Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-09-13
Says A. A. Programs
Hurt Some Farmers
Michigan Writer Declares
Crop Reduction Plan
Richards RuroI Prosperity
To the Editor Of The Star:

40 the EultOr Oh Inc bthI.
I often have thought that the man on
the ground, mixing with the common
herd, can see many things clearer than
the man standing on a high pedestal
gazing afar through colored glasses.
During most of my life I have been on
the ground, sometimes in the basement.
For that reason, do not believe in Gov
eminent crop control. If one wishes to
live the abundant life, one must produce
in abundance. When I am in need Of
a wheelbarrow or a buck saw, must
have something to exchange for them.
| Otherwise, must go without.
This is big country and there is so
much difference in climatic conditions,
size of farms, type of soil, to say nothing
of variety of crops, that in my opinion,
| no one can formulate crop control pro-
gram that would be fair to all.
1 was born and raised on farm in
the southwestern part OF Michigan, not
| far from the State line. In 1888 I went
| to South Dakota for seven years and in
| that time passed through four droughts.
| So have first-hand knowledge Of what
a drought can do.
Later, I returned to Michigan and
| lived near Lansing for II years. For the
past 26 years I have lived in Osceola
County, 80 miles north of Lansing, and
I have learned that one must practice
different farming methods in each Of
those localities. In fact, one must prac-
tice different methods in the same
neighborhood. My farm happens to be
a little frosty and 1 cannot raise the
same crops that my neighbors few
miles away can raise. I must raise the
crops that are adapted to my SOIL But
Mr.. Wallace does not know about that.
He undoubtedly Is sincere, but he
undertook big job and was bound to
overlook some things-to the injury Of
the people he is trying to help. At the
time that he began his program Of crop
reduction, the president Of the National
| Farm Union insisted that we were not
| suffering from overproduction, but from
| underconsumption. Men were out Of
work all over the country. Evidently
something else was the matter and crop
reduction would not cure it.
Mr. Wallace first advocated a process
| ing tax. He fingered" the consumer
would pay the tax and that would give
the farmers more money to spend. But
it did not work out as he had planned,
| at least, not in the case of hogs. The
| packers said that they had to sell their
| meat products in competition with other
| foods and were obliged to buy at price
that would allow them SO to do. They
| took the tax out of the farmers An
investigator for the Brookings Founda-
ton said that this tax reduced the price
of hogs rs cents per hundredweight the
first year and SITS per hundredweight
the second year.
Had all hog raisers signed contracts,
it would have worked like this: The Gov
eminent would have taken the tax out
of one pocket of the farmer, deducted
the cost of the operation and put the
remainder into his other pocket. AS all
farmers did not sign contracts, those
that did came out ahead, but those that
did not were worse of than II there
had been no tax.
II regard to cotton, the commissioner
of agriculture of Texas stated in an
article in the Country Gentleman that
he told Mr.. Wallace that his program
would destroy their foreign market, but
| Mr.. Wallace would not believe him. SUBJ
sequent events proved that the commits
sioner was right, and Mr.. Wallaces pro-
gram put half million people on relief.
Things turned out differently in the
corn belt. Farmers who reduced their
corn acreage were allowed to put their
land into other crops. Then some smart
| farmers reduced their acreage put
| planted their corn hills closer together,
so that they raised just as much corn
as before. Also, some one developed
hybrid corn which gave much higher
yields. Thus the corn farmers lived up
to the requirements of the A. A. A.,
received their payments and raised as
much corn as before.
I have been reading in the Country
| Gentleman for August The Fat of the
Land" by Arthur w. Baum. 1t is a
story of fight for markets by three
great oils-lard, soy beans and cotton
seed. The last of these seems to be
getting the worst Of it on account Of
| Government restrictions. Quoting from
this article, "a blow at cotton oil is a
blow at the South's purchasing power.
| The average grower never sees his lint
money except as credit. 1t is the seed
| that gives him real cash at the seasons
| end, and half the value of that seed
| is in oil We are losing our markets
to lard, and once lost they will be hard
to get back. We won't be able to do it
on restricted cotton crops either. Our
hands are tied. Cotton oil is a crop
that faces continued A. A. A. curtail-
ment. In the past five years factory
consumption of all fats and oils has
increased 100000 pounds. Cotton oil
use has dropped 100000 pounds"
The soy bean is largely to blame for
| this. Here is a new oil that completes
| with lard, and it is rising from land
that was cut out of corn so that there
might be less lard
walter A. Wilcox in the Iowa Farm
Economist writes that roughly we may
| say that corn belt acre will produce
| 1872 pounds of edible soy oil as compared
with rs pounds of lard from the hogs it
| would support in corn. The inference
{c %ho& fLn hall te AVA