IMMIGRANTS ESSENTIAL TO OUR U.S. FOOD SYSTEM

By Roger Allbee, Former Secretary of Vt Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets

Townshend, Vt, October 24, 2024

 

Immigrants play a vital role in our U.S. food system. Each day, the food we consume is likely handled by guest workers, who comprise 21% of all employees in the U.S. food industry. According to an April 2020 report by the Migration Policy Institute, immigrants are essential workers throughout the food supply chain, including agricultural workers, food processing, transportation, wholesale distributors, and grocery staff. In the food processing sector alone, immigrants make up 35% of meat processing workers, 34% of those in commercial bakeries, 30% in fruit and vegetable processing, and 25% in seafood and other food processing areas. It is estimated that approximately 25% of workers in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations are undocumented. The Center for American Progress reports that nearly 1.7 million undocumented workers are involved in the U.S. food supply chain, with agriculture having the highest percentage of undocumented laborers in the workforce over the past three decades

 

In Vermont, guest workers are also essential on dairy farms and in fruit and vegetable production. It is estimated that as many as 1,000 migrants work in milking parlors and dairy barns in the state. According to the Vermont Farmworker Solidarity Project, “one-half of Vermont’s milk comes from the labor of undocumented workers,” and farmers employing these workers affirm that they could not survive without them. In the fruit and vegetable sectors, around 400 seasonal workers in the H-2A federal visa program are employed annually in Vermont. According to Food Connects, 11.3% of farm work in Vermont is performed by H-2A seasonal workers. The Vermont Farm to Plate program notes that labor needs and costs are high and that retaining a seasonal workforce is a challenge, resulting in wholesale farms being heavily dependent on H-2A workers. These farms assert that they would be unable to operate without these workers. In dairies across the U.S., 80% of the milk supply comes from farms that employ guest workers, with immigrants performing 50% of the labor. However, the H-2A seasonal program does not meet the full-time labor requirements of U.S. farms. 

 

The need for guest workers in food production is not a recent development. During World War I, when migration from Europe declined, growers lobbied for the establishment of the first guest worker program, which operated from 1917 to 1921. A similar program was created during World War II due to labor shortages. Today, the lack of farmworkers is a pressing policy issue, with approximately 20% of agricultural products going unharvested nationwide. This scarcity significantly impacts food availability and prices. An article in Newsweek, dated March 12, 2024, titled "America Has a Farming Crisis," reports that “the United States lost 141,733 farms over the course of five years, in part due to a broken workforce system that has led to a worker shortage.” A 2019 survey by the California Farm Bureau Federation found that 56% of California farmers could not find all the workers they needed in the previous five years.

 

Over the years, there have been multiple attempts to address immigration laws concerning farm and food labor needs. As recently as 2022, farmers across the U.S. united to advocate for national immigration reform through the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which aimed to ease labor shortages and lower food prices. If enacted, this legislation would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented agricultural workers and reformed the seasonal H-2A farmworker visa program, among other measures. 

 

The need for immigration reform is critical. Mass deportation has not been considered a viable option for farm workers in the past due to its potential disruption of the U.S. food supply chain, which would lead to decreased food availability and increased prices, ultimately affecting the economy. A study by researchers at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center for North American Studies indicates that mass deportation of undocumented immigrants could result in a 90% increase in retail milk prices alone. Other analyses also suggest that mass deportations would severely disrupt the food supply chain, leading to significant price increases for consumers. Labor is vital to the functioning of farms and the agricultural landscape in Vermont, and this need is echoed throughout the country today.

 

 

Resource Information for this article

 

·      Alexander Fabino, America Has a Farming Crisis, Newsweek, March 12, 2024

·      Frida Garza and Ayurella Hoirn-Muller, “Trump’s proposed mass deportations could ‘decimate ‘the US food supply”, produced by Grist and co-published with EL PAIS, Mother Jones, October 17, 2024

·      America’s Farms Are Facing A Serious Labor Shortage, NPR, July 30, 2023

·      Stephanie Mercier, “Labor Problems Persist in the U.S. Agricultural Sector,” AGWEB, Farm Journal, May 20, 2024

·      Beef Magazine, can we solve the ag labor shortage? Aug 5, 2019

·      H.L. Goodwin, Discussion: Critical Issues in Agricultural Labor Markets, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, July 1985

·      Jamie Martin, AFBF urges action on farm labor reform, Wisconsin Agconnection, June 21, 2024

·      Lucy Drummond, “Immigrant Workers Vital to Dairy Industry, Need More Social and Medical Support”, econews.vt@uvm.edu. Oct 18, 2021

·      Stephen Devendoss and Jeff Luckstead, “The Role of Guest Workers in U.S. Agriculture”, Choices, 2016

·      Joint Economic Committee of U.S. Congress, Cong. Don Beuyer, Chair. “Immigrants Are Vital to the U.S. Economy”

·      Alejandro Gutierrrez-Li, “Feeding America: How Immigrants Sustain U.S. Agriculture”, Rice University Baker Institute for Public Policy, Center for U.S. and Mexico Research Papers, July 19, 2024

·      Essential Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Food Supply Chain, Migration Policy Institute, April 2020

·      Immigration, Farmworkers and America’s Food Production: 5 Things to Know, see www.fwd.us, Sept 14, 2022

·      Philip Martin, “Immigration Policy and Agriculture: Possible Directions for the Future”, Journal on Migration and Human Security, JMHS Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2017)

·      Flynn Adcock, David Anderson, Parr Rasson, “The Economic Impacts of Immigrates Labor on U.S. Dairy Farms”, Texas A&M AgriLife Research center for North American Studies, prepared under contract for National Milk Producers Federation, August 2015

·      On history of guest worker programs, see David Griffith, Guest Workers in U.S. History, 

·      Derek Brouwer, “Migrant Workers Hold Up Vermont’s Dairy Industry and Are Fighting for Better Working Conditions”, Seven Days, May 31, 2023

·      Vern Grubinger, UVM Extension Professor, “Importance of H-21 Visa Program to Sam Mazza’s Farm”, https://www.uvm.edu

