Branch had no control came into the county and proceeded to organize the Day caused considerable resentment among the local leaders. County programs must often be changed or interrupted to meet an emergency or to answer an unanticipated demand for a particular exten- sion service. In fact this happens often enough to make concrete pro- gram planning for the year sometimes hazardous. Such deliberate inter- ference and uncooperative attitudes on the part of some of the special- ists from other Branches would seem most undesirable. The case studies presented here are two instances of the sometimes irresponsible activities of other Branches in interfering with exten- sion programs. Not all the activities of the extension staffs of these other Branches are disruptive. In fact. considering the varied extension functions of the several Branches, these case studies are probably iso~ lated instances. This makes them no less important when considering the whole situation. That they have happened illustrates that they might happen again inasmuch as the situation has not been altered in any way. 53 Most of the extension activities of the Livestock, Crepe, Econom- ics, Dairy, and other Branches, are, however, carried out in coopera- tion with the Agricultural Representatives Branch. Some of the projects do not need any particular cooperation or assistance from the local ex- tension staff. Some such programs can be carried on in conjunction with, or independently of, the previously planned county program. Some of the emergency projects organized by these Branches are of this nature. Recent infestations of turnip aphids in the commercial turnip growing areas of the Province were handled by specialists without the local staff having to take too much of their own time to direct the eradication programs. Earlier in this discussion of extension activities at the Ontario Agricultural College an example was cited of the apparently total lack of any coordination between the projects of the Departments there and the Branches at Toronto. If a then current rumor of disagreement be- tween the head of the Department and the Branch Director concerned was true, the described situation was apparently a case of deliberate ri- valry between the two organizations based on a purely personal disa- greement or clash of personalities. That the organization of extension services is such as to allow this kind of situation to arise is regret- able. Not only does it result in a waste of money and time, but it tends to make the organizations concerned look cheap or even ridicur lens in the eyes of the public. Such situations are bound to have some unfavorable effect on extension in general, and on these two organiza- tions in particular, in the future. It was stated that the present policy is to have Branch Directors in their regular meetings, discuss the extension activities of their respective Branches.11The Associate Director charged with the coordina- tion of extension services also sits in on many of these meetings. Presumably this helps to correlate the extension activities of the colleges at Guelph with those of other Branches and Institutions. This is a desirable situation and should lead to a better coordinated overall program. But there is nothing to oblige a Branch Director to relate his program to the extension activities of other Branches and Institutions. It is entirely dependent on his desire to cooperate for the good of the whole. In recent years, the Director of one Branch has apparently seldom seen fit to coordinate the extension activities of his Branch with ex- tension work in other Branches. His attitude has resulted in much overlapping and duplication of effort in extension services to the horticultural phase of the Province's agriculture. G. EXTENSION SERVICES IN THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE INDUSTRY The Fruit Branch, the Agricultural Representatives Branch, the Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland, and the Department of Horticulture at the Ontario Agricultural College are all active in the field of horticultural extension. 11 J. A. Garner. Director of Extension. Ontario Department of Agriculture, oral communication. Figure 6, on page 56. shows a map of southern Ontario indicating those areas of the Province served by the different horticultural ex- tension specialists of these Branches and Institutions. The Agricultural Representatives Branch has horticultural repre- sentatives serving in the following areas: (1) York. Peel. and Halton counties with headquarters at Burlington, (2) Niagara district with headquarters at the Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland, (3) Middlesex and Oxford counties from London, and (h) Huron and Lambton counties from Forest.12 The Fruit Branch has six fieldmen in different parts of the Pro- vince. They are located at (1) Brighton to serve the fruit-growing area from Toronto east to Prince Edward county. (2) the Holland Marsh vegetable area. with headquarters at Bradford. (3) southern Georgian Bay apple-growing area from Barrie, (h) Kent and Essex counties in southwestern Ontario with headquarters at Leamington, (5) Lambton, Middlesex, and waterioo counties with an office at Kitchener, and (6) Niagara district from Hamilton.13 The Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland has one full time extension specialist working in the Niagara area. The Ontario Agricultural College has an extension specialist dur- ing the growing season for the Holland Marsh muck soil vegetable de- velOpment north of Toronto. Ontario Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Minister of Agriculture, for the year ending March 31, 1951, Toronto, Ontario. 13 Ibid. . a) ". C... inseam will a: 4: fitfliau. flu d‘aawqu—fl A0: a; a. «$33 “3.8:: annotauimt 3.3.5 .25... .t m. .0. OeeOOefli ....I "53% ‘03:“ 33...}: Pin: .2 artiste 3:25 3:238» 42v. teem alto» «3.3.3 532E: 4552323 OVL‘QIQ .4 e at ‘ e e‘. _.HD. HP. u. . ... new. Jen. ~11: O.~. e . 8.0531..