In case the date for taking the agricultural census were to be deferred say as late as April 1, we think it would run us into a lot of complications. By that time you would have had a very marked and almost complete shifting in the tenants on farms and those who have gone on new farms would not be able to report on the farms they occupied the preceding year. You will find that the farmers later on in the spring would be exceedingly busy with their farming operations and would probably not be able to give as complete a report as they would earlier in the winter. Then fully as serious are the problems that arise in getting an adequate enumeration of your livestock. For the earlier period in November you do not have your livestock in flux. You have your sows and other hogs there for enumeration but later on in the spring you have your litters in at various times in various sections of the country and the result would be an enumeration not strictly comparable for all areas. We feel, therefore, that the later date for the census would be quite serious in its effect on the adequacy of the figures taken.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe in a later date than December 1? Mr. OLSEN. We think that January 1 would be acceptable, although not as good as December 1, but any date later than January 1 would run us into serious difficulties.

The CHAIRMAN. In the agricultural census?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. We wanted to make our position quite clear with reference to the date for the census as bearing upon the accuracy of the data obtained.

The results of the census are used by us in a number of important ways. In the first place they are very fundamental to our crop estimates. They are the basis upon which our crop estimators work. The CHAIRMAN. The bill says a census of agriculture to be taken as of the first of the preceding November. You think the preferable date would be the 30th?

Mr. OLSEN. We think that would be preferable. As I was saying, we put the census data to a very important use in our work. First of all in our crop estimates it is absolutely fundamental because it is the starting point for our estimates. The accuracy of the census, therefore, is of great importance in that connection. Furthermore we are drawing on it more and more in our research work. It is supplying extremely valuable data and we have wondered whether or not the present organization under which this data is obtained is sufficiently detailed, sufficiently near the farmers to get the data adequately.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the set-up?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, the actual set-up. We reason on that from our own experience. We gather a great deal of data ourselves from the farmers and encounter difficulties in getting at the results, so more and more there is a tendency for us to reach out and get as close to the farmer with our men as possible. Under the present arrangement, and I think it is provided for in this bill, the country is to be divided up into districts which are supervised by a supervisor, and those districts are rather large. That means possibly that individual enumerators can not be given the close supervision that they probably should have, and it has occurred to us that if it would be possible to work out another arrangement whereby you

would have a county supervisor appointed who could keep in close touch with the individual enumerator you would have a man who can check regularly and freely upon the schedules as they come in and get omissions.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not find difficulty there in respect to the size of the county? Take a county in the State of Washington. The committee was informed yesterday of a county 70 miles one way and 100 or more the other way.

Mr. OLSEN. That is important.

The CHAIRMAN. It is quite different from my State of Connecticut. Mr. OLSEN. I am speaking of the Eastern States. Where you have very large units it would be necessary to divide up the counties into smaller units.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture and the Bureau of the Census authority to do that, to allocate the enumerators or supervisors in accordance with the extent of territory and the agricultural figures they have to obtain.

Mr. OLSEN. The principle I am trying to develop is this

The CHAIRMAN. The difficulty would be in the fact you stated about the unit of territory to be covered.

Mr. OLSEN. I think we would have to take that into account. My only suggestion is that there would be an advantage if you had smaller units over which the supervisor was placed. They could carefully check the schedules and if there were omissions send them back to the enumerators or call up over the telephone and make very sure there were no omissions, actual omissions of schedules or omissions in the schedules. I think that would go far to help assure accurately taken schedules.

Under that arrangement you would have a State supervisor, and he in turn would supervise the county supervisors. That would be very satisfactory in increasing the accuracy of the work.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the administration that you are speaking of?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. We thought possibly in that connection our organization might be helpful in an advisory way if in no other way. We did help in the 1925 census. Our people took too big a load. They were not able to carry the additional load with their present duties, and we feel that it would be impracticable if suggested again. We do believe that our State statisticans could be helpful in checking the crop and livestock data. That is their job and they. should be rather helpful. It is believed also the county agents in the various counties might be of some help to the county supervisors. I do not know, but it is barely possible the county agent's office facilities might be made available. I do not know that I can speak for the extension service. The question probably has not been raised with them. It is a matter worth considering, however.

It would necessarily carry an additional cost. On the other hand I can see if we get the supervision in the field it might reduce the supervision necessary at the Washington office, but some additional cost could be counted upon. I think also you have got to make it worth while for the enumerators to spend a sufficient time on the individual schedules to get accurate results. There is a general feeling that it was impossible to make it worth while to the individual enu

merators to get as good returns as they possibly might had more adequate pay been allowed.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rankin will recall one of the criticisms of the 1920 census was in regard to the small pay of the enumerators that did not induce them to do the work fully. Was it not presented to the committee at the last session?

Mr. OLSEN. We have had a great deal of experience in the Agricultural Bureau in taking schedules and know the difficulties.

The CHAIRMAN. We all know that compensation has increased since 1920. It did during the war, and to-day you could not hire a man for what you did in 1920 at the same price.

Mr. OLSEN. That is true. As a matter of fact, the census schedule is a substantial schedule for the farmer to fill and from our experience in taking schedules with the farmers we know how difficult it is to get returns that are accurate. I feel it would be a step in the right direction if enumerators could be given more time on the individual case. I think that would go far toward getting better results.

Mr. WHITE. The gentleman spoke of cooperation to be secured from the county agents. If they are only quasi-Federal officers can that cooperation be secured readily and willingly?

