•^. 



Farm Bureau — Extension ReLtionski 



\p6 



Excerpts from an Address by Dean H. P. 



Rusk Before the National Farm Bureau 



Institute at Urbana 



UNLIKE some other agriculture agen- 

 cies created by congressional action, 

 the Cooperative Extension Service in 

 Agriculture and Home Economics is 

 supported in part by federal grant-in-aid 

 funds and in part by state and local 

 funds. States and local communities may 

 and commonly do exercise a large meas- 

 ure of control over policies and admini- 

 strative policies and in some states dif- 

 ferent procedures are followed in dif- 

 ferent counties. 



. . .What I propose to do is to tell 

 you something about procedures and re- 

 lationships in Illinois, a little about their 

 historical background and why we think 

 they meet our needs. 



The first extension work of the Col- 

 lege of Agriculture was carried on 

 through local meetings of farm groups 

 under varied sponsorship. Later the 

 Farmers' Institute furnished the most 

 effective medium for agricultural exten- 

 sion work. 



But it was not until after the passage 

 of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914 that ex- 

 tension work was organized as a major 

 project. This act constituted public 

 acknowledgment of the actual and po- 

 tential influence of the land-grant col- 

 leges of agriculture and experiment sta- 

 tions to the rural people. It undertook 

 to extend and increase that influence by 

 combining national, state, and local re- 

 sources in a cooperative educational 

 venture. 



In Illinois the local support which gave 

 the Extension Service its firm anchorage 

 in every county in the state was in most 

 counties the Farm Bureau and in a few 

 counties its predecessor, the Soil and 

 Crop Improvement Association. In fact, 

 these local or county organizations were 

 developed specifically to meet the require- 

 ments for local participation and local 

 responsibility which Dean Eugene Daven- 

 port and his associates, who were re- 

 sponsible for the launching of the re- 

 organized extension program in Illinois, 

 felt were essential for the success of the 

 enterprise. 



... In the beginning, extension work 

 in Illinois under the Smith-Lever Act 

 and subsequent legislation consisted 

 largely of taking to farmers the teachings 

 of the Agricultural College and the find- 



ings of the Agricultural Experiment Sta- 

 tion on better methods of production. 

 The main objectives were to increase the 

 efficiency of production and to reduce 

 costs. A little later, information on 

 marketing problems and farmers' coop- 

 eratives was demanded, and that field of 

 educational work became recognized as 

 an important part of the Extension Serv- 

 ice in Illinois and in most other states. 



Dean H. P. Rusk 



That such an active, vital, educational 

 program should draw into the county 

 Farm Bureaus the forward-thinking 

 farmers of the community was only 

 logical; and it was inevitable that when 

 such men were banded together into a 

 state association, their thinking would 

 find expression in other than purely ed- 

 ucational projects. No voice has spoken 

 more clearly or mo/e effectively for agri- 

 culture in the public forum and in the 

 legislative halls than has that of the 

 Illinois Agricultural Association. The 

 very weight of its influence places a 

 special responsibility upon the organiza- 

 tion to sponsor only sound programs. 



. . . The Extension Service and the 

 Farm Bureaus must continually examine 

 and reexamine their programs; they 

 must be willing to challenge yesterday's 

 position in the light of today's facts; 

 they must constantly appraise the results 

 of their efforts, their methods, their tech- 



niques. They must continually direct 

 their best thought toward the discovery 

 of ways and means of improving their 

 services for the welfare and advancement 

 of agriculture. 



At this point we come to a problem in 

 relationship that demands careful, and 

 probably continuous study. That prob- 

 lem involves our responsibilities to non- 

 members of the Farm Bureau. 



. . . The essential points of this re- 

 lationship (of the Farm Bureau as the 

 local sponsoring agency for the Exten- 

 sion Service in Illinois) are set forth 

 in the Memorandum of Understanding 

 between the various Illinois county Farm 

 Bureaus and the Illinois Extension Serv- 

 ice. 



. . . The contractual and official 

 relations of the farm adviser are, on the 

 local basis, with the Farm Bureau, not 

 with any of its subsidiaries. Any reason- 

 able interpretation of the Memorandum 

 of Understanding or of the contracts with 

 farm advisers makes it clear that the 

 farm adviser's functions are educational 

 and that he is, by the terms of the con- 

 tract, specifically restrained from partici- 

 pating in the operation of so-called busi- 

 ness activities. 



But it should be generally recognized 

 that even many of these business activ- 

 ities are carried on by the Farm Bureau 

 and its subsidiaries for the sole purpose 

 of facilitating the adoption on local farms 

 of practices recommended by the Exten- 

 sion Service. The maintenance by the 

 Farm Bureau of adequate supplies of 

 potent serum and virus at reasonable 

 prices did much to promote the adoption 

 of extension teachings on immunization 

 of swine against cholera. It is not, of 

 course, the farm adviser's duty to operate 

 a serum service, but it is his duty to use 

 every appropriate facility to promote the 

 adoption of practices which are outlined 

 in plans of work or programs approved 

 by the Extension Service. 



Let me say here that the Extension 

 Service does not discharge its full re- 

 sponsibility by talking about sound prac- 

 tices — it must make an effective effort' 

 to get farmers to adopt them. In Illinois 

 the Farm Bureau and its subsidiary or- 

 ganizations have provided facilities for 



V -4 



I 



• 



I. A. A. RECORD 



