Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

number of lice, but to get rid of the lice or the animal will die. That is exactly the case in agriculture. We must pay taxes in the form of added costs of all needed supplies on the farm. These taxes are required to pay the salaries of countless individuals whose only purpose so far as agriculture is concerned is to act as parasites. Social security is another disease which will eat a very definite percentage of the farmers net income. It is essential that we rid ourselves of these parasites if we are not to become another totalitarian state. Our present farm program has destroyed much of our export business. Overpricing always does.

As I understand the matter the consumer used to spend $1 of every $3 of his earnings for food products. Today, I believe the consumer spends $1 out of $4 for food products, and, of course, agriculture's share of that dollar is continually shrinking. I am convinced our farm programs have been a detriment to free American agriculture.

The American people have yet to learn that there is more to life than TV sets, high-powered automobiles, and a case of liquor. I therefore urge the Senate Agriculture Committee to work toward freeing the American farmer of unAmerican controls and permit the laws of free and private enterprise to establish a more equitable balance between labor, industry, and agriculture.

STATEMENT FILED BY LLOYD DICKENS, LONGMONT, COLO.

I, Lloyd Dickens, of Longmont, Colo., wish to make the following statement before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Hutchinson, Kans., November 7, 1955.

I am speaking as an individual and as a farmer. I have been farming all my life. At the present time my main farmwork is the feeding of cattle. I raise sugar beets, hay, grain and corn, for silage. I farm approximately 380 acres of irrigated ground in northern Colorado. Naturally I am interested and vitally affected by the present farm situation. I want to make the following suggestions:

PRICE SUPPORTS

I guess I don't really believe in price supports at all. I realize that we must continue them at present because our farm economy is geared to them but as a farmer I must insist that a Government program be started to eventually do away with all price supports. In my particular case supports work a hardship because the grain that I feed my cattle is high priced as a result of support. If all feeders paid that high price then I wouldn't complain. But, feeders in the East will raise corn and by complying with Government regulations will sell that corn to the Government. With the money he gets he will go to a neighbor who hasn't complied and will buy that neighbor's cheaper corn for his feeding operation. With rigid supports you have control and with control I can't farm my land the way I want to. Some two-bit lawyer who can't do anything else comes down and tells me what and how much to plant and he doesn't even know the difference between pumpkins and corn. I want to get the Government out of agriculture.

SURPLUSES

Of course these are the direct result of price supports and Government control. I think that present surpluses could be used to open foreign markets, by showing our good faith and desire to do business. However, we must send only high quality products to these countries.

For example. Canada can sell their grain with a 3-percent tolerant and we have a 16-percent tolerant in our grain. The American farmer can raise the best in the world but when the Government will buy anything and at high prices, then how can the farmer be expected to keep up his high quality. By getting rid of the big surpluses and doing some good with them we can get back on a sound footing on our farms. Then if the Government will let us send good, high quality products into the markets abroad we will build up the demand for our farm produce that will help everyone. This is my suggestion as a way to get rid of these great surpluses and do some good with them. We must get rid of them, however. It costs money to store them and keep on buying more. They have to be disposed of somehow. If I buy a bunch of cattle and the price goes down, I still have to sell them and take my bumps. The Government is in the

same fix with the products that they have bought at high support prices. They should take their bumps now and sell them, but in a manner that will do the least amount of harm to the farmers.

FARM INCOME

My income has gone down. But if everything else had gone down with it I wouldn't be so bad off. These labor unions, with Government sanction over the 20 years before Ike took over, have gotten such high wages and low working hours for their people that everything I buy costs more. I have to keep my equipment up and buy new machinery. My total investment in farm machinery would amaze a business man. As these union men get more money the price of my new tractor must go up. The meat market doesn't get any less for choice beef than it did when I was selling my feed cattle at a third more. These high wages and 40-hour weeks make up the difference. These cattle that sold for more money, by the way, were fed on cheaper grain. When I was making more money I had a partner, Uncle Sam and his income tax, now when things are tougher I am going it alone. But that is the way I want it. I'm awfully proud to be living in America and I do not mind paying my share to keep this country going.