Mr. OLSEN. I do not want to be understood as speaking for the extension service. It is a thought that occurred to me on the spur of the moment and it seemed logical that they would be interested in this. I know they are disposed to be helpful. It is a matter that might be well raised with the extension service of the department.

There is another question that I would like to mention. I do not know how germane it would be to your discussion to-day but I would say for the Department of Agriculture that we have found the cooperation we have received from the census in the tabulating of data by townships exceedingly helpful to us in our work. We have come to feel that those tabulations are worth their weight in gold. They save us work and give us a picture of the farming situation we could not get in any other way and if it had not been for the census we would in the case of some data have been left high and dry. I refer to the township tabulations. I think their value has become so fully realized in the bureau and by people throughout the States where they have live and alert research people that it is fully established they are worth making. I do not know whether this committee would provide for actual tabulation of the townships but we would speak for the importance of that work. It is exceedingly valuable to us.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Why do you lay emphasis on the townships as units?

Mr. OLSEN. Because it is a political unit marked off and easy to handle. It is relatively small and by using it we get away from a great many of the variations that show up in the county.

In our farm-management work in the past we have been in the habit of going into a territory and picking out farms for studying the investigators to get their organization, method of operation, etc., with a view of determining what is the most effective type of farm organization. When we are through with these studies we apply the results to certain farmers in that area. We have to be judicious

about it. As soon as the township tabulations for the 1925 census became available, we proceeded to break down the State into typeof-farming areas, within which we in turn grouped farms according to their special type of organization. From these smaller groups of farms, representative farms are selected for special study, the results of which we think can be applied generally to the farms in these

groups.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you get much cooperation from the farm agents in this work, not the bureau agents, but the county agents? Mr. OLSEN. What work are you speaking of?

The CHAIRMAN. This work you have just spoken of in regard to methods of farms in particular sections.

Mr. OLSEN. The county agent is not a research man.
The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. OLSEN. We frequently associate him with our project.
The CHAIRMAN. You have had cooperation from them?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. Furthermore we like to have them work with us because such association helps to give us practical objectives. When the study is completed the county agent is familiar with the results.

The CHAIRMAN. Your contact in the Department of Agriculture is much closer than the Census Bureau.

Mr. OLSEN. Naturally, they are under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. You have found a spirit of cooperation and willingness to work from them?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. To what extent is the farmer going to resent or does he resent at all answering these voluminous schedules? How far can you lead up to the schedules and expect the farmers to go over them with you and answer them, he himself feeling all the time that he is not going to get anything out of it. He wants to know why he does not get more for his products.

Mr. OLSEN. Undoubtedly many farmers have that point of view. On the other hand, we are finding more and more that the farmers appreciate real fundamental research that helps them organize their business along more effective lines.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Organize them in what way?

Mr. OLSEN. With the view of increasing their net income primarily. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Not necessarily production?

Mr. OLSEN. Sometimes it may shift production from one product to another. It may mean eliminating certain land they have in cultivation. That may be a desirable thing. It is only after you have examined rather carefully the whole situation that you can determine what is the logical thing to do to make a better paying farm.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Is not that the liveliest problem of the farmer to-day, the marketing problem and why he does not get more for his crop of apples or wheat?

Mr. OLSEN. Quite right.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Is not that the most important problem of the farmer to-day, why he does not get more for his produce?

Mr. OLSEN. Yes,

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Would it not seem as though if we were going to ask more information of the farmer that we ought to ask him along that line and show him that we intend to help him in that direction?

Mr. OLSEN. As to data on the whole question of marketing and distribution, if it is not overloading the schedules it should be obtained by the census. This bill provides for obtaining fundamental data on distribution, a movement in the right direction.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I did not know that the plans thus far proposed go quite that far.

Mr. OLSEN. I do not know what the committee has in mind, but I was referring to that place in the bill where you do make reference to the data on distribution. I am thoroughly in sympathy with your suggestion. I think we have a tremendous amount to do in the marketing end which is fundamental to the farmer but it is illogical to separate production from marketing. They should have the most effective marketing machinery conceivable, but when your farmers produce a commodity not desired by the market or in volume that the market will not take at remunerative prices I do not see that any machinery you might provide would obviate loss. You can see what the position of the farmer is to-day. They ought to get together. We have given a great deal of time in the Department of Agriculture to fundamental researches in marketing.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I am not criticising.

Mr. OLSEN. No.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. My observation is that the Department of Agriculture has been teaching the farmer to produce more and more, to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before, being interested in production. In the end that has not necessarily helped the farmer. It might have helped them. It has certainly led them since the war to increase production and those people interested in distribution may be interested only in finding markets for the finished product. You people come along interested in the production end and here is the farmer caught in between both of you. If I were a farmer, frankly, I would resent the fact that you are spending so much time and money in studying my production problem and then my ultimate consumer problem and not getting the in-between problem, which is my problem as a farmer, why I do not get more for my produce.

Mr. OLSEN. It is true that the department until rather recent years has concentrated on the production problem of the farmer. That is historically true. I think it is in part due to the fact that science, the more exact sciences, have developed to the point where they could be applied to the development of production and questions of agronomy as well as plant and animal diseases and all that sort of thing. But the department has come to fully appreciate the importance of taking care of the marketing or so-called economic problem of the farmer, and the bureau of which I am a member is devoting all its time to these economic questions. It is true that we are devoting some time to the study of production, not questions of how to increase the yield particularly, but how to combine the factors of land, labor, and capital and all the scientific information to get maximum results.