Farmers' Institutes have been held by the Department of Agriculture in sixty counties of the State during 1904. This is probably twice the number held during any other year. On the whole these institutes have been fairly well attended. In fact, in most of those counties where institutes were held last year the attendance, and interest manifested this year have been very encouraging for the future success of the work. Of the sixty institutes held, five may be classed as having been very satisfactory, giving an average attendance for each institute of 379 farmers, and showing by the part taken in the discussions, a lively interest on the part of those present. These institutes were held in Cabarrus, Cleveland, Mecklenburg, Stanly and Union counties. In 11 other counties, Beaufort, Davie, Gaston, Gates, Iredell, Montgomery, Northampton, Perquimans, Pitt, Warren and Washington, satisfactory institutes were held, the average attendance being 217 farmers at each. A third group, consisting of the 23 counties, Alamance, Alexander, Ashe, Bertie, Burke, Caldwell, Chatham, Clay, Edgecombe, Forsyth,, Franklin, Granville, Hertford, Uncoln, Madison, Moore, Pasquotank, Polk, Randolph, Rowan, Rutherford, Watauga and Yancey, gave tolerably satisfactory institutes, with an average attendance of 133 farmers at each.

For various reasons, the institutes held in the following counties were not as well attended as they should have been, and in some, of them a lack of interest was only too apparent: Allegheny, Camden Catawba, Cherokee, Chowan, Currituck, Davidson, Graham, Guilford, Haywood, Jackson, McDowell Macon, Person, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, Swain, Vance and Wilkes. It is only fair to state that while we have classed the institutes held in Hertford, Pasquotank and Lincoln counties as only tolerably satisfactory and those in Currituck and Camden as unsatisfactory, this was not due to any apparent lack, of interest, but to extremely unfavorable weather conditions. Moreover, in many of those counties where the institutes proved unsatisfactory from lack of attendance and interest, institutes, had never been held before, or, at least, not recently.

Notwithstanding that the Farmer's Institute is an established educational institution in nearly every State in the Union, and is of twenty years' standing, there are still large numbers of North Carolina farmers apparently unfamiliar with its objects or purposes. It will, therefore, not be amiss to, again state what we regard as some of the chief aims of the Farmer's Institute. Many seem to think the object, of a Farmer's Institute is to lay down set rules by which farmers should run their farms. Or, as it is frequently expressed, to "tell them how to run their farms." It is not surprising that farmers have little confidence in the ability of any man to tell them how to run their farms, but it is strange, beyond ordinary understanding, that they should think institute workers suppose they can do any such thing. Institute workers are usually men of common sense, that know the man living on a farm ought, to and usually does know more about the conditions involved in the running of that farm than any other person. If he does not know how to run it no one can tell him how. However, this is no reason why a greater knowledge of farming operations will not be advantageous to the man who must manage any farm. Nor does it offer any reason why the institute worker may not be able to give the farmers facts which they can carry home and apply in their business. The farmer must usually spread his energies over the entire field of farming. This is a larger field than any human mind can cover; for it involves a knowledge of chemistry, if he is to understand his soils and the use of fertilizers; of botany, if be is to know how plants feed and grow; of entomology, if he is to know how to combat the insect. and other pests which attack his crops; and of the breeding, feeding and care of animals, if he is to get the most out of his feed and prevent disease among his live stock.

The institute worker usually is a man who devotes his entire attention to one of these single lines of work, or a small part of it, and therefore, it would be inferred that possibly, yes,. probably, he may find out some facts in his particular field, of value to the farmers which they have not been able to learn, because they are, as previously stated, compelled to spread their efforts over a larger field.

But right here is involved a difficulty which it is bard to overcome. The farmer lacks confidence in the information brought to him by any man who does not dissipate his energies over the whole field of farming, just as he is compelled to do. He calls the experimenters, or specialists, "book farmers" and experimental evidence "theory."

Let us use just one illustration which may serve to give us a new and, I hope a correct, idea of what constitutes the "practical" and. the theoretical information. We desire information regarding the value of a certain food for the production of butter. There are two classes of men, to either of which we may go for our information. Let us describe the manner in which these two classes of men have obtained their information, and then we may, perhaps, be able to decide which can give us the best practical information. One has fed his herd of dairy cows for years, but he never weighs the feed. He guesses at the amount of food consumed by the herd and by each cow, but may know that one cow will eat a half more food than another to produce the same amount of butter fat. He never weighs the milk, nor does he test it to accurately ascertain the amount of butterfat which it contains, although he probably knows that two quarts of one cow's milk are worth three of another. He did not weigh the cow when he began feeding, nor when he closed the, trial of this food - hence, he does not know whether she gained or lost, except as he is able to guess. He did not weigh the food nor the butter produced; hence, be does not know the cost, of producing a pound of butter, and therefore can't know the value of the food given, except as he is able to estimate it.

The other man to whom we may go for information has used the scales instead of guessing. He weighs the food each cow receives and the milk she produces. He tests the milk, and knows how much butterfat is produced by every pound of food consumed. He weighs his cows when be begins and when he finishes the test. He repeats these tests numerous times and with a large number of cows, but he guesses at nothing. He uses the scales so freely and regularly that his operations may prove unprofitable financially, because of the extra work and time consumed, but shall we go to him for the information we need, or to the man who "guesses"? Which is the practical and which the theoretical man; the one, who guesses or the one, who. weighs? I believe the man who takes things for granted or guesses at the results of his operations is the "theoretical" man, and the one who takes the pains to know his results are accurate is the practical one; and for my information I shall go to the man who can give me definite practical information, even if the extra, work which be did to obtain that definite information made his operations financially unprofitable.

One object of the Farmer's Institute is to carry just such definite information to the farm. Is knowledge any less valuable to the farmer than to the doctor or lawyer? To obtain definite information of the sort described, the State is maintaining three Test Farms for the testing of the different amounts. and kinds of fertilizers different varieties of corn, cotton and other crops, different methods of cultivation, etc. To carry this information, to the farmers of the State is one of the objects of the Farmer's Institute. To give the farmers of this State the results of the experimental work done in other States is another object of the Farmer's Institute. To bring farmers together, that they may discuss their business, is another and a most important object of the Farmer's Institute. In North Carolina this phase of the institute has not received proper attention. This will undoubtedly continue until the Farmer's Institute meetings have become a regular feature of the farmer's methods of education and progress. This aim can only be, attained through local or county Farmers' Institute organizations.

As a nucleus or start for permanent local organizations that will finally take charge of the arrangements for the institute and push the work to the point of making it of popular interest, a successful effort has been made to organize a committee of active farmers in most of the counties where institutes have been held this year. One active man was selected by those at the institute from each township in the county, and a chairman chosen from among their number. When the people of any of these counties again desire an institute (and they should have at least one each year), it will be much easier for this committee by conferring With the Director of Farmers' Institutes of the Department of Agriculture to arrange 9, suitable date, choose appropriate subjects for discussion, select speakers and distribute advertising matter than by the method heretofore used.

Taken from The Bulletin of the North Carolina State Board of Agriculture, Vol. 25, No. 10. October, 1904.