Program and management of the Georgia Department of Agriculture : report of a study by a team of consultants to the Georgia Department of Agriculture and the Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government

PROGRAm AnD mAnAGEmEnT
of the
GEORGIA DEPARTmEnT OF AGRICULTURE
REPORT OF A STUDY BY
A TEAM OF CONSULTANTS TO THE
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
S. R. Newell W. L. Popham H. G. Herrell

PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT of the
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Report of a Study by A Team of Consultants to the Georgia Department of Agriculture
and the Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government
January 5, 1966

Georgia Department of Agriculture and Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government

January 5, 1966

Gentlemen~
Submitted herewith is the report of the study by the team of consultants employed to examine the programs and operations of the Georgia Department of Agriculture.
In general the team worked together on all of the programs. However, to cover all of the activities in a limited time, each consultant took major responsibility for a segment in which he was best qualified.
Dr. W. L. Popham, formerly Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service in charge of animal and plant disease regulatory activities for the U. S. D. A., studied the programs concerned with animal and plant disease control and eradication, including meat inspection and laboratories. Mr. Henry G. Herrell, Deputy Administrator for Management, Marketing, and Consumer Services, U. S. D. A., analyzed the administrative management operations. Mr. S. R. Newell, formerly Deputy Administrator of the Statlatlcal Reporting Service and Chairman of the Crop Reporting Board, U. S. D. A., analyzed the marketIng and other service and regulatory activities of the Department. He, as leader of the team, coordinated the segments and prepared the final report.
The team is grateful to the Georgia Department of Agriculture for providing office, secretarial, and other services. in conducting the study. The cheerfu I and whole-hearted cooperation from the entire Department staff, from messenger to administrator, in Atlanta and in the field, was a very great help throughout the study. The whole team wonts to especially thank Miss Wanda McPherson for her pleasant, eHicient, and often ingenious interpretation of bad handwriting.
The consultants are indebted to the Governor's Commission for Efficiency and Improvement in Government and its Executive Director, Dr. Morris W. H. Collins, Jr., for their cooperation and assistance. The chief consultant, in particular, wonts to express personal thanks to the Stoff Secretary, Mr. C. Rodman Porter.
You asked that we be critical of the program and operations, and we hove been. It is our hope, however, that the criticism will help in furthering the progress that has been made in the past decade.
Submitted for the consultants,
Respectfully,

S. R. Newell Chief Consultant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS.



























0



0















5

PRESENT ORGANIZATION.























0



0



0

0



0

0

0





7

Program and Organization Problems



0

0

0





0



0





0





0









9

Internal Services Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

PROPOSED ORGANIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

PART II PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture in Georgia is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. According to the last U. S. census

tak in the Fall of 1959 a little over one-half of the total land area in the State was devoted to

106aer;t7erl s

farms. billion

Total value of dollars. If this

land and buildings on the farms was just about is accepted as a conservative estimate for 1965 and

one and a modest

three allow-

qu is made for the machinery and equipment required on the present day farm, the value of the
an~eary producing plant, the 106,000 farms, would easily exceed two billion dollars. The investment
pnmworker is probably the h1'ghest fo any maJor m' dustry.

per The annual cash farm income in 1962 was $820,361,000 and the preliminary estimate for 1963

is $883,025,000. The dramatic story behind these figures is shown in the two charts following

(Exhibit I).

The first United States census of agriculture was taken in 1924. That year represents the agricultural income pattern of the 20's, prior to the depression and adjustment programs of the SO's. The 1924 chart shows the Georgia one crop economy that was of such great concern to agricultural leaders at that time. Cotton accounted for nearly two-thirds of the cash income. Fruit
and nuts, (mostly peaches) came next contributing 6.6%, then peanuts with 5.1 %, and dairy

4.1%.

Contrasted with the pattern in 1924, in 1962 cotton dropped to only 12.7Y, of the total cash income. Broilers that had not been heard of in 1924 took over in 1962 as the top commercial crop, accounting for 20.2% of the cash farm income. Georgia, which was a deficit egg producing state, now derives 11% of its income from this crop and ships eggs to many states. The livestock industry has grown rapidly. Dairying accounts for 6.4% of the 1962 cash income as compared with the 1924 figure of 4.1%. Cattle and hogs have come up just about three fold since 1924. One other change of importance is the increase in cash corn in the State. Corn contribution to cash income increased from 1.1% in 1924 to 3.1% in 1962. This is important in connection with the growth in the livestock and poultry enterprises in the State. The distribution of the 1963 cash income would show approximately the same comparisons as 1962 but since the 1963 figures are preliminary and subject to some revisions the '62 estimates were used.

This brief summary highlights the great strides in a comparatively few years from the one crop economy of the 20's to a diversified agriculture and the greater stability that goes with it. It also points up quite well the reason for a comprehensive state program that is well coordinated with other states and federal agencies concerned with agriculture.

Evolution of Government Agencies in Agriculture
From the earliest days of the nation, individuals, communities and later the states sought ways to improve agriculture. At first the answer seemed to be improving farm production. This involved experimentation or research into breeds of livestock, varieties and kinds of plants, and fertilizer materials and practices. Leaders soon became aware that progress was restricted by the lack of people trained in the sciences to push the horizons beyond the simple trial and error methods. These methods produced both good and bad results but no scientifically sound answers to the vital question of why. Education thus loomed as a factor necessary for the solution to the Problem. Later, as the population expanded, concern arose over the facilities for marketing, the practices in the market, and the distribution of farm food products. This introduced a third element, that of the marketing services and regulatory activities.
.Today the public services in the states involved in various aspects of agriculture and food may be mcluded under these three headings: education, research, and service and regulatory work.
Res~nsibility for education in agricultural science and other disciplines and the educational and
advisory work represented by the Agricultural Extension Service rests with the State University.

1

EXHIBIT I

3

GEORGIA CASH FARM INCOME - 1924

Total $209, 145, 000 (No Government payments)

Livestock and Products
$Z7,579.000
Percent of Total 13. 2"/o

____0~ $181, 566,000
Percent of Total 86. 8"/o

GEORGIA CASH FARM INCOME - 1962

Total $831, 064, 000 (Including Government Payments)

Livestock and Products ~40, 761,000

Crops $356, 603, 000

Percent of Total 53. Oo/o

Percent of Total 42. 9"/o

Government Payments

$33,700,000
Percent of Total 4. l "lo

2

h the field of agriculture is the responsibilility of the Agricultural Experiment Station

Jte8e8fC 1~ich is generally a part of the Land Grant College or State University. Marketing

Sys~m wd regulatory activities related to agriculture and food are in general the responsibility

MJ'VlCe an

.

of the State Department of Agnculture.

Th' is not to imply that these areas are or should be mutually exclusive. Indeed, each one

:;re: is

to

80~ISoene

xtent amon

r g

elated these

to and dependent upon the other. Where this is recognized and three organizations is developed and maintained, the programs

effective of each

more effective; and efficiencies and economies of operation will result for each agency and

the public.

The Georgia State Department of Agriculture, in fact, most state departments of agriculture,

:;o~1oegdnoiuzteofththee~tkhirnedes

of problems dimensional

apnrodbcleomnsiwdeirthatiosunfs~ijcuisetntdicslcaursisteyd.anGdeorregsioalvweastotheestfaibrlsitshs,tabtye

formal legislative action, a State Department of Agnculture.

The Organic Act of 1874 established the Department of Agriculture and among other things
set forth the duties of the Commissioner. Following is a brief summary of the duties assigned to
the Commissioner under the Act.
1. Prepare and distribute a handbook describing the geological formation and the capacities and characteristics of the soils of the various counties.

2. Provide for the proper and careful distribution, and exchange with other states and nations, of any seeds introduced by the U. S. Government or which he may deem of value.
3. Study and publicize his findings regarding the habits and propagation of insects injurious to crops, plants, and fruits of this State.
4. Examine into any question of interest to the horticulturists and fruit growers of this State.
5. Study and report upon remedies to the diseases of grain, fruits, and other crops of this State. He shall employ a chemist and a geologist to assist him in research.

6. Analyze and test fertilizers and prohibit the sale of any determined to have no practical value.
7. Report upon any matter of interest in connection with dairying.

8. Investigate and report upon the culture of wool and the utility and profits of sheep raising.

9. Investigate the potentials of irrigation of this State.

10. Study and report on fencing.

11. Collect and annually report statistics relating to agriculture in all of its branches in this State.

12. Report upon any matter or subject he may deem of interest to the agriculture of this State.

13. Revoke, suspend, or cancel the license, certificate, or registration, or impose a reasonable penalty not in excess of $1,000 in lieu of such revocation, suspension, or cancellation, after due notice, hearing, and a determination, as provided by law, that there are sufficient grounds to take such action because of violations by the holder of such certificate, license, or registration.

baaedThis is a ver~ broad charter. Some of the duties apparently were taken directly from or were
on the duties of the Federal Secretary of Agriculture set forth in the Organic Act of the U. S. Department of Agriculture of 1862. For example, the requirement for the distribution of ~and collection of agricultural statistics in the Georgia law are probably based on similar pro-
...lons in the U. s. D. A. Act.

3

In the administration of service and regulatory work, the Georgia department has developed close and effective working relations with other state agencies, with surrounding states and with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This basic cooperative policy of the Georgia Department of Agriculture has paid off in more economical and more effective administration. Of course, effective cooperation means equal participation by each party concerned. Credit for the accomplishments under this policy must also be given to the other agencies involved, including other departments of the State government, the State University, Experiment Stations, Agricultural Associations and the United States Department of Agriculture. It would be difficult to cite a State Department of Agriculture that has done a better job of developing really effective and harmonious working relations with public and private agencies concerned with agriculture and food.
The activities of the State Department of Agriculture are many and varied. In one way or another every person in the State is affected and, whether he realizes it or not, is or should be interested and concerned with how effectively the basic laws influencing food and agriculture are administered. It has become customary for many people to regard the activities of a department of agriculture as a service just for farmers, and it is true that many of the activities do emphasize the service to farmers. But the program is actually more inclusive, because there are many activities such as meat inspection, the food inspection program, and enforcement of the egg law that are in the first instance directed toward the welfare of all consumers. Many of the other activities such as those to provide better seed, improve productivity of livestock, grading of agricultural products and the program to provide better and more efficient markets have an important influence in providing better and more economical food at the retail store.
4

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
All of the programs now being conducted by the Department of Agriculture are discussed in some detail in the last chapter of this report. All are considered as appropriate activities for administration by a state department of agriculture. There are no recommendations for additions or deletions.
In carrying out its responsibilities there are a number of programs that require laboratory or other facilities which the Department does not have. In the interest of economy and to avoid duplication, cooperative or contractual relations have been arranged with other agencies in the State or the United States having facilities to furnish the needed services. The following six programs are instances where joint effort with other agencies is saving money and providing better services for the people of Georgia.
Milk Program In the administration of the milk program, it is required that farms producing milk must be
inspected for sanitation in production and handling milk. Under the law, the Department of Agriculture may delegate farm inspection to local health departments where it is determined that their standards are at least equal to the State standards. The Department has developed a plan under which about 957c of the inspection of individual farms is handled by local health departments. This means that the farm inspections by the Department of Agriculture are confined to a small number of farms in areas where there is no qualified public health agency to take on the responsibility. This eliminates duplicate inspection at the farm and the added cost that would otherwise be involved. In carrying out other responsibilities in connection with the administration of the milk program, Department of Agriculture inspectors do make spot checks to be sure that local agencies are fulfilling their responsibilities.
Food Inspection Program
In administering the food law, the Department does not make health inspections in restaurants, hotels or other establishments where food is prepared for consumption on the premises. By agreement, this area in food inspection is left to the Department of Health.
Administration of Seed Law The Department is required to determine the variety of seed as a part of the administration
of the seed act. It is often not possible to determine variety by examination of the seed itself and when this occurs, it is necessary to grow it in outdoor plots. The Department of Agriculture does not have facilities for this kind of testing and to provide such facilities would be quite expensive. The Agriculture Experiment Station has the facilities and the personnel to oversee the variety tests. Under a cooperative arrangement between the Department of Agriculture and the Experiment Station, the Station does the variety testing and in return the Department of Agriculture makes many germination tests for the Station.
Animal Disease Program Similarly, in administration of some of the laws relating to the livestock and poultry disease
P~ams, laboratory facilities beyond those available to the Department of Agriculture are req~~~ Rather than incurring the expense of developing additional or expanding its present fa-
~ th~ neces~ary services are obtained more economically under contracts with the Livestock
Diagn es !>Iagnosbc Laboratory operated by the Coastal Plains Experiment Station and the Poultry osbc Laboratory operated by the Georgia Poultry Improvement Association.
5

Agricultural Statistics The Organic Act, establishing the Department of Agriculture, directs the Commissioner to
collect agricultural statistics for the State. To fulfill this responsibility a cooperative agreement was signed between the Department, the State University and the United States Department of Agriculture, under which the State receives a far more comprehensive program of detailed statistical information than it could possibly obtain with the relatively moderate contribution of about $12,000 a year to this cooperative program. A particularly valuable part of this cooperative endeavor is in connection with the dairy statistics that are necessary in carrying out the program of the Georgia Milk Commission. In this instance, duplicate questionnaires have been eliminated by designing an inquiry or schedule that meets the needs of both the Milk Commission and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The U. S. Department takes responsibility for tabulation of the questionnaires and this information is combined with additional information provided by the Milk Commission into a consolidated and detailed report for the dairy industry in the State. Aside from the fact that these statistics are necessary in the administration of the Milk Commission program, the dairy reports are widely used by the dairy industry and many others. Market News
The Market News Program is another instance where the State Department of Agriculture has under a cooperative agreement with the U. S. Department of Agriculture expanded the usefulness of this service far beyond that which could be supplied by the available State facilities alone. Cooperative programs are conducted out of the Thomasville Livestock office and the Atlanta market. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation No. 1 The consultants can only commend the Department of Agriculture for the development of the cooperative program and recommend the continuation of the policies that are being followed.
6

PRESENT ORGANIZATION

The following chart, Exhibit II, shows the present organization of the Georgia State De-

:~mtmseonft

of the

Agriculture. Department

The and

following discussion deals first with the organization some problems related to the organization.

of

the

pro-

Organization of Program Functions The program functions of the Department are divided into three main groups. Each group is
under the direction of an Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner.
Group 1: The Administrative Assistant in charge of this group is responsible for five programs:
Licensing and control of public warehouses Administration of the weights and measures act Commodities promotion program -Administration of public markets Cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture on market news and products grading program.
Group 2: The Administrative Assistant in charge of this group is responsible for administration of:
The Georgia Egg Law Fertilizer inspection program Pesticide regulation program Feed inspection program Entomology-plant disease control eradication Seed inspection Food inspection program Chemical services program Institutional farm management Foundation seed program
Agricultural statistics - cooperation with U. s. D. A.
Group 3: The Administrative Assistant of this group is responsible for:
Meat inspection program Veterinary services program Animal disease eradication Livestock market and certification Contracts with the Poultry Diagnostic Laboratory and the Livestock Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory Cooperation with U. S. D. A.
One large program, the Georgia Milk Commission, is actually attached to the Commissioner's office. The dotted line on the chart represents the contact with the Commissioner's office for consultation and advice. For administrative services, however, the Chairman of the Milk Commission operates in the Department much the same way as a program division head. The difference is that although the Commissioner appoints the Chairman and the operating funds are a part of the Departmental budget, policy direction of the program comes from the Board of eight members. The Milk Commission administers a very large and complicated program.

7

EXHIBIT II
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION CHART

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
SECRETARY

PERSONNEL OFFICE CIVIL DEFENSE

AIDE
CONSULTANT
LEGAL COUNSEL SPECIAL
INVESTIGATOR

ADMINISTRATIVE ASST. TO COMMISSIONER

WAREHOUSE 8< WEIGHTS DIVISION
MARKETS DIVISION

SPECIAL OFFICES
COMPTROLLER
INFORMATION 8< EDUCATION
SPECIAL SERVICES
MARKETING SPECIALIST
COOPERATIVE SERVICES

DAIRY 8< EGG DIVISION LABORATORIES DIVISION
INSPECTION DIVISION \ENTOMOLOGY DIVISION
SEED DIVISION STATE SEED ANALYST
FOOD DIVISION

AGRICULTURAL TRANSPORTATION

MEAT INSPECTION DIVISION

STATE BOARDS

I

I

I

_____

I
.I
I
I

_

ADMINISTRATIVE ASST. TO COMMISSIONER
GEORGIA MILK COMMISSION

VETERINARY DIVISION
ANIMAL DISEASE ERADICATION DIVISION

STATE BOARD FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD, STATE SOIL CONSERVATION
COMMITTEE SEED ADVISORY COMMITTEE GEORGIA SEED DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY DISEASE CONlROL BOARD GEORGIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GEORGIA fARMER'S MARKET AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL FARMS

STONE MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION TOBACCO ADVISORY BOARD WATER QUALITY COUNCIL GEORGIA SEED DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADVISORY
BOAQD COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION STATE VETERINARIAN STATE ENTOMOLOGIST
GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES PROMOTION COMMISSIONS

WAREHOUSE SECTION
WEIGHTS 8< MEASURES SECTION
MARKET NEWS SERVICE COOPERATING WITH U.S.D.A.
DAIRY INSPECTION SECTION
EGG INSPECTION SECTION
FERTILIZER SECTION
PESTICIDES SECTION
FEED SECTION
FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS SECTION
BAKERIES 8< BOTTLING SECTION
WHOLESALE 8< RETAIL GROCERIES SECTION INSTITUTIONAL FARM
MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION SEEDS, INC.
STATISTICIAN
POULTRY DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORIES
BY CONTRACT: GEORGIA POULTRY IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION
LIVESTOCK DISEASES DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY
BY CONTRACT: COASTAL PLAINS EXPERIMENT STATION

8

Organization of Administrative Servicing Functions The administrative functions of the Department actually center in the Commissioner's office.
The office includes the usual secretarial services, legal counsel (which at present is not filled) and pecial assistants to the Commissioner. In addition, the office of the Comptroller, which includes 8 II the central accounting services including payrolling, preparation of the accounting materials
:equired in the .preparation and cont:ol of the bu.dget, and mai! room ~ervices: reports directly
to the Commisswner. Three other umts, Informatwn and Educatwn, Special Services, and Cooperative Services, all of which devote a considerable part of their time to activities and programs that would frequently be classed as informational services, report to the Commissioner.
An Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner is in charge of Personnel, Training and Civil Defense activities. This Administrative Assistant has, on occasion, held some staff meetings.
The Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner in charge of the marketing programs, in addition to his line duties, also performs the staff function of analyzing and controlling travel expense for the Department as a whole.
The net result is that the Commissioner carries the major part of the responsibility for decision-making in most of the administrative services.
Exhibit II is, in a number of respects, inaccurate and misleading with regard to the way in which the Department actually operates. None of the "Administrative Assistants to the Commissioner" is, in fact, an administrative assistant as that title is usually interpreted. Each has specific line responsibilities and is responsible to the Commissioner for direction of a group of activities. One division, the Inspection Division, does not function in the way it is charted. Neither does the chart reflect, nor was it intended to show, the field organization which constitutes a large part of the activities of the Department.
PROGRAM AND ORGANIZATION PROBLEMS This section will deal with some problems that appear to the consults to need attention with
regard to the operation of all of the programs, some individual programs and finally the administrative services functions of the Department.
Program Development and Planning Program development and planning has been done over a period of time as is evidenced by the
progress that has been made in the whole Department. In most operating agencies, program planning is closely tied to and often confined to the budgetary process. This is a practical approach, but it tends to become too much involved in the practicalities and expediencies that often surround a current situation This discussion, however, deals with a broader concept based on longer time projections.
In discussing programs with individual project leaders we have gained the distinct impression that individuals, for the most part, are concerned with the day-to-day demand of the job to which they are assigned. This is not to imply that they did not understand the program objectives and were proceeding without a plan. More often than not, the plan seemed to be limited to the shortrange of meeting problems that were already on the doorstep, so to speak. This is not unusual in any organization that has a fast-moving, active operation and where personnel is limited to the extent that there is hardly time to keep up with current demands. Short run planning is, of course, necessary, but it is much more effective if there is a reasonably clear idea of the ultimate goal to be reached.
Long-range planning is not easy. It is time consuming and requires lots of understanding and imagination and a very considerable amount of plain hard work. It pays off, however, in the long run because once a plan is made and an objective established, immediate decisions and short run plans can be made in a way that will contribute to the attainment of the ultimate goal.
9

