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

TIPPING POINTS, OR EVENTS OR CONDITIONS THAT LED TO CHANGES IN VERMONT AGRICULTURE OVER TIME AND THE DAIRY SECTOR TODAY

Vermont agriculture and land use related to farming has changed significantly over time.   What appears clear from this brief analysis of the past is that Vermont has never been immune to international and national events, or economic conditions elsewhere.  Through the years, farmers have had to adapt even when, in some cases, actions were taken by policy officials to forestall or prevent negative impacts. Today, it can be argued, Vermont agriculture continues to go through major transformations.  One of the most significant adaptations might be called a “renaissance of the past” with an increased interest in local foods.  This has resulted in the growth of farmers markets, CSA’s (community supported agriculture), artesian cheese production on farms, and other new enterprises.  (Diversified agriculture has always been an important part of the working landscape in Vermont).  Still, dairy farming is the anchor for Vermont’s agriculture and the many related support industries that exist in the State.  As this transformation continues to take place, we ask what is the likely future for dairy farming and what does the future hold for dairy cooperatives that market most of the milk? This transformational change continues to have an impact on the working landscape as it is known or perceived.

HISTORICAL CHANGES IN VERMONT AGRICULTURE

From the beginning of the early settlements after the French and Indian War in the region now known as Vermont, events and other economic influences have brought about changes in agriculture and land use.  The early settlers came to Vermont searching for new productive soils and opportunities.  While they were subsistence farmers with many skills, they benefited from the commercial sale of potash and pearlash (from clearing the forests) in demand in England at the time.  As cities and towns grew, these same farmers supplied nearby communities with many products from their farms.  They did this in exchange for goods that they needed themselves and could not produce.  Waterpower, and the growth of waterborne transportation again helped to transform Vermont agriculture.  While it created new markets in nearby cities like Boston, New York, Albany, and Montreal, it opened up new competition from products being brought into Vermont.  It also made Vermont more dependent upon these products from other regions.  Even though the railroads further opened up new year-round marketing opportunities, this new form of transportation also brought increased competition from the West.  Vermont farmers had to adapt to these changes, as they did in the progression from being the sheep capital of the world to butter, and then to being a fluid milk supplier to regional markets beginning in the late 1800’s and continuing to this day.   The changes did not take place quickly, and there was resistance from many, but it happened nevertheless.  The sheep industry declined due to the loss of protective tariffs and with competition from lower cost producing areas in the West; the same happened with grains, beef, butter, hops, apples and other products.  When many farmers began to specialize in fluid milk production due to demand from the nearby cities like Boston, farmer cooperatives became important in bargaining for fair pricing for their members.  Federal actions relative to dairy price supports and parity pricing could not forestall the pressure for change and the eventual beginning of the deregulation of the dairy industry in the early 1980’s.  The westward movement of milk production in the United States (lower cost of production), combined with pricing deregulation, and increased connections with world markets, has resulted in deep and prolonged pricing cycles that continue to put Vermont and other Northeast dairy farmers at financial risk.

CREATION OF THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, MINING, AND STATISTICS IN 1872 TO ADDRESS A UNIFORM PLAN OF ACTION

The State Act passed in 1870 (An Act Establishing a Board of Agriculture, Manufacturing, Mining and Statistics) appears to be the first organized attempt of public policy collaboration to address agricultural issues within the State.  This Board, the predecessor to the State Department of Agriculture that was established in 1909, consisted of the Governor as Chair, the President of the State Agriculture College, and six other individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.  While the Board was only required to hold two meetings per year (one business meeting and one public meeting), it undertook during its existence a very aggressive schedule of sessions around the State, working with the then County Agricultural Societies, Dairymen’s clubs and town Agricultural and Horticultural societies.  It’s objective was to secure some uniform and systematic plan of work regarding agriculture throughout the State of Vermont. It was this Board that recommended the establishment of the Agricultural Experiment Station at the University of Vermont, for example.

SOME RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO THE THEN BOARD OF AGRICULTURE RELATING TO THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE WITHIN THE STATE

