Farm Bureau is for 100 percent of parity at the market place but not out of the Government Treasure. There is a market for United States farm products, It is estimated that there are over a billion and a half hungry people in the world at this time. STATEMENT FILED BY DONALD G. BARTHING, HERMAN, NEBr. In discussing farm problems the usual trend of thought is in the direction of prices. Oftentimes the related factors are forgotten or overlooked. Basically, whether the individual farmer realizes it or not, he is primarily interested in net income. He is also interested in getting this net as high as possible. These conditions are normal and consistent with the American concept of free enterprise. It is superfluous to state here that there are many conflicting theories as to how to arrive at the goal of a high net income. Some of these theories have been tried and to our sorrow have not proven to be the answer to our problem, but have in some instances only delayed it, and in other instances added to it and complicated it. You, gentlemen, are aware of that or you would not be here today. I honestly believe that it is an economic impossibility to devise a program that will settle all of agricultures problems for all time in the future. Anyone who considers this as being in the realm of possibility is in my opinion having a utopian dream; however, the very fact that we cannot achieve the ultimate, does not eliminate our responsibility to attempt to reach as far as possible toward that elusive goal. Now then, it appears that we must take an unbiased and thorough look at the whole of the problem, fully realizing that oftentimes factors that are economically feasible are not politically feasible and therefore are disregarded or disapproved. In looking this problem squarely in the face we must realize that the national net farm income has fallen drastically during the time that high rigid supports were in effect.' This fact demonstrates very clearly that the high rigid support program shifted production to areas that previously did not produce a given product in appreciable volume; at the same time the acreage was being cut in areas that were more adapted to that product, with the consequent effect of lowering the volume of production in an area that depended upon that product for the bulk of its income. With the lowered volume came lower income. For, in the final analysis, "net income is the result of total production times price minus costs." Also during this time, due largely to the diminishing of our export market, we began to pile up surplus supplies of many commodities so that today we are in reality faced with a two-faced problem— 1. Relieving the surpluses, and 2. Maintaining a market for current production. Many of us felt that the flexible price-support theory would solve the problem and there is ample evidence to indicate that it would undoubtedly do quite well with the second part of the problem but to expect it to unburden us of the surpluses painlessly in the relatively short time that they have been in effect is an absolute impossibility. At to where do we go from here: it is becoming increasingly apparent that (aside from an outright dole, which I am certain the farmers do not want) that no program can be devised that will necessarily halt the trend to larger farms and fewer farmers. On the surface that appears to be an alarming conclusion, but is it? Throughout the history of this Nation the trend has been in that direction and that factor has been the underlying reason that we today enjoy the highest standard of living that any nation has ever achieved. It would have been impossible for industry to produce the many luxuries that we now enjoy with 85 percent of the population engaged in the production of farm products. I know that the average, energetic farmer will continue to try to make the best advantage of his time and his investment in equipment by attempting to get a large volume of production even if he must rent or buy additional acres in order to replace those that are taken from his unit either by acreage allotments or perhaps also by the soil fertility bank plan. 1 National farm income-USDA figures: Some 1947 Gross $34, 002, 000, NON Net $16, 774, 000, OND 11,607,000,000 one is not going to be able to survive the scramble for acres and consequently will be forced to leave the farming occupation. Briefly, I should state that farmers are generally aware of the following facts: 1. A subsidization program carriers with it the inherent evil of regimentation. 2. An effective decline in volume may well also cause a very significant decline in income because there are many fixed costs that do not decline with the decline in volume (taxes, depreciation). 3. Efficiency of a farm unit is directly effected by volume of production. 4. That the productive capacity per farm worker has increased one-third since 1947. 5. That Government should not subsidize inefficiency or poor management in any segment of the economy, whether it be on the farm or elsewhere. 6. That a highly controlled agricultural economy could easily become a regimented agriculture to the degree that a free agriculture would no longer exist. 