596 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



fer together through the National Council. However, in the mean- 

 time, our executive committee specifically directed me to present to 

 you its deep concern over several phases of the new proposal. At the 

 same time, let me express our hearty approval of the general objec- 

 tives of sustained high production at fair prices both to producers and 

 consumers as set forth in the proposal. Of course, there are also the 

 objectives of the Agricultural Act of 1948. 



Before discussing the Secretary's proposal, I would like to consider 

 with 3^ou certain facts and principles which we believe are basic to 

 any farm program, since such programs can have far-reaching in- 

 fluence upon the kind of rural economy we shall have in the future. 



American agriculture is in a period of adjustment not only from 

 a war economy to a peace economy, but also to a period of greater 

 mechanization, better hybrid varieties and breeds, better plant food 

 utilization, the use of chemical weed killers, the use of chemical de- 

 foliators, the use of hormones to stimulate growth or maturity, im- 

 proved soil management and practices, to mention but a few at the 

 production level. At the marketing level also there is impending a 

 host of new possibilities, such as new uses for farm products and by- 

 jDroducts, better processing and preserving through dehydration and 

 freezing, and improved methods of marketing and distribution. 



These changes, plus the seasonal and long-time fluctuations in farm 

 prices, place the American farmer in a position of uncertainty and, 

 hence, in security. 



Most of these impending changes in agriculture are desirable in the 

 long run, if properly made; since they will result in lower per unit 

 costs for the farmer, better quality and values for the consumer and 

 a higher standard of living generally. 



Looking at the problem from a short-run point of view, providing 

 farmers with security appears most important, but looking at it from 

 a long-time point of view, it is highly desirable that essential ad- 

 justments take place as rapidly as practical. Stated another way, 

 many of this generation of farmers probably will prefer maximum 

 security even with a delay in progress; whereas succeeding generations 

 will benefit most by having emphasis placed on needed adjustments 

 now. 



As already implied, there is an apparent conflict between individual 

 security for farmers and progress in agriculture. The reason for this 

 is rather obvious since progress cannot be made without change, and 

 sudden changes result in a temporary feeling of insecurity for those 

 forced to adjust to new conditions. Therefore, our farm problem is a 

 two-headed one: (1) i:)roviding relative security for the American 

 farmer, while (2) implementing progress in the techniques of agri- 

 culture. 



Historically, from the beginning of the industrial revolution (about 

 1790) until following World War I, we placed major emphasis on 

 progress and almost none on security. It was during this period that 

 America shifted from a country having about 80 percent of her popu- 

 lation on farms to one having only 20 percent of her people on farms. 

 Fortunately, during most of this period, the free lands of the West, 

 together with our rapidly expanding industries provided a shock ab- 

 sorber for those farmers who were forced to make adjustments either 

 to other farms or to employment outside of agriculture. 



