7. We don't want 90 percent of parity because that is the program that buiit up the surplus for us. We prefer a flexible support that will vary enough to move the surplus and also discourage overproduction.

8. We want a program that will encourage honesty and individual incentive, not one to encourage uneconomical production.

9. Keep the Government out of the hog and cattle business.

10. A few years ago there was some agitation to support cattle. It was not done and now the cattle market has about stabilized. We have a few cattle and we can make a little money at present prices. We like the idea that efficient producers can make a profit without Government help.

11. Efficient hog producers are still making a little money also. If the efficient producers are making a little money why support prices that encourage surplus? 12. We like our soil districts and ask your support of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elmer Musil.

STATEMENT OF ELMER MUSIL, BLUE RAPIDS, KANS.

Mr. MUSIL. I am Elmer Musil. I live in the northeast part of the State in an area of wheat and corn production. My operation is 510 acres of which 130 acres I own and my main source of annual income is fattening cattle to choice grade, 200 head a year, and marketing about 250 head of hogs along with about 320 acres of cultivated land. I am a veteran of World War II. Reference has been made to them. I got started shortly after the war, served 42 years, and got my start, so that I made a pretty good start; but I am concerned with this overproduction on cattle and hogs. As you men are trying to get grassroots thinking, I did a little of that, talked with farmers and merchants who gave their opinions and it seemed there was no insistence of going from our present flexible parity back to 90 or 100 percent.

There seems to be considerable confidence and respect for the present Secretary of Agriculture for what is termed a realistic and businesslike handling of a terriffic problem. Farmers are definitely concerned but not ready to sacrifice all his liberties for any political panacea. The successful farmers are better informed thinkers as the years progress, and not entirely likely to be carried away by political maneuvering for votes.

The most popular thinking that I was able to glean favors soil fertility bank plan of retiring land from production with adequate intensive payments. Such a plan is advocated because its purpose would be to store surplus food resources rather than produce unneeded food and fiber. I have a last paragraph here on something different, possibly.

I sent telegrams to a number of people, members of the committee, and since I live in the upper reaches of the Blue River Valley where we are threatened with losing 55,000 fertile acres of farmland as well as our homes, small towns, and communities by the construction of Tuttle Creek Dam 35 miles downstream at the mouth of the valley, the controversy of stopping floods the watershed treatment-small dam method versus big dams-has been heard throughout Kansas and has reached into the legislative halls at Washington, D. C. It has been proven very conclusively that the greatest reservoir for water is the natural storage capacity of well managed soil. The payments for watershed treatment and small dams have been nothing compared to the general millions allotted Army engineers for their big dams which destroy forever our fertile valleys.

More generous payments for soil conserving practices are well in order, particularly those that encourage watershed treatment and small dams.

It is my opinion that farm credit should be liberalized in cases where it may not be adequate. Even so, there will unfortunately be farmers who will fail financially.

I feel these are days for calm thinking and action. In the light of past history, we should always anticipate days as the present and confidently face the future.

Thank you sincerely for the honor accorded me and your generous consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF OWEN R. JONES, FRANKFORT, KANS.

Mr. JONES. I am a farmer from Marshal County and a lot of my statement has been said, and I am from the same county of Mr. Musil just ahead of me. I didn't know what he was going to say and he didn't know what I was going to say.

There are two points I would like to bring out in my statement, though. One of them is I think we need some adjustment in prices so that they more nearly coincide with the cost of production. We find in our part of the country the cost is about as much to raise a bushel of corn as to raise a bushel of wheat and many farmers are clamoring for the wheat acres because of that very thing. So I think that should be considered.

Then another thing, diversified farms which I am from, we have quite a little land in forage crops and hay is not considered a cash crop, but is raised by some farmers and all landlords do try to sell, they sell their hay, have to. Landowners are not anxious to have tenants raise hay because of the price fluctuation and it being hard to sell.

When I raise a good hay crop all my neighbors have one. Prices tumble and feed is neglected and wasted because it is not worth taking care of. So when a drought year comes along no one has feed and herds are sacrificed and cattle market is glutted and what cattle are saved are starved through the winter.

I think we will find a lot of times our cattle are wintered with less than enough to eat when there is more than enough to each. Luther Willoughby of the agronomy department of Kansas State College, said we are always dangerously low on winter forage for livestock population in the State of Kansas. This is ne place we can expand production instead of being curtailing production.