— 57 Thus it is that four different organizations give extension ser- vices to the fruit and vegetable industry of Ontario. This consti- tutesitotal of eleven horticultural specialists resident in the areas in which they are working. In addition, there are the other subject matter horticultural services offered by the Ontario Agricultural Col- lege and Horticultural Experiment Station such as soil testing, and service to greenhouse growers. The first horticultural Representatives were appointed under the Fruit Branch during the 1920's to the fieorgian Bay district and the apple-growing area from Toronto east.1 These horticulturalists were full time extension workers. They had nothing to do with supervision of Inspection Services as do those appointed since World War II. An extension specialist was added to the staff of the Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland in 1929. This was the extent of special- ized extension to the industry until the close of the second World War. In common with other extension work, extension among fruit and vegetable growers expanded rapidly after the war. The Farm Products Grades and Sales Act was passed by the Legisla- ture and given to the Fruit Branch for administration. This Act set up grades standards for most of the common fruits and vegetables grown in the Province. Certain areas of concentrated fruit or vegetable growing were declared “closed areas" which meant that all produce mov- ing out of the areas had to be checked by an inspector appointed under _T_ Ontario Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Minister of Agriculture for 1929. Printed and published by The King's Printer, Toronto, Ontario. this Act. This meant the employment of a large number of inspectors. The Province was divided into a number of main areas of fruit and veg- stable production and a college trained man appointed to administer the inspection services in each one. Since he was usually a graduate in Horticulture, his advice was often sought on cultural and produc— tion problems. In addition, since his supervision of inspection ser- vices kept him busy only in the growing season, the Fruit Branch en- couraged him to do some field work and extension. Shortly all such supervising inspectors in the growing areas were given the additional classification of fieldmen and extension work became an important part of their duties. This extension work has been mostly of an advisory nature, aiding growers on specific production problems. The Fruit Branch fieldmen do little extension work of a more general nature such as organizing meetings or developing projects among the fruit and veg— etable growers. It was not until 191w that the Agricultural Representatives Branch started giving a specialist extension service to the horticul- tural industry. Up until this time, horticultural extension had been regarded as the field of the Fruit Branch. Immediately following the war, the many fruit and vegetable growers in the area along Lake Ontario shore between Toronto and Ham- ilton asked the Director of the Fruit Branch to appoint a specialist in that area. This the Director refused or failed to do. After sev- eral years of delay, the growers approached the Agricultural Representa- tives Branch with the result that a horticultural specialist was ap- pointed to the area under this Branch. Since 19h7, three others have been appointed to other areas. One of them works out from the Horti- cultural Experiment Station at Vineland. 1. The Holland Marsh Area. During the war, the muck soil of the Hol- land Marsh, some 35 miles north of Toronto, became of importance as a vegetable growing area. The growers here approached the Department of Horticulture of the Ontario Agricultural College in l9h6 requesting that research and extension work be done in the area. A muck soil Experimental Sub-Station was set up the next year and a specialist put in charge of the research work and to do the extension work. The Fruit Branch, under its policy of making supervising inspec- tors also extension men, appointed a fieldmen to the area in 19h9 and another one in 1950. In addition, the Holland Marsh lies partly in York county which is one of the counties within the territory of the Agricultural Repre- sentatives Branch's horticultural specialist for the Toronto‘Hamilton area. He does not, however, extend his program to include this Marsh develOpment. This small Marsh area, of about 10,000 acres, is served by four horticultural extension specialists working for three different admin- istrative organizations. Since each of these specialists has other duties in addition to those of extension, and since nearly 600 vege- table growers are concentrated in the area, the extension services a- vailable to the area are not in excess. However, it would seem that they might be more effective if one or two extension workers, both re« sponsible to one Branch or Institution were allowed to spend all their time on extension work. 6O 2. Torontof§§§32£9g_§£§§, This area includes Peel, Halton, and York counties, and is becoming decreasingly important for fruit and vegetable growing because of suburban housing developments. The area is served by a horticultural specialist under the.Agricultural Repre- sentatives Branch. 3. The Niagara Digpgipt. This important and concentrated fruit- growing area is served by three horticulturalists, all responsible to different authority. The Horticultural Experiment Station has a full time extension man on its staff. The Agricultural Representatives Branch maintains a specialist at the Station, but he is mainly responsible to the Station Director and hence there is no overlapping of effort. The Fruit Branch also has a supervising inspector and fieldmen in the area, but most of his extension work is concerned with maintaining and encouraging better graded packs of produce and with assisting in marketing services. These activities do not overlap other extension work to any extent. This important area, then, although served by three extension specialists working under different authorities, seems to be offered an efficiently coordinated and organized extension program. This good situation apparently stems from a spirit of cooperation existing be— tween the local extension workers. h. Western Ontarig. The Agricultural Representatives Branch has two extension specialists who cover Middlesex-foord and Huron-lembtcn counties. 61 The Fruit Branch has supervising inspectors and fieldmen located at Kitchener for waterloo, Middlesex, and Oxford counties and at Leam- ington for Essex and Kent counties. Thus Middlesex and Oxford counties are receiving dual extension service from extension specialists of two Branches. Fruit and vege- table growing in these two counties is scattered and is not a major phase of the local agriculture. Conversely, Essex and Kent counties, where fruit and vegetable growing is of major importance, are served by only one extension man who must in addition supervise the inspection services. The South-Essex.Associated Growers, a group of Essex county grow- ers who have become associated together for better marketing advantages, recently hired their own extension specialist. Most of his work, how- ever, is directed towards marketing problems.' The Dominion Experiment Station (Federal) at Harrow, in the county, does considerable extension work of a technical nature. This very important area, then, does not have the services of one full time government extension worker, while Middlesex and Oxford counties have two, where one would easily suffice. 