Why Tm For Crop Control 



By William A. Dennis, Edgar County, III. 



W A DENNIS 



TlIK crii]) a(ljii.<iiiK'iit piomam may 

 bo viewed t'rom as many ditlerent 

 anirlc.s as^ there are farmers, or it 

 may be viewed from the one anjih'. as a 

 cooperatively balanced indjey. where in- 

 dividiial selfish interest iiiiist be sub- 

 ordinated ^TT> the ^ood of all fanners. 

 The voracious middlemen and processors, 

 jealous of their volume of farm iiroducts 

 at low prices, have so i)resented the pro- 

 cessinK tax, and the limitation of pro- 

 duction, that the 

 farniei' may easily 

 Ijecon'.e confused as 

 to the value of these 

 measures, and as to 

 his particular rela- 

 •,oM to the .\.\A. 

 uiietlier he be a 

 iive-tock producer, a 

 irrain seller, or any 

 combination of the 

 two. 



.\ few <iays aijo 

 (he paper held an 

 account of a bij: run 

 of hogs in Chicajro. 4i>,t)0i). and the mar- 

 ket broke 2.*)c u< a top of $l>.iM>. Had it 

 not been for the .\;rrieultural .Adjust- 

 ment .-Vet and the ilrouth, that state- 

 ment miyht have l)een something like 

 this: 7.5.000 hog.s in ('hieajro. the mar- 

 ket broke 25c to a top of .?-i.lHI. The 

 difference between gil.OO and ?2.00 

 would cover the pi'ocessinir tax of .*2.2.'> 

 and leave SI. "5 besides. For the mid- 

 lemen to say that without the processing 

 tax the price would lie, Sn.nO plus the 

 $2.25 is nonsen.se. l>eeause without the 

 cut in production that the tax made 

 possible, large numbers of hogs now- 

 coming on the market would have 

 dragge<l the price down. I think ?2.00 

 per hun<lred is a conservative estimate 

 if the drouth and chinch bug.s had not 

 limite<l the anii>unt of feed, so that all 

 the hogs that would have been raised 

 without a program, could not have been 

 tinisheil. 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 laised the 

 price. 



Low Prices Worse 



I dislike the processing tax, as 1 dis- 

 like the economics of scarcity. Xo less 

 do I dislike producing farm products year 

 after year at a loss. To a country that 

 is accustomed to a tariff, a processing 



;a.\ does not net'd justilicatiui;. .A pro- 

 cessing tax, like a tariff, is an interfer- 

 ence with the free interchange of jvoods. 

 and I think the world would be better 

 oir without such interference. .\s with 

 a tariff, when there is a surplus llu' 

 producer pays it, when there is scarcity, 

 the consumer i)ay.s. The tax is a remedy 

 for farm surpluses, a bitter medicine but 

 <o far the only etfective ciir*' that has 

 received general support. 



The drouth was an unexpected factor. 

 There has been a <leticil of rain in cer- 

 tain areas for several years. This year 

 it spitad, accompaitied 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 pi ices. How much more rea- 

 sonable for everyone to eoolierate in i 

 national plan, whereby everyone would 

 lUt a little and produce at a protit 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 |)rofits only those who 

 are lucky enough to raise a crop. 

 .More Nonsense 



Corn is now more than SOc 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 wwuld 

 now be ahead of where he i.< under the 

 contrai't 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, corn 

 would not be SOc. They say the drouth 

 is the sole factor, but corn went from 

 28c a bu. when the contract was signed, 

 to 4.5c, when the inospect for corn was 

 the best in piy mem4>ry. 



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 

 comiilained that Mr. Wallace woulil not 

 -assist them to hold up their i)rices. while 

 tHey ruined the market for the dairymen 

 whose sole product was butler. 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 suri)lus 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. 



"W c don't care so much what the 

 newspapers, processors and com- 

 mission men say about crop adjust- 

 ment," said .Administrator Chester 

 C. Davis recently. "We are in- 

 terested and concerned with what 

 real farmers say and think about 

 it." 



In the accompanying article, W. 

 .V. Dennis, farm owner and operator 

 of I'dgar county, speaks his mind 

 on production control and the pro- 

 cessing lax. He clearly slates 

 what »e believe is the majority 

 opinion aniimg thinking corn belt 

 farmers. — Editor. 



It IS said, specially with re^inct to 

 hogs and cotton, that rcduciiig the sup- 

 ply and raising the price will destroy 

 our foreign markets by encouraging the 

 production of those things in other jiarts 

 of the world. Certainly in the develop- 

 ment of foreign markets lies a great 

 opportunity, but no farmer is prepared 

 to i)roduce at a loss, towards that pros- 

 l)ect. 



These are a few of the objections to 

 production control raised by those chiefly 

 interested in a large volume of cheap 

 farm i>roducts. They ar<s lighting for 

 their excessive profits, and^ave confused 

 nuiny 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- 

 lives and to the well-known individualism 

 of the farmer, to arouse his antagonism 

 to being regimented. The truth is, he 

 has long been regintented, and by those 

 who now fight the plan. Xow he has a 

 chance to align himself with other farm- 

 ers and regiment himself, in the most 

 important part of his business, fixing 

 prices. The old marketing system gave 

 him perfect freedom in all but that one 

 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 broa<i plan to 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 tiearly fair 

 basis, as this last year has proved. It is 

 a terrifically hard job, and I admire the , 

 optimism and courage of the agricultural 

 lea<leis in facing it. I congiatulate them 

 on the degree of success in accomplishing 

 a solution. Someone has said that "suc- 

 cess is a journey and not- a destination." 

 .Any fairminded farmer w.ill gladly admit 

 that we have gone a long way on the 

 roa<l to higher prices. The .Alexander 



"X 



I. A. A. RECORD 



