Why Tm For Crop Control 



By William A. Dennis, Edgar County, III. 



W. A. DEHirU 



THE crop adjustment program may 

 be viewed from as many different 

 angles as there are farmers, or it 

 may be viewed from the one angle, as a 

 cooperatively balanced policy, where in- 

 dividual selfish interest must be sub- 

 ordinated to the good of all farmers. 

 The voracious middlemen and processors, 

 jealous of their volume of farm products 

 at.iow prices, have so presented the pro- 

 cessing tax, and the limitation of pro- 

 duction, that the 

 farmer may easily 

 become confused as 

 to the value of these 

 measures, and as to 

 his particular rela- 

 tion to the AAA, 

 whether he be a 

 livestock producer, a 

 grain seller, or any 

 combination of the 

 two. 



A few days ago 

 the paper held an 

 account of a big run 

 of hogs in Chicago, 40,000, and the mar- 

 ket broke 25c to a top of |6.00. Had it 

 not been for the .Agricultural Adjust- 

 ment Act and the drouth, that state- 

 ment might have been something like 

 this: 75,000 hogs in Chicago, the mar- 

 ket broke 25c to a top of $2.00. The 

 difference between |6.00 and f2.00 

 would cover the processing tax of $2.25 

 and leave $1.75 besides. For the mid- 

 lemen to say that without the processing 

 tax the price would be $6.00 plus the 

 12.25 is nonsense, because without the 

 cut in production that the tax made 

 possible, large numbers of hogs now 

 coming on the market would have 

 dragged the price down. I think $2.00 

 per hundred is a conservative estimate 

 if the drouth and chinch bugs had not 

 limited the amount of feed, so that all 

 the hogs that would have been raised 

 without a program, could not have been 

 finished. This locality this year has seen 

 good crops, and with the cheap corn an 

 increased number of pigs would have 

 been raised, with feed enough to finish 

 them. So it is in other parts of the corn 

 hog belt. As it is, there is assurance 

 of our ability to pay the processing tax 

 and still be ahead, as by cutting the 

 burdensome surplus we have raised the 

 price. 



Low Prices Worse 



I dislike the processing tax, as I dis- 

 like the economics of scarcity. No less 

 do I dislike producing farm products year 

 after year at a loss. To a country that 

 is accustomed to a tariff, a processing 



tax does not need justification. A pro- 

 cessing tax, like a tariff, is an interfer- 

 ence with the free interchange of goods, 

 and I think the world would be better 

 off without such interference. As with 

 a tariff, when there is a surplus the 

 producer pays it, when there is scarcity, 

 the consumer pays. The tax is a remedy 

 for farm surpluses, a bitter medicine but 

 so far the only effective cure that has 

 received general support. 



The drouth was an unexpected factor. 

 There has been a deficit of rain in cer- 

 tain areas for several years. This year 

 it spread, accompanied by .chinch bugs. 

 This is responsible for a further reduc- 

 tion in crops and a rise in prices, il- 

 lustrating the principle that short crops 

 bring high prices. How much more rea- 

 sonable for everyone to cooperate in a 

 national plan, whereby everyone would 

 cut a little and produce at a profit every 

 year, rather than to raise too much at a 

 loss every year, and wait for a drouth 

 to cut down surpluses. The latter process 

 ruins many and profits only those who 

 are lucky enough to raise a crop. 



More Nonsense 



Corn is now more than 80c a bu. on 

 the farm. The pets of the grain trade 

 and their spokesmen say that if a farmer 

 had put his contracted acres in corn and 

 raised only 20 bu. to the acre, he would 

 now be ahead of where he is under the 

 contract at perhaps 40 bu. to the acre 

 at 30c a bu. They say he would have 

 $16 per acre instead of $12.00. This is 

 more nonsense. If the crop had not been 

 limited by the contracting farmers, com 

 would not be 80c. They say the drouth 

 is the sole factor, but com went from 

 28c a bu. when the contract was signed, 

 to 45c, when the prospect for corn was 

 the best in my memory. 



The dairymen in some milk sheds have 

 staged a battle with Mr. Wallace. With 

 no contract to cut production, dumping 

 the flood of their surplus as butter, they 

 complained that Mr. Wallace would not 

 assist them to hold up their prices, while 

 they ruined the market for the dairymen 

 whose sole product was butter. They 

 are shortsighted, as a tidal wave of milk 

 just outside the sheds is bound to break 

 over the line. I don't blame these whole 

 milk men for defending their market, 

 as it has been a long struggle to build 

 up their organization; but they would 

 certainly object to surplus milk outside 

 of the sheds, flooding their market. I 

 honor Mr. Wallace for seeing the dairy 

 business as a whole, when it would have 

 been easier to submit to the strong whole 

 milk organizations. 



■i^ 



"We don't care so much what the 

 newspapers, processors and com- 

 mission men say about crop adjust- 

 ment," said Admijiistrator Chester 

 C. Davis recently. "We are in- 

 terested and concerned with what 

 real farmers say and think about 

 it." 



In the accompanying article, W. 

 A. Dennis, farm owner and operator 

 of Edgar county, speaks his mind 

 on production control and the pro- 

 cessing tax. He clearly states 

 what we believe is the majority 

 opinion among thinking corn belt 

 farmers. — Editor. 



It is said, specially with respect to ; . 

 hogs and cotton, that reducing the sup- 

 ply and raising the price will destroy . 

 our foreign markets by encouraging the ' 

 production of those things in other parts . 

 of the world. Certainly in the develop- 

 ment of foreign markets lies a great 

 opportunity, but no farmer is prepared 

 to produce at a loss, towards that pros- ... 

 pect. 



These are a few of the objections to • 

 production control raised by those chiefly • 

 interested in a large volume of cheap .' 

 farm products. They are fighting for ■.■ 

 their excessive profits, and have confused 

 many farmers into agreement with them. 

 Many legitimate complaints may be made 

 against the details of the plan and its . 

 administration. The tactics of the op- 

 position have been to pick out details, ■ 

 to split the plan into issues and confuse -'; 

 them, and by appealing to selfish mo- ','. 

 tives and to the well-known individualism . !' 

 of the farmer, to arouse his antagonism i' 

 to being regimented. The truth is, he ,'-. 

 has long been regimented, and by those '•/ 

 who now fight the plan. Now he has a 

 chance to align himself with other farm- V 

 ers and regiment himself, in the most V 

 important part of his business, fixing -J ' 

 prices. The old marketing system gave ■' 

 him perfect freedom in all but that one .1 

 thing, prices. It fixed that for him. And ' ■ 

 he has gradually been getting a diminish- 

 ing share of the consumer's dollar. 



Raise Whole Level 



A broad plan pb raise the whole level 

 of prices cannot make cheap corn for the 

 hog seller and high priced corn for the 

 grain seller; but it can raise the whole 

 level of prices to a more nearly fair 

 basis, as this last year has proved. It is v. 

 a terrifically hard job, and I admire the 

 optimism and courage of the agricultural 

 leaders in facing it. I C5>ngratulate them 

 on the degree of succe^ in accomplishing 

 a solution. Someone hss^said that "suc- 

 cess is a journey and not a destination." 

 Any fairminded farmer will gladly admit 

 that we have goae a long way on the 

 road to higher prJceSj. The Alexander 



:M 



t >: 



.i 





- ■}. 



L A. A. RECORD 



