The highest total production of corn was in the period from October 1, 1946October 1, 1951: Total production in this period.--. Total export in this period. Total import in this period....... Exportable surplus in this period_-_ Or 3.4 percent. Bushels 18, 372, 483, 000 608, 471, 000 4,333, 000 604, 138, 000 At the same time our total supply on hand on October 1, 1951, was 3,639,297 bushels, or about a 6-week supply. For oats the highest production period on record is from July 1, 1943-July 1, 1951. Total production in this period was 11,903,460,000 bushels. Import in this period, 308,282,000 bushels. Export in this period, 86,434,000 bushels. This is a shortage of production in this country of 283,155,000 pounds for this period. For years on end the farmers have been irked and irritated by the fact that the prices of their products are subject to violent changes from day to day and year to year without any apparent good reason but the fact of a temporary oversupply offered for sale in the market place. On the other hand the new articles they buy from the manufacturer seem to be fairly stable for at least a year. Is it possible to stabilize the farm prices for a year? I believe, after studying the foregoing statistics, it can be done if the farmers are put in a position where they can put a fair and equitable price on their products. In order to do this the Government would have to organize the farmers into associations according to the commodities they produce, growers' associations, hog growers' associations, etc. These associations would fix the price for their product before the production cycle starts. This should be parity price if con sidered right by the farmers and be valid for a year. If prices fall below the fixed price, the association buys to keep the price up and sells later when the prices go above the fixed price. Pork and beef can be stored in coolers owned by packers, or, if necessary, the association will have to build its own coolers. If there is a real oversupply for the marketing year, this will have to be sold by the association either in the world market or to charitable organizations in this country at whatever price it will bring. This loss could very seldom be 10 percent of the price of the product, as the list of statistics of exportable surpluses will show. The association carries this loss, not the Government. However, if it ever should occur that the loss so incurred would be more than 10 percent, the Secretary of Agriculture would impose production restrictions. In order to prevent overproduction or gouging of the consumer, a ceiling price would have to be put on their products by the farmers above which the price cannot go. This would eliminate a repetition of 40-cent cattle and 30-cent hogs and $3 potatoes, with the disastrous effects for farmer and consumer alike. The prices should be voted on by the farmers bearing in mind the fact that they will stand to lose if prices are fixed too high. Parity prices should be used as a guide only. The Government may have to create a selling and buying agency, supervised by actual farmers, but the cost will have to be borne by the farm associations. This agency operates with money borrowed from the Government and will repay with money held back out of the sales price of the product and turned over to the agency by the buyer (10 to 20 percent of the sales price). If at the end of the market year the association has money left over, this will be prorated back to the producers. If under this system the farmers are assured of a fair price of 90 to 100 percent of parity, I deem it unnecessary to hand out subsidies. As a matter of fact, most farmers deem the present subsidies a waste of money and could be put to better use in helping to stabilize the prices through efficient marketing. At the present time the Government spends a lot of money on education, research, and conservation. If the farmer gets a fair price for his products, he can send his children to college or university to get their education. Trying to educate the farmer after he has been farming for a while, without a decent education, is a hopeless task and a waste of money. Research is very well done by private enterprises, like seed dealers, feed companies, etc., and mainly duplicates Government efforts. If the farmer gets a fair price for his product, he can and will conserve the soil of his own free will, and money spent to induce him to do so is unnecessary. In order to make this two-price farm program work it will be necessary to keep farm products from other countries out if we have a sufficient supply of those products on hand. On the other hand we should sell our oversupply of farm products only to countries willing to buy them to avoid accusations of dumping. The manufacturers would have to follow the example set by the farmers in exporting their surplus and sell it abroad at a sacrifice price. looking for foreign markets we should concentrate our efforts more on countries like India, Indonesia, the Philippine Islands, Middle East, Pakistan, etc., where enormous quantities of foodstuffs and manufactured articles could be sold at a low price. In Cutting our production of farm products and manufactured goods now that we are engaged in a cold war for heaven knows a good many years yet, would be suicide. As long as the farmer is assured of a fair price for his products he has ample credit facilities in the local banks or the production credit. By a fair price I mean a price not less than 90 percent of parity providing parity is arrived at on a rational basis. Parity on potatoes was evidently not arrived at on this basis when it led to the potato scandal. Any farm program which would allow prices to drop to 75 percent of parity or lower would break the farmers in short order. With the tremendous outlay of money and cost of farming with modern equipment we could not possibly muddle through by cutting our living standard as we did in the twenties. May I emphasize again the point I made before that we have only a very slight overproduction to unrealistically depress our farm prices. Yes, even sometimes we have only an imaginary overproduction. Let me prove this: Yesterday Mr. Benson made public his intension to lower the support price of oats to 75 percent of parity to prevent oats from being planted on abandoned wheat acres to cause more oversupply of oats. The statistics on oats make it very clear that we have been importing oats for years to cover up a shortage in production at home. In closing I would like to point out that it may be necessary to revise the antitrust laws to fix farm prices. However this should not be an unsurmountable obstacle when the practical value of the antitrust laws is very debatable and seems to lead only to costly litigations. Respectfully yours, W. A. M. NOY. VERNON CENTER, MINN., October 9, 1953. HOPE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: My name is W. A. M. Noy. I was born in Holland 59 years ago; attended college and was enrolled at the University of Agriculture in Wagemingen, Holland, at the outbreak of