UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU E. D. TETREAU BULLETIN 563 November, 1933 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA CONTENTS PAGE Summary, conclusions, and recommendations . 3 Reason and purpose of the study and sources of data 5 Agricultural California 7 The development of the California farm bureau 8 Comparison of members and nonmembers of farmers' general-purpose organi- zations 22 Structural organization of the California farm bureau 36 Activities other than commercial 41 Objectives and functions 41 Service departments 42 Commodity departments 48 Commercial activities of the California farm bureau 51 Marketing and purchasing activities of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion 51 Marketing and purchasing activities of the county farm bureaus .... 54 Experience of selected marketing and purchasing associations .... 60 Trade discounts and rebates 68 Insurance 74 Evaluation of farm-bureau objectives and activities 78 Membership views on farm-bureau functions 85 Acknowledgments 88 THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU 1 - 2 E. D. TETEEAIP- 4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The farm bureau was developed in California to provide a channel through which the Agricultural Extension Service could more readily reach farm communities in its educational work. The first county farm bureau was organized in Humboldt County in 1914. By 1919 there were no less than 35 county farm bureaus ; in 1932 there were 41. The com- bined membership of all the county farm bureaus amounted to 24,168 in the fiscal year 1919-20 and 23,796 in 1931-32. The California Farm Bu- reau Federation was organized in 1919 to make possible unified action by the county farm bureaus on state-wide and nation-wide problems affecting agriculture. The structure of the farm bureau in California was planned to afford farmers an effective vehicle for self -protection, self -representation, and self-development. The farm family and rural community were of more importance in the determination of the structure than any one farm commodity or economic function. The main objectives of the farm bu- reau have been the development of farm people and the promotion of their welfare. These objectives have been supplemented by contributing objectives which have been within the reach of practical achievement. The Federation operates several service departments and a number of commodity departments, which are integrated with and work with simi- lar departments in many of the county farm bureaus. These depart- ments have functioned successfully and have contributed to the broad objectives of the farm bureau. Both the Federation and many county farm bureaus have also engaged in various commercial activities. These activities have included the operation of marketing and purchasing associations, the negotiation of trade discounts and rebates on behalf of i Eeceived for publication April 19, 1933. 2 Paper No. 44. The Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics. 3 Associate Professor in the Department of Eural Economics, Ohio State Univer- sity; Associate on the Giannini Foundation November 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932, while on leave of absence from Ohio State University. 4 Special acknowledgment is due to J. M. Tinley for his services in editing and pre- paring the manuscript for publication after the author had returned to Ohio. [3] 4 University of California — Experiment Station members with local dealers, the negotiation of group insurance rates with insurance companies, and the rendering of assistance to members in the formation and improvement of cooperative associations. Commercial activities have been undertaken partly as a means of ren- dering a wider range of service to members, partly as a means of main- taining membership, and in a few cases as a means of obtaining addi- tional membership. The experience of the farm bureau in California in some of its commercial undertakings has not proved satisfactory. In many of the counties the failure of marketing or purchasing associa- tions or departments resulted in severe financial loss to members. The county farm bureau was in many instances held to blame for the failure of these associations. The outcome was a marked decline in membership, which in a few counties eventually led to the discontinuance of the county farm bureau. In a number of counties the operation of purchas- ing associations was successful, but some of these associations after a while severed their connection with the farm bureau. As many of the members were mainly interested in the operations of the purchasing association they also withdrew from the county farm bureau. The Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation itself organized a subsidiary market- ing association which operated for a number of years and also acted for some time as state agent of a mutual automobile insurance company. Its experience in commercial operations proved no more satisfactory than that of county farm bureaus. There seems to be an inherent danger in the engaging of a general- purpose farmers' organization in collective selling and purchasing op- erations ; namely, that officials may devote too much attention to these activities and neglect other and more fundamental activities. All gen- eral-purpose farmers' organizations are continually faced with the prob- lem of providing for and carrying on vigorously a wide range of activi- ties demanded by members and at the same time of devoting to each activity no more time than is justified by the contribution of that activ- ity to the wider and more fundamental objectives of the organization. The greatest stimulus to provide a wide and well-balanced range of activities is present when the organization is financially dependent upon dues periodically subscribed by members. If the organization has some outside source of revenue in place of or in addition to membership dues, the urge to obtain the support of members through useful service is lessened. If commercial activities are to be undertaken by the California farm bureau it would appear to be justified in undertaking only such activi- ties as will not require a disproportionate amount of time by officials, will not involve the county farm bureaus or the Federation in financial Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 5 obligations, and will result in direct savings to members of the farm bureau as such. With certain qualifications the negotiation of trade dis- counts and rebates and specially favorable insurance rates on behalf of members would come in this category. Assistance to cooperative associa- tions and to members in the formation and strengthening of cooperative associations and general educational work in connection with the mar- keting of farm products and the purchase of farm supplies are activities which are in harmony with the broader objectives of the organization. It appears especially desirable that the farm bureau should not under- take any commercial activities which may bring it into competition with the cooperative associations which are in operation in nearly every important agricultural county in California. It is recommended that the farm bureau confine its commercial activi- ties as far as practicable within the limits outlined above and at the same time use every effort to work out with existing cooperative or- ganizations improvements in the methods of purchasing of farm sup- plies and of marketing farm products. REASON AND PURPOSE OP THE STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA Ever since it was organized the California Farm Bureau Federation has been interested in the cooperative marketing of farm products and the collective purchasing of farm supplies. During the past two years interest in the possibilities of the farm bureau's undertaking the collec- tive purchase of farm supplies has been revived by the activities in this field of several general-purpose farmers' organizations in eastern states. It was deemed advisable, however, before the California farm bureau took any definite action in the matter, that a comprehensive survey be made of the problems, difficulties, and benefits of collective purchasing and especially of the relation of commercial activities 5 to the other func- tions and objectives of the farm bureau. As a result the Board of Di- rectors of the California Farm Bureau Federation requested the Gian- nini Foundation of Agricultural Economics in the summer of 1931 to make a study of collective purchasing. In November of that year two re- lated projects were begun. The one had to do with the objectives and activities of the farm bureau, with special attention to its commercial s The term "commercial activity" refers principally to the operation of associa- tions by the various farm bureaus, either directly or through the use of subsidiary forms of organization, for the purpose of marketing farm products or purchasing farm supplies or both marketing and purchasing. It also applies to such activities as selling automobile insurance, arranging special terms for workmen's compensation insurance, securing trade discounts with local merchants and dealers for farm-bureau members, and operating marketing and purchasing departments. 6 University of California — Experiment Station activities; the other was to deal more strictly with the economic phases of cooperative purchasing. This bulletin presents the information collected in the first-named investigation. The purpose of this investigation was to define the objectives of the farm bureau, to describe its activities, and to show the relation between the various activities of the farm bureau and the attainment of its ob- jectives. Considerable space is herein devoted to a description of the commercial activities of the farm bureau. Appraisals are made of the contributions of these commercial activities to the attainment of the farm bureau's objectives. The records of the California Farm Bureau Federation, particularly the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings, of activity confer- ences, and of annual meetings, were important sources as to both the ob- jectives and the activities of the farm bureau. The files of the Extension Service of the College of Agriculture furnished statistical and historical data concerning membership in the county farm bureaus, attendance at local meetings, and some of the earlier marketing and purchasing asso- ciations of the county farm bureaus. A questionnaire directed to the va- rious county farm bureaus of the state was employed to gather informa- tion about marketing and purchasing associations and trade-discount arrangements with local merchants and dealers. Information was sup- plied by farm advisors and farm-bureau secretaries and officers. The per- sonnel of the California Farm Bureau Federation, of the Extension Service of the College of Agriculture, and of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, offered valuable (unrecorded) sources of infor- mation. The writer, assisted by several graduate students in agricultural economics 6 visited and interviewed over 400 farmers in different parts of the state. During these interviews answers were obtained to a number of specific questions set forth in the form of a questionnaire. The informa- tion so obtained furnished a basis for a comparison of members and non- members of general farmers' organizations such as the farm bureau, the grange (Patrons of Husbandry), and the Farmers' Union in regard to size of farm enterprise, methods of marketing products, methods of pur- chasing supplies, experience in cooperative associations, number of or- ganizational affiliations, and opinions regarding the functions of the Farm Bureau. s The field assistants were: Ogden King, G. P. Barber, S. G. Sparks, and B. F. Lu- cas. Professor A. E. Anderson of Brookings, South Dakota, on leave of absence to attend the University of California, spent three days in the field. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau AGRICULTURAL CALIFORNIA The state of California contains nearly 100,000,000 acres, of which some 30,400,000 acres, or 30.4 per cent, are in farms. Crop land in 1929 constituted about one-third of the acreage in farms. The most important farming regions 7 are those of the great interior valley watered by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, the coast valleys, and the valleys and plains south of the Tehachapi Mountains. The mountain regions are given over almost entirely to livestock production. (See fig. 1.) The wide range in soils and climatic conditions makes possible the production of a wide range of agricultural products. It is estimated that about 180 different marketable products are grown in California. Some of the most important of these are oranges, lemons, avocados, grapes, apricots, pears, peaches, melons, dairy products, beef, sheep, poultry, alfalfa, grain, and a wide variety of vegetables. Much of the production of agricultural commodities is specialized, farmers concentrating on the production of only one product or one or more complementary products, such as alfalfa and dairy products. Only about one-tenth of the population of California is on farms. 8 There is a wide range in the proportion of farm to total population in different sections of the state. In the great interior valleys from 25 to 35 per cent of the population is on farms, whereas in the San Francisco Bay region (usually named the Bay region) and the south coast region the proportions are 5 and 3 per cent respectively. During the years 1900 to 1930 the farm population of California more than doubled. During the same period, however, the total population of the state nearly quad- rupled. While over 80 per cent of the farm population of California is white, nearly 16 per cent belongs to other than the white and Negro races. Orientals constitute a large part of this classification. California's farm population contains a larger proportion of Orientals than any other state in the Union. Negroes form a very small proportion of the total population. 7 For convenience in the study of individual farm families, four of the most impor- tant agricultural regions in California are here designated as the south coast, the San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Valley, and the Bay region. The south coast includes Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura counties ; the San Joaquin Valley in- cludes Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties; the Sacramento Valley includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba counties; and the Bay region includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties (fig. 1). s United States Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Population. Vol. 3(1) : 251-258. 1932. 8 University of California — Experiment Station A large number of cooperative marketing associations have been or- ganized to handle the products of their members in local and distant markets. Many of these associations handle millions of dollars worth of products annually. Some of them in turn have set up purchasing depart- ments or subsidiaries which handle packing materials, spray materials, fertilizers, poultry and dairy feeds, and other supplies. In 1930 there were about 550 of these farmers' business associations in California, with a total of some 100,000 members. The number of associations and the membership constituted less than 5 per cent respectively of the to- tals for the United States. The volume of business done by California associations, however, amounted to about 10 per cent of the volume of business done by all cooperative associations in the United States. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU The Farm Bureau and the Agricultural Extension Service. — About 1913 an agricultural extension division was created in the College of Agriculture, University of California at Berkeley. The functions of this division were to be and still are of a purely educational nature, to ex- tend to farmers the knowledge which agricultural colleges, experiment stations, and the United States Department of Agriculture have gained through the research work of numerous investigators in different fields. It was felt that the work of the Agricultural Extension Service among farmers would be facilitated if it operated with and through local farm- ers' organizations in each county. As there were no suitable organiza- tions in existence at the time, it was decided to promote the formation of county farm bureaus as had been done in several other states. It was the definite intention of the sponsors of the farm-bureau movement that the functions of the county organizations would be purely educational — the channels through which county farm advisors 9 and the extension specialists would work in reaching individual farm operators and their families. The appointment of a farm advisor to any county was made contingent upon the formation of a county farm bureau with at least 20 per cent of the farmers in that county as members. Thus while local county farm bureaus and the Agricultural Extension Service were since the beginning separate and distinct organizations, there was a very close working arrangement between them. After several years, however, the county farm bureaus began to extend their functions beyond the field of education. It was felt that they could serve their 9 The county agricultural extension agent or "county agent" is known in Califor- nia as the "farm advisor." This term instead of "county agent" is used throughout in this bulletin. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 9 members to greater advantage by interesting themselves and represent- ing their members in such matters as cooperative marketing of farm products, purchasing of farm supplies, legislative work affecting agri- culture, irrigation and drainage projects, and power rates. Such work was undertaken by the county farm bureaus as separate organizations. The Agricultural Extension Service has never associated itself with the farm-bureau organizations in any activities not of a purely educational nature. The original relation between the farm bureau and the Agri- cultural Extension Service in the field of education has, however, con- tinued uninterruptedly up to the present time. In the fiscal year 1931-32 there were farm advisors in every county in California which had a county farm bureau with the exception of Nevada and Placer counties. Humboldt County, in which the county farm bureau was discontinued in 1929, still had a farm advisor whose services were also made available by special arrangement to farmers in Del Norte County. In many counties there are in addition to the farm advisor one or more assistant county farm advisors and a home demon- stration agent. All these officers are the county representatives of the Agricultural Extension Service. They are public officials employed and paid jointly by the University of California and the United States De- partment of Agriculture. The county farm advisors and home-demon- stration agents cooperate very closely with the officials of the county farm bureau in planning and carrying out their educational work among the farmers of the county. 10 Development of County Farm Bureaus. — The first county farm bu- reau was organized in Humboldt County in the summer of 1913. 11 There was a steady increase in numbers up to 1916-17, when there were 17 county farm bureaus (table 1). The next year the number almost dou- bled. Two more were formed in 1918-19. It was estimated that in 1919 farm bureaus had been formed and farm advisors appointed in coun- ties embracing 85 per cent of the farmers in California. 12 Since 1918-19 only 9 more county farm bureaus have been formed. Three county farm bureaus (Inyo, Glenn, and Humboldt) have been discontinued. Shasta County farm bureau, which was discontinued in 1925-26, was started again in 1929-30. In 1931-32 there were 41 counties with farm bureaus, io The farm advisors in each county are required to furnish statements annually to the Director of the Agricultural Extension Service on the activities of their offices during the previous year. These statements furnished much of the information used in preparing this manuscript. ii This was the first county farm bureau west of the Eocky Mountains as well as the first in California. 12 Crocheron, B. H. The function of the farm bureau. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 209:3. 1919. 10 University of California — Experiment Station 17 counties 13 without farm bureaus (fig. 1). Most of the latter were sit- uated either in mountainous or desert country or in counties which are largely urban and suburban (San Francisco, San Mateo), in either event counties with very small farm populations. TABLE 1 Number of County Farm Bureaus in California, 1913-14 to 1931-32 Fiscal year Number of county farm bureaus County farm bureaus organized during year County farm bureaus discontinued during year Number Name Number Name 1913-14 4 9 11 16 31 32 32 34 39 41 42 43 42 42 41 40 42 41 41 4 5 2 5 15 1 2 5 2 1 2 Humboldt, Yolo, San Joaquin, San Diego Napa, Solano, Glenn, Alameda, Madera Stanislaus, Placer .'. Sacramento, Nevada, Merced, Riverside, Imperial Shasta, El Dorado, Sonoma, Sutter, Yuba, Mendocino, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino.. Tehama 1 1 1 1 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 1921-22 Kern, San Luis Obispo, Butte, Marin, 1922-23 Lassen, Inyo Colusa Lake 1923-24 1924-25 1925-26 1926-27 1927-28 Inyo 1928-29 1929-30 Shasta, Modoc 1930-31 1931-32 Sources of data: Records of the Agricultural Extension Division, College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley; and the California Farm BureauFederation. California Farm Bureau Federation. — As the county farm bureaus grew in number and the scope of their activities increased, it became apparent that a number of problems concerning the well-being of farm- ers were state-wide and even nation-wide in scope, and that effective and concerted action on such matters could not be taken while each county farm bureau operated independently of the others. The Agricultural Extension Service was a state-wide organization connected somewhat loosely with the extension services of other states through the United States Department of Agriculture. 13 Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, Trinity, Plumas, Glenn, Sierra, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Mono, Inyo, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. b ul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 11 In 1919 delegates from 28 county farm bureaus met in Berkeley, in response to a call from the Director of Agricultural Extension, to form a state-wide farm-bureau organization, which adopted the name of the California Farm Bureau Federation. The views of the delegates as to the need for and interests of the California Farm Bureau Federation were summed up in a series of fourteen points which emphasized the need for united action on certain matters by county farm bureaus, for a federation of state farm bureaus, increased production, cooperative marketing, cooperation with other farmers' organizations, education, and the development of rural community life. Ten committees were ap- pointed at the meeting representing livestock, grain, citrus and decid- uous-fruit growers, education, legislation, cooperation, community im- provement, marketing, irrigation, and drainage. 14 Farm-Bureau Membership 1918-1931. — The most complete record on the membership of county farm bureaus is that available in the files of the office of the Director of Agricultural Extension, College of Agri- culture, Berkeley (table 2, col. 1). These records, compiled annually by the county farm advisors, show a steady increase in membership of county farm bureaus up to the fiscal year 1922-23, when the combined membership reached 27,398. The following year there was a decline in membership of over 4,500. Since 1923-24 membership has fluctuated between 22,800 and 25,000, although during the past two years (1930- 31 and 1931-32) there has been a tendency for membership to decline. Since 1919 when the California Farm Bureau Federation was organ- ized, that body has compiled data annually on membership of county farm bureaus. The figures of the California Farm Bureau Federation (table 2, col. 2) are usually lower than those compiled in the office of the Director of Agricultural Extension, because the latter figures are based upon county membership dues paid, whereas the figures of the California Farm Bureau Federation are based on state and national dues paid. Several of the counties do not pay to the California Farm Bureau Federation state and national dues for all their members. The California Farm Bureau Federation is making special efforts to collect dues for all members registered with county farm bureaus. Regional and County Distribution of Farm-Bureau Membership, 1931. — The San Joaquin Valley region had more county-farm-bureau members (based on payment of state dues) than any of the other three major regions (table 3 and fig. 1). This might be expected since the San Joaquin Valley region contains more farmers than any of the other re- gions. Next in order of number of county-farm-bureau members come 14 Minutes of organization meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federation, October 22 and 23, 1919. 12 University of California — Experiment Station the south coast region, the Sacramento region, and the Bay region. How- ever, when compared as to the percentages which farm-bureau members were of the numbers of farmers (1930), the counties of the Sacramento Valley led, in 1931, the counties of the south coast took second place, and the counties of the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay region occupied third and fourth places respectively. TABLE 2 Number of Farm-Bureau Members in California, 1917-18 to 1931-32 Fiscal year ending November 30 Number as reported by county farm advisors Number as reflected by payment of state dues Difference 1 2 3 1917-18* 19,020 20,389 24,168 26,534 t 27,398 22,803 23,155 23,367 23,303 23,886 22,880 24,910 23,551 23,796 t t 10,794 17,712 23,774 26,041 20,953 20,267 19,958 19,431 20,507 18,979 20,421 21,025 20,616 1918-19 1919-20 13,374 1920-21 8,822 1921-22 1922-23 1,357 1923-24 1,850 1924-25 2,888 1925-26 3,409 1926-27 3,872 1927-28 3,379 1928-29 3,901 1929-30 4,489 1930-31 2,880 1931-32 3,180 * Earlier years not available . t The state Federation was not formed until 1919. X Not available. Sources of data: Col. 1: Records in Office of Director of Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, University of California, Berkeley. Col. 2: Annual Report of the Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federation for the year ending October 31, 1932. Col. 3: Col. 1-col. 2. County-farm-bureau memberships ranged, in November, 1931, from 50 in Shasta County to 2,331 in San Joaquin County, while the average for the 41 counties was 512.8 members. Four counties with a member- ship of 1,000 or more per county had together 6,656 members, or 31.6 per cent of the entire membership for the state. These counties were Los Angeles, Orange, San Joaquin, and Tulare.