Ohio History Journal

VIRGINIA E. AND ROBERT W. MCCORMICK

 

Agricultural Trains: An Innovative

Educational Partnership Between

Universities and Railroads

 

The handbill said 1:10 P.M., Thursday, October 26, 19111 but by

one o'clock a crowd had collected and was greeting each farm wagon

or buggy as neighbors arrived. A stranger might have described the

gathering as festive; not the exuberance of a 4th of July celebration,

but an expectant air akin to a farm auction or the county fair. Beside

the Hocking Valley Railroad Depot the mood reflected a break from

the work of harvest, the sociability of friends and neighbors, and

the anticipation of a program to be seen and heard. Men stood by

their horses and women held the hands of small children as the

steam whistle announced the approach of the special train. By the

time the engine and three coaches settled to a halt at the Logan,

Ohio, station, the crowd was moving toward the baggage car where a

platform was being cranked down to present the first star of the day:

a prize Poland China hog!

For the next hour and a half people flowed into the coaches to

hear Professor Johnson of the Ohio State University lecture on soil

improvement or C.R. Titlow of the agricultural extension department

show stereopticon views of improvements for country life.² But many

of the farmers had come especially to see the stars in the baggage

car: the Berkshire, Yorkshire, Poland China and Duroc Jersey hogs

selected by the agricultural college to exemplify the well-bred ani-

mals of scientific hog culture.

The crowd attending the Hocking Valley "Hog Special" did not

 

 

 

 

Virginia E. McCormick has served on the faculties of Pennsylvania State University,

Iowa State University, and The Ohio State University, and Robert W. McCormick is an

Ohio State University Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Education. A portion of this

article appeared in their recent book, A. B. Graham: Country Schoolmaster and Exten-

sion Pioneer.

 

1. Hocking Valley Railroad Handbill, "Hog Special" October 23-27, 1911.

2. "Agricultural Extension," Lancaster Daily Eagle, October. 26, 1911.

• 1
 

Agricultural Trains                                          35

realize that they were participants at the zenith of an unusual educa- tional venture. The Ohio Farmer would soon be noting proudly that from January 1, 1911, to January 1, 1912, fourteen special agricultural trains under the jurisdiction of the Ohio State University College of Agriculture had operated for fifty days, traveling 3,379 miles, making 360 stops in 68 counties, with 42,198 persons attending their lectures.3 Ohio was an excellent example of a national movement which peaked that year with seventy-one trains in twenty-eight states attracting some 995,220 people.4 It was a phenomenon which flourished across much of rural Amer- ica during the decade from 1904 through 1914, and it was an early and exotic example of education taken from institutions of higher ed- ucation directly to the adults of the community. In October 1911 the Ohio State lecturers and the Hocking Valley rail agents had no more suspicion than the crowds flocking through their cars that factors similar to those which had created this unique partnership between land-grant universities and railroad companies a few years earlier     3. "Agricultural Trains in Ohio," Ohio Farmer, 129 (March 2, 1912)14-294. 4. Alfred C. True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States, 1785-1923 (Washington, D.C., 1928), 30.

• 2
 

36                                                   OHIO HISTORY

 

were about to cause its demise. The strengths and weaknesses of this

early partnership between public universities and private business of-

fer thought-provoking insights for contemporary educators attempt-

ing to forge linkages between educational institutions and the busi-

ness community.

At the turn of the twentieth century the agricultural industry was a

dominant factor in the national economy, and railroads had become

the principal means for transporting its goods. Ohio's diversified cli-

mate and soils combined with its geographic position between east

and west to present a microcosm of national trends regarding agricul-

tural production and marketing. In 1899, ninety-five incorporated rail-

road companies were operating in the state, seventy of them entirely

within its borders, over 8,767 miles of main line track.⁵ Company offi-

cials boasted of passenger service every half-hour in densely popu-

lated districts and engines capable of producing speeds approaching

a mile a minute. Rail technology was firmly in position, and transpor-

tation companies were competing aggressively for the freight tonnage

which produced their greatest profits.

