6 



Commissioner of Agriculture 219 



Three hundred growers needed attention, which meant that each inspector 

 was required to visit one hundred and fifty. As a matter of fact this was 

 twice as many as they could properly attend; hence they could not satis- 

 factorily follow up the activities of the individuals. It required, at a handi- 

 cap to the rest of the force, that two other inspectors be detailed to assist 

 them. 



The inspectors found difficulty in imparting a coherent view of the subject 

 to a majority of the growers, since to many the handling or use of fungicides 

 was absolutely foreign. Again, and especially among the French, but not 

 confined to them, illiteracy was not uncommon, so that they were unap- 

 proachable by means of literature. For such, a demonstration of the control 

 measures — especially the treatment of seed — was arranged whenever possible. 



Another feature found necessary to overcome was the antipathy exhibited 

 toward receiving any assistance from the Department. This was the out- 

 growth of the winter's experience — many having been sent home with any 

 amount even to over half their loads. The potatoes were so poor that vigor- 

 ous sorting had to be enforced. After a first visit had been made, this was 

 overcome, and the growers, with a few exceptions, realized that the object 

 of the Department's activity was one of assistance and not persecution. 



At one period the inspector-in-charge received complaints that the inspec- 

 tors were giving out wrong information. An investigation showed that Mr. 

 Bosworth had taken in his lecture notes a statement to the effect that for 

 powdery scab the standard formaldehyde treatment continued for fifteen 

 minutes was sufficient. This datum undoubtedly he confused with that men- 

 tioned for loose smut of oats, since other inspectors attending the same lec- 

 ture were straight upon it. Each place at which he had given the information 

 was visited within the second day, and the growers were set right before 

 they had treated. 



The inspector-in-charge noticed in particular that the inspectors were not 

 aware of the extreme ignorance of many, and were crediting the growers with 

 a grade of intelligence higher than they possessed. They had been accustomed 

 to directing nurserymen and orchardists who were familiar with the handling 

 of fungicides, and it was necessary continually to warn against leaving too 

 much to be drawn by inference. It was impressed upon them that the grower 

 was in necessity of knowing, not so much what to do, as how to do it. I 

 think, in general, that where actual demonstrations could not be given, this 

 point was the one most neglected. 



In spite of these difficulties, considerable work was accomplished. A rec- 

 ord was prepared showing what control measures each individual accom- 

 plished. The object of this was twofold: first, as a record of the Depart- 

 ment's work; second, as a reference for another year, so that those who went 

 astray might be known and so given additional attention another time. 



Since it was considered more important to keep the disease from unin- 

 fected areas, the men were not taken from the loading stations to assist 

 these demonstrators; the vigilance on outgoing shipments was not reduced. 



As matters stand, the bulk of the work can be considered satisfactorily 

 accomplished and it is only in the cases in which some one of the many par- 

 ticulars in the control were negelected. that additional instruction should be 

 given. The growers are more eager for information, and view matters in quite a 



