Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1930-02-06
MONTANA AND LESS WHEAT

The Federal Farm Boards plea that the 1880
wheat acreage be reduced to 20 percent has much to
commend it in theory, but it is a proposal that is not
only impracticable but unwise for Montana farmers
to follow.
What the farm board desires is a more even
balance between the production and the consumption
of wheat in this country for if we should raise no
more than we cat the protective tariffwOuld be effec-
tive, and the price-in theory, at least-would be the
world price plus our tariff, less transportation to
Liverpool. This would make it unnecessary for the
government through its national grain corporation to
buy up and hold the national surplus.
All aside from the fact that Montana farmers
take unkindly to the idea of being asked to reduce
their spring wheat acreage after there has been an
increase in the acreage for 1880 in the winter wheat
sections of the southwest, our grain growers cannot
be expected to plant less than they are equipped to
handle.
In a comparatively young state such as ours,
where agricultural opportunities never have been
fully developed, there is no particular reason why
we should curtail our grain production unless cur
tailment is forced by the unprofitahleness of the
business.
During the last five or six years, Montana
wheat farmers have readjusted their scheme of oper-
alton. Units of 320-ache size have been enlarged
to 96O- and 1280-acre size. Tractors, combines. and
trucks have supplanted horses, reapers, threshing
machines, and wagons. One man is now doing the
work that it took three or four men and several
horses to do a few years ago.
Because of our modern way of blowing, plant
ing, and harvesting and our relatively ~low-priced
land, we are in a position to produce wheatApmore
cheaply than it can be grown and harvested elsewhere
in the United States. This is an advantage which
is burs by reason of our location and state of develop
ment, and we should not yield it-not even at the re-
quest of the farm board.
Further, there is the uncertainty of weather
conditions, While no farmer anywhere can estimate
his harvest at the time of planting, Montana farmers
are confronted with seasbnable uncertainties peculiar
to our climate, and the wisest growers endeavor to
maintain a large enough acerege each year to offset
reduction in yield that might result from dry weather
or hail.
This explains why the Montana wheat indus
try cannot arbitrarily cut production-like the copper
industry or the automobile industry, for example.
There are certain products of the farm whose
production can be controlled, and many of these
react to price conditions. Usually there is a volun-
tary reduction in potato acreage following a year of
low prices. High priced corn or overproductio in
pork, as a rule, is followed by a cut in the number of
pigs raised. :,
It is doubtful, however, whether the acreage Of
wheat can never be controlled by edict; certainly not
as long as cheap lands and efficient machinery are
available.
The farm board will learn ultimately, if its
members already do not know it, that the principle
problem of wheat marketing is not SO much to pre-
vent the production of a surplus so that it will not
depress the price in America. This can be done thru
the equalization fee-which was the h cart of the
McNary- Haugen proposal. Until we face that prop
osition squarely, there is little prospect of the farm
beard permanently improving the affairs of American
wheatgrowers.