The Problem

OF THE

Indifferent Farmer

ADDRESS BY
Cc. C. JAMES

Before the International Association of Farmers’
Institutes Workers, at Washington, D.C.,
November 7th, 1910

: : \

THE PROBLEM

OF THE

INDIFFERENT FARMER

ADDRESS BY

Cic€ EAMES

Before the International Association of Farmers’ Institutes
Workers, at Washington, D.C., November 7th, 1910

bowl

Fi
ers

<

soe

The Problem of the Indifferent armer.

Adapting a definition of life as given by some American
philosopher, we may say that the life of the people is “ just one
problem after another.” Some of these problems are attacked
with intelligence and vigor until they are solved. Others are
approached, considered in a more or less casual manner, and then
_ turned down for some other problem more attractive. Other
problems, big in size and of great importance in the national life,
are not even met with ordinary courtesy, but are treated with
extreme indifference. It would be a reflection upon our intelli-
gence to put the problem of the indifferent farmer in the last
class. We are giving it some attention, but, considering its size,
considering its importance, we must conclude that we are, appar-
ently, not taking hold of it as vet in a manner likely to solve it
very soon. We need not take time in discussing the question as
to whether there is such a problem. We all know the indifferent
farmer; he is here on this American continent by the tens of
thousands. We who are workers in the agricultural field come
in contact with him. He is to be met with nearly everywhere.
He is the burden of our existence; he is largely the excuse for our
office: He has been here since work first began, and one can
hardly hope that he will ever become entirely extinct. If we had
no direct experience with him, we would have strong suspicions
of his existence, simply by reading the daily papers—for are his
shortcomings not set forth there from day to day? Frequently,
the news editor confuses indifference and dishonesty—for you
know there is that curious streak in us which makes a basket of
scabby peaches loom as large as a carload of faulty rails, and a
dozen small applies in the middle of the barrel rank with the flaw
in a forty foot bridge.

4

How big is this problem? In the Province of Ontario we have
175,000 farms whose annual productions total about $250,000,-
000. If by some magic or process of regeneration we could turn
all the indifferent farmers into wideawake, progressive, up-to-
date farmers, the total production would be easily doubled, and
it is not beyond the reach of possibility to treble our output. We
have in Canada, as you have in the United States, a Commission
for the Conservation of Resources. As far as the Province of
Ontario is concerned, we are concerned not so much with the
preservation or conservation of our agricultural resources as with
the need for expanding and enlarging the agricultural resources
that nature has given us, and of keeping production up to
demand.

Is it worth our while to take hold of this expansion in real
earnest, that is as though we believed it could be done The
possibility of adding two or three hundred million dollars yearly
te our rural income surely makes this a big problem. Let me ask
right here—Is there any other problem on the American Conti-
nent that comes into the same class with it? You, gentlemen,
who are engaged in this field know how it is to be worked out.
You know the foundation courses upon which this great wealth
may be built. These courses are plain and simple:

1. Drain the soil.

2. Sow only the be t seed.

3. Carefully protect and store the products of the fields and
orchards.

4. Feed field products only to profitable stock.

5. Put the finished product on the market in the best form.

If we could in some way bring the indifferent farmer to the
knowledge of those five plain, convincing lines of work, we would
have solved the problem; all else involved in agricultural improve-
ment would come easily as a natural sequence. And what a solving
of other problems there would be. A man in our Province who
has been a farmer for many years said to me the other day,
“Push the drainage of land. Spend money on it. If ‘you
can get all the farmers to drain their land, you will solve the
problem of good roads, for they will have money enough to build

them for themselves.” Increase the incomes of the individual
farmers and we will have the means at our disposal to renovate, to
reconstruct, to develop the rural public school system along
rational lines. And so we might enlarge upon this question along
many lines. Put more money in the farmers’ pockets as the
result of his improved work and there will be things doing in the
rural constituency that are now existent largely in the hopes and
dreams of men who are sometimes called optimists and visionaries.

We might enlarge upon this. The enrichment of the farm-
ers, the improvement of the rural schools, the beautifying of the
rural homes, the increase of social advantages, the quickening of
intelligence, the moral uplift—all coming out of the stirring into
life of the indifferent farmer. You who are working for and
among the farmers know as no others do what all this means in
the development of a nation along the highest lines.