But the Government can help me best by keeping out of my business. Another thing that these high wages have done to me is make it harder for me to get good help. I spend about 90 hours a week on my place and hold down about 5 jobs. The Government can help me in this situation by holding down the wages on the other end and thus not attract away my laborers and keep the costs down on what I have to buy.

GOVERNMENT ON THE FARM

I can't say that all is wrong, and now I would like to compliment the Government. I am all for the soil conservation program we have now. It has helped me a lot. By reclaiming some acres on my farm by soil-conservation practices I have made more money and have paid higher taxes to pay for the program. The Big Thompson project has been a tremendous help to all of us and the extra water that we get has made this area of northern Colorado a lot better farming area. I think that where an emergency has come up that the Government should be thanked if they step in and help. When the pork raisers got in trouble with falling prices the Government set up a buying program which helped the hog man and got good lard and pork for the Army. The Government has taken cheap beef and canned it for foreign trade. This is good because it cuts these culls out of the market and makes friends for us abroad. However, as I said above, let's keep the quality of produce that we sell abroad high.

STATEMENT FILED BY B. D. DIRKS, BUHler, Kans.

Do away with acres controls. Allocate the amount in bushels on which the individual will receive support, as to county or locality, so as to save a lot of past records which could only be produced by one who sold all he raised. Past records give cause to discriminate against the one who consumes it on his own farm-which would always be the little fellow-or against small areas along streams or lowlands which could be flooded out by flash floods at certain times. Make allowance for a starter and the small producer who doesn't cause the overproduction. Don't try to push the little fellow out or into something else if he is content in his meager living he is more satisfied than if he is pushed out, and it leaves the job he would take in another field to someone else.

Put a ceiling on how much support can be paid to an individual; don't keep on paying to one who just adds to the surplus for his own selfish gain which he doesn't need for a fair living.

This program was only meant to help in making a fair living. If acres controls are off, then the one who uses most of his own production for feed has a better chance to plan his crop rotation to keep his soil built up. Under acres controls he always is in danger of being pushed out of certain crops or being penalized; onetrack farmers do not make a stable community.

STATEMENT FILED BY NOBLE W. DORSCH, ST. FRANCIS, KANS., AND ROY JACKSON, WHEELER, KANS.

The wheat-allotment program in Cheyenne County has directly affected the sound economics of the county. This is particularly true of the smaller farms in the county. The smaller farmer in the county has always practiced an established and proven rotation on his farm, which included a good summer fallow program. His crop rotations included sorghum, wheat, and some barley. His diversified interests in cattle and hogs directly affected the amount of sorghum planted, both of which were regulated by the amount of pasture available. This program worked out by the farmer, tried and proven, was beginning to improve his own standard of living and also that of the county.

When wheat allotments were established for the crop year 1954, the average farmer in Cheyenne County was on the doorstep of an independence, obtained from years of hard work, study, and experience gained from trial-and-error methods. His rotation system under the wheat-allotment program would not work, if he complied with his allotment, his sorghum plantings were out of balance with his cattle needs, and if he increased his cattle in numbers, his pasture would not meet the demands of the increased size of his cattle herd. It was also a necessity that he keep the land covered with the stubble or residue of a crop, as the county is experiencing one of its worst droughts in years. The experience gained from this drough shows that the stubble of the grain sorghum is not sufficient to stop the dirt from blowing. The only stubble that kept the ground from blowing was the wheat stubble. This was partly due to the poor crop conditions and poor yields that were obtained during the drought. The sorghum crop as a cash crop were almost nonexistent. Cattle herds were decreased accordingly. The above has been narrated to show that the only cash crop income for the farmers in Cheyenne County is that of wheat.

What are the facts concerning the wheat-allotment program in Cheyenne County? The county contains approximately 779 farms, with a total of approximately 400,000 acres of cropland. The allotment for this county, for the 1956 crop year, is 116,491 acres or approximately 29 percent of the total cropland. In other words 29 percent of the cropland must produce the total expenses of the farmer.

