BRIEF HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND LAND USE IN VERMONT

This is a recap of a presentation I gave at the Vermont Environmental Symposium at Middlebury College on March 20^th of 2012. 

Vermont has a rich history of land use and of various approaches that have been used over the years to address environmental stewardship.  Laws, as well as regulations, have changed over time based upon scientific knowledge and public sentiment.  This blog posting traces some of these changes and why they may have occurred.

EARLY SETTLEMENT PERIOD AFTER THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR

The majority of white settlements in Vermont occurred after the French and Indian War when the English gained control over the territory.  It is hard for many to believe today that Burlington, Vermont’s most populous city, was largely a forested area in 1792.  The early settlers cleared the forests, and the first commercial enterprise was the sale of potash, in great demand in England at the time.  Based upon what took place in clearing the land, it is often said that the settlers believed the soil was inexhaustible (Annual Report of Vt. State Board of Agriculture, 1872).  “These settlers practiced excessive and continuous cropping, they deluded the land for timber, and they did long and continued grazing of pastures without rotation.”  It was said  that “land was abundant and easy to acquire so it encouraged poor farming practices.” ( Agricultural Sciences, Vol II, Fertilizer Use in North America).

Some recognized the environmental problems associated with these land use practices.  One discussion said “early agriculture might be classified as mining or land speculation since the profits lay in the destruction of the most valuable asset of the country, the forest, in the destruction of the soil….” ( The Vermont of Today).  One of the most famous was Vermont Congressman George Perkins Marsh’s speech to the Agricultural Society of Rutland County on September 30, 1847 (these agricultural societies were the early places for education for farmers and predated the Extension Service).    In this famous and controversial speech, Marsh draws attention to the human impact on climate, the problems caused by the destruction of woods, and especially the effect on water and soil.  He calls for radical new approaches to environmental stewardship. “Some improvements”, he said, “are well worthy the zealous efforts of the agricultural associations of the state.”  He would go on to write many articles on this subject to include a report for the State Legislature in 1857 on the effect of the deforestation of forests on fish populations, but his most famous was “MAN AND NATURE” in 1864.   Others soon began to express similar views.  In a speech to the Vermont State Board of Agriculture in St. Johnsbury in 1871 on “The Fertility of our Soil, How Lost and How Restored,” Vermont farmer Jonathan Lawrence stated that soil fertility could best be improved by 1) composting of wastes, 2) composting muck and other key matter in swamps and low lands, 3) bringing back from the ocean salt, fish and other substances and testing these for value to the land, 4) planting green crop and top dressing with lime and fertilizer, 5) adopting the English custom that products from the soil should go to the market on foot and not in a wagon, and 6) the planting of forest crops on eroding soils.  Others had similar views at that time.  In a speech to the State Board of Agriculture in 1872, the Rev. G.F. Wright of Bakersfield stated, “The most valuable properties of his manures go off in unseen forms to infect the air with disagreeable odors or hurry down the streams to feed the Cod in the Gulf of Newfoundland.  Only by thorough and careful planning can the farmer save and utilize these elements.”  One other said, in what appears to be both a serious and humorous context “…a man, to be a good and successful farmer, must be smarter then the Governor of the State.  The study of manures is the radiating point of success.” (1887 State Board of Agriculture).

EARLY APPROACHES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS RELATIVE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

The Experiment Station: 

With the recognition by the 1800’s that Vermont farming and land clearing had dramatically changed the environment, actions had begun to change things as Marsh recommended in his speech to the Rutland County Agricultural Society.  The Land Grant Act in 1862 followed by the Hatch Act of 1887 that created the Experiment Station at the University of Vermont brought forth increased scientific focus and education to these concerns.  Both these initiatives were strongly supported by the then State Board of Agriculture.  For example in the 15^th Report of the State Board of Agriculture in 1894-95 it is stated “work of Experiment Stations and agricultural schools on plant food, and functions of manure and proper use and abuse of elements of fertility have been of benefit in establishing the loss of fertility to farms by improper management.”  In establishing the Experiment Station at UVM as a partnership between the State, USDA, and the Land Grant College, the Vermont General Assembly in 1886 stated that it “was to conduct research in field of agriculture with special reference to conditions in the State of Vermont.”  A number of Experiment Station publications and later Extension efforts continued to address soil fertility (See 1908 Vt. Experiment Station Bulletin 135 by Dean Hills et al on Soil deterioration and soil humus).

Commercial Fertilizers: 

Commercial fertilizers were increasingly being used to help bring back fertility to the soils in the mid 1800’s, when they were introduced to North America (see Agricultural Sciences, Vol II).  As a result and due to concern over the quality of products sold, the State in 1882 passed a law authorizing fertilizer sales.  A license from the State of Vermont was required.  UVM was authorized to test the samples at $5.00 for each.  It was reported at the time “one of the greatest wastes in Vermont was over fertilization.”  In the First Annual Report of the State Agricultural Experiment Station in 1887 it is stated “the Station is prepared to analyze and test fertilizers, cattle foods, seeds, soils, milk and other agricultural materials and products, to identify grasses, weeds and useful or injurious insects and to give information on various subjects of agricultural science for the sue and advantage of the citizens of Vermont.”  One early analysis during this period was of the waters of Lake Champlain and of various proposed supply sources for the City of Burlington.

Vermont Commission on Country Life, 1931: 

This was one of the most comprehensive studies of all aspects of Vermont that had been done up until that time.  It followed the 1927 Flood and was intended to identify recommendations for rebuilding all aspects of Vermont and Vermont life. There are some very important assessments in this publication relative to land use.  One assessment, which had been stated before by others, was “…that the soils of Vermont are best suited to grass.”  Another was that no one has the right to pollute a stream and that further pollution could be prevented and the damage of the past partially reversed.  For farming, there was a recommendation that “farmers use super phosphate as a supplement to manure, with 200 pounds per acre per year usually being sufficient.”  The emphasis during this period of time focused increasingly on soil fertility and management.

INTERVENTION PERIOD….FEDERAL AND STATE ACTIONS…1930’s

The period leading up to the 1930’s was the educational approach backed up by the latest science on resource use and management and by the establishment of the Land Grant College at the University of Vermont in 1863, the Experiment Station in 1887, and the Extension Service in 1914.  These efforts brought science and education to the farmers’ doors.  The 1930’s and the passage of the Agriucultural Adjustment Act and Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act brought an increased focus to soil resource use and farm production.

The Great Depression impacted the farm sector and a dust storm that swept across the country (see The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan) realigned the focus of agricultural programs in the United States.  “Rural Electric, subsidized lime and fertilizers, subsidized credit, milk market orders, classified pricing were essential to the development and survival of Vermont agriculture.” (see , The University of Vermont the First Two Hundred Years, by Robert Daniels).  Relative to land use, the Agricultural Conservation Program, created in the federal Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, authorized government cost sharing of conservation programs with farmers.  The intent of the ACP was to reduce over-production (surplus removal) on designated soil depleting crops as a way to better stabilize pricing and to raise the purchasing power of farmers in the United States.

The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936:

This Act put forth a structure for addressing soil erosion in the United States.  What followed was a model soil conservation district law for the States to enact as a way to establish a federal-state partnership between the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and each State.  Enacted in Vermont during this period, Conservation Districts were originally the citizen branches of the USDA Soil Conservation Services.  They now exist as not for profit municipalities with broad functions to address land use practices for improvement of soil and water resources.  While they have broad regulatory authority under state law, their approach historically has focused on education and cost sharing with farmers.

ACTIVIST PERIOD FOR SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITY

It might be argued that changes in policy are often impacted by good science, critical events, public perception, and the strengths of various influence makers and lobbying groups, but not necessarily in that order.  The dust bowl that swept the country in the 1930’s changed conservation policy. President Roosevelt is said to have first tasted prairie dust in 1934 when it blew into the White House. (see page 306, The Worst Hard Times).  Likewise, the Great Depression changed the focus of federal programs aimed at boosting farm income.