·      Farm-Food Hub News, Food Connects at https://foodconnects.org

·      PRODUCT: Produce, VT Farm to Plate, at https://wwwfarmtoplate.com

·      Arkuro Canales-Canales, “America’s Worker Shortages in the Agriculture and Food Industries: Direct Impact on Food Waste and Inflation,” National Immigration Forum, Nov. 4, 2022

·      The Role of Guest Workers in the American Economy, in ThoughtCo, www.thoughtco.com

·      Ted Genoways, “What does Donald Trump’s deportation plan mean for the food system,” Food &Environment Reporting Network, Sept. 4, 2024

·      Farm Policy New, Illinois, Immigration-Food Prices, Dec. 12, 2016

·      The Essential Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Food Supply Chain, Migration Policy Institute, MPI, April 2020

·      Safia Samee Ali, “Farmers push for immigration reform to counter labor shortages and rising food prices,” NBC News, Sept. 5, 2022

·      Wyatt Marshall, “What Would America’s Food Supply Look Like Without Immigrant Labor?” Vice at www.vice.com, Feb. 1, 2017

·      Anna Shepperson, IMMIGRATION IMPACT, “Immigrants Are Key to Filling US Labor Shortages, New Date Finds,” IMMIGRATION IMPACT, see immigrationimpact.com July 2, 2024

·      Immigrants and American Agriculture, New American Economy, see https://www.newamericaneconomy.org

·      Bret Thorn, “Lack of skilled immigrant labor could cause higher food prices, “Nation’s Restaurant News see www.nrn.com March 22, 22017

·      Jacqueline Hada, Mireya Loza: “100 Year of Mexican Guest Workers in the United States, The Univ of North Carolina Press BLOG, April 5, 2017            

 

 

 

THE LONG VIEW, FARM AND RURAL POLICES THROUGH TIME AND VERMONT’S LEADERSHIP

The retirement of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy from the U.S. Senate at the end of this year, after serving over forty years, brings forth so much history.  It also highlights the importance of a member of our Congressional delegation’s service as a member of an Agricultural Committee of the U.S. Congress. 

According to historical documents, these Committees, both the House and the Senate, are among the oldest, the House Committee established in 1820, and the Senate in 1825.  These committees were established at the time when agriculture was considered to be “one of the three great branches of domestic industry.”  In the 1800’s, 90 percent of the population lived on farms compared to today where it is about one percent. Some of the key pieces of federal legislation that changed the United States came about following this period to include, in 1862, the Land Grant College Act championed by our own late U.S. Senator Justin Morrill.   

Vermonter’s have always had an active involvement in helping shape federal policies. For example, William Jarvis, former U.S. Consul to Portugal and Spain under President Jefferson, later became a resident of Wethersfield, Vermont.  He had imported Merino Sheep from Spain and was the person behind the Sheep Craze. He advocated to our Congressional delegation and other federal leaders the need to support tariffs on imported wool in the early 1800’s so that our sheep industry could survive against price competition from imports. Later Vermont got behind and supported the Hatch Act in 1887 that created the federal agricultural experiment stations at the Land Grant Colleges. Congressman Wallace Grout (1885-1901) led the fight against margarine due to its impact on Vermont’s dairy sector.  Governor Aiken opposed the New Deal program to take over “Submarginal Lands” (1934-36) and the conversion of these lands to public domain but supported, with other Governors in the Northeast, federal dairy price regulation coming out of the Agricultural Adjustment Acts of the 1930’s.  He advocated for cooperatives, food stamps, rural electric, surplus food distribution, and crop insurance, food for peace and other policies.  It is said that in his thirty-four years in the Senate (1941-1975) he had his imprint on every major piece of legislation considered by the Committee during that time.  

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, following the Depression, is considered the United State’s first Farm Bill.  In 1938 Congress began passing omnibus Farm Bills every four to five year.  There is a very long list of federal legislation that has been enacted over the years by these two committees that affect in some way every single person as well as global citizens.  Some of the early legislation have included: the Land Grant College Act and Homestead Acts of 1862, the establishment of USDA in 1862, The Food and Drug Act of 1906/07,the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 that created the county, state, and federal Extension Service, the Federal Loan Act of 1916 and Agricultural Credit Act of 1923, the Capper-Volstead Act of 1922 that is considered the “Magna Carta” of agricultural cooperatives, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act 0f 1936, and after the “Dust Bowl” created the Soil Conservation Service now NRCS and led to State Conservation Districts, the Rural Electric Act of 1946, Food Stamp Act of 1946, and Child Nutrition Act of 1966.

Farm Bills have changed over time and are a comprehensive package of agriculture, conservation, rural development, research, extension, education, food assistance, energy, climate, and other issues that impact every aspect of rural America today.  The last Farm Bill of 2018 had twelve separate titles.  Nutrition programs now account for about three-fourths of projected outlays.   Senator Leahy has been a champion and steward of many important policies such as nutrition, conservation, rural credit, rural development, dairy policies, organic agriculture and others important to Vermont and the Nation since joining the Committee in 1975.  He is retiring as its most senior member, having served as Chairman of that Committee from 1987 to 1995.  His policy leadership has been valued in Vermont and the Nation and will be missed.

Vermont is still a rural state.  Our economy continues to depend on agriculture and the working landscape in both tourism and farm livelihoods.  Without representation on these committees, we, as a state, will have no voice in the committee deliberations and during the conference to deal with differences between the House and Senate bills.

______________________________

Roger Allbee of Townshend, Vermont is a former Vt. Secretary of Agriculture.  He has served on the staff of the House Committee on Agriculture for the late Congressman Jim Jeffords and writes articles on the History of Vt Agriculture.

   

AGRICULTURE AND THE COLD WAR

Some of us are children of the 1950s and 60s. I was born in 1945 so was immersed like many others of my generation in the cold war.  In grade school we were often told to get under our desks for air raid drills.  Some people built bomb shelters in their backyard.  We were instructed on what to do during an attack.  My mother and others listened to the Senator McCarthy hearings of the 1950s and the communist hysteria that existed during that time. We witnessed the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 where the US and the Soviet Union came close to a nuclear war. The space race only reinforced the rivalry between two ideologically opposed giants with the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, the first manmade object in orbit. 

