produce for themselves substantially everything consumed on the farm. I have told the tenant farmer to save for himself the time merchant's carrying charges. I have told North Carolina to quit eating out of box cars.
I have also told the North Carolina farmer that by planting pure-bred certified seeds for all of his principal crops and improving the breeds of his stock ten per cent he can add to his annual income without a corresponding increase in cost of production.
The acceptance of the live-at-home idea and the pure seeds and pure breeds idea I estimate will add annually $30,000,000 to the income of the North Carolina farmers.
The opening of the Durham Farmers' Exchange will just about guarantee the correctness of my prediction. Both the live-at-home idea and the pure-seeds idea start with, and in the main, deal with production. The exchange idea goes on from production to embrace distribution and marketing. If there is any lack of soundness in the live-at-home program, it lies in the fact that it failed to make provisions for the business-like marketing of small surpluses. The very success of the liveat-home idea, if it goes over as big as it is apparently doing, brings with it additional problems. If we should succeed in persuading every farmer to produce the feed and foodstuffs for his own family and farm, we may be sure that many farmers will undertake this on a semi-commercial basis. The Piedmont farmer in particular, who already knows a good deal about this sort of farming, is most likely to produce more than enough for his family and farm needs. The orderly, profitable marketing of these small surpluses is of tremendous importance in guaranteeing the success of the live-athome program. There is bound to be in every community at certain times of the year a surplus of hogs, chickens, eggs, truck, etc. In fact, I have several times asked myself if we might fail with the live-at-home