At the same time Ohio farmers, like their counterparts across the

nation, were eagerly seeking information which would allow them

to increase their production and profits. Ohio had long held local

Farmers' Institutes under the auspices of the State Board of Agricul-

ture, and Columbus had just hosted the national meeting for the or-

ganizers and lecturers of such meetings.⁶ But more significantly, the

Hatch Act of 1887 had provided each state with federal funds to es-

tablish an agricultural experiment station.⁷ In 1895, a nucleus of alum-

ni from the College of Agriculture at Ohio State University organized

an Agricultural Students Union to conduct local experiments in co-

operation with Ohio's agricultural research station. They generated

awareness of scientific agricultural practices statewide and succeeded

in pressuring university trustees to establish an agricultural extension

service within the college of agriculture to disseminate agricultural re-

search. When A.B. Graham became its first superintendent July 1,

 

 

5. R.S. Kaylor, "Ohio Railroads," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society

Publications, 9 (1900), 189-92.

6. John Hamilton, Farmers' Institutes and Agricultural Extension Work in the Unit-

ed States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Experiment Station Bul-

letin, No. 83, 1914).

7. A concise statement regarding this legislation may be found in Roy V. Scott, The

Reluctant Farmer: The Rise of Agricultural Extension to 1914 (Urbana, Illinois, 1970),

33. Readers wishing more detail are referred to Alfred C. True, A History of Agricultur-

al Experimentation and Research in the United States, 1607-1925 (Washington, D.C.,

1937).

• 3
 

Agricultural Trains                                             37

 

1905, the stage was set for launching several aggressive methods for

extending agricultural education to farmers.⁸

One of these methods adopted an innovative idea utilized a year

earlier in Iowa. Perry G. Holden of Iowa State College, in partnership

with the Rock Island and then with the Burlington Railroad, ran

"Seed Corn Specials" in April 1904 to reach farmers with scientific

information just before planting season.⁹ Railroads had been cooper-

ating with agriculturists in several states and in Canada for some time,

providing free passes for speakers and transporting demonstration

equipment for Farmers' Institutes, but Iowa's use of rail cars as mo-

bile classrooms was an instant success. Thousands of farmers were

contacted within days, and other railroads quickly realized that

such specials not only publicized their line as the farmer's friend, but

by helping farmers increase their capacity, they potentially increased

their own freight volume and net profits. Modifications of the idea

spread rapidly to several states.

Educators realized the profit motive behind the altruism of the

transportation companies from the beginning, but it was a partnership

which offered mutual benefit. As one phrased it: "In order that a

railway company may profit to the fullest extent from the agriculture

contiguous to its lines, it has now become clear that it must do more

than construct tracks, run trains, and carry freight. It must come in a

helpful way into direct personal contact with the farmers. The policy

of standing aloof and regarding country people as aliens is disastrous.

The average farmer is not a merchant; he is a producer, and conse-

quently must have assistance in selling if he is to realize the greatest

possible profit for his labor."¹⁰

No one denied that the exotic nature of the method was a signifi-

cant factor in its educational attraction. When the U.S. Department of

Agriculture sent its farmers' institute specialist out in the spring of

1906 to participate on the Illinois Central Railroad agricultural special,

he reported: "Although the country roads were deep with mud, the

attendance at the stations at which the stops were made was all that

could have been desired, ranging in number from 150 to 400. The

 

 

 

8. V.E. & R.W. McCormick, A.B. Graham: Country Schoolmaster and Extension Pi-

oneer (Worthington, Ohio, 1984), 104-05; Carlton F. Christian, History of Cooperative

Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics in Ohio (Columbus, Ohio, 1959),

2.

9. Scott, Reluctant Farmer, 178-79.

10. John Hamilton, The Transportation Companies as Factors in Agricultural Exten-

sion, U.S.D.A., Office of Experiment Stations, Circular 112 (Washington, D.C.: Gov-

ernment Printing Office, 1911), 12.

• 4
 

38                                      OHIO HISTORY

novelty of the method has no doubt had something to do with the attendance, but there seems also to have been, as evidenced by the close attention given to the lectures and by the questions asked, a real desire for information."11 It was in this climate that Ohio launched its first agricultural train the last week of December 1906, a cooperative venture arranged by Dean Homer C. Price of the Ohio State University College of Agricul- ture with the agents of the Cincinnati district of the "Big Four."12 Beginning at Germantown in Montgomery County and concluding at West Unity in Williams County, this first train traveled 145 miles across some of Ohio's richest farmland, making seventeen stops of ap- proximately forty-five minutes each during its two-day journey. Two cars featured simultaneous lectures on corn and alfalfa and the speak-       11. Alfred C. True, A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States, 1785-1923, 29. 12. Christian, Cooperative Extension in Ohio, 5; The "Big Four" was the Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, and St. Louis Railroad which had consolidated several earlier smaller lines.

