February, 1922. 



SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 



193 



not absolutely imperative as time moves 

 on. 



The United States Federal Government 

 spent nearly 35 million dollars in con- 

 nection with agriculture in 1920 and the 

 same year the expenditure of the Feder- 

 al Department of Agriculture in Canada 

 was about six million dollars. Besides 

 these large sums, the different states and 

 provinces spent large amounts for agri- 

 cultural education and for research m 

 agriculture. In spite of all this expend- 

 iture, liowever, as I have already said, 

 progress toward the solution of many 

 pressing problems seems very slow. 



Now in thl8' fifteen -^tates bordering 

 on Canada there is to be found almost 

 one-half of the whole population of the 

 United States, or w^ell on to 50 million 

 people. These same states produced 

 agricultural products in 1920 to the value 

 of nearh' four billion dollars or over one- 

 third of the whole agricultural output 

 of the Republic. 



Practically every province in Canada 

 borders on the United States, hence her 

 population, of say ninie million, and her 

 agricultural output of about two and a 

 half billion dollars, live or are produced, 

 under conditions very similar to those 

 whicli maintain in tihe fifteen northern 

 sstates It would seem evident, therefore, 

 that our research problems must be practi- 

 cally identical. It is certain that many of 

 them cannot be solved without the re- 

 search work on 'either side of the line 

 being extended into the other country. 

 In view of all these facts it would seem 

 to me quite evident that co-operation in 

 work among our agricultural research 

 workers was everj^ strongly indicated 

 In fact, one might almost say that there 

 was no alternative. 



That investigations must be limited by 

 crop areas and not by geographical lines, 

 whether tbese lines be between states or 

 provinces or be international in charac- 

 ter, is a statement that can scarce be cri- 

 ticised, let alone refuted. This, of course, 

 is recognized and already there is some 

 of what might be called private co-oper- 

 ation going on in various lines, as will be 

 mentioned later. 



The necessity for co-operation was re- 

 cognized in Canada many years ago in 



so far as work within ber own bound- 

 aries was concerned, and the Dominion 

 Experimental Farms System was estab- 

 lished in 1886. This system hat^ expand- 

 ed tremendoush' in the thirty odd years 

 of its life and bids fair to grow still fur- 

 ther. A more recent effort along this 

 line in Canada, and one not confined to 

 agricultural research, has been the Hon- 

 orary Advisory Council for Scientific and 

 Industrial Research. This body has not 

 been very active recently but is probably 

 susceptible of stimulation into more ef- 

 fective activity. 



In the United States also there was or- 

 ganized some time ago, I believe, a body 

 known as the National Research Council 

 dealing almost iexclusively with agricul- 

 tural or cognate problems.. I am not suf- 

 ficiently familiar with the w^orkings of 

 this Council or the results it has to show 

 to venture any remarks as to either its 

 past achievements or its future prospects. 

 There is also, I understand, an Assistant 

 now attached to the Secretary for Agri- 

 culture at Washington whose duty it is 

 to further, if not in fact compel, co-oper- 

 ation in the federal work, and whose 

 field, it is anticipated, will include the 

 activities of the land grant colleges and 

 stations in the near future. The fact that 

 such a Council was organized in the Unit- 

 ed States and that such an official is now 

 attached to the office of the Secretary for 

 Agriculture would seem to indicate that 

 the need for co-operation is keenly ap- 

 preciated in the United States, and that 

 at least some steps have' been taken to 

 secure it where necessary or practicable. 



It Avould seem reasonable then that 

 since these two adjoining countries re- 

 cognize the need for such action within 

 their own boundaries, they should give 

 the matter of co-operation between the 

 countries at least more than a passing 

 glance. There are, of course, some ob- 

 jectionable features in collection witli 

 co-operation, Mdiether it be international, 

 interstate or inter-institutional in charac- 

 ter. Some of these objections have been 

 voiced in some of the letters received in 

 reply to my request for an expression of 

 the views of certain interested parties 

 as alreadj^ mentioned. 



Summarized they were : 



