GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 151 



and tree nuts. Producers of any one of these conuuodities should be 

 provided with adequate tools to develop a program which would 

 maintain or establish balance between supph* and demand, thereby 

 providing a basis for price and income stabilization. 



The time may come when marketing quotas or similar feasible 

 devices may be desirable for meat animals, dairy products, poultry, 

 and eggs, although the need for improving the diets of consumers and 

 for encouraging conservation farming would not so dictate at this 

 time. For fluid milk, marketing agreements and orders should be 

 continued. 



Eligibility of a producer for participation in the benefits of any 

 price-support program should be conditioned upon compliance or adop- 

 tion of applicable programs of production adjustment, m.arketing 

 quotas or agreements, and the carrying out of reasonable conserva- 

 tion-practice requirements. 



Present legislation provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may 

 invoke acreage allotments and marketing quotas in most instances on 

 the basis of supply in relation to demand, and that producers deter- 

 mine in a referendum whether they will regulate themselves by ap- 

 proving the use of these devices. With respect to such storable 

 agricultural commodities as soybeans, flaxseed, dry edible beans, and 

 dry field peas, as well as the nonstorable crops, it is recommended that 

 acreage allotments or marketing quotas should not be declared neces- 

 sary until producers have been given an opportunity by the Secretary 

 to vote on the question of invoking such measures in order to bring 

 supplies in line with demand and to qualify for the price support 

 requested. 



A further limit on the extent of support is necessary if the public 

 is not providing financial encouragement for the continued develop- 

 ment of extremely large-scale, industriahzed farming. 



The program I have presented is designed to raise the eflaciency 

 wdth which resources are used in agriculture. But our emphasis 

 upon efficiency must not be followed in disregard of maintaining a 

 strong and self-reliant rural population in America. In my opinion, 

 we would be ^\Tong to allow our programs to operate in such a way 

 as to encourage the concentration of our farm land into fewer and 

 fewer hands. 



As one means of implementing this conclusion, I suggest that the 

 production of a farm in excess of a predetermined amount be not 

 eligible for price support. 



To determine the amount of commodities per farm eligible for 

 support, it is suggested that we establish a common unit of measure- 

 ment applicable to all agricultural commodities on which price supports 

 may reasonably be expected at some time. I am suggesting a "com- 

 parative unit." which would be equal to 10 bushels of corn, almost 8 

 bushels of wheat, or a little more than 50 pounds of cotton. The 

 equivalent in "other crops or commodities may be quicldy computed 

 by relating their value to the value of corn according to prices used 

 in the price-support standard. This is elaborated upon in the at- 

 tached table, exhibit D. 



It is suggested then, that not more than 1,800 comparative units 

 per farm be eligible for support. The effect would be about as fol- 

 lows: The operators of all farms, no matter how large, woidd receive 

 benefits of the price-support program to the extent of 1,800 units of 

 the commodities grown on that farm. Farms which produce in ex- 



