we have not taken the responsibility ourselves to help sell our products as they should be. A lot of this is through the poor quality we produce. I think we should as each individual help advertise our products that we put on the market. We have two good examples of this. It has done a wonderful job. I am speaking of the meat industry and the dairy industry. I think they have made a wonderful progress here but there is still a lot of education that is needed in that line. We know that the Government has helped us out much there on this schoollunch program. We have a good many people not taking advantage of it and I think it is still lack of education. They don't know what they are missing in health and betterment of our country. Another way, I believe we should go into research, our laboratories, our Government is doing a fine job but we need to expand it and find more products we can use these grain crops for and this overproduction in helping to market them. We also have this high rigid price support. One of the things each of us can see and can't deny is that our Government can set a high price support and we can gather it, the farmers, but on the selling of it our retail stores make our markets. If we get parity so high we cannot sell it it does us no good as income. We might as well not raise it in the first place. Another thing I would like to bring out is this fertility bank. I am a great believer in soil conservation. That can work in several different ways. We can do it through our soil conservation practices in effect now and supported through the Government and local soil conservation offices and also I believe instead of paying men for surplus wheat at a high rigid price suport that we could pay for leaving land idle and building nurse crops on it. Some say here today that fertilizer and legume crops are a poor thing but the rapid growth our country is making in population today I feel that in a very short time instead of a surplus they are going to be doing like they did in the Korean war, asking us to raise more, and if we don't keep this land up in production we have good examples in our own community of guys that are taking a corn crop off and putting it in silo to feed cattle and planting a wheat crop on the same land. Some irrigated farms take as high as three crops off a year. I believe instead of doing that if we had the soil fertility bank it would give a good income to the farmer, maybe not the best as they are getting now, but it would tide us over until we get it back in line to take care of it. The CHAIRMAN. You haven't given us anything new and I hope witnesses will give us something new. Senator YOUNG. If I heard you correctly, you said the price of wheat is so high it wasn't moving into consumption. How much lower do you think the price of wheat should be? Mr. CHATHAM. I understand so far as the wheat we are talking about it is probably low. Senator YOUNG. How much lower do you think the price of wheat should be now to move into consumption? Mr. CHATHAM. It has never panned out on our high rigid price supports. Why not try something else? 64440-56-pt. 5—7 Senator YOUNG. We tried flexible supports before, 52 to 75 percent of parity from 1937 to 1941. Didn't we try out flexible supports at that time? Mr. CHATHAM. Gentlemen, you are ahead of me. I helped my dad farm at that time but I wasn't up on Government matters. Senator YOUNG. You will find during that period we actually increased our wheat carryover and increased our corn carryover by about 3 times during that 3-year period with that type of program. Mr. CHATHAM. I think that we are asking for something we are not deserving. We are just like a baby that asks for his milk. Senator YOUNG. I know so many say the price of wheat has been too high but how much lower do you think it should be? Mr. CHATHAM. As brought out here today, I believe that we have areas that is not fit for good quality wheat for human consumption and if this price was lower these boys that is adapted to wheat could go ahead and grow wheat and it would be shifted back into the old way of farming, we might say that an area adapted to wheat and area adapted to corn would grow corn. Senator YOUNG. What is price support for wheat in your county? Mr. CHATHAM. Last summer it was $2.24. Senator YOUNG. In Maryland for garlicky, soft winter wheat it is $2.49 a bushel. Do you think that is about right? Mr. CHATHAM. I can't believe it is, until the thing gets situated that I myself can take from $1.50 to $1.75 a bushel and still operate. Senator YOUNG. It will be down there if you wait awhile longer. Mr. CHATHAM. I am in favor of it. Senator THYE. How many acres do you farm? Senator THYE. Livestock? Mr. CHATHAM. Livestock and small grains. Senator THYE. What kind of livestock? Mr. CHATHAM. I run a cow herd mostly. I handle a few hogs. Mr. CHATHAM. Yes. Senator THYE. How many cows? Mr. CHATHAM. At this time I only have 36 cows in my livestock herd and I have 10 milk cows. this brucellosis 2 years ago I usually run more than that but Senator THYE. How many sows do you normally have farrowing? Mr. CHATHAM. I don't use any sows. I buy market pigs and feed them and I don't do that in a big way. In any year I would market from 30 to 40 head of hogs but this year Senator THYE. What is your wheat base? Mr. CHATHAM. I have 80 acres now. Senator THYE. Eighty acres. Mr. CHATHAM. Yes, sir. Senator THYE. What did you have previously? Mr. CHATHAM. Before, during the Korean war when there was no restriction on wheat, I was farming 150 acres of wheat. Senator