Farmers Gain From Soil Bank Plan

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28261, 26 April 1957, Page 11

Farmers Gain From Soil Bank Plan

[Specially written for the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER) (Rec. 9 p.m.) WASHINGTON, April 24. The Benson soil bank plan to change the face of agricultural America and to wipe out excessive surpluses has now been operating for a year and coincident with that birthday comes the announcement that the cost of living is up again. Farmers who received the soil bank plan sceptically and taxpayers who had little or no interest in it are now beginning to review the results of the plan. The farmers seem happy and the taxpayers most unhappy. As one commentator puts it, the soil bank Plan is not going to reduce much except the National Treasury because the plan has loopholes big enough to drive a tractor through. The plan is reducing some surpluses, but now threatens to create others that could be equally embarrassing in size and equally expensive to store. In theory the soil bank is a *ay of saying the Government Pays the farmers not to grow things, especially maize, wheat and cotton, with which granaries and warehouses are bursting. In Jact and in operation the word yank” has come to have a special ?*Snificance for it has put money in the bank for many farmers Without materially affecting the ; Problem of surpluses. The plan, in theory, has taken r® million acres out of production, i °ut in fact well over half of this 1 15 planted in other commercial ■ and the taxpayer is paying ;

handsomely for land which really is not idle. Less maize, wheat and cotton are being planted, but the acreage of rye and soyabeans has increased considerably and surpluses of those crops are forecast. i There have been very few complaints from the farmers in recent months for they seem to have discovered some of the loopholes in the plan and are benefitting thereby. An exhaustive survey of the soil bank plan has turned up some remarkable facts. For instance, one week-end farmer in the east who bought a 200-acre farm as a country retreat, instead of losing money as he had for some time, put the entire farm in the soil bank plan and collects from the Government 2200 dollars a year in subsidy and retains a pleasant place in which to live. Down in the Deep South, where “King Cotton” once ruled, a businessman who had never farmed bought cotton land at 35 dollars an acre and entered into an agreement with the Government to turn it into forest land. The Government pays 80 per cent, of the cost of this and then pays the businessman six dollars an acre for keeping it out of cotton production. In 10 years he will have made almost 100 per cent, profit on his investment and still have the land and a flourishing timber crop. A story from the Mid-west is much the same. One farmer put 50 acres of his maize land into the soil bank and gets 2000 dollars annually from the Government

for doing so. His 50 acres used to produce maize worth only 1000 dollars a year. But it did not stop there. He put his 50 acres into rye, wheat and soyabeans. In fact, he has more land under cultivation than ever before and gets his 2000-dollar subsidy while producing more food than before. These are not extreme cases nor rare ones. Similar stories come from all parts of the country and it is reasonably clear that the soil bank plan is working quite well for the farmer, both professional and amateur, but not so well for the Government and its aim of reducing surpluses of millstone proportions. The Government is about to conclude an agreement with Poland by which food surpluses will be reduced, but it will take several such agreements to make any real reduction. And in the meantime the surpluses of other foods threaten to roll up because of the soil bank plan and its loopholes. The press in various places is hammering the plan with acid comment and headlines such as “Soil Bank is Bust.” Congress has, of course, taken note and some comment there has been sharp, but whether, in the legislative whirlpool that has developed in Washington, anyone will have any time to do anything about it this year looks doubtful. Surpluses are still with us.

Rosewall Beats Gonzales.—For the second night in succession, Ken Rosewall beat Pancho Gonzales. Rosewall, who now trails Gonzales, 37-18 in their matches, won 6-3, 6-4.—White Plains (New York), April 24.