The Evolution of Advisory Services
In 1922 the Board of Agriculture had produced a crucial report on the experimental farms which saw little reason to keep them unless they were of demonstrable value to the local farming community. The report made clear that farmers needed more specialised assistance from expert advisors. In the short term, advisors were imported in the face of a local shortage of suitable people but the long term survival of the scheme depended on the expansion of suitable tertiary education (Nightingale 1992, p.71).
With the introduction of an advisory service, the Fields Division was reinvigorated. Cockayne was the driving force behind this new development. With the failure to establish a centre for research and advisory work at Weraroa, the outlook for the Department’s advisory work in these fields after 1918 appeared uncertain, although the idea that Weraroa should develop into an advanced training institution had not been abandoned. Departmental attitudes towards the most effective form of advisory work were changing, however, as Reakes in the evidence he presented to the Parliamentary Industries Committee in June 1919 made clear (AJHR 1919). He declared that he did not favour any more experimental farms, but preferred to see the establishment of more co-operative demonstration farms similar to that operating at Stratford. Hawken, the MP for Egmont, a former member of the Board of Agriculture and Minister from 1926 to 1928, was even more emphatic than Reakes. He stressed, in his evidence to the Committee, the need for more research and downplayed the role of experimental farms in advisory work. In his words, "I think the American system is the best. More good is done by sending round thoroughly qualified men — men with scientific knowledge and training and men whom the farmers respect — than by asking farmers to pay periodical visits to experimental farms". A lack of qualified people was mentioned by Reakes as a reason for the limited results that had accrued from the experimental farms, when he declared, "you cannot carry out experimental work thoroughly and to the best advantage unless you have the right type of man to do the work and these men are not very numerous".
Education Department strikes again: Another vexed question was the respective roles of the Agriculture and the Education Departments in advisory work. Reakes, in his evidence (AJHR 1919), claimed that there was no real clash of interests with Education Boards whose instructors were going out amongst farmers and doing general advisory work, though he admitted that there was some overlap and would prefer to see his Department cover this field. But he went on to say "...there are a great many farmers who feel they do not want to be instructed and many farmers do know their business very well". Despite the various critical comments on the effectiveness of the experimental farms, the Committee in its report stated that "...these farms can be increased in number to the advantage of agricultural knowledge and education". It was also recommended that the Department co-operate with Lincoln to help Hilgendorf’s plant breeding programme. The desirability of a dairy school to train factory managers was also stressed as was the need for an experimental station in the Nelson area to work in conjunction with the Cawthron Institute on fruit culture.
The respective roles of the Agriculture and the Education Departments in advisory work was again addressed at a conference (AJHR 1920) in the following year attended by both Ministers, Nosworthy and Parr. So much emphasis had been placed up to that stage on vocational training for young people (though not a great deal had been accomplished), that farm advisory work was perceived by many people as essentially an educational function. Furthermore, largely as a result of George Hogben’s influence when he headed the Education Department, a lot of importance was attached to the place of agriculture in the school curriculum, though accomplishment fell a long way short of earlier expectations. Boards had been encouraged to recruit qualified instructors, both in NZ and overseas, to travel around schools and also to make contact with the wider community. Education Boards clearly had more flexible staff policies than the Department of Agriculture, which moved into the advisory field very slowly.
By 1920, the various Education Boards had 13 instructors in the North Island and 8 in the South Island; at the same time the Department of Agriculture had only three with the main source of extra numbers being the education service. One such was a young instructor from Scotland, Robert Tennent. The 1920 conference more or less resolved any demarcation disputes with the Board instructors’ responsibilities seen to be in schools with the Agriculture Department’s men on the farm. Proposals were also put forward for Lincoln to train more instructors and for the Agriculture Department to do the same. Ruakura was at this time helping ex-servicemen to gain practical experience, and Weraroa had done some similar work. Earlier, Reakes had spoken about the successful week-long refresher courses for teachers held at Ruakura, although the facilities there for teaching were still primitive.
The Department clears its objectives: Yet a clearer view of the Department’s objectives was gradually emerging; in his annual report in September 1921 Reakes wrote that, "development of agricultural instruction work through capable and efficient instructors combining sound practical farming knowledge with good knowledge of scientific agriculture must prove of greater practical value to primary producers than the operations of experimental farms". This comment may have been prompted in part by the debate in Parliament the previous August on the Board of Agriculture’s report which had focussed on experimental farms (AJHR 1920). With few exceptions, speakers had repeated claims for an experimental farm in their districts; one of the dissenting voices being Lysnar (MP for Poverty Bay) who suggested that a few instructors would be a lot more use.
When the Department’s estimate for 1920 were being considered, the only subject to arouse any interest was the new phosphate agreement and when farmers could expect to reap some benefits from it. Nor did MP’s display much interest in Departmental activities the following year. Finally in his 1923 report, Reakes was able to announce that, "a new Division of the Department has been authorised and is now in the process of organisation". He added that it would deal with instruction, experimental areas and experimental work on State farms, would provide advice on crops and pastures and carry on biological work. Hemp and grain grading were included; they were self-contained activities and did not fit in anywhere else. Cockayne took over as Director of what was designated the Fields Division. The State farms were not included, and by 1923 it was clearly intended to phase most of them out.
In a year when strenuous efforts were being made to reduce expenditure, some forceful arguments must have been put by Nosworthy to Massey, as Minister of Finance, to provide funds for the new Division though what was involved amounted essentially to a re-allocation of resources within the Department. Nevertheless, Brown’s demands expressed six or seven years earlier, for an advisory service freed from regulatory duties had been eventually accepted.
While steps were being taken to create the new Fields Division, the debate over higher education in agriculture continued, but it was at least moving on to a more rational plane (Wild 1952). In 1926, Auckland and Victoria Universities agreed to pool their agricultural endowments and Massey College was established at Palmerston North. In 1925, the Tate-Reichel Commission looked at university education in New Zealand and in 1926, the Heath Report on the organisation of scientific research was completed. The former was critical of the meagre provisions made for agricultural education in New Zealand among other things, and drew attention to what had been accomplished at Guelph in Ontario and at Ames in Iowa. Danish experience was also cited. Broadly similar comments were made in the Heath report, a major obstacle to the initiation of any serious research being the shortage of people with proper training. Heath was inclined to favour a set-up within which the universities concentrated on longer term research, with Government departments directing their efforts to issues of immediate importance. Though he spent some time with Departmental staff, Heath was not in favour of building a tertiary institution around Wallaceville which had been suggested by the Board of Agriculture. Both that and a dairy institute should be located in a major farming district (AJHR 1926).
By 1924, the Department’s organisation was beginning to assume the form that was to continue for the next 40 years. There were just over 100 people in the Head Office; some 252 in the Livestock Division, 72 in the Dairy Division, 44 in the Horticulture Division and 34 in the Fields Division. The latter included 6 Instructors and Assistant Instructors as well as 7 Field Instructors. People engaged in biological and seed testing work numbered 13. Other Divisions were also involved in advisory work, there being 4 poultry instructors, and one wool and one pig keeping instructor. The 19 orchard instructors, the two apiary instructors as well as the 25 men in the Dairy Division designated as instructors, were all involved to a greater or lesser extent in regulatory work so that their functions were not the same as those in the Fields Division.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