5. The Georgian Bgy District. This apple—growing area has the services of an extension horticulturalist appointed by the Fruit Branch. His headquarters are at Barrie. 6. Toronto East. This long, narrow apple-growing area from Toron- to east along the north shore of Lake Ontario almost to Kingston is served by a horticulturalist with offices at Brighton. He is an ap- pointee of the Fruit Branch. 7. Summary and Conclusions! Hortigultural Extension, The preceding survey of extension in the horticultural industry indicated a rather con- fusing disorganization of services. Four different authorities have horticultural extension men in this field. There is little coordination of programs. The Directors of the Branches and Institutions concerned do not cosperate to a very great degree on this phase of extension work. The extension horticulturalists working for the different Branches and Institutions are on different salary scales. The scale for the specialists working for the Fruit Branch is lower than that in the Agri- cultural Representatives Branch. This inevitably leads to dissatisface tion and discontent among the workers on the lower salary scale. Laboring under these difficulties and others, the extension ser~ vice to the fruit and vegetable industry cannot reach its maximum ef- fectiveness. To reach even the moderate degree of effectiveness it seems to have at the present time, must have been accomplished with unnecessary waste of financial resources, personnel, time, and adminis- tration. It has recently been suggested that the extension services of the Fruit Branch be transferred to the Agricultural Representatives Branch and that an Associate Director of that Branch be placed in charge of all horticultural extension work. Such an arrangement, if adopted, should result in a much more efficient and effective service, since it would bring this large phase of the whole extension program under the direct Jurisdiction of the Director of Extension. 63 H. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE ON CONSERVATION At the session of the Ontario Legislature in 19h9, recommendation was made that the government set up a Committee of the Legislature to study the whole conservation situation in the Province. Such a commit- tee was formed and in March of 1950 the report of their findings and recommendations was published. The committee studied all aspects of conservation in the Province and in the course of their report they dealt with the extension ser- vices of the Province and their influence on conservation measures and the role extension should play in conservation. Referring to extension work as a whole, their Report made the following general comments: This committee has given careful and lengthy consideration to the problem of coordinating agricultural services so that they may reach their maximum effectiveness, and to the problem of enabling the nerve center of all such services to exercise that function most successfully. So far as agricultural conservation is concerned, where is the nerve center of all the necessary education, research, extension, and technical advisory services? The answer must be at Guelph, where the Ontario Agricultural College and the Ontario Veterinary College already have the basic resources of library, laboratory, teaching, research, publication, and extension facilities and per- sonnel. These two institutions, by their existing resources, are certainly qualified to become thg base and headquarters for all extension work in Agriculture. With reference to the teaching, research, and extension facili- ties of the Ontario Agricultural College and the Ontario Veterinary College, the committee report made these remarks: 15' Select Committee of the Legislature on Conservation, Report and Recommendations, printed and published by The K1ng's Printer, Toronto, Ontario, 1950, pp. 63-65. 6U It is recognized that both Institutions already carry tremen- dous responsibilities. With budgets that are modest compared to similar institutions in the United States, the staff at Guelph are required to carry on: (1) Vocational training in the short courses (2) Professional and scientific training in the degree courses (3) Long and short term research projects (h) Laboratory services such as soil analysis and autopsies (5) Extension work, both by publication and visitation (6) Field services such as drainage surveys (7) Advisory services both by correspondence and telephone (8) General educational work and practical demonstrations for scores of groups and thousands of individuals visiting the campus each year. No other college or university is called upon to render such a diversified and continuous service to the public. By reasons of the heavy demands presently imposed upon the institutions at Guelph, it is clear that expansion and increased support will be necessary to enable them to assume successfully their preper role in a conser- vation program for Ontario. To assume the role of a base or headquarters, to meet adequate- ly the future needs of an expanding program in better land use, soil and water conservation, crop and livestock improvement, insect and disease pest control, economical mechanization and efficient farm planning and farm management, some integration and coordination of existing units is surely necessary. The appointment of Agricultural Representatives, in soaperation with the counties, began in 1907. Since that time, the extension service of the Dapartment of Agriculture has steadily grown in in- fluence and usefulness. This committee has ample evidence that the work of the Agricultural Representatives is highly valued by the farmers, and there is considerable demand for vigorous expansion. Much of the evidence from farmers and farm organizations also in- dicated that the extension forces in.Agriculture should be more closely linked to the facilities for research, publications. and education which are presently divided between Guelph and Toronto.10 Following the preceding comments about the extension services of the Department of Agriculture, the Report made the following recommen- dations for their improvement: __.