My own cold war involvement continued when I fulfilled my ROTC military obligation in the late 1960s in then West Germany as a young US Army Officer with NATO and the US Special Ammunition Support Command. The Command had administrative control then of all US Army units assigned to NATO forces with nuclear weapons.  We were always on alert to the threat from “the Eastern bloc.” It was the height of the Cold War period, and the Prague Spring of 1968 when Soviet forces invaded Czechoslovakia to prevent a reform movement by Alexander Dubcek, only heightened the concern and vigilance.

With the Russian invasion of the Ukraine it seems that the “Cold War” has reemerged.  I find myself revisiting the history of the Soviet bloc and how our world has changed. Prior to the establishment of the Soviet Union, imperial Russia was a net exporter of grain.  In the late 1920s, the new Soviet Union ruled that private residential estates had to become collective farms (Kolkhoz’s).  By 1970, one-half of the cultivated lands in the Soviet Union were collective farms and the rest were state owned. These farms collectively failed to reach the production goals laid out in each of the Soviet government’s five-year plans. This failure caused the Soviet Union to reach out to the United States for their domestic food needs. An example of the cruel efforts under Stalin to impose aggressively collective farms resulted in the famine in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933.  Stalin’s effort to tramp down Ukrainian nationalism left an estimated 3.9 million people dead during this time.  An investigation of this Ukrainian famine was done by the US Congress in 1988.  It found that these deaths were a direct result of Stalin’s policies.

Due to the inability to grow domestically those food supplies needed to feed the country, the Soviet Union purchased, in 1972, 19 million tons of grain that included one-fourth of the entire US wheat crop. The now famous statement by then US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz to farmers to “plant fence row to fence row” only reinforced the drive to increase US crop production. In 1975, with another crop failure in the Soviet Union, the US and the Soviet Union signed a five-year agreement for the Soviet Union to purchase up to eight million metric tons per year of US corn and wheat.

In 1980, due the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979, President Jimmy Carter put an embargo on grain to the Soviet Union, and also had the US boycott the summer Olympics in Moscow. The embargo had little impact on the grain needs of the Soviet Union as supplies were obtained from other countries which included most of South America. The embargo was lifted by President Reagan in 1981. I remember this period well, being a professional staff member of the US House Committee of Agriculture at that time. The tight money policies of the federal reserve to control inflation and also with record production and a glut of farm commodities caused a farm depression in the 1980s. It was said to be more severe than at any time since the great depression of the 1929 period. The dairy economy even in Vermont was not immune to this period as the old 75-80 percent of parity authorization that led to increased milk production over what the market could use during the 1970s was eliminated in the 1982 Federal Farm Bill, leading to several attempts after for ways to better stabilize supply and demand in the industry.

In the Soviet Union, communism, central planning, and collective farms had failed to meet their needs. The US responded by supply assistance.  For example, a New York Times article in 1991 said that the US was planning $1.5 billion in food aid to Soviet people’s through Moscow.  USAID had several US agriculture and Russian partnership ventures in the 1990s. Even Ben and Jerry’s (not owned by Unilever then) participated in 1994 in one USAID $700,000 partnership grant in building a plant in Karelia, a region in the Western part of Russia boarding Finland (they pulled out of this agreement in 1997). In the two decades since the end of the Cold War, and until booted out by Putin in 2012, $2.6 billion of US aid was provided to Russia through USAID.

During this time, I assisted with a USDA supported project by the National Cooperative Business Association in D.C. to help bring US food products into Voronezh, in Central Russia, near Ukraine. The concept was to bring US food products (canned goods) through the Black Sea up to Voronezh, thus helping with food needs in that region.  I remember my visit there and seeing the collective farms that were idled with the equipment pilfered and not working. We visited an ice cream factory, and I was told that they only made two flavors, which I tasted and when I asked why only two flavors, I was told that they tell the people what they need. They did not seek public input. Later I participated in further work in the former satellite countries of the Czech Republic, Hungry, and Poland, working with our Embassy officials helping to connect these  emerging markets with US food companies. During that time, it was clear that there was a great deal of excitement among businesses and others in breaking away from the yoke of the old Soviet system.  

The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9,1989 was a pivotal event in World history, and certainly in my generation.  It marked the fall of the so called “iron curtain” and the part of the world that faced me and others as NATO military personnel.  I remember the feeling of relief at the beginning of the end of the “Cold War.” The Wall coming down represented freedom, especially to those in the East who had been trapped behind it for so long.

Later after the fall of the Wall, I had a chance to travel to Berlin. I asked a young man on the street then if he knew where “check point Charlie” was, the point of access under the “iron curtain” between the West and East Berlin. He said yes, follow him as he was going to the museum that had information on the Wall and its history.  On the way, he told me that when the Wall went up, part of his family was on one side, and he and others were on the other and until the Wall came down, they had not been able to see each other.  He was on the way to the museum where he worked.  I have a piece of that  Wall today that I purchased at the museum, a vivid reminder of the old cold war period.

I am not a world food expert, but it is clear from the data, that the Black Sea region of which Ukraine is part has emerged as an important supplier of grains, oilseeds, and vegetable oils in the past thirty years.  The two countries, Russia and Ukraine, account for about 12 percent of the total calories traded in the World, principally cereals and oilseeds including wheat, barley, sunflowers, and maize.  Combined they produce 1/3 of all corn and cereal grains exported to the world market. In addition to Russia being the World’s third-largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas, is also a major supplier of farm fertilizers.  

 

There is an old Native American saying,“Never make any decision without first looking seven generations to the past and seven generations to the future.” Looking to the past, it is evident that US agriculture, as well as the world’s agriculture, has been in constant change over a long period of time and that continues today.  The change has been influenced by events and policies at all levels, in Vermont too, from the subsistence farming period through agriculture today.

