Evening star., 1955-11-14

conclusion.
Farmer-wineSses In the I'M
on October a., have emphasized
their belief that the urgently
needed face-lifting Of the farm
program must impose additional
controls In order to check the
overproduction from which farm
belt evils stem.
Similar sentiments have been
expressed by committee members
and by farmers and oficials OUT
side the hearing area.
These views are expected to
weigh heavily when the time
comes to draft q new farm bill.
The testimony Of several hun-
dred witnesses has pointed up
the fact that commodity sur
pluses accumulated under the
high-level price support policy
of the Democrats have continued
to grow under the lower-level
supports. which the Eisenhower
administration has started to
apply.
Farm Income Down
Farm income has dropped.
And despite energetic efforts to
reduce Government holdings. the
Commodity Credit Corp. still has
a 81 billion investment in SUR
pluses. Storage charges for the
vast accumulation Of grain. dairy
products. corn. tobacco. wool and
cotton are about 81 million daily,
The support program Is adj
mittedly an erratic economic
merry-go-round. and that hclds
true whether the rife-breedina
supports are rigid or flexible,
high or low. Farmers restricted
on the production OF one COM
modify in the drive on surpluses
simply switch to something else
where they have free remand
q new surplus is created.
Only the drought In the Mid
die West this year prevented q
pile-up of feed grains that would
further have depressed an al
ready bad market. Cheap feed
encourages livestock and dairy
production, and there already Is
too much livestock and dairy
products. Farmers turned to feed
grains when the Government cut
wheat acreage.
IF It hadn't been for the
drought this year. we would have
had grain sorghum running out
of our ears observes Martin
Byrne Of Topeka, president Of
the Kansas Farmers Union.
The farmer always has q good
excuse for q crop switch of this
kind, arguing that If his income
is cut In one direction, he has to
try to make 1t up in another BY
volume production. AS q practi-
cal matter, however, this doesn't
work either because the increased
production forces down the price
Of the new crop.
The upShot is that those con-
eerned with the problem Of
building q stable and prosperous
agriculture industry have swung
to the belief that q more drastic
approach is demanded.
Soil Banking Foreseen
1t seems certain that the next
Congress will witness q deter
mined effort to get legislation
that win take land. particularly
marginal land. out Of production,
and that new curbs win be
sought to prevent farmers from
trading" one surplus for an
other.
A program to set aside land
and build up the soil against the
day when 1t again would he
needed for crops because Of In
creased demand. has been talked
about for . long time.
The production Of this coun-
try now embraces about 464
million acres, and 1t has been
estimated that q ten per cent
reduction would be feasible. It
would cost the Government an
estimated 81 billion annually to
compensate farmers for allowing
the 40 million acres plus to lie
Idle. This would be on the basts
OF $20-$25 per acre, on the aver.
age. which is rated . reasonable
return.
The gross cost would Be cut.
Of course, BY the consequent re-
ducticn Ii supported crops. plus
income tax returns.
Senator Humphrey, Democrat
OF Minnesota, q leading pro-
ponent Of the idea. says II the
net cost could be reduced to the
half- lf-billicn-dollar level, it would
be . cheap soil-coaservation
investment for the Government,
The ultimate cost Is the point
being given deep study by senate
agriculture Committee members,
who are frankly interested III the
proposal In fact, 1t constitutes
about the sole area Of agreement