June, 1939] The Agricultural Conservation Program in N. H. 23 



practices on the better farms that represent production opportunities. 

 The present owner, even if greatly handicapped financially or by age, 

 feels a social responsibility to preserve the fields and pasture and a way 

 should be found to aid these men to follow the more important prac- 

 tices or perhaps they can be encouraged to sell or lease to someone that 

 will maintain them. A few excellent farms are in unsettled estates 

 and something should be done to preserve them. Fifty-three per cent 

 of the less active farms were enrolled in 1937 and perhaps it would be 

 well to enroll 70 per cent of this class in future programs. A consid- 

 erable number of these, however, should not attempt to build up more 

 than the best tillage land near the buildings which could be used in 

 keeping the family cow. 



A few of the present subsistence and residence farms may have op- 

 portunities in commercial agriculture if the fields have not been ig- 

 nored too long, and these few farms should be brought into the pro- 

 gram if possible. 



Since many of the people on subsistence or residence farms have 

 other work and know very little about forestry, it will be difficult to 

 interest them in forestry practices. About one-third of the subsistence 

 and one-twelfth of the residence farmers enrolled in the program in 

 1937. It will be difficult to get a larger number to enroll and carry 

 out effective practices. If general educational methods will bring in 

 these groups at little additional administrative cost, some advantage 

 will accrue to the communities ; but probably it will not be practical to 

 make an expensive campaign to enroll them. Too many are not in a 

 position to carry out or profit from practices. 



The Effect of Participation on Individual Farms 



The effect of having part of the farms in the program and the tillage 

 land benefiting from government aid in the soil-building process, and 

 other farms not following any soil-conserving practices will be to lay 

 the foundation for increasing higher yields on the one group and de- 

 creasing yields on the other. These are trends that have been in proc- 

 ess for many decades. The conservation program will accelerate them, 

 resulting in higher yields on good farms and the discouragement of 

 production on others. It probably is not socially desirable to carry 

 on soil-building practices on land which is definitely going out of agri- 

 culture and reverting to timber. On the other hand, there is a social 

 responsibility to make sure that good farms are in the program and are 

 not lost. 



With some farms gaining in productive capacity, we need to take 

 stock of the effect of this greater productive capacity on the general 

 situation. Greater yields resulting in lower costs on the conservation 

 farms will increase the difficulties of the poor farms. The disadvantaged 

 location, the present low status of fertility, the present low demand for 

 the products of some farms, together with the inability of the occu- 

 pants to carry the program, indicate the futility of extending the soil- 

 building process to all present fields. 



The plight of the people who find themselves on such land should not, 

 of course, be dismissed lightly. We may in the short period, need to 



