eral administrators; what are its advantages; its disadvantages; and what changes, if any, appear advisable.

Forty stations reporting are unanimous in approval of the present method of inspection and approval of accounts on the Federal funds. The present procedure in formulating and approving research projects on Hatch and Adams funds is given unanimous approval. Procedure under Purnell funds is approved by 38 States. Two States maintain that the use of Purnell funds could be made more effective if fewer restrictions were imposed.

The requirement of Federal scrutiny and approval of research projects on Adams and Purnell funds is reported as advantageous by most of the States. Thirty-eight of forty reports agree that this requirement and procedure are advantageous in coordinating the station work with similar research elsewhere. Two States do not recognize such advantages. Forty States reporting are unanimous that this requirement is advantageous in improving and maintaining standards of research. Thirty, of thirty-eight States reporting, maintain that the relationship to the Federal office promotes longtime investigations which might otherwise be discontinued prematurely because of State demand for research upon more immediate but frequently less important problems.

Disadvantages of such Federal control as is exercised are reported by but few States. They are covered by the following points: (1) Purnell funds could be used more effectively if there were fewer restrictions on lines of work which may be undertaken. (2) Distance from the Federal office sometimes results in delay to the disadvantage of research. However, this comment was accompanied by the statement that "in general, projects under Adams and Purnell funds are better handled than those on State funds." (3) One State indicates that there are no disadvantages as long as State funds are sufficient to cover the numerous kinds of overhead expense which can not be escaped but which are difficult to assign to Adams and Purnell projects under the restrictions imposed. (4) Another reports that the arrangements are as a whole advantageous, but that occasionally Federal disapproval of a project that has been carefully planned by the State stations causes some inconvenience and wasted effort. (5) It is frequently recognized that the advantages of Federal supervision as now administered by the personnel of the Federal office might be destroyed if different personnel attempted, as would be easily possible, to dictate research plans and methods inappropriate to the needs and capacities of State stations.

These statements require only brief comment. The occasional disapproval of a project may be warranted, when the national as well as State viewpoint is considered. The terms of the appropria

tion act and the violations of good research standards that are sometimes found in station projects make such disapproval obligatory. Delays due to distance from Washington can be minimized. by air-mail service and telegraph. Where State appropriations are small there may be real difficulty in adhering strictly to Federal restrictions in the use of Adams and Purnell funds but the State, as well as the Federal Government, has a responsibility and the availability of Federal Hatch funds should make possible adjustments to meet administration of the Adams and Purnell funds.

Obviously much depends upon the policy and personnel of Federal administration. However, there is a growing tendency toward a general policy of national and State participation and cooperation in agricultural research. This is perhaps sufficient warrant that the policy of participation rather than of control" will continue in Federal supervision of the Hatch, Adams, and Purnell funds.

66

The policy of the Office of Experiment Stations from the first has been publicly announced "as one of participation rather than of control." The vote of approval from the institutions secured by the survey is ample evidence that participation has meant valuable contributions in guiding and helping to shape standards of research, in the maintenance of national as well as State and local viewpoints; in continuity of research where local need and local pressure might otherwise have resulted in too great emphasis on expedient investigation.

State Station Relationships to Research by the Department of Agriculture Within the Respective States

The Federal Department of Agriculture maintains its own program of research. Obviously in this work, as in the research under Federal subsidies to the States, there is need and opportunity for joint Federal and State participation, cooperation, and coordination. The survey attempted to discover the ways in which such cooperation and coordination are brought about, and the extent of such joint effort. What follows is not a complete quantitative picture but represents fairly well, policy, method, and performance.

Policy.-Examination of documents shows that this area of State and Federal cooperation in agricultural research has periodically been the subject of discussion by State and Federal workers since 1870. Throughout, there is recognition of the principle of cooperation and joint participation in research.

The following are the main types of cooperation:

Joint State-Federal operation of field stations.-"To assist in solving problems of special agricultural enterprises or problems of

localities there were in 1928 a total of 114 substations of a permanent nature connected with the State stations."9

The survey returns show that the investigations of at least 40 of these substations, distributed over 21 States, are in cooperation with offices of the Department of Agriculture. Dry-land agriculture, irrigation agriculture, cereal investigations, forage investigations, tobacco investigations, potato investigations, plant nutrition, soil fertility, plant diseases, plant insect control, animal husbandry and other subjects are under joint investigation. Several offices of the United States Department of Agriculture are cooperating at a number of individual stations.

In 16 of the 21 States the State controls land and buildings. In 5 the Federal Government has contributed land or has made contributions for buildings.

Federal contributions toward operation and maintenance vary from 2 to 95 per cent of the total. At 26 stations the Federal contribution is reported as 50 per cent or more and at 7, between 25 and 50 per cent.

Of the men in charge of such substations some are Federal appointees and some are State appointees.

The investigations are agreed upon and planned jointly. The carrying out of plans is under immediate direction of the superintendent. Federal and State agencies use the results-the State for local and State application, the Federal for regional or national application in conjunction with results from similar stations or from research elsewhere. Of the 21 States reporting such cooperative stations, all reported favorably upon cooperation in all its phases as at present administered. Not a single suggestion for modification of procedure was received in response to the survey question on this point.