Crisis relative to water quality:

It was 1969 and the Cuyahoga River was burning.  The fire caught national attention, in Time and National Geographic Magazine, and resulted in the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (see Fables of the Cuyahoga: Reconstructing A History of Environmental Protection by Jonathan H. Adler).  There had been federal action relative to water before this Act (1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, and the 1948 Water Pollution Control Act) that provided federal loans for wastewater treatment plant construction and grants for state and local agencies to investigate pollution sources.  It was not until the 1972 Act, however, that there was an active approach with the states to address water quality by applying water quality standards to not only interstate waters but to state waters as well, thereby encompassing all surface waters in the entire country.  The 1972 law established the Section 208 Planning process with the states; Section 318 management plans to address non point source pollution, and Section 303(d) TMDL, or total maximum daily load for water quality and Section 404, which gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all navigable rivers.

The 1960’s were the activist period for environmental laws and regulations at both the Federal and State level. 

Federal:

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
• Conservation as prerequisite for participation in USDA programs, sodbuster and swamp buster, conservation reserve program (CRP), Farm Bill of 1985.
• Clean Air Act of 1970
• National Environmental Policy Act 1970
• Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (referred to as Clean Water Act)
• Endangered Species Act of 1973
• Safe Drinking Water Act 1974

Note: The Food Security Act of 1985 is considered to be the turning point in agricultural conservation policy in the United States with the shift in focus from agricultural resource conservation management to environmental management with sodbuster and swamp buster provisions.  Also, until the 1996 Farm Bill was enacted, no conservation programs dealt explicitly with animal waste management issues, EQUIP or Environmental Quality Incentive Program.

State of Vermont: 

Vermont has traditionally taken a more activist approach to environmental issues.   The historic Act 250 in 1970 established procedures for land development and environmental stewardship.  Special preference is given to statewide and prime soils for agricultural production.  Other laws have addressed our resource issues as well.  Within agriculture, Vermont has been aggressive with its regulatory approach, with rules for medium farm and large farm operations, and nutrient management plans.   “ Vermont law provides that persons engaged in farming and following accepted agricultural practices as described by the Secretary of Agriculture by rule shall be presumed to be in compliance with water quality standards.”  There are two kinds of enforceable standards: 1) farmers must follow Accepted Agriculture Practices, and 2) the Secretary of Agriculture may require best management practices on a case-by-case basis.   The law requires that standards be enforceable and cost effective.  Vermont works closely with other state agencies, the University, and with USDA, NRCS and FSA on cooperative approaches to the issues to include the Lake Champlain Basin Planning Program ( a cooperative approach to water quality and resource issues between Vermont, New York and the Province of Quebec).

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS:

We all have certain memories of how things were and how they are today.  As a young man growing up in a small Vermont town on a hillside farm I remember vividly watching my grandfather spreading super phosphate in the “gutter”, a practice recommended at that time.  Later when I was a young Army ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) student going through summer training at Ft. Devens in Massachusetts in 1966 we were told not to go near the Nashua River that flowed through the area as it was highly polluted and had a dark brown color.  Today that same river is pristine!

Over the years, as the science has become better and as treatment plants have addressed through technology point sources, there has been increased focus on nonpoint source pollution. Some think that a probable model for addressing nonpoint source and for work between the states and rural and urban interests may be the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Lake Champlain likewise is under discussion relative to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and nonpoint source loading.  What is clear today is that issues must be addressed from a watershed basis and thus old conservation district lines are further blurred requiring greater collaboration and coordination (See National Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations).

Some years ago, in the early 1990’s when I worked for the Farm Credit Banks for the Northeast, I served on a market incentives workgroup that was part of a 1994-95 National Geographic Society Panel on Non-Point Source Pollution and Water Quality.  One of the recommendations coming from that panel was to create market based approaches or incentives for addressing nonpoint source pollution. On the lending side, for example, a certain basis point reduction in interest rates if farmers followed good management practices was recommended…something like a reduction in insurance premiums for certain safety practices.  These approaches are often controversial, but they are beginning to be discussed and in some cases established.  Over time, based upon historical information, proper resource use and management has required:

• Good information on the cause and effect of various land use practices,
• Education and technical assistance to those using the land and water resources,
• Cooperation and coordination at all levels,
• Financial assistance, and
• All the above backed up by cost effective and practical rules and regulations.

References and Sources for this blog posting

• History of Vermont, Volume 12
• Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1872
• Rural Vermont, A Program for the Future, Vt. Commission on Country Life, 1931
• Annual Report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1894-95
• Address by Congressman George Perkins Marsh before the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, September 30, 1877
• Hills, Jones, and Cutler. 1908. Soil Deterioration and Soil Humus.  In Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 135, Burlington, UVM College of Agriculture
• The Vermont of Today by Arthur Stone, Vol. 1, Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc. N.Y. 1929.
• The University of Vermont, The First Two Hundred Years, by Robert V. Daniels.  The University Press of New England, 1971.
• The Vermont Encyclopedia, edited by John J. Duffy, Samuel B. Hand, Ralph Orth, University Press of New England, 2003
• State of Vermont, First Annual Report of the State Agriculture Experiment Station, 1887
• Possible Legislative Constraints to Intensive Silver culture Practices in Northern Forest Types, by Brendan J. Whittaker, Chief Information and Education, Agency of Environmental Conservation, Montpelier.
• History of Lamoille Conservation District
• History of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Butler Soil and Water Conservation District, 2010
• Fables of the Cuyahoga: Reconstructing a History of Environmental Protection by Jonathan H. Adler, Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University.
• Production and Crop Soil Management by Joseph Frank Cox, B.S.A. Professor of Farm Crop[s, Michigan Agricultural College.
• Vermont Enforceable Provisions Applicable to Nonpoint Source Water Pollution at http//scorecard.goodguide.com/env-relewases/html/npslaw
• The Struggle Between Man and Nature—Agriculture, Nonpoint Source Pollution, and Clean Water: How to Implement the State of Vermont’s Phosphorous TMDL Within the Lake Champlain basin by Lara D. Guercio in Vt. Journal of Environmental Law, Vol 12.
• 1973 Wisconsin Law Review. 893. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 by Frederick Rasmussen.
• Reauthorizing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by Errol L. Tyler, Counsel, Houser Subcommittee on Water Resources
• Growing A Nation, The Story of American Agriculture in www.agclassroom.org/
• USDA, History of NRCS, 75 Years Helping People Help the Land: A Brief History of NRCS
• The National Agricultural Law Center, University of AK School of Law. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service: History, Policy and Programs by Karen R. Twitchell.
• Analyses of Waters From Lake Champlain and From Various Proposed Supplies for the City of Burlington, in Report of the Vermont State Agricultural Experiment Station, 1889-90.
• Choices Magazine, History of Agricultural Price Support and Adjustment Programs, 1933-84
• Choices Magazine, History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs, by Zachary Cain and Stephen Lovejoy, 4^th Qtr 2004
• U.S. Agricultural Conservation Policy and Programs: History, Trends and Implications by Craig Cox, Woods Institute for Environment, Stanford University
• The Worst Hard Time, The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl by Timothy Egan, Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006
• Fertilizer Use in North America: Types and Amounts, by T. L. Roberts, and D.W. Dibb, in Agricultural Sciences Vol. II.
• National Agricultural Landscapes Forum, Blue Ribbon Panel, of NRCS, the Farm Foundation, and the American Farmland Trust, April 7 & 8, 2011, Washington, D.C.
• 1994-95 National Geographic Society Panel on Non-Point Source Pollution and Water Quality

Trivia:  8,000 spruce seedlings ordered from Europe for planting at the Downer State Park in Vermont were lost when the Titanic sank. (From Vermont Division of Forestry, The History of Forestry in Vermont)

Edition No. 14, June 20, 2012

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF U.S. SENATOR JUSTIN MORRILL

    The late U.S. Senator Justin Morrill of Vermont served the State of Vermont for forty-five years in the U.S. Congress beginning in 1854.  This year he is being remembered for his leadership in the passage of

the historic Land Grant Act in 1862.   The material below was developed for a Farmers’ night presentation at the Vermont legislature on February 8^th , 2012 in Montpelier.  The presentation is being  jointly sponsored by the Historic Morrill Homestead, the Vermont Historical Society, and the University of Vermont.