Through these years there has been many initiatives that have brought people and institutions together to identify critical needs and programs and policies needed to meet those needs. That remains true today. The recent events in Ukraine will likely change how the world economy operates for decades to come.  The World economy is more closely linked today than ever before in history, and COVID and the disruption in supply lines for goods only reinforced this. In the economy to include agriculture it illustrates the need to get away from the dependence upon fossil fuels both for energy use and as a source for fertilizers.  Recent climate reports by NOAA, the United Nations, National Geographic and others only reinforce both the challenges and opportunities ahead.  Historically, especially in Vermont, our strength in the market with agricultural products has often been associated with environmental stewardship related to clean water, soil health, and quality of the products produced. The recent Governor’s Commission on The Future of Vermont Agriculture Action Plan recently released is a worthy effort, but it is not the end of course. A unified structure of coordination, as occurred in WWI and WWII, of those agencies, academic and research institutions, and not for profits that have a mission relative to agriculture, food systems and the environment is badly needed today. With Covid and now the Ukraine invasion by Russia, the world economy, to include Vermont’s, will change and the state, and the nation, must prepare for it.  As the old Navy saying goes, “all hands are needed on deck,” and they need to be pulling in the same direction.

Background Sources for this blog:

• Iowa Pathway, The Farm Crisis of 1980’s
• International Food Policy Research Institute
• Coldwarheartland.ku.edu
• Military-hiustory.findom.com
• History.com
• US Congress, Commission on The Ukraine Famine 1932-33, N Report to Congress, April   22, 1988
• New York Times, “U.S. Planning $1.5 Billion in Food Aid to Soviet Republic Through Moscow, by Keith Bradsher, Nov. 21, 1991
• Agri Pulse, Memories of  U.S. Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz, by Sara Wyant, 
• The Soviet’s Five Year Plan(1981-1985), Issue Brief No. IB81025 by John Hardt and Donna Gold, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
• What Were Stalin’’s Five Year Plans? In https://www.historyhit.com
• The First Five Year Plan in the USSR at https://www.citeco.fr
• Revelations From The RUSSIAN ARCHIVES, Sections: Internal Workings of the Soviet System: The Soviet Union and the United States, at https://www.loc.gov
• www.socialismrealized.eu/1950s-collectivisation-of-agriculture
• NATO BATTERIES-Ed Thelen’s Nike Missile Web Site
• Ben and Jerry’s Bids a Bittersweet Farewell, in the Moscow Times by Jeremy Weinberg and Sujata Rao, The Moscow Times, Feb 13, 1997 
• Russia boots out USAID, by Natasha Abbakumova and Kelly Lally, in Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2012
• Interbizforum.com   Food Products-AGTEC
• First five-year plan, Wikipedia
• The Soviet Grain Embargo, by the Heritage Foundation Jan 2, 1981
• The Economist, Where will he Stop? Feb 26^th-March 4^th issue, and article on page 67-68, Russia invades Ukraine, The Economic fallout.
• The Militarization of Agriculture: Cold War, Foreign Aid, and the Expansion of the American Agricultural Welfare System Under President Eisenhower, by Alan Herbert Metzner, College of William and Mary, 2008
• Agriculture and Food Aid in U.S. Policymaking during the Cold War, by Kristin L. Ahlberg, Oxford University Press, 29 July 2019
• The Family Farm in the Post-World War 11 Era: Industrialization, the Cold War, and Political Symbol, A Dissertation, by Ryan Stockwell, Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia, August 2008

THE THREE-LEGGED STOOL

Some old-time dairy farmers from years ago can talk about the three-legged milking stool that allowed them to get close to the cows udder when they milked.   So, it is not surprising that there are also the three legs to the history of agriculture- education, research, and extension.  In previous blogs, I have covered both the educational side relative to the history of the Land Grant System, and the emergence of the Extension system.  These can be reviewed at www.whatceresmightsay.blogspot.com.  This blog posting reviews briefly the other aspect of the three-legged stool, research and the agricultural experiment stations.

 

BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE CREATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS IN THE U.S.:

The work of the more than 600 main Agricultural Experiment Stations and their branch stations across the United States has been tremendous and addresses a range of issues related to agriculture and the environment.  Research, being part of the Land Grant System and the Extension Service, is often called the “three-legged stool” of research, teaching, and education.  The pieces of the so-called stool were put together at different times in our history.  The first being the creation of the Land Grant College Act in 1862, followed by the Hatch Act of 1887, and finally the Smith Lever Act of 1914, with various amendments being added to these laws over the years.

 

Agricultural Research Beginning:

By all accounts, the need for directed agricultural research came from early European models. The first is said to have been in England in 1843.  It was followed in 1851 by a band of German farmers in 1851.  It was under the leadership of Dr. Samuel Johnson, then a professor of Chemistry at Yale, who went to Germany in 1853 to study their research system that the idea and energy for such system was established in the U.S., but it did not quickly begin according to history. The U.S. was an agrarian society in the beginning, and the records from that time indicate that even George Washington, a farmer himself, and a member of the first agricultural society in the U.S. in Philadelphia, advocated in his first address to the then seat of Government, indicated the need for a national board of agriculture.  He said, “that he would rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world.” Other national leaders of the time were farmers too unlike what exists in the national and even state policy making environment today.

 

Influence of Land Grant Act and helping to forge the future of Experiment Stations.

According to records, the funds from the sale of land scrips from the Land Grant Act to the State of Connecticut (each state received scrips for the sale of 30,000 acres of Western native American land for each member of Congress from the state) went to the Sheffield School of Yale College in 1862. (before the creation of the University of Connecticut).  Two of the professors there, Dr. Samuel Johnson, a professor of Chemistry, and William Brewer, a professor of Agriculture, had for years been active in promoting agricultural science in Connecticut and elsewhere in the United States.  Dr. Johnson had already gone to study the research system in Germany in 1853.  A Vermonter, Dr. W.O. Atwater, a post graduate student under Dr. Johnson, also went to Germany to study the Experiment Stations, and came back and with Dr. Johnson proposed to farmers at a meeting of the Connecticut State Board of Agriculture in 1873, that an Experiment Station be established in the state. It was not well received at first but with the support of funding from a private individual, the State granted $5,000 for the establishment of a temporary, two-year experiment station at Wesleyan University where Atwater was a professor.  The Station, the first of its kind in the United States, was started in 1875 with Atwater, a native of Burlington, Vermont, as its director.  

