The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Pfaffinger. STATEMENT OF FRANK X. PFAFFINGER, PRESIDENT, POULTRYMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VAN NUYS, CALIF. Mr. PFAFFINGER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: My name is Frank X. Pfaffinger. For 11 years I have been a poultryman engaged in commercial egg production in a poultry plant which has been continuously operated by members of my family since 1911. I also serve as president of Poultrymen's Cooperative Association of Southern California which is owned and operated by some 2,300 poultrymen. This association manufactures and distributes feed to its members, markets their eggs, and acquires for them supplies needed in poultry production. By unanimous action of its board of directors, I have been asked to speak for the association as well as for myself in opposing Government supports or subsidies in the poultry industry. We well remember the disastrous dried-egg program of the Federal Government which was in effect soon after the termination of World War II. It was very costly and wasteful and as long as it was continued resulted in preventing the adjustment of production of poultry and poultry products to existing demands. Similarly, high support prices for other agricultural commodities have inevitably resulted in extremely burdensome surpluses. We believe that the maladjustments in supply and demand for poultry and poultry products can and will be more quickly and more economically corrected by the industry itself than by Government through supports or subsidies. We oppose all agricultural supports to guarantee operating profits and favor them only for prevention of economic disaster to agriculture. Prices paid by poultrymen for grains and other feed commodities have been unduly high and many times there have been market shortages when burdensome supplies were in Government hands. Feeders of such commodities should be entitled to the same consideration as is accorded growers of feedstuffs. Farmers' cooperatives, as a means of self-help in agricultural industry, are of tremendous importance to the Nation's economy. We believe they should continue to be encouraged by the Congress, and we deplore the actions of those Members of both Houses who would destroy them through punitive legislation. Poultry research by the United States Department of Agriculture should be intensified in order to assist the industry especially in the enlargement of its market outlets and in the control of poultry diseases. Thank you for the opportunity to present our point of view, which I believe reflects the desires of the majority of commercial poultrymen of southern California. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Griset. Give your full name and occupation for the record. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND GRISET, VICE CHAIRMAN, RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF., LIMA BEAN ADVISORY BOARD, AND MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CALIFORNIA LIMA BEAN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. Mr. GRISET. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the vice chairman of the Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., Lima Bean Advisory Board, and a member of the board of directors of the California Lima Bean Growers Association. The first organization represents all of the lima-bean growers, and the second organization markets and distributes 60 percent of the lima beans in California. This crop is restricted to the State of California entirely. We have had only a few years experience with the support program. Since we are a small industry, with less than 500 growers, it is possible to get a pretty close look at the problems and the feelings of these growers. There are a few of us who feel that the support program has solved our problems either long or short term. Many of us, too, are a little ashamed that we have needed and accepted help from the Government program. It would be safe to say that all of us who have had any direct contact with the distribution of our crop have seen the distressing effect of the program that is felt all throughout the channels of distribution. It is difficult to interest people in handling a product when the chance of doing so at a profit has been reduced. Perhaps an incident from the experience of the California Lima Bean Growers Association will serve to illustrate both the effect on the markets and the feeling of the growers. Last spring at a meeting of the association directors, the manager read a letter from the association broker in the Donora area of Pennsylvania in which he tried to explain why he was selling fewer beans than in the previous year. In the stores where he sells beans, he found himself competing with beans given free to unemployed miners under the relief program. He was not criticizing the miners for taking the free beans for their distress was real enough. He was not, strangely enough, worried about the bean growers whose beans he was trying to sell, because as he said, "After all, you got your money." And, indeed, we had. His primary concern was that he was caught between 2 Government programs, 1 to help the distressed miners, and another to help the struggling farmers, and his business was being ruined. His letter served to emphasize to the association directors, the effect of the support program on the beam business. There we were already planting our 1955 crop, finding it difficult to sell our 1954 crop because we were in competition with the beans that we had sold to the Commodity Credit Corporation from the 1953 crop. Although the support price had been reduced at the rate of about $1 each year that we had used the program, we still had more beans than we could sell in 1954. And let me say here that we are not finding fault with the flexible support idea. The fact that we were still planting more beans than we could sell in 1954, despite two successive reductions in the support price would seem to indicate that either we were still making money at the reduced price or that we did not have good sense. The CHAIRMAN. Does not that indicate that the flexible price support does not mean less production? Mr. GRISET. It has meant less production. I have those figures if you would like to have them. The CHAIRMAN. You just indicated though, that it meant more production-you produced more. Mr. GRISET. No; we still had more than we could sell. We were producing less. The CHAIRMAN. Yo increased the acreage, though. Mr GRISET. No; our acreage was less. The CHAIRMAN. I misunderstood the statement then. Mr. GRISET. We still had more beans to sell, although the price had been reduced for 2 years straight. If we assume that the support program was designed to insure a fair farm income through the control of surpluses, then it must follow that in the case of lima beans, at least, it has not entirely