- Los Angeles and Orange counties are in the south coast region, while San Joaquin and Tulare counties are in the San Joaquin Valley. Eleven counties with a member- ship of 500 to 999 per county contained a total of 7,418 members, or 35.3 per cent of the state's total. Of these, Butte, Sutter, and Yolo coun- ties are in the Sacramento Valley; Fresno and Stanislaus in the San Bul. 563' The California Farm Bureau 13 Joaquin Valley ; Sonoma in the Bay region ; and Ventura in the south coast region. The other four of these eleven counties were Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara. The first two are in- land counties in southern California and the last two are coast counties SACRAMENTO VALLEY REGION BAY REGION SOUTH COASTAL REGION COUNTIES WITH ^ 1000 OR MORE MEMBERS 500 TO 999 I TO 499 " WITHOUT A FARM BUREAU Fig. 1. — Distribution of county farm bureaus in California. Forty-one counties have county farm bureaus. Boundaries of the major agricultural regions in Califor- nia are indicated by heavy black lines. located north of the south coast region. The remaining 26 county-farm- bureau counties with less than 500 members per county had a combined total of 6,952 members, or 33.1 per cent of all the members. These coun- ties were to be found in all regions of the state (table 3 and fig. 1 ) . 14 University of California— Experiment Station 00 pq M a w O (TO w I A o P3 rH 02 O <5 EH 3 O | " & Oi rt on" H o s r- M N N N 00 © OS OS CM CO CM I-- IO CM © OS is is CO O CM CO CO Tfl f n ocNos MNOooraraooicii O OS O CO H rt CI us >o o r- o CM rH © CO N CO N CM O CO »-H rt -Hf~»H©©cOiOCOOO©© CO !D N r- I © 00 IO IO r- IOSCO ■^COOOOi-lcDOOOOiOCOCO to 00 •* »o co oo — < -H CO iO © CO CM "* o © •«*< co r— OS OS t— HIOOIOCON^ONMINIO g a s IO CO IO to IO OO IO w CO (^ CO O 00 O0 IO H 00 N IN co n h h m io N CO N ■* CO IN IO ■»»< >o O t^ CO t^ OS CO o O OS os CO O ■>*< O O 00 OS CO uo OS >o © CO >— I i- 1 IO —I i-H CO "H O O CM © ■*i CO 00 CM O CO t>. OiOCOCOCMCOCOTfrtOS-^lO CO •<*<" -h ,-h" rH co" CO "^ ^ <-H 00 00 CO t-- o o 00 CO ^i CD O H y- 1 CO O © "0 co" CM iH T* H N ^1 N Til O —I O CO OS IO •* CO O OS CO O CO •"*! IO IO iO CM CO os co co io m t~ T-l CM IO CO N N N N IO CO IO co co O co co O CO Ttl i-l •** iO "0 1-- CO N « N IO fll N CO O CO Tf< t^ o CO CO CM CM »"H a s i J 1 ■§ » B g h-1 O 02 > cX> c 2 a J -2 -Q O 3 Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 15 C3 0> 00 i 3 oo ea a C OCOcM'^OOt^OSOOCOOCOOCOinin'tf'OOiOOininincOcOCN'*- Far bur emb erce f far 0*05NNT|(OT|loid' HO'«t | -*05CMascO0000C0l>-*00CN o Cn" CM r- " co" CD o CO i- Tjf ^> CO CN CO 1 ! HCOTliOl^iOOOOiO O :00-<*i(--coos'- t^ r- ■1 OS 00 O CC 00 11 CO — CO OO 0O CD r- < m oo co cOHONoooomNcDn-- h CM C >r CO i- < W W N * CO CM CM ^tl I- OO CO lO 00 CO CO CM o ii M IN OO * U) - < 00 CO io : cm o -^ < ^ f ■ 0O N OS Ol O0 O •■ < o CM .-H CO C> ■i Oi t^ r^ t^ t>. •^OcOI^OOcOOOOt- 1 CO CO r- H CO CO ^ CN CO CO 00 UO ** CO CM »C CM IN 00 N U3 N U3 ij CO 00 "■ ccT UB "* il COOCOOOOmt-^COOO*- iO : oo us cC 5 : co co i- ■1 O CO >0 OS OS y- IO co <- : CM CO Tji IO CM IO r- H Ttl -«< c: as <- t CO CO c CO ^H 1C < CM -*< o m as o r- < as co r^ "" O : OS OS r- H : t^ r- I lONOONNMO CM ^h o O CM f i co co i- 1 "0 cr- o 5 CM OS O0 i- -i io r^ O c CO -«ti CO OO CM CO co N if S f CM i- < CO CO CO -«f i- H IO CO o o ~ CM *>■ m il io ^ m oo n t- ■* as if a OS i— 1 lO CO o i : no co i> • 00 l- ■( t^. IO O co CO H 00 N «3 O) CS os io m t^ ot ) : Tti if CO N U5 * * O ■* ©, *1 CO CO CM 0O t~- CO CM CO -d < : CM i- CO -M < CO ■**< CM CO -^ CM CO ~ CM in 1 "* ■fi "0 <- 00 00 CO OS 00 t- -t CO CO CO 00 c > : ^ n w co - ■1 CO lO IO CO CM co co CO CO O" oo co a CO O CM U0 it- :coCM(Mior^co : -^ r- kiO -^ CM -<1 < CO ■* U5 in ~ ~ "* "* 4.^ m -tf CO t~ 00 CM as CM CC OS CO O IO Cv : •* s <* ro ai >- < co co as co CO oo o» <- N N OO O) LC5 C -t t^ CM CO co C :0030000CMCO 95 CO CM OS i-H CM "^ ■"f ■* CO * CN ■V) t— " CN lO "* il OO O l~- t~- Tt CO •«*< i— I -<*< CC no co io ir :»CONNNC0O10SNIN as NOHCOtOntO^NtC CM f~ O co o m t^ a s co m ©; CO «t CM CM CO OS t~- i- CO ^H CM 5 [ CM r- U5 CO * CO r CO K) ■* 00 as " C c ec co co m CM : oo cm t» p O0 CM 00 ■<*< t- c CO CO O c- o «- C<" t>- m ■* CO : io cc u t> M 00 CO i- CO CC oo "~1 ""* ir CM •** cc OS t^ CN c t>- c- : t^. ^ CO -^< i- io ir Tf C30 us CM CO CO CO . <-H OC 1 c a CO oc : t^ : u- tC K c^ c s s CO in il as r- 1- o lO U" «c « : O <- c zr g a t>._ in ■>* lO «- CO CO : (M w >i oc CN CC fl 00 in ~ CM lO in 2° ^2 00 CM Q co sc OS c 8 : cm : c cr 'C t^ Ifl CO cr I- oc >-l CC t> CO CC cC ©* O »H • C CO ri CM U! CM ■ ^ I- CO C30 CO ~ CO CO >> o a 01 3 8 a c p s ■J ' 2 X £ 3 o w u a> a 0> M 03 T3 T IE e e 3 8 a s 3 G cS a .2 'Si c .c 1 a t- > '1 cr c 1 p 1 g c e l 8 CC £ x 1 — c c t c p I "? T a c a (-2 J- c p "« c 1 : ; > g! -d p o c s 1 t- t 2 a X a > c "p a p s •/ E a PC p K •/- c 'I p c- a c- p R a c c r CC 5 a -c; X PQ < 01 > ^ fc! ® 0> 4) 03 o . I 3 ill ^iS S £ « 03 ^_ O ^ M S 8 g * »h OS 16 University of California — Experiment Station Farm-Bureau Members and Numbers of Farmers. — In 1931 almost 90 per cent of the farmers in California were in counties that had county farm bureaus. The 17 counties that had no farm bureaus contained 14,341 farmers (1930), over 6,000 of whom were in Santa Clara County. 15 The 4, 11, and 26 counties which had 1,000 members and over, 500-999 members, and under 500, respectively, have been classified ac- cording to the percentage that farm-bureau members were of the num- ber of farmers (1930 Census), as well as according to numbers of farm- bureau members. Two of the four large-membership counties had farm- bureau members equal to 20 per cent or more of their numbers of farm- ers and the remaining two were above 10 per cent. Six of the 11 middle- membership counties fell below 20 per cent, with 3 under 10 per cent. Sixteen of the 26 small-membership counties had farm-bureau mem- bers representing less than 20 per cent of the numbers of farmers. In general, as the sizes of the farm bureaus decreased, their proportional strength when compared with the numbers of farmers also decreased (table 4). TABLE 4 Comparison of County Farm Bureaus Based on Number of Members and Proportion of Farmers Who Are Members (Fiscal year ending November 30, 1931) Farm-bureau members as per cent of farmers in counties Number of counties in each class Classification of counties according to number of farm- bureau members 1,000 and over 500-999 Under 500 Totals ' 41 6 5 6 14 10 4 1 1 2 11 4 1 3 3 26 1 30-39 3 20-29 6 10-19 9 Under 10 7 Source of data: Table 3. Size of County Farm Bureaus and Fluctuations in Membership. — In 1922-23 the 41 county farm bureaus had an average of 635 members. The following year 42 counties averaged only 499 members, a drop of 136. The drop in total membership that year was over 5,000. In 1930-31, 41 counties reported an average membership of 513, the highest since 1922-23 (table 5). When classified according to numbers of members the various county farm bureaus showed considerable difference in mem- bership fluctuations. During the years 1923-24 to 1930-31, the four is The grange has a strong membership in Santa Clara County. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 17 county farm bureaus which had 1,000 or more members in 1930-31 had increased membership from an average of 1,123 to 1,664 ; the 11 which had 500-999 members had increased from an average of 514 to 674 ; and the 26 which had less than 500 members decreased from an average of 400 to 267 (table 5). Since the smaller farm bureaus generally have se- cured a lower proportion of the farmers of their counties than the larger ones and since they have lost members while the larger farm bureaus have gained, it seems clear that the former group needs especial atten- tion if the California farm bureau as a whole is to maintain its member- TABLE 5 Average Members in the California Farm Bureau, by Groups of Counties, 1919-20 to 1930-31 State average membership Average in group I* Average in group II* Average in group III* Fiscal year Number of counties Average Number of counties Average Number of counties Average Number of counties Average 1919-20 32 32 38 41 42 43 42 42 41 40 42 41 337 554 626 635 499 471 475 463 500 475 486 513 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 771 1,014 1,481 1,504 1,123 1,344 1,342 1,011 1,374 1,389 1,483 1,664 7 8 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 327 719 676 691 514 493 562 693 688 615 691 674 21 20 23 26 27 28 27 27 26 25 27 26 259 1920-21 395 1921-22 453 1922-23 478 1923-24 400 1924-25 .. . 338 1925-26 311 1926-27 288 1927-28 286 1928-29 267 1929-30 256 1930-31 267 * Group I, counties having 1,000 members; group II, those having 500-999; group III, those having under 500 members, for fiscal year ending November 30, 1931 (table 4). The county farm bureaus are kept in the same groups through the years 1919-20 to 1930-31 regardless of fluctuations in their membership. Source of data: Table 3. ship in all of the counties now organized. The differences between coun- ties in total number of farmers, type of agriculture, population in city centers, and other social and economic conditions greatly complicate the question of the proportion of farmers which it is desirable for each county farm bureau to enroll. For instance, the Lassen County Farm Bureau, except for two years, has maintained a membership between 200 and 300, which is between 40 and 60 per cent of the number of farm- ers in the county, whereas the membership of the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau, while it has not fallen below 1,000 since 1919-20, has never exceeded 16 per cent of the farmers in the county (table 6). Las- sen County is mountainous and is largely dependent on cattle-raising and lumbering. It is entirely rural, the largest center having a popula- 18 University of California — Experiment Station tion of 1,358. Los Angeles County, on the other hand, has a large metro- politan population and its agriculture produces a wide range of com- modities. While the Lassen County Farm Bureau operates largely by volunteer effort, the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau employs a full- time executive secretary with a field helper and stenographer. Lassen County has only one farm advisor, whereas a staff of seven farm advis- ors is at the service of farmers in Los Angeles County. The importance of numbers has made it necessary for the Lassen County Farm Bureau to enroll a relatively high proportion of the farmers of the county, while the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau, with over 12,000 farmers from whom to canvass members, has never enrolled as high as 20 per cent of that number and yet has maintained a large membership. It is doubtful whether the membership of Lassen County Farm Bureau can be in- creased greatly, whereas there would seem to be much possibility for expansion in Los Angeles County, notwithstanding its greater numer- ical strength. Yolo County illustrates another aspect of the problem of size of mem- bership. While the number of farmers in this county is decreasing, the county farm bureau has maintained a membership of about 700 since 1922-23. The county's agricultural products include barley, wheat, rice, sheep, wool, and almonds. More than 75 per cent of its land is in farms, which average a little less than 300 acres in size. The county seat is a major rural trade center of over 5,000. Over 75 per cent of its popula- tion is rural and it is largely homogeneous. This county farm bureau with approximately 700 members representing over 40 per cent of the farmers of the county seems to have reached stability as regards the number of members, 16 although the proportion of members to farmers is increasing largely because of a decrease in the number of farmers. Several county farm bureaus have succeeded in noticeably increasing their membership strength during the past few years. The most note- worthy among these is the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau, which has increased its membership from 567 in 1919-20 to 2,331 in 1930-31, the biggest numerical increase having taken place since 1927-28. 17 This county was recognized by the American Farm Bureau Federation as having the largest county-farm-bureau membership in the United States in 1929-30 and 1930-31. The county farm bureau employed a full-time secretary, and farmers in the county had the services of several farm advisors and a home demonstration agent. 16 Center attendance has also remained more or less stable around 5,000. 17 Attendance at center meetings also increased from 3,876 in 1919-20 to 18,856 in 1930-31. Bul. 563 The California Farm Bureau 19 "S a 03 3 o> as » 3 s.s is -3 03 cojzj 3 * S 1 3 s'3 o3 Q" CO o3 O 1-5 CO t- • MNW^WOilONWOO < 1— 11— Ii-Hi-Hi-It-Ht-ICNIC-OCO o o S05C©CNOO*-I0>«©0u-50SC<3 NOONrllOlHHOTllO) 09 CO < c f<5C<5«ti«003incOCCCOOt>. UJWCOOOINOOtIINhN 3 I NtOM^OJNN^O >> s o « .5 CO • S3 S o a H P ■? a s a 3 a "3 CO o3 o 1-5 567 541 869 884 989 738 761 690 959 1,216 1,920 2,331 fflinOONMNIN(DNNNOO NOJWOOOmlNMOlNnOO tH 3 <1 <-HCO~*lOi-l»fl«-l'H»-i osoicoeocNioot^iococo 3 to 3 OOOCOOilOO© «Oi-He©«5t— t--00©'-i N IN H CO N N IN IN >> a 3 8 # « go S a "S S3 a 3 3 s'3 CO 03 c o • c WOOlOllOiOH^NOM 0«5iOi010iO >* -H05t~»»OeNIOOOCD->*l<— 1 CT> coO'OO'O'-HcocMoo-^as !ONI>OOOOOCNNNtO>0 co MOOOIDHICOI^OIMN COCM00500COOOtJ»> i 919-20 920-21 1921-22 1922-23 1923-24 L924-25 925-26 1926-27 927-28 928-29 929-30 930-31 3 a •§§ .St 1 -^ 3 'O CO 3.2 •^ 03 If « o CO m ■S8 cog, "^ 3 5a 3 j? ^£ .3 co * o3 3§ 5 3 £. CO -3 3 3^ 3 o as as a O-S co >> ,3-Q £^ °§ 3* 'J «•§ co ca CO 0) s^3 ^ 18.3 5 a^.S| ^'3-3 3 Q 33 <3 co «n|"-g s co »"oo 3 S^** -? 03^^^ o3 o ti CO o M P M ^ 03 «->.« 00 CO 03 c 1 ^ 03 rj ojzjgg 55 co 3 3 CO co b 2 0«S 20 University of California — Experiment Station Farm-Center Meetings and Attendance. — From the first it was the policy of the California Agricultural Extension Service and the county farm, bureaus to organize the individual members in each county into local groups or centers. Beginning in Humboldt County in 1913, farm centers increased rapidly in numbers as new farm bureaus were organ- ized. There were over 450 centers in existence in 1919 when the Califor- nia Farm Bureau Federation was organized (table 7). Farm centers continued to increase up to 1923-24, when there were 568 centers alto- gether. Since then the number of farm centers has decreased steadily. It is probable that improvement in transportation facilities and highways has had the effect of widening the areas covered by individual centers and consequently of decreasing the number of farm centers. TABLE 7 Farm-Center-Meeting Attendance, California, 1919-20 to 1930-31 Fiscal year Number of farm centers Number of center meetings held Total attendance at center meetings Average . attendance at center meetings Average annual attendance per farm center Average number of meetings per farm center 1919-20* 466 475 481 537 568 536 487 481 456 393 385 369 4,483 4,822 4,011 3,762 3,402 3,452 3,395 3,115 2,847 2,718 2,707 2,813 186,055 199,553 164,681 159,457 157,072 161,549 172,912 167,022 151,564 149,865 152,987 168,505 41 41 41 42 46 46 51 54 53 55 57 60 399 420 342 297 277 301 355 347 332 381 397 457 10 1920-21 10 1921-22 8 1922-23 7 1923-24 6 1924-25 6 1925-26 7 1926-27 6 1927-28 6 1928-29 ... . 7 1929-30 7 1930-31 .... 8 * Information not available prior to 1919-20. Source of data: Statistical Summaries, Office of the Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Berkeley, California. It was intended by the sponsors of the California farm bureau that farm centers would meet monthly. While a few farm centers do meet once each month during the year, many centers have found it impractic- able to hold meetings during the months of July and August, when many farmers and their families are either away on vacation or en- gaged in harvesting their crops and fruit. A number of farm centers meet only a few times a year. The number of farm-center meetings held reached the peak in 1920-21 when the number of meetings per center averaged 10 for the year. Since then the number of center meetings held annually has declined more or less continuously, the decline up to 1928- 29 having been more rapid than the decline in the number of farm cen- Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 21 ters. This, of course, reduced the average number of meetings a year per farm center. Since 1928-29 the number of meetings per center has tended to increase. The total annual attendance at farm center meetings reached a peak in 1920-21, when the attendance exceeded 199,000. In 1921-22 attend- ance declined by some 30,000 and continued to decline till 1923-24, when attendance was only 157,072. There was some recovery during the next two years. Attendance, however, declined again from 1926-27 to 1928-29. The years 1929-30 and 1930-31 showed some improvement in attendance. While the total attendance has declined since 1919-20, the attendance per meeting increased practically continuously right up to 1930-31. Farm-Bureau Membership and Attendance at Center Meetings. — At- tendance at farm-center meetings reached a peak in 1920-21 (table 7) ; county-farm-bureau membership reached a peak two years later in 1923 (table 2). A second high point in farm-center attendance was reached in 1925-26 ; another high point in farm-bureau membership was reached two years later in 1927-28. Two low points in farm-bureau membership were recorded in the years 1923-24 and 1928-29. These were also years of low attendance at farm-center meetings. While chronological relation cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty from so small a num- ber of years, it would nevertheless appear that there is a definite rela- tion between attendance at farm-center meetings and farm-bureau membership. It is not necessary to infer a causal relation between at- tendance changes and membership changes. It probably would be more correct to assume that attendance at meetings is an indicator of interest in farm centers and indirectly of interest in the activities of the farm bureau. Center meetings serve not only as an activity for those who already are in membership with the farm center, but also as a magnet to draw nonmembers into attendance. Interest in the farm center thus aroused would in many cases culminate after a while (apparently one to two years) in full membership in the farm bureau. Loss of interest in the farm center, as indicated by a decline in attendance, on the other hand, may be a symptom of a more general decline of interest in the activities of the county farm bureau, and may be attended by a failure to pay dues and maintain membership standing. 22 University of California — Experiment Station COMPARISON OF MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS OF FARMERS' GENERAL-PURPOSE ORGANIZATIONS 18 The object of these comparisons is to furnish a description of the place or position occupied by farmers' general-purpose organizations in the rural life of the state. They serve to answer such questions as : 1. Do the better, average, or poorer farmers of the state support gen- eral-purpose organizations ? 2. Are members of general-purpose organizations as likely to be mem- bers of other kinds of organizations as nonmembers ? 3. Are members of general-purpose organizations as likely to be mem- bers of special-purpose organizations as nonmembers f 4. Is there a difference between members and nonmembers as to inter- est in questions of public importance ? Method of Collecting Data. — During the course of this investigation 440 farmers living in 15 localities in the four major agricultural regions of the state were visited and interviewed, the information obtained from each farmer being entered on a mimeographed questionnaire. The 15 localities are situated in eight different counties, two counties, Los An- geles and Orange, being in the south coast region ; three, Tulare, Fresno, and San Joaquin, in San Joaquin Valley region ; one, Yolo, in the Sacra- mento Valley region; and two, Sonoma and Santa Clara, in the San Francisco Bay region. The counties in each region were selected because of their importance agriculturally (table 8) and because they contained relatively large numbers of members of the farm bureau, the grange (Patrons of Husbandry), and the Farmers' Union. In 1931 the eight counties contained 8,900 farm-bureau members, or 43 per cent of the total, 2,500 members, or 28 per cent of the membership of the grange in California, and practically all the members of the Farmers' Union in the state. The latter organization did not have a very large state mem- bership in 1931. In each county, except one, two localities were selected for farm-to- farm visitation. These localities also were selected because of their im- portance agriculturally and because they contained an average or a greater than average proportion of farmers who were members of gen- eral and special-purpose organizations. Each locality also represented a local unit of the farm bureau, grange, or Farmers' Union. The number of farmers visited in each locality ranged from 14 to 62, according to the variety of commodities produced and their relative importance in is Includes the farm bureau, the grange (Patrons of Husbandry), and the Farm ers' Union. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 23 a - >». » 03 c .SnJo O) CN O -H CN CN >> '-3 1 a 8 a 3 -2 £a - a^ 3 S« s — O 0} M - cog 1 = 111 fla-o a 03 +a . 03 M w arley(l),almor oultry producti (2), cherries (3) 3 a 03 a C h5 o fa PC fa < S * a £ >-_2 3 «J CO CO o CO ■* oo c CO CD co CN G CO CO CO lO oo oc >f> oo OS if o CN a> Oi c^- co ca O" o> CN in •+J .03 "0 Ota 3 «5 if CO o 0) £°.S co If CN1 CO CO t>. CD N 'co u CO «- G CO M< ■* o CN o> t- t^ CC If) >f) CO CO ■* CD CO X2 CD CN o- co CO CC >o CN a m ir ■"» CN t~- o lO CD CO 3 CO f fe a CM t^ >fl CO If) oo a- if) 00 ej Ot^ tf lf> CO lO CC o r^ fa •*t< CO CN K o^ o 2 o> a o o h a la 3 t^CC 00 ■>*< t^ r-1 CC CO CO CO «- CC CN CO »f> CO CC Oi m* 0) Pi tf CM CN -«* CO >o CO CO * O CN cr OS CO r^ C CO ^ IC •>* C CO o l^ CN oo CD a a cooc O- IC .2 S OC CO »o oo CO 0C >f> >f> "e« t— ex «- CO CO Tfl CN CN CN fa »o e\ "a a 03 <- if) ir (^ 00 CN o CM i-l Tf oj 1 if) oc "S CO CO c s 3 coc t> CO CO CN 3 CO c" Tt CN OS o oc CO o ti lH CN >f) CC >f oo CN ** 00 •"f •<*! If) ft _.. CN CN OS O CN oo »o >- t- 03 ■«a CN S3 cnct CO CO Oi CC CN O t~CN OC OO t^ CN CO CN »o H t-OC o o CN CO COOC 1— CN •H tH if) CN cn" >> ~ >> >> J> 0) c 3 O w T3 3 03 3 'So 1 3 'c 1- ,0 1 J g 1 8| ) CQ a o 1 5 1 3 3^ C c i E fa c E c 1— c e CC i" =c3 § "3 01 Ec •ll 0) c C oi t c: CC 03 1.3 02 ffl Ph C s .a ** ^ 5 g 24 University of California — Experiment Station the agriculture of the state (table 9) . Members and nonmembers visited lived side-by-side in the same localities. 19 The extra-familial environ- ment is thus identical for members and nonmembers. Members were de- fined as those who had paid their dues for the year (1930-31). Some members had but recently joined a general-purpose farmers' organiza- tion; some nonmembers had but recently discontinued membership. There were, however, very few ex-members of farmers' organizations among the farmers visited. In the circumstances nonmembers may be regarded as affording a fair representation of farmers who had remained outside general-purpose farmers' organizations. Numbers of Members and Nonmembers. — Of the 440 farmers who were visited and who supplied the data used in a comparison of members and nonmembers, 301 belonged to a farmers' general-purpose organiza- tion, 139 did not. 20 Of the 301 members, 259 belonged to the farm bu- reau, 24 to the grange, 5 to the Farmers' Union, 11 to both the farm bureau and the grange, and 2 to the grange and Farmers' Union. Taking account of duplications, there were 270 farm-bureau members, 37 grange members, and 7 Farmers' Union members. Comparisons Based on Extent of Farming Operations. — Since each locality in the eight counties contained both members and nonmembers, and both groups produced the commodities listed in table 9, it cannot be said that producers of any selected commodities, more than others, supported general-purpose organizations. There appear, however, to be significant differences between members and nonmembers in the extent and nature of farming operations. The farms of members averaged 132.8 acres, of which 57.2 acres were irrigated, whereas the farms of nonmembers averaged 87.4 acres, of which 36.7 acres were irrigated. A frequency distribution of size of farms shows a similar relation (table 10). As the average size of farms operated is greater for members than for nonmembers, it can be expected that the value of commodities sold and the value of farm supplies purchased would be greater for members than for nonmembers. Tables 11 and 12 show this to be the case. The aver- age return per acre for products sold was $53.10 for members and $36.40 for nonmembers. The per-acre cost of supplies was $11.54 for members and $8.60 for nonmembers. is In one locality no nonmembers were visited owing to the enumerator's shortage of time and his method of procedure in that one locality. The chief commodity pro- duced in this locality was citrus fruit and since a number of citrus growers are among nonmembers elsewhere visited the omission does not seriously affect the value of the sample. In another locality only 1 nonmember was found in a block of 22 farmers. 20 Of the 440 farmers, 376 were owners, 19 were renters, and 4 were managers of farms; 41 of the owners also rented additional land. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 25 CO o t- C- CO © 00 © «-H I US lO *-H 00 £ a o 3 (=1 p B9 a . e3 m B, G bD S3 £ .a >> .3 ^ b Sops o> o o a ft 03 .5 P ftft a a o3 o 18 a a o3 o3 ft* Pm a a ■~ u 03 03 a a a fe fe fe ^ s a a to a o a a 01 03 c g a a T3 bC T3 SO a a a a 03 03 03 S» c3 ° 03 ° -5 G o3 g -3 fe fe o "S 2 J .3 •« 13 i-l rt m O P4 8* ■as § .2 s i G -Q A, C <» 03 3 oq -g .si ft-2 a « 0Q 26 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 10 Frequency Distribution of Size of Farms Owned by 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Members Nonmembers Acreage Number Per cent Number Per cent Total 301 = 100 139 = 100 0- 19 . 90 64 36 19 13 8 6 7 2 3 53 30 21 12 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 18 69 26 15 7 7 1 1 1 12 49 20- 39. .. . 