Background on Justin Morrill

My name is Justin Morrill.  I represented my beloved State of Vermont in the U.S. Congress for forty-five years, from 1854 until my passing in 1899, twelve in the U.S. House and the remainder in the U.S. Senate.  I am being honored on the 150th year since the passage of the Federal Land Grant Act that was signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862 and was named after me.

Before I talk about the Act, and the significant work that went into getting it passed, I think you should know something about me and about the times that existed during my service representing our State.

I was born in Strafford, Vermont, a hill town down near the Connecticut River, in 1810, one of ten children.  My father and grandfather were local blacksmiths. When I was born, Washington had been dead for ten years and it was the beginning of a new Nation. While I wanted to go to College, my parents could not afford this education.  I went to our local school to the age of 14, and a little time at Thetford Academy.  I had a quest for knowledge and did spend much of my time collecting and reading books even though I was unable to go on for a more formal education.

I was fortunate to find a position working as a clerk in the local store in Strafford, the center of commerce in our small community.  Eventually I was made a partner in the store, and earned enough money to be able to retire after fifteen years to my local farm near the center of Town.  I was thirty-eight years old at the time of this retirement.  I must say, I was excited about this new venture due to my interest in farming, horticulture, and architecture.

HIS INTEREST IN ARCHITECTURE AND HORTICULTURE

I had a deep interest in both architecture and horticulture.  I collected and read a number of books on these subjects over the years, and was able to prepare plans for my home and for the land around my new house in Strafford.  For horticulture, I was interested in doing a lot of adaptability trials for a variety of tree and shrubs, some from Europe and others from the Orient.  There were not many research facilities at that time and I felt that my land could serve that purpose. 

I also prepared plans for my new home and I supervised its construction.  It was a 17-room house in Gothic Revival Style that was popular during the 1840’s and 1850’s.  If you have not visited my homestead, I hope you might find the time to do so!

Many of the books that I collected on a variety of subjects eventually became part of the Town Library.  It is a very extensive collection on various subjects.

MY ELECTION TO CONGRESS

I did not intend to go into public service.  I had not held any position besides being a local Justice of the Peace.  Anyhow, I was elected at the age of forty-six as a Whig.  I promised to oppose slavery, a key part of the Constitution of our State of Vermont.  In 1854 a Vermont Senate Report echoed Vermont’s constitution and questioned the Government forcing one people over another.  It is interesting that the State of Georgia Assembly passed a resolution after that suggesting that Vermont be towed out to sea.  It was a very interesting time in our Country.  In 1854, the year I was elected to Congress, the Missouri Compromise was repealed.  Up until that time, there was a balance between the number of slave states and non slave states admitted to the Union.  After this I changed my allegiance to the newly formed Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, and helped to establish it in the State of Vermont.   I entered Congress at a time of great stress and uncertainty in our country, the conflict between slavery and freedom.

EDUCATION FOR THE COMMON FOLKS

Certainly from my own background and experience, I knew well the importance of education for people in our country.  There had been a lot of discussion on the subject over time, before I was elected.  Captain Alden Partridge, the founder of Norwich University and a former Commandant of West Point, had proposed a national system of higher education covering courses in farming, engineering, and business financed by the sale of Public Lands.  I had become a trustee of the institution in 1848.  Also, Illinois College Professor Jonathan Baldwin Turner proposed providing liberal education to farmers, factory workers and others in 1850 through public lands appropriation.  The Illinois legislature sent the idea to Congress in 1853.

The need for such a system was real.  A College education in 1850 was primarily reserved for white men with money, and most studied theology, medicine, and law.    Also at this time, 80% of Americans lived in rural areas, and 60% of these were farmers.

THE LAND GRANT ACT

When I first entered Congress, I proposed to the Committee of Agriculture that they establish one or more schools of agriculture based upon the Military Academy concept., this had also been a concept championed by others. While this idea had not gone anywhere, I again relied upon others like Turner of Illinois, Ezra Cornell, a New York farmer, and newspaper publisher Horace Greeley and others to help to support a land grant for the establishment of colleges for a practical education in the sciences and arts for the common people.   It was a five-year struggle.  The first Land Grant Bill passed the House and Senate by very slim margins, and was vetoed by President Buchanan who said the country was too poor and the law was unconstitutional.  I re-introduced it in 1861 in the new Congress.  It was at a time of great strife in the Country as the Southern States had formed the Confederacy, and they had armies in the field.  I saw the Land Grant Act as a law that could help repair the ravages of the war and thus safeguard our Country’s future.  It passed both houses of Congress by wide margins and was signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862.

I want you to know that two months before signing this Act, President Lincoln approved the Homestead Act opening up public lands to western settlers, resulting in the appropriation of 70 million acres, and one day before he signed the transcendental railroad bill, giving them 130 million acres.  It was not too much to ask then for 17 million acres of land to go to the States (based on 30,000 to each member of Congress from each state), the proceeds to establish Land Grant Colleges in each State.  Those States that did not have public land received scripts that they could assign.

THE LAND GRANT IN VERMONT

I am pleased that Vermont was one of the first three States to accept the land grant.  The Vermont legislature in 1863 passed a law providing a provision for one Land Grant Institution, by joining the University of Vermont with Middlebury and Norwich.  Several others and I strongly supported this joint structure.  It did not happen, as the trustees of the various institutions did not embrace the concept.  When it did not happen, I offered a 5,000 dollar challenge grant if it was built in my town of Strafford.  That did not happen either, but the then private University of Vermont offered to become the Land Grant institution in our State.

It is important to recognize that the Land Grant concept was not established for the soul purpose of teaching agriculture.  The intent of the Act was to give an opportunity for those engaged in industrial pursuits some knowledge of the practical sciences related to agriculture and the mechanical arts.  It was not intended to be a technical college or technical institute.

I know that in 1890 the Vermont Grange opposed UVM continuing as the Land Grant and I was called upon to testify in support of the University.  I am pleased that with the further passage of the Hatch Act that created the Agricultural Experiment Stations in 1887, and 1914 Act creating the Extension Service, that the connection to rural Vermont and the farming community was further enhanced.

WHAT I SAW IN MY FORTY-FIVE YEARS IN CONGRESS

Many have honored me, and I am humbled.  There are many things I am proud of, and these include not only the Land Grant Act, but also the Tariff Act of 1861 that helped to finance the period of the Civil War and paying off the debt after.  I am also proud of the reconstruction of the Capital.  During my time I was able to push for the beautification of the Capital and the Capital grounds.  I am proud of the completion of the Washington Monument, the erection of the Library of Congress building, the reconstruction of the Capital, the establishment of Statuary Hall in the Capital, the fresco painting in the Capital by the great artist Constantino Brumdi.  My last speech in the Senate called for the creation of a separate building for the Supreme Court.  Every great nation, I believe, should have enduring architecture, and that is why I pushed for the beautification of Washington as an enduring place for our Country.  Yes, I was also involved in the passage of many laws, such as the anti-bigamy act that was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, but the education of the common people, like myself, I consider my greatest accomplishment.

Since the passage of the Land Grant Act, 150 years ago, you have seen much success.  Today there are 105 Land Grant Institutions, and 20 million degrees have been granted since 1862.  3 million students attend a Land Grant Institution annually.  Land Grants have helped to transform American in both the arts and sciences.

Yes, I had seen a lot of changes during my forty-five years in Congress.  The United States had grown from 14 States to 45, from 4 million people to 75 million.  With the railroad, it was possible to go from New York to San Francisco in six days. I saw the reconstruction of a shattered Union.

Throughout all of these events, serving the people of my beloved State of Vermont in Washington for forty-five years was my greatest honor.

 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PAST: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE AFTER A MAJOR DISASTER—THE VERMONT STORY:

At the 1^st Annual Farm-To-Plate Network Gathering at Lake Morey Inn on October 3^rd and 4th of 2011, I was asked to address the above subject.  While the flood of 1927 is considered by many to be the greatest natural disaster in Vermont in the last 100 years, the recent storm called Irene created great damages to farms, buildings, businesses, bridges and highways, and travel.  It is difficult to draw comparisons, as when individuals’ lives and livelihoods are disrupted, it does not matter if it is 1927 or 2011.  Nevertheless, we can learn from the past as well as from current events, and this is the purpose of this comparison.

