The Waterbury Democrat., 1943-06-26


 to the individual farmer-the mum Der of head of livestock he will far row next spring, the number oi poultry matching he will figure on the acreage of each crop he will plant.
 Then will come the big job oi persuading the farmers, through their County War Boards, to grow the crops needed. If @ farmer says he doesn't want to grow flax be- cause he never raised it before, the proposition must be put up to him that the linseed oil is needed to paint the battleships or tanks. Involved in the decisions to be made are complicated factors of the degree to which Heflong farming habits can be changed, the relative incomes to be derived from different farm products, the farm machinery and equipment available to handle special crops, the human and ami nal food requirements, the Com- parative nutritional values of vari- ouS crop combinations, the labor supply, the very future fertility of the land itself if the usual crop TO- tation routines are to be changed appreciably.
 It is easy, say the agricultural economists, to sit down with paper and pencil and figure what is need ed or what should be done ideally. But that involves showing people around, ordering them to do thus and so. The problem is to make goals that are attainable in a prac- tical farm program that will be ac- ceptable to farmers.
 Basic determination of the entire program is to balance the number of livestock with the available feed supply Boiled down, that means de- voting as much acreage as possible to stock feed, in the light of other farm crop needs and taking into consideration the amount of feed grains that might be imported from Canada, Australia, the Argentine.
 U. s. livestock population is now over 250 million head of cattle, sheep and hogs, over $40 million chickens. How much feed can be raised to support how much bigger a food animal population?
 And how many of each kind of animals? If whole milk has higher priority as war food than eggs or pork, shall dairy herds get a higher priority on feed supplies than chickens or pigs? And at what weight shall the meat animals be sent to market? Choice and prime beef tht people like is fattened and slaughtered heavy, but you get more pounds of lean meat per bushel of stockfeed if the animals are slaughtered light.
 Similarly with pigs. If fattened to 250 pounds the farmer gets more money return for the corn he feeds them than if he sells at 200 pounds. But the customers get more pork per bushel of corn if the pigs are sent to market at lighter weight. Also, beef and sheep have an ad- vantage over pigs in that they will eat hay and pasture crops, while pegs need corn. How shall these factors be controlled, if at all?
 In the corn belt, the need for other essential farm crops-particu- larly soybeans -conpetes with corn Tor acreage priority, and much needed flax competes with wheat. In areas where there is an estab- lished five-year crop rotation-corn, alfalfa, wheat, corn, alfalfa - the system might be changed to a three-year cycle of corn, soybeans, corn. That, however, would mine the fertility of the soil and it would mean that the war had jolly well better end in 1946 so that a couple years of alfalfa could be planted to restore the land.
 More wheat might be grown in the plains, but there is danger in blowing up the hazardous lands the loose soils west of Minnesota and Iowa, in that it might start the dust bowl blowing around again.
 Shall sugar beet acreage be re- duced to increase potato, dry bean and pea production? That might be done if ships were available to bring more sugar from the tropics.
 Should cotton acreage be reduced for more peanut production? There's law against reducing cot ton quotas, and its a problem to get enough peanut harvesting machin- cry.
 There, in over-simpjified form, you have the outlines of the bat tleground for the war of food pro- duction. Where is the acreage to be found to grow all the food that's needed for civilian consumption, for the Army and Navy, for Lend-Lease for relief and rehabilitation of oc- cupied countries?