At the present time the irrigation wells in 6 months in Stevens County are pumping 7 times our estimated annual recharge. As estimated by Mr. Fishel, we think the money spent to help irrigation farmers should be spent for research on our water recharge.

R. W. PACKER,

MERL PEACHEY,
LESTER F. BUNYAN,

EARL PEACHEY,

PAUL SUNDGREN,

Stevens County Soil Conservation Board Members.

STATEMENT FILED BY GEORGE W. PEARCE, HUTCHINSON, Kans.

Your acre basis of allotment is all wrong. You don't know how many bushels will be produced, and a farmer cannot farm under acres allotment and ever have a chance. But if a farmer was under bushels allotment, and was allowed to farm his own land to suit himself, he might be able to do something. Issue the farmer a marketing card for to sell so many bushels of wheat, corn, or pounds of cotton or whatever he raises according to the amount of land he farms, and see that he gets full parity price for it. If he raised any more than that let it be his worry, not the United States Government. Let him hold it over till the next year and if he doesn't produce what he is alloted to sell, let him sell that much more the following year if he can produce it.

I know with wheat maybe I can grow 30 bushel-acres 1 year and maybe the next get 4 to 6 bushels per acre. So you can't tell when you plant acres what it will produce. But if the bushels basis is used the farmer has a chance to use his own judgment on the planting for the bushels he thinks he can raise. You would save the cost of measuring the whole country 2 or 3 times a year on the acres and you would know the top amount of bushels to be sold or turned in each year.

STATEMENT FILED BY CLYDE E. PHINNEY, KINGMAN, KANS.

I would like to attend the agricultural meeting in Hutchinson, November 7, but I'll not be able to do so, so I'm writing you to try and express my understanding of our trouble called surplus and hope you will be able to pass it on.

I really can't see how any one can say he have a surplus, and millions of people in desperate need. Our trouble is improper distribution and to understand the cause of that requires thinking in different line than our present farm program, which hasn't corrected anything, but has helped to carry on letting things grow worse.

To understand our trouble we must understand what it takes to supply the needs of human beings, what business really is and that will explain why we have this so-called sulplus.

Human needs (natural) are supplied by two things only; the elements nature put here, and the human labor required to put them in form and place so we can use them; business is the changing this form producing and moving the products to place where they are used, which includes exchanging with others. That is the only true buying power; but our system is not based on that, but on the dollar. The dollar is O. K. as medium of exchange, changing the form of the elements is a big question, and requires considerable studying to understand, and I can't explain it too good, so won't try, but I do want to make clear that to me that is our only hope, is to study that and base our action on the laws the Creator set up, Oh, we may carry on for a while, maybe yes, as we have, but, far from satisfactory.

The labor includes the combined efforts of many; in fact, modern business is mostly carried on that way, and therefore products are a combined effort. In early history, people produced and consumed products of their own labor; not so today.

In exchanging (or buying and selling) if we buy equal amounts to what we sell, there will always be a balanced market, or nearly so; except there may be little excess demand or supply for certain products at certain times, but nothing serious but when we allow some to supply the market without any regard to what they buy, then you have our present condition.

Our present farm program is based on property rights and not the rights of people to use their property and labor, to supply their needs. If you have land enough you can still go ahead and suply the market; yet others without enough land to produce and supply their needs are formed to reduce, and thus reduce their buying. In many cases forces them out of business; and that is being done. Full effects will show up more in next few years.

I've only tried to point out the important points, which must be used and these apply to trade with people all over the world; and to understand this you must study from that standpoint. I'm not saying we can solve our problems in short time, nor perfect, for I don't think either is possible but we can improve conditions and not hurt anyone, unless it would be the fellow that wants to take advantage of his fellow man.

I could go on and mention the reserve that is needed to carry on modern business and many other things, but that would require too much and more than I feel I can do in this letter.

I have yet to read or hear of any leader that has mentioned considering these basic facts which are the laws of the Creator, and man has never learned to supply his needs in any other way. We try and then we suffer as we are and have. People have been taught the wrong principle.

I hope you can catch my line and will study things, and pass this on to Senate Agriculture Committee and others.

