Iht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
1509 
Expert Educators and Farmers 
O UR people will appreciate the following from 
the Schenectady Union-Star: 
Educational experts persist in the view that the 
one-room rural schoolhouse is inefficient, wasteful and 
an altogether useless institution. They come up to 
Albany every Winter with a bill to do away with “the 
little red schoolhouse.” At the recent session a meas¬ 
ure to consolidate rural schools was defeated largely, 
the educational authorities assert, “through the opposi¬ 
tion of the farmers themselves who clung resolutely to 
their belief in the small district and the one-room 
school.” 
In the advance information about the bill that is ex¬ 
pected to be introduced at the pending session, the New 
York Sun says, “Expert opinion both in Albany and 
New York is unanimous in this: that sooner or later, 
wherever possible, the one-room school must go.” 
It seems never to have occurred to the educational 
authorities that the trouble lies precisely where the 
New York Sun inadvertently places it, with “expert 
opinion in Albany and New York.” When New York 
City will welcome having its school policy dictated by 
farm people, farm people will welcome having their 
school policy dictated by “expert opinion in Albany and 
New York.” 
If the State Department of Education has failed to 
“sell” its advanced ideas to the rural sections, ■ has it 
ever thought that it might get along faster if it consult¬ 
ed the desire of the rural population? Who wants “ex¬ 
pert opinion” rammed down his throat? 
Let Us Face the Milk Situation 
HE Dairymen’s League Co-operative Associa¬ 
tion reports a gross price for October of $1.95 
for 3-per cent milk in the 201-210 mile zone. De¬ 
ductions : For expenses 9 cents, and for certificates 
10 cents, making 19 cents per 100 lbs. for deductions, 
and leaving a cash net return to patrons, $1.76. 
Sheffield Farms patrons received $2.32. 
Clover Farms patrons received $2,305. 
Non-pool received $2,375 at Buffalo and $2,305 at 
New York. 
Eastern States average estimated $2.20. 
The pool volume in various classes and prices ap¬ 
pears in the following table: 
Class 1 .994,078.11X $2.60 =$2,584,603.08 
('lass 2A .212,424.06 X 2.00 = 424,848.12 
Class 2B . 55,521.87 X 2.05 = 113,819.83 
Class 2C . 21.644.26 X 2.05 = 44,370.73 
Class 3 . 203,524.11 X 1.45 = 295,109.95 
Class 4A . 73,308.27 X 1.275 = 93.46S.04 
Class 4B . 20,757.35 X 1.28 = 26,569.40 
$3,583,789.15 
Gross price $1.95 as reported for 1,581,- 
258.03 cwt. 3,083,453.15 
Not accounted for. $499,336.00 
There has been a request for similar details from 
other groups. It would be helpful to have them, but 
the data are not available. The other groups make 
their returns direct from the dealer to the patrons to 
save expense, and none of the dealers in or out of the 
pool will consent to report details of their handling 
for publication. 
It was expected that the item unaccounted for 
would be eliminated or reduced as the competition 
between groups lessened and the demand for liquid 
milk developed but it seems to have increased. It 
amounts to 31.6 cents per 100 lbs. With the deduc¬ 
tions it amounts to 50.6 cents per 100 lbs. of pooled 
milk. The reports would indicate that all the deal¬ 
ers are paying substantially the same price for milk, 
and that this 50.6 cents accounts for the difference 
to producers. Whatever is the cause of this dif¬ 
ference it must sooner or later be corrected. Pool 
patrons have shown great endurance, but they can¬ 
not stand this strain indefinitely. Many of the strong 
ones are giving up the struggle, and flip weak ones 
are financially broke. These eliminations, however, 
cannot correct present conditions. So long as group 
competition keeps up, and one group of producers 
receives substantially 50 cents per 100 lbs. more 
than another, the business of the industry cannot 
be stabilized or made profitable. 
A study of the reports affords no encouragement. 
The October report shows 28 dealers’ plants less 
than a year ago. The association plants have been 
increased by 20 during the year, but the patrons 
supplying them are less than the plant patrons of 
last year, and the volume of milk is less also. The 
total pool patrons for October were 4,177 less than 
for Oetobei*, 1923, and the total volume of pooled 
milk was 19,187,606 lbs. less for the month. The 
net cash return per 100 lbs. was 46 cents less. 
During the year ending April, 1924, the associa¬ 
tion did $7,000,000 less business than the year 1923. 
The expense was $3,000,000 more than the previous 
year. 
The old League had 80,000 active members. The 
pool had 54,719 in May, 1922. Its last report is 
for 37,814 active patrons, and these must now pay 
the interest and principal on the 26,905 who have 
withdrawn as well as on their own. To go on re¬ 
joicing in a policy that produces these results after 
a trial of three and a half years is economic mad¬ 
ness. It concerns every dairyman in the State, be¬ 
cause no satisfactory adjustment can be made while 
these conditions continue. It, however, concerns 
pool patrons most, because they are making the big¬ 
gest sacrifices, and constantly increasing their own 
burden. To correct the present situation it is not 
necessary for them to abandon their principles or 
their organization. They are now less than one- 
third of the milk producers in the territory. Alone 
they can stabilize the market no more than the 
other groups. It is necessary only that they co¬ 
operate with the other groups in the interest of all 
producers. But whether they co-operate with the 
other groups or not they must get rid of that ex¬ 
pense of 50 cents per 100 lbs. on their milk. The 
dairy industry cannot stand that burden. 