WHAT VERMONT AGRICULTURE WAS LIKE LEADING UP TO 1927:

In previous blog postings I have covered the history of Vermont agriculture from the settlements that began after the French and Indian War.  From the early period when the settlers were subsistence farmers, to the growth of cities and towns and early commercial agriculture, Vermont agriculture was always in a condition of change.  Vermont farmers were diversified farmers from the beginning, and adjusted their production over the years according to the needs of nearby and regional markets.  Waterborne transportation was important, on both Lake Champlain and, with the connection to the rest of the U.S., through the Champlain Canal, and also down the Connecticut River through the locks to Hartford, Connecticut. Until the beginning of the railroads after the late 1840’s this was the main means of transporting Vermont’s products to market.

WHAT VERMONT WAS LIKE IN 1927:

Vermont was primarily an agricultural state with about thirty percent of its population of over three hundred and fifty thousand engaged in farming or related industries.  Of the then twenty-seven thousand farms in the State, over one half received their income from dairy farming.  After the early 1900’s, Vermont farmers had become major suppliers of milk to regional markets, with eighty-five percent of the milk produced going out of state, with railroads being the major means of transportation. For example, fifty percent of Boston’s milk came from Vermont.  Vermont had the highest level of dairy production per capita of any state, and was the most dairy dependent.  Also, since the demise of the merino sheep industry in the 1850’s, dairy production had further migrated to the better river valley lands.

THE FLOOD OF 1927:

 

Much has been written about this period (see references). There was not any advance warning system like today, nor any long-range radar, cell phones, TV, instant messaging or facebook.  Not all rural towns had electricity.  It had been a very wet October in Vermont.  On November 2, 3,and 4^th, two great storms collided over the state.  One came from the Gulf of Mexico and the other from the Great Lakes, dropping up to nine inches of water on a already water drenched land mass in a forty-five hour period.  In one comparison, it was said that it was like “one cubic mile of the Atlantic Ocean being deposited on the State.”  According to records from that time, “in a single day, Vermont was deprived of all modern conveniences; mail, telegraph, telephones, lights, gas, piped water, highways, railroad connections.  The State had been set back a Century.” (See Vermont of Today by Arthur Stone).

There are many tragic stories from this period, and stories of heroism too.  Neighbors helped neighbors, communities helped other communities, and strangers helped those in need.  President Coolidge dispatched his Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover to the State, where he made the statement “I have seen the worst of Vermont but the best of its people.” Federal assistance was requested and provided.  The Red Cross took full responsibility for finding housing and medical relief.  Some eight thousand Vermonters were provided with food, shelter and medical relief.  Over one million dollars came in from contributors in other states.  New England banks pledged one million dollars in capital stock to guarantee low interest loans to farms, businesses, and other industries.  The State legislature appropriated eight million for two hundred miles of new roads.  It is said that Vermont officials did not hesitate to cut red tape to deal with immediate needs.

REBUILDING VERMONT AND A LOOK TO THE FUTURE:

The Flood created a spirited sense of partnership at all levels within Vermont. While work was immediate to repair infrastructure, there was a yearning for developing a vision and plans for the future, to use all the positive energy to move Vermont forward.  This was to build upon the strengths of the past, but with an enlightened plan. “The great flood of November 1927, and the magnificent response to the call for concerted effort awakened in Vermonters a fuller sense of their powers and gave them a new impulse which will be felt for years to come.” (Country Life Commission Report). Thus in the spring of 1928, just six months after the flood, the Vermont Commission on Country Life was organized.  Chaired by Ex Governor Weeks (who had been raised on a Salisbury dairy farm and was Governor during the flood), it was the first time a group of Vermonters formally assessed the State of the State and planned for the future.  Funded by the Social Science Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation, it was a plan for rural rejuvenation and development in Vermont, thus a blueprint for the future.  Its Executive Director was Henry C. Taylor, one of the noted national agricultural economists of the time, and later to become the first Executive Director of the Farm Foundation.  Some three hundred Vermonters were asked to participate in the effort over a three-year period. (My wife’s grandfather, Dr. E.H. Bancroft chaired the dairy committee).  It was a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of all aspects of Vermont: people, soils and climate, agriculture, forestry and the woodworking industry, summer residents and tourism, fish, game and the preservation of wild life, land utilization, rural home and community life, recreation, medical facilities for rural people, education facilities for rural people, the care of those in need, rural government, and other topics.  The report set the agenda for the next few decades.

IRENE, THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE AND THE FUTURE:

What then U.S. Secretary of Commerce Hoover said about Vermont in 1927 is true today as well.  “I have seen some of the worst of Vermont, but the best of its people.”  The response at all levels to the damages caused by Irene was immediate, with help being provided to those in need.  The stories of heroic actions are known, people risking their own lives to help.  In agriculture, land was flooded and many crops were destroyed, and in a few cases animals were lost. The response from many was immediate: The Governor, like his predecessor, Governor Weeks in 1927, requested federal assistance.  Unlike 1927, procedures exist today for requesting disaster declarations from the federal level, and a very extensive network of agencies, organizations and others exist to provide assistance to those in need too.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR VERMONT FARMS AND FOOD SYSTEMS?

There is a so-called “Renaissance of the Past” going on in local and regional food systems today as consumers develop an interest in knowing where their food comes from.  In Vermont this is being expressed in many ways.  These include but are not limited to: the growth of artesian and other specialist products such as cheeses, expansion of farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture (CSA’s), new vineyards with specialty wines and other spirits, the expansion of so called “food hubs” within the State, increased sale of local produced foods to institutions, more farm raised beef and other animal meats, increased vegetable production, pick your own fruit operations, a well known farm to school program, expanding maple operations, and other emerging products.  These enterprises come from existing farmers as well as a new generation of farmers. While dairy still represents over seventy-five percent of the gross revenue to agriculture, there is an increased degree of diversification taking place within Vermont.

This “new” diversification is reminiscent of the kind of farming our ancestors practiced.

Like the period following 1927 Flood, Vermonters want a vision for the future, something that can inspire them.  In agriculture it is fortunate that a lot of work has been taking place over the past to address longer-term needs for an economically viable agriculture sector within a working landscape.  The Farm to Plate assessment has identified a number of specific needs in its ten-year plan or vision for the future.  Likewise, the Working Landscape Council has developed a five point action plan for the future that if implemented would create jobs related to agriculture and forestry that are so important to what Vermont is known for.  Both plans require bold policy leadership going forward.  They both recognize that a majority of Vermonters surveyed want a Vermont that is economically viable and sustainable, with agriculture and forestry at its core.  As Vermont Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Ross stated at the Farm to Plate Fairlee Conference, “it will take capital, collaboration, and the willingness of all to roll up our sleeves for these common objectives.”  2011 is not 1927, but as President Coolidge stated when he returned to Vermont in 1928, “Vermont is a State I Love.”  To deal with the future, we too must understand the past.

Note:  It was just over two years ago that National Geographic rated Vermont as the number five place in the World to visit and the number one place in the United States to visit.  They attributed this to our landscape and quaint villages, and to the fact that there is a plan for the future.  Thus, it is time that we Vermonters collectively do something similar to what was done in 1928; develop a vision and a plan for Vermont’s future coming out of the period of Irene.

LINKS BELOW FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION:

See information on Farm to Plate at:farm2plate@vsjf.org

See Working Landscape Action Plan at:

http://vtrural.org/program/policy-councils/working-landscape/working-landscape-platform-and-acton-plan

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS:

It is a time of significant change in Vermont agriculture.  The interest in food systems has created an excitement at many levels within the State.  While dairy still represents the major agricultural enterprise, and is subject to farm gate pricing challenges, there is still recognition that the State’s dairy sector is the anchor of the Vermont’s agriculture and working landscape while maple is the soul.  All types of agricultural production are important just as it always has been. The ingredients for success have been studied at many levels.  As mentioned in my blog posting “Tipping Points”, some of the leaders in agriculture in 1872 recognized the importance of the growing markets of the east to the economic health of Vermont’s agriculture.  They said, after witnessing the loss of the Merino sheep industry, the butter market, and the beef trade due to competition, that it was useless to compete with the West on a commodity basis. (“…. only those will prosper who use their minds in studying how to cater to the demands of this growing market and this changing state of things.”)  Catering to the local and regional markets with value added and other products that meet the needs of consumers is what will sustain Vermont agriculture longer term.  Many believe this is the case today. The Working Landscape five point action plan, as well as recommendations from the Farm-to-Plate assessment, provides some steps to take on investment, capital, infrastructure, and educational needs to achieve goals relative to a viable agricultural and forestry economy in Vermont.