19 40- 59 ... . 11 60- 79 5 80- 99 5 100-119 .... 1 120-139 .. . 140-159 ... . 1 160-179 .... 1 180-199 Over 200* . . 8 * From 200 to 5,100. TABLE 11 Value of Commodities Produced for Sale and of Farm Supplies Purchased, 1931 ; by 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, by Begions Members Nonmembers Region Number Total value Average value per farm Number Total value Average value per farm Value of commodities produced for sale All South coast San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Valley.. Bay region All South coast San Joaquin Valley Sacramento Valley.. Bay region 301 83 91 67 $2,121,306 679,495 310,715 770,500 $ 367,555 $ 7,047 8,187 3,414 11,500 $ 6,126 139 32 33 17 57 % 441,540 68,444 60,485 108,355 $ 205,256 $ 3,177 2,108 1,833 6,374 $ 3,601 Value of farm supplies purchased* 301 83 91 67 $ 461,286 184,554 61,423 49,993 $ 165,316 $ 1,532 2,224 675 746 $ 2,755 139 32 33 17 57 104,605 16,675 7,295 13,700 66,935 $ 752 521 221 806 $ 1,174 * These include chicken feed, hay and other feeds, gasoline, oil, fertilizers, spray materials, sacks, seeds, and other supplies. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 27 Members and nonmembers were compared as to bank loans made for production purposes. Each farmer's estimate was based on the expe- rience of 1931 but was made in anticipation of needs for 1932. Those who did not plan to borrow in 1932 were not included in the estimates ; doubtless some of those were unable to borrow, but others planned their operations to avoid borrowing". The estimates of needs were based upon the largest amount needed at any one time during the year. Among the 440 farmers interviewed, 181 gave such estimates. Of these, 130 were members, and their estimates totaled $266,920, or an average of $2,053 ; the remaining 51 were nonmembers, whose estimates totaled $69,731, or $1,367 each. The bank loans anticipated averaged $15.46 an acre for TABLE 12 Frequency Distribution op Value of Commodities Produced for Sale, 1931, by 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations Members Nonmembers Value in dollars Number Per cent Number Per cent Totals . . . 301 51 50 49 28 19 18 16 11 4 6 7 2 'l 39 100 17 17 16 9 . 6 6 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 17 139 41 37 25 8 7 4 4 2 2 2 1 5 100 0- 999 30 1,000- 1,999 27 2,000- 2,999 18 3,000- 3,999 6 4,000- 4,999... . 5 5,000- 5,999 5 6,000- 6,999 3 7,000- 7,999 1 8,000- 8,999 1 9,000- 9,999 1 10,000-10,999 11,000-11,999 12,000-12,999 1 13,000 and over 4 members, and $15.64 an acre for nonmembers. The production-loan load per acre was practically the same for the two groups. It was thus found that farmers who support general-purpose organ- izations operate larger acreages more intensively and secure a greater gross return in dollars per farmer than farmers who do not support them. 21 Comparisons Based on Other Organizational Affiliations. — Members of farmers' general-purpose organizations also supported other organ- 2i Compare: Manny, T. B., and R. C. Smith. The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation from the farmer's viewpoint. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. in cooperation with Ohio State University, Dept. of Eural Econ. and the Federal Farm Board. Page 112, table 71. (Mimeo.) 28 University of California — Experiment Station izations to a greater extent than nonmembers. Farmers who were mem- bers of general-purpose organizations averaged 5.7 affiliations, 1.0 of which represents membership in the general-purpose organizations themselves. The members' affiliations with other organizations therefore averaged 4.7. Farmers who were nonmembers averaged 3.2 affiliations. A comparison of agricultural regions shows that the relative differences between members and nonmembers were greater in the regions of the great interior valleys than in the regions containing the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco (table 13). Twelve farmers re- ported no affiliations whatsoever. Obviously, these were nonmembers. Nonmembers had from to 9 affiliations, and members from 1 to 12. Considerably more than one-half of the members had 5 or more affilia- tions, while almost one-half of the nonmembers had 3 or less (table 14). TABLE 13 Organization Affiliations of 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, by Eegions, 1931 Members Nonmembers Ratio of Region Number Affiliations* Average* Number Affiliations Average averages t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 301 83 91 67 60 1,704* 523 494 291 396 5.7 6 3 5.4 4 3 6.6 139 32 33 17 57 439 136 79 30 194 3 2 4.3 2 4 1.8 3.4 1.8 15 San Joaquin Valley.... Sacramento Valley... 2.2 2.4 1.9 * These include affiliations with general-purpose organizations. Including 13 duplications, there were 314 affiliations with general-purpose organizations, or 1.0 per member. The average affiliations with other organizations is therefore approximately 1 less than the average including general-purpose organiza- tions as given in col. 3. t Col. 3 divided by col. 6. Members exceeded nonmembers in every kind of affiliation, both as to percentages affiliated and numbers of affiliations. Organizations were classified as : general-purpose organizations, mutual insurance com- panies, cooperative marketing associations, cooperative purchasing asso- ciations, lodges, and church organizations. With members, general- purpose organizations led as to percentage of farmers affiliated and mutual insurance as to numbers of affiliations. Nonmembers carried the most affiliations, in both respects, with mutual insurance companies (table 15). The 301 members of general organizations had 815 organizational affiliations which involved attendance at meetings. Of these, 433, or 53.2 per cent, were accompanied by regularity of attendance. The 139 non- members had 121 affiliations which involved attendance, of which 63, or Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 29 52.1 per cent, were accompanied by regularity of attendance. The differ- ence is not significant. When all persons in the 301 members' families were compared with all persons in the 139 nonmembers' families, it was found that the former were more often supporters of other organizations, although nonmem- bers' children from 10 to 17 years of age had more affiliations per child than members' children. Membership families averaged 3.4 affiliations TABLE 14 Distribution of Organizational Affiliations of 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Number of organizational affiliations per operator Members* Non- members* Number of organizational affiliations per operator Members* Non- members* Totals 301 11 24 49 43 139 12 30 25 23 28 5 55 47 26 26 13 7 11 6 7 .. 2 8 3 9 4 o * The range for members is from 1 to 12 affiliations; for nonmembers it is from to 9. The average for members is 5.7 affiliations (including affiliations with general- purpose organizations) and for nonmembers 3.2. TABLE 15 Kinds of Organizational Affiliations of 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Number of affiliations Per cent of farmers affiliated Kind of organization Members Nonmembers Members Nonmembers Total 1,704 314 460 232 197 212 112 177 439 171 90 57 48 45 28 301 = 100 per cent 100 81 60 58 70 37 59 139 = 100 per cent 73 Cooperative marketing associations 56 37 35 32 Others 20 per person (including affiliations with general-purpose organizations), and 62 per cent of the affiliations that involved attendance were accom- panied by regular attendance. Nonmembership families averaged, for each person, 2.2 affiliations and attendance was regular with 59 per cent of those involving attendance (table 16). Organizational affiliations were reported for 308 operators' wives. Since many reports were incomplete as to the number of operators whose wives were deceased, divorced, or otherwise separated from their 30 University of California — Experiment Station husbands, and as to operators who were unmarried, the number of wives without any affiliations had to be estimated on the basis of the other data reported. There were no less than 50 in this classification. More than one-half of these were nonmembers' wives. The wives of members aver- aged 2.2 affiliations and wives of nonmembers averaged 1.5. Wives of members had 169 affiliations in home departments, subordinate granges, or local Farmers' Unions. TABLE 16 Organizational Affiliations and Attendance of All Persons,* and of Chil- dren (10-17 Years of Age), in 440 Families of Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Total number Affiliations Attendance Group All reporting affilia- tions Per cent of total Total affilia- tions Average per person Affilia- tions involving attend- ance Number regularly attendedt Per cent regularly attendedt All persons in family Membership 721 285 669 244 92.8 85.6 2,434* 622 3.4t 2.2 1,545 304 956 179 61.9 Nonmembership 58.9 Children 10 to 17 years of age In membership 1051 43 78 32 74 3 74.3 114 63 1.1 1.5 114 63 89 41 78.0 In nonmember- ship families 65.0 * Operator, wife, and all children at home 10 years old or older. t Regular attendance is defined to mean attendance at one-half or more of the regular meetings. t These include affiliations with general-purpose organizations. 1 Ninety-six children were in farm-bureau families, 5 in grange families, and 4 in Farmers' Union families. Children between the ages of 10 and 17 in members' families aver- aged 1.1 affiliations, while in nonmembership families they averaged 1.5. This was the one group exception to the general rule that members ex- ceeded nonmembers in organizational affiliations. Children in member families, however, were more regular in attendance (table 16). 22 22 A classification of childrens' affiliations (in membership and nonmembership families) shows that the church led as to numbers of affiliations, while 4-H Clubs and Scouts and Girl Eeserves came next. Musical organizations were also important. Athletic organizations and teams occupied last place among the first five organiza- tions. Two boys were in Smith-Hughes clubs but not all high-school agricultural stu- dents interviewed were thus enrolled. >• Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 31 Affiliations with Commercial Organizations. — Since mutual insur- ance companies, cooperative marketing associations, and cooperative purchasing associations occupied leading positions among organizations which members of general-purpose organizations supported, these kinds of affiliations were given further analysis. Affiliations of members and nonmembers with special-purpose organizations help to answer the ques- tion : To what extent do members of general-purpose organizations also support special-purpose organizations? Mutual-insurance affiliations, which were largely with county mutual companies and automobile insurance companies, were relatively most numerous in the south coast and San Francisco Bay regions, less numer- ous in the San Joaquin Valley, and least numerous in the Sacramento Valley, for both members and nonmembers. The average number of affiliations per farmer affiliated for members slightly exceeded the aver- age for nonmembers (table 17), but the difference is not significant. The south coast and San Francisco Bay regions had higher propor- tions of farmers affiliated with cooperative marketing associations than the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. For nonmembers, proportions were highest in the south coast region and for members, in the Bay re- gion. For both members and nonmembers, proportions were lowest in the Sacramento Valley. The average numbers of affiliations were not widely different ; in three regions members exceeded nonmembers, but in the Sacramento Valley, nonmembers exceeded (table 17). The proportional value of commodities marketed cooperatively was smaller with members than with nonmembers. Nonmembers marketed 42 per cent of the total value of commodities produced for sale through cooperative associations, while members thus marketed only 32 per cent of the value of commodities produced for sale. In the south coast region the proportional value thus marketed by nonmembers was double the proportion marketed by members. This is partly explained by the fact that members made considerable use of small pools for egg-marketing in this region. In the Sacramento and Bay regions, members exceeded nonmembers as to proportional value marketed cooperatively (table 18) . Average numbers of cooperative-purchasing affiliations were the same for members and nonmembers when each group was taken as a whole. In the south coast region and the San Joaquin Valley, members exceeded nonmembers in average affiliations ; in the Sacramento Valley, nonmem- bers did no cooperative purchasing; and in the Bay region, average affiliations were the same for nonmembers as for members. In all regions but the south coast the percentage of members affiliated was higher than that of nonmembers (table 17). 32 University of California — Experiment Station OQ M W m 9 o o o GQ < < 9, M < U) o O |> H Eh Effl O w g g? H Ph w w w a P4 tf w CD «TJ CD a .2 a d < 6 (4 X> ■g-o g «Hj> 0) a a ll £ OB ■8-J a S-«tj s 3 ^^ £ 03 _ flj C3J2 oE 6-1 2 a CO «T3 c3 S " OQ 3 .2 ^ft* .2 ti CO CO >, «.s o |1| :-fi>-i C3 * NHOiCM OH!0»0 CO CM COCO CO NNHO<* CO t^ t^ CM CO »-H CO-fl >0 OS 00 COlO <-H ^ ^ a o 3 fl 5 £ _ O d 03^ ■i is Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 33 On the whole, both members and nonmembers purchased one-third of their farm supplies cooperatively (table 18). The difference of 1 per cent found between the percentages of total value of supplies purchased cooperatively by members and nonmembers is not significant. In the San Joaquin Valley and Bay regions, however, members purchased cooper- atively a much higher percentage of the total value of supplies than nonmembers. The reverse was true in the south coast region. TABLE 18 Value and Percentage of Commodities Marketed Cooperatively and of Supplies Purchased Cooperatively, by 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Region Members Value Per cent of total value Nonmembers Value Per cent of total value Value and percentage of commodities marketed cooperatively* All South coast San Joaquin Valley.. Sacramento Valley ... Bay region $780,546 304,959 141,248 19,329 $315,010 $184,850 60,962 31,957 1,600 $ 90,331 41.9 90.4 52.8 1.5 44.0 Value and percentage of supplies purchased cooperatively All South coast San Joaquin Valley. Sacramento Valley . Bay region $155,555 36,559 18,275 924 $ 99,797 33.7 19.8 29.8 1.8 60.4 $ 36,332 11,557 420 $ 24,355 34.7 69.3 5.8 0.0 36.4 * Small pools omitted. Since the percentages of members who marketed and purchased co- operatively were slightly higher than the percentages of nonmembers, and since the values of commodities marketed and of supplies purchased cooperatively were lower, it follows that a greater proportion of mem- bers marketed and purchased both independently and cooperatively or that a greater proportion of the large producers of commodities and purchasers of supplies marketed and purchased independently. Inspec- tion of records of interviews shows that both explanations are in order. It was found that farmers with the greater number of years of expe- rience in cooperative marketing organizations were more likely to be members of general-purpose organizations than farmers with fewer years of experience. While such factors as age of operator may be in- 34 University of California — Experiment Station volved in this explanation, it seems that farmers experienced in co- operative marketing do not turn away from general-purpose organiza- tions (table 19). Interest in Public Questions. — Members of general-purpose organiza- tions were interested in a greater number of subjects of public impor- tance than nonmembers. Taxation, education, and community improve- ment led in relative importance as subjects of general interest to mem- TABLE 19 Years of Experience in Cooperative Marketing, of 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, 1931 Experience in cooperative marketing No experience 1-4 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15 years or more Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Num- • ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Members Nonmembers 60 33 65 35 54 29 65 35 47 22 68 32 64 26 71 29 76 29 72 28 bers. Nonmembers were especially interested in taxation, education, and improved marketing of farm commodities. Other subjects of interest were the tariff, water conservation, the organization of farmers, pest control, power rates, improved marketing, and economics. Members were interested in an average of 1.4 subjects, and nonmembers in 1.1 subjects (table 20). Use of Service Centers. — Another comparison between members and nonmembers brought out the fact that members of general-purpose or- ganizations use more service centers than nonmembers. The service cen- ters include trade centers, school, church, and club centers, and medical and legal centers. In order that members of general-purpose organiza- tions should not by virtue of this affiliation alone be credited with num- bers of centers which are meeting places for the farm bureau, grange, or Farmers' Union, and not centers in any other sense, all count of such open-country centers was omitted unless a school, church, or store was also located at the same place. After this correction had been made, mem- bers were found to average 3.4 centers and nonmembers 3.0 centers (table 21). Since members operated larger farms, had a larger gross return from the sale of produce, and were affiliated with greater num- bers of other organizations than nonmembers, it was to be expected that they would require the services of a greater number of centers. Their needs, especially with respect to farm supplies, implements, etc., were more varied, as were also their organizational connections. Bul. 563" The California Farm Bureau 35 TABLE 20 Questions of Public Importance, 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations Compared, 1931* Totals Taxation Education Commu- nity im- provements Farmers Subjects Average Tariff 301 139 418 147 1.4 1.1 84 36 79 21 45 5 33 Nonmembers... 9 Water con- servation and use Organiza- tion of farmers Pest control Power rates Improved marketing Economics Others 29 12 36 5 15 16 20 12 23 15 11 13 36 Nonmembers.. 12 * Number of subjects in which each farmer was interested ranged from to 5. TABLE 21 Average Number of Service Centers* per Farm Family for 440 Members and Nonmembers of Farmers' General-Purpose Organizations, by Eegions, 1931 All farm families Member families Nonmember families Region Farm families Service centers Average per farm family Farm families Service centers Average per farm family Farm families Service centers Average per farm family Total .... 440 115 124 84 117 1,148 359 463 247 379 3 3 3.1 3 7 2.9 3.2 301 83 91 67 60 1,030 266 359 204 201 3.4 3.2 3 9 3.0 3.4 139 32 33 17 57 418 93 104 43 178 3 2.9 3 2 2.5 3 1 * The service centers include: post-office, shipping point, grocery center, dry-goods center, banking center, hardware center, implement center; centers for grade school, high school, church, lodge, club, and pictures; dental, medical, and hospital centers; and the legal center. No one had more than 7 service centers. In a distribution of from 1 to 7, a difference of 0.4 per cent is significant. 36 University of California — Experiment Station STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU Farm Centers. — While membership of individual farmers is direct in county farm bureaus, which in turn are members of the California Farm Bureau Federation, practically every county farm bureau has its members grouped in local units known as farm centers (fig. 2). Local farm centers do not have separate constitutions and by-laws, their or- ganization and basis of operation being provided for in the constitution and by-laws of the county farm bureaus to which they belong. Practic- ally all of them, however, are informally organized with elected officers and specified times and places of meeting. A few counties have, in place of farm centers, commodity departments which operate in much the same way as farm centers. It was the definite intention of the founders of the farm bureau in California to stress and emphasize the importance of the rural commu- nity as the final unit of organization. The operation of county farm bureaus was definitely and purposely placed in the hands of farmers elected from among their fellow members in each agricultural commu- nity of the county. The members themselves thus have full control over the policies of the county farm bureaus. 23 Realizing the prime impor- tance of keeping members interested in and acquainted with the repre- sentative and educational functions of their organization, a plan was provided for regular monthly meetings in each local farm center in which the rank and file of the community would participate. Farm-cen- ter meetings are usually held in a rural schoolhouse or some other con- venient place, although meetings are sometimes held in towns. A few farm centers have built or purchased and equipped meeting places. These farm-center meetings afford opportunity for the dissemination of information on farm problems and on the activities of the county farm bureaus. They offer a convenient means for farm advisors to reach community groups and to become acquainted with individual farmers, their families, and their farm problems. Furthermore, members are able to make direct contact at center meetings with officers and directors of the state and county farm bureaus and to give expression to their local needs pertaining to agriculture, the farm home, and the commu- nity. Such meetings are fundamental in California rural life because they afford opportunity for self-development of individual members 23 Crocheron, B. H. The function of the farm bureau. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 209:2-3. 1919. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 37 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION QBBB GE1B3 COMMODITY DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES | FARM CENTER | EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1 1 PROGRAM COMMODITY COMMITTEES PROJECT COMMITTEES 1 1 1 MEMBERSHIP Fig. 2. — Structural organization of the farm bureau in California. Control is placed in the hands of the membership of the local farm centers. 38 University of California — Experiment Station and at the same time training in group activities, year by year, to thou- sands of farm people. Discussions of economic and social problems, literary and forensic activities, and recreation provided by voluntary effort for all age groups are among the activities carried on by these farm centers. 24 County Farm Bureaus. — County farm bureaus are formally organ- ized with written constitutions and by-laws. Very few of the county farm bureaus, however, are incorporated. The constitution and by-laws of most county farm bureaus are uniform, each county farm bureau being governed by a board of directors, which is composed of one di- rector from each farm center and a number of directors at large. Farm centers elect their own representative on the county board at a center meeting. Directors at large are usually elected annually at the annual general meeting of members of the county farm bureau. The officers are a president, vice-president, and secretary-treasurer, who are elected by the board of directors annually. In some counties a full-time paid secre- tary is employed. 25 Board meetings are held regularly, usually once a month, and at that time the board hears reports from the center di- rectors. Thus the county boards of directors not only serve as the gov- erning bodies for the county farm bureaus but they receive and inter- pret the reports coming directly from the local farm centers. They serve as the integrating body for local sentiment on public questions and as the sponsors of the Agricultural Extension Service in the counties. All county farm bureaus have several commodity departments such as citrus, dairy, or grain departments, and service departments such as law and utilities, farm home, and membership. A few counties have pur- chasing departments or committees, but few have cooperative-marketing departments. The number of commodity departments varies from county to county according to local conditions. The service departments, although similar to those of the California Farm Bureau Federation, differ in details of execution and in the variety of application to local situations. Each individual member is required to pay to the county farm bu- reau to which he belongs an annual membership fee. In most counties this fee amounts to $5, although in some counties it is higher. Three dol- lars per member is paid over to the California Farm Bureau Federation 24 Activities of farm-center meetings were observed by the author during the months of January to June, 1932. Approximately a score of center meetings were attended in Orange, Tulare, Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Yolo, and Sonoma counties. 2 5 Conferences of farm-bureau secretaries are sometimes held, usually at annual conventions of the California Farm Bureau Federation, for the purpose of exchang- ing experiences on county-farm-bureau problems and methods of operation. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 39 as state and national dues; the balance is divided between the county farm bureau and the farm center, the basis of division differing between counties. The California Farm Bureau Federation. — Although the California Farm Bureau Federation was organized in 1919, it was not incorporated until 1931. 