STATEMENT FILED BY JAMES E. VANDERWERken, Central Bridge, N. Y. Keeping cost account records in connection with Cornell University, we are able to present the following figures pertaining to the dairy enterprise on our farm. In the year 1954 we produced milk at an average cost of $5.90 per hundredweight and sold it for an average return of $3.98 per hundredweight. Our return per hour of labor was $0.50. However, this year feed prices are down from $5 to $10 per ton. The average price of milk for the first 8 months of this year has averaged $0.08 a hundredweight higher than last year. In addition to these factors, by our own efficiency and management we have been able to further reduce our cost of production. In view of these factors we feel there has been a considerable improvement in the dairy picture on our own farm. In addition, figures show that production is coming in line with consumption and the general dairy outlook is on the upswing operating under the present system of flexible supports. In talking with a group of 20 dairymen in Schoharie County, we do feel, however, that the Federal Government does have an obligation to the dairy industry, specifically in the field of marketing our product. We believe the field in which the Government can do the most good is in the line of dairy marketing orders, promotion, and research. We are opposed to any direct payments to farmers, regardless of what type of program it is sponsored under as we feel it would eventually lead to a socialized agriculture. STATEMENT FILED BY BERNARD M. BARUCH, NEW YORK, N. Y. During the farm depression of the 1920's, together with George Peek and Hugh Johnson, I took an active part in the fight for farm equality. We worked closely in those years with farm and legislative leaders in support of such programs and measures as cooperative marketing, agricultural credit and the McNary-Haugen bill, to alleviate the farm depression and place agriculture on an equal footing with other segments of the economy. I joined in drafting the farm plank in the 1928 Democratic Convention which pledged equality for agriculture. So I am naturally concerned with the present unmistakable farm distress. Its causes are in most respects the same as those which resulted in the farm depression of the twenties. Essentially, the problem is one of oversupply. During World War I, "Food will win the war" was one of the domestic battle cries. In the Second War too, agriculture played the same vital role. The United States had not only to feed and clothe its own huge armies, but those of its allies, to say nothing of the millions of civilians throughout the world who depended on us for sustenance. Consequently, agriculture was encouraged to expand its productivity to the utmost. Marginal lands were brought in. Farmworkers were exempted from the draft. As an added but unnecessary incentive the Government, at the insistence of farm leaders, granted agriculture 110 percent of parity. This, coupled with the exemption of labor from proper wartime controls, contributed to the inflation which is presently adding to the farmers' woes. Agriculture did all that was asked of it during the war. But with the restoration of more normal conditions afterward, the tremendous demand for American farm commodities declined. There was, however, no corresponding reduction in farm production. The huge, modern farm machine continued to operate at full speed, like a motor without a governor, pouring out surpluses. And under the workings of the law of supply and demand, prices have fallen. They would have fallen to catastrophic levels were it not for Government support programs. The present farm situation is not yet one of acute depression. But the threat is there. To meet the situation, three basic ends must be sought. First, we must seek to remove the existing surplus as a threat to the market. Second, we must try to discourage future surpluses. We must regulate the farm machine to bring supply more nearly in balance to demand. This means curtailing production. Third, we must seek expanded markets. To achieve the first end, the Government might well employ part of the present surplus for relief and humanitarian purposes. Such a program would not only win America friends abroad but would alleviate human suffering in such places as refugee camps and famine and disaster areas. Care should be taken that such aid does not infringe upon our own existing markets, or those of other countries. Only those entirely without means should qualify for such grants. As another and more important measure, the Government might well establish out of existing surpluses a permanent stockpile against future emergencies, par ticularly war. The Government has established stockpiles of critical materials against just such contingencies. Why should it not establish a stockpile of farm commodities as a ready reserve? Nothing would be more important in any future military emergency than an adequate supply, in hand, of foods and fibers. And why should not the present surplus be used for this reserve? If future circumstances permit the Government to sell part of the stockpile without depressing the market, it can do so. It may be necessary to build additional modern warehousing facilities to provide proper storage and to prevent deterioration and spoilage. The cost of these facilities in the long run, measured against the advantages which will accrue would not be significant. And if wheat stored in Egyptian tombs can remain alive for thousands of years, certainly modern science and technology can pro tect major items of our surplus for an infinitely shorter period. In order to reduce the production to keep supply in balance with demand, several steps are indicated. First of all, marginal lands should be taken out of production through Government purchase or rental. These lands could be planted in trees, thus adding to one of our important natural resources and aiding our conservation program. Each year would add to the value of these new forests. Second, the present system of acreage restrictions should be maintained. Third, parity guaranties should be placed upon a flexible basis to remove the incentive for maximum production. To expand our markets, both Government and industry should vigorously seek new uses for farm commodities, and particularly their byproducts. Every effort should be made to encourage increased consumption. To sum up: 1. Lift the pressure of existing surplus by using part of it for relief and the remainder as a Government stockpile against emergencies. 