• 5
 

Agricultural Trains                                                 39

ers coordinated by Dean Price and Director Thorne of the Agricul- tural Experiment Station included Professors Ford and McCall of the O.S.U. agronomy faculty, the president of the Grain Dealers' Associ- ation, the chief grain inspector of the Toledo Produce Exchange, and the secretary of the Ohio Millers' Association.13 All participants ex- pected benefits. Farmers expected expert advice for improving pro- duction and profits, railroads and grain dealers expected to increase profits by handling larger grain tonnage, and the college expected in- creased funding for research and instruction. The agricultural college magazine boasted that, "Over 2300 farmers were addressed on the trip and every one connected with the train was enthusiastic over its success. The audience were attentive and anxious to hear every word the speakers had to say and the only regret that was heard was the fact that the train could not stop longer."14 While the college might be accused of exaggerating its success slightly, there is no doubt that other railroad lines were immediately offering to sponsor such trains. In April 1907 Ohio's second train ran     13. "Agricultural Car Gives Advice," Mercer County Observer, January 3, 1907. 14. "Agricultural Special Train," The Agricultural Student, XIII, (February, 1907), 4-6.

• 6
 

40                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

for a week, with two days on B. & O. lines from Columbus to Blan-

chester to Chillicothe and three days on the Pennsylvania Railroad

across western Ohio. Evening meetings were added at the overnight

stops in Blanchester, Xenia and Piqua to increase the educational im-

pact. These special agricultural trains were added to the responsibili-

ties of the fledgling agricultural extension department which was op-

erating on a budget derived from the "produce fund" generated by

product sales from the university farm. The department was still

more than two years away from state support and almost six years re-

moved from its first federal funding. But the college was already well

aware these trains were generating good will as well as teaching better

farming methods. Its staff writer stated confidently, "Without doubt

a good many people have been given a closer acquaintance with the

Agricultural College and Experiment Station, and the seed thus sown

will in time bear fruit."15

Both geography and the seasons dictated that agricultural trains

be specialized for specific audiences. While soil improvement lec-

tures might be relevant to all, many who wished recommendations

regarding fruit tree spraying and pruning had little interest in scientif-

ic poultry or swine culture, and seed wheat varieties generated far

more interest in the fall, and seed corn in the early spring. Such spe-

cialization suited the agricultural college and experiment station be-

cause the railroads wanted to reach as many people as possible with

stops of an hour or less. This allowed time only for exhibits and a

very quick message, and the college could not afford to staff trains

with several faculty members speaking briefly. Special topics also

suited the transportation companies who could have the distinction

of an agricultural train which differed from their competitors, or a

train which had run over their lines a year or two earlier. Ohio's di-

versified agriculture provided audiences for specials in dairy, poultry,

horticulture, and swine as well as general agricultural exhibits re-

ferred to by some lecturers as the "circus car."

But the goals of educators and transportation companies frequently

required compromises. Railroads preferred trains which contacted

the largest number of people in the shortest period of time by em-

phasizing only exhibits at frequent stops as short as a half-hour. Uni-

versity professors preferred several hours for lectures, demonstra-

tions and discussion. Ohio evolved a compromise which usually

scheduled ninety-minute stops, allowing participants a half-hour

 

 

 

15. "Second Agricultural Special," The Agricultural Student, XIII, (May, 1907), 5.

• 7
 

Agricultural Trains                                        41

 

each for a general lecture on crops or soils, a special topic lecture, and

a view of exhibits.16 But the size of the crowds often caused sched-

ule delays, and space was rarely adequate. The audience frequently

viewed prize livestock from a baggage car or station platform, and

photographs from the Erie Railroad's "Dairy Special" clearly show

that on a rainy day the cow had the covered platform and the audi-

ence held the umbrellas!

This 1910 "Dairy Special" was Ohio's first train to carry livestock.