The program planning and development that has been done has apparently been confined largely to the high administrative level in the Department. This is important, of course, but the top level administrators should do a great deal more in the way of program analysis than has apparently been done. For best results for the organization as a whole the stimulation of the kind of thinking and enthusiasm that is necessary for long-time planning and program analysis at all levels of the organization would pay a dividend in many ways.
Some division directors and section chiefs did have some ideas for future developments and some instances of careful analysis of programs were observed. Possibly some others had ideas but the consultant's approach failed to encourage them to "open up".
Recommendation No. 1 It is recommended that ways be developed to get participation from all levels of the Department in the program planning process. There are several ways this might be accomplished. One is to have each program director submit annually program proposals for the long as well as the short term. These plans should follow through to estimates of cost. In some situations involving more than one Division or program an effective way of creating interest and stimulating participation at all levels is to set up a small task force to study related projects or possibly a single major problem and submit a report of findings to the Commissioner with recommendations for action.
Program Direction Each of the programs of the Department is assigned to a division. There are twelve divisions
shown in the present organizational chart, which will be discussed in two groups. The first group consists of the six divisions in which no futher breakdown is made and the second group of six in which the functions are divided among two or more sections.
In the first group of six, three divisions have administrative assistants attached to the Director's office. In two of these three, the administrative assistant actually serves in two capacities. The assistant to the Director of the Markets Division also serves as assistant to the Director of the Commodities Promotion Division who in turn is also an administrative assistant to the Commissioner in charge of a group of divisions.
The administrative assistant to the Laboratories Division serves also as the Chief of the Insecticides section, which is shown as a section under an entirely different division.
The administrative assistant attached to the Entomology Division is the only one of this group that does not serve in a dual capacity. At the present time, however, he is acting in charge of the division because that position is vacant and has been for nearly a year.
In two of the remaining three divisions of the first group, the Division Director directs the program while one, the Meat Inspection Division, has two men assigned as co-directors of the program.
In the second group of six divisions, one, the Inspection Division, does not function as a division. The Director assigned to that Division acts as the head of the Feed Section and exercises no administrative authority over the other two sections. One division, the Dairy and Egg Division, has an administrative assistant to the Director but the Director and the administrative assistant each acts as chief of the Egg Section and the Dairy Section respectively. The Animal Disease Eradication Division is headed by a Director and the one section, Livestock Auction Markets and Certification, is headed by a section chief. In each of the remaining three divisions, the Director doubles as chief of one of the sections.
Program direction is thus carried on almost entirely by a staff that is "doubling in brass". Situations do arise where it is necessary or desirable to assign individuals to more than one program. This may be done where the projects are small and reasonably closely related and where
10

either one would provide full-time employment for a man. It would be better in such case to show
~he man in charge of a combined unit. In a great majority of cases, however, the result of doubl-
'ng in two jobs, each of which would require full time, is that one gets neglected or neither
~ne is done as well as it should be.
The present situation may be the result of inability to attract and hold sufficient qualified personnel at current salary rates and the fact that the Commissioner's program of upgrading of positions particularly the middle administrative category, has not yet caught up with the need. It m~Y also reflect some over-organization.
Whatever the reason, it is felt that the wide use of double assignments may be one of the factors underlying the limited long-range program planning that has just been discussed and the next problem to be discussed dealing with the development of "Rules and Regulations".
Recommendation No. 2 It is recommended that immediate steps be taken to review thoroughly the key staffing pattern as a basis for correcting double assignments where this would strengthen the organization.
Rules and Regulations Wide variations exist in the ready availability of complete and up-to-date statements of the
law and rules and regulations under which programs are administered. Implementation of the new administrative procedures act is forcing correction of this condition. After this is done, there is danger that administrators will relax in the belief that every one is informed and if they are not it is their own fault.
While the orderly documentation of publication of laws and rules and regulations is a step that will improve administration all along the line it is not a complete answer to all of the problems.
Every administrator in the Department readily agrees that the real objective of enforcement of a law is to get compliance and not simply to prosecute violators. Experience in administration of regulatory laws clearly shows that the great majority of the people governed by a law intend to do the right thing. This attitude is built into our form of government.
If we start with the idea that the laws under which programs are conducted in the Department are essentially "rules of fair play", the desirability of making the rules of the game understandable to all the players becomes clear. This does not imply that administration should be soft. Any such policy would become a two edged sword. People as a whole respect positive and impartial administration and will, in most cases, play by the rules if we do our part in letting them know just what the rules are.
While the material for issuance under provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act is being prepared, each program division might well be reviewing the material that has been issued and consider what additions or new information might be helpful to a full understanding of the law. The Seed Division, for example, has done a good job of including additional explanatory information in one small bulletin and others might consider doing something similar.
Recommendation No. 3 It is recommended that the Department plan a series of uniform bulletins or pamphlets to include additional information that will aid in interpreting and understanding the law and the officially promulgated rules and regulations.
Legal Counsel The office of legal counsel in the Commissioner's Office is not filled at the present time. We
understand that some provisions are underway to correct this situation.
11

The consultants believe that the administration of any regulatory program as extensive as that conducted by this Department justifies the full time services of an attorney. The volume and complexity of legal work in the Department supports this opinion.
Recommendation No. 4 It is recommended that this position be filled as soon as possible.
Feed, Fertilizer and Insecticide Programs There is considerable similarity in the basic requirements and methods used in administra-
tion of the feed, fertilizer and insecticide laws. Each is essentially a labeling law and each requires the collection of samples to be tested in the laboratory.
The central administration in Atlanta has established requirements for labels under each of the laws. Copies of labels must be submitted with application for registration. Labeling regulation for insecticides is somewhat more complicated than the other two laws in that the chemical composition claimed must be passed on in relation to the claims made, and instructions for application and caution notes must be placed on the label before the compound may be registered.
The section head in charge of each of these laws is responsible for issuing licenses, collection of fees, and taking final action on all violations. He also prepares the materials for rules and regulations and develops plans and procedures for field inspection which is now handled by the consolidated field inspection forces. Inspectors draw samples and examine the labels for compliance with the law.
A considerable volume of statistics is compiled by each section. It appears that these functions are over organized. That is, the three laws could be handled more economically and just as effectively in one unit. The statistical reporting varies quite a lot as between the sections. A question arises as to how much of this is actually used. Some careful review should be made and steps taken to eliminate that which is not needed and the several reports should at least conform to good statistical standards for presentation.
Recommendation No. 5 It is recommended that the three sections be combined in one unit to be known as the Feed, Fertilizer, and Insecticide Division.
Market Facilities Atlanta Market
The Atlanta Market was built under the provisions of thi Market Authority Act and began operation in January 1959, the middle of the fiscal year. The market serves as the central produce market for the Atlanta area and as a distribution point for a large region in the State and in other states. The market is a well designed and well managed facility. Sales on the market last year were valued at $47,288,916.
In building the Atlanta market, as in the case of similar markets built in other states in this region, it was recognized that a considerable period of time is required to build up rentals, and to get the market organized and firmly established on a paying basis would require a considerable period of years. During this development period rentals and fees could not be expected to meet all of the current operating costs including maintenance and necessary capital improvements plus interest on the capital investment and retirement of bonds. To provide for this development period it was agreed that an annual appropriation of $650,000 would be made available at least through the period necessary to amortize the bonds.
Good progress has been made. Revenue from rentals, fees and other charges have met total direct operating costs with some surplus ever since the first full year of operation in 1960. In
12

1964, total revenue amounted plus of $212,623 (figures are

to $616,613 and operating expenses were $402,990, leaving a surrounded) a~ilable for nece_ssary capital improyem.~nts and helping

with interest and amortization of the b.<m_d~Jl~~indebtedness.

Although revenues have been increasing slowly ever since the market opened, the surplus margin has been declining for several years. This has disturbed the administrator of the act and the cost items have been watched closely. For example, in 1963 the cleaning contract was cancelled and this service was taken over by the market with a saving of some $45,000. Other less spectacular economies have been made and still more are being analyzed. At best it seems that all the operating economies that can be visualized cannot do more than partially offset the rise that is taking place in almost every cost item. Wages have been rising sharply; supplies, materials, repairs have also increased.
/
To keep up with the rising--operating costs and provide some surplus for capital improvements that are necessary to keep the facilities in place with the changes taking place in the produce industry, and to continue to make some contribution to interest costs and retirement of the bonds, some increases in rentals and fees would be fully justified. These are at the same level ($!2fl per unit p_er month) as they were when the market opened.

In considering raising rents there are several things that should be taken into account. A sharp upward revision might touch off some counter economies on the part of the tenants. Some tenants could very well decide to get along with less space. If this occurred the net gain would be reduced and the Authority might will find itself with a number of scattered single units that could be difficult to handle. It is understood that rentals at markets in Columbia, S. C. and Jackson, Miss. are lower than Atlanta's rate. Consideration should also be given to the effect higher rents might have on the graqual up-trend in the use of the market that has been going on since the market was opened. A rate so high that it would drive prospective tenants to other markets would not be desirable.

It is believed, however, that if the tenants were given the facts on the increases in the operating costs and that economies short of letting the market deteriorate were being made, a conservative increase would be accepted.. The market is certainly a very fine facility. We would say it is one of the best of its kind in the entire country so the commodity the Department is selling - market space - is undeniable good.

Recommendation No. 6 It is recommended that the entire situation be carefully appraised and an increase of rents and fees, possibly in the order of 20% or 25%, be introduced.
Using the over-all revenue figure for last year of $616,613, a raise of this order would increase revenues by between $125,000 and $150,000. This would not be sufficient to make the operation fully self liquidating and it may be necessary to make further increases at a later time.

Farmers Markets
There are a total of 20 markets, 6 sweet potato houses and one new apple market. Total sales amounted to $97,790,773. Budgeted cost of operation was $390,646 and revenues amounted to $160,029.
There has been a continuing study of these markets over a period of years. As a result, during the past 10 years, 7 markets that were found to be uneconomical, either by change in the agriculture or where volume had declined to such an extent that they were no longer needed, were closed. These studies should be continued in order that the funds used on uneconomical units may be utilized in other areas or on other projects where there is a need.

13

Recommendation No. 7 It is recommended that the practice of closing uneconomical units be continued and that the rate structure on each of the markets be examined to see if it is up-to-date or whether steps might be taken to make them more nearly self-supporting.
The Director of the Public Markets Program is doing a commendable job of program appraisal for this entire project.
Field Organization and Administration Except in the cooperative statistical office, the Foundation Seed Office and in the public mar-
kets, field personnel of the Department operate out of their homes -they have no offices as such. Nor do they have stenographic services. The field organization in total accounts for a little more than 70'/{ of the total personnel of the Department. See Exhibit III under Personnel page 20. Field work is performed under two organizational plans.
1. Inspectors Assigned to Divisions Most field employees report directly to their respective Division or Section headquarters in
Atlanta - such as the meat inspectors, the food inspectors, egg inspectors, dairy inspectors, seed inspectors, the Plant Disease Control and Eradication staff, warehouse and weights and measures inspectors and public market staff.
Where the inspectors are under direct supervision of the Division Director a running performance check is made on miles traveled, the time claimed and work performed. In general, where field inspection forces are directly responsible to a particular division or section, administration as a whole has been better than with the consolidated inspection force to be discussed later.
One important area of field inspection involving wholesale and retail outlets performed under this arrangement needs careful study. There appears to be a great amount of duplication at the present time in this activity. Under the present organizational arrangement, it is possible for four inspectors to arrive at a store simultaneously or over a short period of time. This is not only wasteful of manpower, but also creates a very bad impression on the store operator and the public. The four inspection services that might be involved are the Food Division, the Weights and Measures Section, the Egg Section and the Dairy Inspection Division. This seems entirely unnecessary and not too difficult to correct. The food inspectors are now doing some counter scale tests in the stores they visit. The food inspectors in their regular operation inspect sanitary conditions in the store, refrigeration facilities and examine labels on many items. It hardly seems necessary for the egg and milk inspectors to do some of these same things. The only additional skills a food inspector would have to acquire is the candling of eggs (which is not too difficult) and the things that need examining for compliance with the egg grade law. Similarly, an inspector to cover the milk responsibilities would have to learn the requirements of the Milk Act and what is necessary in inspecting counter freezers and dairy stands.
On the other hand, the scale inspectors, egg inspectors and dairy inspectors would have to learn the food inspection requirements and the other two laws. The Food Division has probably the most complete training program we have observed. Inspector's procedures are documented quite completely so an inspector knows exactly what to look for. The division also puts out a series of regular instruction sheets and in addition a regular letter goes out to all inspectors entitled "Food for Thought" and keeps all inspectors informed on current developments.
Around 118 persons are involved. All of these are not on retail and wholesale store work and it might not be feasible to move quickly on the consolidation of the whole group, but counter scale workmen could very easily be consolidated and a good number of the egg inspectors and milk inspectors doing retail store work and counter freezer and dairy stand inspections could probably be consolidated with little delay.
14

If the planning methods developed by the Food Division in setting up their sampling areas . used as a basis, it appears that a feasible plan could be worked out to give better coverage
~~r each of the programs with less total personnel and costs than at present.
Recommendation No. 8 It is recommended that retail inspection work be combined to eliminate duplication that now exists.
2. Consolidated Field Inspection Force A group of 139 inspectors generally referred to as the consolidated inspection force was es-
tablished in 1963. Inspectors in this group work in a wide variety of programs. They inspect packages and labels and collect samples of feed, fertilizer, and pesticides. Some are assigned to inspect livestock auction markets, checking on imports and exports of animals, inspection of facilities for disposal of dead poultry and performing other inspection services, involving some seven different programs having to do with animal disease control and education.
This combined group of inspectors is distributed in twelve areas in the State, each of which is under an area supervisor, who is under the direction of, and reports to, two administrative assistants to the Commissioner having charge of animal and plant activities respectively. The individual inspectors make a weekly report to the area supervisor who reports to the administrative assistant to the Commissioner. But there is no systematic consolidation of the needed management information at the State level which means that no one above the area supervisor is aware of, or has direct responsibility for, the field force for performance records, costs, etc. If a problem develops the area supervisor must either use his own judgment as to which of his two supervisors to refer to or report to both. So far, this does not seem to have created any great problem which is probably due to the close and harmonious working relations between the two Administrative Assistants to the Commissioner concerned with these programs. But, the lack of one organizational point where the operation of the entire inspection unit is regularly brought together leaves the Commissioner's Office to deal with twelve field organizational units rather than a consolidated field office in Atlanta responsible for all of them.
In reverse, the instructions from headquarters (individual program divisions in Atlanta) should flow through the area supervisor. This is what generally happens, but at best, instructions come from two points, the two Administrative Assistants to the Commissioner. Then there are a goodly number of exceptions to the procedure. In actual operations where a problem arises or there is a question, the tendency is for the division director concerned to ask an individual inspector or supervisor whom he knows to be particularly familiar with the program to handle the problem for him. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a division director, or section chief, to ask a particular inspector or area supervisor to go into an area other than the one to which he is assigned to handle a particular problem. Generally where this kind of crossing of administrative lines occurs, the division director or section chief is careful to notify the supervisor of the area to which the inspector is assigned. On inquiry of the area supervisors in several such cases, they said that there has been no real problem due to the direct or inter-area assignments; in fact, one commented it gave him information he needed to follow-up in order to determine whether the inspector had followed the instructions. The practice of passing out direct assignments to individual supervisors or inspectors, however, tends to defeat the basic objective for which the consolidated force was established.
Surprisingly enough, this kind of operation has not, so far at least, created much confusion at the field operating level. Possibly, the fact that many of the inspectors are still accepted both by the headquarters office and the area supervisors as trained feed, fertilizer, pesticide and animal disease inspectors only avoids some problem of assignment.
15

As indicated above, however, there is no one administrative head in Atlanta who directs the whole group and provides leadership in a rather complicated operation. Over all administration is much too "loose" and could cause real problems at any time.
Purpose of Consolidated Field Inspection Force This force of inspectors was consolidated in order to:
(1) economize on travel expenses and attain greater efficiency in the use of personnel; (2) create a flexible working force to assist in meeting the peak and valley operations in several programs assigned; and (3) correct the adverse public reaction to having several inspectors visit a store or warehouse or any place of business at the same time or, what is often even more disturbing, to have three or four inspectors visit a place at two or three or four day intervals. It is recognized that there will always be some griping about inspections, even if there is only one, or none at all. The complaining can take the form of objection to having to submit to any inspection, or, if it is very infrequent, the criticism can run along the lines that they don't pay much attention to their responsibilities so the law doesn't mean anything anyway. So the inspector is often in the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't position, but the position that is most difficult to defend is where two or three inspectors appear at one place in a single day or over a short period of time, each one doing some of the things that are or appear to be the same as the other did.
The facts are that the consolidated inspection force has not operated as an integrated unit and has not worked worked as well as anticipated, although it has eliminated some of the inspection duplication in the programs which have been covered. It has also been useful in meeting peak loads or handling emergency situations such as manning quarantine stations. However, there is still some overlap with other inspection services administered directly by individual program divisions. The principal reasons seem to be that the consolidation covered a very wide range of functions including inspection of feed, fertilizer, insecticides, poultry pits, auction barns and animal diseases; central direction and leadership are lacking, and there has not been a strong training program to cross-train the field inspectors in their many different duties. At any rate, it is a big and complex problem.
Prerequisites for Effective Consolidated Field Inspection Force If this consolidated force is to achieve the aims for which it was created the following actions
should be taken:
(1) A Field Inspection Division in Atlanta should be established to provide direction, coordination and leadership of this activity. The Director of the Division should be a man who is familiar with the program objectives of all programs assigned to the consolidated field force. This does not mean that he must be familiar with all the details of every program, but he should know the objectives and the problems involved. Directors of the several programs being administered through the consolidated field inspection force and their program supervisors would be the specialists and counselors to the Director of the Field Inspection Division in the development of the program and they would continue to be responsible for all technical aspects of the programs.
The Inspection Division should have full authority for administration including budget control and developing uniform reporting forms, procedures, and filing systems to be used by supervisors in the field. The Director would be responsible for all personnel actions, working with the Personnel Division in developing job classification under the Merit System and employment, placement, performance rating reviews, reduction in force, etc. A systematic plan of coded administrative instructions should be developed and, in addition, a "house organ" or other regular means of keeping all inspectors informed of those things of a less formal nature than would be included in the instruction series should be developed.
The Inspection Division would also be the central point for consolidation of records of operation on the programs it serves. A records section would relieve the program divisions of much clerical and statistical work they now perform. Working with the program divisions served by
16

the Inspection Division and the Division of Information it should develop uniform and compre-

h~r~sonibsoilnveewm orouerlpdqoburteesstthiooenncteahnnetdrathol atpavoleinaitct wtdivheieatrliteeswthioetfhdtiphvreiosmiocpontnlsdyoi.rleidcatoterdoirnsspecetcitoionnchfoiercf ec. ouTlhde

Inspection Ditake up a field

(2) Area Supervisors must be thoroughly schooled in the requirements under a number of different laws and the operations required for the administration of those laws. In addition, these men must be given training in how to plan, direct, and supervise a force of men operating over their entire areas. They should be instructed on the need for and use of uniform procedures, methods for record keeping and reporting, individual performance records and many other aspects of the
supervisory job.

(3) All of the inspectors in the force must be trained in all of the requirements of the various programs, e. g., of feed, fertilizer and insecticides, and the labeling requirements for each. They must be trained in the regulations for import and export of livestock and how to spot injured or sick animals, just to mention a few of the things that must be covered in a training
course.

(4) Comprehensive Field Manuals must be developed as a ready guide for inspectors. Some have been developed, but others are still lacking. The Director of the Inspection Division should take the lead in developing complete inspection manuals for use by the consolidated field inspection force. The Directors of the several program divisions technically responsible for the programs would be responsible for the content of these manuals. They should be in the form of a loose leaf coded book or a series of coded and indexed bulletins of uniform size and designed for quick reference and for easy revisions as needed.

