Choice gleanings from 45-plus years of Unregistered Bull.

            That we’re living in a more or less “managed economy” that is becoming more managed all the time is hardly to be doubted by anybody capable of reading the daily papers. Industries not completely regulated by the federal government and its bureaus are nevertheless subject to government influence to an extent which occasionally brings a sharp gasp of realization.

            Cattlemen like to point with pride to their freedom from government subsidy and corresponding freedom of action. But witness how easily and swiftly the government made itself felt in the cattle industry through the recent hide export regulation. Packers claim reduction of hide exports will cost ranchers and feeders a few dollars a head.

There are numerous other ways in which the government can influence beef prices, of course. From time to time this influence has been benevolent, as when vast purchases of beef were made for the school lunch program and other government uses, and when import quotas were set up.

On the other hand, the government could act to depress prices just as easily — through changes in import regulations, manipulation of feed grain prices, tax policies, or myriad other means at its disposal.

            Wool growers have had their business managed by the government for several years, and so have cotton farmers. Their business hasn’t thrived.

            In the March 18 issue of Texas Farm Bureau’s newsletter “Facts for You,” the editor takes up the subject of government management and promotion programs in the wool and cotton industries. A bill titled H.R. 12322 — the Cotton Research and Promotion Act — now before Congress would make it mandatory for farmers to contribute $1 per bale of cotton they raise to a promotion program.

            The Farm Bureau editor says this is no good, and he cites the wool industry as evidence to support his opposition:

            “The wool program was first enacted in 1954 and has been in operation since that date. The program has failed to produce the desired results, and the reasons are obvious. The problem with cotton and wool is government management, and no amount of promotion is going to cure the ill.

            “The record with regard to the wool program is most interesting. The (American) Sheep Producers Council’s budget dated July 1, 1965 through June 30, 1966 is estimated at $2.9 million. The budget for the previous year was $3.125 million. The Council’s budget for the past three years has averaged $3.1 million per year. The obvious question is, what have the producers bought with this money?”

            He answers in his own way by saying total production of fiber in the U.S. has been increasing, but production of cotton and wool have not increased. Per capita mill consumption of cotton during the past five years was 77.12 percent of mill consumption during the five years from 1950-54; for wool, per capita mill consumption during the past five years was 34.29 percent of consumption in the preceding five years. But per capital mill consumption of man-made fibers for the past five years is 134.81 percent for the 1950-54 period.

            “Prices received by producers for cotton have changed very little for the period, but wool prices have dropped about 18 cents per pound,” the newsletter says. “The simple conclusion is that cotton has done much better than wool under a free promotion program.

            “Cotton and wool have been largely managed by federal planners with the exception of cotton promotion. No amount of research and promotion will ever put cotton and wool in competition with man-made fiber simply because cotton and wool are managed and the man-made fiber is free.

            “How would you like to be engaged in a fight and have your activities directed from the sideline by a manager, and your opponent be free?”

            The Farm Bureau’s questions regarding the wool promotion program will not be welcomed by ASPC boosters who, even now, are urgently pleading for an increase in the automatic deduction from the present one cent to 1½ cents a grease pound. Nor will it be greeted gleefully by those who want cotton farmers to be forced to contribute a dollar a bale for promotion.

            Maybe it would be a wholesome thing for the ASPC as well as proponents of the cotton plan to challenge the Texas Farm Bureau. An open debate, the hotter the better, would at least furnish growers some diversion and perhaps stimulate some worthwhile progress toward better market prices.

            Meanwhile, we’ll probably see synthetic fibers continue their inroads on the market previously dominated by wool and cotton.

            The Farm Bureau writer gloomily suggests the only solution to this problem is to get man-made fibers under government management, along with the natural products.

            “Then,” he says, “the politicians will decide which one will produce how much and at what price.” —(S.F. 03/24/66)