Federal Field Stations Maintained Independently of State Stations

Of 40 States reporting, 24 list a total of 51 Federal stations maintained independently of State stations. Ten States have 1 such station each; 6 have 2 each; 4 have 3 each; 3 have 4 each; and 1 has 5.

In answer to the question, "Is research at such stations coordinated. with research of your institution?" 7 States reported "yes"; 5 States reported coordination in part; and 12 States reported "no."

Seven States report formal agreement and 9 report informal agreement as to problems under investigation; only 3 report agreement as to location of station. Fourteen, however, report that State station staff members are advised of progress and results periodically through reports or conference.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Report on the Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1928.

In answer to the survey question, "Are the methods of procedure satisfactory?" 10 States answer "yes"; 11 States answer "no." The returns do not indicate a lack of harmony or good feeling among workers but rather a belief that more purposeful coordination and cooperation would be advantageous.

The suggestions offered may be summarized as follows: (1) All projects should be in cooperation with the State station if practicable. Where this is not, practicable plans should be agreed upon by joint consideration as to location of such stations and concerning investigations to be undertaken. (2) A definite understanding and agreement should be perfected so as to promote good relationships and understanding which will be continuous even though personnel changes.

These suggestions have real merit and should be considered in connection with each such independent Federal station. This statement is based not upon apparent duplication of work or lack of harmony but upon the following points: (1) Joint consideration of all such work will result in plans based upon the best technical information and skill combined with the best local as well as national information as to problems to be investigated. (2) Plans jointly considered will result not only in combination of ability, experience, and viewpoint but will be followed by joint use of facilities and continued concern that duplication be avoided. (3) The example of some 40 stations jointly operated in 21 States indicates that coordination is feasible.

Cooperative Investigations not Involving Maintenance of Field Stations

Each State institution was asked to indicate for the year 1927-28, cooperation with the Department of Agriculture in agricultural research other than that involving maintenance of cooperative field stations or independent Federal stations as discussed under the two preceding headings. Forty States reporting show a total of 321 such cooperative projects. One State lists 35; one 31; one 22; two 18; only four States have but 1 such project each.

An approximate classification of the projects indicates State-Federal joint investigation in at least 36 subject-matter fields. Some 26 States list FederalState cooperation in a total of 40 projects in the field of farm management and costs of production; 14 States show a total of 18 projects in marketing; 17 States, a total of 48 projects on cereal investigations; 12 States, 28 projects on soil survey. In like manner forage-crop investigations, irrigation and drainage, plant diseases, plant insect pests, animal breeding, and grades and standards for agricultural products are subjects of wide cooperation, each with a variety of specific problems under jointly organized investigation. As further examples, 8 States show cooperative investigation on the problems of “soft pork"; 5 on quality of meats; 4 on study of animal fiber; 2 on oil sprays; 3 on drug plants; 9 on soil fertility; 3 on tobacco; 5 on finance; 4 on farm machinery.

The department is sharing the expense of such joint investigation in varying amount from 1 to 100 per cent of the total expenditures. Ninety-seven projects show Federal support to the extent of 50 per cent or more; 49 projects show 25 per cent of Federal support; 5 projects show as much as 90 per cent of the total support from Federal sources. The amount of Federal support was reported for only 212 of the 321 projects.

The survey inquiry as to whether cooperation in such work is satisfactory: (1) In formulating plans for the research; (2) in carrying out the plans; (3) in the use of results; (4) in coordination of results with similar results elsewhere for national and State use; and (5) in procedure to insure due recognition of all agencies and individuals; brought forth replies as follows: 29 institutions reported without qualification; with reference to all questions that cooperation was satisfactory; 10 institutions made a similar report with qualifications and suggestions for improvement; 4 institutions reported unsatisfactory procedure for insuring recognition of all agencies and individuals participating.

The qualifications and suggestions for improvement in procedure relative to such cooperation are fairly summarized in the following points: (1) There is need for more prompt publication by the Department of Agriculture and there should be less curtailment of manuscript by department offices not participating in the cooperation. "Better do less and report it than bury it until it loses all but historical value" is the comment of one report. (2) There should be a more nearly uniform or standard form of cooperative agreement, and adherence to the policy of addressing communications regarding projects, reports, and proposed publication to the director or administrative head of the State station. (3) Closer contact of cooperators. (4) Two reports, only, suggest that there is a tendency to dictate on the part of the department workers.

It is not surprising that some dissatisfaction should arise in cooperative handling of a total of 321 separate investigations. That 29 institutions report approval without qualifications, and an additional 10 approval with some qualification, indicates that these instances of lack of harmony are not general. More prompt publication is prob ably contingent upon more liberal financial support for publication of results. The objects of the research are discovery followed by practical application. Delay may be expensive to the agricultural industry and to the public.

Uniformity and simplicity of cooperative agreements should promote cordial cooperation. However, the subjects under investigation, the terms of cooperation, the individuals cooperating and legal restriction upon the use of funds frequently make for considerable com