THYE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chatham. (Mr. Chatham's prepared statement follows:) At the present time I am in favor of flexible price supports. During the last 25 years of Government farm program experience under high rigid price supports we have built up one of the largest farm surpluses that the world has ever known. These prices are not made in Washington, they are set in retail stores. We have found out it is possible to lose our markets for farm products for high price policy. I feel the best way to improve farm markets is to expand our markets at home and abroad. Nutritionists tell us that if all our 164 million people ate adequate diet, the surplus accumulated would soon dissappear and our present production capacity would be utilized fully. I believe we need to cultivate the desire for good food through voluntary producer-financed educational and promotional campaigns. The success of the meat and dairy product promotion activities demonstrate how successful this can be. I believe we should stress quality instead of quantity on all products. Some of our Government-stored surplus is unfit for human use and should be moved into channels for livestock feed. Government shouldn't support poor quality products. I feel Government shouldn't support any livestock. I believe hog surplus of today will correct itself if we back program for expanding consumption and trade. We can't find security through Government controls and price support. The cost is high both in freedom and cash for Government to try to guarantee security. Farmers would be better served by Government if more emphasis were directed to research. I believe that the only true security is in well-trained hands and minds, in an enthusiastic spirit intent on making the best of each opportunity; in the confindence that comes with faith in God; in freedom in a peaceful world. STATEMENT OF H. O. JOHNSON, OBERLIN, KANS. Mr. JOHNSON. I am H. O. Johnson. Since practically everything I have in my written statement has been covered, I would like to submit my statement to the committee. With your permission there is a point or two I would like to cover. The CHAIRMAN. If there is anything new, go to it. Mr. JOHNSON. One thing, sir, is not entirely new but it is so important to our area I feel I should mention it and that is the point Mr. Socolofsky mentioned here in regard to our acreage, allotted acreage in western Kansas. As you know, we are in a summer-fallow area as he explained to you, and we have lost because of the practice and we have lost our acreage. In Decatur County we can only plant 30 percent of our total cropland to wheat. Some farmers even less than that. That thing is hurting us worse than any price and I will tell you why, particularly to the northern tier of counties in northwest Kansas where we cannot grow milo or some of the maizes. We grow a crop of milo about 1 in 10 years. The CHAIRMAN. Would you want a law that would give special treatment for that area? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest? Mr. JOHNSON. I suggest that the total acres devoted to wheat should be taken into consideration rather than the planted acres. The CHAIRMAN. What difference would that make? Mr. JOHNSON. It should make considerable difference. Mr. JOHNSON. In my own instance, if I may use it, I summer-fallow about 220 acres of wheatland or did before allotments came on, and I am allowed to plant 149 acres this last fall. Now it seems to me like my total 220 acres base should be considered there rather than just whatever it is I plant. Or have planted in the past. The CHAIRMAN. If that same formula were applied to other areas wouldn't it increase acreage? Mr. JOHNSON. I don't think you should apply it to other areas because I feel it is a specialized area. In central Kansas many of the counties because they didn't have summer fallow are now allowed, because they had a continuous crop history, are now allowed to plant as high as 50 percent of their total acres to wheat and in many cases they have gone to summer-fallowing and are producing as much and in some instances more wheat than they did before, which isn't equitable nor does it decrease the surplus. The CHAIRMAN. You can readily understand that to write a law applying to 48 States and just get a little corner of Kansas here exempted from it with preference, you might have other areas that would require special legislation also. Mr. JOHNSON. I realize that. The CHAIRMAN. That would be the difficulty. Mr. JOHNSON. We feel that should be taken into consideration. Senator SCHOEPPEL. I would like to point out one thing. You are talking about the farmer who was using the continuous cropping plan. During that period of time many of you people were summerfallowing your land under the accredited summer-fallowing practices established by our agricultural college, and preserving the fertility of that soil and building up the moisture content in it. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Senator SCHOEPPEL. During that period of time while you were doing that, they made this change in the program and you were therefore penalized, in a sense, twice. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Senator SCHOEPPEL. That was your point. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Senator SCHOEPPEL. A very important problem. Mr. JOHNSON. I think so. One other thing I would like to throw in here: It was pointed out here I believe that flexible price supports would run the small farmer out of business. Perhaps it will do that but I would like to point out that that is a trend that has been going on a long time. I would like to point out according to 1955 census in Kansas that we lost 10,000 farmers in Kansas in the past 10 years under high rigid price supports. The CHAIRMAN. Somebody told us 11,000 since 1950. Who is right? Mr. JOHNSON. That is the census figures I gave you. The CHAIRMAN. 