Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
educated, and relatively conservative farmers than did organizations
like the Grange.
12
And though the architects of Cooperative Extension
intended the farm bureaus mainly as centers to improve farm productivity
and the standard of country life, growers quickly transformed the farm
bureaus into a political and economic organization for infl uencing
farm legislation on all levels of government. Once the county farm bureaus
were established, farmers wasted no time connecting them into larger state
and national organizations. For instance, California farm bureau members
throughout the state formed the California Farm Bureau Federation in
October, 1918 (Scheuring 1988, 26). The national farm bureau organization,
the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), followed in 1919.
13
Once a farm advisor had organized a local farm bureau in his county,
he was supposed to work with all farmers, whether they were members of
the farm bureau organization or not. Most advisors surely did work with
a broad segment of their communities, but they continued to have very
close ties to the farm bureau structure, especially at the county level.
In many states, advisors acted as administrative members of the county
farm bureau, and conversely, some farm bureaus had a quasi-governmental
status at this level. These close links between the two organizations brought
cries of protest from the Grange and other competing farm groups, and
prompted the AFBF and the national Cooperative Extension division
within the USDA to sign a memorandum of understanding, offi cially
marking off the boundaries and responsibilities between them, in 1921
(Scheuring 1988, 26). In practice, though, these close ties continued on an
informal basis.
With funding coming from all levels of government and a very large
grey area surrounding the extent to which farm advisors were part-time
employees of the farm bureaus, it is not surprising that Cooperative Exten-
sion, like the larger land-grant system, developed an identity crisis with
respect to its mission (McConnell 1953, 45). In some respects, the mission
of Cooperative Extension was actually clearer than for university-based
researchers: advisors were expected to work within just one county to
improve farming practices there. The compatibility of this work with
the larger aims of the land-grant mission, however, was more fuzzy. For
instance, would increased productivity and effi ciency lead to healthier
farm communities? And, if so, what kind of farm was best for the health
of these communities? Traditionally, the family farm was held to be the
