GENERAL FARM PROGR^VM 721 



In view of those factors we feel that if a reduction program was to 

 be effective we had to have marketing quotas with acreage allotment. 



Also, that with the possibility of acreage reduction, coupled with 

 flexible support price, or a lower support price than 90 percent that 

 we could get caught in the two-way squeeze. 



With that thought in mind I mentioned, when I was here in March, 

 that we felt that we would have to go on the 90 percent of parity, and 

 that at that time we said 90 percent of the new parity would be our 

 goal, because we felt we did not want our profit guaranteed, but we 

 felt that w^heat production was vital enough to our Nation that we 

 should have the production guaranteed as close as possible. 



I think that is chiefly what I have to say. 



Mr. Pace. In other words you still stand for 90 percent of parity? 



Mr. Kaseberg. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. With production control? 



Mr. Kaseberg. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. And you think control should be through marketing 

 quotas and allotments. 



Mr. Kaseberg. Yes. There are really two approaches to this 

 control program: One of them is tlirough bushelage control or mar- 

 keting quotas with allotment. I think that accomplishes the same 

 thing. The technicalities, of course, would have to be worked out. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Kaseberg, the poundage control on tobacco has 

 been used, and the most serious complaint was that it penalizes the 

 efficient farmer. If you have a 1,000 pounds scattered over 3 or 4 

 acres and you were given an acreage allotment of 1 acre for growing 

 tobacco the producer may get 1,500 pounds. 



Mr. Kaseberg. Yes 



Mr. Pace. It also contributes to soil building, because if yoa could 

 produce 1,500 pounds of tobacco on 1 acre and it takes 3 ai'res to pro- 

 duce 1,000 pounds you would take the other 2 acres and put them in 

 soil-building crops, pasture, or something else. That is the experience 

 that was had with tobacco. .\nd that would be true with bushelage; 

 the farmers do not like it, and did not like it, because it resulted in 

 penalizing the efficient operator. 



Mr. Kaseberg. Perhaps the reason that we are not in favor of the 

 bushelage control is the fact that our production is quite steady. As 

 I understand in the Great Plains area, in the wheat area, they have a 

 good crop in 1 year, and then in a dry year they have a poor crop, 

 whereas the rainfall is pretty stead}^ in the Pacific Northwest, that is, 

 the crops do not vary within that region a great deal. 



Mr. Pace. In view of the fact that you enjoy that good fortune, 

 Mr. Kaseberg, I wonder if we should apph^ it to the man who is not so 

 fortunate? The recommendation was made here by Mr. Hughes this 

 morning that the marketing quota be either the actual production or 

 the normal production on the allotted acreage, and in that way the 

 Avheat producer is efl'ectively controlled; the wheat producer is con- 

 trolled, because if he did not have the moisture to produce, that is, to 

 get normal yields, he could increase this acreage legally and produce 

 v.p to what would liave been normal production on the other acreage. 



Mr. Kaseberg. I see the point. 



Mr. Pace. That philosophy was adopted, it was suggested, and 

 adopted by the committee, in order that the man would have at least 

 enough to live on. After all, he is not going to get a great deal; he 