References and Sources for this blog posting

• Agriculture of Vermont, First Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Vermont, 1909.
• Agriculture of Vermont, Fourteenth Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, State of Vermont, 1926-1928.
• Chapter XI, “The Great Flood of 1927”, and Chapter XII, “How Vermont Came Back”, in The Vermont of Today, Vol. 1, by Arthur Stone, Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc. 1927.
• Rural Vermont, A Program for the Future by Two Hundred Vermonters, The Vermont Commission on Country Life, Burlington, 1931.
• New England Flood Disaster, November 1927, Official Report of the Relief Work, American National Red Cross, 1927.
• 1927 Flood, Landscape Change Program, University of Vermont.
• Vermont’s Greatest National Disaster, Vermont Historical Society.
• Why Coolidge Said “I Love Vermont”, 2005-2009, Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation, Inc., P.O. Box 97, Plymouth, Vermont.
• The Troubled Roar of the Water: Vermont in Flood and Recovery, 1927-1931, by Deborah Pickman Clifford and Nicholas R. Clifford.
• “Vermont Commission on Country Life, 1931, in Vermont Today by Rutland Herald and Times Argus.
• The 1927 Flood in Vermont and New England, November 3-7, 1927: A Historical and Pictorial Summary. Misinger, William Elliot.
• A State of Nature: Readings in Harford History. Samuel B. Hand.
• Doyle: A tale of two Vermont floods, by Opinion, September 12, 2011, in Vtdigger.org

Answer to Last Trivia Question:  When was the Vermont Department of Agriculture established?  A law was passed in 1908 that abolished the Board of Agriculture and replaced it with the position of Commissioner of Agriculture appointed by the Governor.  In his first Report (Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture in 1909), Commissioner Orlando L. Martin recommended the abolishment of the Farmers’ Institutes that had been held by the Board of Agriculture, and in its place the establishment of Movable Schools of Agriculture such as have been adopted by some sister states.  Something of this sort, according to Commissioner Martin, was the First Annual Farmers’ Week held under the direction of the State Agricultural College and Commissioner of Agriculture, March 8-12, 1909.

Trivia Question:  Which counties in Vermont had the greatest hops production and in what years?

Edition No. 13, October 29, 2011

LOOKING BACK BUT THINKING AHEAD, OVERVIEW OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL POLICIES OVER TIME

Some say federal farm and agricultural policies reflect conditions and influences of the time.  Since the establishment of the New Deal programs of the 1930’s, there has been significant debate and many changes in the focus and direction of U.S. farm policy.

One effort to look back and forecast into the future took place in 1984 with the Farm Credit System.  With the debate now going on with the U.S. budget, and the pending farm bill, it is useful to speculate again about the direction of national agricultural policies.

PROJECT 1995:

Project 1995 was a national effort by Farm Credit System to look into the future relative to a number of subjects: cooperatives, rural America, finance, the farm sector, and agricultural policies.  A number of experts in the field, in and out of government, were interviewed in each area to get their perspective on the future.  Conditions at the time in the U.S. included high interest rates, high inflation, an overvalued dollar, and a high deficit.  The U.S. was engaged in a Cold War with the then U.S.S.R. The value of U.S. farm exports had grown from $6.7 billion in the 1970’s to $32 billion by 1979.  Farm program costs had reached $18.8 billion in 1983.

The Farm Credit System, “Government Policy Toward Agriculture and Finance in 1995”, June 1984:

This was a project that I was fortunate to have helped manage with the President of the then Springfield (MA) Farm Credit Banks. The study methodology involved the development of questions to help identify and analyze current and future trends.  These questions were discussed during in-depth interviews with about fifty national experts.  Among those interviewed were members of Congress, congressional aides, university professors, financial consultants, media experts, representatives of trade associations, and executive branch officials.   Those interviewed had a grasp on the past, and a perspective on the future.  Some notable individuals at the time included then Congressman Leon Panetta (now Secretary of Defense but then a member of the House Committee on Agriculture); Herman Tallmadge, former U.S. Senator from Georgia, former Governor, and former Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture; John Block and Richard Lyng, one then Secretary of Agriculture and the other to become Secretary of Agriculture; Earl Butz, former Secretary of Agriculture in the Nixon Administration; Don Paarlberg, Professor Emeritus at Purdue University and an official in U.S.D.A. during the Eisenhower Administration.

The Report noted, in its background statement, that prior to the New Deal, questions about farm policy were often indistinguishable from broader policy questions about the U.S. economy as a whole.  Some of the most prominent political issues for farmers in the mid nineteenth century concerned tariffs, the gold standard, corporate charters, monopolies and the commercial banking system.  The explicit and implicit goals of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and later statutes were to: 1) increase productivity, 2) enhance farm income, 3) stabilize farm prices and supplies, 4) allow for orderly marketing, 5) protect the natural resource base, 6) ensure food security, 7) protect the health of the public, 8) preserve the family farm, and 9) promote agricultural exports.  The report also noted the many changes that had taken place in U.S. agriculture since the passage of the New Deal programs.  These included: 1) technology advances, 2) links with the general economy, 3) internationalization of U.S. agriculture, 4) structural changes in the farm sector, 5) increased farm program costs, and 6) decline in the farm population.

The extensive interviews conducted with these many individuals led to the following conclusions:

• U.S. agriculture will consist of three distinct segments…large farms, small or part-time farms and a transitional middle group.
• Government support programs will likely have some restrictions limiting the level of support.
• The farm programs, which exist in 1995, will likely provide a “safety net” but the safety net will probably be set at relatively low levels.
• U.S. agriculture and the abundance of food will continue to be taken for granted by Congress and the American public.
• Congress will be more urban and less willing to grant agriculture special favors.
• Congressional committees, other than the agriculture committees, will have a hand in developing legislation that affects agriculture.
• The “farm bloc” will continue to be fragmented.
• Nonfarm groups will become increasingly important in the agricultural policy making programs.
• A long-term and comprehensive agriculture and food policy is urgently needed to balance supply and demand and to enhance marketing opportunities worldwide for U.S. agricultural products.

Many of those interviewed felt that the internationalization of U.S. agriculture exposes farmers to new sources of instability that cannot be solved by existing domestic farm programs or any other singular solution.  It is in that context that the many advocated the need for a long-term and comprehensive agriculture and food policy as noted above.

PERSPECTIVE ON CHANGES IN AGRICULTURAL POLICIES OVER TIME:

Farm policies reflect conditions at the time, and the influence of special interest groups.   Some experts contend that there are three distinct periods in federal agricultural policies (see Flinchbaugh and Knutson, Choices Magazine):  These are 1) the price support era of the 1930-1960’s, 2) the income support era of the 1970-1990’s, and 3) the market oriented era of the l990’s to the present.  In an effort to maintain support from more urban members of Congress, new titles and programs have been added over time.  Examples include the food stamp program in 1961; conservation provisions and land retirement in 1985; renewal energy in 2002; and specialty crops in 2007.  Note in 1930, 21.5% of the workforce was engaged in or employed in agriculture, and the agriculture GDP was 7.7%; in 2002, 1.9% was employed and the GDP was .7%.

CONDITIONS TODAY THAT IMPACT THE FUTURE OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL POLICIES:

Since the 2002 Farm Bill became legislation, the political environment has changed in Washington.  The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have commanded billions of dollars, and the costs of many mandatory spending programs have increased dramatically.  Congress is divided among partisan lines, and compromise seems an elusive goal to many.  It is in this context that Congress developed a “grand plan” to address the federal deficit.  The special congressional committee of twelve is asked to cut the federal budget by $1.5 trillion, and reach agreement by November 2011.  If they are unable to do this, automatic sequestration is to take place in the amount of $1.2 trillion, evenly split between domestic and defense spending.

