Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
which amount would have to bo provided by the taxpayers, including fanners, in addition to well over $2,00,CK),000 a year in price supports and related payments required by existing laws.
The relatively few farmers in our area who would receive any direct benefits from the legislation could be pardoned for wondering why this whopping increase in the tax cost) of agricultural “stabilization would net them so little.
Last week, the President signed legislation providing for a huge reclamation project on the Colorado River in the West which will bring thousands of and acres into agricultural production at tremendous cost.
The 'farm bill then provided new encouragement for maximum production on allotted acreage of the basic price-supported crops by its high rigid supports .
But, in direct contradiction of these, the farm bill also set up the soil bank experiment at an inital annual cost of $1,200,000,000 in an effort to take thousands of acres out of production.
All the leading farm organizations supported a trial of the soil bank in one form or another, and I was impressed by these indorsements. It was, and is, my thought that the soil bank, as an experiment, might be worth a trial. In the form in which it finally was presented to us in the farm bill, however, it generated doubts and misgivings. I could not find in the costly trial program contained in the bill any substantial advantages for farmers of this area.
There appeared no practical way in which a livestock farmer could participate and continue to be a livestock fanner.
How could a poultry farmer make land deposits in such a bank ?
Unless a fruit farmer ripped out his trees and crossed off an investment of years ill their development how could he withdraw land from production and put it in the soil
69.3%