Potential for Further Assignments to Consolidated Field Inspection Force
The aims of the Commissioner in establishing the consolidated unit are meritorious. The consultants feel that a strong consoldiated field inspection force is a move in the right direction and a desirable goal for the Department of Agriculture. If the actions recommended in this report to make the consolidated inspection force effective are implemented and the results anticipated are realized it is believed additional programs could be assigned to the force. Standards for extending the programs assigned should include work (1) which does not require too much technical "know-how" at the field level; (2) which requires considerable travel - that is, does not generally involve year round full-time work at a single plant or location, and (3) which is subject to peak and valley volume adjustment requiring additional workers from time to time to meet periodic work load needs and might involve considerable "stand-by" time if the workers could not be assigned to other programs.

Recommendation No. 9 It is recommended that the present consolidated field inspection force be fully implemented by providing central administrative direction and control and a training to equip the force to perform its duties properly be provided.
As soon as this force becomes properly organized and established, other inspection activities should be added. One that should be added soon is the seed inspection activity. Seed inspectors should be included in the first training program, at least.

INTERNAL SERVICES PROBLEMS
Administrative Management The Department, to function properly, must have the benefit of such services as personnel,
budgeting, accounting, systems management, data processing, communications, etc.

17

In lieu of the present arrangement under which an "Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner" reports on personnel services, a Comptroller reports on financial services, and various other subordinates report directly to the Commissioner on the other services, it is proposed that one major administrative unit be established to consolidate all administrative services.
Practically all the work of the Department lends itself to a work measurement system; that is, most of the Department's functions are measurable in quantitative terms - numbers of samples tested, volume of commodities inspected, commodities graded, plants inspected, etc. Many of these measurements can in turn be translated into specific manpower (man-hours, days, months, or years) required for their performance through the application of standards of performance.
Such a system, at least partially, has been developed and is being used to compare productivity of one office with another having comparable work situations. It is being used also to compare the productivity of one employee with another in a like situation.
A work measurement system, if extended where feasible throughout the Department, could be useful in increasing utilization of manpower; reducing costs; and revealing need for additional training, improved supervision, or other "tightening up" in the management process.
It is suggested that one of the first activities should be to make a careful, detailed systems study to determine what changes, if any, should be made in the operations currently conducted manually in the Comptroller's Office and in the program offices of the Department which funnel documents into his office. The speed and accuracy that current-day machines offer and the opportunities that exist for automating necessary documentation at its source suggest that offices handling large volumes of paperwork of a repetitive nature examine each of these opportunities. This seems to be particularly important (1) in light of the continuing growth of the Department's activities, particularly the collection of revenues in small amounts; and (2) in consideration of changes in the budgetary system recommended above.
Another area in which a systems analyst would be of service is in the development of work load analysis.
Recommendation No. 10 It is recommended that an Office of Administrative Management be established. The Administrator of this office would report directly to the Commissioner of Agriculture and be responsible to him for providing a balanced and adequate program of administrative services. This office would administer the Department's program in personnel management, budget and finance, informational services, information, forms improvement and control, and the Market Bulletin.
The following functions are discussed as follows: Personnel, page 18 to 23; Budget and Finance, page 23 to 27; Information, page 27; Communications, page 27 to 29; Market Bulletin, page 29 to 30.
Recommendation No. 11 It is recommended that a systems analyst be employed to service the whole Department.
Personnel Management The Department has made a continuous effort during recent years to strengthen its staff
by adding professionally and scientifically trained people capable of administering its numerous and complex programs. Today the staff includes 77 professionally trained employees, compared to five or less 12 years ago. The Department now has on its staff employees trained as Agriculturists, Chemists, Agricultural Sanitarians, Engineers, Biologists, Bacteriologists, Food Technologists, Veterinarians, Veterinary Pathologists, Entomologists, Economists, Marketing Specialists, Microscopists, Statisticians, Accountants, Information Specialists, and Personnel Technicians.
18

A Table of Employment is shown on Exhibit III. This portrays the Department's strength, d'vided by organizational unit. The numbers are divided among (1) Professional; (2) Technical
1
8 rvices and Others; and (2) Stenographic, Clerical, and Administrative employees. A further b;eakdown shows those in the Atlanta area and those in the field, with a total for each unit of the organization.
Although the application of the Merit System to the Department has been in effect more than 10 years, of the 772 employees on the rolls as of December 9, 1964, 169 were not under the Merit System. Some of these positions should not come under the system because of their policy-making nature; others because of temporary tenure. However, there are some permanent positions now filled in the Department about which uncertainties among the employees themselves should be clarified.
Training Program The Department has been participating in the executive training seminars and in public relations training offered by the Merit System. In addition, some Divisions of the Department have excellent technical training programs. Other training is left more or less to specific situations arising either from program needs or needs that become patently obvious for some employees. There is no over-all systematized training program for the Department based on (1) the changing program needs; and (2) the needs of the employees, first to know how to perform most effectively their presently assigned functions, and secondly to prepare those with interest and potential for more responsible jobs. A full-time training officer was added to the staff early in 1964. He had made a beginning in organizing a training program but left the Department after only a few months to accept another position with a higher salary than the Department could pay. This position has not been filled.
Age as an Important Factor in Performance An analysis of the personnel in the Department as of December 9, 1964, revealed that 140 employees of a total of 772 are 60 years of age or older; that 49 are over 66 (8 are past 71) ; and that 116 of the 140 are in the classification of "Technical Services and Other".
Many of the positions now occupied by these older employees require long and continuous physical exertion. The question is raised both as to the welfare of the employees and the manner in which their work performance meets the State's needs. In a publication, "A Better Georgia Through You", published by the State Merit System for distribution to all State employees under the System, it is stated "you must retire at age 70 under the rules of the State System, unless you are in a scientific, technical, or professional position and your services are required by your particular Department." However, there is no organized enforcement of this plan across the Departments of the State Government.
Turnover, Salary Levels, and Recruitment Problems An analysis of the separation "for all reasons" of personnel by the Department of Agriculture reveals that 103 employees left the employment of the Department during the period January through December, 1964. This is approximately 12 per cent of the personnel strength as of December 9, 1964. Although this overall rate is not excessive, it is interesting to note that of this number, 35 (or more than one-third) gave as reason for leaving "better employment opportunities with private industry". This fact may well be related to the average salary of less than $4,000 paid to the employees of the Department of Agriculture.
Although the Department has taken an active part in endeavoring to raise the salary levels for its personnel and the Legislature has provided some increases for this purpose, there is much difficulty in recruiting employees to fill some of the Department's key positions. For example, nearly a year has elapsed since the position of Chief Entomologist became vacant. The Training Officer position has been vacant for many months. As of December 9, 1964, there were 44 unfilled budgeted positions in the Department.
19

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE OF EMPLOYMENT December 9, 1964

UNIT
Commissioner's Office (Excludes Comptroller's Office)
Comptroller's Office
Information and Education
Boyce Dyer's Unit: Warehouses and Weights Division Weights and Meas. Section
Commodities Promotion
Markets Division Atlanta Market Small Markets
Frank Stancil's Unit: Dairy and Egg Division Dairy Section Egg Section
Laboratories Division
Inspection Division Feed Section Fertilizer Section Inspection Pool
Entomology Division
Seed Division
Food Division Processing Plants Retail Grocers
Institutional Farms (Included with Comm. office) Foundation Seed, Inc. Statistician
(Included with Comm. office)
J. N. McDuffie's Unit: Meat Inspection Division Veterinary Division Animal Disease Erad. (Veterinary Inspection)
Georgia Milk Commission :
TOTALS

Techn.

Steno.,

Professional Services Clerical

Personnel and Other and Admn.

8

5

18

Atlanta Area
18

2

7

2

11

1

5

7

13

1

13

3

4

0

23

3

3

2

1

1

4

6

9

5

8

6

41

10

0

1

46

23

0

1

0

3

4

1

28

3

6

1

25

0

2

11

21

6

38

1

0

4

5

0

17

0

0

1

20

10

9

0

39

0

0

5

41

9

12

6

18

3

17

1

0

4

5

4

15

0

1

7

6

0

1

1

1

1

0

3

67

6

5

5

9

21

35

0

66

8

0

2

17

5

18

77

540

155

219

Exhibit Ill

Field Personnel
13

TOTAL
31

0

11

0

13

13

17

23

26

0

4

12

20

57

57

70

70

0

4

26

32

24

26

0

38

0

5

17

17

22

31

39

39

43

55

10

27

0

5

18

19

12

13

3

3

71

76

0

35

74

74

6

24

553

772

20

Employee Views of the Department and the Personnel Program
The consultants prepared and distributed through the Commissioner's office to all 772 emloyees a questionnaire consisting of 30 questions, each w~th three posible answers. The Commis-
~ioner, by letter, asked all employees to cooperate. Responses were received from 633. Their re-
plies give a sort of profile of the Department as seen by its empl~yees and specific groups of the employees. In general the response was very favorable to the Department administration but there were enough replies on some of the questions to indicate that some problems exist.
Of the 633, 139 had been with the Department as much as ten years, and 24 of these had more than 20 years of service. Of these, 202 considered themselves as serving in a "professional" category, 329 in a technical, and 85 in a stenographic-clerical category. Although 438 had no responsibility for supervising other employees, 125 supervised from one to ten employees, and 63 supervised more than ten employees. Of these 188 supervisory employees, 10 felt the need for more clearly defined authority and three felt their authority is too limited. Almost all employees responding consider that the public believes the Department to be "excellent" or "fair"; none checked "poor".
The extent of professionalism outside the administrative or supervisory channels is shown by analysis of the 202 who consider themselves "professional". Of these, 104 had no subordinate employees to supervise, 59 supervised from one to ten employees, and 35 supervised more than ten. Of these 202 professionals, 194 believe they had adequate authority. However, about onefourth question the adequacy of the Department's training program in fitting them for their positions. Morale among the group is quite high, (only 4 checked "low"), perhaps because 130 believe the public rates the Department as "excellent" (67 considered the public view as "fair"). Of the professionals, however, 45 indicated the supervisor over them "listens" but does not "listen and act" on suggestions made by the professionaL The professional group also seems to question Department leave policies. Although 159 consider that they are clearly defined, 40 believe they are not clearly understood or are not adequate.
Advancement opportunity is viewed differently by the different employee categories. Of the professionals all but 26 consider advancement opportunity to be "very good" or "ok". Of the 329 technical employees, 50 consider advancement opportunity as "not good". This is also the answer of 24 (of the 85) stenographic-clerical employees. Of the 633 responses, therefore, 100 consider advancement opportunity to be unsatisfactory.
Some indications of a need for supervisory training appear in the responses. While 402 indicated the supervisor's instructions are excellent, 215 called the instructions "ok" and 14 considered them "poor". Supervisors make decisions promptly, according to 475 employees, but an "ok" on decision promptness was the best reported by 146 employees. Work scheduling by supervisors was considered "realistic" by 264 employees but only "ok" by 337 and "unrealistic" by 15 others. Supervisory recognition of outstanding employee effort occurs "most of the time" for 451 employees but only "sometimes" for 111 and "hardly ever" for 67. Supervisors score somewhat better on providing a situation where the employee can plan his work, on supervisory knowledge of employee work problems, and on providing a well-balanced workload for employees.
The present on-the-job training program obviously is considered of questionable adequacy by employees. Fifty reported present training "leaves me to learn for myself", and another 119 reported the training "helps some".
Employees voluntarily commented unfavorably on Department policy of not complying with Merit System policies on cumulation of annual leave, on sick leave variances, incentives for employees through better promotion and pay adjustment practices (with a number of employees indicating that State pay is low by comparison with other governments and industry), and organization and delegation of responsibility and authority. There were also a number of highly complimentary comments about the Department and individuals associated with it.
21

Problems in Personnel Management Services There obviously are a number of problems in the present operation of the personnel administration program. The incompleteness of Merit System coverage is an invitation to politicians to pressure Department officials to fill certain job3 with unqualified people. The inadequacy of the position classification of many jobs leads to problems in selecting recruits, in setting salaries properly, in training, in promoting, and in evaluating employee performance. There are clearcut inadequacies in the training program for supervisors and for inspectors. This will become especially critical if the proposed reorganization is instituted without adequate training for it. The "doubling in brass" mentioned earlier is a clear symptom that recruiting, training, and promotion policies have not produced enough qualified people to fill key jobs (or that there is "over-organization"). The retirement policies of the Department are rapidly leading to a crippling situation where older employees who are required to exert themselves physically to perform the jobs are not being replaced in a timely manner. Promotional opportunity is obviously limited- because of organizational limitations and also because of the failure to see the similarities in programs and the opportunities for broadening skills and promotional opportunity through training and adequate supervision. Inadequate staffing of the personnel office with trained personnel technicians contributes to these problems. There is no training officer, no classification specialist, no safety specialist.
Recommendation No. 12 It is recommended that a Personnel Division be established headed by a trained personnel officer to develop and carry through a comprehensive personnel program.
Recommendation No. 13 It is recommended that the Department, in collaboration with the Director of the Merit System, survey all positions not now under the Merit System; that determinations be made; and that decisions be announced to the employees concerned as to which additional positions are being placed under the System. In some cases there may be good reason for further delaying decisions. It is believed, however, that decisions can be made now on practically all positions.
Recommendation No. 14 It is recommended that the Department fill its vacant Training Officer position as soon as a qualified individual can be recruited.
It is further recommended that a comprehensive training program be developed; that each program and adminstrative unit or organization develop both a current and a long-range plan setting forth the needs for training and a systematic plan for meeting these need3; and that a scheduled "follow-up" be made a part of the plan to insure its full implementation or modification as time requires or permits. This training should encompass needed orientation training, rotation of assignments, exposure to other related fields, scheduled discussions by people in the same lines of work on methods they are employing, theory discussions, and practice exercises. In the scientific and technical and in the management areas of work, planned attendance of scientists and key members of the managerial staff at professional meetings should be included to keep such personnel up to date in their respective fields.
Recommendation No. 15 It is especially recommended that immediate steps be taken to establish the training program discussed in this report under the caption "Prerequisites for Effective Consolidation of Field Inspection Force". The training in this activity should provide, in addition to the above, a testing procedure that would facilitate selecting for retention those individuals that are capable of carrying the responsibilities assigned and progress into more responsible positions.
22

Recommendation No. 16 It is recommended that the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Merit System, make a thorough classification study of the Department to determine whether existing classification levels are commensurate with the responsibilities of the various positions. This could result in further salary increases, as funds will permit, and aid in the solution of the current recruitment problem.
Recommendation No. 17 It is recommended that the Department of Agriculture develop and adopt, in collaboration with the Director of the Merit System, a definite retirement plan applicable to its program needs and the work requirements of its several types of employees (professional, technical, clerical, etc.); and that the plan be announced to all employees and implemented fully.
Recommendation No. 18 It is recommended, in light of increasing complexities of the programs of the Department, that current efforts be continued, as vacancies arise, to bring into the Department more employees trained in the numerous scientific disciplines involved in the administration of its programs. It is further recommended that current efforts to increase the salaries of Department employees be continued in those areas where recruitment difficulties are being experienced.
Budget and Finance The Department has a single appropriation covering its functions. The budget is presented on
a project basis. The 1963-64 State appropriation, by project, by major expenditure object is shown in attached Exhibit IV.
The Budget by project and by major object of expenditure is developed by using largely "experience" figures modified by planned changes. The several submissions are coordinated by the Commissioner assisted by the Comptroller. The Commissioner presents the Budget to the State Budget Office and after approval of the Governor he presents it to the Committee of the General Assembly.
When the appropriation is made and funds become available under apportionments by quarters of the fiscal year approved by the Budget Director, the Commissioner has authority to use the funds as needed among the several projects, and may vary from the budget with approval of the State Budget Director. The Commissioner informally authorizes specific changes in staffing patterns for the several programs. He also informs members of his immediate staff informally of changed emphasis in the programs. No other program official within the Department has any budgetary responsibility. The full and sole responsibility for budgetary execution rests on the Commissioner. On a monthly basis (or more frequently, if needed) the Commissioner is given information developed by the Comptroller on expenditures.
In case the expenditures reported at any time appear to necessitate some curtailment of the Department's program to "live within the appropriation", one of the Assistants to the Commissioner is asked to review the travel allocations and to inform all Divisions of necessary reductions in allowances.
The travel budget approximates 25 per cent of the funds budgeted for personal services. It is used largely by non-supervisory personnel. In most cases such personnel can only perform their services if they are traveling - inspecting plants; securing samples of seed, fertilizer, feed, and pesticides; arranging for livestock disease inspections; checking on egg grading; making dairy food and bottling plant inspections; etc. To reduce travel, therefore, without great care, results in placing men on "standby" time. From a cursory examination it appears that adjustments made in travel budgets so far have been coordinated with seasonal peaks and valleys, holiday periods, and in other sound ways without serious detriment to programs.
23

Exhibit IV

APPROPRIATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1963-64:

BY PROJECT:

BY MAJOR OBJECT OF EXPENDITURES:

Commissioner's Office Information and Education Marketing Laboratories and Inspection Seed and Plant Control Livestock Disease Control Entomology Farmer's Markets Georgia Milk Commission

$ 335,603.78 188,737.56 513,140.12 778,881.10 630,011.95
1,394,485.96 627,585.45
1,190,646.52 235,275.60

Personal Services Operating Expenses Capital Outlay Authority Rental
Total

$3,032,918.46 2,036,449.58 175,000.00 650,000.00
$5,894.368.04

Total

$5,894.368.04

Less Retained Fees: Federal Funds Fees

( 46,368.50) (32,999.54)

State Funds

$5,815,000.00

Notes (1) Through fees and assessments authorized by law the Department of Agriculture returns to the State Treasury approximately 40% of its annual budget. During 1963-64 fiscal year its receipts were $2,118,483.58.
(2) In addition to the State appropriation the Department is allotted $40.185.66 under the Matched Fund Marketing Program of the U. S.D. A.
(3) Entomology receipts $32,999.54 retained under Code Section 4 Article 16- Defraying expenses of registration of nurserymen, dealers, agents and plant growers and the certification and inspection of plants or plant products, etc.

December 7, 1964.