• In a paper entitled “The Farmer’s Future”, by Rev. G. F. Wright of Bakersfield delivered at a meeting of the State Board of Agriculture in St. Albans on March 6 and 7^th, 1872, he stated that “… it is useless for the Vermont farmer to compete with those of the West in raising those few staples of product that can be naturally raised in the west, and that will bear storing and transportation without risk of injury, and without too much expense.”  He went on to say “that the Vermont farmer has a substantial hold on the future.  His soil, his climate, his abundance of pure water, his proximity to markets of the growing cities and villages, give him unrivaled facilities for success….   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.”    Others expressed similar views.
• G.G. Small, Esq. of Morrisville stated to the Board (see 1873-1874 Biennial Report of the Board) that, “Vermont as a State is well adapted to butter making.  We cannot compete with the West in beef, pork, wool or grain, and not much longer in butter unless we are making a superior product.”
• M. O. Howe of Fayetteville in the report of the State Board of Agriculture, 1875-1876, stated that, “it is the value of the products, not the quantity, that indicates the profits of agriculture.  There will continue to be the difference of freight and commissions between the markets of the East and the West.”
• Some seven years later, Lyman W. Peet of Cornwall, Vermont in a paper presented to the State Board of Agriculture in 1883-84 entitled “Eastern and Western Farming”, stated that “only by the use of greater skill and capital by which production shall be cheapened with a quality so superior as to command the highest price in the market, can we hope successfully to meet Western competition.
• In the Tenth Report of the Board of Agriculture in 1888-1889 a writer stated that “the selling price of all agricultural commodities tends to approach the lowest cost of production, and the West with cheap feed can produce at less cost than New England.”
• An author in the 15^th and 16^th Report of the Board of Agriculture for 1894-1895 stated that, “our own state has seen one industry after another go down under the fierce competition of cheap western land.  Our sheep, beef, and grain production have all been borne down through this cause, and today our dairymen are manfully contesting the ground with these same forces.”

These individuals, like some before and many after them, were visionaries.  They had seen change, had been part of it, and recognized the strengths and competitive advantages of farming in Vermont. As noted above, an important advantage to the Vermont farmer was being near emerging markets, and growing and producing products of the highest quality to meet nearby consumer needs.  Even later, after the creation of the State Department of Agriculture, there were similar views.  Then Commissioner of Agriculture E.S. Brigham in his annual report stated, “The products that belong in the East are those that are adapted to our soil and climate and are needed in large market centers.”(Fifth annual report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1913).

PUBLIC POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AT FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL CREATED TO ASSIST THE FARM SECTOR

Numerous public policies and programs at the federal and state level have been implemented over time to assist farmers. These policies and programs have addressed education (Land Grant College, Vermont Technical College, vocational education), research (Experiment Station); outreach in education (UVM Extension Service); soil, water and land conservation (USDA Soil Conservation Service, Conservation Districts, Agency of Agriculture); purchase of development rights,(Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, and Vermont Land Trust), crop insurance, cooperative marketing (Capper-Volstead Act and growth of farmer cooperatives), tariff protections (limitations on import of dairy and other products to U.S.), market orders and orderly marketing, organic standards, disaster assistance, taxation (income and property), electricity(rural electric), energy development (methane digesters and new farm based energy crops), communications (rural telephone system), credit(USDA Farm Service, Farm Credit, and Vermont Agricultural Credit Corp.), farm viability, new product and market development (USDA Rural Development), state and regional marketing, food and product safety, and farmland protection (Act 250 with prime and statewide soils), to mention but a few.  Attempts have also been made by policy officials to protect farmers from negative pricing and resulting impacts. Some examples from the past include fighting for higher tariffs on wool (1820’s through 1830’s and later); railroad freight rates (interstate commerce); laws to outlaw the coloring of margarine (1900’s); work to pass laws for market orders (1930’s); minimum parity pricing for dairy (1949); and more recently the Northeast dairy compact and the MILC or milk income loss compensation program.    

TIMES HAVE CHANGED…. BUT ARE EARLIER RECOMMENDATIONS STILL VALID FOR VERMONT FARMERS?

Others in the past were not so sanguine about the future of Vermont agriculture, particularly dairy. An editorial in one of the State papers back in 1881-1882 (see Seventh State Board of Agriculture Report) addressed competition from the West. After noting that the wheat growing region was gradually moving westward, and the low rates of transportation enabled even the far west to compete with New England in the eastern markets, the writer says “dairying is about all there is left to the farmers of Vermont, and the west will eventually wrest all the profits of that industry from his hands.”  Note:  In fact most of the growth in U.S. milk production in the last several years has occurred in the West and the Mountain States. (From 2002-2007 California’s production was up by 25%, Upper West by 33%, South West by 35%.  The Northeast, which has twenty percent of the U.S milk production, declined by 1 %. (Source: USDA).  Vermont only consumes about five percent of the fluid milk that is produced in the State, and its milk supply represents less than 2 percent of U.S milk production.

DAIRYING DOES HAVE A FUTURE IN VERMONT…BUT NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO INCLUDE CAPITAL FOR NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF THE MILK SUPPLY

One of the most frustrating yet stimulating jobs as Secretary of Agriculture for Vermont was trying to figure out how to deal with a declining dairy sector, in collaboration with others.  Many before have faced the same challenge.  Even though the decline in the number of dairy farms has been taking place over time, there is a certain critical mass of milk production necessary for supplying existing plants and for luring processing firms to the State. As I was told when a major milk processor left Vermont, they are looking to locate in areas where milk supply is growing and not declining.  The early Vermonters recognized the State’s competitive advantages (grow grass well for livestock, and near large and growing markets), and disadvantages (competition with West and other regions with commodity products).