I think if the forage crops were supported at some level prices would level off and it would be a good thing for the livestock farmer as well as the fellow that raised the crops, which is a lot of times the small fellows.

I think that is all I have.

Senator THYE. I would like to ask you this: How big a farm do you operate? The reason I ask this is because of your location in the northeast corner of the State.

Mr. JONES. I own about 480 acres and I farm about that much. I have a full time hired man and that is why I am here today. If I was farming by myself I wouldn't be able to get here.

Senator THYE. You raise how much corn?

Mr. JONES. About 115 acres. My allotment is 115 acres of corn and about 190 acres of wheat. I am a pretty fair-sized wheat farmer for that part of the country.

Senator THYE. What was your wheat base before the reduction here in the past year or two?

Mr. JONES. My wheat acreage, you mean wheat base before they started cutting,

Senator THYE. Yes.

Mr. JONES. A little over 250.

Senator THYE. Then you have how much livestock on your farm unit?

Mr. JONES. I have a cow herd of about 26 head of cows.
Senator THYE. Beef or dairy?

Mr. JONES. Beef and a few dairy cows.

ducer, about four sows.

Senator THYE. Thank you.

I am not a large hog pro

Senator SCHOEPPEL. How did you get that much wheat allotment? Mr. JONES. Well, on our farm I farm 800 acres, and I have 880 acres altogether.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. That makes a difference. I understood you to tell Senator Thye a lesser acreage.

Mr. JONES. I Own 440 and I farm the same amount, which makes 880 acres. In other words, out of about 500 some-odd acres are farmland and I have a total basic crop of right at 300 acres.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. That explains it. I was afraid when you walked out of here a lot of my western Kansas friends would look

you up.

(Mr. Jones' prepared statement follows:)

I think enveryone recognizes the fact that most farmers are caught between declining prices and rising costs. Right or wrong, the recent round of wage increases are given most of the credit for the rise of prices in machinery and all manufactured goods in general. There is some talk among farmers of going on a buyers' strike to bring an adjustment on this side of the price squeeze. When prices are discussed, most small and medium-sized farmers don't say much, but seem to be watching and waiting to express themselves at the polls. There is so much confusion. So many charges and countercharges are made. One does not know what to believe. I don't believe we are considering the facts as much as we should. So I have set down some thoughts supported by facts as I see them.

There is a lot of talk about basic crops. But there are a great many farmers who do not have and cannot get much of an acreage allotment of these basic crops. In Marshall County, Kans. the combined total of the wheat and corn allotted acres is a little over 45 percent of the total farmed acres of the county. In other words, over one-half of our crops have little or no support. It seems to me all commodities should be treated alike if we are going to have a fair price-support program. I believe in the idea of the ever-normal granary. I believe price supports are here to stay. I think we need some adjustments in the prices, however. Flex these prices if need be so that the cost of production will be better reflected in the support price between commodities. For instance, the cost of producing a bushel of wheat and a bushel of corn are about the same today. However, there is quite a difference in the support price between the two commodities. Many farmers who, a few years ago, never cared about growing wheat, now are after all the wheat acres they can get.

I think the rigid controls of 90 percent of parity of basic crops have crowded many small farmers off the farm. They being diversified, most of their commodities are without support prices. Their limited volume is cut by controls on what basic crops they do have, and prices drop on the rest. Thus, total income is lowered to the point where someone must either buy out another or be the one to sell out. When some commodities have a higher support price than others, the farmer that raises a sizable acreage of such crops has an advantage over the one that does not have crops with supports. Many times the farmer protected by supports is able to hold his total acreage of these high supported crops at about the same level by absorbing the small farm. Like, for instance, A has 300 acres of wheat neighbor B has 30 acres. They are both cut 10 percent. A absorbs B so he still has 297 acres of wheat. B moves to town to work.

