Farmers' Choice

Across the Great Plains last week the wheat rippled golden and willowy. Everywhere, wheat farmers seemed inclined to grumble about the weather, the farm program, or both. At week's end in 36 states the) trooped into courthouses, schoolrooms and church halls to vote on the system of federal wheat quotas--a crucial issue for farmers and the nation.

High price supports in recent years led to bumper crops and, eventually, an enormous surplus: 1 billion bushels of wheat, a whole year's supply (which cost the Government $2.5 billion, plus $150 million a year for storage fees). Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson cut the planted wheat acreage from 79 to 55 million, while the support price dropped from $2.24 a bushel to $2.06. To qualify for support payments, farmers had to accept quotas and acreage restrictions. They complained but complied. Result: the harvest fell from 1,300 million bushels in 1952 to 839 million this year.

For the 1956 crop, Secretary Benson cut the proposed support price again, to reduce production further. In last week's election, farmers were faced with a hard choice: to accept the quota restrictions and a support price of $1.81 a bushel for their wheat (76% of parity), or to reject the quotas and sell all they can at whatever price the market would bring. Without quotas, the supported price would be only $1.19 a bushel and to get that, farmers still would have to accept acreage restrictions. "It's not too good a choice," said South Dakota's Senator Francis Case, urging a yes vote for quotas. For a time, some farm reporters believed that quotas might get less than the two-thirds vote necessary for continuance. But when the votes were counted this week, they showed an easy victory for quotas and $1.81 wheat rather than no limits and $1.19. The vote: 254,197 to 73,852, or 77% in favor.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.