ve nothing to do; but it is the farmer's moral
responsibility to society to increase his production, and the
stimulation reacts powerfully upon himself. It is a man's natural
responsibility to do his best: it is specially important that the man at
the bottom put forth his best efforts. To increase his yields is one of
the ways in which he expresses himself as a man and applies his
knowledge. This incentive taken away, agriculture loses one of its best
endeavors, the occupation remains stationary or even deteriorates, and
society loses a moral support at the very point where it is most needed.

If the economic conditions are such that the farmer cannot afford to
increase his production, then the remedy is to be found without rather
than by the repression of the producer. We are expending vast effort to
educate the farmer in the ways of better production, but we do not make
it possible for him to apply this education to the best advantage.

The real farmer, the one whom we so much delight to honor, has a strong
moral regard for his land, for his animals, and his crops. These are
established men, with highly developed obligations, feeling their
responsibility to the farm on which they live. No nation can long
persist that does not have this kind of citizenry in the background.

I have spoken of one phase of the group reaction, as suggested in the
attitude of the farmer. It may be interesting to recall, again, the fact
that the purpose of farming is changing. The farmer is now adopting the
outlook and the moral conduct of commerce. His business is no longer to
produce the supplies for his family and to share the small overplus with
society. He grows or makes a certain line of produce that he sells for
cash, and then he purchases his other supplies in the general market.
The days of homespun are gone. The farmer is as much a buyer as a
seller. Commercial methods and standards are invading the remotest
communities. This will have far-reaching results. Perhaps a fundamental
shift in the moral basis of the agricultural occupations is slowly under
way.

The measuring of farming in terms of yields and incomes introduces a
dangerous standard. It is commonly assumed that State moneys for
agriculture-education may be used only for "practical"--that is, for
dollars-and-cents--results, and the emphasis is widely placed very
exclusively on more alfalfa, more corn, more hogs, more fruit, on the
two-blades-of-grass morals; and yet the