26 Its membership consists of the regularly constituted county farm bureaus in California. Article II, Section 2, of the by-laws states that a county farm bureau shall be regarded as regularly organized when it comprises either 50 members or 10 per cent of the farmers in the county, whichever number is the smaller. Article III, Section 1, provides that the policies and activities of the Federation shall be determined at the annual meeting of its members. These annual meetings serve as a focal point for bringing together the experience and activities of individual counties and officers of the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation during the past year and for formu- lating policies for the ensuing year. Reports from the various officers and from the directors of the various service departments and commod- ity departments are received and discussed, new members are admitted, and officers elected. Furthermore, special problems of interest to agri- culture are discussed not only from the platform but in selected groups. For example, the director of research led a group of county tax com- mitteemen during the 1931 annual convention in discussions of the re- sults of research in taxation and their practical application in tax reduction. Each county is represented at the annual meeting by one voting dele- gate and in addition one nonvoting delegate for each three hundred members or major fraction thereof. All directors, voting and nonvoting, constitute the House of Delegates. This body is empowered to apportion the counties of the various members into eight convenient regional dis- tricts, such districts to be composed of counties readily accessible to each other. The state delegates within each region elect one of their number at the annual meeting as a member of the board of directors of the California Farm Bureau Federation. The regional directors hold office for a period of two years, one-half the number retiring annually. The business and property of the Federation are administered and its policies and activities as outlined by the members are carried out by a board of twelve directors consisting of the president, the vice-president, the State Leader of Farm Advisors, the State Chairman of the Farm Home Department, and the eight regional directors. The officers of the Federation are the president, vice-president, and secretary-treasurer. 26 Articles of Incorporation were recorded by the Secretary of State, State of California, on October 31, 1931. 40 University of California — Experiment Station The first two officers are elected by the state delegates at the annual meeting in odd-numbered years and hold office for two years. The secre- tary-treasurer is a full-time official appointed by the board of directors, which also fixes his salary. 27 The major duties of the executive officers are to interpret the policies of the California Farm Bureau Federation to units within the farm bureau, to legislative bodies, and to other organizations; to carry on from year to year the projects duly authorized ; to coordinate the activi- ties of the service departments, commodity departments, and other groups set up by the Federation; and to give emergency service to groups within or without the farm bureau in attacking problems of un- usual importance to agriculture. 28 The officers and directors of the California Farm Bureau Federation carry on their duties in close cooperation with the administration offi- cers of the College of Agriculture. This is desirable because of the close relation between the educational activities of the farm bureau and the Agricultural Extension Service. 29 Article IX, Section 1, provides for the establishment and maintenance of five service departments — Law and Utilities, Research, Organization, Publicity, and Farm Home. These departments are under the direct supervision of the board of directors of the Federation. The directors of the first four departments are selected by the board of directors of the Federation and serve as full-time employees. The director of the Farm Home Department is elected annually. Commodity departments may be established by the California Farm Bureau Federation by vote of the delegates at an annual general meet- ing, or by postal ballot at other times, upon the request of ten or more member county farm bureaus. 30 These departments are made up of dele- gates from the commodity departments of the county farm bureaus. The chairman of each commodity department is elected annually by the delegates from county commodity departments. He may sit with the board of directors of the Federation and have the privilege of the floor, but he does not have a vote. These departments represent commodities 2" Five presidents and four secretary-treasurers have held office during the years 1919 to 1932. Two presidents and three secretary-treasurers served during the six years from 1919 to 1925, and three j)residents and one secretary-treasurer have held office in the seven years since 1925. 28 Based on annual addresses of the presidents and annual reports of secretary- treasurers in minutes of annual meetings, especially for the years 1925-1931. 29 The offices of the California Farm Bureau Federation are located in Giannini Hall, on the campus of the University of California. This building also houses the offices of the Dean of the College of Agriculture, the Agricultural Extension Service, and several other divisions of the College of Agriculture. 30 By-laws of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Article VII, Sections 1 and 2. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 41 which in the opinion of the county farm bureaus require protection and assistance and are of sufficient importance in California agriculture to command interest in the required number of counties. 31 Committees on cooperative purchasing and on taxation have also been in operation. The California Farm Bureau Federation is financed by dues received from member county farm bureaus. Each county is required to pay to the Federation $3 for each one of its own paid-up members. Fifty cents per county-farm-bureau member is remitted to the American Farm Bu- reau Federation, of which the California Farm Bureau Federation is a member. The remainder is apportioned as follows : $1.00 per county- farm-bureau member to the general fund of the Federation, $1.00 to the Law and Utilities Department, and $0.50 to the Research Department. ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL OBJECTIVES AND FUNCTIONS The objectives of the farm bureau are the development of rural peo- ple and the furtherance of their opportunities for happiness and pros- perity. This two-fold statement represents both the educational and the welfare points of view. According to the educational point of view, the farm bureau is an organization of farmers who are combined in order more effectively to secure facts bearing upon problems of their industry. These problems range from soil analysis to prices of farm products. At- tainments resulting from the application of facts to problems of pro- duction and marketing are to be regarded as means for advancing the social and cultural life of those living in the open country. 32 According to the welfare point of view it is an organization to represent, protect, and advance the social, economic, and educational interests of the farmers of California. While the application of facts to problems is emphasized in connection not only with the educational but also with the welfare point of view, the representative, protective, and promotional func- tions are central in the latter case. 33 The activities of the five service departments and the various com- modity departments give a fairly complete picture of the activities of the Federation and its objectives and functions. si Annual report of the Chairman of the Dairy Department. Minutes of the Twelfth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November, 1930, page 96. 32 Crocheron, B. H. The function of the farm bureau. California Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 209:1-16. 1919. Also: Survey of land grant colleges and universities. U. S. Dept. Int. Office of Education 9(2) :442. 33 Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, 1931. Page 99. 42 University of California — Experiment Station SERVICE DEPARTMENTS Law and Utilities Department. — The Law and Utilities Department was created at the annual meeting in 1920. 34 It maintains legal, pro- tective, and advisory services for the county farm bureaus and for the individual farm-bureau members. It also maintains engineering services to give advisory service as to technical irrigation and other utility prob- lems. The pioneer achievement of this department was made in con- nection with the Kern County Farm Bureau and a public utility company in March, 1921. A lowering of rates was secured. Some examples of the activities and achievements of this department are afforded by presenting extracts from the Annual Report for 1930. 35 On January 16 the Bailroad Commission rendered an interim decision in the rate case which has been pending for many months, which reduced the rates of this utility approximately $2,400,000 for the year 1930, and it is intended to reduce the rate of return from approximately 8^ per cent to 7^ per cent. These reductions were made largely to lighting consumers, both urban and sub- urban. There was also a reduction of about $101,000 in the agricultural-power schedule. Consumers located in the territory formerly served by the received the major amount of this reduction, inasmuch as they will in the future be served under the same schedule as the balance of the system. The decision was followed on February 4 by a similar decision dealing with the rates on the Company, and makes the rates of this utility and the Company identical. The total reduction amounts to about $570,000 for the year 1930 and averages about 5% per cent. The agricultural- power reduction is $11,500, the major reduction as in the case of the Company being made to lighting consumers. The issues in this case were the valuation of the property and the extent of the service area. The company desired to include in the service area the so-called territory, which is largely owned by , but is being sold off at the present time. This area already has appropriative and riparian rights in the river aside from any rights it might have to share in the utility service. The inclusion of the area appears to have been made dependent upon supplying the utility with sufficient power-released water to enable it to properly serve the entire area. This is a proper solution and it is to be hoped that it will be- come permanent, as it is imperative that the water users under the system should receive water at a later time than would be possible under natural-flow conditions. In Application 16014 of the Company for an increase, an interim decision has been rendered which increases the gross revenue of the company ap- proximately $26,000 per year, according to the Eailroad Commission's engineer's estimates. This is very much less than the increase sought by the companj^. 34 Minutes of Annual Meeting of California Farm Bureau Federation directors, November 6, 1920. 35 The names of the utility companies concerned have been omitted from the quo- tations. Bul. 563] t he California Farm Bureau 43 The company has asked for a complete revaluation of its properties and the estab- lishment of new rates based thereon. It was agreed at the last hearing that work along this line would be conducted later in the year. Consequently this case is still active, although not carried on the calendar. To date, however, the latter request of the company has not been urged. 36 During the year 1930-31 this department participated in 31 new for- mal proceedings, in addition to 23 which had been initiated in former years. In the same period, 406 informal cases were received and 323 were closed. 37 The achievements of this department, in representing the interests of agriculture before the courts and commissions of the State of California, have been made a subject of commendation by a member of the Califor- nia Railroad Commission. He said : It is now more than a decade and a half since the regulation and control of public utilities passed from the municipalities to the State Eailroad Commission. Generally speaking, the municipalities have not gotten into step with this new order of things. I think it may be said with perfect accuracy that the cities are in this respect ten years behind the farmers of the state, who, through their State Farm Bureau Fed- eration, maintain a special department to represent their interests in matters coming before the commission — a department the value of which to the agricultural group can hardly be overesimated .... I have long felt that the cities should profit by the experience of the Farm Bureau Federation and perfect an organization to look after their interests .... 38 An examination of the reports of this department during the years of its operation indicates that the benefits of its activities apply to all farmers and, in some cases, to urban and suburban dwellers, and that personal service to individuals in the farm bureau constitute a lesser part of its achievements. Assuming that the point of view of the utilities remains unchanged, the Law and Utilities Department finds that the possibilities for further reductions in power, freight, and other rates are limited. Practically all county farm bureaus have law and utility service de- partments. These county departments secure the signatures of farmers in petitions for rate adjustments to be handled for them by the Law and Utilities Department of the California Farm Bureau Federation, inves- tigate complaints about utility companies, sponsor the cases of individ- uals who have claims against utility companies or commercial concerns, and make preliminary inquiries into irrigation and other utilities prob- 36 Minutes of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion, November 10-13, 1930. Tenth Annual Eeport of the Law and Utilities Depart- ment. Page 91. 37 Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November 16-19, 1931. Page 20. 38 Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November 16-19, 1931. Page 20 and following. 44 University ov California — Experiment Station lems which call for adjustment or the expert services made available by the California Farm Bureau Federation. They petition local concerns for power-rate adjustments. The Research Department. — Serious attention to the need for research in farm taxation occupied the attention of the California Farm Bureau Federation at the annual meeting of 1924. Two years later 39 it was an- nounced at the annual meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion that 29 counties had ratified an amendment to the constitution of the Federation which provided an addition of 50 cents to the annual dues for the support of tax research. The following September 40 a re- search worker began an investigation of farm taxes and tax legislation. He has been continued in full-time employment since his appointment. This is one of the least spectacular of the departments operated by the California Farm Bureau Federation. It is, however, accumulating ex- ceedingly valuable files of data on county budgets, income taxes, school taxes, taxes on publicly owned public utilities, and taxes for special purposes. These data are being used in the deliberations of tax commit- tees in county farm bureaus, as well as in the work of research commis- sions appointed by the state government. The results are better-informed tax committees in the various county farm bureaus, and a growing recognition of farm tax problems on the part of urban and suburban tax bodies. A brief quotation from a recent annual report to the California Farm Bureau Federation will serve to show the working procedure of this department : .... Based upon our research a half score of recommendations were set forth in my [Director of Research] annual report of a year ago. These recommendations were endorsed by you in the form of resolutions and it then became the task of the De- partment to work for their enactment. Therefore, our time and energies during the past year have been divided between research, the dissemination of information, the popularization of our tax program, and the sponsoring and promoting of tax legis- lation. 41 The broad duties of this department are to investigate, to report, and to formulate legislation in connection with agricultural problems, as may be called for, under the direction of the California Farm Bureau Federation. 42 39 Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November 17-19, 1926. 40 Report of the Research Department. Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Conven- tion of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November 16-19, 1931. Page 17. 4i From Annual Report of the Director of the Research Department. Minutes of Thirteenth Annual vember, 1931. Page 17. 42 By-laws, Article IX, Section 5. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 45 The tax committees or departments of county farm bureaus analyze local county budgets for, and make recommendations to, boards of super- visors. They study possibilities for county government reorganization to effect improvements in services rendered and economies in cost. They hear the recommendations and complaints of local tax committees and sift these for suggestions that are sound and workable. They hold tax discussion meetings, secure revaluations of agricultural lands for taxa- tion, and scrutinize local tax expenditures. The Publicity Department. — The Publicity Department was one of the first to be organized by the California Farm Bureau Federation. 43 With considerable modifications in plans, its work has been carried on largely through the publication of a news organ — the California Farm Bureau Monthly. Two paragraphs quoted from the report of this depart- ment in 1931 will serve to describe its set-up and activities. The set-up and construction of the California Farm Bureau Monthly plan of pub- licity is unique in that each county farm bureau in the state plan receives its own individual magazine. In this way each county farm bureau has an opportunity to share in the make-up and news content of its own individual edition, in whatever way best fits the needs of members in their own respective community. The local appeal and usefulness of the magazine is therefore determined in a large degree by the at- tention given to this county material . . . The contents of the state section has, therefore, been devoted principally to the activities of the various offices and departments of the state Federation: namely State Secretary, Law and Utilities, Organization, Besearch, Home Department, 4-H Club, Dairy, Poultry, Grain Growers, and Deciduous Fruit. A great deal of care and effort is given by the heads of these departments in the preparation of this material and it warrants the attention and thought of every farm-bureau member. Activities of the American Farm Bureau Federation and special articles applicable to condi- tions in California are included as importance dictates and space permits. 44 The objective of this department is to make the Farm Bureau Month- ly in the various counties as effective as possible in promoting the inter- ests of the local county farm bureaus and in promoting their unity and harmony with the California Farm Bureau Federation. 45 It depends very largely for its support upon the sale of advertising space to business and commercial concerns. This limits its usefulness in the California Farm Bureau Federation and for its readers, and cancels the privilege of free space for farm-bureau materials in other rural papers. In spite of handicaps, this department has improved the quality of its 43 The Minutes of the Executive Committee for February 4 and 5, 1921, give a rec- ord of arrangements made for the publication of a Farm Bureau Monthly. 44 Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November 16-19, 1931. Page 99. 45 By-laws, Article IX, Section 4. 46 University of California — Experiment Station publication so that its usefulness to students of current problems has become apparent. 46 The Organization Department. — The first uniform plan of general membership solicitation in the counties was recommended by the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation in October, 1920, 47 and was adopted by many counties during the 1920-21 membership year. The plan in- cluded three weeks of publicity in each county, the use of paid county solicitors, the use of hired solicitors in the centers, and the recruiting of volunteer workers to accompany the paid center solicitors. By the fol- lowing March the plan was reported to be in operation. 48 The reaction to the use of paid solicitors was unfavorable in all counties, 49 however, and a revised plan advocated that all membership work be conducted by center teams of volunteer member workers, supervised by center and county volunteer committees. 50 In November, 1922, the Federation established an Organization De- partment, and a State Membership Manager assumed his duties. The major purpose of the Department was to educate county committees in the proper methods of planning a membership campaign, and assisting them to conduct it through a definite time period, using volunteer lead- ers and workers. Through this adoption by the counties of systematic methods of membership building the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion reached its greatest strength in the following year. In the summer of 1923, because of unavoidable circumstances, the Department ceased to function, with the result that in ensuing years the counties devoted less time and thought to membership methods and problems. A generally steady decrease in the member strength of the Federation began in 1924 and continued until 1929. In December, 1929, the Federation recognized that the important activity of membership building was not receiving a balanced attention with other program activities, and the Department was reestablished. With a return of its services and assistance, county membership plans became more definite and systematic, volunteer team effort increased in 46 Annual Report of the Director [of the Publicity Department]. Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Novem- ber, 1931. Page 18. 47 See mimeographed circular dated October, 1920, filed with the Minutes of the California Farm Bureau Federation for that year. 48 See Minutes of Board of Directors of the California Farm Bureau Federation, March 18, 19, 1921. 49 From statements made by W. H. Walker, President of the Federation. Minutes of the Executive Department of the California Farm Bureau Federation, September 8, 1922. so See Minutes of the Executive Department of the California Farm Bureau Fed- eration, July 14, 1922. b ul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 47 the centers, and with the year 1930 the membership strength of the Fed- eration began to increase again. Every county has a department which is entrusted with organiza- tional and membership work among farmers and their families. A sam- ple county schedule of activities for this department provides for elec- tion of all farm-center officers in the county during October of each year, organization of county committees and election of county farm bureau officers in November, organization training school for all center officers in December, special attention to entertainment of guests at cen- ter meetings during January, a county-wide play day for all farm cen- ters in February, and, in March, a review training school and discussion of problems for all center officers. These departments cooperate with the Organization Department of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion in coordinating the work of the county-farm-bureau directors with the organized local farm centers in regard to membership organization and maintenance. The Farm Home Department. — California's sustained emphasis upon the importance of farm-center activities in the county farm bureaus has kept these organizations close to the farm home. The California Farm Bureau Federation, in cooperation with the home-demonstration sec- tion of the Agricultural Extension Service, has rendered direct service to the farm home through its Farm Home Department. Home demon- stration extension work is being carried on in more than 300 Farm Home Department centers in 26 counties of the state. 51 A decided upward trend was shown, during the years 1921-1931, in numbers of registrants, in numbers of nonmembers taking active part, and in numbers of farm homes adopting the practices recommended. Attendance at meetings held by project leaders increased from 1920-21 to 1926-27, then decreased; in 1930-31 it increased to just over 16,000. 52 The objectives of this department are to assist the farm family to maintain an adequate standard of living by supporting home-demon- stration work and by exchanges of experiences in home-making. 53 The activities of the county farm home departments include super- vised school lunches, featuring the use of fruits and of fruit juices as beverages, the study of kitchen arrangement and furniture renovation, rug-making, sewing, jelly-making, the improvement of farm bureau halls, the study of child-rearing, home-grounds planning, and problems of home management. si Minutes of Thirteenth Annual Convention, California Farm Bureau Federation, February 16-19, 1931. Page 19. 52 Data obtained from : Home Demonstration Section of the Agricultural Exten- sion Service. Summary of Statistics, 1931. 53 By-laws, Article IX, Section 2. 48 University of California — Experiment Station The farm home departments of the county and state farm bureaus are built upon a basis of the department centers which carry on their work in conjunction with the local farm centers. They occasionally provide refreshments for the regular meetings of the farm centers and greatly assist with the subject matter for discussion, and in recreational and other group activities. Other Service Departments. — The 41 county farm bureaus sponsor boys' and girls' agricultural clubs, which totaled in membership ap- proximately 10,000 in 1931. These clubs carry on pig, calf, poultry, gar- den, field, canning, clothing, and other projects. Several counties are sponsoring recreational camps for 4-H club members and club leaders' conferences. They display exhibits of livestock, fruit, vegetables, and handicrafts, at local, county, and state fairs. Several county farm bureaus in the San Joaquin Valley and in the counties south of the Sierra Madre Mountains have water committees or departments which cooperate with the county and state water commis- sions in the study of problems of water conservation, reclamation, and flood control. These departments give attention to taxes, water tolls, and refinancing in irrigation districts. They also formulate plans and poli- cies representative of the needs of their counties and they thus help to mold regional and state water-conservation policies. Closely related to the work of these departments is the work of various farm bureau fire-prevention committees, which sponsor education in fire-prevention and aid in the organization of fire districts and in the securing of fire-engines and other fire-fighting apparatus for the use of open-country localities. COMMODITY DEPARTMENTS All of the county farm bureaus have commodity departments which carry on activities of particular interest to the growers of those com- modities. The number and nature of the commodity departments vary from county to county according to the types of commodities produced in each county and to local conditions. The most common commodity departments are dairy, poultry, livestock, grain, and fruits. Similar commodity departments of county farm bureaus are as a rule grouped into regional commodity departments, which meet as often as is deemed necessary to deal with regional problems affecting those commodities. Most of the more common commodity departments of the county farm bureaus are also represented in the commodity departments of the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation. 