All this line of development looks to be so simple, and therein
is one of the greatest difficulties—it is its simplicity that makes it
so difficult. If we could present a problem more intricate and
more daring, we could expect to set the people to its solution.
Look over the great problems that have attracted the people of
influence, the people of initiative power, the people who control
the creative forces and the distribution of wealth. This simple
problem of stirring up the indifferent farmer to activity does not
as yet appeal to the people as it deserves. Here are two areas of
land, ten million acres each in extent. The one is occupied by
farmers, good, bad and indifferent. The other area is unoccupied,
it is as nature made it, but it is five hundred miles away. Two
questions arise—shall we develop the agriculture of the occupied
area, double its production, double its population, and again
double its production; or shall we set to work to build a railroad
to that unoccupied land, there to repeat the experience of ‘the
former section—farmers, good, bad and indifferent? You know
what would be done. Millions would be available for the more
daring proposition and thousands only for the other.

It is easier to build a dreadnaught than an agricultural col-
lege. We can arouse the interest of two continents in solving the
problem of aerial navigation. but it is difficult to get the people

to demand—no, let me put it more mildly—it is difficult to get
the people to support enthusiastically the proposition of spending
money freely in teaching the indifferent farmer how to drain his
land, why he should use only the best seeds, why he should test his
dairy cows, why and how he should spray his apple trees, and how,
in short, he can increase his Income by one thousand dollars a
year.

This brings us to the question as to how we are to solve the
problem of tie indifferent public. You will understand that
when I refer to the indifferent public I am speaking in general
terms. ‘There are persons who have an inspiration as to the
greatness of thisework, and there are some places where this
problem is being worked out; but, on the whole, the public are
more or less indifferent to the importance of the work, judging
by their actions, or rather imactions. If the development of our
agriculture means the greatest wealth creation within the nation,
and if the stirring of the indifferent farmer to better things is the
key to the situation, why do not our people—manufacturers, bank-
ers, professional men, business men, and intelligent farmers—
-yise In a mass and demand that this work be undertaken and car-
ried through? There are at least two reasons: In the first
place, there is a too prevalent opinion that work done among and
for the farmers is a charitable contribution to a class that should
be able to take care of themselves. What a woeful misconception
of this movement! Helping the farmers to larger production and
to larger life can be justified only on the ground that thereby we
are contributing to the prosperity and uplift of the whole com-
munity. A town of 5,000 people is surrounded by a farming
community. Through the agricultural uplift, $1,000,000 could
easily be added to the annual production of the surrounding and
contributing country. Is it conceivable that such an addition
could be made without touching every banker, every manufac-
turer, every storekeeper, every doctor, every lawyer, every
newspaper owner in the town? First and foremost then it
seems to me that we must take the problem of the indifferent
farmer out of the country and bring it into the town and city,
we must, in addition to discussing it at the Farmers’ Institute

is

and the Farmers’ Club, put it up to the Board of Trade, the
Bankers’ Association, the Retail Merchants’ Association, and
even the County Teachers’ Convention. It has been a local ques-
tion; we must make it a national question. We must bring
people to see that it is not charity or local contribution, but
merely the investment of public funds that will bring ample
returns to the whole people.

In the next place, we have not yet succeeded in getting the
men of influence behind this movement. And I admit, at once,
that herein there is much difficulty. We can get their approval
and their blessing, but what we want is their support and. back-
ing. in season and out of season. If only we could interest in this
work a large number of men who have built up the great indus-
tries of this country, who have planned the great undertakings,
who have built the railroads, dug the canals, erected factories,
organized financial institutions, laid pipe lines and strung power
cables; if we had a host of men like J. J. Hill of the Great
Northern, and President Brown of the New York Central Lines,
men who are able to size up this question not simply as one of
personal profit, but as one of national importance—then we could
hurry along the movement. What is required is that our people
and especially those who control expenditure and direct public
energies shall look upon the spending of money for agricultural
development in the same way as they do the constructing of a
bridge, the digging of a canal, the building of a railway, as an
investment of the people’s money for the -benefit of the whole
people. When that condition of affairs arrives, when this agri-
cultural problem is put on a business basis, and is considered from
its national standpoint, it will not be a question of—How little
can we get along with? but, Where and how can we spend more
money so as to bring good profits to the people as a whole?