__1.6_._ Ibid. \31 The Director of Extension for Agriculture, and all agricultural officials other than those engaged in administration of legislation or in inspection should be transferred from Toronto to Guelph to facilitate closer cOOperation with the apprOpriate Departments of the federated institutions: and The Director of Extension should remain directly responsible to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, as at present, to facilitate the direct coordination of extension work among the federated insti- tutions at Guelph, the Agricultural School at Kemptville, the Horti- cultural Experiment Station at Vineland, and the Western Ontario Experimental Farm at Ridgetown: and The Director of Extension should have supervision over all the county offices of the Department of Agriculture and, in addition, should direct the whole program of agricultural extension in On- tario; and all the extension at the county or farm level should be integrated with, and coordinated through, the Agricultural Reore- sentatives in the county offices, so that the ostension staff from any Department, or the federated institutions at Guelph. or the Western Ontario Experimental Farm at Ridgetown. the Horticultural Experiment Station at Vineland, or the Kemptville Agricultural School would work through the county offices of the Agricultural Representatives. This Committee of the Legislature on Conservation consisted of twelve members of the Legislature who spent some three months holding hearings at many places across the Province. Farm organizations, muni- cipal and civic groups. and any others interested were encouraged to present briefs dealing with their Opinions and suggestions on conser~ vation and all its ramifications. As a part of the Report, the Committee considered the extension service and its place in conservation education. The result was cer- tain recommendations as set forth above. The main theme of these recommendations and comments was that ex- tension work should be coordinated and consolidated at Guelph, and that 1? Ibid. D\ O\ the Director of Extension should be responsible for overall supervision of all extension services and that the county Agricultural Representa- tives should be responsible for extension in the counties. The Report did not suggest that the Branches and Institutions en- gaged in extension should be deprived of their activities in favor of centering all extension under one administration. It did suggest that the Idrector of Extension be given Jurisdiction over the extension ac- tivities of all Branches and Institutions in order to better integrate and coordinate the program. Had the recommendations of the Report been adopted, the Agricultural Representatives Branch would have been moved from their present offices in the Parliament Buildings in Toronto to the campus of the Ontario Ag~ ricultural College at Geulph. The extension specialists and those ed- ministering the extension activities of the other Branches would also have been moved to Guelph. Such action would have split such Branches as Craps, Livestock, Fruit, Dairy, and others into two parts. Presum- ably the specialists of the different Branches, rather than remaining identified with their particular Branch, would have been grouped to- gether as an integrated specialist service of the Agricultural Repre- sentatives Branch. 0r possibly they would have been assigned to the appropriate departments of the college. The Committee's recommendations have only been adepted in a very narrow sense. The Report comment that "there is a considerable demand [St the part of the farmer§7 for a vigorous expansion" of county exten- sion services has been acted on. in part, by increasing the number of county Agricultural Representatives. 67 The only outward evidence of any particular attempt towards in- creased integration and coordination of services was the appointment in 1950 of an Associate Director of Extension, who was given the duty of Extension Coordinator. Other than these small measures, little else seems to have been done to implement the Committee's recommendations regarding extension. This cannot be because of any unfavorable reaction to the Report. When published, its recommendations were well received by the press, public, and government officials. The follwing editorial comments are typical: . . . the Report also recommends the transferring of the Agricultue ral Representatives Branch and all the extension services of the De— partment of Agriculture from Toronto to Guelph. Such a move should facilitate closer cooperation between all the extension services and the appropriate Departments of the College at Guelph. . . . the whole effect should be a better coordinated and more effective extension program for Ontario agriculture. If the recommendations of the Report are adapted, it should make the Department's extension service even more effective in pro- moting conservation measures among the Province's farmers. There would seem to be few valid reasons why little of the Commit- tee's recommendations have been adopted, other than the traditional ter- diness to reorganize any government Branch or Department. Doubtless personalities enter into the picture, and there may be administrators who are loathe to see any of their influence taken awa:. Another reason may be the fear expressed by some officials and county extension workers that if extension became identified too close- ly with the Ontario Agricultural College, in the minds of members of 18 Farmer's Advocate, London, Ontario, April 10. 1950, p. 187. 19 Globe and Mail, Toronto, Ontario, March 2?, 1950, p. h. 68 the Legislature, at least, they might not vote as much money as they do at present. Such a thought was expressed during interviews by some of the county Agricultural Representatives. I. SOME OPINIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL REPRESENTATIVES In the course of collecting data for this study, interviews were conducted with 29 county Agricultural Representatives. The general ob— Jective of the interviews was to ascertain what the Representatives thought about the present organization of extension services, and their Opinions on the recommendations put forth by the Conservation Committee Report of 1950. The 29 county Representatives interviewed ranged, in length of ser- vice, from new appointees of less than a year up to 27 years in exten- sion work. 1. ”How do you feel about the recommendations of this Report?