54 The work of the commodity depart- ed Five commodity departments of the California Farm Bureau Federation held meetings at the 1931 annual convention of the Federation. They were the dairy, de- ciduous fruit, poultry, grain, and sugar-beet growers' departments. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 49 ments of the county farm bureaus is thus coordinated and made effective in a regional or state-wide sense by and through the California Farm Bureau Federation. The activities of commodity departments, county and Federation, are largely protective, promotional, and educational. Control of production, increased efficiency with lower costs of produc- tion, improved marketing methods, improved quality, and protective legislation are some of the headings under which specific activities fall. An enumeration of the activities of some of the more important com- modity departments will give a fairly concise picture of the objectives of these departments. Dairy Departments. — In 1931 some 26 county farm bureaus had dairy departments; nearly all these counties were also represented in the Dairy Department of the California Farm Bureau Federation. The county dairy departments in cooperation with the Agricultural Exten- sion Service give aid in the introduction of improved sires, in cow-test- ing, and other methods of increasing efficiency of production. They also assist in organizing and strengthening dairy cooperative marketing as- sociations. They are watchful of urban regulations affecting the dairy industry and take action against those which appear to work an injus- tice to the industry. These departments carry on campaigns against butter substitutes and lend support to all efforts to expand local con- sumption of dairy products. The dairy department of the California Farm Bureau Federation handles problems of state-wide or even nation-wide interest to dairymen. For instance, the annual report of the Chairman of the Dairy Depart- ment at the 1930 Annual Convention of the Federation dealt with the need for identification marks for tuberculosis-tested cattle, both reactors and nonreactors ; the need for improvement in the methods of tubercu- losis-testing ; the need for securing inspection for contagious abortion of all cattle shipped into California for breeding purposes; marketing problems of producers in areas supplying market milk to cities; the encouragement of a uniform type of dairy department in each of the counties ; the need of giving attention to the legislation of the state in order that laws affecting the dairy industry may be supported or op- posed by the farm bureau as interest may dictate. Poultry Departments. — Poultry departments of the county farm bu- reaus sponsor accredited hatcheries, egg-laying contests, and poultry- management demonstrations. They organize producers for poultry dis- ease control. They cooperate with the Agricultural Extension Service in investigations of costs of egg production and with farmers' poultry marketing associations in the improvement of marketing practices. The Poultry Department of the Federation concerns itself with legislation 50 University of California — Experiment Station affecting the poultry industry, uniform egg-grading standards, and other matters of general interest to the industry. Grain Departments. — Some county-farm-bureau grain departments purchase grain cleaners and dusters which are operated in the local and neighboring counties. Farmers in one county, during one season, treated 10,000 sacks of grain by utilizing the farm-bureau grain cleaner and dusting outfit. Some farm bureaus secure grain demonstration plots in their counties. Pure-seed committees personally inspect and pass upon fields from which certified seeds are offered for sale. Surveys of bulk handling of grain are made. (In California sacks are still widely used for handling grain.) These departments cooperate with the Grain De- partment of the California Farm Bureau Federation in securing im- proved marketing facilities for their commodities, and with the Law and Utilities Department in questions affecting freight rates. The Grain Department of the California Farm Bureau Federation organized a Pure Seed Association in 1925. A recent report of this asso- ciation lists the names of 44 farmers and farming concerns which are members and specifies the names of farmers and farming concerns to whom certificates have been issued. 55 Fruit Departments. — Citrus and deciduous fruits offer fairly distinct production and marketing problems. Some fruits such as prunes and peaches require separate departmental organizations because they are largely produced in a few counties. Fruit departments are usually or- ganized by special commodities such as peaches, prunes, apples, and cherries. These departments cooperate with the Agricultural Extension Service in tree-pruning demonstrations and in orchard-management schools dealing with pruning, spraying, pest control, and related sub- jects. Citrus departments have been watchful of ordinances and meas- ures dealing with smoke nuisances, which sometimes operate to prevent an adequate use of orchard heaters in seasons of low temperature. Some departments organize pools for the purchase of spray materials and fer- tilizers. They set up committees of growers and packers for the estab- lishment of standard grades for their commodities. Several have fos- tered studies of the prices of their commodities and of improved mar- keting methods, and have cooperated in enterprise-efficiency studies. Grape-growers' departments are active in experiments carried on by research workers in leafhopper control, in the control of other pests, and also in plant disease control. They have also been active in furthering the recent efforts of the Federal Farm Board to stabilize the vineyard industry of the state. 55 Report of the Pure Seed Association. Minutes of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federation, November, 1930. Page 14. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 51 Other Commodity Departments. — Some of the less common county commodity departments provide for the needs of hog, potato, cotton, bulb, hay, and milo-seed producers. They give service as to pure seeds, weights, and marketing conditions. They request surveys for new mar- kets. They give attention to such matters as improved sacking practices on the part of potato growers and the certification of approved seeds. They cooperate in experiments to determine the best fertilizers to be used in the production of a given commodity in a given locality. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU The California farm bureau has been interested in the marketing of farm products and the purchase of farm supplies for a number of years. Interest in group insurance, however, has been of comparatively recent development. The extent and nature of participation in commercial activities by county farm bureaus and by the California Farm Bureau Federation have never been clearly defined nor consistent. There ap- pears to be a belief in some county farm bureaus that commercial activi- ties conducted by and through county farm bureaus will stimulate mem- bership in the farm bureau and at the same time provide a source of revenue supplemetary to or in place of membership dues. It is also con- tended that large numbers of farm-bureau members who do not belong to established cooperative associations, or who are inadequately served by such associations in the purchasing of farm supplies, would benefit greatly from an expansion of purchasing by the county farm bureaus, especially during the present business depression when any reduction in costs of production is so important. It is the purpose of this section to analyze the past experience of the California farm bureau in commer- cial activities so as to ascertain whether or not such activities have con- tributed to the growth of membership in individual counties and what types of commercial activities the farm bureau may safely undertake. MARKETING AND PURCHASING ACTIVITIES OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Among the ten committees appointed at the first meeting of the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation in 1919 was one on marketing. Within a few months the question of forming a state-wide marketing organiza- tion was being seriously considered. 56 A widespread desire for such an organization led in 1921 to the formation and incorporation of the Cali- 56 Minutes of Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, May 13, 1920. 52 University of California — Experiment Station fornia Farm Bureau Exchange 57 as a subsidiary of the Federation. Its purpose was to act as the selling and buying agency of 21 county-farm- bureau exchanges which were affiliated with it. While the Exchange assisted in the purchase of farm supplies for some county farm bureau exchanges, its major operations were in grain-marketing. The Exchange discontinued active operation in 1924, partly because it had not received the support from members that had been expected and partly because the directors of the Exchange considered that competitive conditions were such during 1924-25, a short-crop year, that members could market their grain to better advantage without the assistance of the Exchange. The following year was also a short-crop year so the Exchange did not function in 1925-26 either. Meanwhile members lost interest in the Ex- change and it was not deemed advisable to revive it. The Exchange was finally disincorporated in 1931. After the California Farm Bureau Exchange was discontinued the attention of the California Farm Bureau Federation was more and more directed toward matters of more general importance in coopera- tive marketing. Its marketing department, which carried on the func- tions of the earlier marketing committee, set forth a plan of procedure 58 (1923), which had been made with the advice of economists in the Col- lege of Agriculture. The plan included research in connection with ques- tions of marketing and marked the beginning of the California farm bureau's attention to this method of attacking its problems. An undated statement of policy 59 for the Federation provided that : advice as to organization should be sought from experienced operators and economists ; membership should be limited to those producing the commodity to be marketed ; organization should not be undertaken until sufficient tonnage is available and is assured for future operations; or- ganization should be along commodity lines ; each commodity should be under the control and direction of one general distributing and sales agency; competitive cooperative marketing associations for like com- modities should be avoided ; market price should be based upon the sup- ply and demand of the particular grade and quality ; and management should be honest and efficient and membership loyal. The most impor- tant part of this statement of policy was as follows : "The farm bureau will carry forward the study and teaching of farm economics and en- 5" The operations of the California Farm Bureau Exchange were described in : Knapp, Joseph G. California Farm Bureau Exchange. Harvard Business Eeview 4 (4): 445-457. July, 1926. 58 Minutes of Executive Committee, California Farm Bureau Federation, January 11, 1923. 59 Eeceived from a former chairman of the Marketing Department, by letter dated March 11, 1932, to the Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 53 courage all cooperative activities tending to improve agricultural con- ditions. It will gladly assist cooperative marketing in every way it pos- sibly can without the obligations or responsibilities of such organ- ization." This latter statement represents the present policy of the California Farm Bureau Federation regarding cooperative marketing. The Secre- tary of the Federation recently wrote : 60 "We are committed to the prin- ciples of cooperative marketing and try to serve all commodities .... and we are frequently of assistance to commodity groups by helping them in their organization work." This statement is substantiated by such examples as the work done by the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau in fos- tering the recent reorganization of the milk producers in that region. While the Marketing Department is not now active as a department, the policies of the Federation are guided by its experience. About two years ago the California Farm Bureau Federation began to look into the experiences of farmers' organizations with cooperative purchasing, in the East. A committee was appointed during 1931 to head up a discussion of the subject at the annual convention in Novem- ber of that year. A conference of representatives from 22 counties met during two days of the annual convention and some of the experiences of county farm bureaus in cooperative purchasing were canvassed. This conference favored 61 the purchasing of basic supplies used in the pro- duction of farm commodities, the argument being that the farmer is a manufacturer of commodities and is entitled to wholesale prices for basic supplies. It proposed the setting up of a subsidiary form of busi- ness organization by the California Farm Bureau Federation. It recom- mended the establishment of an information bureau to furnish data regarding local and county pools, and other enterprises of the farm bureau. Trade discounts from local merchants and dealers for members only were discussed and advocated. At the present moment, the policy of the California Farm Bureau Federation regarding the cooperative purchasing of farm supplies is to stimulate research in the subject and to furnish such information as is available to the county farm bureaus and local farm centers. 60 Letter to writer dated June 4, 1932, by Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federation. 6i Eeport of the Conference on Cooperative Purchasing, Minutes of Thirteenth An- nual Convention, California Farm Bureau Federation, November, 1931. Page 98. 54 University of California— Experiment Station MARKETING AND PURCHASING ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNTY FARM BUREAUS During the years 1917-1919 seven county farm bureaus 62 organized an association known as the California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association, with headquarters in Bakersfield. This association is not in- corporated. Its purpose is to assemble and grade fat hogs in carload lots to be sold by auction at the place of assembly. Each of the counties rep- resented in this association elects one member of its board of directors. This association is still in existence. During the years 1919-1924, 21 county farm bureaus formed subsid- iary exchanges which were affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Exchange (see page 51) . In addition numerous other marketing or pur- chasing units were set up during the years 1919 to 1932, some as sub- sidiary associations under the supervision of the county farm bureaus, others as farm-bureau marketing or purchasing departments. As far as can be ascertained, at least 68 03 marketing and purchasing units have operated under the direction of county farm bureaus at some time dur- ing the years 1917-1932. Of these, 22 associations or county farm bureau units are still in ex- istence. Eleven of these associations are engaged in marketing, the remaining 11 in the purchasing of farm supplies. The average existence of the 22 associations in 1932 was 8 years, the range being from 2 to 16 years (table 22). Seven of the 68 associations, while still in operation as cooperative associations, are no longer under farm-bureau supervision. Two of these associations are engaged in marketing, 5 in the purchasing of farm sup- plies. The average period of operation of these associations was 7.7 years, of which 4.0 years were under the farm bureau. The range of existence was from 3 to 12 years. Four of the remaining 39 associations or farm-bureau commercial units were sold to independent interests; 35, including the 21 county- farm-bureau exchanges affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Ex- change, have discontinued operation. Several of the 21 exchanges and 9 other associations did both marketing and purchasing ; 9 of the asso- ciations (not exchanges) did marketing only. Reckoning the years dur- ing which the 4 associations sold out as their years of termination, the average period of operation of the 39 associations was only 2.4 years, the range being from a few months to 8 years. 62 Kern, Kings, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, Merced, and Stanislaus counties. 63 Counting the seven counties represented in the California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association as separate units. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 55 ° v M 2 3. 3 a >, -3 go T 1 ill c 3 S .2 s a Q+- CO 3°£ ■£ S CO GO CO s € 4) cp o3 g 3 9 tJ T3 ""d be t3 t3 T3 03 r3 s *> II ■2 3 is '3 2 03 3 >> CO CO CB CO woo * 3 SphpmPmPhPhPmpl, ? O O 3 3 3 g g 3 -3 2 -p >» 3 r 1 9 « fa ft o 3U - u 3 * £ S 1 § 3 3 £ b fa =3 ?3 Q g ■< 03 N o >> Ml ^33 .5 o a 3fi.S fa & 52 e8 ^ " CD > 3 t" «! 3 3 GQ CQ -A HI QJ 3 M 03 >- fa m SJ IK 03 .3 O 3'1-g «|£ § £ A S Mh Hi ,_) fi 3 3 3 ^ 03 o3 o3 CD 01 © o> 5 3 3 fa pq 1 3 3 3 3 PQ PQ 3 3 i_) Hi fe fn H m 2fa 3 2 83 ^ > £ H, © 3 o » « S 3 3 41 o3 cS Uh ^ h o 2 TS *& "o 83 © J ^ fl C3 o o HI J fa « M o >- 3 c3 -5 1 ■8 "2 i3 _ 3 o3 o'" d .3 -«.9 ■ I .£: | 3 —| bo *Pja '1 a >| "c3 £ 03 O : p. S £s Q M 56 University of California — Experiment Station a> v ... s3 I.SefS *s ft 53 "S« o 2 b o 3 o3 .2 a » SS.S S 88 o MO 5 >> 1| 5 £ t « : -D T3 OB O S3 j| S .S .S & g M ^ « 3 B «i r! 3 ^ O oo 3 O "E O S g £ o 3 ^ Sow >> § 8 3 S fa 3 tSM 8 « § 3 .s >> a 2 * 5s O H j a !.■§ £ 8 a 03 fa bfl "I ftg SlS fa OT £ Pul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 57 m £ o> S.S a 1 air I'll S7, « O ~ ^3 S) II 01 ID -£ -d S 1 ^ *- b b 3 3 03 S3 ft 03 ^ 03 4> "b 03 « 03 O ■9 T? S T3 "3 a ^3 __ _, "d 03 0) 01 03 03 +> «=» 03 5 5 b b 5 cs 3 s cS 3 Ph § S Ph 03 ■a H So So a W H § d 3 a ep a) o> <-. h u 2 2 2 « pq pq a a a d 03 03 0> M -G O X H bO O d S3 B Ph S o o . 03 S3 03 <-, 03 3 03 b€ bC « -G d (3 .G X * * X 4) d 3 3 3 3 « W pq Ph Ph Ph E" 1 Ph Ph Ph 3 c a 3 pq 3 3 pq g ? ? g si "C "S S3 a^ a Ph S •d b 3 13 -° .2 ^ m _* 5 j) g S c =« -2 3 M S m m >h a "3 o3 ^ Ph * 03 03 >> G G 3 -3 a m O _^ ^ B S co co £ "b <=3 a^ O 03 °pq H 5 ■as 3 S 4> 03 -" 4) •b a 13 M b* . c a o s a^ «> £ w o3 a> o5^ « S"S O ^ |pqg § Ma - ° ago 2 ^4)03 03 I -Si I "file sl- § .-§13 2 o* 1 ? a H.a° « ++-G ™ toe. J2£;b 58 University of California — Experiment Station Distribution of Association by Years. — The number of farm-bureau marketing and purchasing associations or departments increased rap- idly from 5 in 1917 to 39 in 1922, and 46 in 1924. While several new asso- ciations were formed in 1925, the discontinuance of the 21 county ex- changes and a few other associations reduced the number of active associations to only 22 in 1925. By 1931 the number had increased to 30, although several associations had been discontinued during the years 1925 to 1931. In June, 1932, there were only 29 associations, including the 7 associations which had separated from the farm bureau. The greatest number of associations were in operation in the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, during which the California Farm Bureau Exchange was active (fig. 3). Regional Distribution of Associations. — Marketing and purchasing activities have been more numerous in the San Joaquin Valley than in any other major agricultural region in California. Over one-third of all the associations that were started by county farm bureaus were in the San Joaquin Valley. Half of the associations that are still active are in this region (table 23). County farm bureaus in this region, moreover, have been most active in securing special trade discounts and rebates from local dealers on behalf of their members. This region in 1931 con- tained about 6,000 of the 21,000 farm-bureau members in California. Next in order of number of associations formed are the Sacramento Valley and Bay regions. The south coast region had only 1 association which is still active. The mountain and central and north coast counties had 20 associations. Volume of Business. — Information as to the volume of business trans- acted year by year by each of the 68 marketing and purchasing asso- ciations or departments is not in most cases available. Many of the asso- ciations have been discontinued and there is no record of the volume of business done by them. In the case of many of the associations still active, data on earlier years of operation are not available. Table 24, however, shows that the volume of business transacted by many of the farm-bureau commercial associations or departments even in the peak years was not very great. It is probable that three associations or groups of associations, the California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Associa- tion, the California Farm Bureau Exchange with its 21 county ex- changes, and the Santa Cruz County Farmers' Cooperative Exchange handled in any one year by far the major portion of all business trans- acted by the various associations or departments connected with county farm bureaus. The trend in volume of business of these three associa- tions can be regarded as furnishing a fairly accurate indication of the trend in the volume of all associations. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 59 The California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association handled over $10,500,000 worth of business on behalf of the counties represented in it during the years 1919 to 1931. The California Farm Bureau Ex- Distribution by Years of Farm Bureau Marketing and Purchasing Associations, 1917-1932 60 56 52 48 44 40 S 36 z o < u o co 32 < u_ 28 O cc 24 Ld CD | 20 z 16 12 8 7a DISCONTINUED OR SOLD TO INDEPENDENT DEALERS STILL OPERATING BUT INDEPENDENT OF THE FARM BUREAU. ACTIVE AND DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE FARM BUREAU. 1917 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '29 '30 '31 '32 '33 Fig. 3. — Distribution by years of farm-bureau marketing and purchasing associa- tions, 1917-1932. Most buying and purchasing associations were operated during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924. (Data from table 22.) change marketed grain and purchased supplies to the value of over $7,500,000 during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924. 64 It became inactive towards the end of 1924. The Santa Cruz County Farmers' Cooperative 64 Estimate based on information supplied by Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federation and formerly Secretary of the California Farm Bureau Exchange. 60 University of California — Experiment Station Exchange handled nearly $7,600,000 worth of farm supplies during the years 1921-1931. The three associations together handled over $10,600,000 worth during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, or a yearly average of over $3, 500,000. 65 Many other associations also did the great- est volume of business during these years. The Yolo County Farm Bu- reau Marketing Exchange sold $35,000 worth of hogs and the Solano County Farm Bureau Exchange purchased supplies and marketed grain to the value of $100,000 in 1923. In 1924 the Tulare County Farm Bu- reau's purchasing department handled almost $94,000 worth of farm supplies. Since all three of these associations and many others for whom data are not available were in operation during all three years, 1922, 1923, and 1924, it is probable that the volume of business handled by all farm-bureau commercial departments and associations was in the vicin- ity of $4,000,000 yearly during the period 1922-1924. EXPERIENCE OF SELECTED MARKETING AND PURCHASING ASSOCIATIONS During the three peak years of marketing and purchasing activities certain noticeable changes occurred in center attendance and member- ship. Center attendance decreased from 199,000 in 1920-21 to 164,000 in 1921-22 and continued to decline during the next few years. Member- ship increased to 26,000 in 1922-23. The next year, however, member- ship declined by more than 5,000. The final year of great commercial activity was therefore the year of greatest membership loss and was also marked by a continued decline in center attendance. This seems to indi- cate some relation between commercial activities and membership. An analysis of the commercial activities of certain selected county farm bureaus and membership furnishes a partial explanation for this rela- tion. Discontinued Associations. — The El Dorado County Farm Bureau Exchange was organized by the El Dorado County Farm Bureau in 1918 for the purpose of securing improved marketing facilities for the products of its members and to purchase feeds. A slaughter-house and meat-packing plant were operated in one town and a retail meat market and a fruit dehydrator in another. The Exchange had much difficulty in securing suitable managers and by the end of 1921 had employed three different managers. A deficit of over $52,000 had accumulated in the meat-packing plant and the other departments were also operating at a loss. It was decided in 1922 to discontinue operations, and the Exchange ss While the Santa Cruz Farmers' Cooperative Exchange separated from the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau in 1922, it continued to operate in very close contact with the Farm Bureau until about 1924. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 61 TABLE 23 Begional Distribution of Associations Number of associations Region All associations formed by county farm bureaus Active associations in county farm bureaus Defunct Associations sold to independent interests Associations now independent of county farm bureaus 1 24 13 10 20 68 12 3 4 2 22 2 2 3 7 1 3 4 10 8 Bay region Mountain, central and north 5 12 Total 35 Source of data: Table 22. TABLE 24 Volume of Business (in Dollars) of Three Associations Organized by County Farm Bureaus, 1919-1931 California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association California Farm Bureau Exchange Years* Volume of 3-year period Average yearly volume Volume of 3-year period Average yearly volume / 2 3 4 1919-1921 $ 3,724,000 2,056,000 1,778,000 2,990,000 % 1,241,000 685,000 593,000 $ 748,000 1922-1924 $ 7,600,000 $ 2,533,000 1925-1928 1929-1931 Total $10,548,000 $7,600,000 Santa Cruz Cooperative Exchange Combined for three associations Years* Volume of 3-year period Average yearly volume Volume of 3-year period Average yearly volume 5 6 7 8 1919-1921 1922-1924 $ 105, 000 t 1,007,000 2,012,000 4,461,000 $ 105,000 336,000 671,000 $1,115,000 $ 3,829,000 10,663,000 3,790,000 7,451,000 $1,276,000 3,554,000 1925-1928 1,263,000 1929-1931 $2,484,000 Total $7,585,000 $25,733,000 * Fiscal year of California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association ended October 31 ; fiscal years of other two associations December 31. t One year only, 1921. Sources of data: Col. 1: Report by D. H. Bitner, Minutes of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the California Farm Bureau Federation, 1929, page 20; and report by J. J. Nielson, Minutes of the Thirteenth Annual Convention California Farm Bureau Federation, 1931, page 30. Col. 3: Information supplied by Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federation. Col. 5: Annual report (1931) of the manager, Mr. J. H. Hauschildt of the Santa Cruz Farmers' Co- perative Exchange. 62 University of California — Experiment Station was sold to independent interests. Since the membership was liable for the debts of the Exchange, the final settlement involved the payment by individual members of $300 and by the county directors of $2,500. The El Dorado County Farm Bureau bore the brunt of the blame for the failure of the Exchange and as a consequence its membership, which in 1921 was estimated to include from 40 to 50 per cent of the farmers in that county, declined appreciably during the next few years. 66 The Glenn County Farm Bureau Exchange was organized in 1918 for the purpose of purchasing feeds for members. At first the manager was paid on a percentage basis. Economies were effected by assembling orders for feeds, purchasing in large lots, and handling cash business only. The Exchange progressed fairly well until it began to break away from earlier policies. It began to solicit business, extend credit, handle supplies other than feeds, and carry large stocks of supplies in the sup- posed interests of economy. As a result relatively large sums of money were tied up in inventories. Meanwhile a lumber department had been developed which at first operated a retail lumberyard but very soon pur- chased and operated a sawmill as well. Disagreement concerning man- agement followed. When prices fell, in 1921 and 1922, the Exchange was caught with large stocks on hand and consequently suffered heavy losses. Liabilities accumulated until in 1922 settlements were forced by creditors. Members and directors were assessed to meet the claims of creditors. Many of these were not paid and law suits followed. The dis- content resulting led to a big decline in membership and finally in 1927 the Glenn County Farm Bureau was discontinued. Glenn County is still (1932) without a farm bureau. 67 The Humboldt County Farm Bureau formed an association in 1918 to purchase feeds. It was intended originally that the association would collect orders for feeds, which when purchased would be distributed to members for cash. The association, however, soon rented a warehouse and employed a manager. During 1919-20 large shipments of feed were ordered in anticipation of a rising market. Large quantities of other farm supplies were also purchased. Credit was extended. The break in prices in 1921-22 found the association with large inventories, which were sold at a considerable loss. The association was forced to cease operating in 1922. Members were assessed to meet the claims of creditors. As in the case of the two previously mentioned exchanges, the discontent 66 Based on information supplied by Ivan W. Lilley, County Farm Advisor of El Dorado County; C. W. Rubel, Associate Professor of Agricultural Extension; and Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bureau Federation. 67 Based on information supplied by C. W. Eubel, Associate Professor of Agricul- tural Extension, and Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer of the California Farm Bu- reau Federation. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 63 resulting led to a loss of interest in the farm bureau and a steady de- cline in membership until in 1929 the Humboldt County Farm Bureau was discontinued. 68 The failure of each of the associations operated by the three county farm bureaus may be ascribed partly to poor management, involving overrapid expansion of business, the handling of too wide a variety of products or goods, the carrying of large inventories, and the lavish and unwise extension of credit. The rapid changes in market conditions in 1920 and 1921 called for operation adjustments which were not made in time to prevent heavy losses. Perhaps one of the most important ele- ments in the explanation of the failure of these associations was the fact that they were organized as part of a movement — the farm-bureau move- ment — and were at first carried forward by the growth of the organiza- tion rather than by the merits of efficiency in rendering service and of foresight of the management. As far as can be ascertained the experi- ence of many of the other farm-bureau associations which have failed were similar in many respects to that of the three associations described above. The failure of these associations appears to have had a direct bearing on and to have been one of the main causes of the decline of membership and center attendance and the difficulty of securing new membership in those counties in which they operated. The farm advisor in El Dorado County made the following significant statement : "While the farm bu- reau at the present time is not sanctioning any business venture in which the farm bureau, or any of its members are financially liable, the heavy loss incurred in the farm bureau exchange has been a very hard obstacle to overcome in securing new members." All three county farm bureaus mentioned above reached the peak in membership enrollment and center attendance during the years these associations were active. All three experienced a rapid decline after the associations were discon- tinued. In El Dorado County the decline in center attendance preceded the decline in membership, while in Glenn and Humboldt counties cen- ter attendance and membership began declining in the same year (ta- ble 25). Associations No Longer Affiliated with the Farm Bureau. — The suc- cess of a farm bureau commercial association does not necessarily in- volve the success of the county farm bureaus sponsoring them. On the contrary, the success of a commercial association may serve to divert members' interest from the work and activities of the county farm bu- reaus, the benefits of which are not so clearly discernible. The experi- 68 Based on information supplied by B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension. 64 University of California — Experiment Station ences of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau and the Lindsay Farm Center in Tulare County illustrate this. In 1920 the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau organized an exchange, which came to be known later as the Santa Cruz Farmers' Cooperative Exchange, for purchasing poultry feed. 69 A fund for working capital was established by the payment of $5.00 a member. A manager was se- lected and paid a commission of $3.00 a ton on all feed handled. Unwise buying, both as to quantity and price, soon brought difficulty. Late in TABLE 25 Membership and Center Attendance in Selected County Farm Bureaus-, 1919-20 to 1930-31 Discontinued associations Association no longer affiliated with farm bureau Association still affiliated with farm bureau Year El Dorado Glenn Humboldt Santa Cruz Tulare Mem- bers Center attend- ance Mem- bers Center attend- ance ' Mem- bers Center attend- ance Mem- bers Center attend- ance Mem- bers Center attend- ance 1919-20 160 158 253 225 174 132 131 85 57 98 73 85 3,346 3,196 1,775 1,103 1,927 3,124 739 1,259 857 547 239 2,553 367 546 142 506 363 238 244 54 53 18 18 4 4,535 8,298 7,512 4,710 3,606 3,970 3,600 1,787 200 361 245 217 163 46 194 99 25 1 2,860 3,102 2,156 1,535 1,704 1,294 1,563 1,634 934 35 161 609 531 730 537 459 506 446 335 241 431 300 9,014 8,471 5,602 6,175 5,688 5,397 6,353 5,310 3,750 1,720 3,085 2,472 706 947 1,441 2,132 1,016 1,983 1,530 1,473 1,493 1,412 1,308 1,065 6,146 1920-21 4,782 1921-22 4,403 1922-23 5,988 1923-24 3,260 1924-25 6,175 1925-26 4,509 1926-27 7,884 1927-28 5,964 1928-29 7,091 1929-30 4,433 1930-31 5,468 Sources of data: Membership from table 3. Center attendance from: Statistical Summaries, Office of the Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Berkeley, California. the year plans were made for a cooperative organization and in May, 1921, a petition was circulated so as to secure signers favoring the new plans. It was agreed that all signers of the petition must be, or must be- come, members of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. By the end of the month 208 names had been secured and $2,200 had been collected in membership fees. The fee for membership in the Exchange was $30, $15 of which was to be paid at once and the remainder within six months. A certificate of membership in the Exchange, redeemable at a later date, was issued to each member. While only farm-bureau members were signed up, the fee for the farm bureau was separate from the Exchange fee. 69 Based on information supplied by : J. H. Hauschildt, Manager of the Farmers' Cooperative Exchange ; and H. L. Washburn, Farm Advisor for Santa Cruz County. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 65 Modest and careful purchasing, cash payment and cash collections, together with unfailing care as to details of management, resulted in satisfactory growth. At first a small rented building was used, then a small warehouse was purchased; a building in the county seat was leased, and the volume of sales rapidly increased. Bran which had re- tailed for $40 a ton was handled at $28 after allowing a small margin to be refunded to members later. Corn, bran, shorts, middlings, and mixed feeds were ordered from the mills of the Middle West because of the advantage over Pacific Coast prices for these supplies. The Exchange increased in members from 221 in 1921 to 1,226 in 1931, and in volume of business from $104,952 in 1921 to $1,042,896 in 1931. The range of supplies now includes poultry feeds, hay and other feeds, gasoline, oil, hardware, and miscellaneous supplies. The services of cracking, grinding, and cleaning grain have been added to the serv- ices of purchasing and mixing feeds. The Exchange owns a mill and a large store and warehouse. Another store and warehouse are leased. Difficulties began to arise soon after the formation of the Santa Cruz Farmers' Cooperative Exchange as to membership dues in the Ex- change and the county farm bureau. Dues in the Exchange were paid only once, upon a member's joining, and thereafter a member could con- tinue to participate in the commercial activities of the Exchange ; dues in the county farm bureau, however, were payable annually and in- volved membership participation of a very different nature from the business relations of a cooperative association. Furthermore, many mem- bers had joined the county farm bureau on the strength of its promises, implied or explicit, to correct certain marketing and purchasing evils. With the improvement in conditions members began to lose interest in the farm bureau. Many members who had formerly paid their farm- bureau dues regularly, now neglected or refused to continue payment. They were not interested, they said, in supporting two organizations to get the benefit of one. It seemed clear to the leaders of the Exchange that a number of farm- ers had joined the farm bureau in order to obtain the services offered by the Exchange and that having achieved this they were no longer inter- ested in the farm bureau. Two organizations could not be supported on one set of merits ; each had to stand on its own merits. Farmers inter- ested in securing one type of service could not be compelled to continue in another association offering another type of service which they did not greatly desire. As farm-bureau dues were not collected from a num- ber of farmers, who were members of the Exchange, it was decided finally that the Exchange would accept new members without requiring membership in the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. 66 University of California — Experiment Station Towards the end of 1922 it was decided that the Santa Cruz Farmers' Cooperative Exchange would be formally separated from the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. Another factor which hastened formal sep- aration was the mistaken criticism of local dealers that the Agricultural Extension Service, through the local county farm advisor, was in busi- ness. Actually, however, the separation took place gradually and was not generally recognized for several years. The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau continued to report the operations of the Exchange to the Annual Convention of the California Farm Bureau until 1925. Membership and center attendance in the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau did not increase as rapidly as membership in the Exchange dur- ing the period the two organizations were closely identified. The Ex- change has experienced a steady growth in membership since it was or- ganized, the growth continuing after it was separated from the county farm bureau. Beginning with 1923-24, however, membership and center attendance in the county farm bureau decreased more or less steadily up to 1930-31 (table 25). While the success of the Exchange may not have been the only factor which influenced the decline in membership of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau, it is probable that the successful operation of a commercial organization does lessen members' interests in the intangible and long-time benefits and services of the farm bureau in the face of the immediate and visible benefits derived from member- ship in the commercial organization. The experience in Santa Cruz County seems to have been more or less duplicated in Tulare County, except that in the latter instance the com- mercial association was formed by a farm center and not by the Tulare County Farm Bureau, and operated on a local rather than a county-wide basis. In 1922 the members of the Lindsay Farm Center organized a commercial association for the purpose of mixing lime-sulfur for spraying citrus groves. Savings thus effected attracted growers from as far as 20 miles away, although the association was a farm-center affair, promoted by the members of the Lindsay Farm Center. In 1923, owing to the demands of the members of the lime-sulfur association, the Lindsay Farm Center also organized a fertilizer pool. These two asso- ciations soon began to handle other types of supplies, including gasoline, oil, tires, paint, and farm machinery. As the volume of business in- creased the Board of Directors began to meet separately from the Board of the Lindsay Farm Center, although reports were made regularly to the farm center. The two associations were combined in 1927 into the Lindsay Farm Center Supply Company, an independent incorporated cooperative association. Although it was intended originally that the services of the two associations and later of the Supply Company would Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 67 be confined strictly to members of the farm bureau, many members of the Supply Company have failed to keep up their dues in the farm bu- reau. Moreover, the Supply Company accepts new members who are not farm-bureau members. In 1931 less than 60 per cent of the members of the Supply Company were paid-up members of the farm bureau. Active Farm-Bureau Associations. — It cannot be said that county- farm-bureau commercial associations which have been successful and which have been maintained as an integral part of the county farm bu- reau have been successful in sustaining membership in the farm bureau. It is possible, of course, that such commercial activities may have pre- vented a decline in membership, although there is little evidence to sup- port such a conclusion. Of the 22 marketing and purchasing associations which are still oper- ating in county farm bureaus, 11 are engaged in the marketing of farm products. Seven of these associations constituting the California Farm Bureau Hog Marketing Association have had a long and on the whole fairly successful career. The other four associations are relatively small. There appears to be little direct relation between the operations of this association and farm-bureau membership in the counties in which it operates. There are 11 purchasing associations, the oldest and largest of which are the Tulare County Farm Bureau Purchasing Department and the Contra Costa Farmers' Association. A brief survey is given below of the operations of the first-named association as an illustration of the opera- tions of purchasing associations still connected with the farm bureau. The Tulare County Farm Bureau Purchasing Department was organ- ized in 1921. During the next three years it purchased on behalf of mem- bers 212 cars of grape stakes and 143 tons of wire and also small quanti- ties of other types of supplies. About 1924 the types of supplies handled underwent some change, sulfur, trays, spray materials, seed, and box shook (for fruit-box construction) being the principal types purchased. The volume of business handled by the purchasing department declined from $90,000 in 1924 to about $42,000 in 1931, largely because of loss of business to the Lindsay Farm Center Supply Company above re- ferred to. In 1931 the principal types of supplies handled were gaso- line and oil, seed, sulfur, fertilizer, and trays. The purchasing depart- ment of the Tulare County Farm Bureau also arranges for workmen's compensation insurance at reduced rates and negotiates whenever pos- sible special trade-discount agreements with local merchants on behalf of members. A small charge is made by the purchasing department above costs of handling so that a purchasing fund of several thousands of dollars has been accumulated. The purchasing department is man- 68 University of California — Experiment Station aged without cost to the department by the full-time paid secretary of the Tulare County Farm Bureau. 70 Careful management, cash business, and service to members have been characteristic of this association. Tulare County Farm Bureau has maintained a fully paid-up member- ship of 1,000 or more. The peak of membership was reached in 1922-23 (table 25) . The next year membership declined almost 50 per cent, to be followed in 1924-25 by a big increase almost to the 1921-22 level. Since 1924-25 membership has declined more or less steadily. Center attend- ance has fluctuated considerably from 3,260 in 1923-24 to 7,884 in 1926- 27. There is little positive relation between membership and center at- tendance. The instability of center attendance seems to indicate an ele- ment of weakness in this phase of the structure of the Tulare County Farm Bureau. The experience of the Tulare County Farm Bureau in commercial activities does not seem to indicate any very definite relation, one way or the other, between farm-bureau membership or center attendance and commercial activities. Several other counties which have not engaged actively in marketing and purchasing have sustained and even increased their membership. On the other hand, a few of these counties have like Tulare County experienced a decline in membership during recent years. All that can be said is that farm-bureau marketing and purchas- ing associations do not necessarily guarantee sustained or increasing membership even in counties in which these associations are successful. TRADE DISCOUNTS AND REBATES Another type of commercial activity carried on by many county farm bureaus instead of or in addition to the marketing of farm products and the purchasing of farm supplies is that of obtaining on behalf of mem- bers special trade discounts or rebates from local dealers or merchants. County Farm Bureaus and Trade Discounts. — Trade discounts for members have been negotiated for many years by county farm bureaus. As early as 1921 the Tulare County Farm Bureau had secured trade discounts for members from local dealers on seeds, box shook, and grape stakes. In 1924 the San Diego County Farm Bureau negotiated a 10 per cent discount on retail prices of farm implements and obtained whole- sale prices for members on lime, sulfur, dusting materials, and grape stakes. The next year it arranged in addition for a 10 per cent discount on retail prices of automobile tires. The Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau secured in the same year a discount of 1 cent a gallon below 70 Based on information supplied by Mr. Allen Thompson, Secretary of the Tulare County Farm Bureau, in a letter dated June 9, 1932. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 69 regular farm-delivery prices on gasoline and kerosene and various dis- counts on oils and greases. By 1929, 7 counties were regularly securing discounts for members on various supplies from local dealers and mer- chants. In February, 1929, this activity had extended to 28 different counties, 71 several of which were also operating purchasing associations or departments. The types of supplies on which discounts were obtained and the amount of discounts on particular types of supplies varied from county to county and sometimes even within a county. Gasoline, oils, greases, tires, automobile parts, lumber, spray material, fertilizer, feeds, seeds, paints, and hardware were some of the more common supplies pur- chased in this way (table 26) . The Economic Significance of Trade Discounts. — There are some very significant differences between this type of commercial activity and that of purchasing supplies through county farm bureau subsidiary associa- tions or supply departments. Under the latter form of commercial activ- ity the association or purchasing department contracts for the purchase of supplies and assumes financial responsibility towards the agents from whom it buys. The purchasing body must in most instances have some working capital, especially if it extends credit to members. If its busi- ness is at all large one or more full-time persons must be employed. As the terms which such associations or supply departments can obtain from individual agents depend largely upon the size of orders placed with them, there is always the incentive for the association or supply de- partment to make its operations attractive to members through the granting of credit, special services, and carrying stocks of goods. Unless extreme caution is used, such services are likely to lead to serious finan- cial losses. Furthermore, as these, purchasing units of county farm bureaus frequently purchase supplies from wholesale dealers or manu- facturers, they enter into direct competition with local dealers and mer- chants, whose volume of business is decreased in proportion to the in- crease in volume of these purchasing units. Such a state of affairs is likely to build up antagonism to all the work of county farm bureaus from business houses within localities in each county. Under a system of trade discounts, on the other hand, the county farm bureau merely undertakes to use its influence with members to purchase certain types of supplies from local dealers (or merchants) in consid- eration of the latter's conceding members special agreed-upon discounts on particular supplies below prevailing prices paid by nonmembers. 7i These counties were Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Merced, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacra- mento, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba. 70 University of California — Experiment Station TABLE 26 Trade Discounts for Members of County Farm Bureaus, by Selected Counties and by Supplies Purchased, California, 1932 County Name of company contracting Supplies on which discounts are given Amount of discount Per centf Flat discount Amount Unit Year contract was madej F { H 3 oil companies 1 milling company 1 oil company 1 garage 3 supply stores 4 oil compaines 1 tire company 1 auto supply company 2 oil companies 3 oil companies 1 tire company 1 paint company 1 tire company 1 rubber company 2 tire companies 1 oil company 1 tire company 1 auto-supply company 7 lumber yards 1 piping company 1 nursery company 1 brake service company 1 repair works 1 fruit company 1 laboratory 7 lumberyards 1 auto-supply company 1 tire company 1 supply company 1 oil company 1 seed company 1 refinery company 1 oil company 1 supply company 1 seed company 1 sulfur company 1 auto-supply company 1 lime company 1 chemical company 1 manufacturing company 1 supply company 1 spray chemical company.. 2 fertilizer companies Oils and greases Feeds Lubricating oils [Tires \Auto repairing /Sulfur \Calcium cyanide /Oils \Greases ._ Tires and accessories Auto parts and accessories (Oils \ \ Greases J (Oils \ 1 Greases J (Tires and tubes \Batteries Paints, wall paper Batteries, tires, and tubes All rubber goods Tires Lubricating oils Batteries Auto parts, accessories [Varnishes \Paints Pipe, tanks, and pumps Nursery stock Greasing, wheel alignment, brake adjustment, and re- pairs On all repairs Spray materials Chicken-pox vaccine Monarch paints ..... Auto accessories and batteries Tires, tubes, batteries Spray materials Oils and greases Seeds Smudge oil [Gas \Oil Miscellaneous supplies, sul- fur and sprays Seeds Sulfur Auto accessories Lime Sulfate of ammonia Spray rigs and parts Oil sprays Sprays Fertilizers 20 15 20 10,7 30 25-50c $2.00 10-15c 10-15c 10,10,2 5, 10 13c 5 25 10, 40 10, 10, 10 10 19 10 10 10, 30 20 5,20 10 33M 18, 20 50c Dealer's price plus 5 per cent for han- dling Wholesale 10 5 15, 43 15 Wholesale Wholesale Dealer Dealer Dealer Jobber Dealer Jobber Jobber Jobber cwt. cwt. gal. lb. gal. 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1932 1931 1928 1931 1930 1929 1930 1932 1927 1928 1929 1930 1930 1930 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1932 1932 1932 1932 1928 1928 1921 1925 1925 1927 1930 1928 1928 1928 [ 1929 \ 1930 * County designated by letter instead of by name in order to avoid disclosing trade information. t Each separate number represents a different type of discount, e.g., trade discount and cash discount. j Some contracts are made from year to year, others are for an indefinite period, while in practice they all may be cancelled upon giving notice, usually 30 days in advance. Source of data: . Information supplied by county farm bureau secretaries and county farm advisors, with the assistance of J. E. Tippett, Assistant Leader of Farm Advisors, Agricultural Extension Service. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 71 Under such conditions the county farm bureau assumes no financial re- sponsibility towards the local dealers ; each individual member contracts directly with the dealer for the supplies he requires. The increase in business accruing to a merchant from a concentration of member pur- chases enables the dealer to effect certain economies and a reduction in unit operating expenses, part of which he can afford to pass on to mem- bers in the form of a discount. It is probable, moreover, that certain additional discount advantages may be derived by members by reducing the amount of service required of dealers. For instance, if members could order machinery and other types of supplies through a dealer but take delivery directly from a manufacturer or wholesale agent at the railroad, the dealer could afford to quote a lower price because he would be saved the expense of carrying the supply in stock and handling it. While possibly some opposition may be directed towards the county farm bureau from dealers who are not successful in obtaining the con- tract to supply members, the opposition is likely to be much less severe than when county farm bureaus enter into direct competition with local dealers. Moreover, this type of commercial activity consumes much less of the time of the officials of the county farm bureau and reduces the danger of subordinating other and more important activities to commer- cial activities. Members derive a direct and tangible benefit from belong- ing to the county farm bureau, a benefit that would not accrue to them if they were nonmembers. The obtaining of special discounts from local dealers is a form of service which it would seem county farm bureaus are justified in undertaking if members desire it and provided care is exer- cised to ensure that this form of activity is kept in balance with other and possibly more important activities. It is necessary to point out, however, that there are certain limita- tions to the benefits which can be derived by members from collective bargaining for trade discounts through local dealers. There are more or less definite limits to the size of discount which a local firm could afford to allow members. The savings effected would not, except under un- usually favorable conditions, be as great as members could obtain by buying from a cooperative association which purchased supplies. More- over, there would be a tendency for firms excluded from such an agree- ment to reduce their prices to a point at which the successful firm or firms would have to reduce their discounts. This would lead to an all-around reduction in prices on particular items of supplies, which would benefit nonmembers as well as members. Furthermore, it is necessary for county farm bureaus to exercise great care in selecting the type of supplies on which discounts are sought and 72 University of California — Experiment Station the dealers from whom the supplies are bought. Quality as well as price is of importance. It is conceivable that a county farm bureau may suc- ceed in getting a special discount on oil and gasoline but that a low- quality product may be supplied. Moreover, there is a temptation for dealers to grant the same discount privileges to nonmembers in order to increase their volume of business still further. If this is done, much of the buying advantage supposedly derived by individual farmers from membership in a county farm bureau is lost. It is thus important for each county farm bureau to assure itself that the dealer with whom it enters into a contract to supply members at a discount confines this ad- vantage to members only. One very important weakness of the discount method is that farmers knowing what discount they can obtain from a particular dealer with whom an agreement has been made will use this information to get other dealers to give them a still greater discount. If this happens to any extent in a particular locality it is likely to weaken the bargaining power of the county farm bureau and also to cause the dealer with whom the contract was made to become dissatisfied. TABLE 27 Average Potential Number of Customers per Dealer for One Commodity Among Nonmembers and Members of Six County Farm Bureaus Number of farmers in county (1930) Number of farm- bureau members (1931) Non- members in county Number of dealers handling com- modity in county Number of dealers with whom discount agree- ments were made Average potential customers per dealer County Non- members Members All firms in county Only one firm in county 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Butte 2,603 894 2,156 1,805 5,730 5,743 501 289 380 405 2,331 517 2,102 605 1,776 1,440 3,399 5,226 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 1 420 151 444 350 679 1,045 100 72 95 101 501 289 380 405 2,331 517 Sources of data: Cols, land 2: Table 3. Col. 3: Figures in col. 1 less figures in col. 2. Cols. 4 and 5: Information supplied by county farm bureau secretaries. Col. 6: Col. 3 divided by col. 5. Col. 7: Col. 2 divided by col. 5. Col. 8: Col. 2. In order to- secure the greatest possible discount on any particular supply, it is necessary that the county farm bureau contain a consider- able number of members, that the item selected be one which is generally used by large numbers of members, and that agreements be made with only one dealer in each trade area. Agreements with more than one Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 73 dealer in a given trade area for discounts on a supply such as gasoline, tires, or grape stakes, divides the volume of business and weakens the farm bureau's bargaining power. Several county farm bureaus appear not to have realized this (table 27) . The mistake of dividing the volume of business between two or more dealers is illustrated in the case of the first four counties in table 27. In these four counties the nonmembers offer a more attractive potential business than members. This is true because all dealers offering discounts could expect to serve only a part of the farm-bureau membership, aver- aging from 72 customers per dealer in Colusa County to 101 in Tehama County. On the other hand, nonmembers averaged 151 potential custo- mers per dealer in Colusa County and 444 in Kings County. If each county farm bureau had contracted with only one firm, however, the potential customers per dealer would have averaged 289 in Colusa County and 501 in Butte County. In contrast, San Joaquin and Tehama counties have consistently fol- lowed the practice of making agreements for each type of supply with only one dealer, thereby offering an appreciably larger number of po- tential customers. San Joaquin was in a stronger bargaining position than any of the other counties because of its large membership, which was over four times as great as the next highest county membership. Rebates for Members. — A few counties instead of arranging with dealers for trade discounts to members on their purchases are arranging for these firms to make rebates to the farm bureau, the amounts, of course, depending on the volume of business transacted by members with these firms. The Stanislaus County Farm Bureau introduced a sys- tem of rebates as trade-discount agreements made in 1931 terminated. In order to operate more efficiently, its purchasing committee was en- larged and reorganized into a purchasing department which includes among its members a purchasing representative from each farm center in the county. A purchasing agent was elected, who is responsible for making contracts, for the clerical operation of the department, keeping records, and disbursing rebates to the members. Contracts were in op- eration in 1932 with firms which handle oils, gasoline, smudge oil, auto- mobile tires and tubes, spray materials, and other farm supplies. 72 The financial plan is briefly described in a circular as follows : In Stanislaus County the Purchasing Department receives 15 per cent on an annual saving of $20,000, 14 per cent on $30,000, 13 per cent on $40,000, 12 per cent on $50,000, and 11 per cent on $60,000. These percentage amounts are $3,000, $4,200, $5,200, $6,000, and $6,600, which are paid to the Purchasing Agent, who in turn pays 72 Information supplied by C. L. Seagraves, Jr., Purchasing Agent for the Stanis- laus County Farm Bureau. 74 University of California — Experiment Station out of this money the Department has earned, all the expenses of the Purchasing Department, pays back any money borrowed from the County Farm Bureau, and what is left is his salary. Stanislaus County is set up on a calendar quarterly rebate basis. The reason for this is that rebating the membership oftener is too costly, yet we do not want to hold the members' refunds any longer than is necessary. The re- bates from the firms with which we have contracts are also based on the calendar quarter. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Rebate System. — This system is a variation of the trade-discount system and appears to have some ad- vantages over it. Established prices are not disturbed. Prices paid by members at the time of delivery are the same as prices paid by non- members, and refunds or discounts are made at a later date. Actual re- funds of cash are likely, moreover, to be more tangible evidence of serv- ice. As in the case of trade discounts, however, competing dealers may offer members and nonmembers special price advantages or discounts which may force the contracting dealers to reduce their prices and even- tually their rebates. This is likely to be the case especially if the number of members of the farm bureau is small as compared with the number of nonmembers. If the amount of rebates is reduced there is always the danger that poorly informed members may lay the blame upon the pur- chasing department of the farm bureau instead of taking account of the adjustments which have taken place in competitive conditions. Under conditions of business stress members are likely to take advantage of cash discounts offered by competing firms rather than wait for rebates even if the eventual savings may be greater. Nevertheless, negotiation of rebates, as in the case of discounts, would seem to offer a form of serv- ice which county farm bureaus could undertake with advantage if the members desire such service. INSURANCE Among the types of insurance service in which the farm bureau has at one time or another been interested are fire, automobile, life and acci- dent, and workmen's compensation insurance. Fire Insurance. — As early as 1925 the California Farm Bureau Fed- eration was interesting itself in insurance. Attention at that time was centered largely on fire insurance, especially on the benefits of county mutual insurance companies. A joint committee on rural fire insurance reported that the mutual companies offered a satisfactory insurance for farmers and that, with certain suggestions for improvement, the farm bureau should endorse them. 73 73 Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, June 18 and 19, and September 30, 1925. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 75 Automobile Insurance. — In 1927, the farm bureau also became ac- tively interested in automobile insurance. So urgent a demand for this type of service had come from certain counties that the California Farm Bureau Federation made it a matter of special investigation. In Jan- uary, 1928, the executive committee sent notices to the various counties requesting them not to sign agreements with any automobile insurance company until the state Farm Bureau Federation had completed its in- quiries and made recommendations. 74 As a result of its deliberations the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation recom- mended in February, 1928, 75 that county farm bureaus place all auto- mobile insurance through the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company of Bloomington, Illinois, which was to be officially represented in the state by the California Farm Bureau Federation. The Secretary- Treasurer of the Federation was made state insurance director for the automobile insurance company and in each of the eight regions (see page 39) of the California Farm Bureau Federation the regional agency was delegated to be the regional director. 76 By August, 1928, the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau had an agent in the field. By the middle of November, 39 counties had adopted the insurance plan, 26 counties were organized, and 197 agents had been appointed. 77 Three thousand policies were reported in effect by the mid- dle of January, 1929. For the fiscal year November 1, 1928, to October 31, 1929, a total of 16,345 policies were written. The year 1930 began vigorously. 78 By early May, 3,552 applications were reported as com- pared with 2,872 for the corresponding period of the previous year. 79 But dissatisfaction expressed by certain counties with an arrange- ment whereby the farm bureau was affiliated with a commercial concern led in midsummer to a reconsideration of policy on the part of the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Executive Committee. By unanimous vote it de- cided that it was advisable to cancel the existing contract between the California Farm Bureau Federation and the automobile insurance com- pany. 80 Termination was effected on January 31, 1931. While the state 74 Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, January 20 and 21, 1928. 75 Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federa- tion, February 9, 1928. 76 Minutes of the Insurance Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, March 23 and 24, 1928. 77 Minutes of Tenth Annual Meeting, California Farm Bureau Federation, Novem- ber, 1928. 78 Minutes of Activities Conference of the California Farm Bureau Federation. March 3, 1930. 79 Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, May 6, 7, and 8, 1930. so Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, July 19, 1930. 76 University of California — Experiment Station Federation no longer represents this insurance concern, it recommends it to those applying for automobile insurance. 81 According to this insurance plan farmer-owned automobiles are clas- sified as preferred risks. Two discounts are made, one in the form of lowered premiums to farmers and the other in the form of refunds to the county farm bureaus of the counties in which business is done. Since all automobile owners are solicited, the special advantage to the mem- bers of the farm bureau comes in the form of refunds to their organiza- tion based on the volume of business done in new policies and in policy renewals in their county. While a great number of county farm bureaus are under agreement with this automobile insurance company, some counties have worked out plans with other companies. One county, 82 for example, made an agree- ment in 1928 with an insurance company which had done business in the county for over twenty years to write automobile insurance for mem- bers of the farm bureau and grant them a discount of 15 per cent below regular charges. Approximately 1,000 members took advantage of this offer during the year. The following year, a discount of 18 per cent was allowed, and in 1930 this was raised to 20 per cent. This agreement is still in force (1932). According to this plan all of the discount is made directly to the policy-holder, and these terms are open to members of the farm bureau only. Life Insurance. — Life insurance for farm-bureau members had been under consideration by the California Farm Bureau Federation for some time. Finally, in May, 1930, the executive committee voted not to take further steps on the question. The Butte County Farm Bureau has made arrangements for preferential rates on life and accident for mem- bers. 83 Workmen's Compensation Insurance. — Workmen's compensation in- surance has also commanded the attention of the farm bureau. In a re- cent report (1930) on this subject the Secretary-Treasurer of the Cali- fornia Farm Bureau Federation included a blanket policy which had been prepared with the assistance of the State Compensation Insurance Fund. 84 Two years earlier the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau worked si The California Farm Bureau Federation early made provision for a referendum to the county farm bureaus on matters which involved changes in policy or departures from usual lines of activity. But even when a majority approved of a measure, a determined minority could not be ignored without damaging the organization. 82 Harvey Van Vlear, Executive Secretary of the San Joaquin County Farm Bu- reau. 83 Bay Wi3er, Vice-President of the California Farm Bureau Federation, 1931-32, by letter dated March 26, 1932. 84 Minutes of the Executive Committee of the California Farm Bureau Federation, August 28, 1930. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 77 out a blanket policy for employers of farm labor with an insurance con- cern which handled this kind of insurance. 85 While this agreement re- sulted in savings to members it was canceled after a year of operation owing to changes in the management and policy of the insurance com- pany. A similar arrangement was made with another company and re- funds amounting to 25 per cent of the premium were made in 1931. The San Joaquin County Farm Bureau 86 secured with the same company a minimum rate plus refunds on actual experience within the county. In both counties these agreements have resulted in improvements in meth- ods of handling help, particularly with regard to the use of machinery and implements. The extension of this type of service to a considerable number of counties has been largely due to local initiative. 87 Membership Significance of Insurance Activities. — By far the great- est amount of insurance business has been done in automobile insur- ance. The state Federation promoted this activity during the years 1928-29 and 1929-30. It will be recalled that during 1928-29 member- ship in the farm bureau reached the lowest point in its history. This cannot be attributed to any one cause, but lack of balance among the activities of the California Farm Bureau Federation during these years must be reckoned as a contributing factor in the decline of membership. The experience of the California farm bureau in insurance activities has not been of sufficient duration to permit of any definite conclusions as to the desirability of this form of activity as a part of the permanent program of the farm bureau. It would appear that both the Federation and the county farm bureaus may with advantage to their organization undertake to represent their membership in the negotiation of especially favorable rates for members with established insurance companies, whose standing the farm bureau has previously investigated. The posi- tion of the farm bureau with regard to these companies would be simi- lar to that of county farm bureaus to local dealers. It would seem inad- visable for either the Federation or county farm bureaus to identify themselves too closely with any particular insurance company or to undertake to organize insurance business themselves. It would be better for each county farm bureau to restrict itself to merely arranging favor- able rates for members with insurance companies and recommending to their members that they support these companies. Care must be exer- 85 Earl Maharg, Secretary of the Los Angeles County Farm Bureau. Agreemeent was with Pacific Employers. 86 Harvey Van Vlear, Executive Secretary of the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau. 87 Among other county farm bureaus which have made use of this type of service are Butte, Colusa, Lake, Marin, Monterey, Eiverside, San Luis Obispo, Solano, Sutter, Tulare, and Yolo. 78 University of California — Experiment Station cised, moreover, that this form of activity does not consume too much time of the officials of the Federation or county farm bureaus and that other activities, which may be just as important, are not neglected as a consequence. If the special benefits of agreements with insurance companies go di- rectly to members and if the rates constitute a considerable saving over those paid by nonmembers, the advantage in regard to building up farm- bureau membership seems clear. But if the benefits offered are available to all farmers alike and refunds are made to the county farm bureau, the advantage to members would not be so clear. The support of a county farm bureau in any other way than by direct contribution of its mem- bers may be a source of weakness and even of embarrassment. Financial dependence upon dues collected from members tends to stimulate activi- ties which reflect the interest of the members. EVALUATION OF FARM-BUREAU OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES The foregoing analysis of the structure, objectives, and activities of the California farm bureau serves to show that it is a general-purpose rather than a special-purpose organization. The grange and the Farm- ers' Union belong to the same class of farmers' organizations. Among the best known and most important types of special-purpose farmers' organizations are those set up to market particular types of farm prod- ucts cooperatively or to purchase farm supplies collectively. The farm bureau differs from these special-purpose organizations in structure, ob- jectives, and activities. Special-Purpose Organizations. — Cooperative marketing associations owned and operated by farmer members are organized to assemble, grade, pack, store, ship, finance, and distribute particular commodities in order to effect savings in the cost of performing these services and to pass the services so effected back to members. They also aim at promot- ing the consumption of the product or products handled by them by means of advertising and consumer education. Cooperative marketing associations usually restrict their operations to one particular com- modity such as cotton or tobacco or to a group of related products such as poultry and eggs, citrus fruits, or deciduous fruits. Such associations may and often do organize departments or subsidiary associations for the purpose of purchasing supplies required in the processing and mar- keting of the commodities handled by them or used by members in the production of those commodities. Groups of farmers often form coop- erative associations for the specific purpose of collectively purchasing Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 79 farm supplies required by them. The primary objective of these coop- erative associations is to increase the net financial returns obtained by members. They may and often do carry on educational and membership work and interest themselves in legislative matters 88 affecting the com- modity they handle or their members, but this work is largely supple- mentary and incidental to their purely commercial operations. General-Purpose Organizations. — General-purpose organizations like the farm bureau, the grange, and the Farmers' Union are set up to pro- mote the welfare and education of all their members. Such organiza- tions have such large objectives and carry on such a wide range of activities that they are continually faced with the problem of maintain- ing balance among their activities. Commercial enterprises often divert the attention of members from the ultimate and contributing objectives of the organization. This easily leads to overemphasis of commercial activities with a resulting lack of balance among all activities. Some other activities may from time to time be overemphasized ; but restora- tion of balance has proved, in the case of the farm bureau, to be exceed- ingly difficult in instances where commercial activities have been over- emphasized. Furthermore, since the California farm bureau includes in its mem- bership producers of nearly all agricultural commodities, it would be difficult for the farm bureau to make its services equally available to all members by engaging in cooperative marketing without setting up and operating a large number of commodity cooperatives. This, of course, would be most undesirable, for such associations would undoubtedly come into conflict with established cooperative associations handling practically every type of agricultural commodity produced in Califor- nia. Any duplication of the services performed by these associations would not be to the benefit of California agriculture. The past experience of the farm bureau in California in operating cooperative marketing as- sociations has not been such as to warrant confidence in this type of activity in the future. The California Farm Bureau Federation has done no cooperative marketing since 1924. The 11 farm-bureau market- ing associations described above are operated by county farm bureaus to serve local needs. It is probable that these needs could be as well served by cooperative associations which have no official connection with the farm bureau. The California farm bureau at present (1932), however, is not so much concerned with the development of cooperative marketing associa- 88 The major cooperative associations in California have formed a permanent leg- islative committee with headquarters at Sacramento. The Executive Secretary of this committee is Mr. Ralph Taylor. 