This article is from agricultural history, volume 62, number 2, spring 1988 © agricultural history society

A History of Farmers Institutes

JEFFREY W. MOSS and CYNTHIA B. LASS (MOSS in an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Extension, and International Education at Louisiana State University. LASS is a graduate student in the same department.)

 

The abundant productivity of American agriculture is due to many factors, two of which include a substantial publicly sponsored research program and an effective system of communicating research findings and recommendations to American farmers and ranchers. Government-sponsored research is primarily conducted at the agricultural experiment stations across the United States and the communication of research recommendations is a function of the Cooperative Extension Service. The centennial of the legislation authorizing federal support for agricultural experiment stations, the Hatch Act, occurs this year, 1987. The legislation establishing a national system of extension, the Smith-Lever Act, was passed in 1914.

Most persons assume that the Hatch Act only supported research activities in agriculture, because today that is the primary function of the experiment stations. However, the first clause of the Hatch Act made it an object of the stations to aid in "diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects connected with agriculture."' A review of the early activities of the agricultural experiment stations reveals involvement beyond the conducting of agricultural research. In many experiment stations, attention in terms of both manpower and financial support was directed toward communicating recommended practices to farmers through farmers' institutes.

The holding of meetings similar to farmers' institutes for the purpose of sharing knowledge about agricultural principles and research actually predated the Hatch Experiment Station Act of 1887 by nearly 50 years. One of the most active states in this respect was Massachusetts. "In 1839, there was begun a series of weekly meetings in the hall of the Massachusetts house of representatives for the purpose of discussing agricultural questions. These meetings were inaugurated by the members of the legislature organized as the Legislative Agricultural Society but were open to and participated in by the public. Lectures were given by prominent agriculturists and scientists."2 The meetings were continued until the session of 1867, when the meetings of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture superseded them. As early as 1852, the Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture was obligated to visit various agricultural districts of the state and deliver lectures on the practice and science of agriculture.3

In other states, regular meetings were organized and lectures delivered to farmers. For example, in Connecticut, lectures were organized by Professor John A. Porter of the Sheffield Agricultural School in 1860. The Connecticut State Board of Agriculture held a farmers' convention for lectures and discussions during its first year of establishment in 1866. Elsewhere in the New England states, public farmers' meetings were being held in 1871 and 1872. In the Midwest, Kansas Agricultural College inaugurated a series of institutes in 1872. During the fifteen-year period preceding the passage of the Hatch Act, 1872-1887, the states of Nebraska, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi, Maine, Missouri, Wisconsin, and New York were all conducting farmers' institutes of some type. Thus by 1887, farmers' institutes were established on a more or less permanent basis in numerous states.

The early farmers' institutes were patterned after teachers' institutes and were chiefly organized and promoted by various state agricultural societies. As state boards of agriculture were established, farmers' institutes became a popular activity of those boards. Likewise, farmers' institutes were planned in cooperation with the agricultural colleges. An example of the cooperative arrangement between state boards of agriculture and agricultural colleges is illustrated by legislation authorizing farmers' institutes in the state of Michigan. In 1861, a law was passed authorizing the following: "The state board of agriculture may institute winter courses of lectures for others than students of the institution [agricultural college] under necessary rules and regulations."4 According to L. H. Bailey, writing in 1900, "'This Michigan law possesses unusual interest, for it is probably the first legal authority conferred upon an educational institution in this country to carry instruction to farmers who are not students in the college. And this recalls the fact that the farmers' institute movement is essentially University extension, inasmuch as the greater number of the institutes are held u under the auspices of the agricultural colleges."5

Within the agricultural colleges, the state experiment stations were actively involved in supporting the work of farmers' institutes. For example, in Wisconsin, W. H. Morrison, state superintendent of the institutes, wrote, "Fortunately, our farm institute work is under the auspices of our State University. My office is in the same building with Professor Henry, director of the experiment station, and whatever may come from his experiments that will aid the farmers of the state is taken by our farm institutes and scattered all over the state."6

In some states, farmers' institutes were organized and funded apart from the jurisdiction of the agricultural colleges and experiment stations. Yet, assistance was still sought from station workers in the form of publications and lectures. With the growth of the farmers' institute movement, the demand for services increased beyond the capabilities of the stations to respond and adequately perform their research activities. In the 1901 report of the Office of Experiment Stations, Director A. C. True delineated the problem caused by the demand upon the stations to assist with farmers 'institute activities. "The problem is, . . . how to develop the farmers 'institute involvement in its relation to the stations so as to make the institutes more efficient and, at the same time, to prevent their interfering too much with the duties of station officers as investigators and writers."7 Thus, it appears that the contemporary problem faced by Deans of Colleges of Agriculture and Directors of Experiment Stations with regard to outside demands on faculty members 'time is as old as experiment stations themselves.