“ In re- ply to this interview question. five respondents out of the 29 expressed any degree of opposition to the Report's findings. Eleven answering said they favored the Report's recommendations without any reservations, while another eleven were partly in favor. Of the five respondents opposing the Report, the most common rea- son advanced for apposition was that available funds would be less if extension were moved to Guelph. Examples of replies from those expressing varying degrees of favor were: 69 "I think these recommendations should be adopted as the Cowmittee set them forth. An extension organization built on these recommendations should help give the whole extension program more force.“ I. . . the Committee made their report after listening to many briefs and submissions from all over the Province. The many organiza- tions that appeared before them certainly were representative of rural thinking on these matters. They must have felt that our extension set- up needed some reorganization. Since extension usually follows the wishes of the majority, I feel something should be done about adapting these recommendations." “I feel we should look towards the future with the idea of adept- ing some of the recommendations, but need not rush into it.” "These suggestions are fine so long as they leave Extension a sep- arate Branch and don't make it part of College adninistration.” 2. "lint effect do you think it would have ongyour work if the recom- mendations were adopted?‘I 3. "What aspects of your work do you think_it might improve?" 14. "What aspects do you think it might make more difficulfl" Among those who supported the adoption of the Report's recommenda- tions varying Opinions were suggested as to the probable effect such action would have on their own work. Several thought it would change their county work but little, and that the main improvement would be in a better overall administration. 70 Other opinions included the idea that improvement would come from the concentration of most sources of "scientific information" in one place, and that consultation with college experts and authorities would be facilitated if extension headquarters were at the College too. Other benefits from a more centralized extension administration were visualized as coming from having Guelph the one big center in the Province for teaching, research, and extension. Closer contact between extension and the college was suggested as likely to bring the staff of the college into closer contact with extension and hence make it easier to call on them for specialist extension wor‘. This would make program planning easier. No aspect of extension was indicated as likely to be made more dif- ficult by locating extension administration at Guelph, aside from the fear expressed by several that less money would be made available. 5. "Do you think that it‘would make the Extension Service more effectigg in reaching farm people?” Twenty-two of the respondents answered this question affirmatively, but not all qualified their answer with any reasons for their replies. Those who elaborated thought most of the benefits would come about indirectly through better planning and pregram coordination at levels above the county. 6. "Do you.think that concentration of extension work at the Collegp ggpld facilitate programgplanning and streamline the whole Extension or— ganizationJ or do you feel that this is a problem?! 71 Fifteen answering this question indicated that, in some of its phases at least, effective program planning was sometimes a problem under the present organization. Most thought that a change in organi- zation toward that recommended should help overcome the problem. Some examples of affirmative replies to this question were: “I think people sometimes feel that there are too many different organizations and Branches trying to do extension work now, and if they could be consolidated, it would be a move for the better.” "Concentration of the Extension Administration at the College would make it the one big center for teaching, research, and extension for the whole Province." ”Yes, there is sometimes a problem in that respect. Our Branches and Colleges don't always get together the way they should. If the Director had some say over all extension work, it should help tie it all together.” These answering "No“ to this question seemed to feel that, genera ally, lxtension.was doing quite an effective Job now and that there was no serious problem in overlapping and insufficient coordination. Nega- tive replies to the question included: "I don't think there is much of a problem on that score. Our Ex- tension Service seems to be doing a good Job now and as long as they are. I wouldn't be in favor of changing the organization." ”There doesn‘t seem to be much of a problem with duplication. I think the Extension Coordinator has ironed out most of that trouble.” 7? 7. ”gp you think that the set-up should be changed, or wou1d_zpu leave it as it is?" Out of those Agricultural Representatives interviewed, 13 answered "Yes" and six "no" to this question. Five had no Opinion. Of the 18 answering "yes,” ten had served in extension less than ten years. Four of the six Opposed had been in the service over ten years. Summarizing the Opinions of the county Agricultural Representatives on the questions asked, it is evident that a majority would favor some reorganization of the present extension service along the lines sug- gested in the Conservation Committee Report. Satisfaction with the extension work under the present organization or fear of there being less money available for extension if it were removed to Guelph were most prominen 1y advanced reasons for not changb ing the present organization into a more centralized one. J. SUMMARY The Director of Extension,first appointed with the idea that he should be director in fact as well as title, cannot control all exten- sion work now because activities of Branches and Institutions other than his own are outside his Jurisdiction. Some Branches and Institutions carry out their extension programs through the Agricultural Representatives Branch; others do not. They are under no compulsion to do so. Extension programs in Young Peeple's and Home Economics fields are carried out on a c00perative basis between all Branches concerned. Such 7’3 co0peration does not always characterize all of the activities of the other Branches and