Into the 1930s and 1940s
Possibilities of rivalry in the organisation and direction of agricultural research began with the formation of the DSIR in 1926. The Department’s Biology section, under Cockayne’s control, had been housed since the end of World War I in an old house in Kelburn. It had expanded its activities to include research on pasture strains, pasture ecology, fertiliser responses, plant diseases, insect pests, agricultural botany, and seed certification. More elaborate soil surveys were planned with the Chemistry Division of DSIR.
The Heath report cut across Cockayne’s plans. It recommended independent research institutes outside the control of Departments. In the establishment of the Dairy Research Institute in Palmerston North, Massey College was given a major say in its management, and the Department’s desire to establish a training centre for factory managers and dairy research facilities was taken over by the DRI and the College. The Dairy Division was able to establish its own laboratory at Wallaceville in 1929 for matters of routine quality control.
The same debate took place over the Plant Research Station at Palmerston North. Cockayne had established the programme of work and wished to continue being in control of it. However his appointment as Assistant Director-General in 1928 confined him to Wellington, and DSIR and Massey were able to exert more control over events and eventually exclude the Department from its management in 1936. There also appeared to be internal difficulties at the Station, when Levy, Muggeridge, Hadfield, Foy, Hudson and Doak complained to head office about the personality of Cunningham the plant diseases specialist. In the event, the system of joint control was terminated in 1936 after the election of the new Labour Government. Cunningham was moved to Auckland to establish the Plant Diseases Division of DSIR (Atkinson 1976).
The Department was more successful in the debate over the ownership and control of the animal nutrition research institute (AJHR: Ag. and DSIR, 1938, 1939). Rigg had suggested such an institute in 1933. Cockayne was in favour of a joint animal research bureau with the departments having autonomy below it. Dr John Hammond visited New Zealand in 1938 and recommended a research institute under DSIR control. Mac Cooper, then on the Massey College staff, prepared a blueprint for such an organisation and an estimate of the extra staff that would be needed. Fawcett opposed these proposals strongly, and following an outbreak of facial eczema in April 1938, was able to gain political support for new laboratories at Ruakura and Wallaceville, and in March 1939, for the establishment of the Animal Research Division. The first Director was J F Filmer. The reorganisation brought together 33 professional staff, 29 technical staff and 15 clerical officers.
Fawcett’s views came through very strongly, "...when an organisation of the nature outlined has been brought into being, there then arises the question of administration, and past experience points to the necessity of unified control. It is considered that the greatest efficiency and co-ordination can be achieved when the whole of the research, field and instructional services for one particular industry are directed from one department. The facial eczema investigation gives support to this contention. The work is being carried out under the administration of the Department of Agriculture with the valuable aid of a management committee and the expertise which has been gained in the planning of this investigation justifies confidence in proposing its extension in relation to the pressing problems which are facing the agricultural and pastoral industry at the present time. Central control, with the addition of committees of management comprising both experts and farmers, the organisation of scientific workers into groups instead of isolated outlets, and the linking of research with the farm are essential steps towards the elimination from our pastoral activities of losses which are not only impairing efficient production but also threatening to set back the main source of national income" (AJHR, 1938).
By 1939, Cockayne and Fawcett had the political support to control the research agenda, the DSIR was excluded from an important area of research, and the two Colleges were by-passed by siting the facilities away from their field of operation! Cockayne was able to reflect that "...animal research, particularly along the lines of disease research, must have full and complete liaison with those concerned with livestock and their management....the Department would maintain its links with farmers through its field staff and this gives the Department an advantage over other organisations." (AJHR, 1939).
These changes were played out against vast changes in the economic background in the 1930s. In 1930, the Depression reduced farm product prices disastrously at a time when production was expanding rapidly. The desire of British farmers to protect their position by reducing food imports lead to the Ottawa Conference in 1932. In exchange for no reductions in primary produce exports to the UK (which would have been disastrous for New Zealand), New Zealand agreed to maintain a 20 per cent preferential tariff on goods imported from the United Kingdom. From July 1934, short term quotas for New Zealand dairy and meat were introduced until superseded by the wartime bulk-purchase arrangements (Nightingale 1992, p.167).
The Coalition Government assisted vulnerable farmers by reducing interest rates, providing mortgage and tenancy relief, and pursuing deflationary policies The cost of farm inputs did not fall as rapidly as those for farm products. The Labour Party won the elections in 1935 with some farmer support, and economic conditions improved partly as result of better world prices and partly through stabilisation schemes introduced for the dairy farmers (Nightingale 1992, p.167).