The question of the relation of the stations to farmers' institutes demanded increased attention as the United States entered the twentieth century. The federal government began an expanded role during this time due to the recognition of the importance of the farmers' institutes as agencies for the education of farmers. Admittedly, the Department had done little up until 1901 toward helping the institutes directly. The chief service which it had rendered was through the distribution of its publications to institute workers who were thereby enabled to keep in touch with the progress of agriculture. A. C. True, in the 1901 Annual Report of the Office of Experiment Stations wrote that "Following the natural course of such movements in the United States, the farmers' institutes have been developed first through individuals and local organizations and secondly, through the aid of the States, but the time has now come for the nation to do something to promote this great enterprise and the present Secretary of Agriculture is convinced that the national department over which he presides may properly engage in this work and usefully extend its operations in the interests of farmers' institutes."8

The Office of Experiment Stations branch of the Department was charged with the promotion of the interests of farmers' institutes because of the linkage in most states between farmers' institutes and the agricultural colleges and experiment stations. Director True saw five ways that the Department, through his office, could help the institute movement: by collating and publishing information regarding the institute movement at home and abroad; by furnishing the institute workers with the Department publications and information through correspondence; by advising and assisting institute managers with reference to perfecting organization and strengthening the work in weak places; by sending out lecturers to address representative institutes in different states on the work of the Department; and, in general, by acting through its Office of Experiment Stations as a sort of clearing house for the farmers' institute movement as it had done in the case of the agricultural experiment stations.9

The first request for federal support by the United States Department of Agriculture for extending the Department's work in relation to farmers' institutes was made in 1901. A request for $5,000, to be added to the appropriation for the maintenance of the Office of Experiment Stations, was made by the Secretary of Agriculture to employ an "officer who will give his time and energy to promoting the interests of the institutes."10 The 1902 report of the Office of Experiment Stations indicated that "As the matter was finally arranged in the appropriation act, only about $2,000 of the income of this office for the current fiscal year could be used for the promotion of institutes. This sum was entirely inadequate for the work planned but a part of it has been used in publishing the proceedings of the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers (Bulletin 120 of this office) and in gathering statistics of the institute movement."" The remainder of the appropriation was to be used for employing a person to investigate problems of institute management who would be retained as the farmers' institute specialist in the Office of Experiment Stations if Congress provided funds for continuing the work.

In 1902, the United States Department of Agriculture reaffirmed its commitment to supporting farmers' institutes, recognizing that "The colleges, from their very nature, are not capable of indefinite expansion; their influence is necessarily restricted largely to the younger men and women, to those who will be the farmers of the future. To meet the needs of the present for the broad dissemination of reliable agricultural information among practical farmers, no better agency has been found than the farmers' institutes."12

By this time, the number of persons attending farmers' institutes, as reported to the Office of Experiment Stations, had grown to "approximately 819,000, which is eighty times the number of students taking regular courses in agriculture, dairying, veterinary science, and household economy in our land-grant colleges, and nearly twenty times the number enrolled in all departments of those colleges, either in regular or special courses, in collegiate or post-graduate courses." 13

On April 1, 1903, John Hamilton assumed duties as a Farmers' Institute Specialist in the Office of Experiment Stations. This was made possible through a $5,000 appropriation from Congress to the Department of Agriculture. The duties of this office, as stated in the act making the appropriation, were "to investigate and report upon the organization and progress of farmers' institutes in the several states and territories and upon similar organizations in foreign countries, with special suggestions of plans and methods for making such organizations more effective for the dissemination of the results of the work of the Department of Agriculture and the experiment stations, and of improved methods of agricultural practice."14

In compliance with the description of the duties of the farmers' institute specialist set forth by law, it was determined that the role of the specialist would be largely advisory. The specialist was given the responsibility for collecting and reporting information on the condition and progress of the farmers' institute movement. More specifically, requests were sent out to all state directors asking for copies of the laws under which the institutes were organized and how much money was being spent on farmers' institute meetings in each state.15 In general, it was found that there was a lack of uniformity among the states as to organization and level of funding.