InstitutiOns. An Extension Coordinator was appointed to coordinate all these programs and reduce duplication. His work has been effective, but has not eliminated all of it. Overlapping of work has occurred between extension work of the college and of Branches in Toronto. Because the Agricultural Representative has little real control over extension work done by other Branches in his county, there have been instances of duplication, sometimes deliberate, in the county, which has done a disservice to extension work in general. This has come about through specialists acting unwisely and without consulting the local extension staff before initiating some special program. Extension services to the fruit and vegetable industry are admin- istered by two Branches and two Institutions. Little coordination is apparent. The result is wasteful of money and personnel. That the public are aware of need for some reorganization was evidenced by briefs presented to the Conservation Committee. As a re- sult of criticisms and suggestions about extension, their Report made a number of recommendations towards a more centralized administration of extension services, to be located at the college at Guelph. Most county Agricultural Representatives are COgnizant of some of the faults of the present organization of extension services, and when interviewed regarding recommendations of the Conservation Committee, they generally favored the adeption, at least in part, of the suggestions put forth in the Report. 7h CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A. SUMMARY The Ontario Department of Agriculture is the administrative or- ganization representing the interests of the Provincial Government in Ontario's agriculture. Extension services are an important function of this Department. The most effective allocation of funds and person- nel, and the efficient administration of these extension services is sometimes a problem. This problem exists, in part, because of the nature of the present organization of the Department of Agriculture. Examination of this organization shows that the Department of Ag- riculture is made up of numerous Branches and several Institutions. Several of these Branches and Institutions contribute to the overall extension program. This study traces the development of agricultural extension work from its early beginnings in the middle of the last century, through to its present organization. This existing organization is described in the light 6f the nature and scepe of the extension activities of the various components of the organization. Evidence is presented to sup- port the hypothesis that, because of this existing organization of extension services, a sometimes serious element of overlapping and lack of coordination exists in some phases of the program. 75 The present organization of agricultural extension seems to have come about more through evolution than through any particular Legisla- tive action. As early agriculture became more complex, farmers formed groups and associations among themselves in order to protect and fur- ther their own interests. These associations were also media for dis- cussing common problems. Some of these early farmers' associations are still flourishing: others have been disbanded. But most of them have had an influence on the development of the Department of Agricul- ture into its present form. Some of these farm associations initiated actions which resulted in eventual legislation. Passage of certain legislation in turn caused the government to establish Branches to ad- minister it. The desire for more scientific agricultural information, as expressed by some of these groups, led to the appointment of the first District Representatives by the Department of Agriculture. From this action grew the present day Agricultural Representatives Branch. Many of our present day extension programs were initiated as a result of actions by one or more of these early groups. Institutions of teaching and research also found themselves called upon by fanners for advice and extension services. Extension work soon became a part of their activities. In the present organization of the Department, all Branches and Institutions are responsible to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and through him to the Minister of Agriculture and the Legislature. Theo- retically, then, all extension activities are coordinated through the Deputy Minister's office. This coordination can, of necessity, be only 76 in matters of general policy. Branch or Institutional heads are re- anonsible for all matters of detail. The Branches and Institutions engaged in extension work have varied jprograms. The Agricultural Representatives Branch, through its Agricul- tural Representatives in each county in the Province, provides a general extension service. This is the only Branch charged by the Legislature with extension duties. Its program forms the ”core" of the whole ser- vice. Activities of other Branches and Institutions are of a more spe— cialized nature. They are adjunctive to, but not necessarily correlated with, those of the Agricultural Representatives Branch. The many specialized extension activities are carried on by ten Branches and six Institutions. In some cases these specialized services are available Province-wide: in other cases only in certain areas. The Livestock, Dairy, Fruit, Farm Economics, and Crops Branches have special- ists in their various fields. The Ontario Agricultural College, the Western Ontario Experimental Farm, Kemptville Agricultural,$chool, and the Vineland Horticultural Experiment Station each carry on extension activities in their own particular areas of the Province, and also to some extent, Province-wide. The present agricultural extension program seems quite effective, but instances have occurred where its effectiveness has not reached the maximum because of overlapping and a lack of coordination between the varying extension programs of the different Branches and Institutions, That the overall program sometimes becomes confused and hard to ad- minister is easily understood. Integrated programs must depend largely 77 on cooPeration and consultation of the Branch Directors and Institutional heads. Some of these extension activities are rooted in the long-time practices of particular Branches or Institutions. Some Departments of the Ontario Agricultural College, and some Branches of the Department of Agriculture in Toronto have specialists who are counterpart to one another. They