438 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



The problems inAolved in reducing acreage are vastl}^ different in 

 the case of peanuts and tobacco than in the case of corn and wheat. 

 In 1948 tobacco was harvested from 1,587,700 acres, and peanuts from 

 3,214,000 acres, while corn and wheat were harvested from 85,000,000 

 and 72,000,000 acres, respectively. Cotton, peanuts, and tobacco com- 

 bined occupied less tlian 28,000,000 acres last year. The principal feed 

 grains — corn, oats, barley, and grain sorghums for grain — occvipiecl 

 approximately 145,000,000 acres. Wheat, soybeans, and flaxseed, all 

 of which affect the over-all feed picture, occupied approximately 

 87,000,000 acres. This is a total of 232,000,000 acres. 



Corn and wheat production is highly mechanized, while the produc- 

 tion of peanuts, cotton, and tobacco involves large amounts of hand 

 labor. The ownership of machinery creates certain fixed costs which 

 eat into profit when volume is reduced. At the same time, mechaniza- 

 tion makes it possible for a farmer to obtain a satisfactory income 

 through volume, with a smaller profit per unit. 



Corn producers, unlike the producers of cotton, tobacco, and peanuts, 

 do not get their farm income directly from the sale of their crop. 

 After all, between 85 and 90 percent of corn produced is sold in the 

 form of livestock and livestock products. 



It was with these facts clearly in mind that provision was made in 

 the Agricultural Act of 1948 for having wheat and corn producers 

 net vote on marketing quotas until the supply percentage equals 120 

 percent of normal. A similar provision is applicable on rice. 



With regard to so-called nonbasic comriiodities. the act })rovides 

 broad discretionary authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to deal 

 with the problems of these comodities. This part of the act un- 

 doubtedly needs some further clarification and strengthening. 



In passing, I should like to point out that the Agricultural Act of 

 1948 provides, on a permanent basis, for the highest level of price 

 supports we have ever tried to operate in peacetime. We think the 

 flexibile price support provisions of the act, together with modernized 

 parity formula, provide the foundation structure upon wdiich we can 

 build a really comprehensive long-range progi-am. 



At the same time, we do not view this legislation as being perfect. 

 We are vitally interested in helping to improve it whenever it can be 

 clearly demonstrated that a proposed provision will actually improve 

 the usefulness of the program. 



On behalf of the xVmerican Farm Bureau Federation, I should like 

 to present the following specific recommendations for improvement 

 of the act : 



RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 



We favor an amendment which would permit the producers of cot- 

 ton to vote on marketing quotas whenever the supply is normal or 

 above, and the price is 90 percent or less of parity. Farmers in the 

 South, where agricultural income is lower, are more anxious to use 

 marketing quotas as a means of adjusting production to market de- 

 mands, than are producers in other regions. This affords them an 

 opportunity to adjust supplies to demand before their industry is in 

 trouble, and if successful, maintain conditions which would bring 

 about a balance between supplies and market requirements. If these 

 programs fail to accomplish their purpose, then according to the 