World War I. I was called in the Army and attended the equivalent of West Point and became an officer in the Army. In the winter of 1919 I emigrated to the United States and became a naturalized citizen in 1925. From the time I came to the United States until now, I have been engaged in farming at Vernon Center, with the exception of 41⁄2 years of wheat growing in Alberta, Canada. I now own 2 farms in Vernon Center, 1 of 200 acres and 1 of 260 acres, both of which are worked by renters on a crop-livestock basis with my actual daily assistance. We raise and fatten from 500 to 1,000 hogs a year and fattened 50 to 75 steers until cattle prices went clear out of sight. Our main grain crop is corn, of which we raise between 10,000 to 14,000 bushels per year. I believe a two-price system will be ultimately the best solution of the farmprogram question. Of course, it would be unwise to change abruptly from the present fairly-well-working program to a new, untried one. Since we have no program for cattle and hogs, I propose to try the two-price program on hogs or cattle, or on both. Statistics show that our exports and imports of meat are negligible; in other words, we consume practically all the meat we produce. This would make it a perfect setup to give the two-price program a fair trial. This would call for the creation of a marketing agency, preferably run by the farmers themselves. This agency would have to have a great deal of money at its disposal which would have to be borrowed from the Government. This sum would have to be large enough to buy a 3-month supply of meat; with limited capital to buy only a few million pounds of meat, like we are doing now, would be like a man trying to stop a tornado by blowing at it. Sincerely yours, The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Noy. W. A. M. NOY. The next witness is Mr. C. W. Myers of Faribault County, the president of the Minnesota Swine Growers Association. The next one after that will be Mr. Clinton Haroldson, of Greenville, Minn. STATEMENT OF C. W. MYERS, PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA SWINE GROWERS ASSOCIATION, FARIBAULT COUNTY Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is C. W. Myers. I own and operate a 252-acre farm near Blue Earth in Faribault County. I suppose it could be considered a livestock farm. We grow corn, flax, oats, soybeans, but raising hogs and buying feeder cattle to be fed for the fat-cattle market are the major sources of income. I have always been interested in the production of pork and now serve as the president of the Minnesota Swine Producers' Association, an organization composed of both purebred and commercial hog producers. I believe high rigid price supports will prove deterimental to the livestock industry. Meat and meat products are of a perishable nature, are not easily stored, and usually move into the consumer trade very rapidly. High supports attract many people into the production of livestock that ordinarily would not engage in that business. This increases the supply and also tends to slow the movement into consumer channels. A year ago we were faced with a very high cattle population. High prices for beef created a strong pressure to expand cattle numbers and the predictions were that the supply would increase with a peak a year or two hence. Lower prices moved a very large amount of beef off the farms and into consumption, with the result cattle numbers are now leveling off. Many Corn Belt feeders feel that because of this the beef-cattle situation is very much improved. High price supports would tend to build up the supply and also restrict consumer buying. A year ago hog prices were at a low figure, with the result numbers were voluntarily reduced on farms. Consequently, we find the pork situation has adjusted itself and today it is in a favorable position. In 1951, we were faced with a large supply of hogs. Pork producers, processors, and marketing agencies joined forces to move this large supply. Consumers were made aware of the nutritive value of pork and also that the low price entitled it to an important place in the housewife's budget. These are measures that members of an industry use to move surplus and adjust the supply to the demand. I appreciate this opportunity to present these views and hope they can be of service to you. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Myers. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Clinton Haroldson. STATEMENT OF CLINTON HAROLDSON, REPRESENTING RENVILLE AND KANDIYOHI COUNTY FARMERS IN MINNESOTA Mr. HAROLDSON. Mr. Chairman, I will file this statement. As you notice I represent 500 farm families of Renville County and approximately 800 of Kandiyohi County. The reason I wired to get onto this program, and when they found I could get on here, these farm families asked to be represented. On that basis we had committees from the various townships that chose to be represented in a brief here today, and these various committees got together and formulated the answers to the questions that I understand this committee has put forward. I don't think that there is by any means time to answer all of them. I want to answer the first one. I won't read the questions but merely the answers: We are unable to answer the above question as written. We believe 100 percent of parity is the proper price level, and when we receive 100 percent of parity we are willing to accept acreage allotments and marketing quotas if they are deemed necessary. I am not going to go down through all of them because there isn't time. I think that you have heard from the grassroots people here today and it almost seems unanimous that those who speak from the grassroots are for 100 percent of parity. I would like to make this statement in this manner: It wouldn't be fair, in our opinion-I speak from all these committees-that we should be asked to produce for less than any other part of society. We should have an equal basis. When we do that, when we have an equal basis, we won't have these booms and busts. As one of the former speakers said today, having booms and busts breeds communism or socialism or whatever you want to call it. I am not the type of person that is constantly scared by McCarthyism that we have in this country, but I believe that, as another man said, this ever-normal granary, or surplus of foods, is what is going to make our democracy really function. I think that you gentlemen will be able to go over these questions and these answers. There is a supplement to the questions originally given that would be well to give here. Our committees felt that they wanted to say something in addition to the answers to the questions asked. I would like to read the statement of principles that we put forth in a supplement: We feel President Eisenhower has not lived up to his pledge of 100 percent of parity to the farmers as stated at Kasson, Minn., and other places. We feel that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the wellbeing of farmers at heart when he favored lower appropriations for the agriculture program. |