The increased costs in farming and the decreased amount the farmer received for his crop, has proved disastrous for a large number of the farmers in the county and many of them have left the farm to compete for wages in other States. What is the reason for the undersized allotment that this county received? We have been informed that it was due to trend. That is a trend of the farmers in Cheyenne County to planting less wheat. That is a preposterous statement. The trend is not the voluntary action of the farmers in this county, but the ageless and irrefutable power of Mother Nature. As stated above, this county is experiencing one of its worst droughts on record. The 1930's in this county were bad, but we averaged 5 inches per year more rainfall during the 4 driest years in that period, than we have in the last 4 years in this county. The average rainfall for the last 4 years, per year, is approximately 10 inches; this, and this alone has developed the trend in this county. What wheat was planted for the 1955 wheat crop, was dusted in, some of this was blown out before it ever came up. The wheatfields were started blowing by other land that was laying idle, because of wheat allotments. This then is what has developed the trend in Cheyenne County, a factor beyond the control of the farmer, but for which he is blamed and for which he has continued each year to take a cut in his allotment. Is there any wonder why the farmer in Cheyenne County is leaving to work for wages? The farmers can combat 1 of the 2 reasons, but he cannot hold his own with both of them.

What is the reaction to the program by the farmers in Cheyenne County? For the 1954 crop year, there were 29 farms overseeded. For the 1955 crop year there were 412 overseeded; this was reduced to 196 farms overseeded by reasons of drought and dust blowing. Estimates for the 1956 crop year is 75 percent overseeded. The picture as can be seen by the above figures indicate that the wheatallotment program that we now have in effect, does not fit this county or any other county which includes summer fallowing as a standard practice. If the wheat-allotment program now in effect is continued, it is urged that measures be taken to consider the weather trends and to give credit to the counties which are practicing a summer fallow program. Cheyenne County wheat is wheat that is always in demand by milling concerns, in most cases bringing premium prices. Judging from the prices received it is believed that there is not a surplus of the type wheat raised in Cheyenne County.

Farmers in Cheyenne County during World War II received the coveted E for effort award for their efforts in increased crop and cattle production; these same farmers with additional returning veterans, are being ignored for their war efforts, by the program that is now in effect.

We, the farmers in Cheyenne County, do not ask for a program set up exclusively for Cheyenne County, but for a program that will enable us to produce an income, which will enable us to feed and educate our children on an average standard of living, and to build up a sound economic system, so that our children will be encouraged to return to Cheyenne County, to take their places in this farming community. We want them to be proud to say "I, and my dad before me, were farmers in Cheyenne, Kans."

STATEMENT FILED BY ALBERT J. EBERS, SEWARD, NEBR.

Honorable members of the United States Senate Agricultural Committee, you are holding hearings on how to improve the farm program. I will discuss one item at a time and then summarize the changes at the close.

The farm program is designed to enable farmers to receive parity prices for their products. Agriculture is by far the largest industry in our Nation. Over the last 125 years, every recession and depression in our economy was preceded by a recession or depression in agriculture. There was unfavorable disparity in prices of agricultural products. This is therefore the prime reason for a farm program, namely, to prevent our economy from experiencing the extreme hardships of a depression. War is another way out but this is unthinkable today.

With our present prosperous business, labor, and industry, prices of agricultural products would be at parity price levels if supply were approximately equal to demand. Since potential production as well as present supplies of agricultural products are in great oversupply, prices are down to the level of Government support or lower. Oversupply is the reason flexible price supports tend only lower. If supplies were near the demand, flexibles might then act like the normal markets and raise.

Some crops are basic to any farm operation. These are the crops most profitable in a given territory because of climate, soil, and markets. Prices do not influence the production of these crops as the farmer must rely on these for his livelihood. In fact, as prices go down farmers increase production of basic crops to compensate for lower prices. This is illustrated by the years 1932 and 1933 when farmers were forced to plant the largest acreages in history by extremely low prices.

Alternate crops are somewhat responsive to price as they are grown in rotation, for cheaper feed, soil improvement, and other reasons. They have a rather stable price relationship to the price of the basic crops according to feed value. Production and feeding of livestock is definitely influenced by prices, although the different kinds of livestock vary in response. The farmer has his basic crop; shall he sell it on the market or feed it to livestock. In most cases he will feed if it is profitable, but if he is sure to lose money by feeding he will sell the crop on the market.

Flexible price supports to be sure have been good for the livestock producer and feeder, but only for a few years. Livestock production has increased and will increase still more if feed prices are low and it is profitable to feed. But sooner or later livestock production increases to the point where prices go so low that it is unprofitable, and then livestock production begins to decrease.