 

Other States soon followed the Connecticut Example Leading Eventually to the Federal Hatch Act:

Once an Experiment Station was created in Connecticut, and in 1886 other states quickly followed without federal authorizing legislation that came later.  States in this category included California, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Vermont.  The movement to secure Federal Aid for Experiment Stations took some time and lobbying by the agricultural colleges that than existed and their attached Experiment Stations.  A Resolution endorsed by this group in 1885 speaks to this need. It stated “that the condition and progress of American agriculture require national aid for investigation and experimentation in the several States and Territories: and that therefore this convention approves the principle and general provisions of what is known as the Cullen bill of the last Congress and urges upon the next Congress the passage of this. Or a similar act.” By 1887 the federal Hatch Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Cleveland.  At the time it was the largest government scientific enterprise ever started with the publications at the time reaching over half a million farmers directly.

 

The Vermont State Agricultural Experiment Station:  

With the support of the Vermont State Board of Agriculture, the state legislature passed an Act creating the Vermont State Agricultural Experiment Station and placed it under the charge of the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College.  According to the announcement of the Station by the Board of Control (see first annual report), it “is the wish to make the Station as widely useful as its resources will admit.  Every Vermont citizen who is concerned in agriculture, whether farmer, manufacturer or dealer, has the right to apply to the Station for any assistance that comes within its province to render, and the Station will respond to all applications as far as lies in its power.”

The first annual report indicated that a farm had been purchased with suitable buildings erected and stocked so that the Vermont Station at the time would be able to carry out work in the following areas:  farm crop experimentation; stock feeding; fruit and vegetable adaptation to the soil and climate of the state; plant diseases; impact of insects on vegetation; fertilizer analysis; and miscellaneous chemical work which may be sent in by farmers of the State.  

At the time the federal Hatch Act required that bulletins or reports of progress shall be published at each Station at least once in three months and sent to the Newspapers in the State where the Station was located.

 

Vermont State Experiment Station Today:

Much has changed at many levels since the passage of the Hatch Act and the establishment of the Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station.  Nationally this is no longer an agrarian country nor is Vermont an agrarian state.  Needs have changed relative to agriculture, food systems and the environment, as well as funding levels both from the federal and state levels.  This brief background paper does not address those issues, nor the list of major research outcomes over the many years relative to the work of the Experiment Station.  To obtain information on the operation and background of the State of Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station today, go to:  The University of Vermont, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station.  As noted on this site, funding for the Station comes from the US Department of Agriculture and the University of Vermont through the State of Vermont’s appropriations.  This site also states that the research done at the Station falls under the USDA goal areas of agricultural systems, food safety, nutrition, natural resources and the environment, and economic opportunities and the quality of life.

 

BLOGGER COMMENTS:

 Vermont agriculture is at a crossroads, and it has been before in its history.  It has gone from being defined first as a grain producing state in the early 1800’s followed by being a sheep raising state in the early 1800s, to a leading butter producing state after, and then with fluid milk to the cities thereafter.  According to records, it has always been in a state of change.  During all of these times there was a great deal of production diversity with other agriculture and agricultural related enterprises. Today the challenges are many to include climate change, market access, fair farm pricing and economic sustainability.  Vermont is becoming a non-agrarian state which is reflected in the makeup of the legislature that has less connection to the land as in the past.  This is true at the national level as well.  We need to remember that the three-legged stool of research, teaching, and extension education continues to be needed today as in the past.  

 

Bold new initiatives many be needed outside of what is considered the status quo. The entities created with the Land Grant Act of 1862, the Hatch Act of 1887, and the Smith Lever Act of 1914 were established to address these needs as they change.  I note that others have stated that while these Experiment Stations and their connected Extension Services have done a good job over the past in educating farmers and their families, that with less than two percent of the population engaged in farming today there is a great deal of ignorance on subjects related to agriculture.  Similar sentiments have been made by others relative to the dairy industry.  For example, in the 2013 Journal of Dairy Science it is stated that “sustainability is more than economic profitability: it also relates to environmental and societal concerns including the quality of life of farm workers and the animals in dairy farms.  Sustained engagement between and among producers, various sectors of the industry, consumers and citizens will be essential.”  As one thoughtful individual connected with UVM Extension has said, “it will take thoughtful inquiry, a long-term perspective, and new ways to measure success in order to assure a viable future for Vermont’s agriculture.”

 

Sources for this blog:

·      Wikipedia, Agricultural experiment station

·      The Seeds of Change 1600-1929-Growing A Nation, in growinganation.org

·      Agricultural Experiment Act of 1887

·      The U.S. Land Grant System: An Overview, Aug 29, 2019, by the Congressional Research Service

·      Clearness of Style, Plainness of Statement, Experiment Station Bulletins in The Early Years, by Lynn B. Padgett, in Journal of Applied Communications, Vol. 70, Issue no. 4, New Prairie Press, 2017

·      The Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, England, 1500-1912, by Gregory Clark, UC Davis, June 2002

·      A Condensed History of American Agriculture 1776-1999 Timeline, in www.usda.gov

·      American Experiment Stations and their work in Vermont, Agricultural Report, Vermont State Board of Agriculture for the years 1893 and 11894, pages 86-97.