7. That supply and demand still determines to a large extent the income that a farmer receives in spite of support programs. 8. That his costs of production are greatly affected by wage scales and tax costs to industry. (These costs are passed to him in the price of the manufactured product.) Farmers generally do not want to be put in a strait-jacket. STATEMENT FILED BY CLAUDE ALLEN BERRY, LONG VALLEY, S. DAK. SUGGESTED WHEAT QUOTA PLAN 1. Criticism of present program A. Under the present wheat program the farmer has no way of storing up a surplus in case of a drought or other emergencies. This would be a hardship on most farmers and take many of them out of operation. B. Under the present wheat program a young man coming home from the service or any other young man attempting to become a wheat farmer may do so only by buying or renting a piece of land with a wheat allotment on it. When sold or leased such land always brings a premium price and takes more financial backing than most young men are able to obtain. II. Proposed new plan A Crop acres to be determined by the amount each farmer had under cultivation on January 1, 1955, alfalfa to be classed as cropland but must have been planted before January 1, 1955. B. Any grassland plowed up after January 1, 1955, not to be counted as crop acres. C. Wheat to be supported at 100 percent of parity. D. Wheat allotments to be made available to young men getting started as bona fide farmers attempting to derive the major part of their income from farming operations. New allotments to be limited to breaking of 160 acres of grassland. E. No limits placed on acres farmer may plant but he can sell commercially only alloted bushels or may seal only his alloted bushels. He must store excess bushels at his own expense. F. Schedule of bushels to be decided by crop acres : STATEMENT FILED BY JAMES B. BIGGAR, BROOKINGS, S. DAK. My name is James B. Biggar. I have farmed for over 40 years, fed cattle and hogs along with general farming. I served in the State legislature three terms and am at present a member of the South Dakota Water Resources Commission. There are a lot of people who do not realize that a lot of prices for farm products are too low compared to prices of things farmers buy. It is a very serious matter, but on the other hand these conditions are not as bad as some of these self-styled, so-called friends of the farmer make them out to be. We have had two wars and all the high prices during those years were due to war conditions. Now we have peace and we should be able to work out plans to make good times and peace at the same time. Ninety percent rigid price supports are not the answer as that only leads to terrific piles of grain piled in Government bins and elevators costing a lot of money for storage and not helping the farmer. The big elevators are making millions of dollars on storage. I think the grain storage racket is the tail that is wagging the dog. The place to store this grain is on the farm. Sell these bins to the farmer to be paid for by storage fees to the farmer and they will be permanent buildings on the farm. Stop paying storage to these elevators. I have no quarrel with elevators but that deal is not any good for the farmer. I have 1,500 bushels of shell corn on seal in my granary and collecting 15 cents per bushel storage for this corn last year. I will also seal my corn this year and buy corn to feed, and next summer I will pay the loan on the shelled corn, and hold this year's crop over. I feed cattle all the time and use lots of corn. Corn stored in Government bins and elevators costs $1.80 at the present time and that is just too high to buy. This can't be changed at once but get this storage on the farm and if CCC has to take over corn, sell it for what they can get and give our markets a chance to operate. I am interested in the livestock business, which of course, means meat. I think the answer to livestock prices is that we must, advertise our own products. The following is part of a talk by Dr. A. D. Weber, dean of agriculture, Kansas State College, to the annual meeting of the National Livestock and Meat Board. "Most everybody loves a good steak. Too many persons, however, are unaware of the right reasons for loving meat. There is a promotional job that still needs to be done in getting people to want meat because they know they need it. "It is often said that 'the people of the United States are the best fed in the world.' In discussing this statement in the November 1952 issue of Michigan Farm Economics published by Michigan State College, J. D. Shaffer pointed out that, 'In 1950 *** the people of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand, consumed, on the average, more calories per person than the people of the United States. At the same time, the people of 12 countries consumed more protein per person. These included the 6 countries listed above, plus Finland, France, Norway, Canada, Argentina, and Uruguay. Four countries, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina consumed more meat and dairy products.' "Mr. Shaffer went on to point out that a large part of the world's population gets insufficient food. Diets in many countries are not only below standard in calories but even more deficient in protein. "He concluded his article with this challenging statement: 'All this does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect to say the people of the United States are the best fed in the world. However, such a statement must be based on something other than these measures of food consumption, for according to these commonly used measures, there are several countries where the average person consumes more than in the United States, even though the bulk of the world's population consumes less. Is there not danger in assuming superiority where the facts do not substantiate the case?' "Irrespective of our rank among the better-fed countries of the world, there is ample evidence that many groups in America urgently need to improve their eating habits. Especially is this true of teen-agers. Surveys conducted in several States have revealed that the diets of teen-age girls appeared to be especially inadequate. "The Meat Board is directing attention on the fact that teen-agers require from 30 to 50 percent more high-quality protein, minerals, and vitamins than adults. Meat, milk, and eggs furnish these essentials of a balanced diet. "The importance of proper diets for teen-age girls goes beyond their own health as adults since they are the ones who will help to influence the eating habits of the children of tomorrow. "Persuasive arguments in favor of improved eating habits are being directed to teen-age girls and their mothers. They are being shown that eating right results in good health in its obvious manifestations-good looks and beauty, energy and pep, bright eyes, sparkling hair and a good figure. "The teen-age boy, whether a promising athlete or a 'brain' in the classroom, or both, can achieve in accordance with his capabilities only when he eats plenty of meat, along with eggs, milk, fruits, vegetables, and cereals. An adequate diet builds bone, skin, and muscles; it assures healthy blood and normal growth and body processes; and supplies energy for exuberant teen-age activity. "That is the story that must be told-the story that all of us concerned with meat can help by advertising meats. The objective is specific and easily understood: To get people to want meat because they know they need it. "Basic considerations, then, of what we have been talking about are the teen-agers' need for more and better quality food, and what improved diets will do for the teen-agers themselves and future generations. But in meeting those basic considerations, we also create jobs and profits, to which reference was made before. "Thus, according to the National Livestock and Meat Board, 'If America's 16 million teen-agers actually ate meat in larger amounts for strength and vigor during their growth into adulthood, they could consume as much as 992 million more pounds of beef, veal, pork and lamb annually *** this exceeds by 50 percent the 600 million pounds increase in meat production which is being predicted for 1955 as compared with 1954 * "The Board figures that in acquiring the extra nutrients needed the teenagers could consume 40 percent more meat than their parents are getting today. As the present national per capita rate of meat consumption is 156 pounds a year, this would amount to at least 62 more pounds for each of the 16 million teen-agers. "The additional 992 million pounds of meat would likely add up about as follows: 486,080,000 pounds of beef; 416,640,000 pounds of pork; 59,520,000 pounds of veal, and 29,760,000 pounds of lamb. This is based on the current ratio of these meats to the total meat supply. Beef now accounts for 49 percent of total meat production in this country; pork, 42 percent; veal, 6 percent; and lamb, 3 percent." This shows that we in the United States are not getting the necessary foods, and the way to get more people eating meat is to advertise it. In 1950, 62 pounds of beef was eaten per person; 1955, 79 pounds per person. With pork, 68 pounds was eaten per person, and in 1955 only 66 pounds. This shows that in 5 years 11 pounds more beef was eaten per person and in that same 5 years people ate 2 pounds less of pork, in spite of lower hog prices, showing that people are eating more beef and less pork. In 1950, total of all meat consumed per person was 142 pounds, and in 1955 the total was 160 pounds, which is an increase of 18 pounds. If by advertising we can increase meat consumption up to around 180 to 200 pounds per person, our livestock problem will be solved and we would use up a lot of our surplus grains. Don't ever forget that all crops, whether livestock or grains, must be used or eaten in some way, and piling grain in elevators or Government bins only adds expense and postpones the trouble. I was in Boston several years ago and was out to old Concord where the Revolutionary War was started. That was a little over 180 years ago; and as I stood there I thought of that small strip of our country along the Atlantic Ocean at that time and now look at our great country. All this was done under our freeenterprise system. This country was started by people who wanted to get away from regimentation in the old country. Any farm program must work under the ideas and ideals that made this country great. Senator ALLEN J. ELLENDER, COLMAN, S. DAK., October 27, 1955. Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee, Brookings, S. Dak. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: As directors of a rural electric cooperative, the Sioux Valley Empire Electric Association of Colman, S. Dak., and as farmers representing its over 7,000 members, including the area around Brookings, we unanimously present the following views for your consideration. This cooperative has borrowed more than $5 million from the Rural Electrification Administration and under a favorable agricultural economy will be able to repay its loans in full, with interest, and will be able to meet all its other obligations, both monetary and moral. Our only source of money for this purpose is from the sale of electric power to our members. Our members cannot pay for this electric power unless they have sufficient income with which to pay for it. The recent trend of farm prices compared to the present high costs of goods purchased by the farmer is not only affecting our cooperative but all other business and persons in South Dakota. We are therefore greatly concerned about the situation which has developed in the last few months and which apparently is running unchecked toward an even worse situation than now exists. The age-old theory that reducing prices for farm products will reduce the surplus has not worked and cannot bring about the desired results. A farmer operates with a fixed overhead of which he has little or no control: Taxes, interest, debt repayment, machinery replacement, costs, repairs, fuel, etc. In addition, he has the same personal needs as all other classes of people-food, clothing, luxuries, social, etc. The latter he has some control over but, in order to meet the first-mentioned expenses, which are fixed costs, he must produce a certain amount of farm income. If farm prices are high it will take less units of production, while if prices are low he must produce more to meet these fixed costs; so, therefore, lowering prices will only increase the surplus. Our experience in the 1920's and 1930's illustrate this. The farmer is a producer of a perishable product. He cannot determine in advance how much he will produce because of unpredictable factors such as weather. He cannot predetermine the price he will receive for his product, either before or after he produces it. For these reasons he needs price control administered so that he may receive a price for his product that is proper in relation to the price he must pay for the goods he must purchase. We believe this proper price is 100 percent of parity, as President Eisenhower agreed right here in Brookings, S. Dak., just 3 years ago. Respectfully, HARVEY J. BLY, President, Board of Directors, Sioux Valley STATEMENT FILED BY RUDY BREMER, HIGHMORE, S. DAK. I should like to see bushel control tried, rather than acreage control as we have experienced in the past. Acreage control seems to increase production rather than curtail it, due to summer-fallowing the idle acres. In some localities production has almost doubled. In our particular area we have not overproduced due to the drought and rust the past 3 or 4 years. However, we are certain to receive another acreage cut this year. Due to the immense investment in farm macoinery for harvesting one's total acreage, further cuts only tend to increase maintenance cost. For an example, owning machinery capable of taking care of 1,200 acres of farmland and being cut to 300 acres, with bushel control a farmer would have a more flexible acreage, control of his farm, and would have bushel regulation of which he could carry over from an abundant year to a leaner crop year. I should also like to see more grain stored on the farm in order that we farmers might benefit from storage payments now going to terminal elevators and grainmen all over the country, thus helping to raise our falling income. I also urge the Department of Agriculture and farm organization to look into the possibilities of processing some of our surplus grains, such as the making of alcohol and other byproducts, the tremendous cost of storing and handling grain charged to the taxpayer would soon pay for our processing plant. Of course we can realize some opposition from the oil companies, however, they will soon realize that a greater income for the farmer would enable him to consume the difference in gasoline by taking a vacation long overdue. Whereas under rigid control and falling prices due to surplus grains the farmer has been limited in traveling and most of us could burn lots more gasoline if we could afford it. It is also my theory that the holding back of butcher hogs and fat cattle the past 2 years, waiting for better prices, has increased production at least one |