This lack of uniformity had been recognized and had been a matter of some concern for several years among those closely involved with the farmers' institute movement through an organization called the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers. This organization made a most significant contribution to the continuance and betterment of the farmers' institute movement.

The American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers was organized nine years after the Hatch Act passed. George McKerrow of Madison, Wisconsin, superintendent of farmers' institutes for that state, issued a call in the winter of 1896 for a meeting of the farmers' institute workers of the United States and Canada to be held in Watertown, Wisconsin, on March 13, 1896. The attendance at the first meeting was quite small, composed mainly of representatives from nearby states. It was agreed to form a permanent organization, and a committee consisting of C. W. Garfield of Michigan, George McKerrow of Wisconsin, and F. W. Taylor of Nebraska was given a charge to prepare a constitution for the organization. Before adjournment of the meeting, the committee proposed a constitution which was discussed and initially adopted with the understanding that ratification would take place at the next meeting of the association. Garfield introduced a resolution which was of special significance because of its pronounced declaration upon the question of the relation of the farmers' institutes to the agricultural college and the experiment station. The resolution adopted by the association read:

The first meeting was adjourned to meet again in Chicago, Illinois, on October 14, 1896. On that date, the association reconvened with 29 persons in attendance. The committee which was formed to draft a constitution and by-laws reported the results from the Watertown, Wisconsin meeting. However, a substitute constitution was read by John Hamilton of Pennsylvania which, after discussion, was adopted.17 Article I of the constitution is of particular interest because it established the name of the association to be, The American Association of Farmers' Institute Managers.

Membership in the association was limited to "one representative for each State or Province in the United States or Canada who shall be in charge of the state or provincial farmers' institute work as its general superintendent, director or manager, or his official representative." 18 Associate members were allowed upon approval of at least two-thirds of the members present at an association meeting. The constitution established an executive committee composed of the officers and three elected members. At this meeting, John Hamilton of Pennsylvania, W. W. Miller of Ohio, and W. C. Latta of Indiana were elected to the executive committee. The meeting was adjourned after agreeing to meet in Columbus, Ohio, in October, 1897.

Significant action taken at the Columbus meeting was the appointment of a committee to look into the cooperation between the institutes and the United States Department of Agriculture. A committee of John Hamilton, W. C. Latta, and F. W. Taylor was appointed to inquire of the Department of Agriculture as to the feasibility of establishing a relation and union. The committee prepared the report which was forwarded to the secretary of the association, but no record is available to indicate that the recommendations were discussed at the next annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, October 4 and 5, 1898. Attendance at the Omaha meeting was quite small (both the president and vice president were absent) and it was thought that the association was too limited in their membership to be of general interest. In 1899, the association changed its name to the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers and continued meeting on an annual basis.19 Interest in farmers' institutes was growing rapidly during this period, as was attendance at the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers' annual meetings.

The lack of sufficient numbers of well-trained farmers' institute lecturers was of particular concern to members of the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers, the United States Department of Agriculture, and state managers of farmers' institutes. In the 1903 report of the Director of the Office of Experiment Stations, support was pledged to improving the situation. "This office, . . . intends to give much attention to whatever concerns the best training of the farmers' institute lecturers. It will also aid the institute managers to secure the best available lecturers in the different branches of agriculture. 1120 One of the first activities towards this goal was for the farmers' institutes to compile and publish a list of lecturers. The first list was published as Circular 51 from the Office of Experiment Stations.

Another activity of the Office of Experiment Stations aimed at increasing the quality of the institute presentations was the development of syllabi for illustrated lectures. Topics included care of milk, potato diseases, acid soils, cattle feeding, and many others. The syllabi contained the subject matter to be presented along with a set of lantern slides to be used with the presentation. Additionally, a special course of study consisting of fourteen lectures on cheese making was prepared by the Office of Experiment Stations. A final activity reported by the Farmers' Institute Specialist in the 1905 Report of the Office of Experiment Stations was the making of arrangements for the agricultural experiment stations to supply station bulletins to the state institute lecturers. A card list of over 4,000 institute workers was maintained in the specialist's office and correspondence conducted with these persons. However, the training of institute workers still remained as a significant problem for conducting quality institutes. One effort towards improving the situation was the development of normal schools for institute workers.