·      The First Annual Report, Vermont State Agricultural Experiment Station, 1887

·      History of the Station and Legislative Changes, see University of New Hampshire College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, NH Agricultural Experiment Station

·      History of the Hatch Act of 1887, by Linda Benedict and David G. Morrison, in www.lsuagcenter.com

·      See www.soyinfoCenter.com

·      The Future of Vermont Agriculture, by Vern Grubinger, October 8, 2018

·      See USDA Farmers.gov

·      Implications for Research Programs of Agricultural Experiment Stations, by G.M.Browning, Associate Director, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University

·      Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station Records, Archives and Special Collections, University of Connecticut Library

·      Agricultural Experiment Stations and Branch Stations in the United States, by Calvin Pearson and Amaya Atucha, Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Dec. 2015

·      Science, practice and politics: German agricultural experiment stations in the nineteenth century, by Mark Russel Finlay, Iowa State University, a Retrospective Theses and Dissertations submitted for a PhD in History in 1992

·      The Pioneer Experiment Station, 1875 to 1975, A History by James G. Horsfall, by Antoca Press in association with Union College Press, 1992     

 -        A History of the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, at https://genevahistoricalsociety.com     Agricultural Experiment Stations in the United States by A.C. True, Director of the Office of Experiment Station, USDA

 

 

            COVID HAS SPIKED THE INTEREST IN LOCAL AND REGIONALLY PRODUCED FOODS

Most of us are aware of the challenges that exist when supplies of needed products are not available at the local or regional grocery stores.  It was not always that way, and when COVID impacted the flow of goods, a new reality set in.  It clearly has brought to the forefront all that has changed relative to food production, processing and food availability since the last major virus endemic in the state in 1918.

Vermont was classified as an agricultural state in 1918 with nearly 30,000 farms and with 79% of the land in agriculture.  While many of these farms shipped milk to one of the over 200 hundred local creameries that then existed, they were also very diversified and sustained themselves with what they raised.  Markets were local then as the large grocery chains did not exist, neither did refrigeration for preserving or moving products great distances without ice.  People were encouraged to grow food, not only for the war effort but also for their own consumption. Nationally more than 5.2 million new garden plots were cultivated in 1918.

So, what happened that resulted in the situation relative to food availability and food distribution?  When shopping at any major grocery chain store today, it is evident that consumers have available a global food pallet, unavailable to earlier generations.  It requires an efficient and timely transportation system.  Consumers can choose from seafood from Asia, cheese and wine from Europe, fresh fruit from South America, and a range of products from other countries and other regions of the United States.   Data exists today that illustrates the fragile nature of the current approach during a worldwide epidemic, and thus the need for a more resilient local and regional food system.

Unlike the 1918 period, the impact of Covid on local food needs was almost immediate.  Major news outlets carried stories of farmers dumping milk, breaking eggs, and getting rid of farm products.  This was due to the disruption of the food supply chain as a result of closure of restaurants, schools and other institutional outlets for food as well as the impact on some processing facilities due to Covid.  During this same period local food needs increased dramatically.  It was also reported that since the pandemic onset, nearly thirty percent of Vermonters experienced food insecurity, almost triple the 2018 levels.  There were vivid pictures too in the press of cars lined up to get food at Food Banks within the state and at other locations in the U.S. 

According to officials at the Vermont State Agency of Agriculture, the increase in the demand for local food increased dramatically as a result of the supply chain disruptions.  Community Supported Agriculture facilities, regional food hubs, farmers’ markets, all saw a brisk increase in demand.   With the closure and restrictions at many local restaurants, there was an increase in cooking at home, some with prepared meals and others in learning new skills.   Some have even suggested that cooking more at home might become the new normal post pandemic.

The question today that exists for Vermont’s farm sector as well as policy establishment is can a more resilient local food system be maintained and strengthened so that future disruptions do not occur?  Actions and plans by the Farm to Plate and the State Agency of Agriculture in creating Vermont Agriculture and Food System Plan: 2020, and of the Vermont Dairy Task Force deliberations are encouraging, but it will not be easy.  Industry consolidation is difficult to unravel today under existing anti-trust regulations and enforcement that propel consolidation at all levels in the food chain.  Even a recent study by the Kansas City Federal Reserve of Concentration and Consolidation in the U.S. Food Supply Chain: The Latest Evidence and Implication for Consumers, Farmers, and Policymakers concludes that “small farmers have a difficult role in modern agricultural supply chains.” It further elaborates by stating “that while small farms contribute to populating and preserving the vitality of rural America…that better polices for rural America, instead of trying to curtail efficiency-enhancing marketing arrangements would be to support these farmers directly without disrupting market forces that enhance efficiency.”  While times are different, even the Agriculture Focus Group Report to Governor’s Commission on The Economic Future of Vermont in 1989 seemed to recognize this reality when it said, “Vermont state policy should consistently and aggressively expand the base and profitability of its agriculture…an application of significant state resources over an extended period of time will be necessary to deal with this chronic situation.” 

Efforts continue in developing a more resilient regional food approach with Food hubs, Food Sheds, Farm to Plate and State Agricultural plans, Real Organic advocacy, Regenerative agriculture initiatives, and with dairy task force discussions on ways to overcome an outdated commodity pricing system.  It is therefore encouraging to also hear of a recent initiative behind a New England Feeding New England, a project of New England State Food System Planners Partnership.  It is a 14-member research team that is starting a year-long, multi-level research project to better understand the new food supply chain, consumer and retail behavior, and make projections for what it will take to get 30% consumption of regionally produced food by 2030.  It will not be easy of course as existing supply chains are said to RUTHLESSLY seek out the most efficient operators. 

In the Vermont Papers published in 1989, the two authors, John McClaughry and Frank Bryan, state “that if agriculture were to wither away to a memory, Vermont would in time cease to be anything unique.  It would become just a distant suburb of Boston, its character defined by tourist restaurants and shopping malls.  Not only does a living agriculture contribute so much to the character of Vermont but is absolutely indispensable to preserving the landscape which in our time has become so vital a component of the state’s economic attractions.”    Similar statements over time have been made by others.  David Donath in the publication The Vermont Difference, Perspectives from the Green Mountain State, in 2014, stated that “Defined by its iconic rural countryside of farms, forests, villages, and small cities, Vermont’s working landscape has emerged as key to the brand and quality of life of the state—and to its future.” 

Even an agriculture focus group report to the Governor’s Commission on The Economic Future of Vermont carried a similar sentiment in 1989 when it too elaborated on the value of the working landscape to the States culture and history.  It stated then “that if it wants to retain its rural character and working farms, it must come to grips with how socially and politically the state will grow into the future.”  These statements of the past are as valid today as when they were made.  While it is not 1918, there is a need for a resilient local and regional food system now as well as into the future.

