544 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



year ; and income has varied by 35 percent, the greatest vahie change 

 shown. The fruit and nut crop changes in production runs high but 

 income changes run less high. 



Although it cannot be said that the degree of variability of the 

 production and income measures the degree to which concerted action 

 and programs for handling seasonal surplus can succeed, the extent 

 of these variations do reflect relative needs of seasonal surplus removal 

 programs — that is, sales campaigns and annual market agreements. 

 To the extent that these extreme year to year strains are placed on 

 the various crops, and products and if aid in surplus removal can be 

 used successfully, to that extent Government programs to assist both 

 the consumer and producer in the disposal and use of these surpluses 

 are justified and should be provided by the Congress. 



As has been indicated by Mr. Goss, we believe programs for dealing 

 with these seasonal surpluses can be very useful in easing their in- 

 fluence on low prices. An agricultural board with authority to recom- 

 mend sales campaigns could frequently push the greater uses of prod- 

 ucts in long supply, and thus help out, we believe, in many acute 

 trouble spots. 



Also we believe that the marketing agreement law should be ex- 

 tended and made applicable at any time and to any product for which 

 the Secretary of Agriculture or the Board finds that use of marketing 

 agreement will help in carrying out the basic purposes of our national 

 farm programs, and where a reasonable majority of the growers are in 

 favor of the use of an agreement. In other words, the present narrow 

 and restricted application of these agreements should be authorized 

 for extension to any product on which its use at the discretion of the 

 Board is practical. 



IV. PROGRAMS FOR DEALING WITH SURPLUSES AND LOW PRICES CAUSED BY 

 SHDTTS WHICH FARMERS MAKE IN PRODUCTION 



Since it is evident from facts previously presented to show that year 

 to year changes which farmers make frequently offset changes due to 

 yield, and since such changes probabh^ amount to less than a fifth of 

 all changes in production, we think the problem of surpluses caused 

 from increases in acreage is frequently very much overemphasized. 

 The most important measure to help correct this part of the farm 

 problem is that of developing a parity formula that is thoroughly 

 modernized and that keeps the paritj^ prices for the farm products 

 in sound balance with each other. 



Unbalanced price relationship has far greater influence on shifts 

 than any other cause. This is an important reason why parity support 

 should avoid raising price of one product out of line with general 

 parity levels such as was the case last year with potatoes. 



The average crop area on a farm is usually quite fixed and surpluses 

 of given crops arise out of shifts on this fixed area rather than from 

 an expansion of total cropland. Fixity of cropland holds true for 

 large areas or regions as well as for farms. It is remarkable, in a way, 

 to note that the Nation had 402,000.000 acres of cropland in 1920 and 

 the same in 1948. Besides a modernized parity we would also advocate 

 an extensive and thorough use of outlook information and research. 

 There is good reason for great expansion of this work at the local, 

 State and national levels. 



