The Real Surplus Agricultural a n d Food Chemistry January 1 9 5 8
V o l u m e 6, N o . 1
APPLIED JOURNALS, ACS Director of Publications: editorial Director:
C.
B. Larrabee
Walter J . M u r p h y
Executive Editor:
James M . Crowe
Production Manager:
Joseph H. K u n e y
AGRICULTURAL A N D F O O D CHEMISTRY Editor:
Rodney N. Hader
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS W A S H I N G T O N 6, D. C. 1155 Sixteenth S t . , N . W . Phone Republic 7-5300 Associate Editors: G . Gladys G o r d o n , Stella Anderson, R u t h Cornette, K a t h e r ine I. Biggs, M a r g a r e t S. M c D o n a l d , George B. K r a n t z Assistant Editors: Betty V. Kieffer, A r t h u r J . Poulos, Robert J . Riley, Robert J . Kelley, H a n n s L. Sperr, R u t h M . H o w o r t h , Eugenia Keller, Sue M . Solliday Editorial Assistants: M a l v i n a B. Preiss, Marjorie H . Swenson, R u t h R e y n a r d , Gloria H . Wills Staff Artist:
M e l v i n D. Buckner
BRANCH EDITORIAL OFFICES C H I C A G O 3, I L L . Room 926 36 S o u t h Wabash Ave. Phone S t a t e 2-5148 Associote Editors: Howard J . Sanders, Chester Piacek Assistant Editor: Laurence J . W h i t e H O U S T O N 2, TEX 718 Melrose Bldg.
Phone Fairfax 3-7107
Associate Editor:
Bruce F. Greek
Assistant Editor:
Earl V . Anderson
N E W Y O R K 16, Ν . Υ .
2_Park Ave.
Phone Oregon 9-1646
Associate Editors: W i l l i a m Q. H u l l , H a r r y Stenerson, David M. Kiefer, D. Gray Weaver, W a l t e r S. Fedor, M o r t o n Salkind Assistant Editor: Louis A. Agnello S A N F R A N C I S C O 4, C A L I F . 703 Mechanics' I n s t i t u t e Bldg. 57 Post S t . Phone Exbrook 2-2895 Associate Editor: Assistant Editor:
Richard G . Newhall David E. Gushee
E A S T O N , PA. 20th a n d N o r t h a m p t o n Sts. Phone Easton 9111 Associate Editor: C h a r l o t t e C. Sayre Editorial Assistants: Joyce A. Richards, Elizabeth R. Rufe, J u n e A . Barron EUROPEAN OFFICE Bush House, Aldwyeh, London Phone T e m p l e Bar 3605 Cable J I E C H E M Associate Editor: Albert S. Hester Advisory Board: Raoul Allstetter, Joseph W . B r i t t o n , Everette M . Burdick, Leland G . Cox, Charles H . Fisher, Leo R. Gardner, Joseph W . E. Harrison, Lloyd W . H a z l e t o n , Lea S. Hitchner, K e n n e t h D. Jacob, Allen B. L e m m o n , M a u r i c e H. Lockwood, W a l t e r H . M a c I n t i r e , George L. M c N e w , Olaf Mickelson, H e r b e r t E. Robinson, J . D. R o m a i n e , W a r r e n C. Shaw, Hazel K. Stiebling, J o h n C. Sylvester, Charles P. Zorsch Advertising Management REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. 430 Park Ave., New Y o r k 22, Ν . Υ . (For Branch Offices see p a g e 7 2 )
I
N A MATTER of days now, Congress will reconvene. As usual, con siderable controversy over farm programs old and new appears certain. And again this year, as in most years during the past decade, surpluses and how to prevent or dispose of them will b e among the chief topics of debate. More than in any recent year, perhaps, there appears to b e some hope of progress toward eventual solution of the perennial farm prob lem. For more and more voices are being raised against continual treatment of symptoms in lieu of attack on the root of the problem. In very recent weeks, particularly, there has been mounting evidence that agriculture's basic problem m a y finally b e treated with the healthy candor it needs. In an interview in the November-December issue of Farm Profit, agricultural economist Arthur Mauch of Michigan State University went straight to the point. "The truth, if we have the courage to face u p to it," Mauch declared, "is that the real surplus is of farmers themselves." An almost identical comment was m a d e late in November at a National Press C l u b luncheon in Washington, by Earl L. Butz, formerly Assistant Secretary of Agriculture and now dean of agri culture at P u r d u e University. Describing the heart of the farm problem as, again, a surplus of farmers, Butz declared that the best way to help the marginal farmer—the operator of an under-sized or under-developed farm—is to help him either to become a better and more efficient farmer, or to find employment in other fields in which his income opportunities are larger. "It is not at all coldblooded to suggest to a farmer that h e seek other employment if he can't make a living in farming," said Butz. In fact, it is coldblooded to attempt through legislative programs to keep him tied to a farm that is inadequate to provide a decent living for him and his family. Still another plea for realism appears in the just-issued report of the Committee for Economic Development. T h e C E D , a committee of 150 business executives and scholars whose research on economics and national policies is supported through business contributions, is frequently influential in shaping government policies. Its latest pro posal calls for a n e w farm program based on getting people and land—entire farms—out of agriculture. T h e C E D would not only retire as many as possible of the lowest income farms, but would also place in temporary retirement signifi cant numbers of whole farms with m e d i u m income. Once surpluses had b e e n used u p , and rising population h a d restored the need for rising farm output, the better farms would b e returned to active duty. The committee acknowledges that there is no difference between its objectives and those of existing Soil Bank programs. T h e purpose in each case is to eliminate production of surpluses, bringing supply and d e m a n d into balance so that farm prices can again b e determined in the market place. The C E D does, however, urge a major change in procedures, with a definite move away from the income-price support view of farm assistance. T h e committee would like to see both a more selective and a more extensive retirement of farm land from agriculture. Its proposed shift to free markets would b e accomplished by progressive reduction in price supports—accompanied by firm efforts to move low-income farmers into other occupations. Recent surveys have shown that the family farm is not disappear ing from the American scene. T h e family farm is, however, growing larger and more efficient; through increasing adoption of better equipment and methods, the use of more and better fertilizers and agricultural chemicals, and application of sound business procedures, it is attuning itself to this nation's modern pace. Elimination of marginal farms and reemployment of surplus farmers in other pur suits will in no wise alter the family character of American farming. Obviously it will r e d u c e the actual n u m b e r of farms, b u t this would only mean acceleration of a trend that has been operating for several decades. The marginal or subsistence-level farm is out of step with modern agriculture. Its disappearance will do no violence to the attractive ness of the American scene. Indeed, the scene should b e improved by removal of its least attractive elements. 76
AGRICULTURAL
AND
FOOD
CHEMISTRY