If the prices of basic crops were supported at parity they would act as a steadying influence on livestock production, and definitely hold up the prices of livestock. Flexibles are accelerating the production of livestock to another sure and bankrupting end.

The present farm program must be changed to enable the farmer to reduce crop production so that supply will approximate demand. Really, it should enable him to reduce below demand until present surpluses are reduced.

This should be done by acreage allotments as at present. But there must be allotments on basic and alternate crops so that overall reduction can be attained. Bushel allotments are not needed. If the farmer reduces enough to bring supply in proximity with demand, he should be guaranteed parity prices. A direct payment for the land-bank plan is not enough. And with supplies reduced to demand the market would soon rise to parity prices.

A small percentage of noncooperators can nullify the good intentions of a large majority of cooperators. Therefore let there be a referendum, and when two-thirds of the farmers vote favorable then all must cooperate. If the vote is unfavorable, let there be no support of prices, and let the free market reign. To summarize then, a workable farm program that will restore parity prices to farmers must enable farmers to reduce production to the demand.

1. This involves taking out of production millions of acres of farmland and using them as a land bank for the future. Land taken out of production would be seeded to grass and not used for crop production. But in case of drought or disaster could be made available for feed, and the land would always be ready for use for crops when needed.

2. For making this further reduction in crop acres the farmer would be guaranteed parity prices through Government loans.

3. To keep the program democratic, a referendum would be held requiring a two-thirds majority in favor. A two-thirds majority would require all farmers to cooperate.

4. Curtailing production would be secured by acreage allotments alone, as much as needed, to bring production down to the demand.

5. For export crops the domestic certificate parity plan should be tried. It will be said that this plan is a contracting economy program, and what we need is an expanding economy program; I differ very positively. As long as every farmer in the United States has a land bank on his farm that has a potential income if it could be used, that farmer will do more to expand markets of all kinds through research, advertising, and every other means than he is doing now. America's industry is the example of this in action.

Enlarging farming units makes it possible in some cases for farmers to operate in the black instead of in the red, but agriculture operating at 85 percent of parity cannot furnish the buying power to keep industry rolling. I think this fallacy needed to be pointed out.

My answer to the charge that parity prices to the farmer would raise food prices to the consumer is that a 20-percent drop in farm prices only lowered food prices 2 to 3 percent. What parity farm prices would do to keep industry rolling and people employed would benefit consumers much more than a 2 to 3 percent reduction on food prices.

STATEMENT FILED BY M. M. ERICKSON, BIRD CITY, KANS.

First of all, I want it to be nonpolitical. Second, I want 100 percent parity on the percentage of crop regardless of commodity that we as a Nation need for both foreign and domestic consumption. This program will cover all major crops such as wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, potatoes, and even smaller crops which need support prices and which do not come in the picture as large yet are important in everyday life. This would also work out very well for livestock producers of meat, as well as woolgrowers and dairy products. It will insure us for plenty without cost to our Government with the grower or producer carrying his own share of the burden if he or they produce to the extent of surplus.

To explain this program I will take the commodity wheat in the year of 1952. We, the United States farmers, raised around 1 billion bushels of wheat. We consumed around 750 million bushels. That is around 75 percent of the total crop. That leaves us a carryover of around 250 million bushels or 25 percent of 1952 crops. The first figure is what I want 100 percent parity on. The 25 percent is what I as a producer of wheat would carry over myself in my own granary as the case is I am guilty of producing too much wheat and would hold this off the market or whatever the percentage of said crop would be set by the Agriculture Department. The case would be this. If a bumper crop or surplus the grower would probably have to carry over a higher percentage instead of 25 percent. If the crop would be short it is a possibility that the whole crop could be disposed of or even call for some of this penalty wheat which I grew too much the year before. Now how and when could we dispose of this surplus wheat. The Agriculture Department would say this. You can feed or seed this wheat for your own use only unless for some reason beyond control of producer, such as hail, drought, fire, insects, flood, etc. Then it could be released by the Agriculture Department through their local offices.

What better security could be had than the ever-normal granary to this Nation in the line of food, or to the local banker who is most generally interested to

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »