J 10 NiNi;rKi<;xi'ii i{i-;i*()H'r. 



do the hygienic thing- nor thi- knowU'dgc of how to do it, but even witli 

 the will and the knowledge there is no aeeomplishing the sanitary ideal 

 without the funds. Henee we find the jmiblem of livestock sanitation 

 inseparably bound up with the greater problem of human welfare. 



A more direct influence of animal disease upon strictly human health 

 is seen in those diseases readily intercommunicable between the lower 

 animals and man. Foot and mouth disease, rabies or hydrophobia, 

 glanders, and tuberculosis are notable examples. The relation of certain 

 other diseases, such as infectious abortion in cattle is in doubt, but the 

 very doubts urge us to make every effort to eradicate even the remotest 

 possibility of danger. The American i)eople owe it to the world to 

 remove every cause of low^ered efficiency in the food producing business 

 of the country. Infectious diseases stand as probably the greatest direct 

 and indirect burden borne by the animal industry of the country. Most 

 of these diseases are eradicable. Pressure is usually exerted on the 

 farmer by the ])roducer to remove any possible source of danger to man 

 from the meat food and dairy products offered for sale. I would appeal 

 to the farmer's pride to urge him to wipe out any blot on the escutcheon 

 of agriculture. We hear a great deal about the Si per cent of producers 

 and the l(i per cent of consumers and the necessity for protecting the 

 latter. Has it not occurred to anyone that regardless of the high or 

 low percentage of producers and their res))onsibilities in the matter of 

 providing a sufficient and a safe food supply the percentage of con- 

 sumers is a constant maximum — lOO per cent. Doesn't the faVmer con- 

 sume his own product, and isn't he or shouldn't he be as interested in 

 the food of his own family as is the city man ? 



In the relations of the farmer-producer to the city-consumer w'e find 

 some time-honored agricultural and household customs entering as dis- 

 turbing factors. I am afraid that many rural sociologists are teaching 

 a discouraging doctrine to the effect that rural life must be and essen- 

 tially is quite markedly different from urban life socially and industrially. 

 I have even heard that it is (juite essential that we develop a distinctive 

 social class spirit in rural communities and that industrially agriculture 

 is not amenable to the laws that govern other industries. The rural 

 custom that I am thinking of is that one of ho))elessly mixing the busi- 

 ness of the farm with the domestic life of the family. Time will not 

 permit of a discussion of the subject of the ultimate etf'ect on happiness 

 of conducting the manufacturing industries of tiie world in kitchen, 

 living room or in the only room of the home or in a well organized, 

 attractive and sanitary factory designed for a specific purpose. Shall 

 the farmer have no real home life with his family and their pleasures to 

 cheer him after his dailv task or must the farm house- be a factorv for 