do the same specialized ex- tension work for different administrators. Duplication of work can and does happen, whether because of a lack of coordination, or because of a conscious attempt on the part of one or both organizations to "steal the other's fire." Such situations as that referred to in the gathering of Farm Economics' statistics are regrettable and do extension work no credit in the eyes of the public. Extension work among greenhouse growers illustrated a situation where a large unsatisfied demand exists for more extension work, but which cannot be filled because extension funds and personnel are not available. That extension services should be duplicated in some fields and not be available to others is a situation that needs rectifying. Since the Director of Extension has no Jurisdiction over extension work of other Branches, these Branches must use judgement when organ- izing their programs. These programs are mostly arranged through the county Agricultural Representatives. Specialists are not compelled to work with or through the county offices, however, and.hy not doing so, they can sometimes cause a serious disorganization of county programs. Occasionally, some specialists do work at cross-purposes with the ex- isting county programs, usually to the discredit of the whole service. The case study in Chapter IV describing a situation in which a special- ist provided an extension service to a minority who had already been overruled by the majority wishes, is an example of poor Judgment on the part of a specialist. Minority needs certainly cannot be ignored, but, for the general effectiveness of the whole program, must be wisely balanced with the majority needs and desires. The specialist must look at the needs of all groups in the light of the total perspective, Just as a county worker must do when planning his work. Extension services to the fruit and vegetable industry are probably the most prominent example of a lack of coordination and excess dupli- cation of programs, funds, and personnel. The Fruit Branch, the Agri- cultural Representatives Branch, the Ontario Agricultural College and the Vineland Horticultural Experiment Station all provide extension services to the horticultural industry in some parts of the Province. Some areas, such as west-central Ontario around London, have several specialists, where one would seem to be enough. In south Essex county, where horticulture is a major industry, the services of only one part time extension worker are available. Where more than one specialist works in an area, they are invariably employed by different Branches or Institutions. Their salary scales vary, even when employed at essentially the same work. There seems to be little overall coordination of the extension programs within or between areas. The result tends to be rather wasteful of time and money and leaves considerable room for reorganization. 79 A committee appointed by the Provincial Legislature to examine the conservation situation in the Province, published its findings in 1950. Dealing with agricultural extension and its influence on con— servation, the Committee Report recommended that some changes in the present organization of extension be made. These recommendations in- cluded the suggestion that all the extension services presently located in Toronto be transferred to the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, that the Director of Extension be made responsible for all extension work in the Province, and that the Agricultural Representatives be re- sponsible for all extension at the county level. These recommendations have in general never been adOpted. The only concession to them has been the appointment of the Extension Coordinator, located at the col- lege. County Agricultural Representatives have many Opinions on extension organization and administration and some expressed themselves in inter- views. They were questioned in their opinions of the recommendations included in the Conservation Committee Report, and the probable influe ence these recommendations, if adOpted, might have on their work. Most of the Representatives interviewed favored the adaption of these recom- mendations, at least in part. B. CONCLUSIONS Evidence to bear out the hypothesis that a sometimes serious ele- ment of overlapping and lack of coordination exists in some phases of the extension program is readily observable. That the situation exists in some degree has been eviienced officially by the appointment of an .Associate Director of Extension to coordinate some aspects of the pro— gram. Evidence that the public generally is aware that a better adminis- trative organization of extension could be achieved, is to be found in the recommendations of the Conservation Committee Report. This Report was based on hearings held before, and briefs selected from, fern groups and individuals over the Province. Based on the information gathered together and presented in this study, a number of recommendations can be made. In making these recom~ mendetions, two possibilities must be considered. They are: (1) that the present gross organization of extension services is not likely to be changed very much, or (2) that the recommendations included in the Report of the Committee on Conservation will be adopted; and that the present organization will be adjusted to meet them. Proceeding on the first possibility, that the existing framework of extension organization will not be appreciably changed, the follow- ing suggestions, if acted upon, should assist in coordinating the work. 1. That the Director of Extension, or the Associate Director, presently Extension Coordinator, be given official jurisdiction over the extension activities of all Branches and Institutions, at least over matters of general policy, if not over details. 2. To further coordinate the work, when any new extension poli- cies are established or new projects are undertaken, conferences should be held between the Branch Directors and Institutional heads, or other 81 officers concerned, and that any such new programs or policies not be initiated until the Director of Extension gives his official sanction. 3. That all horticultural extension work, now being carried on by the Fruit Branch, be transferred to the Agricultural Representatives Branch, and that another Associate Director of Extension be placed in charge of all horticultural Representatives and their work. N. And as recommended by the Conservation Committee Report, that all agricultural extension at the county level must be passed through the county Agricultural Representative's office. This would not only help enlist the support and cosperation of the county Representatives, but also aid in overcoming present duplication and overlapping. 