The Potato Brought to Trial 
I S the potato an undesirable farm crop citizen? 
Should he be deported from the State? Or should 
be be warned to keep out of the company of plung¬ 
ing speculative growers and careless and dishonest 
graders and exhorted and helped to reform? 
These and similar questions regarding the potato’s 
reputation, personal character and habits are be¬ 
ing asked by New Jersey farmers and farm leaders 
in a series of trials of Mr. Potato, held in various 
parts of the State where this crop is a .specialty. 
In recent years there have been some seasons of 
heavy loss and, as commercial potato production is 
a manufacturing proposition, the growers and their 
advisers, as any competent factory management 
would do, have set out to learn what can be done to 
put the business on a secure basis. Their task is 
more difficult than with the factory, however, as 
some of the disturbing elements are not under the 
control that the factory man has of his plant. 
There must be educational work, which at times 
seems diseouragingly slow in results. 
.Some time ago a State Potato Improvement Com¬ 
mittee was formed, of which W. B. Duryee is field 
agent, and Mr. Duryee, with Farm Demonstrator 
Douglass and various farmers, potato handlers and 
bankers, are staging these mock trials to present the 
facts about the business and suggestions for improve¬ 
ment in a comprehensive, concise, emphatic and at¬ 
tractive manner. Judging from the large attend¬ 
ance and interest shown at the latest of these trials, 
at Allentown, N. J., November 20, the idea is a de¬ 
cided success. 
I have been in the audience at many farm meet¬ 
ings addressed by able experts, and heard the long 
breaths of weariness drawn by my neighbors in the 
audience, and noted expressions on the faces of 
others telling of a desire to do the same, but refrain¬ 
ing, because their standards of polite behavior 
forbade. But in this trial, lasting nearly two hours, 
I noted nothing of this sort. The people were alert 
and interested in what was going on. 
When the curtain rose, the presiding judge, pros¬ 
ecutor, defense counsel and court clerk were seen at 
their places on the stage. The prisoner, Mr. Potato 
—Field Agent Duryee, suitably masked and garbed 
—was brought to the dock, a jury of 12 chosen from 
the audience, and the trial proceeded in regular 
court order. 
Witnesses called from the audience were several 
potato growers, Farm Demonstrator Douglass, the 
manager of the Monmouth Potato Exchange, and 
President Spaulding of the Allentown Farmers’ Na¬ 
tional Bank. 
The testimony covered all sides of the case. Some 
of the points brought out repeatedly by the ques¬ 
tions were : Certified and treated seed ; reasonable 
acreage on land best adapted to potatoes; spraying; 
running the crop in a rotation; correct fertilizing; 
business-like grading, and safe credit. Speculative 
plunging in large acreages, especially by young farm¬ 
ers, was emphatically deplored. 
Finally Mr. Potato was called in his own defense 
and showed convincingly that he himself was not to 
blame for the losses complained about, but that they 
were caused by unwise methods of growing and mar¬ 
keting. 
The jury deliberated and found the potato not 
guilty as charged, and the prosecutor announced that 
he would appeal the case to Agricultural Week at 
Trenton, in January, where a sort of Supreme Court 
round-up of the various trials will be held. 
The potato trial was one of the features of a two- 
day farm institute held at Allentown, which is in 
the southwestern part of Monmouth County, a good 
agricultural section for many other crops than po¬ 
tatoes, as could be seen from the excellent exhibits 
of fruit, vegetables and grain on the upper floor of 
the Grange Hall. There were about 400 ears of corn, 
worthy of place in any corn exhibit; fine specimens 
of the apples grown in that locality; mangels, 
squashes and, of course, a large line of potatoes. In 
one end of the' hall the ladies had an exhibit of 
cookery and canned goods, and an extremely prac¬ 
tical food exhibit was “demonstrated” at the cafe¬ 
teria dinner served to an enthusiastically apprecia¬ 
tive crowd before the evening session. 
Eight prizes for essays on Alfalfa written by the 
young people were awarded. They showed interest 
and observation, and were a credit to Farm Demon¬ 
strator Douglass, and the teachers and others who 
have co-operated with him in the effort to extend 
the crop conservatively in Monmouth County. 
w. W. II. 