The diversified, family-type farm has quite a little of its land in forage crops. Hay is not considered a cash crop, but it is raised as such by some farmers and all landlords. Landowners are not anxious to have their tenants raise hay because of the price fluctuation and its being too hard to sell. When I raise a good crop of hay, all of my neighbors have one, too. Prices tumble, feed is neglected and wasted. When drought hits, no one has any feed. Herds are sacrificed or starved through the winter. Luther Willoughby of the agronomy department of Kansas State College says, "We are always dangerously low on our winter forage for our livestock population in the State of Kansas." I believe, if facts were known, more cattle are wintered with less than enough to eat than are wintered with plenty to eat, just about every year.

It seems to me here is a good place to expand our production. I think the Agriculture Department of our Government should consider doing something to encourage an ever-normal hay now. If forage crops were supported, prices would be leveled off. The livestock feeder would benefit, and so would the one who raised the crop.

To sum up my thoughts: All commodities should be supported on like basis; thus all farmers would share in the support program. Prices need to be adjusted to parallel the cost of production. Cost of production plus is always recognized as a fair price by everyone. A forage reserve would encourage diverting acres from grain to forage crops.

P. S.-The cost of producing wheat in Kansas is less than $1 per bushel and wheat that is raised for feed should not be supported at the present high prices, according to the economic department of our agricultural college at Manhattan. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Zollars.

STATEMENT OF C. C. ZOLLARS, HARPER, KANS.

Mr. ZOLLARS. Senator Ellender, honorable Senate committee, it is my desire to express my views and also the views of the majority of our neighbors of the current farm program and amendments we would suggest be made in the program.

We believe the present sliding scale program is working an undue hardship on the part of our farm people such as our young farmers who are just getting started in farming, farmers who have not been able to build up a surplus of funds to carry them over these years of reduced farm income and those who are in debt on their land and equipment.

We favor 100 percent of parity at least on all the basic farm commodities with reductions on land taken out of production to be done on a graduated basis giving advantage to family-type farms and increasing as the farm becomes larger.

We also believe there should be no commodity loans made to individuals or corporations in excess of $25,000 in 1 year. We believe efficiency of our farmers is largely responsible for the surplus and therefore we do not need to encourage more efficiencies as the Secretary of Agriculture recommends.

With the type of program stated above, we believe farm people could manage to stay in operation with even a larger acreage reduction on the suggested basis until the stockpile operation of farm commodities is reduced to normal. Let us get the job done we have set out to do without wrecking a large percentage of our farmers, as the present program is doing and we will continue to do more and more as the program is kept in operation.

It is our opinion that if the present program is continued it will have an adverse effect on the whole economy and especially will be financial suicide for the ordinary sized farmer. As well as representing the majority of my neighbors, this is approved by the seven directors of our cooperative board of the Danville Cooperative Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Beck.

STATEMENT OF HAYES BECK, JUNCTION CITY, KANS.

Mr. BECK. Thank you, Senator, it is a great honor.

I am Hayes Beck from Junction City. I own 80 cows and my own processing plant and am serving as farm director of a radio station. I speak from all angles.

I am thoroughly convinced flexible price supports do have a lot of merit. It has been proven along with merchandising and promotion that it can solve the dairy problem. I criticize the administration and feel it is lacking in consumer education and promotion of agricultural products. I go on record as favoring soil fertility bank with substantial soil conservation payments and grassland farming which will take over or, rather, take out of production our overproducing acres and establish grass on many of our deficient acres throughout the Nation.

Now I ask you Senators-and I realize it has been suggested many times before after reading all the reports from all your hearings thus far—but I do have one original suggestion: I am not an administrator of Government policies.

I do not know the difficulties or costs involved in the plan which I am about to recommend, but I suggest and urge that you do give it sincere consideration. Í go on record as recommending that all livestock products be supported, flexible or 100 percent. Support hogs at 180 pounds. When until recently I ask, gentlemen, have you ever seen hogs, choice farrows and gilts, selling within $1 a hundredweight of the price of sows? On today's market in Kansas City that is what is happening. Sows bring $13 and top on choice butchers $14. The heavy-weight hogs bring $13.85. Doesn't that encourage a farmer to use grain to go ahead and feed these hogs out?

Going into beef the same thing, support beef prices and penalize these larger beefs which will cut this down. The same thing applies for lambs.

Now this would go along with beef into a feed program which would in turn make a more efficient operation. After all, it isn't the price the farmers are receiving now that is hurting them, it is the cost. If we in turn use up more grain because of a crop feed program which most agricultural colleges recommend at the present time divert