The usefulness of the production possibility curve for the empirical testing of international trade theory is demonstrated. Agricultural and manufacturing production functions are estimated for the United States and Northern Europe by use of techniques suggested by Griliches. The estimates show decreasing returns to capital and labor in agriculture and approximately constant returns in manufacturing. These estimates of the production function are used to derive production possibility curves for the United States and West Germany. International trade theory leads to the conclusion that the United States has, vis‐à‐vis West Germany, a comparative advantage in the relatively capital‐intensive farming and a comparative disadvantage in the relatively labor‐intensive manufacturing.

Dodder causes sufficient agricultural losses to be considered a noxious weed in many states. Seed certification regulations help to restrict the spread of this prolific seed producer, but it is very difficult to clean out of many small-seeded crops. Once dodder has infested a seed production area, susceptible crops may be limited for several years since many species of dodder may infest more than one host.

Elasticities of production for nine input categories in U.S. agriculture were estimated with the assumption that factor shares adjust to the production elasticity with a distributed lag. A Cobb‐Douglas production function was formulated from the estimated production elasticities and used to show the economically optimum level and combination of aggregate resources in U.S. agriculture. Adjustment to the least‐cost input combination which would produce the actual average 1952–1961 output would have reduced the actual input dollar volume by $1.9 billion, or 5.6 percent. Adjustment of farm resources to an equilibrium level, with all resources earning an opportunity‐cost return would have entailed a reduction of 4.2 billion 1947–1949 dollars, or 12.5 percent of the actual input volume. The cost of excess capacity was approximately $2.2 billion or 6.6 percent of the resource volume; the cost of a nonoptimal input mix was $2.0 billion or 5.9 percent of the resource volume. Two‐fifths of agricultural labor was estimated to be in excess supply in the 1952–1961 period.

The contributions of the late Henry A. Wallace to agriculture, especially in the field of agricultural economics, are reviewed by one who worked with him during his years as Secretary of Agriculture. His early studies in agricultural prices, his pioneer use of statistical tools in price prediction, and his work on hybridizing corn are recalled. His work as Secretary included drafting competent agricultural economists for key posts in the Department, insisting on careful economic study as a prelude to decision making, establishing a Consumer's Council as a watchdog for consumer interests, and improving conditions for farmers through production control, soil conservation, government purchase and storage of surplus crops, rural resettlement, and rural electrification. As Vice‐President, he created the Board of Economic Warfare and directed its planning toward achieving the right kind of peace. As Secretary of Commerce, he supported the Full Employment Act. After his retirement from public life, he continued to work on increasing the productivity of poultry and farm plants. Throughout his life, his concern for the common man in the underdeveloped nations led him to support proposals which later were actualized in such organizations as the FAO and AID.