We are a great people on this side of the Atlantic—at least
we think we are—but I know nothing more stimulating and more
corrective for us who are engaged in agricultural work than a
visit now and then to some of the countries of Europe, especially
those lying adjacent to the North Sea. France, Belgium, Hol-
land, Germany, Denmark and Sweden are worth visiting. In

8

these countries we see intensive agriculture, farming carried on
along the lines of our market gardening, co-operation practised
along the most successful lines, the best of seeds and the best of
stock considered none too good for the average farmer. But the
one thing that impresses you is the general public interest in

agricultural pursuits, the recognition by all, including the lead-—

ers of state, that agriculture is a matter of common interest and
is deserving of the best that can be given. One outcome of this
is that it is in these countries an education is provided for the
average farmer that is intended to equip him for his life work.
The indifferent farmer is not so much in evidence in these coun-
tries as he is in many sections of this continent.

Let me again emphasize this point. One of the most
important factors in the future development of agriculture on
this continent will be in getting not only the approval of the
city people in our efforts to upbuild agriculture, but their hearty
support; more than that, their enforced demand that agriculture
be assisted and developed as the greatest contributing element in
the prosperity of the whole people. We must get the town and
city people awakened to the possibilities, and to do this we should
have the powerful support of the press and through it reach the
city organizations. It is all very well for some of the papers to
call attention from time to time to inferior farm products that
find their way to market and to preach a little sermon on the
subject for the benefit of the farmer; what is wanted is the pro-
viding of ways and means whereby the farmer can be shown the
better way. We go about these things too often in the wrong
way. Let me give you an example. There was held recently in
the city of Toronto a meeting of Produce Commission Merchants
to discuss the question of bad eggs. ‘The result of that meeting
was the passing of a resolution asking the Dominion Minister of
Agriculture to have enacted stringent legislation against the
marketing of stale eggs by the farmer. That, of course, was the
easiest proposal to make, easier to suggest than to carry out.
One not engaged in the handling of eggs might suggest that the
merchants have the remedy in their own hands—“ refuse to buy
stale eggs.” That, however, might upset relations that may not

9

be even too pleasant at all times. But is there not a still better
way? Suppose these merchants had said: “The marketing of
stale eggs is in the long run bad business for the farmer, it is a
losing game for the commission merchant, and it is certainly an
aggravation and a loss to the consumer. Let us ask that the
farmer be taught the better way.” We have only to go to Den-
mark to see what that better way is. And here I might mention
that already in two of our counties we are trying out this better
way, not by legislation, not by preaching, not by scolding, but by
the enthusiastic missionary work of some men set apart for the
work, two of whom are the district representatives of our Depart-
ment, and the practical backing of a big Commission House.
They are reaching the indifferent farmers and by a house to house
canvass are working little short of a miracle, accomplishing
results that years of legislation would fail to do. Even the sub-
ject of fresh eggs is important enough to engage the attention of
statesmen. They certainly think so when they sit down to the
breakfast table in the morning. It is a big question, too. There’s
millions in it. The egg production of the United States in 1909
was worth, I understand, considerably over $500,000,000. When
the United States put up the bars against Canadian farm pro-
ducts in 1890, they shut out Canadian eggs. At that time we had
a surplus. [Last year eggs from Russia and from China were
imported into Canada, and while I am writing this the daily
papers inform us that eggs from Germany are on sale in the city
of Toronto. Let us stop passing the question by with a joke; let
us stop threatening; let us give the farmer and the farmer’s wife
and their little flock of chickens a fair chance. There is a way
of doing it and it is worth serious thought and a liberal invest-
ment of the people’s money. Eggs may be laid because the hens
like to do so, or perhaps because they cannot help it, but let us
get this into our heads that from the public standpoint they are
produced for general public consumption. The consumer is as
much interested as the producer—it is in the general public
interest that the indifferent farmer be shown the best and most
profitable way of handling eggs and finishing poultry for mar-
ket. In short, it is time for the general public to stop criticising,

10

to demand that thorough work be done and to see to it that funds
are provided for the efficient carrying out of the work. In other
words, we need a change of attitude, a new spirit, an awakening
of the whole people to their co-operation and responsibility in the
matter. How easy it is to get some great movements under way;
how difficult to awaken the whole people to an appreciation -of
their direct interest in this agricultural matter. Every once in a
while a large part of the people get it into their heads that things
are going wrong and then they do things. We have even known
them to go to the polls and cast their ballots for the other fellows
and think that thus they are going to set matters right. What we
need is to get people to think things out to their origin, and
having thought things out then to do things.