What are some of the choices going forward for agricultural policies?  It is important to understand the USDA program costs.  Approximately 74% of spending is for nutrition assistance; 13% for farm and commodity programs, and 7% for conservation and forestry.  Of the total USDA budget, $121 billion (81%) is for mandatory programs, and $24 billion (19%) is for discretionary programs.  Mandatory programs include nutrition assistance, farm commodity programs, and crop insurance; export promotion programs, and a number of conservation programs.  Discretionary includes WIC (women, infants, and children nutrition), rural development loans and grants, research and education, soil and water technical assistance, animal and plant health, management of National Forests, wild land fire, and other Forest Service activities, and domestic and international marketing assistance.  Thirty-seven programs now in the Farm Bill lose their baseline funding in 2011.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR VERMONT GOING FORWARD:

It is difficult to project the future at this time relative to possible budget changes and the impact on Vermont.  Priorities have included nutritional assistance (13.6 % of Vermonter’s are food insecure, and one of eight receive 3squarevt (food stamps)), soil and land conservation, economic development, food safety and animal health, food security (local and regional food systems), value added agriculture product development and marketing, education, and research to name but a few.  Many of these various priorities of the past will likely see reduced federal support.

VERMONT’S FARM TO PLATE INITIATIVE AND THE WORKING LANDSCAPE COUNCIL ADDRESS AGRICULTURE, LAND USE, AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS:

Both efforts are complementary:  one, Farm to Plate (see Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund at www.vsjf.org), with a list of strategic goals for the future of agriculture and food systems in Vermont, and the other, with an Action Plan to maintain and encourage a working landscape in the State (see Vermont Council on Rural Development at www.vtrural.org).  Both recognize the need for significant capital investment going forward in order to achieve articulated goals, and to ensure policy changes at the State level, as well as collaboration at all levels.

While exciting things are taking place in agriculture and food systems in Vermont, dairy farming represents the major economic force and has the greatest impact on agricultural land use.  It is in this context that there has been much discussion over the years about the future of agriculture.  (See my blog posting of June 14^th, Tipping Point, or Events or Conditions that Led to Changes in Vermont Agriculture Over Time and the Dairy Sector Today).  This blog posting listed some of the significant actions that have been identified from past studies and discussions to address the dairy industry’s future in Vermont.  Some of the specific actions needed to address the above include: 1) risk management strategies to include on the farm diversification, 2) new food product innovations, 3) strategies to grow the milk supply, 4) increased collaboration with educational and research institutions to include UVM’s food system’s spire of excellence, 5) farm incubators to train a new generation of farmers, and 6) use of dairy profitability and farm viability teams.

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS:

It was after the 1927 flood that the “Report Rural Vermont, A Program for the Future” was completed by the Vermont Commission on Country Life.  The Report noted in its introduction that “whatever may have been the misgivings when the great flood of November 1927, and the magnificent response to the call for concerted effort awakened in Vermonters a fuller sense of their power and gave them a new impulse which will be felt through the years.  Fortunate it was that the work of the Commission on Country Life synchronized with this new impulse.”

The recent flood has again demonstrated the magnificent response at all levels in Vermont, and has again awakened a fuller sense of power to address challenges. The two initiatives mentioned above, Farm to Plate and the Working Landscape Action Plan, have laid out objectives going forward for farms, forestry, and food systems and thus a working landscape so important to Vermont’s past, present, and future.  Like the Country Life Commission Report of 1932, these plans are synchronized with this new impulse for positive response in the future.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG

• Project 1995, “Government Policy Toward Agriculture and Finance in 1995”, The Farm Credit System, June 1984.
• Project 1995, “The Nature and Role of Cooperatives and Agribusiness in 1995, The Farm Credit System”, June 1984.
• The 1985 Farm Bill and Future Natural Resource Policy Education, by Richard Barrows, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• The 20^th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy, by Carolyn Dimitri, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin, USDA ERS, Electronic Information Bulletin No. 3, June 2005.
• Farm Subsidy Tradition and Modern Agricultural Realities, by Daniel A. Sumner, Director, University of California Agricultural Issues Center.
• Agricultural Policy Outlook: Looking Back Focuses the Road Ahead, by Barry Flinchbaugh and Ron Knutson, in Choices, The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, 4^th Quarter 2004.
• The Grand Bargain of U.S. Farm Policy: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, by Stephanie Mercier, U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee, AAEA Annual Meeting, Long Beach, July 2006.
• Growing Pressures on Farm Policy, by J. Corey Miller, Mississippi State University, in Regulation, Winter 2004-5.
• FY 2012 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Economic Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and Alternative Approaches to Milk Policy, USDA, Report to Congress, July 2004.
• The Hagstrom Report, Stabenow, Roberts, Investigating Farm Program Cuts, August 25, 2011.
• The Environment of the Next Farm Bill Debate, by Steven L. Klose, Choices Magazine.
• Deficit Reduction has Serious Implications for Future of U.S. Agriculture, American Farmland Trust, August 10, 2011.
• Farm Bill: Biofuels, Trade; Agriculture Economy; Animal Agriculture; and Climate, in FarmPolicy.com
• Farm Safety Net Programs: Issues for the Next Farm Bill, by Dennis A. Shields, Jim Monke, Randy Schnepf, Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2010.
• Downsizing the Federal Government, by Chris Edwards, CATO Institute, July 2009.
• The 2012 Farm Bill: An Opportunity to Support Farmers and Promote Public Health, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, August 2010.
• Don’t End Agricultural Subsidies, Fix Them, by Mark Bittman, N.Y. Times Op-Ed, Monday September 5, 2011.

LAST TRIVIA QUESTION: Who was the first Vermont Secretary of Agriculture who promoted tourism?

Answer:  The first promotion of agricultural tourism was by Victor Spear, Statistical Secretary to the Vermont Board of Agriculture.  In 1893 he stated “Now there is no crop more profitable than this crop from the city, and it is one that comes directly to the farmer, and he should encourage and promote this visiting from our city cousins.”  He also stated in 1894 “It needs no argument to prove the importance of this industry to the State.  It is doubtful if any agricultural product, except the dairy product, is bringing as much money to the State at the present time as our summer visitors, and even our dairy product would find there a close rival in point of profit.” His enthusiasm, vision, and leadership led to the publication, A LIST OF DESIRABLE FARMS AND SUMMER HOMES IN VERMONT written in 1895.

TRIVIA QUESTION:  What was the year that the Vermont Department of Agriculture was established?

Edition 12, September 8, 2011

. 

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN VERMONT

This blog posting can not adequately cover all the research and other reports that have been written over many years on agricultural education in the United States, and in Vermont.  From the Colonial period on there has been an increased attention to education in a country that was largely agrarian in the beginning.  Much of the early influence for agricultural teaching and research came from European models of agricultural societies and agricultural teaching institutes.  The push for public education in agriculture and the sciences occurred much before Justin Morrill promoted the historic Land Grant Act.  Changes in agriculture, in rural communities, in farm and other agricultural organizations, in society, and in financial support over time have changed the nature of agricultural education and the demand for it. 

INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN MODELS ON AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION:

In the United States there was a vast expansion of agriculture after the American Revolution.  European influences on our education system are well documented, and especially as it relates to agriculture and the sciences.  According to documents (See History of Agricultural Education in the United States), “18^th Century Europe was marked by the establishment of a number of agricultural societies and schools in connection with which agriculture was taught and practiced.”  It was natural then, that many of these societies in the United States were modeled after those in Europe.  For example, Ben Franklin in 1744 established the American Philosophical Society and the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting Agriculture in 1785.  Similar societies were established in other States:  Hallowell, Maine in 1787; New Jersey 1790; New York 1792; Massachusetts 1792; Connecticut 1794; and in 1819-1820 in all counties in New Hampshire. The interest in these agricultural societies flourished after the formation of the Berkshire Agricultural Society in Massachusetts (see Growing A Nation, the Story of American Agriculture), and by 1860 there were 941 of these societies in the Untied States. While many of these societies were noted for their educational activities associated with county fairs, they also exerted a very strong influence on agricultural polices and agricultural education within the United States during this time.