For and Against the Farm Bureau 
May I say a few words in reply to your article “The 
Farm Bureau Under Fire,” on page 1437? I live right 
in the midst of this fire upon the Farm Bureau, and 
was asked, but refused, to sign the petition to do away 
with Farm Bureau support by taxation. The reasons 
given by the majority of the opposition which I have 
met are the following: 
1. The work of the Farm Bureau is a duplication 
of that of the experiment stations at Geneva and else¬ 
where. For instance, we do not need the Farm Bu¬ 
reau’s services in telling us how and when to spray po¬ 
tatoes and fruit, and advising as to this and that farm 
procedure. We can get the bulletins or direct informa¬ 
tion from Geneva or Cornell. 
2. The Farm Bureau gives no help in regard to mar¬ 
keting, the help which above all others we need and de¬ 
sire. Lots of talk, but nothing doing. 
Let me say that this last point is the one every 
farmer has foremost in his mind. Personally I believe 
if farmers do not get what- they want from the Farm 
Bureau it is the fault of the farmers. This bureau is 
the farmers’ organization and they should get co-opera¬ 
tive marketing or any other form of marketing out of it 
if they just go after it. But no one can get anything 
out of or help build up a profitable organization of any 
sort unless he can induce himself to submerge his own 
little personal interests in said organization. It really 
would be too bad to let this organization, which is grow¬ 
ing to national proportions, go down. The Board of 
Supervisors of Ontario County, however, voted $10,000 
for the Farm Bureau for the coming year. f. w. b. 
While I did not attend the hearing, I am informed 
that the opponents of the Farm and Home Bureaus 
and Junior Extensions made out a very poor case, and 
the Board of Supervisors voted an appropriation of 
$10,000 for continuing the work next year. 
Because the leaders of the Farm Bureau took a stand 
on the rural school question which did not agree with 
yours is no reason for trying to injure the County Farm 
Bureaus. The attitude of Farm Bureau leaders' on the 
school question was not different from that of Mr. Man¬ 
ning and Mr. Strivings, leaders of the State Grange. 
Yet I find you continually praising the Grange and 
knocking the Farm Bureau. As a practical farmer of 
over 20 years’ experience I can see where both organ¬ 
izations can be of service to country people. The'Coun¬ 
ty Farm Bureau can render services that the Grange 
cannot well undertake to give. For example, our 
Wayne County Farm Bureau the past season carried 
on a spray service which in some orchards resulted in 
crops of better than 90 per cent A grade fruit. Over 
500 farmers in the county asked for and received this 
spray service. Our Farm Bureau also put on a fruit 
exhibit at the State Fair at Syracuse which is said by 
competent judges to have been the best exhibit of fruit 
that ever went into the State Fair buildings—some 
achievement in a bad scab year. The Farm Bureau has 
arranged for and conducted fruit tours, dairy barn 
tours, poultry and beau tours, which many farmers took 
advantage of in order to see what other farmers were 
doing, and get information along these lines. The Farm 
Bureau office is farmers’ headquarters for the county. I 
have been able to get information from it that has been 
of value to me. Of course I could have gotten this in¬ 
formation from other sources, but not so quickly or con¬ 
veniently, because the office can be easily reached by 
telephone. The Farm Bureau work cannot be carried 
on without funds. gpx>. w. chapman. 
II. N.-Y.—Please get us right on that school ques¬ 
tion. What we say is that the Farm Bureau leaders 
did not represent the great majority of farm people. 
They knew perfectly well that they did not represent 
farm sentiment, but they tried to make it appear that 
they did. Mr. Strivings was for the bill until he was 
elected State Grange Master. He then recognized the 
sentiment against the bill and knew that he could not 
fairly represent the Grange and stand for the bill. We 
feel justified in saying that the Farm Bureau leaders 
lost their opportunity for real leadership by their ac¬ 
tion in this school matter. 
The Canandaigua meeting on the Farm Bureau grab 
showed a big sentiment against it, but poorly organized 
and marshaled, but that did not detract from its obvious 
strength. Of course the other side had the ringers and 
the boiler-plate stuff to hurl at the opposition, but failed 
to answer‘the blunt question of a plain farmer as to 
why the Farm Bureau had lost half of its one-time 
thousand members. Probably more than half who have 
been in are now out, and the present total is kept by 
paid solicitors, who catch a new batch each year to take 
the place of those who drop out. I speak of this paid 
solicitation in Ontario County only on hearsay, but I 
know it’s the plan in my county. The whole thing is a 
wrong use of public funds. Whatever good is done 
with taxes should be by public agencies, with benefits 
to all citizens alike. i. was thebe. 
We may expect to hear from all sides. The R. N.-Y. 
will support what the taxpayers want, but we think the 
time has come for a square show-down of results. In 
several counties we are told on good authority that a 
large proportion, if not a majority, of Farm Bureau 
members are town and city men and not farmers. We 
shall be glad to correct this impression if we are wrong. 
The point, as we see it, is whether the Farm Bureau 
has done and is doing a work which entitles it to the 
special privilege of an appropriation of public money. 
Several persons have offered to write us a “full history 
of the movement.” We do not care for it, but we would 
like the best argument you can give to show that the 
Farm Bureau should be supported by public Inoney. 