As the number of farmers' institute meetings and the demand for competent lecturers grew, most "state directors of institutes depended upon agricultural colleges and experiment stations for their supply of scientific teachers and upon practical farmers for the discussion of the methods in farm management."21 The demand for college personnel expanded beyond the ability of the colleges to respond and many states had to rely more on lay institute workers. In some states, these workers were given instruction at a normal school. Several obstacles had to be overcome in organizing a class of institute workers for instruction. On a state level, the institute lecture force was comparatively small, making it difficult to organize a class at any one institution to fit the specialties of the institute workers. The agricultural colleges were also limited in their ability to offer instruction in more than a few topics and did not have sufficient staff to devote to making a course for institute workers effective. One remedy proposed was to hold regional schools uniting several states for the purpose of training institute workers. It was recommended by the Farmers' Institute Specialist of the Office of Experiment Stations that the inauguration of such a movement be committed to the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations and the plan be submitted to the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers for approval.

In 1905, several new initiatives regarding farmers' institutes were tried with great success. "Among the new features in institute work reported were the organization of women's clubs and the holding of women's institutes by four states, the equipping of railway cars with corps of lecturers and illustrative material and starting them out as specials.""

The use of trains as a method of delivering institutes to the people grew in popularity from 1907-1911. These trains were equipped with materials to illustrate lectures presented by the institute instructors and were operated at the expense of the railroad companies. Several of the larger railroad lines employed agricultural experts to look after the development of agriculture throughout their territory and to establish demonstration farms. In 1907, only five states ran railroad specials, whereas in 1911, 71 educational trains were run in 28 states. In 1908, the Maryland institute department "purchased a private car with Pullman equipment which was used for short course work in institute schools."23 Students registered in advance for the course of six lectures offered at several locations throughout the state. The schools were conducted for one month on the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad line. "'This is the first instance where a car has been planned, built, and owned by an institute for the sole purpose of giving itinerant instruction and demonstrations. 1124 California introduced demonstration train work in 1909. In 64 days, trains traveled 2,608 miles stopped at 197 places, and enjoyed a total attendance of 37,270 people. The educational value of the demonstration train work in California is illustrated by the farmers' institute superintendent's remarks:

We consider that this train service was of great value from an educational point of view. Through this instrumentality we were able to bring directly to the men most interested tangible illustrations of the results obtained through careful and scientific farming. The exhibits carried in the cars were entirely either the product of the university farm and various substations or materials obtained in our experimental work upon different farms through the State. Its educational value cannot be overestimated. 25

The number of educational trains operated more than doubled between 1910 and 1911. In 1911, 71 educational trains carried 767 lecturers through 28 states. However, in 1912, the use of the trains for institute work decreased to 54 trains in 24 states.

Demonstrations, as a method of instruction, were not only utilized in conjunction with the educational trains but with other types of institutes. The Cooperative Extension Service of today is known for its use of this method; however, demonstrations were documented as part of institute instruction before the advent of the extension service. Success of the demonstration was frequently attested to by comments such as "There can be no more conclusive proof of the value of a method than the results worked out successfully in the presence of those who are incredulous. "26 The demonstration method used by farmers' institutes took on two forms: (1) a demonstration conducted by an institute worker to illustrate a lecture and (2) the demonstration plot and feeding experiment in a local community. At the 1909 convention of the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers, demonstration work was encouraged as a method of instruction. The effectiveness of this method became known, and, in 1912, the Office of Experiment Stations reported that 50 field demonstrations had been conducted by seven expert demonstrators.

Demonstrations and illustrated lectures were often used at special subject institutes. These meetings, centered around one topic, were conducted by an expert in that particular field, and ranged from two to seven days. Because these institutes devoted the entire meeting to one subject, the "whys," "wherefores," and "scientific principles" underlying a topic were thoroughly discussed. Some popular topics included dairying, fruit growing, corn judging, and cattle judging. Four states in 1909 reported conducting special institutes. The institute superintendent of California, when reporting on special institute work, stated "We find that the attendance and interest at these meetings is as great or greater than when the institutes are very general in their characteristic."21 The special institutes were thought to be of greater value in those states where general institutes had been in progress for some time and the farmers were ready for more advanced study.

Another form of institute activity during the early 1900s was movable schools of agriculture. The idea of movable schools was introduced during the 1907 American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers' annual meeting. Association president, E. A. Burnett, made the suggestion as a partial remedy to the problem of acquiring capable institute workers. His contention was that movable schools would provide employment for lecturers throughout the year and therefore attract more qualified individuals. A movable school was defined in the 1908 report of the Office of Experiment Stations as a "systematized method of work applied to agricultural instruction and carried out into the country to classes of farmers organized for study . . . 1118 Instruction was given on one subject and the enrollment was limited to adults who had at least common school training and a minimum of one year's farming experience in the area of instruction. Instruction was provided through lectures and practice work in the laboratory, stable, garden, or field.

