(GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 127 



(b) The planting of a :<ubstantial excess in any one of the historical years over 

 the usual acreage of corn on the farm because of — 



1. Crop rotation practices on the farmiiig unit of which the farm was a part; 



2. Crop rotation practices no longer typical of the farm because of a change in 

 o])erator or ownership of the farm; 



3. The fact that part of the non-cropland on the farm was devoted to cropland 

 uses ; 



4. Drought, flood, and so forth. 



If the count}' committee determines that for one or more of the preceding reasons 

 the average corn acreage for the farm does not reflect the acreage that would 

 normally be de\oted to corn, such average shall he adjusted to reflect a more 

 representative acreage for the farm. 



In determining the adjusted corn acreage history for the farm, the coimty 

 committee shall take into consideration the usual corn acreage history for other 

 farms in the community which are comparable with respect to tillable acres, type 

 of soil, crop rotation practices, and topography. The adjusted corn acreage 

 history shall be subject to the following limitations: 



(a) Adjustment limitations in counties within which designated areas are not 

 established: 



1. Compute the comity or township ratio of corn acreage to cropland by divid- 

 ing the county or township total acreage of corn by the respective total acreage 

 of cropland. 



2. Compute an indicated usual corn acreage for the farm by multiplying the 

 county or township ratio, whichever is used, by the cropland for the farm. 



{b) Adjustment linjitatio)is in counties within which designated areas are 

 established : 



1. Compute the area ratio of corn acreage to cropland by dividing the area 

 total of corn acreage by the total cropland for the area. 



2. Compute as indicated usual corn acreage for the farm by multiplying the 

 appropriate area ratio by the cropland for the farm. 



Mr. Andresen. I notice in none of these instructions or regula- 

 tions, Mr. Walker, there is nothing to tie in production with the 

 amount of livestock a man raises on the farm. 



Mr. Walker. That is true. There is no direct tie-in to the number 

 of livestock, but the number of livestock that are used on the farm 

 is tied in with the crop-rotation practices followed, and the feeding 

 operations. 



The history of plantmg of corn for feeding of hogs would be some 

 indication of the hog raising carried on on the farm and thus indirectly 

 would livestock production, as such, be considered. 



Mr. Andresex. But when it comes to the marketing quotas then 

 you directly tie in livestock because you include the corn that is fed 

 to livestock and sold from the farm? 



Mr. Walker. That is right, the marketing quota applies only to 

 the corn whether fed to livestock or sold off the farm. 



Mr. Andresex. So there you have a definite tie-in with marketing 

 quotas and livestock, if 85 percent of the corn is fed to livestock. On 

 the other hand, the acreage is not determined on the basis of the need 

 for feed for livestock. 



Mr. Walker. Except indirect!}". You could take three comparable 

 farms. You are going to make an adjustment for my neighbor, we 

 will say. He has changed his farming operations so that his history 

 is not usual an}' more. He has gone from grain farming to livestock, 

 or maybe from dairy to cash grain. 



The committee here will pick up three similar farms doing th.at type 

 of farming. If he has gone into livestock they will select these farms 

 that represent a cropping system involving the livestock when they 

 make an adjustment for this neighbor so that livestock does get 

 consideration indirect] v. 