There have been numerous studies of and discussions about the Vermont dairy industry over the recent past.  These have included the Agriculture Focus Group Report to the Governor’s Commission on The Economic Future of Vermont, November, 1989; the Vermont Agricultural Viability Council Final Report in January 2003; A Final Decision and Report on the Proceedings of the Vermont Milk Commission in January 15, 2008; Seeking to Ensure the Future Viability of Vermont’s Dairy Industry, Report of the Thirty-Third Grafton Conference, The Windham Foundation, Grafton, Vermont, March 6-7, 2008, and December 15-16, 2008; Recommendations by independent business advisory group on dairy to the Vermont Secretary of Agriculture, October 19, 2010; and more recently the Farm to Plate strategic plan.  There are common themes in all of these studies and reports on actions that should be taken to encourage a growing dairy sector within the State.  Some of the actions recommended include the need for:

• Risk mitigation strategies:  As milk pricing has become more volatile, farmers need new and various forms of risk mitigation for pricing.  This will become more important as a result of pending federal budgetary reductions in federal farm programs.  Mitigation takes many forms to include product diversification, methane digesters, futures pricing and options, price margin insurance, rotational grazing, organic production, on-farm processing, and other initiatives.
• New product innovation:  Markets and consumer needs are constantly changing.  In a paper by USDA Rural Development, Research Report 206, May 2005 “Dairy Cooperative Growth Challenges: Technology, Ingredients (Proteins) and Equity Financing” the author states that “in the future driven by technology, cooperatives face many challenges to include need for more research and development, more aggressive product development and marketing; new manufacturing processing and technology, and equity financing to fuel these changes.” Note: Vermont dairy cooperatives are critical in the marketing and balancing of milk supplies, but lack the necessary capital for research and development (R&D) of new products and their marketing.  O-AT-KA dairy cooperative in New York is looked at as an example of the type of facility and the type of research and development in new products that should be coming from Vermont, with its brand recognition.  The current approach to new product development and marketing by Vermont dairy cooperatives will possibly lead to more fracturing of the milk supply and the dairy industry in the state. (Loss of additional farms, more on the farm specialty product production, movement to organic production).  New forms of capital other than from their farmer members are possible and should be aggressively explored to include the EB5 program.
• Strategies or incentives to grow the milk supply (milk volume and farm numbers):  Dairy cooperatives market most of the milk within the U.S. and within Vermont, and thus growth strategies remain important.  Wisconsin has been successful in growing its dairy industry, even during trying economic times.  “Wisconsin dairy plants invested $1.24 billion in equipment and facilities between 2004-2009.”    The State of Wisconsin invested aggressively in this process as well.  They have discovered what others have known for some time, that manufacturing facilities are drawn to regions were there is a growing dairy sector.  If Vermont wants to grow its dairy sector, there is a need for aggressive cooperative strategies with farm organizations, educational institutions, land trusts, lending institutions, and others (this topic was discussed at the Grafton Conference, with a recommendation on the formation of incubators).  Wisconsin carried out these activities with the help of Grow Wisconsin Dairy Teams, the Dairy Business Innovation Center, and Wisconsin Dairy Farm Management Teams.  While Vermont has implemented many programs (farm viability, Agricultural Innovation Center, 25 x 25 energy initiative, dairy management teams, Keep Farms Local, methane digester development, Farm First, Farm Mitigation, agricultural land protection and purchase of development rights, current use taxation), it still lacks a strategy to build its milk supply even though ideas have been discussed in the past with cooperatives and others.  Vermont dairy cooperatives need to take a very active and aggressive leadership role in working to accomplish this task and they must not be perceived as passive participants in this effort.
• Increased collaboration with the UVM’s Land Grant and Experiment Station: There is the need for increased collaboration with the new Food Systems Spire and the Dairy Center of Excellence at the University of Vermont.  Possibilities for research that can lead to greater value for dairy products in Vermont and for production efficiencies on the farm must be explored.  As the Land Grant works to continually define and refine its organic mission, there is an opportunity to develop collaborative partnerships. 
• New incubators to assist in the transfer of farms to a new generation of farmers: Expand the incubator system for new dairy farmers with examples developed by Dr. Chris Dutton at Vermont Technical College, and others like those being used by Jasper Hill for new farmstead cheese producers, and the Vermont Land Trust.  There are many young people and current farmers interested in dairy farming.  While the cost of entry to farming today is high, incubator concepts are being tested as a way to provide training and eventual ownership for these new entrants.
• Continued support for dairy profitability and farm viability teams to help farmers identify ways to address production efficiencies and diversification options. These programs are actively being used and should continue.
• Support for key proposals from Farm to Plate and from the Working Lands initiatives:  These efforts could further help to develop the dairy industry and agriculture in Vermont.  Some of the proposed initiatives include a new capital development fund, and a working lands initiative that will encourage agricultural enterprise growth within the State. 