The school format of instruction was also incorporated in institute short courses. In 1908, two states reported offering short course work in institute schools. In Colorado, twelve farmers' short courses and three domestic science short courses were held. Four lecturers were present at each domestic science short course and nine to fourteen lecturers were present at the farmers' short course. Since the short courses were heavily attended, the director extended the work for 1909 to 24 farmers' short courses and ten short courses in domestic science. Other activities such as field demonstrations, cooperative experiments with the state agricultural experiment station, dairy schools and farm picnics were being conducted under the management of state farmers' institute managers. One of the most successful of these activities was the holding of institutes for women.

Before 1909, farmers' institutes were conducted primarily for men. Those sessions intended for women were held in connection with the institutes for men. However, in 1909 four states held separate and independent institutes for women with a total of 145 sessions. Institute directors began to appreciate the fact that if institutes for men were valuable, there was no reason why institutes could not be successful for the improvement of women's lives and work.29

The Office of Experiment Stations published a circular outlining methods for organizing and providing support for women's institutes.30 According to the circular, no uniform system had been adopted for the organization of women's institutes. In most states they were operated along the same lines as the institutes for men. The constitution for a county association and one for a state association were provided in the circular as guidelines for organization of women's institutes.31 Suggestions for topics included domestic and sanitary science, household art, labor-saving appliances and conveniences, social enjoyment, and self improvement.

By 1909, forty counties in Nebraska had organized women's institute auxiliaries. Lectures on home conveniences, the handy kitchen, and devices for lightening the work of women were conducted by three female institute speakers. In Pennsylvania, subjects relating to home life, sanitation, and women's work in general were discussed at practically every two-day meeting of the regular farmers' institutes. Although the audiences were composed of both men and women, the general management of these sessions was the responsibility of women. Whenever the opportunity was afforded and proper attention given to the development of the work, women's institutes were organized and widely attended.32

Farmers' institutes for young people became the connecting link between the agricultural club movement in the rural schools and the regular farmers' institutes for adults. These institutes were designed to provide training in agriculture to rural children after leaving school.33 Subjects for instruction included any topic dealing with rural life. The institutes were supposed to teach youth how to make money in agriculture. Therefore, lectures centered around such topics as increasing crop production, restoring worn out soils, preservation of foods, marketing of farm products, and farm record-keeping. Instruction was provided through lectures, demonstrations, contests and discussion sessions.

Since each state had its own form of farmers' institute, no single plan of organization existed for youth institutes. The circular on youth institutes suggested organizing at least three institute meetings a year.34 It was also suggested that every young people's institute organization be provided with a library of references consisting of bulletins, pamphlets and books on agriculture and domestic science.

With the branching of farmers' institute work into many areas such as work with youth and women, the movement continually expanded during the first decade of the twentieth century. "The work of the institutes grew in extent and importance until in the years immediately preceding the passage of the Smith-Lever Extension Act over 7,000 of these meetings were annually held, over 1,000 lecturers were regularly employed, and the aggregate attendance rose to over 3,000,000 people."35

Prior to the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, agricultural extension activities planned specifically by the agricultural colleges were primarily limited to information-giving. As a result, the publishing and distribution of circulars and bulletins reporting the results of research usually only helped educated, well-informed, and progressive farmers. Because the information was not reaching those farmers with the most need, educational extension work was developed.36 In reality, agricultural education extension work had been conducted either independently of the colleges or in cooperation with them through farmers' institutes. This work paved the way and demonstrated the methods to be pursued in an organized educational extension system.

Many of the extension organizations were voluntary, such as clubs, societies and granges. Others were under state auspices, such as farmers' institutes and dairy, poultry, and horticultural associations. In 1907, the Office of Experiment Stations took the stance that colleges should "conduct the more strictly educational form of extension ... 1137 Influenced by this call for agricultural education extension work, the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations changed its constitution in 1909, creating a section on agricultural education extension. This was an important step in the advance of agricultural education because it provided a recognized place in the educational system of instruction by the land-grant colleges.

