The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-08-25

higher value of corn used for al. cohol, $16,133,000 in the increased value of corn sold for commercial purposes, and $160,322,000 in the increased value of corn sold by one farmer to- another or fed by a farmer to his own livestock. Total increased value of the corn crop with per cent blend, thus amounted to $200,750,000.
 The report estimated at $3,939,. 900 the increase in the value oi barley used for alcohol, at $5,810,- 900 the increase in the value of barley sold for commercial uses and at $7,6S1,000 the increase in the value of barley sold by ore farmer to another or fed by a farmer to his own livestock. Total increase in the barley crop was placed at $17,430,000, and the grand total increase in the value oi both corn and barley crops al s218,190,000.
 It was explained, however, tha' the $20,469,000 net loss to farmers would be augmented by definite but unestimated, losses to farmers who do not furnish raw materiali to be used in producing alcohol because they must pay more fol motor fuel. Further losses, alst impossible to estimate, were seer in the output of enormous quan. titles of corn oil and distillers grain, by-products which would have depressing effect upon mar. kets for vegetable oil, cotton-seed oil, butter, lard, livestock feed, etc Still additional losses were pre- dicted for the 3.000,000 farmers who purchase feed for livestock.
 Each per cent of alcoho blended with gasoline, it was esti. mated, would require 67,797,OOO bushels of corn, or only 2.42 pei cent of the nations corn crop and possibly would increase corn prices 1.43 cents per bushel, or 3.S7 per cent. Comment was made that corn prices, 37 cents a bushel al the time the study was begun since have increased, without com pulsory legislation, far more than would .have been possible. even with alcohol blends larger than those proposed.
 Going into detail, the report showed that while the farmer who raises corn might possibly profit the farmer who uses or buys corn for livestock feed either must charge himself a higher price or pay more for his supplies. Unless livestock, dairy, and poultry farm CTS could pass this added cost to the consumer in the form of higher prices for these products, they <l !. IaF y,tt tnIx a difficulty of passing on such higher costs was emphasized, it being ex- plained that prices of feed and of finished farm products do not move together. A federal government bulletin was quoted to show that, in the case of hogs, a year to a year and a half passes before hog prices rise to balance increases ir feed prices.
 "If the proposed bill is based on relief of the farmer in 1885," the report says, "it must be stated this way: It would help the corn farmer, but would hurt the live. stock, poultry, and dairy farmer by nearly the same amount"
 Grains competing with corn ai feed, notably barley, which is need ed in manufacturing alcohol from corn, woull rise in price with corn the report said, but also woult tend automatically to check ex' treme prices advances. Similarly any tendency of higher corn price! to induce farmers to replace wheat cotton, or other, crops with corn would depress corn prices. Al though there might be a rise II other crop prices, farmers would lose on one end of the transaction what they gain on the other.
 The report said Corn Bel farmers alone could expect any req financial benefit. It then quoted from a report made by Secretar! of Agriculture Wallace to show that such benefit, would, in turn be confined to those who raist corn. Others would be penalizet by higher prices for motor fuel ant livestock feed, and even though il might be possible to manufacture alcohol from their crops, higher costs would work to their disadvan