Dr. David Galton of Cornell University stated the challenge well in a presentation “A Perspective on the Northeast Dairy Industry.”   One of the clear challenges he presented in his presentation was the choice in the Northeast for building a greater supply of milk in order to be recognized as a growing competitive region, or losing the market to other areas. Without an aggressive strategy at all levels, the U.S. milk production will continue to shift to new and larger dairies in the Western states.  Technology such as ultra-filtration on large farms is lowering transportation and processing costs and thus making it possible to move milk longer distances.  Others have reached a similar conclusion (see Synergy LLC).  “The Northeast advantage is being close to markets, but this is tentative due to the development in transportation, packaging, and product formulation.  To stay competitive, the Northeast needs a higher level of farm management; capital for growth; vehicles for growth and transfer of assets; and tools for price volatility risk.”

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS:

There have been those who have compared the dairy sector in Vermont today to what happened with the loss of the Merino sheep industry in the 1800’s.   These similarities include the continuing westward migration of dairy production with very large dairy farms in several western states, an antiquated pricing system that results in wide pricing swings when national production greatly exceeds supply with influences from international markets, lower costs of production on many western farms with subsidized water and power, a tariff system that helps protect against large imports from other countries that has been subject of WTO and bi-lateral trade negotiations to allow freer trade from lower cost of production countries like New Zealand, and dependence on Congress for changes to provide more economic equality and opportunities for Northeast dairy farmers and those in other parts of the United States. While there may be some similarities in this regard, I submit that differences do exist today.  These differences include an increased interest in local and regional food production, the need to know where and how our food is produced, increased costs of transportation in bringing products from more distant markets, and the recognition that value-added product production with goods that meet consumer needs is the future.  All of this leads to greater diversification on the farm.  This recognition for value-added products has resulted in the growth of farm-based and other specialty cheese and product production.  As history has demonstrated, Vermont is a state that also benefits from livestock agriculture that can convert grass to meat or milk.  This is just one of the state’s strengths.

If our dairy farms are to survive, it will take aggressive and committed leadership with collaborative strategies to deal with these changes.  Vermont must demonstrate that it can grow its dairy industry.  To do so, dairy farmers, even new entrants to farming, must have confidence relative to pricing and must find ways to mitigate risks though diversification and other strategies.  As Dr. Galton at Cornell stated in his presentation, “…the choices are to grow or to see the loss of markets to other regions”.  While changes in federal dairy policy are warranted and strongly encouraged, Vermont dairy farmers cannot bank on these for their individual financial success going forward.  The outcome of these policies is always unknown just as it was when the sheep industry fought for the continuation of higher import tariffs back in the 1800’s.  If we want the agricultural sector in Vermont to prosper in the future we must look inward and find ways to build on our state’s strengths, as recognized by the early visionaries back in the 1800’s.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES FOR THIS BLOG POSTING:

• First Annual Report, Vermont State Board of Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Mining, 1872.
• A Paper, “The Vermont Farmer’s Future”, by Rev. G. F. Wright of Bakersfield, Vermont, presented to the State Board of Agriculture at a meeting in St. Albans, March 6-7^th, 1872.
• A Paper, “Eastern and Western Farming”, by Lyman W. Peet of Cornwall, Vermont.  See Eight Report of State Board of Agriculture, 1883-1884.
• New England Grades and Standards Act, 1927, see Biannual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1926-1928.
• A Detailed Survey of Leading Markets for Vermont Products, see Eight Annual Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1916.
• Agriculture Focus Group, Report to Governor’s Commission on The Economic Future of Vermont, November 1989.
• The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Public Hearings Report, N.Y. State Legislative Commission on Dairy Industry Development, June 1990
• Vermont Agriculture Viability Council Final Report, Vermont Council of Rural Development, January 2003.
• Vermont Farmstead Cheese Marketing Study, January-March 2006, Prepared for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.
• Future Structure of the Dairy Industry; Historical Trends, Projections and Issues, by Eddy LaDue et. al, Cornell Program on Agriculture and Small Business Finance, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, June 2003, R.B. 2003-01.
• The Impact of Globalization on the U.S. Dairy Industry: Threats, Opportunities, and Implications, Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, August 2009.
• See Synergy LLC
• A Final Decision and Report on the Proceedings of the Vermont Milk Commission, January 15, 2008.
• Dairy Cooperative Growth Challenges: Technology, Ingredients (Proteins), and Equity Financing, USDA Rural Development, Research Report 206, May 2005.
• Dairy Cooperatives Bulletin: Structural Change and Operations, by Robert Crop, University of Wisconsin, Center for Cooperatives, Bulletin No. 4, October 2002.
• New Strategies for Mobilizing Capital in Agricultural Cooperatives, in FAO Corporate Document Repository, Economic and Social Development Department.
• Dairy Cooperatives and Their Role in the United States, by Robert Jacobsen and Robert Cropp, Dairy Markets and Policy Issues and Options, Cornell University, August 1995.
• Remarks to the New England Dairy Promotion Board by Roger Allbee, Nov. 19, 2010.
• Seeking to Ensure the Future Viability of Vermont’s Dairy Industry, Report of the Thirty-Third Grafton Conference, The Windham Foundation, Grafton, Vermont, March 6-7, 2008, and December 15-16, 2008.
• “Wisconsin Facing a Dairy Deficit,” by Ann Marie Ames, April 25, 2011, in GazetteXtra.com, May 27, 2011.
• “Vermont Dairy Sector: Is There a Sustainable Future for the 800 lb. Gorilla?”, A paper by Dr. Robert Parsons, Vol. 1, No. 4, Opportunities for Agriculture, Working Paper Series, UVM Center for Rural Studies.
• “Trends in the U.S. Dairy Industry”, by Joe Horner, Dairy Economist, Commercial Agricultural Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
• “Upstate Niagara”, by James Dudlicek, in Dairy Facts Corporate Profile, August 2008.
• “A Perspective on the Northeast Dairy Industry”, a presentation by David Galton, Cornell University.
• See “Farm to Plate”, the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund.
• See “The Working Landscape Initiative”, the Vermont Council on Rural Development