2. Take marginal lands out of production, planting them in trees to prove a new source of wealth. 3. Maintain acreage restrictions. 4. Place parity on a flexible basis to discourage excess production keeping always in mind that the primary purpose is to ultimately permit agriculture to enjoy full parity. 5. Expand our markets. By these interrelated actions much of the present farm problem could be overcome. Farm prices would be bolstered and farm income improve. Such a course of action would not, of course, be effective overnight. But within a reasonable period it could eliminate much of the present farm disequilibrium. In meeting the farm problem, the Government has a clearly defined role and responsibility. It was at the Government's behest that farmers undertook the expansion program which is presently one of the major sources of trouble. The Government and the Nation as a whole owe the farmer much not only for his contribution to the war effort but for his role in building the American economy to its present level of strength. Any assistance, however, must be based on sound economic principles and must be in harmony with the law of supply and demand. The farmers also have a responsibility to which I am sure they will rise. Intelligence and self-restraint are demanded of them as individuals and as a group. They are entitled to help. But the best assistance is that which will permit them to help themselves. STATEMENT FILED BY O. L. GRANT, LIBERTY, N. Y. I am Oscar Grant, age 58, Liberty, N. Y., owner and operator of a 300-acre dairy farm. I understand you want the views of farmers on how to improve the national farm program. My first idea is to drop, and drop fast, the present administration's squeeze program which is a disgrace to any nation or people. I call it the Farm Bureau and Extension Service program because the local Farm Bureau agent called meetings for farmers in Sullivan County and the college men came and told us the more farmers that were squeezed off the land the better it would be and if we wanted to continue farming we should let our wives do the farm work and get a job on the side to make ends meet. I didn't agree and wrote Dean Myers a few letters. He told me they had the same right to their opinion as I had to mine. I am sure your committee knows that getting rid of a few million farmers by this method will cause much suffering and even many untimely deaths. I was a Farm Bureau member for about 20 years but when they wanted me to fool the farmers and help get the dollars out of their milk checks I was through and I don't want any part in any organization with such ideas. I am glad I lived in the days when farmers were valued as much on the farm as in the Army and they are likely to be needed again. As far as dairy products go we all know there is not as much produced as could be used and I understand our present officials in Albany are using sections 258 C and J to protect monopolies and hinder consumers from buying milk at a fair price. Now, regarding parity, it is supposed to be a fair price and 90 percent is not fair. Neither one is anywhere near the nonfarm income level. I believe Mr. Truman once said the Brannan farm plan is the best plan, so if there is nothing better why not use it? I wrote Mr. Benson soon after he was appointed and told him he would be a one-term man unless he changed. We better have a change as soon as possible as I surely feel sorry for any young farmers who have started out with him. Thanks for your interest in coming here. I hope we will soon be seeing results. STATEMENT FILED BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY DAIRY COMMITTEE, DONALD Klemme, CHAIRMAN, FORT PLAIN, N. Y., ADDISON CHASE, SPRAKERS, N. Y., THEODORE BROWNGARDT, SPRAKERS, N. Y., WARREN CASLER, FORT PLAIN, N. Y., ALTON DILLENBECK, FONDA, N. Y., AND HARRY FRANCISCO, AMSTERDAM, N. Y. 1. Price support for dairy products: The best interests of dairy farmers will be served by price supports at a relatively low level. Production should be for consumption and not for sale to the Government. 2. Price support for basic commodities should be gradually reduced to a point where production adjusts to market demand without production controls. 3. Farmers should be allowed to grow grain for consumption on their own farms without penalty and without acreage limitations. 4. Federal motor fuel taxes: Motor fuel represents one of the rapidly increasing costs of agricultural production. Motor-fuel taxes are generally considered as revenue for highway construction and maintenance. Provision should be made for exemption of nonhighway motor fuel from this tax. 5. Selective service: Present selective-service regulations operating under the current situation in Montgomery County make it possible to secure deferment of essential farmworkers up to about age 23 years. At this age it becomes extremely difficult to secure continued deferment of these essential farmworkers. If these men must serve in the Armed Forces it would be less hardship for them to start their service at 18 to 19 years of age or at the completion of their education. Men 23 to 26 years of age have had opportunity to develop farming skills, some are making progress toward ownership of their farms, some are married and have families to support. The interests of both agriculture and these young people will be better served by a revision of the selective service regulations. SENATE AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE, TOMS RIVER, N. J., November 16, 1955. Utica, N. Y.: At the annual meeting of the Ocean County Board of Agriculture, November 15, 1955, the poultry members requested poultry farmers receive equal treatment with other types of agriculture. POULTRY MEMBERS OF THE OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, |