Signed:

A. 0. Atkinson

24

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REVENUE COLLECTIONS
STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS
Year Ended June 30, 1964

RECEIPTS

STATE REVENUE

Earnings from Service and Protection

Cotton Seed Meal Revenue Cotton Seed Meal Reporting Tax

Cotton Seed Meal Tax Penalties

Egg Revenue Egg Inspection Fee

Local Store Fees Frozen Eggs Egg Stamps

Cases Reported Sold

Feed Revenue Feed Registrations Feed Reporting Tax Feed Reporting Tax Paid under Protest Feed Tax Penalties

$ 493,175.09 2,843.92

Feed Penalties

Fertilizer Revenue Fertilizer Registrations

Fertilizer Tags

Business License Tax-Fish Dealers Farmers Markets- Detail Page 3

Insecticide and Miscellaneous Veterinary and Dairy Warehouse License Georgia Milk Commission

Producers

Distributors Producers-Distributors Transfer from Operating Account-

Feed Penalties Sub-Total

$ 6,450.27 4.47
$ 860.00 11.50
4,287.83 35,304.84
4,836.46
$ 12,370.00
496,019.01 1,580.14 158.00
20,035.00 448,738.55
106,917.03 103,195.99 52,210.02

ATLANTA FARMERS MARKET Gross Revenue Gate Fees Shed Rents Administrative Building Barber Shop, Cafe, Cannery Dealers Buildings Toll Telephone, Hamper House, Service Station Sub-Total
Total Gross Revenue (Total)

Payments:
(1) State Treasurer (2) Georgia Farmers' Market
Authority

$1,501,869.84 616,613.74

25

Exhibit IV
6,454.74
45,300.63
510,127.15
468,773.55 5,975.00
160,029.88 29,760.50 7,257.00 2,670.00
262,323.04 3,198.35
$1,501,869.84(1)
53,175.19 143,565.50
11,120.00 30,577.40 355,761.47 22,414.18 616,613.74 (2) $2,118,483.58
$2,118,483.58

Accounting At the present time all work in the Accounting Office (under the Comptroller) is done manually; that is, all transactions under appropriated funds and all cash and other receipts transactions under Trust Funds are posted to cash and various types of distribution ledgers by hand. Expenditures, reconciliations, summary statements, financial and budgetary reports, and analyses are prepared by hand.
Several major segments of appropriated funds are paid out in substantial sums - such as those for insecticide contracts ($138,000), market rentals ($650,000), and capital outlay programs ($150,000). This tends to reduce the number of individual entries more than might be expected in a total account the size of the Department's budget. On the other hand, the Accounting Office handles all receipts and disbursements for the seven Commodity Commissions, many of which are in exceedingly small amounts.
The Department is authorized by a specific Act of the Legislature to assist commodity commissions and other trade groups in organizing for the promotion and sale of Georgia-produced commodities. So far, seven commodity commissions have been organized for this purpose. These include commissions for (1) peanuts, (2) peaches, (3) eggs, (4) apples, (5) tobacco, (6) sweet potatoes, and (7) milk.
The Department of Agriculture is authorized to serve as trust office for all revenues collected through these commissions and for the payment of expenses they incur. Revenues during 1964 exceeded $700,000, payments approximated $600,000, and cash balances for which records are maintained as of June 30, 1964, exceeded $600,000. Most of this accounting work involves very small sums and many thousands of transactions. (A stamp for a bushel of peaches to designate its appropriate grade is sold for 2 cents, and there are many small producers.) The enabling legislation authorizes the charge for all of this expense to the annual appropriation.
Recommendation No. 19 It is recommended that a Division of Budget and Finance be established and that the accounting system be adapted to provide current information on costs by programs. In this connection a study should be made to determine feasibility of using electronic techniques.
Recommendation No. 20 It is recommended that a system of budgetary controls be developed to relieve the Commissioner of the details of the budget function and that key officials - certainly at the "Office Administrator" level if not on a Division level -be involved in the budgetary process.
This would obviously make these officials, who are not only close to the operational phase of the work, but also quite aware of the broad program considerations take a more active part in long-range program planning and evaluation. It will inevitably cause them to be more budget conscious, press them to seek better or more economical ways to achieve program goals at the least possible cost, and put them in better position to pass on down to lower levels the State's desire to conduct effective and economical programs.
This system, on a minimum basis, should provide for annual allotments by the Commissioner - within the quarterly apportionment system - for salaries and operating costs of major programs and such other items as they, the Office Administrators and the program division directors are responsible. The Commissioner would predicate such allotments on work plans, staffing patterns, and other information that he might require. He would maintain such Department wide reserves as experience has proven prudent; but even at the beginning of the year, he should have tentative plans for utilization of these reserves in the regular programs should the unanticipated contingencies fail to develop.
26

Comprehensive and timely progress reports on these budgets should be reviewed with the Commissioner at least quarterly for the first two quarters of the fiscal year, and monthly thereafter to appraise budget performance in comparison with budget plans.
Allotments on a Department wide basis could be made on "fixed items" such as rents, heat, light, power, capital outlays, market rentals and other items that would either cut across the Department or would cost more to distribute by office or program than such a breakdown would warrant. However, such allotments should be made to the appropriate administrative official, with responsibility for its proper administration and for constantly seeking ways to maintain effective services at minimum costs.
Because travel is so vital to the full performance of the Department's work, it is believed that other steps aimed at improving budgetary controls on a project basis, rather than on an object of expenditure basis across the whole Department would prove beneficial. This would eliminate present "crisis-type" procedures when all travel plans are reduced. It would also reduce risk of broad forced cutbacks and strengthen the management of the Department.
Information Services The information work is now scattered in several places and is not adequate to meet the
needs of the Department. A properly organized informatio:q unit could do a great deal to improve the present publications of all kinds and provide direction to the program divisions in developing additional publications and other forms of communications both internally and externally.
The Information and Education section is presently supervising the duplication unit, developing a limited reference library, preparing some news releases and maintaining a stock of some bulletins. The Special Services Section is actually one man, recently employed, who is doing some work on special news releases and some related activities. The Cooperative Services Section, also one man with newspaper and informational background, has been handling special assignments in a number of areas that are mostly in the information field. Some graphics work is done by one employee connected with the Markets Division. Some radio and television work is being done in some of the Divisions.
The result is that the issuances of the Department lack uniformity and in some instances show the need for more careful editing and better design. There is apparently no one place where material can be reviewed for compliance with Departmental policy.
There are many instances where a strong informational Division under the direction of a qualified information leader can make an important contribution to administration, improve the image of an organization and strengthen the relations with all news media - newspaper, radio, and television.
Recommendation No. 21 It is recommended that an Information Division be established in the Office of Administrative Management. This division might be formed in the first instance by bringing together the present Information and Education Section, the graphics work from the Markets Division, and the Special Services Section and Cooperative Services Section attached to the Commissioner's Office. Additional personnel would be added as necessary.
Communications
Reliance on Oral Communications The Department places much reliance on the word flowing down through the various organizational levels and out to more than 500 employees stationed throughout the State to accomplish its programs and to implement the functional assignments of organizational units and individual employees. There are few organized, systematic issuances such as manuals of operations or handbooks outlining in detail the operating procedures to be followed.
27

This obviously poses questions on the understanding and interpretation of policies or procedures and multiplies supervisory problems. Problems also arise in explaining to the public why operations may vary from program to program or area to area.
Lack of Written Instructions Neither is there much in written form available either to supervisors or employees on such important matters as leave privileges, tours of duty, and policies on overtime, travel expenses, the purchasing of needed supplies for field use, etc. Staff meetings at headquarters are not held regularly. Written communications to all Department employees are very rare and usually limited to subjects such as those urging participation in United Fund Drives.
There is no internal house organ through which employees can be informed accurately of important program considerations, budget decisions, changes in personnel assignments, changes in program emphases, outstanding performance of fellow employees, and other matters that might be helpful in promoting "team spirit" and a better understanding of the Department. (Some individual divisions regularly communicate with all their employees; e. g., the Food Division in its "Food for Thought" memorandum. Where this is being done, it has been quite helpful.)
Recommendation No. 22 It is recommended that a thorough study be made of the operating policies and procedures of the Department with a view to developing a coordinated codified procedural release system, and that a distribution system be developed so that offices receive only the policies and procedures covering their operations. Such a system should provide separately for (a) releases of information of a one-time announcement-type procedure, a personnel assignment, or other communication where the duration of such release is temporary or has application for only a limited time; and (b) releases of permanent policies and procedures. The former (temporary notice type) would be destroyed after dates shown on the issuance itself; the latter would be retained in a manual-type of looseleaf binder according to the classification (code) indicated thereon. The system would permit revisions by the page (rather than on a whole manual basis) to keep procedures up to date.
Forms Improvement and Control The program and administrative work of the Department requires the use of thousands of forms - submitting samples ; forms certifying compliance; forms re grades, licenses, cancellations; forms re inspections made and results found; forms that record sequential actions taken by various offices successively in the work distribution channels.
At the present time operating officials sensing the need for a form in the administration of their programs design the form, have it reproduced, maintain stocks, and see that they are distributed as needed.
It is well recognized that good forms design can substantially reduce the work in filling in a form, as well as subsequent work which the form activates. Good design aids by grouping related items on the form to facilitate the use of the data supplies; it takes into consideration the manner in which the form will most frequently be used (i.e., manually or by typewriter); and it provides "transfer-ease" for summarizing the data on summary forms.
Some of the "sequential action forms" (on which numbers of different offices add information as the form moves through a work distribution channel) can, if appropriately designed, save repetitive work in copying the same items on separate forms, reduce correspondence (transmittals, etc.), and further increase manpower utilization.
There are some excellent examples of well-designed forms now in use in the Department (e. g., some used in the Food Division). There is however, no overall system for forms design control.
28

Recommendation No. 23 It is recommended that a simple but effective forms design and control system be established. This should be a part of the duties of the systems analyst recommended elsewhere. This system, as a minimum, should require (1) on each form currently in use (as it is presented for reprinting, if it cannot be done earlier), and (2) on each new form proposed for printing:
A. Review and approval by an official on the staff of the proposed Administrative Management Division trained in forms analysis and design, working with the program division representative proposing its use.
B. An official Department number assigned for ordering, stocking, controlling and distributing the form.
c. An annual "purging" of stocked forms to eliminate and destroy those that have lost their
usefulness or that have been superseded.
The Market Bulletin
To facilitate produce sales, a weekly Market Bulletin was established in 1917 by Act of the Legislature. By 1918 the Bulletin was being sent to 20,000 farmers. By 1923 it was being sent to 100,000 farmers, and by the late 40's its weekly circulation was more than 200,000.
The main purpose of the Market Bulletin is to give Georgia farmers a means of advertising without cost their commodities, used equipment, or other items directly to the farming industry. Advertising is limited to Georgia citizens. However, out-of-state people may receive the Bulletin and may purchase items through it. Every effort is made to keep commercial dealers from advertising in the Bulletin.
The Sales Events column of the Bulletin has proved to be one of the most effective means of letting farmers know of a sale in which they might be interested. Recent studies of certain hog sales revealed that in each instance almost every person attending the sale learned of it through the Market Bulletin.
The Market Bulletin is currently distributed to approximately 207,000 people. Approximately 191,000 of these people live in Georgia. Some 16,000 copies of the Bulletin go to people outside the State of Georgia. The Bulletin is sent to people in every state of the Union and several foreign countries.
In 1954 the circulation of the Market Bulletin was approximately 300,000 weekly. In 1955 outof-state subscribers and Fulton County (including Atlanta) lists of subscribers were purged. Further efforts were made during recent years to assure that the list is kept current.
No one was placed on the Market Bulletin mailing list without specific request.
No more than one Bulletin is mailed to one family.
Copies of the Market Bulletin mailing list are periodically mailed to each post office so that they may be brought up to date by the Postmaster and returned to the Department of Agriculture for correction. This is the principal device for eliminating people who move out of the state.
Approximately 500 changes in the mailing list are made each week. This includes regular post office changes and changes requested by individuals. When mailing lists for entire cities are revised, the number of changes may exceed 1,500 in one week.
Annual Costs of Market Bulletin The estimated annual cost of the Market Bulletin (based on current 207,000 circulation) is approximately $130,000. The three largest items are $94,700 for printing, folding, and mailing; $20,225 for salaries of employees in the Department in preparing the Bulletin for publication, maintaining mailing lists, etc.; and $12,750 for postage. This cost, for the current 207,000 copies issued weekly approximates 1.2 cents a copy or 63 cents per subscription annually.
29

Recommendation No. 24 It is recommended that a regular purging of the mailing list be provided for. This might be accomplished by circularizing everyone on the current mailing list for the Market Bulletin with a first-class mail inquiry, with a request by the Commissioner for the return of an enclosed post card to determine if the addressee still desires that his name be retained on the list. This could be done over a two-year period, without unduly burdening the current staff or the postage budget, by circularizing about one twenty-fourth of the mailing list monthly. Continuing this practice monthly, after the first circularization is completed, would mean a biennial purging of the list. Periodically, the Market Bulletin should carry announcement of the effort being made through circularization to insure that the Bulletin is going only to those who specifically ask for it, and all addressees are still living at addresses being used.
30

PROPOSED ORGANIZATION

An organization is a group of people and the effectiveness of the organization depends in the

ffn~ramlsandaelpyesnids sonuphoonwa

well each person performs the individual task great many things. In the first place, this is

assigned. How well he perusually determined by train-

~ns g~erinhateprsesttheanmdospterismopnoalrtatenmt pfaecratomreinnt.

Beyond this, environment in which the person continuing effective and efficient performance of

works the in-

dividual and, therefore, the organization. In setting up an organization, the purpose is to delimit

successive environments into which people of required aptitudes can be expected to perform hap-

pily and effectively.

Although the consultants have critized some of the programs and the present organization chart of the Department of Agriculture we are keenly aware of the outstanding progress made by the Department in the past ten years. In this study we have often been impressed with the loyalty of the employees to the Department and to each other. This kind of group could make almost any organization chart work, even one that an organization expert might consider bad. We are of the opinion that this attitude of the people has had a great deal to do with overcoming organizational difficulties.

In making the following recommendations for reorganization we have but one objective and that is to facilitate administration and to provide a basis for future progress.

The programs administered by the Department of Agriculture fall into three fairly homogeneous groups (1) those concerned mostly with livestock, (2) those generally related to programs dealing with plants, and (3) those that are related to consumer and marketing services.

This is not to say that the groups are mutually exclusive. There are some of the activities that are placed in the consumer marketing group that have an area of common interest with some in the other two groups. Meat inspection, for example, is in the livestock group, but it is of major interest to the consumer and marketing work although its technical aspects make it most desirable to associate it with the livestock programs. The activities in the plant group have common interest with both the animal and marketing programs. This, of course, is the reason that they all fit so well into the State Department of Agriculture.

Recommendation No. 25 It is recommended that the Department be reorganized in accordance with the following organization chart- Exhibit V.
It is believed that the grouping suggested here will strengthen the Department so that it may meet its increasingly complex responsibilities more effectively.
The following changes would be necessary to implementation of the organization as recommended.

REGROUP PROGRAM FUNCTIONS
Recommendation No 26 It is recommended that the program functions be grouped into offices of Animal Industry, Plant Industry, and Consumer and Marketing Services and the names of the groups be designated as Office and the head of each office be designated as Assistant Commissioner for the respective office.

The Office of Animal Industry
This would entail no change from the present at headquarters except for the name. The functions of this Office would continue to be those concerned with Animal Disease Eradication or Control, the inspection for wholesomeness of meat and meat products produced and consumed in Geor-

31

gia, and similar inspection of poultry and poultry products. The Division headed by the State Veterinarian would continue to function as a component of this group and would be responsible for the work performed under contract with the poultry diagnostic laboratory and the animal disease diagnostic laboratory.
The Office of Plant Industry With the transfer of the present Food Division and Dairy and Egg Division to the Office of
Consumer and Marketing Services, this office would be composed of those programs concerned mostly with plants.
The office of Plant Industry would then consist of the following: Entomology Division - no change needed Seed Division - no change needed Laboratories Division - no change Feed, Fertilizer and Insecticides Division - this division would take the place of the present
Inspection Division and the three sections attached to it. See discussion and recommendation number 5 on page 12. Foundation Seed, Inc. Institutional Farm Management These two units would continue in the same relation as at present.
The Office of Consumer and Marketing Services This office brings together those activities that are principally concerned with services to
the consumer and the marketing work of the Department. Under the recommended organizational plan the office would be composed of three main divisions and the cooperative statistical office located at Athens.
Markets Division This Division would combine the present commodities Promotion Division, the Markets Division, and add the Egg Section transferred from the Office of Plant Industry. The organization is shown on Exhibit V. The office of the Director of the Division would consist of a Director and possibly an Assistant Director who would be responsible for maintaining cooperative relations on the programs of Market News, farm products grading services, with the U. S. D. A. and the administration of the Egg law. The Egg law would be transferred from the proposed Office of Plant Industry. Responsibility for the wholesale and retail inspection work would be delegated to the Dairy and Food Division. The Commodities Promotion Section would handle the program presently under the Commodities Promotion Division and the Public Markets Section would handle that program.
Dairy and Food Division
Recommendation No. 27 See discussion pages 14 to 15 and Recommendation No. 8. It is recommended that the Dairy Section be combined with the Food Division and be named the Dairy and Food Division. It is further recommended that all wholesale and retail inspection work being done by the Food Division, the Dairy Section, the Egg Section, and the counter scales work of the Weights
32

PROPOSED ORGANIZATION FOR
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Board Memberships of Commissioner
State Board for Children and Youth Advisory Board, State Soil Conservation
Commission Seed Advisory Committee Georgia Seed Development Commission Advisory Board, Georgia Seed Development
Commission l1vestock and Poultry Disease Control Board Advisory Committee on Institutional Farms Georgia Development Authority Georgia Farmer's Market Authority Stone Mountain Memorial Association Tobacco Advisory Board Water Quality Council

Commissioner of Agriculture 1

-r
I I

Agricultural CommoclitiM Commiuion

Peanuts Eggs Peaches Milk

A p p l. . Sweet Potatoes Tobacco Cotton

r------ --- - - +----.----------,

L_ ---I-1L_______M_i-lk--Co__m_m_i_i_orn_______J

Consultants and Special
Assistants

Coordinator Program Planning and Evaluation Unit

Cooperative
Animal and Poultry Diagnostic laboratories 3

Director Animal Disease Eradication Division
Chief livestock Auction Markets & Certification Section

. - - - - . L ____ ..,

I
Advisor Institutional Farm Management 5

I
.----'----,
Director Foundation Seed, Inc. 6

Field Inspection Force, Wholesale, Retail Food Outlets, Bakeries, Bottling Plants, Food Processing Plants and Counter Scales
Direct Administrative Supervision
Advisory or Cooperative Relationship
Policy-making but not Administrative Supervision

1. The Commissioner of Agriculture is, ex officio, Commissioner of Immigration, State Veterinarian and State Entomologist. 2. Legal Counsel is appointed by the Governor with the approval of the Attorney General. 3. Contract arrangement under which these laboratories provide facilities for the Department. 4. Cooperative office with U. S. D. A. located at Athens. Administrative direction limited to State Department of Agriculture programs. 5. The advisor is an employee of the Department but also reports directly to the Advisory Committee an Institutional Farms. 6. The Foundation Seed program is operated by the Department in cooperation with the Georgia Crop Improvement Association.

and Measures Section be consolidated in the Food Division and that the combined services be conducted by the Dairy and Food Division in cooperation with the other divisions concerned. Complete records of performance and other records should be kept by the Dairy and Food Di. vision for use of the other divisions. The recommended organization of the Division is shown on Exhibit V. The combination of the Dairy and Food Division would make a logical and strong unit that would have considerable in common. This set-up would facilitate the combination of the retail and wholesale inspec. tion activities of the Dairy Section with the same type of inspection carried on by the Food Di. vision. The area supervisors, special investigators, and the mastitis control program would not be included in this group. The activities of the Food Division inspection of food processing plants and the Dairy Section activities concerned with sanitation in milk processing plants would seem to have possibilities for close coordination.
Warehouse Division This Division would continue as at present in the administration of the warehouse and weights and measures law. The only change would be the delegation of responsibility for the counter scales inspection to the Dairy and Foods Division.
Cooperative State Statistical Program This Office would be tied in under a direct administrative line in accord with the cooperative
agreement with the U. s. D. A.
Titles of Principal Program Heads Recommendation No. 28 It is recommended that the titles of the Administrative Assistants to the Commissioner be changed to Assistant Commissioner of the major office reporting to the Commissioner; i. e., Assistant Commissioner - Office of Animal Industry; Assistant Commissioner - Office of Plant Industry, etc. and that they all be brought under the State Merit System. This will overcome the uncertainty as to the functional responsibility present top officials
have and depict in the title the authority each position encompasses.
Consolidated Field Inspection Division
Recommendation No. 29 (See discussion pages 15 to 17, Recommendation No. 9.) It is recommended that a Consolidated Field Inspection Division be established at Atlanta, reporting to the Commissioner and that the full responsibility for administration of the area field inspection force be delegated to it. The field force would be composed of the present consolidated inspection force under 12 District Supervisors. It is further recommended that the other actions outlined earlier under the caption Consolidated Field Inspection Force and Personnel be implemented concurrently.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT This office would provide over-all administration of the activities outlined below - see pages
17 to 18 and Recommendation No. 10.
34

