186 THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



crops raised and animals owned on farms in California was approxi- 

 mately twice as great as for the average of the United States. However, 

 in both these particulars the two Dakotas outrank every other section. 



It is also obvious that we have a very good opinion of our farm 

 lands in California. We value them highly, perhaps in more senses 

 than one. Speaking generally, the farmers of the United States 

 demand a greater return from their crops for the capital invested than 

 do the farmers of California. For the United States as a whole the 

 crop return in 1909 was a little more than 13 per cent, "while for Cali- 

 fornia it was less than 10 per cent. However, the return per farmer 

 was much greater in California, since the capital invested per farm 

 was nearly three times as great. 



I think we may lay it down as a principle that in the long run farms 

 will pay the least on the capital invested where people obtain the 

 greatest satisfaction from other things than the money they make. A 

 farmer living in Napa valley would require a considerable additional 

 financial inducement to cause him to move to Bolivia or Manchuria. 

 Whether the higher capitalization is due in this instance to the satis- 

 faction of the California farmer with his environment, or due to the 

 10,000 promoters who are abroad, is no part of this paper to consider. 



The California farmer is about one-fourth native Californian ; about 

 one-fourth New Englander by a process of steps; one-fourth foreign 

 born; while the other one-fourth is a mixture of all three of these 

 elements. (Speaking of New Englanders, it was President Wheeler 

 who said, while attending an Iowa Day in California, that the people 

 of that community had come to California from New England after 

 sojourning a while in Iowa.) The foreign blend is English, German, 

 Italian, Mexican, Scandinavian, Portugese, French, Austrian and Rus- 

 sian, chiefly. Perhaps there are few states whose farmers are more 

 cosmopolitan, or perhaps, I should say more diverse and complex. 



Since this paper deals primarily with the California farmer rather 

 than with California agriculture, this diversity of population is perhaps 

 one of its most important aspects. Certain it is that it presents one 

 of the most important factors in the attempt of the College of Agri- 

 culture to serve the California farmer. There are, for example, often 

 great social difficulties in bringing together into one meeting, as a 

 grange or farmers' institute or farm bureau, a group of native-born 

 ( 'alifornians, descendants from Anglo Saxon ancestry, and a group of 

 foreign-born farmers of some single race and community interest. 

 It is a real problem in California. It is one that must be faced 

 squarely. The College of Agriculture can not have stepchildren. 



Not only is there a segregation by racial, social and religious 

 instincts, but there is a segregation of interest due to crop specializa- 

 tion, which is carried to a greater degree in California than in any 

 other part of the United States — perhaps in any other part of the 

 world. When in the Eastern states one speaks of a farmer he at once 

 has a mental picture of a man who raises corn, potatoes, wheat, oats, 

 hay, vegetables, and fruits, and who owns cattle, hogs, sheep, horses 

 and poultry. In California a farmer raises poultry, and has a Ford; 

 he raises grapes and keeps a Dodge, or he raises prunes and has an 

 Overland, oranges and a Cadillac, or lemons and a Franklin. He gets 

 his income from the one and gives his care and attention to the other. 