The relation of farmers' institute work to agricultural extension was also being examined by farmers' institute managers and workers. At the 1908 convention of the American Association of Farmers' Institute Workers, discussion was directed toward defining the status of the farmers' institute in its relation to other forms of agricultural education. "The points brought out were that the farmers' institute occupies the position of field agent for agricultural education; that it provides a most efficient channel for carrying agricultural information directly to the farmer who is unable to leave his occupation to go to school; and that it should broaden its work until it embraces other more advanced forms of educational work and extend its efforts until all rural people have full opportunity to enjoy its benefits."38

Through the use of movable schools, short courses, and railroad specials, institutes provided educational programs. In states where farmers' institutes were directly managed by the agricultural colleges, the institutes were brought into close relation with their other extension work. The relationship with extension allowed the institutes to become more largely demonstrational and educational in nature. Instructional materials were utilized by both institute workers and extension personnel. The department of farmers' institutes in the Office of Experiment Stations conducted research and reported on extension activities and development.

The intermeshing of institute and extension work, along with the passage of the Smith-Lever Act, caused the decline of farmers' institutes. However, farmers' institutes did not lose their identity totally until several years after the creation of the Extension Service in the United States Department of Agriculture.

Even though the farmers' institutes have not been conducted in over fifty years and have been forgotten by some, the impact of this significant movement should not be overlooked. Much of the technology and research resulting in increased productivity of American agriculture in the twentieth century was communicated to American farmers and ranchers through farmers' institutes.

Return to Course Outline. 

Footnotes:

 

1. United States Statutes at Large, 1885-1887, 24:440.

2. A. C. True and F. H. Hall, "Farmers' Institutes," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Experiment Station Record, Volume VII (Washington: GPO, 1897), 636.

3. A. C. True, "A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 15 (Washington: GPO, 1928), 5.

4. Ibid., 14.

5. L. H. Bailey, "Farmers' Institutes: History and Status in the United States and Canada," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 79 (Washington: GPO, 1900), 7.

6. Ibid., 8.

7. A. C. True, "Report of the Office of Experiment Stations," U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1901),24.

8. Ibid., 27-28. 9. Ibid., 28-29.

10. Ibid., 29.

11. D. J. Crosby, "Farmers' Institutes in the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report of Office of Experiment Stations, (Washington: GPO, 1902),461.

12. Ibid., 463.

13. Ibid., 463.

14. John Hamilton, "Farmers' Institutes in the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report of Office of Experiment Stations (Washington: GPO, 1903), 636.

15. The summary of this data was published in Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin 135 entitled "Legislation Relating to Farmers' Institutes in the United States and the Province of Ontario, Canada."

16. John Hamilton, "History of Farmers' Institutes in the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin 174 (Washington: GPO, 1906), 12.

17. Hamilton later became the first Farmers' Institute Specialist in the Office of Experiment

Stations.

18. Hamilton, "History of Farmers' Institutes in the United States."

19. Starting with the sixth annual meeting in Buffalo, New York, the records of the meeting were published by the Office of Experiment Stations as Bulletins.

20. A. C. True, "Report of the Office of Experiment Stations," U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1903), 37.

21. John Hamilton, "Annual Report of Farmers' Institutes, 1904," U.S. Department of Agriculture, GPO 1905 625

22. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1905," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Office of Experiment Stations (Washington: GPO, 1906), 360. 23. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1908," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Office of Experiment Stations (Washington: GPO, 1909), 291. 24. John Hamilton and J. M. Stedman, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1909," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of the Office of Experiment Stations (Washington: GPO, 1910), 332.

25. Ibid., 331.

26. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1908," 301.

27. John Hamilton and J. M. Stedman, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1909,"

332.

28. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1908," 296.

29. John Hamilton and J. M. Stedman, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1909," 336.

30. John Hamilton, "Farmers' Institutes For Women," U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1909).

31. Ibid., 7.

32. John Hamilton, "Farmers' Institutes and Extension Work in the United States, 1911," U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1912), 349.

33. John Hamilton and J. M. Stedman, "Farmers' Institutes For Young People," U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington: GPO, 1910), 7.

34. Ibid., 14.

35. A. C. True, "Report of the Director of the States Relations Service," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Annual Report of States Relations Service (Washington: GPO, 1923), 15.

36. John Hamilton and J. M. Stedman, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1909." 37. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1907," 313.

38. John Hamilton, "The Farmers' Institutes in the United States, 1908." 293.

Return to Course Outline.