How are we going to reach and teach the indifferent farmer?
This is perhaps the important question. You all have your
answers, for IT doubt not there are many. That is the work you
are engaged in. That is what brings you here in conference.
There are two lines in operation in Ontario that I would refer to
briefly.

Next week we expect to gather together in the Convocation Hall
of the University of Toronto a thousand women from the farms,
villages, towns, and even the cities of Ontario. They will be the
delegates from over three hundred Women’s Institutes of our Pro-
vince, mainly representing the farm homes of Ontario. This is a
movement the force and energy and regenerating power of which
no man dare measure. ‘The farmer’s home is the centre of his work.
It is not only his home but also the headquarters of his business
operations. Jf we can capture the farmer’s home, we believe we
will have him at our command, to move him, to mould him, to
inspire him to better things. Give us possession of the farmer’s
home and we believe we can revolutionize the farmer’s life and
work. We propose to gain possession of the home through the
farmer’s wife. The Women’s Institutes have a grand mission to
perform: it will do what the Farmers’ Institutes alone could never
do. There are farm improvements which we propose to introduce
throwgh the home, there is a reconstruction of social life that can
come only through the home, and TI can even see signs that the

dA

rural school may be enlarged and uplifted by the farmer’s wife
when the farmer himself has failed through his apparent indiffer-
ence.

And then we are trying out the work of reaching the indifferent
farmer by the agricultural missionary, that combination of agri-
cultural teacher and district representative of the Department of
Agriculture, which is working so well in Ireland and along certain
lines in the Southern States. When a young man of practical
training, equipped with the modern expert knowledge and experi-
ence which a good agricultural college affords, is dropped down
among a lot of indifferent farmers as a permanent resident, when
he takes off his coat and goes to work showing the farmer a better
way and helping him to make more money at his work, something
is going to happen and something is already happening with us—
the indifferent farmer is having his eyes opened. Three years ago
we started this work in six counties. This year we carried it on
in sixteen centres. In one county, not only was there indifference,
there was direct opposition. ‘The county council passed a resolu-
tion condemning the whole thing as a needless waste of public
money. ‘To-day there would be trouble if we suggested stopping
the work; in fact, two other sections of the same county are urging
the opening of offices and starting similar work in connection with
their High Schools.

In carrying on our movement for agricultural uplift in Ontario
there are three things to be considered :

1st. The plan.

2nd. The men and women to carry out the plan.

3rd. The money to provide the men and women.

1st. The plan——We have the Province of Ontario fairly well
organized for agricultural work. There are

340 Agricultural Societies.

64. Horticultural Societies.

100 Farmers’ Institutes.

164 Farmers’ Clubs.

600 Women’s Institutes.

30 Co-operative Fruit Growers’ Associations.

12

26 Local Poultry Associations.
10 Local Horse Associations.

In addition to the above there are many provincial associations
in connection with dairying, fruit growing, live stock, poultry,
etc. It is, however, through the local district or county associa-
tions that the District Representative will be able to carry on his
county work. The above associations are, in the main, composed
of the enterprising, wide-awake farmers, the men who appreciate
help, who are asking for help and who, to a large extent, are able
to help themselves. It is not of these that I am speaking. They
are available and in many cases are willing and eager to help the
indifferent farmer, the man who reads but little, who seldom attends
an institute meeting, who is unmoved by what he hears of others,
who is to be moved only by the close personal touch and the active
sympathy aroused through bringing better ways right into his own
field, his own orchard, his own farm and his own home. ‘These
associations of active men present a means whereby demonstration
work can be brought home directly to the farmer by short courses
of a practical nature. What they require mainly is direction and
inspiration. The report in one of our leading agricultural papers
of a conference of representatives of Farmers’ Institutes and
Farmers’ Clubs referred to the District Representatives as follows:

“These young men are doing things. They took perhaps about
ten minutes each to give their addresses, but they were full of
optimism, for they are getting the hearts of the people and they are
already getting results. Institute managers and secretaries who
have gone home without being impressed by the work of these young
men have missed procuring the touchstone which will bring success
to their work.”