5. Both within the Department of Agriculture, and in other De- partments, so-called "standing committees" of Legislators are appointed to study needs for new legislation or revision of that already existing. Could not a similar "standing committee" made up, not necessarily of Legislators, but of peeple representing a cross-section_of all Provincial farm organizations be appointed to advise on overall extension policies and goals for the Provincial program? Considering the second possibility, that the Conservation Com- mittee's recommendations would be implemented, little can be added to their suggestions, as already set forth. These recommendations, as set forth in this Report, do not suggest the place in the organization which the specialists would be assigned. Presumably they are to remain a separate group. It would seem desirable 01 F0 that they be attached to the particular college departments with which their work concurs, but at the same time. remain as employees of. and be paid by, the Agricultural Representatives Branch. The fear was expressed that, if the extension services were re- moved to the Ontario Agricultural College. extension and the college eventually would become associated, in the minds of the members of the Legislature, as one entity. and hence neither organization would re- ceive as much money as they now do. To help obviate this possibility, extension, even if located at the college, should be kept separate from the college adninistration, remaining as a separate Branch of the Department of Agriculture. The main reason for locating extension at the college is because of the benefits that would surely accrue to both from a closer physical association of the extension organization and the college's existing and proposed facilities for teaching and research. 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY Government Publications Commissioner of Agriculture. ”Annual Renort of the Commissioner of Agriculture." included in Annual Reports of the Bureau of Industries for the years 18h7, 186M. 1882, 135b, 1885, 1889. Printed and.pub— lished by authority of the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, Province of Ontario. Horticultural Experiment Station. "Bi-annual Report, 1929-1930," Statistics and Publication Branch, Toronto, Ontario, 1931. Ontario Agricultural College. "The Seventy-fifth Anniversary, Ontario Agricultural College," a booklet published by the Ontario Agricul- tural College at Guelph, Ontario, 19h9. Ontario Department of Agriculture. "Annual Reports of the Minister of Agriculture," for the years ending'March 31, 1951. 1950, 19h9, 19h8, 19h7, 19u6, 19h5, 19th, 1939. Printed and published by The King's Printer, Toronto. Ontario. . "Annual Report of the Minister of Agriculture,"?5r the years ending October 31, 193R, 1929, 1927, 192M, 1921, 1990, 1917, 19lh, 1912, 1910, 1909, 1908, 1907, 1906, 1905, 190M. Printed and published by The King's Printer, Toronto, Ontario. Select Committee of the Legislature on Conservation. "Report and Re- commendations, 1950." Printed and.published by The King's Printer, Toronto, Ontario. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture and Associated Land-Grant Col- leges and Universities. “Joint Committee Report on Extension Pro- grams, Policies, and Goals," United States Government Printing Of- fice, Washington, D.c., August, 19kg. Boogg Bailey, J. C. Seaman A. Knapp, Columbia University Press, New York, 19u5. 307 Pp- Kelsey, L. D.. and C. C. Hearne. ggoperative Extension Work, Comstock Publishing Company, Ithaca, New York, 19h9. héh pp. Martin, 0. B., The Demonstration Work, The Naylor Company, San Antonio, Texas, 1951. 257 pp. Merton, R. F.. and P. F. Lazarfeld. Eggtgguities in Sgpial R§§££59§&_ Free Press, Glencoe, 111.. 1950. 255 pp. True, A. C., A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1930. GHQ? pp. Young, P. V., §gientific Social Suryeys and Research, ed. 2. Prentice— Hall, Inc., New York, 19kg. 6s1 pp. Newspaper Articles Farmer's Advocate. The Wm. Weld Publishing Co.. London, Ontario. edi- torial, April 10, 1950. Globe and Mail. Globe and Mail Publishing Co.. Toronto, Ontario, edi- torial, March 22, 1950. Hood, M. M., "Key Men in our’Farming Industry," published in Canpdian Cguntryman, Consolidated Press, Toronto, Ontario, April, l9h3. Unoublished Material Curry, D. G. ”A Comparative Study of the Way Selected County Agricul- tural Agents Perform their Role,I unpublished Master's Thesis. Mich- igan State College of.Agriculture and Applied Science, East Lansing, Michigan, 1951. 182 pp. Duncan, Reginald S. ”Agricultural Extension in Ontario," unpublished mimeograph report, Department of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings, Toronto, Ontario. \ McArthur, D. "History of Agricultural Extension in Ontario," unpublished mimeograph report, Department of Agriculture, Parliament Buildings, Toronto, Ontario. Pfennstiel, D. C. "A.System of Allocating Cooperative Extension Re— sources to Counties.“ unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, East Lansing, Michigan, 1952. 176 pp. Oral Communications Duncan, R. S., former Director of Extension, Agricultural Representatives Branch, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Garner, J. A.. Director of Extension, Agricultural Representatives Branch, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Hilliard. T. B., Associate Director of Extension, Agricultural Represen- tatives Branch, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Lipsit, R. B., Horticultural Experiment Station, Vineland, Ontario. McLaughry, E. 1.. Associate Director of Extension, Agricultural Repre- sentatives Branch, Ontario Department of Agriculture, Guelph, Ontario. Palmer, E. F.. Director. Horticultural Experiment Station, Vineland, Ontario. Patterson, H. L.. Director, Farm Economics Branch, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Warlow, G. L.. Director of Publicity, Department of Public Relations. Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph, Ontario. Wilson, G., Director, Fruit Btanch, Ontario Department of Agriculture. Written Communication Caskey, C. W.. Solicitor, Ontario Department of Agriculture. tilt??? USE ORLY - In: 13.2%; AN T NIVERSITY LIBRARIES 3 015 6656 3 MICHIG ”WIN 129 n 0 3