Personnel Division (See Recommendation No. 12, page 22.) This Division would direct a progressive and aggressive total personnel management pro-
am This would include department-wide training and placement functions and work with program divisions looking toward improved manpower utilization aimed at minimizing standby and
~ertime. A full classification study of all positions should be made in cooperation with the Merit ~oard designed to eliminate as many of the non-merit positions as possible. Also see Recommenda-
tions 13 to 18 under "personnel management".
Budget and Finance Division This Division would be responsible for all financial accounting for the Department includ-
ing the budgetary accounting control included in the discussions on pages 23 to 27, and Recommendations 19 and 20, page 26. This division should also play a key advisory role in determining the rates and fees the Department establishes for the various services and facilities. This is to insure careful cost analysis so that charges will be as near as may be sufficient to meet the cost of the service. An adequate financial accounting system should be maintained to provide management with needed information on a current basis to measure performance against budget allocations. It should also provide staff assistance and leadership to the budgetary phases of the new and expanded emphasis on program planning and development recommended elsewhere in this report.
Information Division (See Recommendation 21, page 27.) Information and education and other work of an informational nature conducted by special
assistants attached to the Commissioner's office would be consolidated in this Division.
The Information Division should be assigned a leadership role in working with the program divisions in the development of information on agriculture and food and the significance of the various programs conducted by the Department to all of the people. The division should be the central contact for the Department with all news media, (press, radio, and television) in the preparation of regular releases and special news articles and programs.
All publications proposed for issuance by the Department should be reviewed and edited for contents, form and compliance with Department policy before final copy is submitted for duplication or printing. In this connection, the information specialists should be available for technical advice and counsel on all matters of publication design and content. This should include the preparation of the materials proposed under the heading "Rules and Regulations" mentioned elsewhere in this report.
The systematic purging of the mailing list for the Market Bulletin, operation of the forms control and improvement of communications would be assigned to the Information Division.
The duplicating services, central supplies, mail room, messenger and porter services would be consolidated in this division.
RESULTS ANTICIPATED The proposed organization will reduce the number of units and individuals that now report di-
rectly to the Commissioner, and relieve him of other time consuming chores without depriving him of the necessary contacts with the important operating programs of the Department.
This will permit the Commissioner to devote more time to the analysis, evaluation, and development of programs and meeting the important and demanding responsibilities with the 22 boards and commissions and other State and Federal individuals and organizations concerned with the wide program of agriculture.
35

The consolidation of the administrative management functions under the general direction of a qualified management man would provide for much needed improvement in this entire area. Materials for program analysis and evaluation are not readily available either from the standpoint of budget control or the accounting procedures presently in effect. A study of what is needed and methods for providing it would permit better management. A personnel division under the direction of a competent personnel director and the development of a comprehensive training program would, it is believed, not only result in economies but would correct many of the personnel problems in the Department. The proposal for an information division would certainly make for better operations and improve public understanding of the programs of the Department.
The regrouping of the program functions into more homogeneous groups would clarify administrative lines. The administrators of these groups should be able to delegate more definite authority to the divisions and thereby provide more time for the administrator to devote to his most important job of program evaluation and planning. This would result in economy in the use of talents of these administrators. In addition, placing more responsibility for program operations at the Division level is a most important device for developing further administrators which is essential in the development of a career service.
Field operations which now account for over 70% of the total employment would be improved and the ground work for further improvement is provided. The consolidated inspection force, if the operation is implemented and it develops as anticipated, can be expanded and incentives increased for the entire inspection force. The consolidation of all retail and wholesale inspection activities will immediately relieve the principal source of criticism presently being leveled at the Department by the public.
Cost of Reorganization The proposed reorganization does not call for any increase in the operating programs of the
Department. For the programs now operated there is a definite need for continuing the up-grading of the personnel. This is particularly necessary in the field inspection forces and in the junior administrative group. It is believed that the cost of up-grading in the field inspection forces can be offset by the increase in productivity that can be expected from the training program and the higher class personnel that would constitute the force.
Some new positions are called for. Most of these are in the Administrative Services activities. To the extent that present personnel can be reassigned the net increase in cost can be held down. In the long run, however, it will prove of greatest economy to fill key positions with well qualified men in each unit.
The new positions that are indicated are: 1. An Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Office of Administrative Services. 2. A Director of the Personnel Division 3. A Director of Information 4. A Director of Budget and Finance 5. A Systems Analyst A training officer is a high priority position but one is due to report in the near future.
36

PART II

pROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE For the most part, the activities of the Department of Agriculture are covered by specific
ts under which some 25 programs and activities are conducted. This section will deal with a
~escription of these activities as they are presently conducted.
The Organic Act of 1874
This act is very broad and authorizes the Department to indulge in a very wide range of activities. It might be called an enabling act; that is, it simply assigns certain areas of responsibility to the Commissioner of Agriculture. Generally, in the development of the program of the l)epartment where some specific regulatory action is required, the long-time policy has been to seek legislative sanction by enactment of specific laws covering that activity. To do otherwise would certainly create problems. In the case of certain other activities, which are purely service in character, the authority of the Organic Act is sufficient. The Department conducts or participates in the conduct of several activities of this kind.
Agricultural Statistics This activity specifically mentioned in the Act of 1874 is conducted in Georgia under a coopera-
tive agreement between the U. S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting Service, the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and the College of Agriculture of the University of Georgia. Forty eight states cooperate in the statistics work but Georgia is one of four states where such a three-way cooperative understanding between the principal agencies concerned is in effect. The federal-state agricultural statistician's offfice is located in Athens in the Agricultural Extension Service Building.
The cooperative agreement arises out of a common belief that each can do more by working together than either can do alone. There is nothing mandatory about. It is not a matched fund requirement. It amounts to the state deciding what and how much service it needs over and above that included in the federal program and agreeing how much money or personnel is required to provide that service. Either party may discontinue the program at any time, the only requirement being that 30-days notice in writing be given to the other party. The state does not have to assume any administrative or supervisory load. The statistician is a classified employee of the U. S. Department of Agriculture and is designated by the state Department of Agriculture as the state statistician. It is required that the personnel assigned to this project or appointed by the state be qualified for the type of work that is to be undertaken, that they be placed under the administrative and technical supervision of the state statistician in charge, and that they be bound by the security rules established by law for the conduct of the federal program.
The State Department's part of the program involves one statistician and two statistical clerks. The total allocation of funds is about $12,000 per year. In addition the department provides for publication of a number of special reports on various aspects of agriculture. One of the largest and more important reports consists of statistics on acerage yield production and price of crops and livestock by counties (as required in the Organic Act). Another important service is special statistical reports on poultry and eggs. The Georgia poultry statistics are probably the most comprehensive of any state. Other services include special tabulations and anlyses needed in some of the other state programs, particularly statistics used by the Milk Commission. This detailed information is of very considerable value to many agencies, public and private, in the state. It is utilized by the Department of Agriculture in marketing programs, and by the University in its research studies in the various fields of agriculture. Businessmen, bankers, manufacturers and transportation agencies are all important users of the basic statistical facts produced under this program.
37

Market News
This activity is conducted under a cooperative agreement with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The basic understanding in this cooperative program is similar to that set forth for the statistical project.
The market news program was developed to fill the information gap between the agricultural estimates service and the market place. The purpose of this market news service is to provide day-to-day information on supplies, quality, quantity, price and market conditions in the market place. This is a fast-moving reporting service usually covering one day's market operation, but may provide as many as two or three "flash" reports during the market session. Time is of the essence in this program. The reports must be freely available to all factors in the market if it is to be an effective factor in orderly marketing and distribution of farm and farm products. Over a long period of years, this service has been one of the most popular marketing activities conducted by the federal and the state departments of agriculture. It is a widely used service as indicated by the fact that the news services generally give it a prominent place in their news releases and the wire services have developed a business of providing special market news wires to individual concerns on a subscription basis.
The market news program in Georgia covers fruits and vegetables, dairy, and poultry. Special reports are provided on peaches, watermelons, pecans, tobacco, and livestock. The fruit and vegetable market news service is conducted out of the Atlanta market and covers that market only. The personnel, equipment, and supplies are provided by the federal office. The State Department of Agriculture cooperates in this activity to the extent of providing office space and facilities in the Atlanta market. The state utilizes the information collected on the Atlanta market as well as the information on other markets that are received over the federal teletype service. Information pertinent to the state and the twenty farmers markets in the state is disseminated from Atlanta to these markets.
The dairy and poultry news service covers the state from headquarters in Atlanta. The state's participation in this program is in the nature of a contract in which the state provides about $14,000 a year to expand the federal program to provide better coverage to the state industry. The entire service is administered by the federal dairy and poultry office, and the state does not assume any load for technical or administrative direction.
The peach, watermelon, and pecan service is active only during the marketing season. This type of service is usually referred to as "shipping point" news service wherein the information is collected and disseminated at the shipping points. This is considered an important service to producers and the entire industry. It is a type of reporting that is of immediate value in orderly marketing. The State Department of Agriculture supplements the federal program to the extent of about $3,500 a year for reports on these three commodities. Supervision and direction is provided by the federal program.
The livestock market news program is conducted at Thomasville, Georgia. This office also is supported by federal funds; personnel are classified as federal civil service employees. The cooperation of the State Department of Agriculture consists largely of collecting information on several livestock markets in the state and routing it to the Thomasville office where it is combined with information from surrounding states and the U.S. into a report issued from that office. Copies of these reports are, in turn, sent to the local livestock markets. The contribution of the state is, therefore, limited to this part-time service; however, local information adds to the value and usefulness of the livestock market news reports to the producers and market men in the state. The livestock market news service at Thomasville has been a very popular service in the entire area, including South Georgia, North Florida, and Alabama, ever since it was established some years ago. Of course, it could not be claimed that this service was a causal factor in the significant advances made in the Georgia livestock industry. However, the opening of the livestock news office at Thomasville came about at the time that the industry was starting its growth in the state, and it has been an important aid to the industry.
38

The Congress has insisted that a definite policy be established with regard to the extent of state pB.rticipation in the market news program. Such a policy was developed in consultation with the states, and the contributions that Georgia makes to these programs is in line with that policy. Similar arrangements are in effect in a large number of states.
The Georgia Department of Agriculture's general over-sight and cooperation on these programs is delegated to the Director of the Commodies Promotion Division who is also an Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner in charge of the marketing work. This activity requires very little of his time.
Agricultural Products Grading Service As in the case of the two programs just discussed, this is a service that has become such
a necessary part of the marketing system it is practicially taken for granted. In Georgia, as in all the states, it is operated in cooperation with the national program conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Universal standards interpreted by trained graders accomplish many things. Chief of these is the economy it permits in the marketing and distribution of farm products. The grade terms are the common language in the entire industry that permits trading at a distance, makes market news more usable and when applied at the point of first sale by the producer makes it possible for him to receive a price commensurate with the quality of the product he sells. When the grade follows through to the retail level, it provides the consumer with a guide in buying.
The Georgia Department actively cooperates in the grading covering fresh fruits and vegetables, and eggs. It is a voluntary service, being provided on request and paid for by the user of the service. It is entirely self-supporting including the cost of administration.
A third grading service is a program conducted on grain. This program is administered by the Markets Division and is equally financed by Federal and State funds. A licensed grain grader supervises the work. The supervisor works actively with the corn millers in improving the milling and packaging of corn meal. He also supervises the grain grading program which is being increasingly used by grain buyers, notably livestock feeders and poultry feeders. Qualified grain samplers are available for service in most areas of the state.
Promotion of Agricultural Commodities Georgia law provides for the creation of a Commodity Commission to promote production and
marketing of agricultural products. The commodities specified include all agricultural, horticultural (including floriculture) and vegetable pro ducts produced in the state . . . livestock and livestock products, poultry and poultry products, timber and lumber products, fish and seafood, and products of the farms and forests of the state.
Each Commission with the name of the product affixed is established as a public corporation and an instrumentality of the state. Each member is a public officer, takes an oath of office, and is then certified to the Secretary of State who isues an appropriate commission under the -shield of his office. Each Commission is composed of four ex-officio members: The Commissioner of Agriculture, the Attorney General, the State Auditor, and the president of the Georgia Farm Bureau Federation. These ex-officio members appoint five additional members from a list of ten names of farmers submitted to them. This group of five plus the Commissioner and the president of theFarm Bureau constitute the active board of the Commodity Commission.
Except for peanuts, cotton seed, and soybeans, the program that may be developed by each Commission may include one, all, or any combination of the following: (1) surplus control; (2) quality control; (3) production and handler control; (4) quantity control; (5) marketing period; (6) surplus stabilization; (7) grading and standarization inspection; (8) advertising and sales Promotion; (9) unfair trade practices; (10) production adjustments and benefits; (11) research; 02) educational programs. Peanut, cotton seed, and soybean programs may be based only on numbers eight, eleven, and twelve of the above objectives.
39

Each proposed marketing order must be voted on by the qualified producers and handlers. Be. fore the order can become effective, a referendum must show approval by: (1) 65% of the handlers, handling 65';~ of the tonnage of the products affected; (2) 65% of the producers Pro.
clueing at least 51 j{ of the tonnage or 51% of the producers producing 65 ;lc of the tonnage. Of
course, prior to the holding of a referendum, the proposed order is developed and open hearings are held at which all interested parties are given an opportunity to express their opinions and raise questions about any feature of the order. The marketing order activates the program agreed upon.
The orders provide for the assessments on producers and handlers to defray the cost of the program as set forth in the objectives included in the order. These assessments are collected by the Department of Agriculture and held in the corporate account. All expenditures are approved by the Commodity Commission and disbursements are made through the office of the Commissioner of Agriculture. All accounts are audited by the State Auditor.
Once approved, the order becomes binding on all producers and handlers in the area covered by the order. Any violation is declared to be a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. The law covers much more, but the foregoing is a brief summary of the more significant provisions which is sufficient for the purposes here.
At the present time, there are seven Commissions active, involving: (1) milk; (2) eggs; (3) peanuts; (4) sweet potatoes; (5) peaches; (6) tobacco; and (7) apples. Peaches are also under a federal order for quality control on fruit shipped out of the producing area. Three more Commissions are now being requested: (1) beef cattle; (2) swine; and (3) cotton.
The responsibilities of the State Department of Agriculture for the administration of the law are delegated to an Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner of Agriculture who is also Director of the Commodities Promotions Division. A very large proportion of his time is devoted to this activity. He is assisted by an Assistant Division Director located at Waycross, Georgia, a secretary, and two clerks. Four field men are assigned to oversee the activities on quality control and other activities of the Commodity Commissions.
The Department of Agriculture provides the essential leadership and counsel in the development and administration of the Commodities Commissions. This involves a considerable amount of service from the marketing specialists, informational services, and considerable assistance in the collection of fees and financial accounting. At times, travel expense of state employees becomes a significant item. While the law permits the use of Commission funds or funds appropriated to the Department for many of these services, the policy of the Department has been to use regularly appropriated funds for the services rendered to the Commissions. This is in line with the intent of the law that all funds for the administration of the Department be reviewed and approved by the Legislature. Furthermore, it recognizes that there is a public interest in these programs over and beyond the direct benefits the producer receives. This policy also preserves the funds of the Commission derived from assessments paid by producers and handlers of the commodity for carrying out the objectives established for the Commission set forth in the order.
The Commodity Commissions have been of significant benefit to agriculture in the state. Quality of the products under order have been improved, sales promotion programs have resulted in wider distribution of these commodities in and outside the State of Georgia, and returns to farmers have been improved. The commissions have contributed to the stimulation and expediting of research on many types of problems confronting the producers and consumers of the products covered.
Market Facilities Program This program is operated under authority granted by the Market Authority Act, approved
February 23, 1955, and The Farmers Market Act of 1935, as amended.
40

~The farmers markets are serving a necessary function in marketing and distribution of farm food products. In urban areas in particular they are patronized by consumers. The principal function of the markets is, however, to provide centers for delivery of farm produce by the farmers where buyers can make up car lots or truck loads for distribution to points within the state or to other states. Each of these markets is tied in on the wire service which keeps each market point informed as to the developments in each of the other areas. This is an important service which has eliminated the operation of pure speculators "kiting" produce between local markets. Orderly marketing benefits everyone.
The Farmers Market Authority is a corporate body, the officers of which are the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Commissioner of Agriculture, the Attorney General, and the State Auditor. The Authority is given power to: acquire real and personal property by purchase, lease, gift, or otherwise; appoint additional officers and employ such personnel as may be necessary; enter into contracts; build, rebuild, repair, maintain, operate, and lease facilities developed by the Commission; pay all or part of the costs from the proceeds of the facilities; borrow money and issue bonds; and generally, exercise any power granted to private corporations not in conflict with the constitution and laws of the State.
The Authority has constructed one market in Atlanta. Under a contractual agreement with the Department, overall administration of this market is delegated to the Director of the Markets Division. The Department receives no funds from the Authority for this administrative service.
All direct costs of the market operation are paid from Authority funds derived from rentals and fees paid for facilities and services by the users of the market. Collection of rentals and fees for the fiscal year 1964 amounted to about $616,614 and direct operating costs were $402,990.
The market is one of the best planned facilities of its kind in the United States. It serves the farmers of the area as a place for direct sale of their own commodities either at wholesale or retail and benefits farmers from distant areas of the State because Atlanta is a large center from which distribution is made to other consuming centers in the State and other states. It is well known that marketing costs constitute a large part of the consumer's dollar, and these costs are increased by inefficient and wasteful market facilities. The Atlanta market is an efficient market that serves the entire Atlanta area. Retailers are served effectively without wasted time and with a minimum of handling loss. Facilities are provided for shoppers from Atlanta and surrounding areas who make extensive use of these facilities to secure home supplies particularly during the time when local produce is plentiful.
Volume of produce handled on the market is increasing. Gross sales of produce sold in 1963 amounted to $47,288,916.
The Farmers Market Act of 1935 authorized the Commissioner of Agriculture to establish farmers' markets. This includes authority, at his discretion, to procure market sites by purchase, lease, gifts or otherwise, and to erect and operate market facilities. Unlike the Market Authority Act, no authority is granted to finance the capital outlay. Direct appropriations for this purpose are, therefore, the only source of funds for this purpose. The law does provide that rents and fees may be charged for use of the facilities. The act of 1935 also provides that the charges and fees collected shall be available for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the act. This feature was nullified by an act of 1959. The budgeted outlay for this activity for 1963-64 was $390,646. Fees collected amounted to $160,029.
At present there are 20 farmers' markets in operation. The value of products sold in 1963 was $94,410,217. In addition, there were six sweet potato curing houses with gross sales of $208,176 in 1963, and one new apple market now in its first year of operation with estimated gross sales of about $172,390. The 1963 total for all 27 units amounted to $94,790,783.
The administrative organization at the State level consists of the Division Director, one secretary, and one clerk who handles the recording of the reports and compiles statistical information on the total operation. Three market supervisors are located in three State areas broadly
41

defined as South, Central, and North Georgia. One of these area supervisors is located in the Atlanta market and acts as overall supervisor for that market as well as the few farmers' markets in the Northern district.
A market supervisor operates each of the twenty farmers' markets. At larger markets additional personnel are assigned to assist the market supervisor. Products inspection and grading service is provided by State or Federal-State graders under a State-Federal cooperative agreement with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Every producer is provided with a minimum inspection to see that the produce delivered at least meets the minimum requirements under the state law. This inspection is without charge to the producer. If an official grade certificate is desired or needed, the Federal or licensed State grader makes a full examination and issues an official grade certificate for the lot. In this case the applicant pays the regularly established fee for such service.
Employment is on an annual basis. In smaller markets where the volume is seasonal, and in light seasons in all markets, the Market Division utilizes supervisors on other programs. For example, a number of market supervisors have been trained and licensed as grain samplers to assist in the grain grading program. They also assist growers in securing plants. The supervisors, being well-known in their areas, are encouraged to act as contact points for farmers and others in their localities seeking information on other programs and activities of the Department.
Georgia Pure Food Program This Georgia Food Act might be characterized as a pure food law. In many respects it is simi-
lar to the food part of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in that it establishes standards for food items and protects the consumer from false advertising, misbranding, and adulteration of food. The law provides that insofar as practicable the standards of identity promulgated shall be the same as those promulgated under the Federal Law. The Department of Agriculture handles that part of the law dealing with fish and seafood, including crab meat plants and wholesale fish dealers. In this case the Department has promulgated and enforces the rules and regulations dealing with the sanitary and other requirements in plants preparing crab meat.
The Food Division is charged with administration of the law. The Division is divided into three sections as follows: (1) Food processing plants; (2) Bakeries and bottling; and (3) Wholesale and Retail groceries. The personnel in the Atlanta office consist of the Division Director who directs the operations in the entire division and also handles the bakeries and bottling section. Section chiefs head the other two sections. There are four clerks assigned to the division.
The main part of the enforcement work is carried on by a force of field inspectors. There are 26 of these inspectors located in 24 districts throughout the State and three area supervisory inspectors. The Division has done a careful job in districting the State. Each district is delimited in a manner that will provide a full-time workload for the inspector assigned. Inspection work is carried on in retail stores, wholesale firms, and food processing plants. Eating establishments where food is prepared and served on the premises are under the supervision of the State Department of Public Health.
The Division Director and his two section chiefs in Atlanta prepare all rules and regulations for promulgation by the Commissioner, design all forms; and prescribe procedures for making field inspections and collections of samples. The Director takes such disciplinary action as may be indicated by inspection or laboratory reports.
Field inspection work consists chiefly of the examination of establishments for compliance with sanitary standards, collecting and making a first examination of food samples, particularly as related to labeling, and forwarding the samples to the laboratory. The inspector is also responsible for taking action on the disposition of food that is found to be in violation of the Act.
The field inspection force is administratively responsible to the Director of the Division. To coordinate the activities, detailed instructions have been developed for conducting inspections of
42

all kinds. The Director and his two section chiefs have developed a plan for traini:r:g of new inspectors and a continuing program to keep the inspectors up-to-date. A training manual is well along in its development and should be issued in the near future.
This law and its administration is of very real benefit to all the people of Georgia. The Division has developed a very close and harmonious working relation with the Federal Food and Drug Administration and with state and local public health agencies. This has proven valuable to all agencies concerned but probably most valuable to the people of Georgia because of the better protection they have received and the economies that flow from avoiding duplication of effort.
Pure Milk Program This is a comprehensive program providing for regulation of production, manufacture, and sale
of milk and milk products. The consumer is the principal benefactor by the assurance that the milk he receives is produced and processed under sanitary conditions. The administration of this law has been an important factor in assisting the farmer in improving his herd and obtaining prices for his product commensurate with the quality produced. The processor and distributor benefit by the enforcement of uniform standards throughout the industry.
Dairying is an important farm enterprise in Georgia. Cash farm income from dairy products in 196~ was $53,209,000 or about 6.4% of the total cash income from farming. The number of dairy cows on farms has been declining gradually for the past seven years but milk production per cow has been increasing so that up to 1963 total milk production in the state has been increasing. This is indicative of the steady improvement in the quality of the cows and increased efficiency of production by Georgia farmers.
The Dairy Section in Atlanta is under the direction of a technically trained man, assisted by a registered professional sanitarian and three clerical assistants. In the field there are two inspectors giving special attention to the mastitis program. Three registered professional sanitarians, each of whom specializes in a particular problem, are assigned on a state basis. The general inspection force consists of fifteen inspectors and five supervisors located in five areas in the state. Four of these supervisors are registered professional sanitarians.
The section has issued a complete manual giving the law and rules and regulations. Reporting requirements and forms are well documented. Employees are given a three to four month inservice training course that includes a period in the headquarters office and training with a field supervisor or experienced inspector. In addition, two or three meetings a year are held at the college for all inspectors.
Under the law, farm inspection may be delegated to local health departments, provided their standards are at least equivalent to those set up by the state. Under this arrangement about 95;7r of the dairy farm inspection is delegated to local health departments. The Department field inspectors, therefore, make only about 5% of the barn inspections, mostly those in remote sections. The field inspectors, in carrying out other duties, make fairly frequent independent examinations of the sanitation on the farms, thus checking on the sufficiency of sanitary inspections made by the local agencies.
The regular field inspectors are therefore concerned mostly with inspections in some 45 large processing plants and inspections of 35 or 40 producer distributors. All of these are inspected at least once a month and more often when necessary. In these places the inspector supervises the butterfat tests. These tests are the basis for payment to producers and are an important factor used by the Georgia Milk Commission in the conduct of that program. In addition, inspectors check on operation in the dairy manufacturing plants and make check examinations of some 360 dairy stands. Retail stores facilities are examined for proper handling of milk. Samples of the Products are collected for laboratory analysis. All milk samples are routinely tested for brucellosis and mastitis and, where detected, the information is passed on to the animal disease and eradication unit.
43

An important activity of the inspector is riding the milk tank trucks as they collect milk from the farms. Milk tuck drivers are licensed by the Department and instructed in collecting milk samples from each farm. These samples are tested for butterfat (the basis for payment to the farmer) and are also subjected to a screen test for mastitis. This information is interchanged with the Animal Disease Control and Eradication Division. This is an important feature of the service providing the quickest method for isolating farms where this problem occurs.
This program is closely coordinated with the work of the Georgia Milk Commission. The requirements for sanitation in the production and handling of milk provided for under the Milk Commission Law are handled by the inspection force used in enforcing the Georgia Dairy Law. Thus, there is no duplication in the inspection work of the two organizations.
Egg Grading and Inspection The object of this program is to promote production and marketing of quality eggs in the state
and to protect the consumer from false or mislabeled eggs. The basic requirement for attaining this objective is by providing the basis whereby the producer may receive a price that will compensate him for the additional cost involved in producing high quality eggs and the final consumer will receive the same quality in the eggs she purchases. The Georgia Egg Marketing Law thus provides the basis for carrying the benefits of the egg quality program all the way from the producer to consumer.
The administration of the Egg Marketing Law is delegated to the Egg Section of the Department of Agriculture. The administrative office in Atlanta consists of the Director assisted by one state supervisor and four clerks.
The law provides for registration of dealers and establishes quality standards for eggs which must be used in the sale of eggs in the state. In addition egg cases must be clearly identified and the carton which the consumer buys must be clearly marked with the grade and size of eggs it contains.
To enforce these requirements 31 district egg inspectors and supervisors, all of whom are qualified to grade eggs, continually make inspections of egg handling establishments to see that egg cases and cartons are properly labeled and the eggs comply with the grade as shown by the label. The inspector also checks to see that the tax stamps are affixed to the case, and in those establishments that purchase ungraded eggs, the records are checked to see that inspection fees have been remitted to the Department. Inspections at retail stores include examination of the eggs and the cartons and a check to see that the eggs are properly graded and are handled properly.
State egg inspectors are required to go through a training course of 3 to 4 months with experienced inspectors, and with the Federal-State grading forces. This training consists of a study of the law, the rules and regulations, and intensive instruction on the egg standards including the application of the standards in actual egg grading situations. All inspectors attend the Southeastern Egg Quality and Grading School once a year.
All persons employed by a concern to candle or grade eggs must obtain a license from the Department. A license is issued only after the applicant has passed a written and practical test, demonstrating his qualification and ability to grade eggs. No fee is assessed for this license.
Under a cooperative agreement with U. S. D. A., packing establishments are licensed to pack eggs under the U. S. D. A. quality shield. There are 12 such plants in the state. Six of the state personnel hold a U. S. D. A. license and, when needed, assist in the cooperative program. The eggs from these plants are primarily for export to out of state areas.
Cash farm income from eggs in Georgia amounts to $91,000,000 or about 11% of the total cash farm income, being exceeded only by income from commercial broilers and cotton. Georgia stands 4th in the nation in commercial egg production.
44

The following is a summary of work done and money collected in the years of 1963 and 1964:

Number of inspections made at retail outlets Number of dozens of eggs inspected Number of withholds from sale Number of dozens of eggs withheld Number of producers assisted . Number of candler's examinations given Number of candler's certificates issued .

1963 26,510 254,586
175 17,623
1,554 230 230

1964 32,299 254,762
94 12,000
2,461 202 152

Money received in the Egg Section in 1963 and 1964: Sale of Egg Inspection Fee Stamps Frozen Eggs Egg Inspection Fees Collected . Agricultural Commodity Commission for Eggs

$40,566.94 3,560.69 1,190.00 80,274.47

$40,140.30 4,287.83 855.00
101,647.95

Regulation of Insecticides
The Georgia Economic Poisons Act, Georgia Law 1950, p. 390, approved February 17, 1950; amended March 25, 1958, Georgia Law 1958, p. 389, is essentially a labeling law designed to protect all users against mislabeling, including false and fraudulent claims, and to warn users of health hazards accompanying the use of the product.
The Georgia law is based on the uniform state law developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the Council of State Governments. Similar laws have been adopted by 40 states. The fact that the Georgia law is comparable to the national law and the laws of so many of the states makes it more effective in serving the state.
This program is very important to the people of Georgia. Economic production of food and fiber is dependent upon control of insects. The development of herbicides and their increasing use by farmers has had a significant effect on the amount of work necessary to control weeds. The regulation of household insecticides and herbicides is of very great concern to the entire community.
Briefly, this law covers any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds, or other plant or animal life or viruses, except viruses on or in living men or other animals, which the Commissioner shall declare to be a pest.
Before any economic poison can be sold it must be registered with the Department. The application for registration must be submitted by the manufacturer and must contain a full statement of the ingredients and all claims made for it, together with directions for use. If, on examination, it appears that the article does not meet the claims made for it, the Department may refuse registration. A registration fee of $5 is charged for each brand registered with a maximum fee of $200 for any number of brands. A dealer's license is required, but is issued without charge.
The Insecticide Section is responsible for registration of all economic poisons. This includes the examination of the labels for contents and the claims made. In passing on claims the Entomology Division is utilized for the more technical problems and decisions. The section develops the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Commissioner for the guidance of the industry, the general public, and the field inspection forces. In carrying out the law, the field inspection forces collect samples from manufacturers, dealers, and handlers of all kinds and submit them to the section for laboratory tests.
The section follows a practice of working with the manufacturers and handlers with the objective of assisting them where possible in avoiding violations. The section, of course, keeps records of its activities by compiling statistical reports on registration, sampling, laboratory tests,

45

compliance, and violations. The fees collected are accounted for and turned over to the Department Comptroller for deposit in the State Treasury.

The consolidated field inspection forces are used in enforcement of the law. The section chief in Atlanta may deal with the area supervisors, but he may also deal with the individual inspec. tors who are known to be more familiar with insecticide work.

Where direct contact is made with these men, the area supervisor is informed so he can check on the inspector.

The section is headed by the chief who is assisted by three or four clerks. It is difficult to

make a sharp division in the personnel in this case. The chief of this section is also assistant to

the chief of the Laboratory Division; in fact, his office is adjacent to the chief of that division.

The clerical and secretarial assistance used in the insecticide work is also intra-mixed. The inter.

relationship between the Laboratory Division and Pesticides Section is considered to be impor.

tant due to the highly technical nature of labels, products, and methods of analysis. In passing

on applications for registration the section gets full cooperation of the chemists, bacteriologists

and entomologists.

'

The Insecticide Section is also concerned with the problems of insecticides residue. For the protection of the public the leaders of the program must keep in close touch with the research being done on plants and animals to determine the characteristics of the materials with regard to the residues that may result if used in accordance with the directions. If tests show that a given material used according to direction would likely result in a harmful residue, steps are taken to have the material withdrawn or the label changed.

Feed Inspection Program
The program is intended to insure the consumer of a product that meets the manufacturer's claim for it. In addition, this law protects the reputable feed producer against ruinous competition from the unscrupulous feed mixer who seeks a profit by deceiving the consumer. This has saved the farmer and feeder many thousands of dollars and has been a factor in the improvement of efficient food production.
The law requires registration of each lot, parcel, brand, or trade name of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs used in feeding domestic animals or poultry that is offered or exposed for sale. The application for registration for each lot shall include a copy of the tag or label together with pertinent information pertaining to contents of the brand registered. The registration fee is $2 per year for each lot or brand registered. After registration, the applicant is issued a license for which no charge is made. When a non-resident manufacturer registers feed, he must designate with the Commissioner of Agriculture an Attorney-in-fact residing in this State so as to bring such non-resident manufacturer under the jurisdiction of Georgia courts. It is violation to sell or offer for sale any' commercial feed stuffs without first securing a license. At least one sample of each distinct brand of feeding stuffs sold must be taken and analyzed annually by the state chemist. A tax of twenty cents per ton is assessed for each ton of feeding stuff sold, except for cotton seed where the tax is ten cents per ton.
The administration of this law is delegated to the Feed Section. The Section in Atlanta consists of the Chief and four clerks. Rules and regulations provided for by the law, including official minimum standards for feed, are prepared in the Feed Section for promulgation by the Commissioner. Field inspection is handled by a consolidated inspection force which is discussed in a later section. The Chief directs the collection of samples and methods to be followed in drawing samples from manufacturers, handlers, dealers, and others. A considerable part of the samples are taken at the manufacturing or mixing plant and from large volume consumers such as feeders of livestock and poultry. In brief, the chief of the section does all things necessary to assure compliance with the law. Some of the more important acts include: registration or renewal of registrations; issuance of licenses to commercial feed dealers and others; and collection of fees. All inspection fees and assessments are recorded according to the source and transmitted to the Department Comptroller for deposit in the State Treasury.

46

When it is found that a lot of feed delivered to the consumer fails to meet the standards or claims on the label beyond tolerance, a penalty is assessed against the manufacturer. The penalties are based on the computed value of the feed as declared on the label and the value of the feed delivered. The difference is the amount of the penalty assessed against the entire lot
of feed.
It is the responsibility of the Feed Section to distribute this penalty money pro rata among the consumers of the feed. In case all of the consumers cannot be located the monies or parts of monies left are deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of the Department of Agriculture.

The following is a brief summary of operations for last year.

Licenses issued - 1722 Tax collected
Feed ($.20 per ton) Cottonseed meal ($.10 per ton)

$493,207.28 6,450.27

Samples Feed Samples found as declared by manufacturers Samples which failed to meet manufacturer's guarantee but found within tolerance Samples found subject to penalties

6,730 6,397
255 78

95.057<
3.797< 1.16%

Fertilizer Inspection
This program is designed to protect farmers and other users of fertilizer from damage resulting from the use of fertilizers that do not measure up to the standards and are falsely labeled as to their content. It is also a protection to the reputable manufacturer and dealer from those individuals who would seek to make a profit through the sale of below standard or falsely labeled products.
Briefly, the law requires each manufacturer, distributor, contractor or dealer to secure an annual license before he can sell fertilizer in the state. Manufacturers operating from out of the state must register a responsible agent within the state as the representative who can receive action in the event of violation of the act. All fertilizer sold must meet the standards and the contents as set forth on the label.
The administration of this act is delegated to the Fertilizer Section which, in Atlanta, consists of the Chief and six clerks. The Chief of this section is responsible for the preparation of rules and regulations for promulgation by the Commissioner. Directions are also prepared on the methods of drawing samples and the development of instructions and guides for the use of the field inspection force. In this connection, the head of the section is now working on a field manual for the use of field forces which will also be valuable in conducting training programs for the field inspectors.
The Atlanta office receives reports of samples drawn and sent to the laboratory for tests and takes such action as is indicated by the laboratory analysis. The section also receives applications for licenses, collects the license fees, and accounts for such fees bl!fore sending them to the Department Comptroller for deposit in the State Treasury.
The Fertilizer law provides that where a product does not meet the formula set forth on the label a determination must be made of the value of the materials declared on the label and the value of material actually found in the sample. The fertilizer section makes the computations on the basis of a formula. The difference in value is then assessed against the manufacturer or processor and the funds collected and returned to all purchasers of that product on the pro rata basis. If all purchasers cannot be found, the remaining amounts are deposited in the general fund of the State Treasury.

47

Laboratory services are provided by the Laboratory Division. Field inspection services are provided through the consolidated field inspection force.

Following is a brief statistical summary of the operations in the Fertilizer Section for the

past year.

1963

Total tonnage of fertilizer

1,577,701 tons

Total samples tested .

7,137

Samples passed

6,974

Samples deficient

163

Revenue
Fertilizer registrations . Fertilizer tags
Total

July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964
$ 20,035.00 448,738.55
$468,773.55

Chemical Laboratory Services
A well-equipped laboratory adequately staffed with qualified personnel has become a "must" if commodity regulatory programs are to be administered efficiently, fairly, and with the least interference with normal trade practices. Regulations must be applied uniformly and without favor. Unnecessary delays in decisions affecting the movement or sale of commodities subject to regulation must be avoided.
The Laboratory Division analyzes samples of food, including dairy products, feeds, fertilizers and pesticides for compliance with regulations governing guarantees and quality controls. The Laboratory Division provides technical and professional services to other agencies of the Department and to the general public on request. Its primary function is to furnish enforcement units with accurate analytical data when mis-labeling or other violations are suspected. Laboratory results are reported back to the enforcement division or section for appropriate action. Such data must be furnished promptly and withstand challenge in courts if necessary.
The Division takes an active part in training inspectors so that samples taken will be representative of the lot to be judged. A code system has been developed for recording samples so that the analyst has no knowledge of their source or the person or persons involved, but the sample can be traced to the source if necessary.
The Division maintains close liaison with laboratories having similar or related interests operated by the University of Georgia, the Federal Food and Drug Administration, and the State Health Department.
As a check on the analytical methods used, and the interpretations placed on results, controversial samples are often divided and independent checks run and results compared.
Laboratory facilities and equipment available to the Division are modern. The workload is heavy at times, but there are some slack periods. Annual production of the laboratory staff is about what one would expect.
The Division is headed by a qualified professional chemist and employs 35 to 40 people. Ten to twelve are professional and 20 or more sub-professional (laboratory technicians, etc.). Others are aides without formal training. Some seasonal help is employed each year during periods of heavy workload. Quite often these are students. Retaining qualified and experienced people, particularly young scientists, in the face of industry and other competition is a perennial problem.
Training is largely of the in-service type. Professional people are encouraged to attend meetings, review literature and otherwise keep abreast of new developments in the field.
Professional people are transferred from one laboratory to another, i.e., food to feed, or pesticide to fertilizer, depending on season and workload. Each senior scientist, however, has his own primary interest and responsibility.

48

The Seed Regulation Program The program is conducted under the provisions of the Georgia Seed Law approved February 23,
1956. This law is in line with the Federal Seed Act of August 9, 1939, and the uniform state law developed by the Council of State Governments and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This is a program regulating the labeling and sale of agricultural, vegetable, flower, tree and shrub seed. The purpose of the law is to protect the farmer and the people of the state from loss resulting from planting below standard or mislabeled seed.
The Seed Division is under the direction of a qualified seed analyst. The Atlanta headquarters is composed of the Director's office with three administrative clerks and the main control seed laboratory. The laboratory is a modern, up-to-date facility with a staff consisting of four senior analysts, seven seed analysts, two trainee analysts and one laborer. The field inspection force is located strategically throughout the state. There are ten field inspectors and one supervisor.
The field inspectors are responsible for the collection of seed samples from warehouses and farmers supply and retail stores. They also observe at the time of drawing samples the adequacy of the labels and take such immediate action as is necessary including placing "withhold" tags on the seed involved. The samples are forwarded to the seed laboratory for analysis. Inspectors receive instructions from the Director's office and must make daily reports to the chief of the Division in Atlanta on their activities. New inspectors are given on-the-job training under experienced men and by the field supervisor.
The laboratory is the focal point in administration. Here the samples are tested and violations are found. Seed analysts must be trained to recognize various kinds and varieties of seed, recognize abnormalities in germination tests, and keep up with the many requirements for germination of various kinds of seed and a host of highly technical problems that are involved in their daily work. An annual in-service training program for laboratory personnel is conducted.
In the past ten years the Georgia seed laboratory has been developed to the point where it is one of the best equipped state laboratories in the country.
The work of the division is closely coordinated with the Federal program. Under a cooperative agreement the U. S. Department of Agriculture provides the assistance in interstate violations and the Federal enforcement agency has the cooperation of the state in many aspects of their work. Cooperative work with the Experiment Stations in field variety testing also makes a valuable contribution to the administration of the state law.
In addition to the regulatory activities the division makes final tests on certified seed and the seed developed under the Foundation Seed program, checks seed for the state highway department and state institutions, and provides an important testing service for farmers and the industry.
The division has issued a bulletin containing the basic law and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The bulletin contains useful, illustrative materials including a list of noxious weed seed with the limitations for Georgia and a list of minimum standards for various kinds of seed. Methods for drawing samples are also described. This bulletin is an important part of the administration because it provides the inspector with a ready reference for guidance and for answering questions. The farmers and the industry are likewise provided with full information on the requirements of the law which aids them in compliance and avoids misunderstanding.
The administration of this law has contributed significantly to the progress the state has made in agriculture in comparatively recent years. With a well-administered program, it has been a powerful deterrent to the unscrupulous dealer and has thus not only protected the farmer and the home owner from the tremendous losses that result from planting worthless seed, but has protected the honest seedsmen from ruinous competition with such people. It is significant that seedsmen of this state and of the United States have been a strong and effective force in promoting good seed laws and competent administrative agencies at the national and state level.
49

The following table shows activities for the past year with comparison with previous Year.