I know big business is in many cases, more efficient etc. Is that the most important thing, or should people be taught and allowed to develop and use their talents to supply their needs?

STATEMENT FILED BY ORVILLE PIEPER, OTIS, COLO.

Flexible system works backward:

1. When supply is high, price would be low and low price support would do little good.

2. When supply is low, demand will naturally be high and a support is not necessary because the law of supply and demand will make the price high.

3. Low support does not curtail production, but encourage increased production in order to make up for loss in revenue.

I am in favor of old 90 percent support system, but with bushel control instead of acreage control. This would provide for protection against hail, drought, etc. I do not mean a two-price system. This could be done on a stamp setup similar to that used for gas rationing during the war. I would be happy to submit a detailed plan of this if requested by the committee.

STATEMENT FILED BY HOWARD A. SAVAGE, MCDONALD, KANS.

I wish to submit a plan for controlled production of wheat in line with demand at a parity price. First, to cut present allotments 10 percent; second, pay the farmers $4 an acre to summer fallow other land for other crops, and $2 to summer fallow wheat-allotment acres; third, marketing quotas with acreage (wheat allotments) with full penalty of $2.38 a bushel for all excess acreage above the allotment.

A few examples will illustrate: 1. To show gross income with present allotment with CCC loan of $2.38 present allotment 141 acres (wheat). Example 1:

141 acres X 20 bushels X $2.38=$6,711.

2. To show gross income with present allotment cut 10 percent and CCC loan of $2.38 with additional payments for summer fallowing $2 for wheat acreage and $4 for summer fallowing for other crops.

Thus we see that the gross income in example 1 and example 2 are practically the same. Result is to summer fallow for the other crops would bring about a more stable production of the other crops, hence stabilizing income. I think the above plan would achieve acreage control and parity for the farmer.

STATEMENT FILED BY RALPH W. SCHLOTZHAUER, LOUISBurg, Kans.

Many of us voted to give a new man a chance to see what he could do for us, but Mr. Benson has come no closer to solving farm problems than his predecessors. Right now most any farmer will tell you that his income has been lowered on about everything he produces. Farm income has been steadily falling under 90 percent supports on basic commodities. Now that we are entering a period of flexible price supports we can logically expect only a further decline. It is serious. It must be halted. Repercussions involving other industries could easily follow.

Mr. Cooley, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has warned that falling farm prices in the midst of prosperity elsewhere presents an exact parallel to the situation in the late 1920's, just before our last big depression. It is certainly a paradox that we can make the atom bomb and possibly cruise in the outer stratosphere, yet we cannot solve some of our relatively simple economic problems.

Mr. Eisenhower gave us to believe it was his desire farmers should have 100 percent of parity at the market place. Our president seemed so sincere and of such integrity it is hard to believe he would retain a Secretary of Agriculture who would take this so lightly.

Farmers in this section of Kansas and Missouri raise only about 3 full crops out of 5 and you can see that under 75 percent of parity supports (which seems what Benson is aiming for) it would figure down to an average of 50 percent or 60 percent for us. Of course sections under irrigation or more dependable rainfall would not have this same problem. It lowers our income very drastically at times.

Add to this the new increase looking us in the face on costs of machinery and parts and it simply will not work out. With overall employment and other prices at high levels we farmers feel if we cannot enjoy prosperity now, our hopes are mighty small. Something has to be done. Some changes must be made.

Farm programs have not been made to fit all farmers alike. Under 90 percent supports on only a few basic crops the program at present actually dictates to a farmer just how much he can earn. If you happened to have devoted a small amount of your land to these certain crops (namely wheat and corn in this section) the last year or two bases were determined, you may be definitely limited to earning in many cases only one-fourth of what your neighbor is allowed to earn. This is because at present prices for hogs, cattle, oats, barley, milo, etc., are so low as to allow very little profit. Mr. Benson calls it a free agriculture.

Many measures are enacted for political expediency rather than the sense they make. Anyone should know that you can't restrict acreages on some crops while acreages of other crops go unchecked. The surpluses would be quickly shifted.