According to documents, these local and country agricultural societies continued to be organized and spread over the country with the Westward settlement.  New England had several agricultural societies, including many in Vermont (originators of county fairs).  A U.S. Agricultural Society was organized in 1852, and a Vermont Agricultural Society around 1850 (former Governor Fredrick Holbrook of Brattleboro was a founder and first President from 1850-1858).  As noted before, these agricultural societies provided educational opportunities for farmers and their families, and promoted the teaching of agriculture in schools.  These societies also encouraged agricultural industries and had forums for the exchange of ideas, the by-product being the county fairs, a concept again adopted from Europe. They were also influential in establishing State Board of Agriculture in many of the States.  For example, the first State Board of Agriculture was established in New York in 1819, New Hampshire in 1820, and in Massachusetts in 1852.  Vermont established a Board of Agriculture, Manufacturing, Mining, and Statistics in 1870 by an act of the State Legislature (see last blog posting on Tipping Points). 

THE PUSH OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AGRICULTURE AND THE SCIENCES IN COLLEGES:

The need for public education at the College level in agriculture and the sciences was not a new concept.  As early as 1787, it is stated that George Washington proposed a national public university for agriculture and the sciences.  Several of the private colleges and Universities such as Yale, Harvard, and Amherst had agricultural science courses.  Prior to the Land Grant Act, there were several petitions to Congress for the creation of public colleges for agricultural instruction (see History of Agricultural Education in U.S.). In 1838 there was a proposal to use the James Smithson’s Grant (Founder of Smithsonian Institution) to establish a national agricultural college.  One of our own early Vermont educational leaders, Alden Partridge, founder of Norwich University, in 1841 proposed to Congress a national system of colleges combining arts, sciences, and practical studies including agriculture, supported by the sale of public lands (see Robert Sinclair).   The Morrill Land Grant Act then was the culmination of a very long and arduous attempt to create public educational institutions for agriculture and the sciences.  Morrill’s first attempt, per a Congressional Resolution in 1856, was for the creation of one or more national agricultural schools like the military service academies (see History of Agriculture Education in the U.S.).  Morrill used his influence and great ability to move along a concept that had been generated by others over a long period of time, and the historic land grant act was passed in 1862.  President Abraham Lincoln signed it, at that time. (President Buchanan had vetoed it earlier).

The Land Grant Act of 1862 was considered a historic achievement that changed the course of agriculture in the United States. “Andrew White, for many years the President of Cornell University and later Minister to Germany rated Senator Justin Morrill’s work very high.  He stated that it was his opinion, that the Land Grant Act deserves to be ranked…. with those of Hamilton in advocating the U.S. Constitution, and of Jefferson in acquiring Louisiana, and of Clay in giving us a truly American Policy.”(See Justin Smith Morrill by Parker).

VERMONT’S APPROACH TO AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND THE LAD GRANT:

Vermont was early in recognizing the need for proper education, and in 1840 the Vermont Committee on Education reported in favor of facilities for education for mechanics and the farmer (see William Belmont Parker).   Following the trend elsewhere, county agricultural societies were established like the Berkshire Agricultural Society that was established in 1811 (Berkshire, Ma).  Addison County (1843), Lamoille County (1847), and others were established at the county level within Vermont.  These county societies provided the forums through fairs for education by means of livestock and equipment displays and demonstrations for farmers and their families. They also became a voice for the farm community in the State, prior to the Grange and Farm Bureau.  A State Agricultural Society, as noted, was organized in 1850.  It became a voice for the creation of the State Board of Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Mining in 1870, the forerunner to the State Department of Agriculture in 1909.

Education for farmers was an important objective. In reading the Agricultural Reports of the State Board of Agriculture for Vermont it is evident that this was achieved by holding “Institutes” in various counties each year across the State.  For example in the period 1883-84, the Board held forty-seven meetings.  These early farmers’ institutes were said to be “patented after teachers’ institutions and were chiefly organized and promoted by various state and county agricultural societies.” These farmer institutes were the forerunner of the Extension Service, and declined after the passage of the Smith-Lever Act (that authorized the Extension Service) in 1914 (see A History of Farmers Institutes).

ORGANIZING THE LAND GRANT IN VERMONT:

With the passage of the Land Grant Act, the Vermont Legislature passed legislation in 1863 that attempted to unite three Vermont educational institutions into a Land Grant College.  These three were the then private University of Vermont, Norwich University, and Middlebury College.  As there was not a unified position from the three colleges to this proposal, the initiative failed.  (Justin Morrill supported this unified proposal, and when it failed suggested a new Land Grant to be located in his hometown of Strafford, Vermont, with a personal five thousand dollar challenge grant).

The University of Vermont became the Land Grant, but it was an alliance not fully supported by the Vermont farm community.  In 1890 the Vermont State Grange argued that the College of Agriculture could not do its best work when connected to the University of Vermont.  The Grange demanded that the State legislature dissolve the partnership between the University and the College of Agriculture, saying that Land Grant funds had been used for other purposes other than agricultural education.  Furthermore, UVM had not granted a single diploma to an agricultural student in the twenty-five years since the University became a Land Grant institution. (See The Grange in Vermont by Horton and Stillwell).  A bill was introduced in the Vermont legislature to create the Vermont State Agricultural and Mechanical College, separate from the University of Vermont.

Hearings in the Vermont Legislature were held on the proposal put forth by the Grange.  Senator Justin Morrill was brought in to testify in support of UVM as the Land Grant Institution.  According to records, a compromise was achieved with the State Agricultural Society and the Grange.  A new group of nine trustees would be appointed by the Governor, with two each being proposed by the State Agricultural Society, the State Grange, and the Dairyman’s Association (See The Grange of Vermont).  Nevertheless, it still remained a questionable alliance with the Vermont farm community, and in 1912 the State created a Commission to investigate the educational system and conditions in Vermont, the Carnegie Foundation Survey.  Its report stated “that the situation in which the College of Agriculture finds itself, the lack of equipment, the empirical quality of its courses, and the failure to connect with industries of the State, is the result of a policy of the Administration for which the trustees are responsible.  In conclusion, the Foundation stated that it is our experience of fifty years in agricultural education that a trade school will not grow in a University atmosphere” (See The Grange of Vermont).

CREATION OF THE STATE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE IN RANDOLPH:

T.G. Bronson of Hardwick, a noted Jersey breeder and then Chair of the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, was father of a bill creating the State School of Agriculture in Randolph in 1910. (The Vermont Dairymen’s Association had called for the State’s support of a secondary school of agriculture in 1908). One had been created earlier when Theodore Vail, President of AT &T endowed a school of agriculture in conjunction with Lyndon Institute for practical training in agriculture.  This institute was turned over to the State in 1915, and agriculture was dropped from its courses in 1921.  It is interesting that in the Report Rural Vermont, A Program for the future, the Vermont Commission on Country Life of 1931, it is stated “that a former state superintendent of education was wont to say (before the establishment of the State School of Agriculture) that if a Vermont lad wished to secure training in agriculture within state borders and was not fitted to enter the College of Agriculture it was necessary for him to commit a crime.  He then would be placed in the Industrial School at Vergennes—then called the Reform School—where secondary school agriculture was being taught, the only place in the state where at that time it was being taught.”

NEW DEAN AT THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE EARLY 1900’S BRINGS A GREATER FOCUS TO UVM’S LAND GRANT ROLE:

Even though UVM had received the Land Grant designation, and a compromise was reached in 1890 relative to the makeup of the Board of Trustees, there still remained a questionable alliance with rural Vermont and the farm community.   According to Robert Sinclair (See the University of Vermont, the First Two Hundred Years), “decades of effort, distinguished by leadership of Dean Joseph Hills and Dean Joseph Carrigan, were still required to bridge the gap between rural Vermonters, suspicious of book farming, and the University of Vermont’s tradition of classical learning. By 1900, when Hills received the title of Dean, thirty-five years after the formation of UVM and the State Agriculture College, the State had a School of Agriculture in substance as well as in name, but it had taken a major threat from the legislature to separate the College from the University before UVM was willing to honor its commitment.”  Dean Hills, according to Sinclair, recognized the importance of the College of Agriculture’s connection to rural Vermont and the farm community. Prior to federal funding for county extension work (Smith Lever Act of 1914), Hills received State support to fund three agents to conduct relationship work.  The Extension Service, and its connection with the Experiment Station and University, became the key support network that built the partnership with the farm community that the College of Agriculture largely lacked but critically needed.   The county extension system reinforced and cemented the farm community and rural Vermont’s connection to the University of Vermont and the College of Agriculture.

THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS:

Much had been accomplished in agricultural education in the first 50 years, since the passage of the Land Grant Act in 1862.  The Federal Hatch Act authorized the creation of State Experiment Stations, patented after those in Europe, the first one being organized in

Connecticut.  This was again a partnership with the state, and organized primarily to focus on the research needs of agriculture in the area.  The State Board of Agriculture advocated for the establishment of a Station in Vermont, connected to the College of Agriculture, and the legislature authorized its establishment in 1886.  The Federal Smith-Lever Act of 1914 authorized the establishment of the Extension Service, again a partnership with the State of Vermont and the College of Agriculture.  Further enhancement of agricultural education in public schools happened with the passage of the federal Smith-Hughes Act of 1917.  The State School of Agriculture was created at Randolph in 1910, in recognition of the needs for applied educational training.  UVM’s role as a Land Grant was questioned until the arrival of aggressive and committed leadership of Dean Hills and Carrigan, and the establishment of the Extension Service. 

CHALLENGES TODAY IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

A lot has changed, so the saying goes.  While there is a so-called renaissance in agriculture in Vermont, there is also an increased interest in and attention to agricultural education, at all levels.  New support organizations are being established from time to time, to address producer concerns.  Farm to School programs, food hubs, Farm to Plate initiates inspire a younger generation of existing and potential farmers. Programs at private colleges as well as State Colleges and the University College of Agriculture continue to attract new entrants interested in agriculture, the practical or applied, and the scientific.

In light of these needs and the costs associated with education and research, the role of the Land Grant is being challenged both in Vermont as well as in other States.   Some have suggested (see the Land Grant Institution in the 21^st Century by Michael Martin) that the Land Grants must address three questions: 1) what can Land Grant colleges do best in light of 21^st Century realities of costs and funding; 2) how can they best create partnerships and collaborative alliances; and 3) how can the public be persuaded that these investments are worthy of support?

A study funded by the Vermont Department of Education in 2010 (See Growing Jobs Vermont Style), recommended a number of options, going forward, to address agricultural educational needs in Vermont.  Some of the suggestions include having public and private institutions, to include the community college, partnering around a food based mission; clustering educational hubs around the Career Centers; having a curriculum on sustainable agriculture for High Schools such as the Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems has done at the University of Wisconsin; providing internships; increasing the collaborative model like that established with the 2 plus 2 program; having a middle college such as in Europe for an associate degree; and expanding life-long learning opportunities and establishing certificate programs..   While many of these are already being implemented or discussed, it will take continued enlightened leadership at all levels to “break down silos” around new initiatives to include collaborative models.

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS

It is an exciting time in Vermont.  There continues to be growth in value added agriculture with new initiatives and with products from the land and animals.  Vermont is becoming known for its food systems.  There has also been an expansion of educational opportunities in agriculture at all levels to include farm to school programs, business incubators, farm viability, food hubs, technical training, and other venues to include the Colleges (public and private), and the University.  Vermont Technical College has developed and is offering a Bachelor of Science Program in diversified agriculture. The University of Vermont has selected Food Systems as one of its “Spires of Excellence”(See Fogel, Knodell, and Grasso memo to faculty, staff, and students of April 16^th, 2010).  This is an extraordinary opportunity for the University and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences to build those collaborative models with VTC and others institutions in order to have a vibrant and sustainable model for education and research and educational outreach in Vermont.  Food Systems do touch every part of our State and its people, and success requires the engagement of many critical partners, both private and public. Many have argued the status quo approach to education and research is not sustainable.  Changes are needed, and new paradigms of collaboration must be explored.

Next year, 2012, is the one hundred and fifty year anniversary of the historic passage and signing of the Land Grant Act in 1862.  It could be another lasting tribute to the memory of Vermont’s late Senator Justin Morrill if a functional and operative collaborative educational and research model around food systems in Vermont could be announced at that time.  It should be a model that involves many partners, public and private, and other Colleges and Institutions.  It is a wonderful opportunity for such a celebration, the one hundred fifty years since the passage, and it should not be lost.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG

• The Vermont of Today by Arthur F. Stone, Vol. 1 and II, Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc. NY 1929.
• The Grange in Vermont by Guy B. Horton and Henry A. Stoddard, and Harold J. R. Stillwell, The Crowles Press, St. Johnsbury, 1968
• Justin Smith Morrill by William Belmont Parket, Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924
• “Agricultural Education and Extension in Vermont” by Robert Sinclair in The University of Vermont, The First Two Hundred Years by Robert D. Daniels, Senior Edition, UVM, 1991.
• A History of Agricultural Education in the United States, 1785-1925, Alfred Charles True, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1929.
• Address to Vt. State Agricultural Society and Wool Growers’ Association at its Annual Fair at Burlington, Sept. 16, 1869 by Honorable Luke P. Poland,
• Growing a Nation, The Story of American Agriculture, www.agclassroom.org/gen/timeline/farm.org
• The U.S. Agricultural Society, 1852-60, Agricultural History 1937 by Agricultural History Society
• New York Times, Sept. 5, 1866, “Fair of New England and the Vermont Agricultural Society.”
• Address to the New England Agricultural Society by John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts, at Hampden Park, Springfield, Ma. Sept. 9, 1864.
• Agricultural Societies What They Are and What They Have Done, by William Brewer in Connecticut Board of Agricultural Annual Report, 1880-1886.
• A History of Farmer Institutes by Jeffrey W. Moss and Cynthia B. Lass, from Agricultural History, Vol. 62, No. 2, Spring 1988, Agricultural History Society.
• Growing Jobs Vermont Style: Skills and Knowledge for Vermont’s “Sustainable Food System Cluster” and Natural Resources, May 2010 for the Vermont Department of Education by Regional Technology Strategies Inc. (Stuart Rosenfeld).
• The Role of the Land Grant Institution in the 21^st Century, August 2004, James E. Sherwood, Dean, University Extension, UC Berkeley.
• The Land Grant University in the 21^st Century by Michael V. Martin, Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, August 2001.
• The Cultivator, A Monthly Journal; Devoted to Agriculture, Horticulture, Floriculture, New Series, Vol. IV, Albany, NY, 1847
• “How to Make College Cheaper by Schumpeter, in the Economist”, July 9-15, 2011.
• Rural Vermont, A Program for the Future, The Vermont Commission on Country Life, Burlington, 1931.
• Berkshire Agricultural Society in Encyclopedia of American Education, March 16, 2011.
• Memorial Addresses on the Life and Character of Justin S. Morrill, February 22, 1899, delivered in the Senate and House of Representatives, Fifty-Fifth Congress, Third Session, Government Printing Office, D.C. 1899.
• Transdisciplinary Research Initiative-The Spires of Excellence, communication to UVM Faculty, Staff, and Students, Office of the President, April 16, 2010
• History of Vermont, Vol. Four, by Walter Hill Crockett, The Century History Company, N.Y., 1921.
• Eighth Vermont Agricultural Report, State Board of Agriculture, 1883-84.

ANSWER TO LAST TRIVIA QUESTION:  Question:  How long did Justin Morrill serve as a Member of Congress, and what are some other things he accomplished besides passage of the Land Grant Act?

Answer:  Justin Morrill served as a member of the U.S. Congress from 1854 until 1898, thirty-four years.  His desire was to see Washington as one of the most beautiful capitals of the world.  He was largely responsible for the erection of the Washington Monument and the Library of Congress building.  He also was responsible for funds to hire Frederick Law Olmstead, the great landscape gardener, to improve the grounds of the Capital.  He is also known for the Tariff Act that helped to finance the North in the Civil War.

NEXT BLOG POSTING:  Historical significance of agriculture’s contribution to tourism in Vermont

TRIVIA QUESTION:  Who was the first Commissioner of Agriculture for Vermont to promote agricultural tourism?

Edition No. 11, July 30, 2012