188 THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



Unfortunately, the California farmer's income has never been 

 determined. There is reason to believe that the crops he raises would 

 bring him from $1,500 to $2,000 if they were all sold, of which one- 

 third comes from fruits and nuts of various kinds. He probably keeps 

 20 head of cattle, 6 horses, 9 hogs, 20 sheep, and 60 fowls. There is 

 reason to believe that the farmer sells annually $500 to $600 worth 

 of animals and animal products, including butter, cheese, eggs, honey 

 and wool. How much of his crops were consumed in producing these 

 animals and animal products has never been determined. 



Since we have now wandered into the speculative realm and are no 

 longer guided or limited by statistics, it may be said that this Cali- 

 fornia farmer owning and operating his own farm, worth $12,000, in 

 which lie lias an equity of $9,000, receives a gross income in the 

 neighborhood of $2,000 per year. The upper one-fifth of this group 

 probably has an income of $3,000, from which it follows that another 

 one-fifth obtains probably only $1,000 worth of salable products. If 

 this farmer living on 227 acres, and having a gross income of $2,000, 

 has a family which enables him to do his work without outside help, 

 it is probable that he spends $250 on interest, $750 on expenses, and 

 has $1,000 for living expenses and reduction of his mortgage. If a 

 farmer of the upper one-fifth has $2,000 for such purposes, a farmer 

 of the lower one-fifth probably has nothing for this purpose. The only 

 way that he can live is by not paying his interest. If the farm of a 

 farmer of the upper one-fifth increases in value on account of its 

 higher income, which is likely to happen, the owner becomes a leading 

 citizen, his name is good at the bank. If the farm of the man in the 

 lower one-fifth decreases in value because of the small income, he has 

 difficulties, his credit is not good at the grocery store. 



Of course there are few such individuals as I have described, because 

 of the great complexity of specialization of agriculture in California. 

 Furthermore, it must be understood that this discussion is based upon 

 data gathered six or seven years ago. Any one who goes about this 

 state and observes the dwellings in the country and town alike, can not 

 help but be struck by the large number of houses that have been 

 erected in the last six or seven years. What all this will mean to the 

 next census is perhaps not safe to conjecture. 



As remarked by Dr. Allen of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

 at Washington, the function of the farmer is to raise things. It is the 

 function of the College of Agriculture, through its experiments, to 

 minimize and stabilize the risk. It is not a responsibility to be taken 

 lightly. The most superficial list of cultivated plants and domesticated 

 animals in California bears 160 names. If all of the flowers and seeds 

 that are grown on a commercial scale were added, the list might be 

 largely extended. The fact that farmers in California are specialists 

 adds still further to the difficulties. Mr. Green remarked one day that 

 he did not know where the money would have come from, but that he 

 had offered Mr. Brown $1,000,000 for a portion of his orange groves, 

 and Mr. Brown had declined the offer. It is quite necessary for the 

 College of Agriculture to be sure of its ground before offering advice 

 to Mr. Brown. 



When to this variety of forms with their multiplicity of methods of 

 propagation are added the variations of soil, climate and marketing, 