SEED SAMPLES TESTED IN THE STATE SEED LABORATORY OVER THE TWO YEAR PERIOD 1963 and 1964

Official Service Certified
TOTAL

No. Samples Tested No. Samples Unfit for Sale

1963

1964

1963

1964

8,946 6,266
699
15,911

11,598 7,364 922
19,884

306 765
81
1,152

368
-793 29 1,190

There was an increase of 3973 samples tested in 1964 over 1963, with an increase of 2652 official samples pulled by inspectors.

Foundation Seed Program
The purpose of the Foundation Seed Program is to provide a means and facilities for orderly production and distribution to farmers of kinds and varieties of seed that have been developed by the breeders and have been proven by experimentation to be of superior quality in the Georgia environment.
Improved higher yielding varieties of seed have been an important factor in the upward trend in yields that have been noted for many crops. Experiment stations and plant breeders had for many years sought a way to shorten the time between the development of a proven superior variety of seed and the production of sufficient volume to make it generally available to the farmers. The foundation seed program is filling the gap that had existed between the "handful" of seed that comes from plant breeders' experimental plots and the distribution of the variety for commercial production.
It is the kind of program that might be considered as a function of the experiment station except that the station is and should be primarily a research institution. The Department of Agriculture is the agricultural service and regulatory agency. This foundation seed program is an excellept example of the statement made in the introductory paragraphs of this report that the service fields are not mutually exclusive. Both of these specialties, research and service, are required for this project. It is of some further significance that the Organic Act, paragraph 2, places responsibility for this kind of activity squarely on the Commissioner of Agriculture. No change is suggested in the leadership of this program.
This project is filling an important need in the state. It is being conducted according to the law and in the spirit of the law. The cooperative relations between the several agencies represented on the advisory committee as well as with the corollary programs conducted by the U. S. D. A. and other states are excellent.
Headquarters of the project is a building located at Athens. The office space, laboratory, cleaning and seed procuring equipment and storage facilities occupy a building constructed for the purpose on land deeded to the Department of Agriculture by the University. The equipment is modern.
Seed developed by the experiment station is turned over to the Director of the Foundation Seed Program. This "breeders" seed is sold to carefully selected farms equipped to meet rigorous standards and under contract to follow strict regulations in the production and care of the fields and seed produced. These farms are inspected by personnel from the Foundation.
The production from this first multiplication is next sold to growers who produce registered seed or they may enter the fields for certification under the seed certification program administered by the Georgia Crop Improvement Association. Production from this source becomes the large supply that is available for sale to fa:r:mers,

50

A revolving fund of $30,000 is set up for financing the operation during the development of the foundation seed. The prices charged the farmers for this are sufficient to meet the costs of the operation of the plant at Athens. Program operation now includes some 17 or 18 different kinds of seed.
Personnel consists of the director of the project, one full-time assistant, one part-time assistant, one secretary and some seasonal labor to assist in the handling, cleaning and processing of the seed. Salaries of the permanent personnel are paid from current appropriations to the Department.
Final seed testing is handled by the seed laboratory in the Agricultural Department at Atlanta.
Bonded Warehouse
Licensed Warehouses The purpose of this activity is to provide farmers and the people of Georgia a system of safe storage facilities for holding their commodities through periods of uncertain market conditions or until they are needed for use.
It is not mandatory that a warehouse be licensed. When the warehouseman applies for inclusion under the provision of the law he must meet strict requirements as to the facility itself and its operation. The facility must meet approval standards of construction, and it must be maintained in such condition. The warehouseman must provide good and sufficient evidence of his ability to operate the warehouse. He must give adequate bond as evidence of financial integrity. Each licensed warehouse is subject to complete periodic examination as often as is deemed necessary but not less than twice a year. Additional examinations may be made at the request of the warehouseman who must agree to meet the cost of such special audits. The examination covers a full accounting for the commodities held against outstanding receipts as well as an examination of the condition of the building which includes checking on how the products are stored and that fire protection is in good order.
The storage receipts issued under the provisions of this law are accepted by financial institutions as collateral for loans on the commodity stored. This has been an important aid to farmers in tiding over periods of uncertain market conditions. The Georgia law is compatible with the U. S. Warehouse Act administered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and harmonious working relations are maintained between the two organizations. If a warehouse is licensed under the U. S. Act, no state license is issued; nor does the state make any audit or inspection of such federally regulated warehouse.
Regulation of the Sale of Flue-Cured Tobacco The purpose of this Act is to insure producers a fairly operated, fully competitive market for flue-cured tobacco. No person or corporation not licensed by the Commissioner may operate or hold an auction sale. The license is issued for the calendar year, expiring on December 31 of each year. A fee of $10 per year is assessed for each license or renewal. Each applicant for license must produce evidence that he has in force for the calendar year a bond in the amount of $10,000 issued by a corporate entity authorized to do business in the state.
The law requires that each warehouseman shall provide detailed and correct accounting to the grower for the sale of his tobacco. He must provide the Commissioner a weekly accounting of all sales made in the warehouse. The report must show the pounds of tobacco, by type, sold for producers; pounds sold for dealers; and pounds resold by the licensee for his own account or the account of some other warehouse or licensee. All fees and charges for handling and selling of leaf tobacco by the warehouseman are set forth in the law.
To aid in the administration of the Act an Advisory Board of nine members is established. The Board consists of three members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker
51

of the House and two members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate. ('rhe

members of the General Assembly so appointed must be tobacco producers or represent tobacc
producing districts.) The Commissioner of Agriculture or his representative is designated, e~

officio, as must be a

Chairman flue-cured

of the tobacco

Board. The Commissioner of Agriculture appoints one producer. The President of the Georgia Farm Bureau or

mhiesmrbeperreswehn~

tative is designated as a member, and one member of the Georgia Flue-Cured Tobacco Ware.

houseman's Association is appointed by the President of that Association. The Board meets in June

of each year or on call of the Chairman. The principal work of the Board is to recommend the

opening date of the marketing season for flue-cured tobacco. The Commissioner of Agriculture

handles this part of the Act since he has the final authority for fixing the opening date and

other actions of the Board.

With the above noted exception, the administration of the warehouse and tobacco law is dele. gated to the Warehouse Section of the Georgia Department of Agriculture. The section is headed by the Director of the Warehouse and Weights and Measures Division. In addition to the Director the Atlanta office consists of one assistant and two full-time and one part-time clerks. The Direc~ tor is responsible for the preparation of rules and regulations required by the law and promulgat. ed by the Commissioner of Agriculture, directing and supervising the force of warehouse ex. aminers, approving licenses, determining the amount of bond required, and taking final action in cases of violation which may include litigation before the courts.

The field force consists of one field supervisor and 12 field warehouse examiners. These are all under the Merit System and are full-time employees. These men operate from their homes and are distributed over the state in order to reduce travel costs. They are in travel status most of the time. They are trained in warehouse examination procedures as well as the requirements for proper warehousing practices for each commodity.

The tobacco law is comprehensive, covering the entire operation of the flue-cured tobacco market. Tobacco is an important crop in Georgia, accounting for about 17.8 '/r of the cash farm income from agriculture. The loose leaf auction marketing system widely used in the marketing of tobacco provides a good competitive market for the farmer. Like any marketing operation, however, it must establish and enforce rules for operations that will protect all interests in the market. Warehousemen as a whole are aware of the need for uniform rules and cooperate with the Department of Agriculture in its efforts to eliminate abuses that are always present in a diversified marketing system of this sort. Inaccurate scales, sporadic operations of speculators, too small representation of buyers on the market and other irregularities may mean serious loss to both producer and buyer.

Activities from July 1963-July 1964 Licenses issued 163 cotton warehouses with a total capacity of 855,738 bales. 45 grain warehouses with a total capacity of approximately 5,600,000 bushels. 6 pecan operations with an approximate capacity of 13,700,000 pounds. 58 tobacco warehouses and 11 warehouses storing other products. 331 Certified Public Weigher's licenses were issued.
The warehouse examiners employed by this Division checked 1,191,036 bales of cotton. In addition to cotton, they made 168 audits of warehouses storing grain, pecans and other products.
All licensed warehouses were examined twice a year as required by law, and all warehouses other than cotton were examined at least three times.
License fees collected and deposited in the State Treasury for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964 totaled $2,670.

52

Regulation of Weights and Measures This program seeks to assure accurate weight and measures in all transactions. Obviously
it is an extremely important activity affecting the entire population.
This law establishing Department responsibilities on weights and measures covers all scales nd measuring devices used in the channels of trade and to package goods offered for sale. It :oes not apply to Public Utility Corporations under the supervision of the Public Service Commission. The weights and measures law is a penal statute providing for fines and/or imprisonment for violation.
Administration of this law is delegated to the Weights and Measures Section of the Warebouse and Weights Division. The section consists of the chief of the section who is also Director of the division, one assistant and a clerk-secretary. The field force consists of one field supervisor and 29 inspectors located in the field. At present nine of these men are assigned to five trucks. Two of the trucks are equipped to inspect the larger capacity scales and three are assigned to testing scales up to 5,000 pounds capacity. One inspector is assigned to milk tank truck calibration in addition to some other work, and 19 inspectors are assigned to small districts to test retail or counter type scales. These inspectors also secure samples of package goods in the stores and check on the weights for compliance with the label claims as well as seeing that the weight or other measurement information is on the label.
The section is responsible for issuance of licenses to official public weighers, approval of scales and maintenance of surveillance over the approved scale mechanics. These mechanics are required to obtain a license. Where condemned scales are repaired, the mechanic is required to send a report to the Department of the repairs he has made. Inspectors are required to chei.:k on the work of the scale mechanics. If a new scale is installed, the owner or the scale mechanic that installed the scale must report to the Department. The Weights and Measures Section must test them within 30 days and certify the scale if it meets the standard.
Inspectors are given on-the-job training. Supervision of the inspectors is provided by one field supervisor stationed in the field who covers the entire state.
The Department of Agriculture headquarters in Atlanta maintains a laboratory for calibration of the test weights used. All weights are calibrated once a year and more often when needed. In addition to calibration of weights used by the inspection force the laboratory calibrates weights for the public. This latter activity is a free service provided by the Department. During the fiscal year 1963-64 the laboratory calibrated 406 weights used by the inspectors and 1,422 for private agencies.
During the fiscal year 1963-64 this inspection force tested 33,687 scales, 144 farm milk tanks, checked 431,912 consumer packages, 3,681 feed, fertilizer and seed bags, 3,026 tobacco trucks and 5,287 tobacco baskets. Of these numbers, 1,575 scales, 22,377 consumer packages and 670 bags were condemned. All of these condemnations were corrected or taken out of service. Savings to the consumer alone approximated $148,000.
Plant Disease Control and Eradication This program is conducted by the Division of Entomology. Five major functions are included
in the program.
1. Preventing the introduction and dissemination of destructive insects, plant diseases and nematodes new to or not widely distributed within Georgia.
2. Containing through regulatory action, suppressing, or eradicating incipient infestations of newly introduced pests before they become an economic burden to Georgia food and feed producers and processors.
3. Keeping both interstate and foreign channels of trade open by inspecting and certifying that agricultural and horticultural crops moving in commerce from Georgia farms are
53

free from injurious insects, plant diseases and nematodes, thus meeting restrictive requirements of other states and foreign countries.
4. Providing surveillance over apiaries in the state, thus helping to control common infectious diseases of bees and keeping out-of-state markets open to commercial package and queen bee producers.
5. Licensing and regulating the practices of commercial pest control operators as set forth in the Georgia Structural Pest Control Act.
The Division has 41 employees. Seven are in Atlanta, three at a sub-office in Tifton, the remainder strategically located in 23 counties throughout the state.
The major eradication and control programs currently receiving Division attention deal with pests of regional or national concern. Be<;ause of the interstate interest in these programs and the need for a high degree of uniformity between states in regulatory and control practices and procedures, the U. S. Department of Agriculture participates in the planning and supervision of the work and assumes an equitable share in the cost.
The exchange of personnel with other agencies of the Department is infrequent. This is due in part to the specialized nature of the duties performed and to a rather even distribution of workload throughout the year. Five major projects are being conducted.
White-Fringed Beetle The White-Fringed Beetle has a potential of becoming a major pest in this country and an extremely difficult one to control on an annual basis. While some 375,000 acres are known to be infested in Georgia, the current cooperative State-Federal program has (1) eradicated many outlying infestations; (2) prevented spread to many important agricultural areas of the state; and (3) kept overall economic damage to a low level. Continuing effort will keep this pest under control. It is unlikely, however, that eradication can be accomplished with tools at hand. Research, both Federal and State, continues in search of more effective and less costly control measures. Should there be a "break through" leading to more efficient detection and control procedures, eventual elimination of this pest as an economic consideration would appear to be feasible. Areas where infestation is established are, as yet quite limited.
Sweet Potato Weevil The current program in Georgia, which is coordinated with the efforts of adjoining states and the U. S. D. A., provides for:
1. Systematic surveys of fields, plant beds and storage houses to locate infestation wherever it occurs.
2. Strict regulation of planting stock and land use when infestation is found.
3. Strict regulation of the movement of sweet potatoes and plants from infested to uninfested farms or storage houses in Georgia or adjoining states.
Losses caused by the Sweet Potato Weevil became alarming in the 1930's probably reaching a peak in 1947 when an estimated 17% of the Louisiana crop was lost. Since then coordinated effort on the part of states involved, new control techniques and strict regulatory practices have combined to hold infestation in check and losses below serious economic levels.
Complete eradication of Sweet Potato Weevil is impractical because of infestation in wide areas where sweet potatoes are not grown commercially. However, in the opinion of the consultants the modest cost of the joint effort is offset many times over by the benefits accruing both to farmers of Georgia and to consumers throughout the country who buy Georgia products.
54

Phony Disease of Peaches The origin of this disease is not known. It may be indigenous to this country. Until an aggressive control program was undertaken about 1930 the profitable production of peaches in Georgia and Alabama was seriously threatened. The disease was rapidly becoming a problem in North and South Carolina and Louisiana, and threatened to spread to the peach growing areas of Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.
The current program in which Georgia is actively engaged is regional in scope. It involves (1) strict regulation of nursery stock produced in Georgia or imported from other states to insure that only healthy trees are planted; (2) the systematic inspection of peach orchards in known infested areas and the prompt removal of any diseased trees found; (3) the systematic destruction of wild plums within three miles of peach orchards; (4) a continuing survey to define areas of general infestation and to locate and promptly eliminate diseased trees elsewhere in the state.
In the more heavily infested counties of Brooks, Macon, and Houston the incidence of the disease has now been reduced to a point that losses are well within an acceptable tolerance. In 1964 only .28 ?c of the trees inspected were found to be diseased.
Eradication of the Phony Peach disease in Georgia is not likely in the foreseeable future because of the reservoir of infection in native wild plums. Advanced technology may later make such effort feasible. The disease can, however, at modest cost be held below a level of economic importance.
Imported Fire Ant Some have said the fire ant is more a nuisance than an economic pest. However, in the opinion of those who are intimately familiar with the economic impact of continuing control efforts and costs year after year, money spent in containing, suppressing, and eradicating such pests before they become widespread is economy in the long run.
Latest reports show that more than 4%. million acres in Georgia are now infested to some degree. This is after some 2%. million acres have been treated as a part of the joint StateFederal effort.
Again, this is a regional problem and Georgia's success in dealing with it will be determined to an important degree by what neighboring states do.
States most involved are Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana. However, infestations occur also in Texas and the Carolinas where control work is in progress.
Japanese Beetle Right now Georgia is confronted with an invasion of Japanese beetles. Unlike the boll weevil and the corn borer the Japanese beetle thrives on some 200 different species of plants. The larvae live underground feeding on roots, the adults (above ground for about two months out of the year) feed on foliage, flowers, and fruit. Peaches, grapes, soy beans, roses, corn, and turf are among its preferred host crops.
While it has proved impractical, with tools at hand, to free the United States of the Japanese beetle, continuing effort on the part of states in which infestations occur has resulted in the suppression or eradication of many incipient outbreaks along the western and southern periphery of the generally infested area. This has greatly retarded spread allowing time for research to seek more effective and less costly controls. After nearly half a century the Japanese beetle has invaded less than 107< of the land area of the United States.
Regulatory action on the part of other states along with coordinating and financial help from the U. S. D. A. kept Georgia free of Japanese beetles for more than 35 years following its introduction and establishment in New Jersey.
55

Plant Certification An efficient and biologically sound inspection and certification service in Georgia creates confidence in locally grown products moving intrastate, interstate or internationally. The man who buys Georgia nursery stock, turf, sweet potato and tomato plants, tobacco, cabbage, pepper and miscellaneous plants, wants assurance that he is getting healthy, pest-free stock. Those who import from other states or foreign countries want similar protection. The Division of Entomology provides this inspection service through its Plant Certification Section. To keep channels of trade open with minimum interference in normal trade practices, inspectors must be fully familiar with regulatory requirements of other states and foreign countries to which Georgia products move. Inspections must be handled promptly. If pre-shipment treaments are required, instructions must be clear and technical supervision provided in a business-like manner. The consultants find that Georgia certificates are held in high regard in other states. Phytosanitary certificates required for the export of plants, seeds and bees to foreign countries are likewise accepted without question. Staffing of this program should be reviewed frequently. Inspectors must be well trained both biologically and with reference to policy. Only by properly timed inspections in the fields during growing season and at shipping points at time of harvest is it possible to insure the validity of Georgia certificates - a status basic to future growth of Georgia export trade.
Apiary Inspection Apiary inspection is designed to achieve two major objectives; (1) to hold in check and eliminate if possible certain infectious diseases of bees such as American foulbrook and European foulbrook; and (2) to keep interstate and foreign channels of trade open for those engaged in the production and sale of bees. In 1964 in excess of 72,000 colonies of bees were inspected in Georgia. More than 18,000 colonies were sold or moved out of state under certificate assuring freedom from disease. Georgia ranks 6th among the states in the production of honey, and package and queen bee sales. In 1964, 210 thousand colonies produced in excess of 6,700,000 pounds of honey, or about 31 ponds per colony.
Structural Pest Control Inspection Structural pest control operators are licensed by the Secretary of State following an examination designed to give the applicant opportunity to demonstrate competence in this field. The Georgia Structural Pest Control Act, however, names the Department of Agriculture as the enforcement agency. In 1964 qualified operators reported some 46,400 such jobs. Of these, more than 1,400 were checked by inspectors of the Division either as a result of complaints or on a selective basis. About 470 were found in violation of minimum standards. In view of the number of violations, the consultants are of the opinion that this program should be carefuly reviewed to insure that the public is securing adequate protection.
Fees All fees, with the exception of those collected for apiary licenses, are retained by the Entomology Division to help defray expenses. Fees collected for apiary licenses revert to the State Treasurer as prescribed by law.
Meat Inspection Program The primary purpose of this program is to provide the consumer with meat and meat food
products that have been derived from healthy animals that have been slaughtered and prepared under sanitary conditions.
56