2nd. The men.-—Here is where the Agricultural College comes
into the scheme. Our College at Guelph has at the present time
344 students in its regular course: Ist year, 149; 2nd year, 88;
3rd year, 57; 4th vear, 50; extra, 6. After January 1st there will
be probably 300 more taking short courses. We expect that band
of fifty in the fourth year to supply us with the additional men
required to man the work at the new offices and to supply us with

assistants in the offices already established. The scheme you see
is an extension of agricultural work that carries the College to
every part of the province and brings into co-operation all the forces
available in all the other branches of the Department of Agricul-
ture. ;

And what about the women? Our problem would be solved much
more quickly if only we could supplement the work by having
trained women missionaries in the rural parts, working in and
through the Women’s Institutes, carrying domestic science instruc-
tion to all the rural schools and helping to improve the social life
of the countryside. The Director of Home Economics at Mac-
donald Institute, which is part of our Agricultural College, has
her plans all ready; she has a large band of young women train-
ing for such work: all that is needed for carrying out her part of
the plan is money.

3rd. The money.—We have this year about $780,000 to spend
in agricultural work in Ontario. To carry this work into every
county and district of the province, to man all the branches of the
Department and meet the requirements of the Agricultural College
to keep pace with demands, we need approximately $250,000 more
annually. At first this looks like a big sum, but in comparison
with an annual output of $250,000,000 from 175,000 farms it is
not so large. We are now spending on agricultural improvement
just thirty cents apiece yearly for every person in the province.
What we need is just ten cents apiece more. Shall we get it? Of
course we shall if we make out a good case and public opinion gets
behind it. We can get public opinion behind it if we can show
results. These are coming. In fact, they are here for those who
will take the pains to look for them. We are trying to make them
so plain that it will be impossible not to see them.

The Dominion Government could give us this amount without
missing it. If the Government of Canada were to divide oniy
$1,000,000 annually among the different provinces for the extension
of agricultural work, there would be an immediate expansion of
work that would show itself in increased customs receipts. I believe
that every dollar so invested would be returned many times over in
increased customs. The business man is shrewd who knows how

14

to invest his surplus cash so as to produce more. Sometimes it
pays him to borrow to carry out his plans. Our governments
should follow the example of the successful busmess man. As far
as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, it is not saving
where the money should come from. It has the plan, the men can
be found, the work can be done, results can be had, if only the
money is forthcoming.

To bring this question to the attention of representative bodies
has been the concern of some of us of the Department for years past,
but particularly during the past three years. We have talked on it
to Canadian Clubs, the Manufacturers’ Association, Young Men’s
Church Clubs, Retail Merchants’ Associations, the Press Club, and
even to the Daughters of the Empire. The Chairman of the Cana-
dian Commission on Conservation of Resources is taking a deep
interest in the matter, and now we understand that the Boards of
Trade of Ontario are going to consider it. There will likely be
something doing.

Waken up the indifferent farmer and you develop one of the
greatest assets of the country. It is not like taking gold or silver
out of the ground never to be replaced; it is not like cutting down
trees with the hope that others will grow up in the next fifty years;
it is not like hauling fish out of the water that someone may be
fed; no, it is better than all these, for vou are bringing into pro-
ductivity a living asset. I know no work that any country on this
continent can engage in that promises bigger returns for everyone
than the rational stimulating and helping of the indifferent farmer
to better ways and better living. The banker wishes the farmer to
produce more, because it is upon the accumulation of his earnings
that our banks depend; the railways want more stuff to haul to
and fro; the manufacturer wishes the demands of the farmers to
be increased ; the storekeeper is looking for the increase of purchas-
ing power in the farmer; and the country school teacher is hoping
for better pay—all classes want more money in circulation. Then
why, as a people, do we not get down to the consideration of this
question in a manner comporting with its importance? Let us
devise things not from the narrow standpoint of the needy farmer,
but, having in view the national importance of the question, put

15

into it some of the energy and the brains and the money that we
have put into transportation questions and city expansion. If we
could get our legislators and our city millionaires to turn their eyes
towards the rural parts and take hold of the question in earnest,
there would be a national development in this country that was
never dreamed of by the most ardent enthusiast. Let us keep in
mind and compel others to pay attention to the regeneration of the
indifferent farmer, for he is the greatest undeveloped asset of
either Canada or the United States.

e®

y
Le
i

ie

ee

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

iii,