80 University of California — Experiment Station tions as with the development of a policy regarding the collective pur- chasing of farm supplies for members. It seems to be the belief that if collective purchasing could be delegated to a subsidiary organization such commercial activities would not conflict to any extent with the more general objectives and activities of the farm bureau. In substance the recommendations of the Cooperative Purchasing Committee at the 1931 annual convention of the California Farm Bureau Federation were that a subsidiary association be organized to purchase for farm-bureau members the basic supplies used in the production of farm products. The problem is not whether it is advantageous for farmers to purchase basic supplies cooperatively in order to lower production costs but whether it would be advantageous for the farm bureau to operate a subsidiary purchasing association. The Significance of Subsidiary Economic Associations. — It may be as well to analyze briefly the purpose of subsidiary associations and how closely such associations are identified with the parent associations. A subsidiary organization is generally set up to perform a function for which provision has not been made in the structure of the parent organ- ization. It is also a device to isolate the legal obligations of two or more sets of commercial or other operations from each other. If the one or- ganization fails the other may still operate. There are no legal objec- tions to the organization of subsidiaries in order to expand the function- al operations of a parent association. From an economic viewpoint, a subsidiary association, although a separate legal entity, is justified if it is needed to perform a function or functions which, together with those of its parent organization, serve to complete an economic unit of organ- ization. For instance, the purchasing subsidiary of a cooperative mar- keting association not only serves to isolate the financial obligations involved in performing the function of purchasing from those involved in carrying on the function of marketing, but also serves to expand and round out the services performed by the parent association on behalf of its members. In this case the functions performed by the parent and the subsidiary associations may be said to be homogeneous and supplemen- tary. 89 Weakness of a Farm-Bureau Subsidiary Purchasing Association. — Subsidiaries set up by a general organization, such as the farm bureau, in order to market farm commodities or purchase farm supplies, intro- duce functions which the organization was not primarily organized to 89 For example, the California Fruit Growers' Exchange of Los Angeles, originally- formed to market citrus fruits, organized a subsidiary, The Fruit Growers' Supply Company of Los Angeles, to purchase or manufacture the packing materials and other supplies needed in marketing the citrus fruits handled by the associations affili- ated with the California Fruit Growers' Exchange. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 81 perform. To plan a subsidiary in order to do cooperative purchasing is not logically the same procedure for the farm bureau as for an associa- tion which was primarily set up to perform a direct economic function. This has been illustrated in the cases of the purchasing associations which separated from county farm bureaus because it became impossible for the county farm bureaus to collect dues from members whose main interest was in the services performed by the purchasing associations (pages 63-67). The successful performance of the economic function of the purchasing associations did not directly depend upon the perform- ance of the functions of the farm bureau. Subsidiaries used by general organizations to perform direct economic functions therefore introduce heterogeneous functions. Just as the subsidiary of a cooperative association is identified with the parent association in the mind of the average man, so the subsidiary of a general organization is identified with the general organization. This creates no difficulties in the case of the cooperative association since the subsidiary assists in carrying out the special purpose of the parent association; by means of the subsidiary the usefulness of the par- ent association is increased and the loyalty of members strengthened. In the case of the general-purpose organization, the specific purpose of an economic subsidiary for a number of reasons tends to confuse the mem- bers. Officers of the organization may and often do spend a dispropor- tionate time with the affairs of the subsidiary. For example, the officers of the California Farm Bureau Federation spent an unusual amount of time during the years 1921-1924 with the business of the California Farm Bureau Exchange. During 1923, while yet in the midst of market- ing operations, the state Federation found it advisable to turn its atten- tion more to matters of wider application in marketing rather than to devote so much time to one particular organization. 90 Because of this and other reasons (page 52) the marketing subsidiary was discontinued during the following year. Members are confused, moreover, because of the difference in their relation to the parent and subsidiary organizations. The customer rela- tion between a member and the subsidiary is not the same as the rela- tion between a member and the general organization. This tends to di- vert loyalty from the general organization if the member is satisfied with the services of the subsidiary, or to undermine loyalty if he is not satisfied or if the subsidiary fails. The history of farm bureaus from which subsidiary associations have separated or with which associations so Eeport of J. A. Teagarden, Chairman of the Marketing Department. Minutes of the Executive Department of the California Farm Bureau Federation, January 11, 1923. 82 University of California — Experiment Station have failed, illustrates this difficulty. Another factor that tends to con- fuse members is the difference in the methods of support of the subsid- iary and the general organization. A subsidiary economic association is supported out of the savings effected in the performance of its functions. A general organization, however, such as the farm bureau, is supported by dues periodically collected. Support of the subsidiary is considerably more compulsory and direct in nature than support of the general or- ganization and thus superficially seems more easy to command. In view of all these difficulties it does not seem advisable for the Cali- fornia farm bureau to organize a subsidiary purchasing association, more especially since purchasing facilities are already available through cooperative marketing associations to which many farm-bureau mem- bers belong. An extension of purchasing facilities by the California Farm Bureau Federation or county farm bureaus may tend to weaken the established cooperative associations and to antagonize them. The Problem of Membership Maintenance. — As membership in the California farm bureau is of a distinctly voluntary nature, this organ- ization is continually confronted with instability and discontinuity in membership. This situation is difficult to avoid since many kinds of serv- ices are demanded of the organization and they are rendered with vary- ing degrees of success. Furthermore, many of the special functions and activities of the farm bureau are often overlooked by members. Fluctua- tions in numbers of members not only affect all activities but directly influence the financial support of the organization, especially when it is solely dependent upon dues. It is this difficulty of maintaining membership which has led many county farm bureaus to interest themselves in cooperative purchasing and other specialized commercial activities. It was felt that the direct savings which could be effected by members would stimulate their in- terest in the farm bureau and promote support of that organization. The past experience of the farm bureau, however, has shown that commer- cial activities do not give any definite assurance of membership support ; on the contrary, both successful and unsuccessful commercial operations have in many instances resulted in decreased support. As far as can be ascertained, the surest way for county farm bureaus to maintain membership interest and support is to maintain a wide range of activities of a useful nature vigorously carried on and at the same time to maintain a balance in these activities. This point is illus- trated by the experience of the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau (page 18) and several other county farm bureaus. In passing from a member- ship position of comparative weakness to the command of nearly 40 per cent of the farmers in the county, the San Joaquin County Farm Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 83 Bureau has carried on a full program of departmental activities and has emphasized farm-center meetings. This county farm bureau has made liberal use of trade-discount agreements with local merchants as a serv- ice to members and as an attraction to nonmembers. It is not engaged in the operation of marketing and purchasing associations, although one of its farm centers has developed a cooperative purchasing association. In none of these things is this county unique. Other counties have car- ried on corresponding activities but with no such great increase in mem- bership. Few counties, however, have carried on so full a round of activi- ties with as great a degree of balance among them, and no county has succeeded in placing so large a proportion of young farmers 91 in office and in leadership in the organization. The combination of well-balanced activities, a capable full-time secretary, an efficient agricultural exten- sion staff, and vigorous young leaders, has produced exceptional results. Many county farm bureaus need not aim at enrolling the majority of farmers in each county. Relatively large memberships are unwieldy and difficult to unify on matters of general policy and practically impossible to mobilize on questions of immediate importance. The proportion of farmers to be aimed at as a goal for membership would be governed by the experience of the organization in securing unity regarding policies on questions of general importance and by the number of farmers in the county. Thus small counties may enroll larger proportions of farmers. The Problem of Balance of Activities. — It would seem, therefore, that it is of vital importance to county farm bureaus and the California Farm Bureau Federation to give constant and increasing attention to the problem of maintaining a proper balance of activities. It is sug- gested that the following guiding principles will be of value as a basis for maintaining balance among activities : 1. That both ultimate and contributing objectives be frequently brought to the attention of officers and members of the organization. 2. That proportional attention be directed toward meeting both im- mediate and long-time needs of farm people, with immediate needs sub- ordinated to those which are more general and enduring except in case of practically unanimous demands. 3. That all activities be fundamentally related to the attainment of the objectives of the organization. 4. That no activities be undertaken which cannot be advantageously carried on within the normal organization structure, except those which 91 Based on estimates made by the farm-bureau secretaries and farm advisors as to the ages of all county-farm-bureau directors in California. San Joaquin County Farm Bureau was the only one in the state whose board of directors contained men who were under 40 years of age, to the extent of 50 per cent or more. In the farm bureaus as a whole 75 per cent of the county directors were 40 or older. 84 University of California — Experiment Station would facilitate the attainment of objectives. These, only, justify a change in structure. 5. That changes in activities and in structure, when decided upon, be primarily related to changes in long-time policy. Careful policy-making is essential to the maintenance of balance among activities and to the proper functioning of all parts of the organization. Commercial Activities and Balance of Activities. — The question nat- urally arises as to what part commercial activities can play in the pro- gram of the California farm bureau. Is it desirable that the farm bureau dissociate itself from all commercial activities, or have particular types of commercial activities a rightful place in the program of the farm bu- reau ? It is safe to say that it is undesirable for either the county farm bureaus or the California Farm Bureau Federation to undertake the operation of cooperative marketing or purchasing associations except under extraordinary circumstances. The negotiation of trade-discount and rebate agreements with local merchants and special insurance rates with well-established insurance companies may be undertaken with ad- vantage by county farm bureaus provided members demand these serv- ices, that these activities do not require a disproportionate amount of time of county farm bureau officials, and that the trade-discount and rebate activities do not conflict with the operations of the established cooperative associations. General educational work among members rela- tive to the importance and economic significance of cooperative market- ing would appear to be in line with the educational objectives of the farm bureau. It is also desirable that the farm bureau stand ready at any time to assist particular groups of farmers to organize cooperative marketing associations or to render service that may be of value in strengthening particular cooperative associations. Another desirable function along commercial lines seems to be in the field of legislation. While many of the cooperative associations in California are affiliated with and maintain a Legislative Committee, it would appear that legis- lative representation for farmers in California should go beyond the activities of the present Legislative Committee. 92 Not only is this true with regard to the interests of farmers as an occupational group, but in connection with legislation of wide application in the commonwealth, farmers need representation as citizens as well as representation as pro- ducers of farm commodities. 92 Ealph Taylor, Executive Secretary of the Legislative Committee of the Cooper- ative Associations, Sacramento, California, set forth in substance the view that California farmers need legislative representation in a larger sense than as producers of certain commodities, May 3, 1932. Bul. 563" The California Farm Bureau 85 MEMBERSHIP VIEWS ON FARM-BUREAU FUNCTIONS Classification of Views on Farm-Bureau Functions. — It is interesting to learn how closely the views of members coincide with the conclusions arrived, at above relative to farm-bureau functions. Among the 440 farmers interviewed during the course of this study were 270 farm- bureau members (page 24). Of these, 159 gave definite statements as to what they considered were the chief functions of the farm bureau. Many of the farmers mentioned two or more functions, resulting in a total of 199 statements on functions. These 199 statements on func- TABLE 28 Statements of Members on Farm-Bureau Functions Statements stressing Region Total statements Educational, legislative, social and general assistance functions Marketing and purchasing functions Other functions No functions Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent Num- ber Per cent All 199 47 85 43 24 100 100 100 100 100 113 24 43 28 18 57 51 51 65 67 79 18 41 14 6 40 38 48 33 33 6 4 1 1 3 9 1 2 1 1 South coast San Joaquin Valley 2 Sacramento Valley tions were divided into two major groups, the one group stressing educational, legislative, social, and general functions and the other mar- keting and purchasing functions. These statements were further subdi- vided on a regional basis so as to ascertain the views of members in different regions on farm-bureau functions. One hundred and thirteen statements stressed educational, legislative, social, and other general functions, 79 marketing and purchasing functions, 6 other functions, and 1 statement indicated that the farm bureau had no function. In all four regions more members stressed general functions than marketing and purchasing functions, although the San Joaquin Valley region showed more members stressing marketing and purchasing functions than any other region (table 28). Sample Statements by Individual Members as to Farm-Bureau Func- tions. — A few of the statements made by individual members serve to 86 University of California — Experiment Station indicate somewhat more clearly the views of members as to the functions of the California farm bureau. Farmer A (south coast region) : "The farm bureau has done much for farmers in legislative and educational work. It brings to the farmer economic information re- garding his industry, informs him as to the probable effects of proposed legislation, and aids him in understanding market conditions. Its farm-center work satisfies the social needs of farm people." Farmer B (Sacramento Valley) : "Wife and family are active in the Farm Home Department and in 4-H Club work of the local farm center. The farm center is the only unifying organization for local farm families and its social and educational work fills a great need." Farmer C (Sacramento Valley) : "As a protective and promotional organization the farm bureau serves as the farmers' Svatch-dog.' It informs him as to dangers in proposed legislative measures and forwards his interests by fostering measures favorable to agriculture." Farmer D (San Joaquin Valley) : "The farm bureau is primarily a fact-finding and fact-disseminating organization. As such it serves the farmer with respect to production, marketing, and legislative problems." Farmer E (Bay region) : "Since the farmers' greatest need is for education and self -development the farm bureau's educational function is by far the most impor- tant. Its greatest achievements have been in interesting the farmer in self -education and in furnishing subject matter for the solution of his problems." Farmer F (south coast region) : "The farm bureau has been valuable in connection with water conservation, in lowering utility charges, and in furnishing information on taxation. It has helped the farmer to attack these major problems intelligently." Farmer G (south coast region) : "In addition to its legislative and research work the farm bureau should set up a subsidiary to purchase farm supplies such as fer- tilizers and feeds and operate as a marketing agency for all of the state taking care of commodities not handled by commodity cooperatives. It should bring pressure to bear upon the Federal Land Banks to provide farm loans at lower rates." Farmer H (south coast region) : "The best service of the farm bureau is given through the law and utilities and research departments. Cooperative purchasing of farm supplies on a county and farm center basis should be carried on." Farmer I (San Joaquin Valley) : "Interest in taxation, production efficiency, and the tariff have been aroused by the farm bureau. Some of its most valuable work is done through farm-center activities. Farm women have much to gain from the work of the Farm Home Department. The farm bureau should limit its purchasing of farm supplies to the county unit as to size." Farmer J (Bay region) : "The farm bureau is an all-round farmers' organization especially useful to assist in controlling utility rates, in tax reform and giving gen- eral assistance to cooperatives. It should not operate any business concerns."^ Views Relative to Marketing and Purchasing by the Farm Bureau. — Of the 270 farm-bureau members interviewed, 222 gave an opinion as to whether or not the California farm bureau should engage in marketing 93 Compare with: Manny, F. B., and E. C. Smith. The Ohio Farm Bureau Federa- tion from the farmers' viewpoint. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Agr. Econ. in cooperation with Ohio State University, Dept. of Rural Econ. and the Federal Farm Board. Page 89, table 48. (Mimeo.) Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 87 and purchasing : 110 members were opposed to the farm bureau's engag- ing in these activities, 101 members were in favor, and 11 qualified their statements so that it was difficult to ascertain whether they were in favor or opposed. The San Joaquin Valley region is the only region in which the majority of members are in favor of the farm bureau's engaging in marketing and purchasing activities. In each of the other three regions members were definitely opposed to the farm bureau's engaging in this activity (table 29). TABLE 29 Farm-Bureau Members in Favor of or Opposed to the Farm Bureau's Engaging in Marketing and Purchasing Total In favor Opposed Neutral Region Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent All 222 64 76 60 22 100 100 100 100 100 101 22 53 22 4 45 34 70 37 18 110 35 21 36 18 50 55 28 60 82 11 7 2 2 5 11 San Joaquin Valley 2 Sacramento Valley 3 Some of the members who were in favor or were opposed to marketing and purchasing activities by the farm bureau gave their reasons for their views. Those who were in favor considered that the purchasing departments of many of the cooperative associations do not make suffi- cient savings for members on their purchasing operations; that the commodity marketing associations handle only a few of the commodities produced by California farmers ; and that farm-bureau purchasing de- partments could serve producers who do not have commodity marketing associations. Those who were opposed considered that the farm bureau should not operate enterprises which enter into competition with co- operative associations already in existence ; that the farm bureau was intended to serve as a unifying factor in community and county and that interest in specific commodities for sale and supplies to be pur- chased is not sufficiently far-reaching to serve this end ; that the close identification of the farm bureau with the Agricultural Extension Serv- ice in the minds of many people makes it inadvisable for the farm bu- reau to enter the field of competitive business ; that the farm bureau was not set up primarily to perform functions of marketing and purchasing. The figures and statements appearing in this section indicate that while many members are in favor of the farm bureau's engaging in mar- keting and purchasing activities (mainly the latter), most members do not consider that these are desirable functions for it. 88 University of California — Experiment Station ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation for assistance received from Professor IT. R. Tolley, Dr. J. M. Tinley, Professor H. E. Erdman, Professor E. C. Voorhies, Dr. E. A. Stokdyk, Dr. M. R. Benedict, and Dr. S. W. Shear. Suggestions and criticisms as to plan, procedure, and conclusions, in the course of this investigation, were of great value. The author is also much indebted to Professor B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension Service; Mr. J. E. Tippett, Professor L. B. Smith, Professor C. W. Rubel, and Mr. T. C. Mayhew, Assistant State Leaders and Farm Advisors ; and other members of the staff of the Agri- cultural Extension Service, for access to records and assistance in se- curing information from the county farm bureaus of the state. The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. R. W. Blackburn, President of the California Farm Bureau Federation ; Mr. Alex Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer ; Mr. H. H. Morrell, Director of Or- ganization ; Mr. Yon T. Ellsworth, Director of Research ; Mr. J. J. Deuel, Director of the Law and Utilities Department ; and other members of the staff of the California Farm Bureau Federation, for access to rec- ords and for valuable unrecorded information. Dr. Theodore Macklin, Director of the Division of Markets, Califor- nia State Department of Agriculture, and Mr. Ralph Taylor, Executive Secretary of the Legislative Committee of the Cooperative Associations of California, generously gave time to a discussion of the results of this investigation. The farm advisors and farm-bureau secretaries of 42 California coun- ties assisted the author in collecting information regarding commercial activities of the farm bureau. Invaluable specialized assistance was given by the members of the office, library, and statistical staffs of the Giannini Foundation. Grange and Farmers' Union leaders gave generously of their time, particularly in connection with the farm-to-farm study. Among these were : Mr. R. Vince Garrod, President of the California Farmers' Union; 0. B. Whaley, President of the Moreland Farmers' Union; George Payne, member of the Moreland Farmers' Union and a Director in the California Walnut Growers' Association ; Mr. W. H. Woodbury, Master of the Orchard City Grange ; Professor LeRoy Anderson, mem- ber of the Moreland Farmers' Union and the Orchard City Grange ; and Horace Keesling, Agricultural Editor of the San Jose Mercury-Herald. These were all residents of Santa Clara County. Mr. George Schlmeyer, Sacramento, Master of the California Grange, also contributed time. Bul. 563] The California Farm Bureau 89 The directors of the California Farm Bureau Federation, especially the regional chairmen, were of great assistance in getting the results of this investigation before the members of the farm bureau in numerous localities. Mr. J. A. Smiley, Mr. Roy K. Cole, Mr. Amon Swank, Mr. C. J. Rolph, Jr., and Mr. J. E. Bandy, were particularly interested. Among those in the several counties who gave considerable time to this project were : Mr. Roland D. Flaherty, Secretary of the Orange County Farm Bureau, and Mr. H. E. Wahlberg, Farm Advisor of Orange County; Mr. Earl Maharg, formerly Secretary of the Los Angeles County Farm Bu- reau and now Secretary of the California Milk Producers' Association ; Mr. M. B. Rounds and other members of the Los Angeles County Agri- cultural Extension Service; Mr. Roy K. Cole, President of the Farm Service Management Co., Ltd., Los Angeles ; Mr. Allen Thompson, Sec- retary of the Tulare County Farm Bureau; Mr. W. E. Gilfillan, Tulare County Farm Advisor ; Mr. J. J. Nielsen and Mr. Claud Ruch, Fresno County Farm Bureau, and Dr. J. P. Benson, Fresno County Farm Ad- visor; Mr. 0. V. Patton, San Joaquin County Farm Advisor, and mem- bers of staff; Mr. Harvey Van Vlear, Secretary of the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau ; Dr. George Locke, Director of the San Joaquin County Farm Bureau ; and Mr. Wm. Parker, President of the San Joa- quin County Farm Bureau; Mr. W. D. Norton, Farm Advisor; Mr. George Wilson, County Director; Mr. J. E. Bandy, Regional Director; and Mr. Lester Holmes, President of Yolo County Farm Bureau; Mr. H. A. Weinland, Farm Advisor ; Mr. J. J. Bergstedt, Farm Bureau Di- rector and President of the Poultry Producers of Central California ; and other officers and members of Sonoma County Farm Bureau ; Mr. Charles Pugsley, President of the Sutter County Farm Bureau ; Mr. H. L. Washburn, Farm Advisor; and Mr. J. H. Hauschildt, Manager of the Farmers' Cooperative Exchange, Santa Cruz County. Finally, the 440 farm operators and the members of their families, who gave information to the writer and to Mr. Ogden King, Mr. G. F. Barber, Mr. S. G. Sparks, Mr. B. F. Lucas, and Professor E. A. Ander- son, regarding their farms and their organization affiliations, are hereby recognized for their hospitality and cooperation. The writer wishes to express appreciation for the reception given by the California Farm Bureau Federation, the several county farm bu- reaus, and the many local farm centers, and grange, and Farmers' Union locals, to the reports of the results of this investigation, and the accompanying recommendations. 15m-ll,'33