GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 381 



have only a single copy of the calculation. If the committee would 

 be interested, we could prepare in the next day or so a complete list of 

 all farm commodities for which a parity index has been formulated 

 and determined, give the unit weighting and the poll of the commodity 

 that our concept of the size of a family-type farm amounts to in terms 

 of 5,000 units for full 100-percent support, 2,500 for 80-percent sup- 

 port, and any commodities beyond that at 60 percent of the parity 

 price for support purposes. 



Mr. Pace. I think that is sufficiently representative for our present 

 needs. 



Mr. Talbott. It seemed to me that it would be, Mr. Chairman. You 

 will note, Mr. Chairman, that whereas the Secretary's breaking point, 

 as he suggested, in the 1,800 units with the pricing formula, as he 

 suggested, and the relative unit value in terms of commodity units, 

 that his gross-income figure for a family-type farmer who would 

 receive full support was around $26,000 in round figures. 



You will note at the bottom of this table that the support value, 

 using the parity index, which is the only one we had at the moment to 

 work this out, the support value in terms of dollars at the present 

 parity level would be $10,950 gross on 500 units. 



If a man was able to produce 7,500 units, he would have a total 

 gross income of $15,326 and beyond that the support would be limited 

 to 60 percent of the parity figure, whatever that might be. 



Now. if we might move next to section 103 so that I may give you 

 the essence of each section and the thinking that has gone into it ; first 

 you w^ill note at the beginning of that sentence in section 103 it says 

 that each head of a household in the United States, the major portion 

 of whose income is derived from farming, shall be entitled annually 

 for the purposes of this act to receive 100 percent of parity on 5,000 

 family farm production units. 



It is important to note that we say "or such less total as he may 

 produce." That is to say, this is not an attempt to guarantee a gross 

 income of $11,000 or to guarantee a parity-support price on 5,000 

 units, but 100-percent support on any production of a farmer up to 

 5,000 units. If he has no land and no equipment and no other facili- 

 ties to produce that volume of commodities, then it seems to us that 

 it has to be dealt with in other ways rather than through a price route. 



I want to call attention to the wording there where we say "the 

 major portion of whose income is derived from farming." We know 

 of no reason why the Federal Government should appropriate money 

 and make payments or offer supports of any kind to a man who inci- 

 dentally or for speculative purposes owns one or more farms but whose 

 primary source of livelihood is from other sources. We think that 

 the support of the Federal Government ought to be j^ven to those who 

 operate the farms. We would propose to limit the allocation of a 

 family-farm production unit goal to those whose income in major 

 part is derived from agriculture. 



Section 104 merely gives the break-down of the 80 percent on 2,500 

 additional production units and 60 percent upon all production in 

 excess of 7,500 family farm production units. It seemed to us that 

 rather than to have a flat breaking point of 5,000 units, we do have 

 the problem within agriculture of farmers getting old and wanting 

 to be in a position to start their sons out farming, and it seemed to us 



