GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 379 



it became immediately apparent that some kind of definition had to 

 be determined as to what is a family-type farm. Many times in the 

 past while I have spoken for family-type farms — and it is a general 

 theory that is accepted and it is a general concept that is accepted — 

 when someone nailed yon down to determine exactly what is a family- 

 type farm, yon immediately conclnded that you could not say it is so 

 many acres. You immediately concluded you could not say it was so 

 many bushels or pounds and freeze it to a particular commoditj^ We 

 arrived at consideration and adoption of a unit system in agriculture. 



In that connection, as I stated a moment ago, we were happy to see 

 the Secretary's proposals use a unit system because of what we believe 

 to be inherent in it in terms of a farmer's individual operations, the 

 flexibility that it permits him in operations, where he can produce 

 single commodities or multiples of commodities within the total of 

 units available for a family-type farmer, where we use the gross income 

 instead of a net-income figure, for two reasons. One is that the gross- 

 income figure leaves wide open the incentive for increasing efficiency 

 on the part of the farmer rather than to try to assure a net income 

 which might leave opportunity, or at least we might be charged with 

 encouraging sloppiness in production and unsound methods of 

 production. 



Dealing with the gross-income factor leaves great incentive plus 

 the fact that the economy as a whole depends much more on the gross 

 income which is the purchasing power for capital equipment, for gaso- 

 line, for fuel, for farm macliinery, for all of the things that industry 

 and labor pi'oduce tliat are needed in agriculture. Most of that is 

 bought out of gross income. Largely, the family living expenses and 

 such things as that might be added too, if there is a net left. 



The gross income, it seemed to us, was a great deal more important 

 to the economy as a whole than to try to think in terms of net income. 

 That seemed to us to be the only way where we could set a bench mark 

 beyond wdiich there could be substantial reductions or elimination 

 of supports on the part of Government farm progi'ams for the large 

 industrialized type of operation that by no stretch of the imagination 

 could be cousidered family-type farmers. 



As a matter of fact, if all of agriculture was made up of the assembly- 

 line type of factory farms that we have in too many parts of the 

 country, I doubt very much if the Congress would need to consider 

 or would be considering a farm jn-ogram at all. It seems to me the 

 essence of consideration of agricultural legislation relates itself to the 

 farm families on the land and dealing with their problems. 



Our particular point of difference with the Secretary is our belief 

 that his farm family 1,800 units is substantially larger than ought to be 

 considered for a sound, efficient, economic family-type farm. 



Let me saj^ that the larger is the breaking })oint. In effect what we 

 then propose is that less land and less of the productive resources are 

 available to individual, indejiendent operators and farm families. I 

 believe after the discussion that this committee has had on the Secre- 

 tary's unit proposal that there is enough similarity that I probably 

 need not spend too much* time on it. 



I believe you have been furnished with a coi)y of this chart. If you 

 will turn to it you will note that whereas we have used, for purposes 

 of easy calculation before this committee, the same connnodities that 

 the Secretarv listed on the back of his statement Avhich was a"iven 