                                                               -30-

Roger Allbee is a resident of Townshend, Vermont.  He is a former Vt Secretary of Agriculture, and a former CEO of Grace Cottage Hospital and Healthcare

Agricultural Leadership in Vermont After the Civil War, 1871-1908

In a  2012 paper on the history of the NY Agricultural Society, Bob Bitz covers the many historic achievements of the organization.  While his authored report is historic in nature relative to New York, the same approach with agricultural societies took place in Vermont later.  In Vermont in 1850, a State Agricultural Society was established. These societies had been erected in many counties in the state and were responsible for the local agricultural fairs that held  educational events that helped address farmer and farm family needs at the time (many of these county fairs still exist).  Former Governor Holbrook of Brattleboro, an agriculturist, helped to establish the state Agricultural  society and was elected as the first President .  He served in that post from 1850-1858.  By 1860 there were 941 agricultural societies in the US. These state agricultural societies were behind the creation of the State Board of Agriculture, Manufactures, and Mining in Vermont in 1872 as similar societies had been in the other nearby states.  By 1877 it was just referred to as the Vermont Board of Agriculture.

The Boards went on to establish Farmer Institute’s as a way to convey the best scientific knowledge and information at the time.  A need for this approach was best described as follows: “There was trouble in rural America during this era…. It was boring schools, antiquated farmer practices, and lack of knowledge of scientific farm practices.  Even though Land Grant Colleges had been established, the scant scientific knowledge was not making it out into the rural communities.”

The Vermont Board of Agriculture, Manufactures and Mining, Established In  Vermont in 1871

Under the initial Act, the Board was to consist of the Governor, the President of the State Agricultural College, and six others nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.  The Board was required to hold at least one business meeting each year, and one meeting for the public on matters relating to their investigations by discussions, essays, and addresses. Vermont was not the first state to create such a Board.  They had already been established in New York in 1819, New Hampshire in 1820, Massachusetts in 1855.  Perhaps the clearest purpose of the Board and its need was made in the address by its Chairman, Governor John W. Stewart in the first annual Report in 1872, and a statement by Matthew Buckham, President of the State Agricultural College.

Remarks by Governor Stewart on the Object and Aims of the Board:

“The object of the Board is two-fold.  First to benefit agriculture directly, increase the fertility of the soil, and render returns for labor more remunerative.  The second object is to give the people a new sense of the importance and dignity of agriculture; to give them to understand that it is the most dignified pursuit that any man follow. It involves a knowledge of the principles that underlie all the sciences, and the appropriation and employment of these principles….Agriculture is multifarious, including not alone the tillage of the soil, the raising of crops, but also horticulture, arboriculture, the breeding of animals; so much that is closely allied to science.  Indeed no pursuit is in my judgement so scientific as that of agriculture. The principal objective of the Board is to awaken interest and provide discussion among farmers themselves  The discussion of agricultural facts brings them home to mind far more forcibly than mere reading.  Boards of Agriculture are already in existence in other states, and unless Vermont means to fall behind, she must take hold of the work.”

Remarks by  Matthew Buckham, President of the State Agricultural College, Member of the Board, who will go on to serve under many Administrations

“If I do not mistake the signs of the times, agriculture has entered an era in which it is destined to make more rapid progress than in any previous age.  The stimulus has come from various quarters—partly from the necessity of competing with the more productive agriculture of the West; partly from the growing scarcity of labor…..; but mainly from the increased attention given by studious men to the applied sciences, nearly every one of which has a direct bearing upon agriculture. …this Board could do no greater service to the agricultural interests of the State than to devise some way in which the fundamental maxims of successful agriculture could be brought home to every farmer in the State”

What was Agriculture in Vermont Like in 1870? 

Agriculture in Vermont had already undergone many challenges by 1870. “The upheaval of the Civil War, the lure of the West, and the growth of cities drew people off the farms.”  It was difficult for families to make a living on steep and hilly and often rocky land, and many did not continue to try.  While alcohol production and consumption was significant in rural America and Vermont prior to 1850 (there were 125 to 200 active distilleries operating in Vermont in 1810), shorty after 1852 Vermont narrowly passed a law completely prohibiting the sale of alcohol which stayed in effect for fifty years impacting the use of farm products in the production and sale of alcohol. 

The Land Grant Act had been passed in 1862 and UVM had become a Land Grant College with a mission of education around agriculture and mechanical arts. In crops and livestock, Vermont had lost its position as a leading state in the production of grain and as the leading merino sheep raising state.  It had moved abruptly to dairy, first becoming a leading butter producing state. The opening of the Champlain Canal followed by the Railroads around 1850 made it easer to get to markets, but also allowed food and other products to be shipped in to Vermont and regional markets at a price that often was cheaper than having it produced locally.  This sentiment was expressed at many of the meetings (later called Institutes) held by the Board, and lasting often more than one day and in several town locations in the State.  In 1875, twenty public meetings were held, and in 1876 twelve, covering a period of sixty-four days, with several hundred subjects introduced. These Institute sessions were held throughout the period that the Board existed. In1904, for example, 48 Institute meetings were held throughout the State with attendance exceeding ten thousand.   The Board during the time of its existence was “judicious in the employment of men of lectures, selecting those who were expert in several lines of farming: stock raising, fruit culture, dairying, sugar making, sanitary conditions, farm building, markets, etc.  The aim was to create a higher grade of farming” by bringing both intelligence and enterprise together.”

Competition with the West and other areas had become severe by 1870, and the significance of this was best captured by the Reverend G. F.  Wright of Bakersfield, in a paper presented at a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture at St. Albans, March 6th and 7th, 1872

“Our railroad policy at the West is pushing the development of the agricultural region faster than the growth of other industries demands.  The significance of this is that it is useless for the Vermont farmer to compete with those of the West in raising those few staples of production that can be naturally raised west, and that they will bear storing and transportation without risk of injury, and without too much expense.  There is no doubt that the markets East can be supplied with wool, wheat, corn, pork, and beef from the West cheaper than we can supply them. …..But the great increase of population and of wealth at the East indicates a growing market for milk, for the first qualities of butter, and veal and mutton and for the products of the garden, the bee-house, the poultry yard and the fish pond. ….The Vermont farmer has a substantial hold on the future.  The soil, climate, abundance of pure water, the proximity to the markets of growing cities and villages, give the farmer unrivaled facilities for success in these branches of industry without losing all the profits in transportation.”

