| OCR Text |
Show Lefs Face Facts 'All Out Food Effort Would Revolutionize Entire Farm Economy By BARROW LYONS I WNU Slaff Corotpondonf ' (This is one of a series of exclusive articles on the current fertilizer situ-QtionJ situ-QtionJ Whether or not we have produced enough fertilizer to enable the farm- er to meet war TTPTT'X food needs is hot-t hot-t tysi V ' '& ly debated by men responsible 2" , i for the nation's 0t' m food program. rM ' '3, ?? The answer de- VrvU- I Pcnds uPn one's 44'Jw;- I Pint of vic'w: but i Jilt's "t j we can start from ii two premises ip-V- on which all can """ agree. These are: Harrow Lyons J- The Uniled States is not going to have all of the food it wants this year. On February 7, the National Live Stock Producers' association warned that despite the rush of meat now going to market "within a short period of only 60 days this country will be practically on a famine basis with respect to the supply of beef." It added: "By the end of 90 days the pork supply will have shifted from a ) feast to a famine basis." Department of agriculture estimates esti-mates indicate less serious shortages, short-ages, but on the important item of cheese, which is a meat substitute, a decline of 18 per cent in civilian consumption is foreseen, and a drop of 23 per cent in condensed and evaporated milk supply is indicated. 2. It is also established that a larger fertilizer supply could increase in-crease food production greatly, if a way were found to put the fertilizer to use on the land. Difference in Viewpoint From these premises it might seem like an easy jump to the conclusion con-clusion that the department of agriculture ag-riculture and fertilizer companies ought to put on a campaign to induce in-duce farmers to adopt the best modern mod-ern farming methods. Examination, however, of the attitudes of those who believe this should be done, and those who do not, reveals broad grounds for disagreement. The point of view of the TVA is that food needs should be estimated in the same manner as requirements require-ments for ships, planes, tanks and guns on the basis of what is needed to win the war. If more food is needed, and using more fertilizer is the most economical method of growing more food and saving labor, then we must have more fertilizer even if the government must pay for it and distribute it below cost. The men directing the fertilizer industry, together with many others, oth-ers, regard the TVA as a "socialistic" "social-istic" experiment which threatens Independent enterprise. And they regard in much the same light the soil conservation program of the Agricultural Ag-ricultural Adjustment agency, under which hundreds of thousands of tons of fertilizer have been delivered to farmers in exchange for practicing 6oil conservation, which often involves in-volves considerable labor. Furthermore, the industry points to the steady growth in the use of fertilizer in recent years. This year it is estimated some 12,000,000 tons of fertilizer will be consumed in the United States, compared with 7,548,-000 7,548,-000 tons in 1938 an increase of 52 per cent in five years. This rate of increase is just about as fast as farmers are likely to change their fertilizing habits, the industry maintains. main-tains. And to clinch their argument argu-ment they point out that the sale of fertilizer has closely followed the cash income of farmers; and they don't see the cash income of farmers farm-ers rising much higher. Critical Materials? From its point of view, the War Production board argues that if we can produce enough food without building new fertilizer plants, we shall save critical materials. The department of agriculture has different problem. One of its leading lead-ing agronomists, Dr. Walter C. Low-dermilk, Low-dermilk, points out that if the marginal mar-ginal land in this country were retired re-tired for pasture and fruit crops, and just the good land placed under intensive cultivation, it could then support a population of more than 300,000,000 persons some say 450,-000,000. it is clear that If the yield of most of the best land were to be increased in-creased by one-third, as much of it could be by application of the best farming methods, that hundreds of thousands of marginal farmers might become little, better than American peasants, and the farmers farm-ers with best farms, most capital and greatest initiative would be very much better off. . When one looks at such a problem through the eyes of government, one auddrnly beholds a political nightman). night-man). The fertilizer companies, however, howev-er, are moving forward steadily. They have carried on for years a campaign to increase the use1 ol fertilizer economically. Thi "so. cialistlc" plan that TVA has Intro-duced, Intro-duced, seems unpleasantly "revolutionary" "revolu-tionary" to them. But we are now faced with; a erious meat shortage, the livestock men assert. Milk and butter may not be too plentiful. Even as it is, not all farmers wil' get as much fertilizer as they request, re-quest, because of difficulties in pro-faction, pro-faction, transportation and labor. |