While the Department played an important role in monitoring the reactions of farmers, it was not the prime agent of Labour’s reforms (Nightingale 1992, p. 168). The Minister of Agriculture, William Lee Martin, professed a dislike for inspectors and controls, but expanded the advisory work of the Fields Division. Total staff numbers grew from 650 in 1933 to 1015 in 1939. The Department’s activities remained structured in the Dairy, Livestock, Horticulture and Fields Divisions, until the formation of the Animal Research Division in 1939.
There is not a clear picture of advisory work in the 1930s. It is not clear how much instructors were involved with interest and mortgage relief measures. It is known that the seed certification work made great strides in the 1930s under men like Claridge and Stafford, and the seed certification laboratory was set up in Palmerston North. The Fields Division still had the dual responsibility of field trials and farm advisory work and some would have been involved in Fawcett’s economic surveys. The fixing of the guaranteed price for dairy products involved a number of investigations into dairy farmers’ costs and much of the field work would have been undertaken by instructors. Effectiveness of field trials was gradually enhanced with the expansion of soil survey work (by DSIR) and soil mapping.
Advisory services in World War II: A Council of Primary Production was formed in September 1939 convened by the Minister of Agriculture and attended by representatives of the producer boards, the Farmers Union, the Royal Agriculture Society and the New Zealand Workers Union. The executive staff was provided by the Department of Agriculture with Mac Cooper as secretary. Tennent, the Fields Division Director, took the job as chief executive, R B Connell was appointed organiser of farm production and G A Holmes as organiser of farm requirements. Local committees were based the Fields Division regional organisations. Following the entry of the Japanese into the war, greater emphasis was placed on rationing and manpower. Fields Division staff serviced district committees with local instructors normally chairing meetings. With the added work imposed on them from mid 1942, district committees were granted funds to engage paid secretaries, thus relieving the work load of the agricultural instructors.
Some Fields Division staff drawn into the work of the South Island district committees might have used them to push their own ideas, but such opportunities were few. Some conflicts of interest could never be resolved. As an example, maintaining wheat production and expanding linen flax production were, in some districts, incompatible goals due to competition for the same land. Linen flax was also a less certain crop than wheat. Local instructors were divided on whether to pursue the national interest or the farmer’s interest. Instructors had the job arranging contracts and giving appropriate advice according to national instructions. Their knowledge of the crop was not great and mistakes were made. At one stage, the Fields Division Director wanted his staff withdrawn as he thought they were being compromised as far as their wider role in the farming community was concerned.
From mid 1942, the Fields Division was also called upon to manage the Services Vegetable Production Scheme. Smallfield was put in charge of the project and instructors in South Auckland and the Hamilton areas were told to lease land for the project and manage the actual production of needed vegetables including managing itinerant labour. Large quantities of vegetable were produced by this method until the need quickly disappeared at the conclusion of hostilities in 1945. Smallfield later remarked that the Fields Division learned little from these wartime tasks that could be applied to peace-time conditions! (Smallfield 1970).
During 1944 the Journal of Agriculture was greatly expanded and its format revitalised. Its price was reduced to a nominal figure. The prospective return of the men from the forces and a more optimistic outlook regarding the future, and the willingness of the Government to provide the funds, lead to a reorganisation of advisory work in 1944. In December, Smallfield was appointed Director of the Rural Development Division, and J M Smith, Fields Superintendent at Palmerston North became the Fields Division Director. The new Division’s area of expertise included farm economics, farm management, farm machinery instruction, statistical analysis, and rural sociology. Part of the reason for the formation of the Division was to raise the standard of writing in the Journal of Agriculture with serious articles on farm management, regional surveys, home economics and rural education. The Fields Division and the Rural Development Division were amalgamated again in 1948 to enable Smallfield to take over the whole field of advisory and investigational work. The new division was called the Extension Division. Smallfield became Director-General in 1958.
The formative years assessed: It is clear that the Department of Agriculture took a long time to clarify its exact role with regard to advisory services for farmers. This is surprising considering the availability of information on overseas experience from the turn of the century. Developments in the United States, which are discussed in the next section, were based on an integrated organisational model which involved the universities, the experiment stations and the extension service. The Department of Agriculture in New Zealand chose to pursue an individualistic role throughout the 1920s and 1930s in the face of competition from the Education Department on the one hand, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the other. Success came with the so-called grasslands revolution in which New Zealand was a pioneer developer. Science and extension came together as a worthwhile goal for the good of farmers and the good of the Department! The influence of Cockayne and Levy and others in this initiative has been detailed in these pages. Even so, the idea of the farm advisory officer as a specialist expert did not emerge until after the second world war in New Zealand, when inspection and field experimentation were finally removed from their list of duties. Ironically, the very success of the advisory officers in the 1960s and 1970s lead to their ultimate demise as civil servants paid out of the public purse. This is discussed in the next section.
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
