ILLUSTRATIoy FARMS OF THE COMMITTEE O.Y LANDS 15 



APPENDIX No. 3 



ill the locality become eti'ective there, plus all the ht-lp these I'armers can get from 

 other sources ^ The farmers who are learning, learn much from their successful 

 neighbours. That is how they learn. If we could bring about such contacts that 

 more of them will learn, and all of them will learn more, we will have made a fine 

 advance towards the solution of many of the difficulties. Let the farmers of the 

 locality be invited to come together for some definite purpose in which they are 

 directly interested in the locality. Let them agree on one farm which they will use 

 jointly, not own jointly or manage jointly, but use jointly, for the purpose of getting 

 useful information for themselves, for the improvement of their farm management 

 and practice. Let them agree on some one of the best farmers and help him by dis- 

 cussion and counsel, and even by all kinds of criticism of his methods, to adopt the 

 best system and methods for himself and for the locality. By this means each of 

 the farmers who watches and co-ojperates would be able to apply to his own farm what 

 he had observed and learned. That does not cost money; it costs time and labour 

 and the exercise of neighbourhood goodwills. 



COSTS OF THE SURVEY. 



By Mr. Best: 



Q. Does the government appropriate money to help a man who devotes his farm 

 to this system of co-operation, in case anything should go wrong ^ 



A. The Committee on Lands has no money to devote to that purpose. The farmer 

 would not give his farm to the neighbourhood. He would obtain advisory help to 

 enable him to make his farming operations more profitable to himself. The other 

 farmers would learn from that what they most want to know — how to make their 

 farming more profitable than it has been. The Committee on Lands has no means 

 of giving a bonus, or money grant, to any of thfese farmers. The survey of farms 

 costs a certain amount for expenses. I think last year the cost was less thaji $4,500. 

 The members of the Committee do not get any pay, and do not want any pay. The 

 collectors were paid and travelling expenses had to be met. This big survey of farms 

 for the whole of Canada did not cost in cash more than $4,500. 



Q. Do you think that is justice to the farmers of this country when only $4,500 

 were spent. 



A. I am showing in this only the kind and extent of work this Committee on 

 Lauds is doing and the amount spent last year on this investigation. I am not 

 referring to the amounts spent for the benefit of agriculture by the government. 

 Speaking for myself I cannot say how much time I devoted to this work. As to 

 remuneration I think I got my travelling expenses on one occasion, in all under $40. 

 The ultimate object of those engaged in the work has not been to induce the govern- 

 ment to spend money, but to persuade the farmers to get together and do things for 

 themselves. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that any- 

 thing we can do to get the farmers to help each other by associated effort is a good 

 thing. They may need more help from the Department of Agriculture by and by. 



ILLUSTRATION FARMS MANAGED FOR PROFITS. 



To return to my summing up. For what purpose would these men agree on a 

 farm in the locality from which to get information. In the first place I think they 

 would agree on a farm on which they could see the kind of farming, the system and 

 methods which were particularly profitable and successful in that locality. There- 

 fore, the man on the local illustration farm must farm for profit. If he is put on a 

 salary he may farm for the salary and also to furnish useful information; but that 

 is different from farming for profits to himself from his work. The contacts with 

 the neighbouring farmers are on a different basis. Besides I would not like, with 

 the experience I have had, to take a farm owned by a government and maintained 



19909—2 