Farm Bureau has suggested that instead of building up large stocks of surplus products produced on the farm, we should instead stockpile fertility in the soil. For a long time I have believed this should be one of the vital factors in solving farm problems. But these acres devoted to grass and soil building legumes cannot be used for pasture or hay, else we ruin the cattle producers' market.

Flexible price supports on some crops didn't work in 1955. So we will have even lower supports in 1956. What guaranty have we that they will work in 1956? The acreage-control and price-support program so far has not compensated the farmer who has practiced crop rotations and soil conservation in producing grain; and these are practices necessary to eliminate excess surpluses. Under present acreage control the farmer who has already practiced laying cultivated acres aside to improve and build up soil at the rate of say 25 percent of his land per year (a recommended practice) may upon receiving acreage allotments be forced to increase this acreage set aside to say 50 percent of his tillable land. Whereas the fellow who has set none or very little aside for buildup rotations and conservation may be forced into laying only 25 per

cent or 30 percent aside. And so the farmer who plows up every ditch and all marginal land and follows poor conservation measures, the farmer who has done more to create the grain surplus in the first place, reaps the lion's share of acres under support. We both pay the same taxes. If we live in a land of equality all farm enterprises including livestock should be put on the same basis for support. These piecemeal or stopgap programs do not get the job done. We need something more comprehensive.

It is my opinion and possibly that of other farmers who rotate with soilbuilding crops that it is better, for instance, to raise one 60-bushel per acre crop of corn on a piece of land than two 40-bushel per acre crops of corn. Some figure it takes 35 bushels of corn per acre to break even with all expenses. And so if a 40-bushel crop of corn for 2 years has allowed us a profit of 5 bushels of corn per acre per year or a total of 10 bushels, then a 60-bushel crop of corn, raised by farming the land in corn only 1 year out of 2 would leave us with a profit of 25 bushels. But look at the result of curtailing surpluses. In the 2 successive years corn was raised on the same land the total produced for market would be 80 bushels; but in farming the builtup land to corn only 1 year the total amount for market would be only 60 bushels. And so we have 25 percent less corn to market and can reduce any surplus by that amount. At the same time we have reduced working hours greatly and increased our profits about 350 percent. Whereas our profits over costs were about 12 percent; under rotation to soil-building crops they would be about 42 percent. If the 80 bushels of corn on a flooded market brings less per bushel than the 60 bushels of corn on a good market, the farmer is in a better position still. This is one of the ways we can control surplus and not lose too much by it.

Farmers must think more in terms of net profit; but on the other hand we cannot lower our gross income very much and bear the burden of high costs of machinery, land, etc. We have certain fixed costs to meet whether we put in 50 acres or 100 acres of a crop. And this 35 bushels of corn it takes to cover expenses is based upon full use of machinery and not on spreading this cost over small acreages. And so we must turn to other things.

Synonymous with bringing supplies into line with demand is expansion of our markets. Of course the best way so far to do this is bring on a war; we don't want such a solution! The last war and the big rehabilitation program overseas afterward made us think price supports at high levels could work. They did serve their purpose of stimulating production at that time, when it was needed. We now have a different problem, namely surpluses, and we need a different answer.

Sometimes we are led to believe there is a way to expand our markets to take care of all surpluses. Indeed expansion is important; much effort should constantly be expended in making new markets. We understand the present administration has placed special emphasis on marketing. And it has always received much consideration in other years. However we cannot depend entirely on expanded markets as our panacea. We must take more or less what we have and adjust ourselves accordingly.

We are sometimes told high rigid supports have hurt our markets; that now in peacetime we need flexible supports to improve our markets. But haven't wages been raised even higher since the war; hasn't almost everything we buy gone up? Then why should be be the scapegoat. Why should we alone soften the pressure of high prices. Using parity as our guide we should flex our prices only if other price levels in other industries are also lowered.

