Mr. CHAMBERS. We know that much of the grain produced across the United States, particularly wheat, is grown on dry farm land. It is my opinion that we could, along with the ASC payments, possibly $10 or $15 an acre, get a great percentage of them. In the Cotton Belt, or Corn Belt, it is my opinion we would have to go up to around $35 to $40 an acre to get it taken out. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how much that would cost? Mr. CHAMBERS. It would cost about a billion and a half dollars. The CHAIRMAN. Much more than the present program. Mr. CHAMBERS. $400 or $500 million to store commodities at the present time, and no doubt, twice and a half, or three times that much would put it in soil. The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is in the Record today, that is, in the Congressional Record, a statement showing that on the support commodities for the past 20 years or so up to December 31st of last year, the cost of the entire program was only $1,150 million. Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not have those figures. The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is what it is. So the program you are now talking about would now probably cost a little more if your suggestions were followed. Proceed. Mr. CHAMBERS. We have 5,000 canning crop growers in our Utah State Canning Crops Association. Canning crops in the United States of America represent $275 million annually to growers and five times that at the consumers' level. Canning tomatoes are one of the most important processing vegetables. It is estimated that for the year 1955 there will be approximately 3,218,630 tons of processing tomato growers in the United States. As a representative of the canning crops industry I am particularly interested in tomatoes. On behalf of our Utah Canning Crop Growers Association, I appeal to you and your association to use your best efforts to enact legislation providing that tomatoes be included in the Marketing Agreement Act so that we may have the right to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for the imposition of orders and agreements upon the approval of the requisite vote or assent. I would also appreciate having fruits and other processing vegetables considered. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chambers. Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Shone. STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. SHONE, POULTRY DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, SEBASTOPOL, CALIF. Mr. SHONE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Robert A. Shone. I am a poultryman in Sonoma County. I have been engaged in the poultry business as a producer continuously since 1928. I am also chairman of the California Farm Bureau Federation Poultry Department. Although my remarks are made as an individual poultryman, I believe they reflect the general thinking of poultrymen throughout the State. The 1954 cash receipts from eggs, chicken meat and turkeys in California totaled $246,739,000. This production came from approximately 75,000 farms. I think that places us fourth among agricultural products, if I may say so. On many occasions poultrymen of California have reiterated their belief that price-support programs have created more problems than they have solved, that they have contributed to overproduction and delayed the postwar adjustment of supply to demand. The industry believes that it can adjust its production problems within and by itself without Government price support. The great majority of poultrymen are therefore not in favor of this type of Government program. As a producer of poultry products, I find that the cost of grain and feedstuffs are well over half of the total cost of production. Since the cost of grains and feedstuffs are such a large part of the overall cost of production, in my opinion the poultry industry carries an undue burden when it buys grain at support levels while surpluses of grains are allowed to accumulate in huge quantities. I point this out as one of the flagrant inequities of the support program. The poultry producers have felt that the use of section 32 funds has tended to encourage overproduction, especially in turkeys. However, there are opportunities to consider the use of section 32 funds in disposing of hen meat, which is a byproduct. Poultrymen generally feel that the greatest service Government can extend to the poultry industry is in the field of research to reduce cost of production, to improve marketing methods, to find new market outlets-domestic and foreign. We also urge that the Government undertake a more active part in disease and parasite control, and that vaccines for poultry be standardized. Poultrymen are not interested in price so much as in net farm income. It would seem logical, therefore, for governmental participation to place emphasis on bringing supply and demand into balance, development of research to reduce cost of production, and education on the increased use of protein foods by the consumer. Poultrymen believe that such an approach will be far more beneficial to the economy than any artificial price-support program which builds huge surpluses in Government hands at public expense. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee to express my views. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shone. You are, of course, aware of the fact that during the last Congress we provided quite a few more million dollars for research along the lines suggested. Mr. SHONE. That is greatly appreciated. The CHAIRMAN. And we hope to continue that. Mr. SHONE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Our next witness is Mr. Swim. Give us your full name and your occupation. STATEMENT OF HARRY A. SWIM, CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, SANTA ROSA, CALIF. Mr. SWIM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Harry A. Swim. I am a fruit producer in Santa Rosa, Calif. This statement is for the California State Grange. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir. Mr. SWIM. We are concerned with the welfare of the small farmer and poultryman in California, as well as the Nation at large, believing that present economic situations have placed the small farm operator and poultry raiser in a serious financial and economic position. In a large number of cases he has been forced out of business. In my own county, which is Sonoma County, where over 2,000 farmers are trying to make a living off of poultry raising, the total poultry income was $8 million less than 1953. This is in spite of the fact that more eggs were produced in 1954 than in 1953. This information was taken from the Agricultural Commissioner's Annual Report. These small commercial egg producers' annual income, as you see, has been so greatly reduced and makes it almost impossible for him to stay in business. If he continues, he must enlarge his flock to a point where he becomes a large commercial operator. Very few of us are in a position to do this; therefore, the poultry business would be left in the hands of the large operators. This condition has been brought about first by the past and present high Government price supports on grains, which are principally our poultry feeds. These support prices have piled up huge surpluses of these grains, forcing us to pay high prices for these products while our products must be sold in the open market, much of the time below the cost of production. Cost studies made through the agricultural extension service of the University of California over the last 31 years have shown the average yearly price of market eggs to vary only slightly from year to year over that period. Today the price of a dozen eggs is very close to the price received 31 years ago, while the cost of feed is nearly 100 percent higher over the same period of time. During this time labor costs have advanced about 300 percent. Thus the poultryman is caught in a two-way squeeze. We never know from day to day what we will receive for our products. In view of this we offer for your consideration the following recommendations: First, that any price support or subsidy have a limit on each producer, thus eliminating the larger commercial farmer and, in some cases, speculators and processors. Second, that a support be maintained for all segments of agriculture. Therefore assuring us an income equal to other groups of agriculture, and consequently maintaining a strong national economy. Third, that the poultryman be given access to the large and burdensome surpluses of feed grains, thus helping to balance their economic position. Fourth, as an immediate relief to the market egg producer, we recommend that the Government buy, at once in the open market, large amounts of present egg surpluses. These purchases should then be disposed of at once through public-school free-lunch programs and to the low-income group. We recommend that none of these purchases be stored against next year's production, but be disposed of at once. The CHAIRMAN. Would you give us an amount? You say that there ought to be a limitation on the amount paid. Mr. SWIM. Well, it has been suggested as $2,500. |