A similar sentiment was expressed by M.V.B. Hathaway of Hardwick at a Board meeting in 1878.  

“The only recourse …for the New England agriculture to protect her interests in the future, to successfully compete in her best markets with western neighbors, seems to lie in the improving excellence of her products.  Superior quality is everywhere recognized and rewarded.”

At the Vermont Dairymen’s Association meeting in Montpelier in 1888, it was stated that,  “Vermont can compete with any State in the production of first class dairy products.”

At a meeting in Vergennes in 1900, T.B. Harriott of Georgia, stated from a creamery and cheese factory standpoint “that with effort only can we retain and sustain the standard of Vermont butter and cheese to where Vermont maple sugar now stands unapproachable, the best in the world.”

Others expressed similar views.  At the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Vermont Dairymen’s Association Meeting held at Brattleboro, in January of 1900, the President, G.W.Pierce said,  “…The question has often been stated of late, how should we meet the western competition: its answer may be summed up in a few words, produce a better article.  We must constantly study the latest improved methods, constantly seek new ideas. …Our success depends in a great measure upon the marketing of our goods.  Let us sell as direct to the consumer as possible.”

Over its thirty-seven years of existence, the Board of Agriculture actively addressed ALL of the subjects important in helping to create a higher grade of farming in the state.  It did this through many Institute meetings each year throughout the state with papers delivered on a number of subjects relating to farming in the state,   Some of its accomplishments;

 

• Recommended the establishment of an Experiment Station at the University of Vermont:  The Board authorized the Secretary to the Board to attempt the establishment of an Agricultural Experiment Station.  It was noted, “These Experiment Stations have proven of so much value in Europe, and similar institutions have done such satisfactory work in our own country, that it is desirable that Vermont establish one.”  The Vermont General Assembly approved the law for the Experiment Station in 1886, and placed it under the charge of the University of Vermont and State Agricultural College.
• Brought increased scientific information to the farm community that before that time was not easily accessible on a number of subjects important to the success of agriculture and farming in the state.  At the time, the Federal Director of Agricultural Experiment Stations at USDA hailed the Farmer Institute initiative as carried out by the Vt. Board of Agriculture and in other Boards in other states as models of success.
• Raised concern about railroad passenger and freight rates that were not considered fair nor equitable, and supported the Grange efforts in this regard.
• Supported the need for increased cooperation among farmers and farmer groups, called the New Agriculture.
• Held Farmer Institute meetings in many counties of the State every year bringing the best scientific information available to farmers and their families, often joining the Vt Dairymen’s Association and the State Grange in the support of these sessions.
• In 1880s and early 1900s the “selling” of Vermont began in earnest and the Board of Agriculture tried to entice immigrants, mainly Swedes, to buy abandoned hilltop farm property.
• In 1891 the Board created a pamphlet, “The Resources and Attractions of Vermont,” and in 1893 the Board developed a list of desirable farms that could be bought.   

By 1909, the Board of Agriculture that had been established by the legislature was replaced  with the Commissioner of Agriculture, appointed by the Governor. The Commissioner abolished the Institutes and in lieu thereof established Movable Schools of Agriculture as adopted by other states, suggesting, “they could be held with not greater expense and with more efficiency than our old Institute system”.  Something of this sort was the First Annual Farmers’ Week under the direction of the State Agricultural College and the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Postscript:

Intelligence and enterprise by farmers utilizing the best scientific knowledge available was the important objective of the Farmer Institutes as carried out by the State Board of Agriculture over its thirty-seven years of existence.  According to records that exist, it was this concept of bringing the best scientific knowledge forth that led to the eventual creation of the Federal, State, and County Extension Service in 1914 with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act. It is stated that after the passage of this Act, federal authorities discouraged the use of federal funds for Farmer Institutes instead focusing on the role of the County Extension System.   It was a time in America when fifty percent of the population lived in rural areas, and thirty percent were engaged in agriculture.

Agriculture has changed significantly in the state.  In 1850 the State had 29,763 farms and a population of 314,120, and today Vermont has just over 6,000, U.S Census defined, operating farms and a population of approximately 625,000. Vermont was an agrarian state in 1870, and agriculture was the livelihood of most of the residents. Most of the leaders at the time had very close ties to the land and to farming. The early farm leaders and others recognized then the inability to compete with the West with many farm products produced in the East.  Many of those market challenges still exist.

Various ways have been used to address these economic hardships or challenges to include greater diversification of products on the farm, production and cost efficiencies, extension education, new product development, cooperative marketing, branding of products, better balancing of supply to demand, technology and market innovation. State programs are often used as well, to include current use taxation, purchase of development rights, conservation incentives, working landscape funding, Farm to Plate, Food Hubs, agricultural lending, and direct financial assistance.  The federal government’s role too has evolved with many laws, programs, and regulations.  

A review of history as continued in some of these old documents show that some of the issues are not new; just the generation dealing with them, and often the approaches used. It appears that the then advantage of the Board of Agriculture structure that existed for thirty-seven years was that it brought the best scientific information available at the time to farmers and their families and rural communities so that farming could be advanced through intelligence and enterprise.  It involved the highest attention of the State (Governor) and the State Agriculture College (President of the State Agricultural College), and eventually with the Experiment Station resources to address the needs and concerns of the farm community.  It has been noted by historic information on the topic of Farmer Institutes, that their function was absorbed by the Federal, State and County Extension Services in 1914 with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, that placed its operational responsibility at the Land Grant Colleges. The County Extension, Home Economics and 4-H Agent structure that existed in Vermont up until the 1980s when it was changed to a regional specialist concept.  Extension is still based upon the old Farmer Institute approach with its connection to the State Agricultural College in connecting farmers and others with the best available knowledge on a subject that may be known to exist.