10,000 farmers in 10 years. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right, sir. (Mr. Johnson's prepared statement follows:) I want to say that I am a small wheat and livestock farmer, operating an 800acre farm in Decatur County, Kans.; 450 acres cultivated land devoted to wheat and feed crops; 350 acres native grassland devoted to raising livestock. First I would like to point out that as far as my farm is concerned we definitely have a cost-price squeeze, but I find that it is not due to lower farm prices but to increased costs. On my own farm in 1947, when everyone will agree the farmer was riding high, my gross was only $356.89 higher than in 1954, but my net was $2,288.90 higher than in 1954. My own figures compare very favorably with the national total farm-income figures, which in 1947 was as follows: Gross income, $34 billion; net income, $16.8 billion. In 1954 gross income was $34 billion and net income $12.5 billion. The cause of this is obvious. Labor pay raises have been reflected back in everything the farmer has to buy, and also in the processing and marketing of his products. Eighty-five percent of the rise in farm production costs is due to labor. Labor has been enjoying a high standard of living for some time and it seems to me it is time to call a halt to this rising spiral of wages. The solution to this condition is not higher support prices for farm products, resulting in tighter controls and fewer allotted acres to plant, but in expanding markets and better marketing methods. In the case of wheat, price has been a contributing factor to our loss of foreign markets. I believe that the purpose of a Government loan program should be to establish a floor at rates designed to insure the farmer at least cost of production in emergencies, but not high enough to price any commodity out of the market and create burdensome surpluses. I firmly believe that had Congress lowered support prices on wheat to 75 percent of parity in 1948 we would not be in the condition we are today. Wheat production would have remained in the wheat-producing areas, and although we would be taking lower prices, being able to plant more of our acres would more than make up for it. A guaranteed high price for production on a few allotted acres does not necessarily mean a high income. It is the total production of your entire farm that determines your total income. I believe that milling quality should certainly be one of the determining factors in establishing loan prices on wheat. I want to commend Secretary Benson for his efforts in that direction. I believe that the pressing need at the present time, in the case of wheat, is to get rid of the surplus. If we have poor milling quality wheat in storage, let's get rid of it, at a loss if necessary, for some other purpose. I believe we can build up our export market if we will send them good milling quality wheat to compete with other exporting countries. One of the things that is vitally affecting my farming operations, is that I feel that I have been robbed of some of my wheat acreage allotment, because I am in a specialized summer fallow area. Since my crop history shows that I plant wheat only on summer fallow I am allotted only 30 percent of my cultivated acres for wheat. While in central Kansas where they have a continuous crop history, many farmers are allotted 50 percent or better of their cultivated acres. As a result they have gone to planting on summer fallow and in many cases are raising as much or more wheat than they ever did. This is not equitable and it does not help the surplus. I believe that wheat acreage allotments should be based on total acres involved in raising wheat and not just on planted acres. Since part of my income is derived from livestock, I would like to make a few comments about it. We livestock men have taken our rap; we are making a little money now, and believe it will improve. We do not want price supports or controls of any kind on livestock. The livestock man has demonstrated his ability to take care of himself. Price supports on livestock could soon have the livestock industry in the same predicament wheat is in now. Just one more thing. I am not too familiar with the proposed soil-bank program, but don't believe it has any place on western Kansas farms. There is no practical way of using it on our farms, and we cannot afford to take any more land out of production. I believe, however, that stepped-up soil-conservation payments and practices would be beneficial to western Kansas farmers. There is still much that can be done in soil conservation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parks. STATEMENT OF GUY R. PARKS, FORT MORGAN, COLO. Mr. PARKS. I am Guy Parks, from Fort Morgan, Colo. I farm 100 acres of diversified irrigated land. I say by dairying I am in better shape than a year ago. We in the dairy business have developed a program of self-help where we have brought supply in line with demand. In doing this we have the best returns to the producer of any major milkshed in the country. The Government is not in any way connected with this program. In making another point, the whole dairy industry in the United States has a much brighter outlook than it did when butterfat support was based on a 90 percent of parity. |