Three dairymen were invited to bring one of their purebred Jersey,

Guernsey, and Holstein cows and describe their breed's advantages

compared to the "dual purpose scrub cow" brought along for com-

parison. Professor Erf of the university's dairy science department

coordinated a teaching staff which included Professor Neale lectur-

ing on animal nutrition, a representative from the U.S. Department of

Agriculture speaking on sanitation, and the president of the Ohio Dai-

ryman's Association as well as the three dairymen with their prize

stock. It was an early example of what would later become a Coopera-

tive Extension Service trademark: the involvement of local persons

and organizations in program planning, funding, teaching and evalua-

tion. News reporters were as impressed as farmers, with one describ-

ing the Guernsey breeder's description of feeding and testing in

cooperation with the Agricultural Experiment Station as abounding in

"many practical hints drawn from his own extended observation and

experience." ¹⁷

The college concluded that an average of 200 persons per stop

"shows the growing interest in this branch of agriculture and the ap-

preciation of the farmers of the state in the opportunity given them to

receive a dairy education at their very doors."¹⁸ Agricultural exten-

sion was constantly seeking opportunities to ensure that the enthusi-

asm generated by agricultural trains would be translated to other ed-

ucational efforts. When the dairy train stopped in Warren, Ohio,

overnight, superintendent Graham invited the mayor to close the

evening meeting and the newspaper quoted him expressing the

"hope and belief that Warren citizens would make an effort to get to

the agricultural extension school which will be held somewhere in

the county early next year."¹⁹

 

 

16. "Agricultural Trains," A.B. Graham manuscript collection, The Ohio State Uni-

versity Archives, Record Group 40/8, Box 2, Folder 46.

17. "Dairying Discussed at City Hall," Western Reserve Democrat, May 26, 1910.

18. "Dairy Special in Northeastern Ohio," The Agricultural Student, XVI, (June,

1910), 23.

19. Western Reserve Democrat, May 26, 1910.

• 8
 

42                                                   OHIO HISTORY

 

Extension educators had quickly realized that agricultural trains

were most effective in creating awareness of a need and generating in-

terest for more information. C.R. Titlow, who organized the Ohio

trains for several years before going to West Virginia as agricultural ex-

tension director, expressed this clearly in a paper prepared for the

1912 conference of land-grant college educators. "Farmers living in

sections traversed by agricultural trains, as compared with those not

thus served, are more apt to request extension work, pruning and

spraying demonstrations, etc. We can almost trace the routes of this

year's special trains by noting the locations of our pruning and spray-

ing demonstrations."²⁰

Educators were as aware as the rail agents of the advertising value

of these trains. Handbills and newspaper advertisements alerted

communities to planned specials in a style not unlike current "ad-

vance teams" for political campaigns. Little was left to chance or local

reporters. As Superintendent Graham explained, "Our news man and

his portable typewriter occupied an important place in the baggage

car; he had a local story for every stop having a newspaper."²¹ Edu-

cational bulletins were distributed freely. "No one should leave the

train without something in his hands to carry home. The train is an

exponent, an advertiser, if you please, of the agricultural college.

Many students come to college saying that they heard this man or

that on the agricultural train, were attracted by him and so decided

to enter college.^"22

College reports cited examples to show that agricultural trains were

accomplishing the increased productivity which was their goal. One

farmer living near Charleston, West Virginia, claimed that he in-

creased his income from 1 1/2 acres from $47 to $1204.65 simply be-

cause he attended a special truck gardening train. A Barnesville,

Ohio, farmer reported clearing $700 from a 1 3/4 acre orchard by fol-

lowing the instructions given in an agricultural train lecture on pruning

and spraying.²³ But educators were soon aware that these were ex-

 

 

 

 

 

20. C.R. Titlow, "Special Trains as a Means of Extension Teaching," paper presented

November 14, 1912, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Convention of the Association of

American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations (Burlington, Vt., 1913) 215-17.

21. A.B. Graham, "Agricultural Extension in its Infancy in Ohio," speech to Agri-

cultural Education 526, Autumn Quarter, 1955; O.S.U. Archives, Record Group 40/8,

Box 3, Folder 15.

22. A.B. Graham, statement made in round table discussion following Titlow's pres-

entation noted above in A.A.A.C.E.S. Proceedings, 220.

23. Titlow, A.A.A.C.E.S. Proceedings, 216.

• 9
 

Agricultural Trains                                           43

ceptions, and most participants needed follow-up demonstrations which the trains could not provide. Ohio attempted to compromise by scheduling evening lectures in county seat towns when trains stopped for the night. It must have been a grueling schedule for the lecturers who were on the road at least a week or longer, eating and sleeping in a coach car. Local report- ers suggest that results were mixed. Describing the lecture at the Del- aware, Ohio, city hall, one noted, "In the audience were several women, showing that the interest in raising hogs is not confined to the male side of the house."24 Another began positively, "Judging from the large attendance of county people at the courthouse last Thursday night, when they were addressed by experts from the state agricultural college and the experiment station, Vinton County farmers are ready to listen to any information or advice tending to the improvement of crops and the raising of better livestock," but con- cluded honestly, "Most of those present would rather have been privileged to hear the lecture at the train and see the prize hogs."25       24. "Hog Lecture at City Hall," Delaware Daily Journal Herald, October 25, 1911. 25. "A Big Crowd," McArthur Democrat-Enquirer, November 2, 1911.

• 10
 

44                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

This is dramatic evidence of the dilemma which to this day con-

founds advertising copywriters as well as educators. Methods must

attract attention without overpowering the message conveyed.

Agricultural trains throughout the country became popular so

quickly that it was 1910 before the U.S.D.A. conducted a survey to

assess their scope, cost, and results as perceived by the railroad

employees who organized them and the lecturers who taught on

them.²⁶ One hundred and three railroads responded, and 52 re-

ported operating agricultural trains during the year ending June 30,

1910. These special trains averaged 4.6 cars per train with stops rang-

ing from 40 minutes to 2 days. Total costs were estimated at $91,424

and attendance at 379,290 people, but since all companies did not re-

spond to all questions, these figures should be viewed with caution.

From the beginning rail companies paid all expenses for operating

agricultural trains, and the university paid instructors' salaries. Farm

equipment and supply dealers quickly became anxious to have their

products used or displayed, and it soon became a source of contro-

versy when agents for everything from fertilizer to farm papers sought

and were denied places on Ohio trains. But the land-grant university

was publicly funded and the college of agriculture felt a moral obliga-

tion to avoid even a semblance of commercial endorsement.²⁷ It was

a touchy issue, with big business at stake. In 1910, Ohio railroads

were hauling 232,646,532 tons of freight an average distance of 102

miles per ton at an average cost of one-half cent per ton/mile.²⁸ The

rail industry touched every business, and its agents were anxious to

make friends and alienate no one. Some transportation companies be-

gan to broaden their relationships with farmers by establishing dem-

onstration farms along their right of ways, promoting marketing coop-

eratives, and offering scholarships for agricultural study.

Agricultural extension, too, was moving beyond the awareness lev-

el. Farmers had begun to trust the college and the experiment station

instructors as sources of information and were relying on week-long

agricultural extension schools in county seat towns, a format man-

dated when the Ohio legislature began appropriating funds in 1909.

In five years, the Department of Agricultural extension had gone from

a $5000 budget allocated from the College of Agriculture produce

 

 

 

26. John Hamilton, The Transportation Companies as Factors in Agricultural Exten-

sion.

27. Christian, Cooperative Extension in Ohio, 6; Graham mss. O.S.U. Archives RG

40/8/2/46.

28. Annual Report, Railroad Commission of Ohio, 1910, 477.

• 11
 

Agricultural Trains                                             45

 

fund to a $50,000 budget appropriated by the state legislature.²⁹ Like

many movements which experience a burst of glory just before their

demise, Ohio's last agricultural trains were extravaganzas. The State

Board of Agriculture joined the experiment station in mounting an ex-

hibit of agricultural products, which ran as the "Ohio Booster" on

the New York Central Lines for 100 days beginning in January 1912.

By now Superintendent Graham was openly questioning the cost ef-

fectiveness of agricultural trains as a teaching method and threatened

their termination without a special appropriation. He warned, "Since

the special train service costs the department from sixty to seventy-

five dollars per day, we shall be unable to accept any requests made

by the railroads unless some special provision is made to take care of

this important feature of our work."³⁰

Ohio's era of agricultural trains ended with the "Better Farming"

special of the Norfolk and Western, March 19-27, 1913. It was a story

repeated across the country, as agricultural extension's quest for fed-

eral funding succeeded the following year. With the Smith-Lever Act

Congress entered into a partnership with land-grant universities, sup-

porting state and local funding for agricultural and home economics

extension programs, and shifting priorities to "movable schools" and

"demonstration agents".³1

Agricultural trains were an exotic example of a public and private

partnership which forced each side to compromise its individual

goals to serve a common need. It was both dramatically successful

and uncomfortably constraining to both participants. In retrospect,

however, its brief lifespan can be credited with being a significant in-

fluence in creating mass demand for practical adult education based

upon scientific research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29. Annual Reports of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Gov-

ernor of Ohio, June 30, 1905, through June 30, 1911.

30. Agricultural Extension report, 43rd O.S.U. Trustees Report, June 1913, 85.

31. A concise statement regarding this legislation may be found in Scott, Reluctant

Farmer, 310-11. Readers wishing more detail should consult Alfred C. True, A History

of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States, 1785-1923.

• 12