EDITORIAL. 703 



Hundreds of feeding, fertilizer, and sprayino; experiments have 

 been made for the pur])ose of U'arning how to bring greater eiliciency 

 into these operations, and how to realize a reasonable profit from 

 money and labor invested. In fact, thei-e is scarcely a farm operation 

 or method which has not been studied froui an economic viewpoint 

 by some of the stations. These, and the observations on their appli- 

 cation in practice, have constituted a study of man's efforts in earn- 

 ing a living through agriculture. 



But these activities are not all that i-: involved in rural economics, 

 any more than they represent the full field of experiment station 

 work. Although in its final analysis the ultimate object of all our^ 

 station work may be economic in its application, the directness of the 

 economic aims or bearings varies greatl}'^, and the keeping of the 

 economic factors too conspicuoush^ in mind at all stages has been 

 cited as a criticism of some of the station work. This is the case 

 where the mere determination of the cost or the factors that enter 

 into profit has been the ultimate aim, as for example, in the deter- 

 mination of the rate of gain in weight of an animal, not from the 

 standpoint of the physiology of nutrition or the actual nutritive 

 value or use of a feed, but primarily in relation to economic returns. 



"\Miile these commercial experiments have been of great help to the 

 farmer and have furnished a broad basis for economic studies, the 

 objection has been made that the results represent little of permanent 

 value, are local in application, and are sometimes little more than a 

 demonstration of results which could practically have been antici- 

 pated. It is true that they are .subject to much repetition, and are 

 often continued beyond the actual experimental stage. Some men 

 have seemed content to stop their work at the point wiiei-e the the- 

 oretical interest begins. 



The narrower range of application of these experiments may be in 

 part due to the data not having been subjected to interpretation from 

 an economist's point of view. The work has been carried on by 

 agronomists, animal husbandmen, hoi-ticulturists, dairymen, and has 

 been interpreted by them in the light of their own view and sur- 

 roundings. Already there is some evidence that the attempt to make 

 broader interpretations or generalizations from the summarized data 

 of many experiments needs the assistance of the statistician or some 

 one trained in the handling of data. The method of the economist 

 differs from that of the experimenter, both in the handling of the 

 data and the use he makes of them. There is a place for both, and 

 some danger in attempting to combine the two functions. 



It is undoubtedlv true, for example, that experimental work has 

 suffered from a confusion of economic and scientific ends. This is 

 shown in some of our feeding trials. In the attempt to determine the 

 effect of a certain feed upon the dairy cow the purely economic 



