222 THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



that assistance will be rendered to the California commission 

 and the shippers of that state by this Exchansfe and its affilia- 

 tions in supporting the effort, which effort is certainly a worthy 

 one."— G.P.W. 



Expert Advice. — One occasionally sees, in our various journals and 

 newspapers, paragraphs devoted to the above topic, usually written 

 in a vein of ridicule. Not that these reflect the attitude of the editors 

 themselves, for there are no more ardent supporters of experimenta- 

 tion and research than these same papers. They do, however, reflect 

 the opinions of a rapidly decreasing but still far too large proportion 

 of our farmers. These paragraphs referred to usually appear in the 

 shape of a letter and are presumably published with the idea of 

 leavening somew^hat the heavier and more profound portions of the 

 journal. To the farmer who had the complaint to make, however, 

 the difficulty was a real one, and it may safely be assumed that he had 

 no intention of contributing anything humorous to the paper. 



It is only too frequently true that the application of expert advice 

 to specific farm problems by the farmers themselves fails to bring 

 the desired result, but such failure should not by any means always 

 be laid at the door of the expert. There are two sides to the question. 

 As a general rule the expert can only get at the main principles, 

 leaving the farmer to apply the information to his specific problem 

 in the way which in his own judgment is best fitted to solve it. It must 

 be remembered that in at least 90 .per cent of the cases such advice 

 is given from a distance by mail. Both for financial reasons and 

 from lack of time it is impossible for the expert to investigate the 

 problem in person. It is necessary to make his diagnosis and recom- 

 mendation from a distance and to depend entirely upon the farmer's 

 accuracy and completeness of observation for his data. No one would 

 expect a reputable physician to prescribe for a case he has not exam- 

 ined personally, yet that is what the expert must nearly always do. 

 Accurate data covering symptoms is just as important in the one case 

 as in the other, the only difference being in the degree of danger 

 should a mistake be made. It is quite as difficult to diagnose 

 pathological troubles in plants as it is in human beings. 



The success of the expert's recommendation is also entirely depend- 

 ent upon the faithfulness with which the farmer carries out instruc- 

 tions. Frequently slack methods are emploj^ed in putting the remedy 

 into practice, and it is usually these careless ones who are the first 

 to complain of the failure of expert advice. This slackness is par- 

 ticularly evident in the application of remedies in the form of sprays 

 for insects and fungous troubles. Sometimes poor ingredients are 

 used or the emulsions improperly made. Sometimes the spray tank 

 is left standing until the ingredients have settled, and as a -conse- 

 quence part of the material is used at many times its correct strength 

 with resultant burning of foliage. Naturally the remedy fails, aad 

 away goes the farmer's confidence in experts. 



Contrary to the opinion of many, experts are usually practiciil 

 men. Success for them de])ends entirely upon their ability to make 

 reeonnnendations effective from a practical standpoint. Growers can 

 safely depend upon it that when applying for expert advice a pre- 

 scription w^ill be given w^iich is correct only in so far as the data 