Consider your own reaction in buying a motor car for $2,000 that some years ago you remember paying only $800 for. After the first year the $2,000 price was established you came to think of it as a standard price, and as long as your income remained high and everything else in line, you didn't give it much thought as to being excessive. Even if car prices are pegged still higher (as they are) and wages have also been raised, the wage earner is not going to rebel. However, the market could be frozen if income for the general public remained the same or was lowered. And this is what is happening to the farmer. No, giving our products away at less than parity to create markets here in the United States is totally uncalled for and will wreck our economic pattern, when we consider the farmer's place as a consumer. The curbing of his purchasing power will bring about economic imbalance; which can lead to economic catastrophe.

I also think such agencies as the board of trade, Wall Street, etc. with their psychological influence on people are momentous forces in any depression, and

wonder if ex-President Truman might have been right in wanting to do away with such, as I heard he had. They certainly do not stabilize our markets and we do need stability.

My first impression of the farmer's situation and what his line of action should be are about as follows:

As farmers we cannot live in our country's vast economy and operate so differently from other segments of this economy. In the first place we should have a sales force riding at the head of our flow of goods, to see that they are placed in the right channels and bring the best prices; and also to report directly back to the producer as to what should be done to improve the quality of our products.

Generally speaking, we have been dumping what we have on the market and take what others feel like giving us. Some say we have competitive bidding for our products-when supplies are scarce maybe so, but when supplies are plentiful I would say no or only to a small degree. It is only when we have not produced all the consumer wants, haven't done our job well as you might say, that bidding keeps prices at a high level. This lack of organization or fixing our goals, with no consideration for selling our products on a cost-plus basis, would soon cause the collapse of any other industry. We must run our business as the motor-car industry or labor unions in order to stay with them and be able to buy their products. We must know where we are going and what to expect as our return. We must figure our costs and ascertain our necessary selling price, and sell our goods by contract; possibly a blanket contract, accordingly as any other well-managed concern would do.

Of late we have supposedly been solving some of our problems by letting the Government take our surpluses. It has come to mean the taking over of everything. It makes us think of Russia. We know CCC inventory and loans are at a new alltime high. Things certainly are not working out well for this program. Can they assume the added burden that may occur?

Yes, just as the farmer must organize his own sales force, so he must also assume the burden of his own surpluses. That is, he must store any surplus in his own bins or lease out space for same. As he accumulates more of a stagnant item he will quickly stop producing any surplus or buying expensive fertilizer to boost yields per acre even higher and further complicate things. The use of fertilizer has done much to frustrate acreage control under price supports. It is usually a small percentage of variance that sets things in reverse for the farmer. We get favorable weather or conditions to produce 10 percent more of an item and what happens. Statistics I think will bear out that we never take just 10 percent less at the market place; but usually take about double the increased percentage, or something like 20 percent less. This often completely wipes out any profit there may be and we are in hot water. We would be a lot better off if we took a fair price for what we can sell to the ultimate consumer, and kept the balance in our bin.

Say we had been producing 1,500 bushels of an item and there was consumption for only 1,000 bushels per year. Then instead of dumping the 1,500 bushels on the market at a reduced price, and working long hours the next year producing another surplus, we would produce only 1,000 bushels the next year. We would sell 1,000 bushels each year at a profitable price and keep 500 bushels in our bin as a reserve. As consumption changed so would our production goals, and we would always have a reserve to take care of any sudden change.

Farm Bureau says "that the level of price supports should depend on farmers success in bringing supplies into line with demand." Just wishful thinking. What precise machinery or course of action does the farmer have to anticipate demand and regulate supplies; actually none so far. We might lay every fifth farm idle. but don't forget we have had shortages as well as surpluses.

Prices set only by the law of supply and demand certainly do not work for the best interest of the farmer. He cannot anticipate accurately what the weather will be, what disease may strike, what the export market will take, what consumer buying habits will be, etc., so how can he regulate supply to fit demand under the present scheme of things.

Instead there should always be a surplus or reserve on hand for everybody's protection. This surplus should be treated sensibly as a natural thing rather than something to fear or hold over the farmers to force his market lower.

Constant surpluses or reserves should be kept as a means of regulating supply and demand. They will stabilize our economy. Under our present setup, if in any year there is no surplus on hand, and we farmers fall short of producing enough to meet the demand or the country's needs, the consumer in town suffers