GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 645 



programs. Idle land invites wind and water erosion and constitutes 

 a weed hazard. 



If I am required to limit wheat seedings next fall to 80 percent of 

 my "usual wheat acreage," there will be 100 acres on my farm already 

 prepared for wheat which I cannot plant to wheat. That land will 

 probably be idle and subject to washing and blowing next fall and 

 winter. Acreage allotments work a real hardship on farmers in a 

 semiarid region wdio are already following a straight wheat and sum- 

 mer fallow system. The wheat farmer in the Great Plains or Corn 

 Belt who has established a "usual" acreage on more than half of his 

 cropland, or who can plant other crops, is not nearly so hard hit 

 under an allotment program as we are in our country. That is why 

 we would like to see a tw^o-price plan as an alternative to acreage 

 limitation. Although we realize that acreage allotments may be 

 necessary under certain conditions, we believe them to be objectionable 

 for the following reasons: 



1. Allotments are costly to administer. Experience has shown that. 



2. Allotments do not accomplish what they are supposed to do. 

 National wheat production cannot be controlled through acreage allot- 

 ments because of variations in the weather and improved farming 

 methods on the reduced acreage. 



3. Allotments reduce the efficiency of wheat production, especially 

 in semiarid regions. 



4. Allotments have a recessive effect on the entire economy. 



For these reasons, we think it is a sounder national policy to find a 

 substitute for acreage allotments wdiich will dispose of surplus wheat 

 through normal market channels. Then each farmer would be free 

 to make necessary adjustments and follow conservation measures 

 adapted to the soil, climate and topography of his own farm. 



The plan proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture on April 7, 1949, 

 would not correct the difficulty. As we understand it, this policy 

 w^ould still continue acreage allotments and marketing quotas for 

 wheat and it would provide price supports higher than the supports 

 provided in the present law. 



It may seem strange that we producers do not favor a high loan on 

 our commodity, but we must be realistic in building a long range 

 program. Fixed high loan rates inevitably mean tight allotments. 

 Controls beget controls and before long we are tied down into a rigid 

 pattern that makes it impossible to farm efficiently. It is much better 

 for the entire Nation for us to be free to produce w heat efficiently, even 

 though we have to take a lower price for a portion of our crop. Al- 

 though the high wheat loan has not caused much difficulty since 1942, 

 these have been times of unusual demand for wdieat. Under ordinary 

 circumstances, the high loan will cost a lot of money. It will of 

 necessity be accompanied by strict acreage limitations. 



As an alternative, we should like to have you consider the possibility 

 of a certificate plan such as Congressmen Fulmer and Pierce introduced 

 in 1940 and 1941. Under this plan the support price on wheat would 

 be low enough to permit as much as possible to move into regular 

 marketing channels. Then in order to provide parity on the wheat 

 consumed for human food in the United States, millers would be 

 required to purchase certificates on all wheat processed for domestic 

 consumption. The cost of these certificates per bushel would be 