ANSWER TO LAST BLOG POSTING TRIVIA QUESTION:  The first Chair of the State Board of Agriculture in 1872 was the Governor of the State of Vermont, John W. Steward.  Matthew Buckham, President of the State Agricultural College, and six other individuals that he appointed with confirmation by the State Senate assisted him in this effort.

NEXT BLOG POSTING:  A Historical Perspective on Agricultural Education in Vermont

Trivia Question:  How long did Justin Morill serve as a Member of Congress, and what are some of the things he accomplished besides passage of the Land Grant Act?

Edition No. 10, June 14, 2011

THE 1930’s NEW DEAL FARM PROGRAMS AND VERMONT AGRICULTURE

History is full of federal actions that addressed problems and opportunities in rural America even prior to the New Deal period.  It was not until the late 1920’s, however, that the federal government took direct action relative to production controls in attempts to increase farm prices.  Passage of the New Deal Programs was considered to be a major change in the farm policy agenda.  “For 70 years, after passage of the Morrill Act which set up the Land Grant Colleges, the farm policy agenda had been agricultural development; the components of that policy were research, classroom teaching, on-farm education, and improvement of agricultural resources.”(See Paarlberg paper).

The 1920’s were a period of severe financial conditions in the farm sector.  After WW1 farm production increased but demand decreased as export markets declined.  This resulted in a sharp drop in farm prices( 56% decline from 1929-1932 in index of farm prices).  It is said that widespread government intervention in the farm economy began in 1929 when President Herbert Hoover created the Federal Farm Board as part of the Agricultural Marketing Act.  This Act helped to lay the groundwork for many of the later New Deal programs that dealt with crop production controls as a way to increase farm prices. 

THE VERMONT DAIRY INDUSTRY IN THE LATE 1920’s and EARLY 1930’s

Attempts were made in the 1920’s in New England to create one central marketing agency among the dairy farmer cooperatives as a way to better bargain with milk buyers for fair pricing (see last blog posting).  Congress had given farmer cooperatives explicit limited exemption from anti-trust with the passage of the Capper-Volstead Act in 1922.  This Act clarified the legal status of farmer cooperative marketing associations that had been challenged for anti-trust behavior before passage of this Act. Also, even though the Boston milk market had implemented a classified pricing system as early as the 1890’s(farmers receive a price based upon how the milk is used by handlers), no legal way existed for them or their cooperatives to audit to assure accuracy of use; no enforcement provisions required all handlers to abide by such a system; and there was no way to extend the system to non-farmer cooperative members.  Without a central marketing agency, pricing was inconsistent with inequity of bargaining power between buyers and sellers.  Since the Boston Market received about seventy-five percent of the milk and cream that was shipped out of the State of Vermont, there was a great deal of concern about fair pricing by farmers and their support organizations.  The 1929 stock market crash and depression only deepened this concern about adequate farm pricing, both in Vermont and throughout the United States.