The Federal law prohibits interstate shipment or sale of meat or meat products that have not been slaughtered and prepared under the supervision of U. S. meat inspection service and bear the stamp of approval of that serv1ce. In all states there is a significant part of the meat sold locally which does not come under supervision of the Federal service. In Georgia there are eight large slaughtering plants that accounts for about 60% of the slaughter in the state and 25 processing plants operating under Federal inspection.
The Georgia meat inspection program is designed to provide the same protection to consumers who purchase meat from other than Federally inspected plants. The authority to inspect and regulate meat and processing plants was adopted in March, 1956, and amended in March of 1959, to include full ante mortem and post mortem inspection at slaughtering plants. As of December 15, 1964, 93 plants, accounting for 85% to 95% of the slaughter not under Federal inspection and some 60 processing plants, estimated to be about one-third of those operating in the state have been brought under State inspection.
Responsibility for the conduct of the meat inspection program is delegated to the Meat Inspection Division which is under the administrative direction of an administrative assistant to the Commissioner of Agriculture. Two experienced qualified veterinarians in the Division provide active supervision of the inspection service, one is in charge of the Eastern part of the state and the other is in charge of the Western part of the state. Each of these supervisors is assisted by two area supervisors in the field. The Division employs 71 lay inspectors about equally divided between the two halves of the state. Seventy-one accredited veterinarians, employed on a fee basis, are on call at all times.
The lay inspectors are assigned to each of the plants during the entire time the plant is operating. These inspectors are trained to detect diseases and abnormalities in the live animals and to recognize disease and abnormal conditions in the carcass. In event the lay inspector encounters a condition with which he is not familiar or he is uncertain in any situation either in the ante mortem or post mortem inspection the animal or the carcass is set aside for final determination by the veterinarians. All condemnations are made by veterinarians. Each veterinarian is also required to make at least one unannounced sanitary inspection each week of each plant for which he is responsible.
Inspectors are selected on the basis of background and experience, and personal interviews. Those selected are given a six: months probationary appointment. During his probation period he is given a four week assignment in a federally inspected plant where he works under an experienced inspector and under observation of the supervisory veterinarian. He next works with, and under, the close supervision of an experienced state inspector for one to three months before he is given full responsibility in a plant. Area supervisors give special attention to new inspectors. The Division has also developed short courses for meat inspectors and plans to give refresher courses once a year. Relations with the U. S. Department of Agriculture meat inspection service are very good, and contacts have already been made with that service with a view to arranging joint training sessions.
Considering the short time the Georgia program has been in operation, progress has been good. Few, if any, states have accomplished more in the way of bringing intra-state plants under inspection regulation.
Veterinary Services
The Veterinary Division provides technical and professional services to other agencies of the Department dealing with the health and wholesomeness of domestic animals and animal products and performs other assigned duties in the livestock and poultry fields. The primary functions of the Division at this time are:
1. Reviewing and approving or disapproving interstate health certificates for domestic animals exported from or imported into Georgia to or from other states.
57

2. Enforcing quarantine regulations where infectious and contagious diseases are concerned. 3. Certification and accreditation of practicing veterinarians. 4. Coordinating activities of practicing veterinarians where state or State-Federal Cooperative
Programs are involved and keeping practicing veterinarians informed of regulations and any changes thereof. 5. Supervision of the Brucellosis and biology laboratories (milk ring and blood tests for Brucellosis, T. B., Pathological examination, hog cholera diagnostic tests, mastitis, leptospirosis, anaplasmosis, etc.) 6. The licensing and development of procedures for regulating livestock auction markets and dealers. 7. Technical services to the Brucellosis and bovine Tuberculosis and hog cholera programs. 8. The licensing and development of regulations governing garbage feeding premises. 9. Developing procedures for safe disposal of dead birds (poultry). 10. Licensing and supervision of poultry hatcheries operating in the state. 11. Supervising professional and clerical employees at the Division level. The Division is headed by a qualified Doctor of Veterinary medicine. Twelve professional and clerical employees make up the laboratory staff. In meeting field responsibilities, the Division utilizes the services of inspectors assigned to the area or areas in which work is to be done thus keeping travel cost to a minimum and contributing to a more even distribution of workload. Inspectors report through area supervisors to the Director of the Division.
The Division maintains close liaison with the National Animal Disease Research Center in Ames, Iowa, in the development of diagnostic technique.
Statewide Animal Disease Survey In cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Disease Eradication Office
in Atlanta the Department has developed a statewide animal disease survey which enlists the support of practicing veterinarians throughout the state. The response to this program has been good. In 1964 voluntary reports were received from more than 857c of the 150 veterinarians who confine their practices largely to farm animals. The interest appears to be growing.
There is no better way to pinpoint promptly outbreaks of the more common diseases affecting Georgia livestock or to detect in early stages of development the introduction of a new disease or parasite.
Animal Disease Control and Eradication By direction of the Commission of Agriculture and under authority contained in Ga. Law
1963, p. 480, as amended, the Animal Disease Eradication Division is currently responsible for field direction of Department programs concerned with the health of Georgia livestock.
Major programs currently receiving attention are: Brucellosis eradication Bovine Tuberculosis eradication Hog Cholera eradication Quarantine enforcement Supervision of livestock auction sales Supervision of garbage feeding premises Supervision of dead bird (poultry) disposal
58

Unlike crop pests which are often confined to areas in which a particular host crop is grown, few if any animal diseases are limited to a single state or region. Livestock in Maine, California or Florida are equally susceptible to the same diseases. Thus, the success of a control or eradication program in one state depends to an important degree on actions taken in adjoining states.
The eradication programs listed above are cooperative with the U. S. Department of Agriculture. The work is closely coordinated with that of other states. At the beginning of each year a joint State-Federal program is planned in advance in an effort to insure full utilization of available personnel and facilities from both federal and state sources and to avoid duplication or misunderstanding.
Brucellosis (Bang's Disease) Brucellosis, like bovine Tuberculosis, occurs worldwide. It causes serious economic losses and public health problems (undulant fever) wherever infection becomes general.
The program in this country has made good progress. This is reflected in Georgia's experience. Brucellosis eradication on a statewide basis was undertaken in 1956. By 1959 all counties in the state had been classified by the U. S. Department of Agriculture as modified Brucellosis free. To attain this status the incidence of infection in a county must be reduced to less than onehalf of one per cent of the animals, in not more than 5 per cent of the herds. To protect this status a spot check of at least 20 per cent of the herds in a county must be made at least every three years and the number of reactors remain within the allowable tolerance. As of June 30, 1964, fewer than .2 of one per cent of the herds in Georgia were under regulation - either known to be infected or suspected of having been exposed.
As of December 1, 1964, Georgia had fewer than 150 known infected herds, a reduction from some 2,000 herds eight years ago when the statewide eradication program was launched. While this is encouraging progress, locating the remaining comparatively few diseased animals will be time consuming and costly.
An analysis of the Brucellosis eradication program in Georgia leaves little doubt as to the final outcome. The greatest obstacle to overcome is complacency stemming from early successes. It will require a continuing and intensive educational program to maintain grower and dealer interest in each interlocking phase of the total effort.
This is an area that the Department should give increased emphasis. As the Georgia program approaches the final clean-up there should be no slackening with respect to any of the following practices and procedures which are now a part of the Georgia Program.
1. All cattle entering Georgia (unless for immediate slaughter) are certified as having had a negative Brucellosis test within 30 days of arrival, otherwise held in quarantine at owner expense until all Georgia requirements have been met.
2. Dairy herds producing grade A milk for fluid consumption and grade B milk for manufacture (some 2,240 in all) are tested for Brucellosis three times a year. Positive reactors are isolated or destroyed immediately, and the exposed herd is held under quarantine until 2 negative tests have been made 30 days apart.
3. Milk samples are taken at bulk plants at regular intervals throughout the state and submitted for a ring test at the Brucellosis laboratory maintained by the Department in Atlanta. A positive test is a guide to a particular milk shed where diseased animals are likely to be found. Each herd contributing to a contaminated shipment of milk is then tested to pinpoint the trouble spot.
4. In addition to keeping dairy herds free of disease, Georgia has established a category of certified Brucellosis-free beef herds as a source of disease-free replacement animals for those who want them. 128 herds of beef animals comprising more than 13 thousand head of breeding stock are now Brucellosis free. These are tested at least once a year.
59

5. Georgia has recently initiated a "backtagging" program which is proving highly effective as a survey tool. An indentification tag is placed on each animal 3 years or more old as it passes through the sales yard enroute to slaughter. Samples of blood are taken by meat inspectors or plant foremen at time of slaughter and sent to the laboratory for testing, In case of a positive reactor the infected or exposed herd can be readily traced.
6. The Department of Agriculture urges that all livestock producers vaccinate calves that are to remain on the farm, or to be sold for other than slaughter, upon reaching the age of 4 to 8 months.
By importing only disease-free animals from other states, continuing the milk testing program, intensifying the backtagging and calfhood vaccination programs, and promptly disposing of infected animals as they are found, Georgia can look forward to achieving Brucellosis-free status.
Hog Cholera Eradication A county by county hog cholera eradication program was undertaken in Georgia in 1962. In April 1963 the entire state was designated by the Commissioner of Agriculture as an eradication area.
In 1961 more than 1,100 outbreaks of cholera were reported. In fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, this had been reduced to 145 cases. Undoubtedly there will be some fluctuation in the number of cases from year to year but there is every indication that this costly disease of swine can be eradicated. How long it takes will depend on cooperation received from growers and dealers in reporting suspects promptly.
Georgia was the first state to undertake a statewide eradication program following enactment of legislation authorizing the U. S. Department of Agricl!lture to participate in a nationwide effort.
Cholera eradication in Georgia is a pioneering effort. If procedures being tested by the Department prove effective, savings in both time and money in connection with the nationwide program will be substantial.
The principal features of the program in Georgia may be briefly summarized as follows:
1. All hogs entering the state (for other than immediate slaughter) must be accompanied by a certificate executed by an authorized veterinarian showing time, place and type of vaccination, otherwise they are held in quarantine at owner expense until all state requirements are met.
2. Farmers are urged by state inspectors, county agents and other farm advisors to vaccinate pigs within 3 weeks after weaning. If 65% or more were vaccinated, the opportunity for outbreaks would be greatly reduced and the time involved in stamping out the disease substantially shortened. It has been estimated that not more than 30% of the pigs produced in Georgia during the past 12 months were vaccinated. A way should be found to raise and maintain the level of vaccination.
3. Countrywide, the feeding of raw garbage has proved an important source of cholera infection. The Department of Agriculture licenses and inspects at least 2 or more times a month all garbage feeding premises in the state, totaling in excess of 900 as of December 1, 1964.
4. Swine growers are urged to report immediately any sick animals. As an incentive, the state pays indemnities to owners (equal to current market prices) for any hogs that die or must be destroyed because of cholera. Swine remaining on the farm may either be vaccinated and held under quarantine for 30 days or sent directly to slaughter under supervision of an inspector. Where an outbreak has occurred, the premises are thoroughly disinfected (including handling facilities, vehicles, etc.) before being restocked with vaccinated animals.
60

All swine going from sales yards back to the farm must be free of disease and accompanied by a certificate showing time, place and type of vaccine against hog cholera.
In furthering the nationwide program, the U. s. Livestock Sanitary Association in conjunc-
tion with Livestock Conservation, Inc., developed and advanced a nine-point program which emphasized: (1) maintaining a high level of vaccination; (2) observing shipping rules and regulations; (3) reporting sick animals promptly; (4) disposing of infected swine promptly; (5) thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting infected premises, equipment and vehicles; (6) feeding only thoroughly cooked garbage; (7) discontinuing the use of live virus vaccine; (8) respecting and strictly observing quarantines; and (9) through news media of all kinds, keeping swine producers and dealers alert to the objectives of the program and the important part they must assume in its execution.
Hog cholera has been eradicated in Canada. It can be eradicated in the United States. Georgia may well be among the first major hog producing states to achieve this goal.
The key to success is farmer and dealer cooperation and participation. A more aggressive educational program is indicated - one that keeps before swine producers constantly the importance of doing two things: (1) maintaining a high level of vaccination of swine on the farm; and (2) reporting sick hogs immediately to local inspectors, local veterinarians, or directly to the Department of Agriculture.
Bovine Tuberculosis Georgia is well on the way to a final clean-up of bovine Tuberculosis. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, infection was found in only one herd in the entire state. As of December 1, two herds were under quarantine awaiting liquidation.
The State of Georgia requires all dairy herds to be tested for TB once every three years. Both state and federal meat inspectors examine carcasses for any indication of TB infection during post mortem inspection. Tissue samples are taken from suspects and sent to the laboratory for examination. Positive reactors are, wherever possible, traced to herds of origin.
All animals moving from Georgia to other states are tested for TB prior to shipment. Likewise, animals coming to Georgia from other states must be free of all contagious or infectious diseases.
Under current procedures approximately 90 '/c of Georgia livestock are either tested at dairies,
tested for interstate shipment, or examined at time of slaughter for Tuberculosis during a 3-year period.
As the program approached the final clean-up phase in 1959, Georgia adopted the policy of liquidating entire herds when reactors were found. This represents a substantial sacrifice on the part of owners as indemnities for other than pure-bred stock do not exceed 60 dollars per animal. The premises are disinfected and restocking is not permitted for one year. With this type of coverage chances are very remote that the situation could again get out of hand.
Supervision of Livestock Auction Sales There are approximately 80 active auction barns in Georgia. Each holds one or more sales a week. Close supervision of animals moving through these yards is an essential cog in any animal disease eradication or control program. Diseased animals detected here are readily traceable to source herds.
Animals moving from Georgia to other states are subject to regulatory requirements at destination. Likewise, animals arriving at sales yards from out of state must meet Georgia requirements. A few animals with an infectious or contagious disease returning from a sale to a Georgia farm could trigger an outbreak of cholera, tuberculosis or brucellosis offsetting months of progress in bringing the disease under control. Such "breaks" are costly both in time and money.
61

Generally speaking, sales are advertised well in advance so that area supervisors can schedule the time of inspectors in an orderly fashion.
Inspectors file their reports through area supervisors to the Director of the Division _ or reports may be sent directly to Atlanta with copies to the area supervisors.
Garbage Cooking - Dead Poultry Disposal Close supervisiOn of garbage cooking and feeding premises is essential to the success of a hog cholera eradication program. Raw garbage has long been recognized as a means of spreading cholera virus. Upwards of 900 such premises throughout the state are now checked twice monthly, more often if standards are not being maintained.
The procedures followed in Georgia appear to be adequate. Local inspectors schedule not less than two inspections a month. Unless standards are maintained licenses are withdrawn. There have been no recent outbreaks of cholera traceable to garbage feeding premises.
During the rapid development of the poultry industry in the state, the careless disposal of dead birds became a major factor in the spread of disease. This has been largely overcome by prescribing procedures and standards for the prompt and safe disposal of any birds that die on the farm. There are some 16,000 so-called "poultry pits" currently under surveillance throughout the state. While checking these premises inspectors have an opportunity to observe conditions under which birds are being produced, particularly with respect to general health of the flocks.
Institutional Farm Advisory Program The purpose of the program is to provide an advisory service to state institutions on the
management and operation of farms attached to the institution. The service is furnished on request of the head of the institution.
The long-range objective is to eliminate wasteful and uneconomical practices in the operation of each farm and to coordinate activities among the farms to the end that each farm will make the best use of its facilities by developing a production plan best suited to the soil and climate and, by interchange between institutions, derive the greatest production from the combined enterprises.
To implement the program the law established a committee consisting of: the Commissioner of Agriculture, chairman ; Dean of the College of Agriculture ; Dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine; Director, Agricultural Extension Service; Director, Agricultural Experiment Stations; President of Alabama Baldwin College. The Committee employs a full-time advisor to institutional farms who is on the payroll of the Agricultural Department and stationed in Atlanta.
Leadership in this program is placed in the Department of Agriculture. The agricultural advisor arranges for participation of specialists from the University in a thorough study of the farm and its operation. This study together with recommendations is given to the committee and to the head of the institution concerned-
After a study is made, the farm advisor follows up with the institution to observe progress and detect any new problems that may have come up. He often takes a specialist with him on special problems. This is a case of full cooperation between the University and the Department of Agriculture.
Evaluations of existing farming operations at most of the Institutions have been made, and recommendations have been proposed. In most instances these recommendations are being implemented as rapidly as is practical. For example, after a study of the farming operation at Milledgeville State Hospital, it was determined that row cropping should be discontinued on most of the land to concentrate on a livestock operation. As a result the farm has established in excess of 3000 acres of permanent pasture, and row cropping is confined to the production of feed and forage. Emphasis is placed on dairy operation with a complementary beef project. Due to the
62

changes in the program at some Institutions, a re-evaluation of the farming operation has become necessary. This year requests have been made to the Advisor for assistance by two of the institutions, and work on this will begin in the very near future.
One might expect the activity to be assigned to a farm management specialist in the Agricultural Extension Service. There are, however, some important differences between this job and the usual job of the Extension Specialist. The Extension Specialist deals with an individual or a group of individuals who are free agents whose use of the advice affects only the individual The client of the Institutional Farm Advisor is a public official whose actions do involve public funds. If an official of a state institution persists in an uneconomical or wasteful practice, the committee now, as an official body of the state headed by an elected constitutional officer, is in better position through its annual report to the Governor and the General Assembly to bring the matter to public attention. This could lead to official action directing that a study be made or that recommendations of a study be implemented. To this extent the activity has a regulatory implication which brings it in the purview of the Department.
The consultant believes in the voluntary approach insofar as practical on the theory that a person who takes proper action voluntarily takes pride in the results and the resulting program is on a more solid basis. This approach is working, slower than the committee would like, it is true, but progress is being made.
It is suggested that the leadership of the project be left as it is. If it does become necessary that some authority be added to the resolution, it is suggested that serious consideration be given to providing that any proposed enforcement order be made as an action of the committee.
Milk Control Commission Milk, in its natural fluid form, is considered to be essential in the diet of a large segment
of the population. Because milk can be such a menace to public health if produced under unsanitary conditions, the Federal Government and many states have taken extraordinary measures to protect the public from contaminated milk. The need for regulation of the conditions under which milk is produced led to restricting the areas, commonly called Milk Sheds, from which milk would be permitted to move into consumption. This limitation of the producing area resulted in some difficult bargaining problems between the group of farmers in the milk shed and a small number of processers controlling the facilities for pasturization and delivery of milk to the consumer. In these controversies, which often interrupted the supply of milk, every one lost. But the public at the end of the line was the heavy loser either by going without fresh milk or paying very high prices for the limited supply.
The Georgia Milk Law, under which the Georgia Milk Commission operates, is designed to stabilize the milk producing and distributing industry in the state. By assuring producers, processors and distributors a price that will compensate them fairly for the considerable expense of producing milk under the strict sanitary regulations required by law, the bargaining battles as they were once waged are a thing of the past. The Commission in determining the producer and processor price goes further than is done under Federal and some other state orders by taking into account the consumer's income (Georgia per capita income) and at the same time establishes the price to the consumer.
To establish a milk order in an area usually a group of producers and/or processors make a request to the Commission. The Commission reviews the request and then arranges for the Judge of the Superior Court in the district or districts concerned to arrange for a referendum for all producers having a health department permit in the district. If 51% of those voting favor the proposal, the Commission then issues the order ; and the prices and all other regulations provided for by the Commission become effective. There are now 70 milk sheds in Georgia under milk orders.
Each producer, producer-distributor, store and distributor must be licensed. The license fee for stores may not exceed $2.50 per annum. All producers must pay a fee of 2 cents per 100 pounds
63

of milk produced. The producer fee is deducted by the processor or distributor from the amount payable to the producer and remitted to the Commission monthly Producer-distributors are required to pay 2 cents per 100 pounds produced or received from other producers. Processors also pay 2 cents per 100 pounds on all milk received. Each distributor buying milk from producers is required to post bond in an amount fixed by the Commission. The fees so collected were originally deposited in the treasury, 97'/c of which were automatically appropriated for the use of the Commission in enforcing the Act. This was repealed in 1959 when the Commission was transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Since that time funds for administration are a regular part of the Agricultural budget and the regular appropriation by the Legislature.
The determination of the price at each point in the marketing process is determined on the basis of a pricing formula. The formula was developed by economists of the Agricultural Experiment Station. The Georgia formula reflects the combined influence of the general price level, Georgia per capita income, the cost of dairy feed including hay, labor, cost of food, cost of containers, equipment and motor vehicle cost as they are related to the cost of producing and distributing milk. Resale prices are established in great detail for each kind of milk by size of container and method of sale. The formula method eliminates the necessity for the cumbersome and costly method of public hearing formerly used. Price computations are made each month but changes, if necessary, are made at two month intervals.
The enforcement procedures require detailed reports from processors and distributors. An examination of books by a corps of trained examiners determines whether prices paid to producers are correct, proper assessments have been collected and paid, and all requirements of the order have been met.
The Commission has probably the most sensitive and complex job of enforcement of any unit in the Department.
The Commission is composed of eight members consisting of two "producer members" elected by the Georgia Milk Producers Association; two "distributor members" selected by the Georgia Dairy Association; one member who is a manager of a Dairy Cooperative Association; one "consumer" member appointed by the Governor; one "retail store member" elected by the Georgia Retail Food Dealers Association; and the Chairman and executive officer appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture.
All personnel are headquartered at the Commission office in Atlanta. The personnel consists of the Chairman, seventeen examiners, two stenographers and five clerks. Funds budgeted for the Commission amounted to $235,275.60 Funds collected and deposited in the treasury for the year ended June 30, 1964 amounted to $262,323.04.
64