THE 1929 AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT AND THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD

While President Hoover recognized the need for intervention to bring about better farm pricing, the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act failed to achieve their desired purposes.  The AMA promoted cooperatives (in 1926 a division of cooperative marketing was created within USDA), and the federal board had eight members representing the major farm cooperatives in the U.S.   The intent of the law was to have the cooperatives control production of crops and to increase exports as a way to better pricing.  The Board had $500 million from the U.S. Treasury to carry out its activities.  To increase dairy pricing, for example, the Board made a loan to Land of Lakes Dairy Cooperative to withhold butter sales and to purchase additional product from the market.  The Board also organized a dairy program with five regional butter-marketing associations as a way to provide aid to dairy cooperatives on production controls and marketing.  Dairy farmers were angered when it was suggested that farmers would be paid by the government to reduce the size of their herds in order to cut surplus dairy products.  This voluntary effort by farmers to cut production implemented through the farmer cooperatives failed to produce the desired results.  Prices continued to decline and Treasury funds were depleted. This experiment on voluntary approaches through farm cooperatives to production controls set the stage for new farm legislation within the first 100 days of the Roosevelt Administration.

ACTIONS OF ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION ON FARM PRICES

With the failure of voluntary approaches through cooperatives to address declining farm prices, there was an increased urgency among farm organizations for more direct federal intervention.  President Roosevelt asked Secretary of Agriculture Wallace to assemble farm leaders to reach a consensus on what could be done.  The centerpiece of the New Deal was developed by a well-organized farm-lobbying group, “and the statute was drafted largely by Frederick P. Lee, legislative counsel to the American Farm Bureau.” (see Libecap paper).  The aim of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to raise agricultural prices relative to the purchasing power of farmers that had prevailed during the period 1909 to 1914.  The law allowed farmers to enter into agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce their acreage or production in what was deemed to be seven basic commodities; wheat, cotton, corn, rice, tobacco, hogs, and milk.  In return farmers would receive payments derived from taxes levied on processors.  Better compliance with classified pricing issue in markets like Boston was addressed through the issuance of federal licenses to milk dealers.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act was challenged immediately, and in the case of the U.S. vs. Butler, the Court found 6 to 3 that many provisions of the Act were unconstitutional based on the fact that they were an encroachment upon the rights of the States, and that it was illegal to tax one group (processors) to support another (farmers).  There were major divisions within the Court on the opinion.  Nevertheless, the Roosevelt Administration moved quickly to overcome these legal obstacles (later also trying to pack the Court with its supporters).  The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937 provided clear authority for federal marketing orders and reaffirmed the marketing agreement provisions of the 1933 Act.  Instead of taxing processors to support farmers, general funds were used.

VERMONT AND NEW ENGLAND DAIRY FARMERS INTEREST IN 1937 ACT

In June of 1937, a conference of dairy leaders from four of the New England States (including Vermont), organized by the Governors of those states, unanimously adopted a resolution approving the federal control of dairy pricing (see Lewiston Daily Sun, June 26, 1937).  The resolution described those states’ control of the milk shed as being impossible because of interstate commerce laws.  The majority of the milk and cream going to Boston and surrounding cities came from states outside Massachusetts and so controls could not be imposed.  This was due to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Governor George Aiken described the dire economic situation facing Vermont dairy farms (approximately 10,000 at that time), and said that federal control of milk pricing “would save hundred’s of dairy farmers in the State.”  In the same year, when Congress was debating the 1937 Agricultural Marketing Act, Governor George Aiken sent a terse telegram to Capitol Hill. “Informed that the Senate was stalled on a procedural issue, Governor Aiken wrote in true New England style: Dairy industry in peril, act without delay.” (See N.Y. Times Opinion on Milk Pricing, Oct. 3, 1994).    Prior to 1937, Aiken’s predecessor, Governor Charles Smith, had also expressed concern, saying that if action was not taken to overturn a Court injunction (in 1935, the federal government lost its case when it attempted to enforce the provisions of the federal license to milk dealers for classified pricing, but later over-turned on appeal), the Boston market would crumble and there would be a disastrous affect on interstate and intrastate commerce in milk and cream from Vermont (See Lewiston Daily Sun, May 5, 1936, Boston milk case). In his farewell address to the Vermont legislature, Governor Aiken said “state officials and several farmer cooperatives appealed for a federal marketing order.  As sufficient farmers voted, it went into effect and has led to the stabilization of milk prices in Boston and later New York milk shed.”

There has been discussion from the beginning and over a period of time whether the 1937 Act and the resulting marketing orders for dairy were intended to establish parity prices for farmers.  However, USDA from the beginning of the Act, has contended that the chief objective of marketing orders was to stabilize milk markets through orderly marketing, not to raise milk prices to artificially high levels.  This interpretation relative to dairy marketing orders exists to this day.

OTHER KEY NEW DEAL LEGISLATION FOR VERMONT FARMERS

• Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act:  In 1936 Congress passed this act as a result of the dust bowl that swept the West.  The Soil Conservation Service was established within USDA (now the National Resource and Conservation Service).  In 1937 President Roosevelt asked all State governors to promote state legislation to allow the formation of Soil Conservation Districts within the State as a partners with SCS.  These Districts were established by Vermont law and still exist.
• Farm Credit Act of 1933: This Act provided funding to refinance one-fifth of farm mortgages over an eighteen-month period.  It also established local Production Credit Associations throughout the U.S. and twelve District Bank for Cooperatives with one Central Bank for Cooperatives (Federal Land Banks in the twelve Districts had been created by federal law in 1916).  The Farm Credit Administration was established as an independent agency by Executive Order.  (Henry Morgentheu, later Secretary of Treasury, a dairy farmer and fruit grower from Dutchess County, New York was appointed Chairman of the Federal Farm Credit Board and Governor of the Farm Credit Administration).  He had chaired the New York Agricultural Advisory Committee when Roosevelt was Governor of the State.  Major amendments to Farm Credit Act in 1987 have resulted in changes in the organizational structure of these farmer-owned institutions as originally established by Congress.  In Vermont, Yankee Farm Credit ACA exists to serve qualified farmers with production and farm mortgage loans. (Note: President Teddy Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission had recommended a cooperative credit system for farmers).
• Rural Electric Administration:  In 1935 President Roosevelt signed an executive             order creating the REA.  At that time only twelve percent of U.S. farms had electric service.  As a point of interest, I asked my 95 year old mother if she remembered when they were provided electricity in Brookline, Vermont.  She said, “Yes, the year was 1938 and your father was farming with his father and they brought one line into the house and we had one 15 watt bulb.  I said to your father, that is awfully bright and we will never need anything brighter.”  Electricity helped to transform rural America and Vermont.  

NEW DEAL PROGRAMS THAT WERE REJECTED BY VERMONT

• Resettlement Administration:  This was created in 1935 with three major purposes: 1) loans and grants to needy farmers; 2) erosion, flood control and land retirement, and 3) resettlement programs.  One of the proposals for Vermont was the retirement of 20,000 acres of marginal “hill country” land and permanent placement into forestry.  Then Governor Wilson appointed a committee to select the land for retirement.  There was a great deal of division on the subject with George Aiken opposed (loss of local control and would hinder development of the State), and others like Dorothy Canfield Fisher, Commissioner of Agriculture Ed Jones, leaders of the State Grange and Chamber of Commerce in support.  The goal was to turn under productive farms into tree farms and parks.  The conditions laid down by the Committee for an agreement were too onerous for the federal government, and it withdrew its offer.  The Resettlement Administration was replaced by the Farm Security Administration, which became the Farmers’ Home Administration in 1946.  Federal farm lending and federal crop support programs are now handled in Vermont and the rest of the U.S. through the Farm Service Agency.  This was created through the reorganization of USDA agencies in the 1990’s.
• Green Mountain Parkway:  This parkway that was planned to run the length of the state would be a sister to the Blue Ridge Parkway.  While the legislation passed in the Vermont Senate, it failed in the House.   A referendum was held on Town Meeting Day in 1936.  42,873 were opposed to the Parkway, and 30,895 supported the construction.

BLOGGER’S COMMENTS: 

The New Deal established new USDA Agency Programs.  Many of these programs still exist today.  A very well organized farm lobby advocated several of these initiatives. While there still are dairy market orders to assure “orderly marketing,” the majority of Vermont dairy farms today still face economic challenges due to wide pricing swings as a result of changes in markets, periodic supply and demand imbalances, and a federal price support structure way below their cost of production.   Methods to provide better financial returns to dairy farmers in Vermont and in the Northeast have been a continuing challenge to farm leaders and policy makers over time. A minimum dairy parity pricing system was introduced into federal law in 1949 following WWII.  This law could not withstand cost increases to the Government resulting from too much production of milk in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when the parity price was established at too high a level causing large surpluses of butter, cheese, and non-fat dried milk. (With then Congressman Jeffords of Vermont, an ardent supporter of the dairy industry, I worked as a staff aid to help negotiate a pricing replacement to parity as a result of federal budgetary pressures and as part of the 1981 Farm Bill Conference Committee). This change in federal dairy policy in 1981 marketed the beginning of deregulation of the dairy industry in the United States.  Other actions have been taken over time to address the pricing issues of dairy farmers to include the whole herd buyout, the Northeast Dairy Compact, and in the more recent past the milk income loss program, or MILC.  Some states have taken action to increase milk prices to farmers by imposing over-order pricing where they have more control over milk supply and are not confronted by interstate commerce issues. Some farmers have also moved to organic dairy production as a way to confront lower commodity pricing.  Others have engaged in greater on-the- farm diversification to include energy systems and the production of value added products.  Still today, due to consolidation at both the retail and wholesale levels and independence of many dairy farmers, dairy cooperatives do not control enough milk to leverage higher prices for their members. They have not historically been able to agree collectively on ways to reduce production to achieve higher pricing either. The dairy sector still represents the anchor of Vermont’s agricultural economy (75 percent or so of gross farm income in the state), and longer-term unstable milk pricing issues still confront farmers, their cooperatives, and policy officials.

Personal note: 
As a boy I had many jobs to raise funds for college, and one was working mowing lawns and doing yard and garden work for a retired medical doctor who lived in Newfane, Vermont.  His name was Charles Nelson Leach.  He was a wonderful gentleman who would always work around the yard with me.  One day as we were working his wife called out, “Charles the President is on the line”.  When he returned he said sternly to me, “Roger, that was my dear friend Herbert Hoover.  I want you to remember that President Hoover had many of the ideas that President Roosevelt put into place.”  This blog cannot give justice to such an evaluation, but it is clear from my brief investigation that the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act helped to set the stage for many of the New Deal Farm programs.

REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG POSTING

• Newspaper article, Lewiston Daily Sun, June 26, 1937, Federal Control of Milk Advocated, Dairymen from four states at Concord endorse proposal.
• Newspaper article, Lewiston Dairy Sun, May 5, 1936, The Boston Milk Case.
• “Tarnished Gold: Fifty Years of New Deal Farm Programs”, by Don Paarlberg, Professor Emeritus, Purdue University, from Conference on the Legacy of the New Deal, Center for Constructive Alternatives, Hillsdale, Michigan, March 10, 1987.
• Farm Policy of the 20^th Century, U.S. Department of State from About.com Economics
• Federal Direct Price Support Payment Programs by Stan Siegel, in the National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas School of Law (originally published in So. Dakota Law Review, 1986).
• Visualizing the Rural West.  The Bill Lane Center for the American West, Stanford University.
• American Business.org   Agriculture
• Jewish Virtual Library: Henry Morgentheau
• Vermont Historical Society, the New Deal in Vermont
• National Association of Rural Rehabilitation Corporation, A Brief History of America’s Rural Rehabilitation Corporation and a Brief History of the Founding of the National Association of Rural Rehabilitation Corporations by Leland Beatty, General Manager Texas Rural Communities Inc.
• “Government Project” by Edward C. Banfield, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1951
• Can We “Trust Uncle Sam”?  Vermont and the Sub marginal Lands Project, 1934-1936 by Sara M. Gregg, Vermont History 69 (winter/spring 2001) by Vermont Historical Society.
• Farewell address of George D. Aiken as it appears in the Journal of the Jt. Assembly, 1941
• New York Times, Opinion, “Milk Price Regulation/Protects Consumers” by Howard Dean and William F. Weld, Oct. 3, 1994.
• The Farm Security Administration, Oklahoma Historical Society’s Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture
• Chapter 4: Crisis and Activism: 1929-1940. www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
• The Evolution of Milk Pricing and Government Intervention in Dairy Markets by Eric M. Erba and Andrew M. Novakovic, Feb., E.B. 95-05, A Publication of the Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy.
• Dairy Price Support Program Options by Bob Cropp, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Oct. 9, 2001
• The Depression Begins: President Hoover Takes Command, Ludwig Von Mises Institute
• The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century by Michael D. Bordo, Claudia Goldin and Eugene N. White, University of Chicago Press January 1998.  Chapter Title: The Great Depression and the Regulating State:  Federal Government Regulation of Agriculture, 1884-1970 by Gary D. Libecap.
• This Milk Problem by Harry R. Varney, Circular no. 95, The Vermont Extension Service, June 1937.
• Milk Pricing Policy and Procedures, Part 1 The Milk Pricing Problem, Report of the Milk Pricing Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 1972.
• Federal Dairy Programs, Insights Into Their Past Provide Perspectives on Their Future, General Accounting Office (GAO), Report to the Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate.
• The Structure of Fluid Milk Markets, Two Decades of Change, Agricultural Economic Report No. 137, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
• Dairy Farming in the Northeast, Now and in the Future by James N. Putnam 11 and Raymond J. Nowak, Springfield District, Farm Credit Service, November 1984.
• Agricultural Cooperation and Rural Credit in Europe, American and United States Commissions, 1913, Senate Document No. 214, 63D Congress.
• Rural Vermont, A Program for the Future, The Vermont Commission on Country Life, 1931
• Agriculture of Vermont, Fifteenth Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1928-1930
• Agriculture of Vermont, Sixteenth Biennial Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1930-1932

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON LAST BLOG POSTING

President Franklin Roosevelt was in office when the first Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in 1933.  It was passed as one of his first 100-day initiatives.

NEXT BLOG POSTING: 

The next blog posting will highlight the reasons why some of the Vermont agricultural leaders over time have pushed for the production and marketing of valued added products as a way to overcome commodity pricing. 

TRIVIA QUESTION:  Who was the Chairperson of the first Board of Agriculture for the State of Vermont?

Edition 9, May 18, 2011