succeeded. In September of this year nature accomplished in a week's time what the support program and the farmers had failed to do in several years trying. A short spell of unusual weather in the bean-growing areas of southern California reduced the 1955 crop to such an extent that this year we will be able to sell all of the crop through the regular channels of trade, and the few remaining stocks of Government beans should also disappear by the end of this marketing season. We are, therefore, going into the crop year of 1956 with a clean slate. I am far from alone in feeling that this would be a good time and perhaps the only time for many years to take the lima-bean industry out of the support program and again try the old-fashioned way. We have an advisory board set up under the State Market Act which is carrying out a vigorous advertising and trade promotion program. The feeling is growing among the members of the board that this program will yield better results in a free market. Not all of the growers have had the opportunity to see the effects of the support program upon the actual distribution of beans, and it may take a little reeducation to prepare them for such a step. There is time before the planting of the 1956 crop for this effort at reeducation and for the growers to express themselves on this vital matter. I should like to see the effort made. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Chair will file a statement which has been submitted to him from the Kerman Co-op Gin & Warehouse, Inc., at this point in the record. STATEMENT FILED BY H. D. BATEMAN, PRESIDENT, KERMAN CO-OP GIN & As medium-sized diversified cottongrowers of the Kerman community, we represent 140 growers. These are the basic ideas of this group: Due to the continual stockpiling of surpluses, we feel something should be done to offset this condition. Favoring a subsidy in cotton and making it competitive with world cotton, we realize we cannot continue to grow more cotton than we use domestically and export and still we cannot exist on our land with any less allotment than we have at present. 64440-56-pt. 4- -6 It is the feeling of our growers that cotton should be supported 90 percent of parity. Due to our production cost continually increasing and our severe cut in cotton allotment, we will be unable to produce cotton at a less figure. We are in favor of amending the cotton-allotment law so each grower receives his allotment on the basis as it is allotted to the State. In other words if the State is allotted on a 5-year basis, the growers should also be allotted on a 5-year basis. Our belief is that part of the cotton-control law which allows an individual grower to raise cotton in excess of his allotment with a penalty of 17% cents a pound be changed any year that controls are in effect. An individual should be allowed to market cotton from his allotted acreage only. Some areas in the Cotton Belt could raise cotton with a penalty and realize a profit thereby adding to the large surplus of cotton. We are writing these ideas to you as our agricultural representatives to give you some ideas of things vital to our existence as medium-sized diversified cottongrowers. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mrs. Laura Shephard. Will you please step forward and give us your name in full, and your occupation? STATEMENT OF MRS. GRACE MCDONALD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA FARM RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, SANTA CLARA, CALIF. Mrs. McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am Grace McDonald, and not Mrs. Shephard. I am the executive secretary of the California Farm Research and Legislative Committee. I have a letter from Mrs. Shephard from the Imperial Valley Beekeepers Association, asking me to present her statement. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, that may be presented for the record. (The letter dated October 25, 1955 is as follows:) Mrs. GRACE MCDONALD, CALEXICO, CALIF., October 25, 1955. California Farm Research and Legislative Committee, Santa Clara, Calif. MY DEAR GRACE: Thank you for your recent letter relative to the hearings November 2 before the Senate committee. It is difficult for me to find a substitute in school so that I am not planning to attend the hearings. However, I have permission to file a paper. I am enclosing this paper, and requesting you to take care to give it to the chairman of the committee. It would give me great pleasure to be present and to talk with you. I have a kindly feeling for your committee and respect for your work. Very truly yours, IMPERIAL VALLEY BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION, Mrs. McDONALD. This is an official statement from the Imperial Valley Beekeepers Association, Calexico, Calif., submitted by Mrs. Laura Shephard, who is a member of our committee and who has asked us to present it. Mrs. Shephard and the Imperial Valley California Beekeepers Association of Calexico, Calif., call attention to the value of the honeybee in pollinating fruit and seed crops, stating that more than 80 percent of insect pollination is acomplished by honeybees, and that this service is becoming more valuable each year as wild pollinators are destroyed by increasing use of insecticides, which probably California excels in. The Imperial Valley Beekeepers Association presents tables from 1947 through 1955 showing reduction in bee colonies amounting to 678,000 colonies. They attribute this reduction to flexible price supports through which the Secretary of Agriculture, although authorized to support honey at 90 percent of parity in 1949, allowed supports of only 60 percent in 1950 and 1951 and 70 percent thereafter." The tables show there is no surplus of honey; in fact, there is a world shortage. They conclude: It is evident that loans should continue to be made available to the producer, but that loans should be made at 90 percent of parity. Since it is unlikely that officials in the Department of Agriculture can be influenced to do this, the increase in support price should be mandatory and accomplished by legislation. The association further asks that the Department be required to establish goals for bee population according to the pollination needs of agriculture. The full statement and authorization to our committee for transmittal at this hearing is attached herewith. The CHAIRMAN. The statement may be incorporated in the record at this point. STATEMENT FILED BY MRS. LAURA SHEPHARD, SECRETARY, IMPERIAL VALLEY BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION, CALEXICO, CALIF. I am Laura Shephard, a member of the Imperial Valley Beekeepers Association. With my nephew, I own and operate 5,000 colonies of bees in Imperial County, Calif. In 1949 price support on honey was made mandatory from 60 to 90 percent of parity. Thus Congress signified a desire to make beekeeping solvent and to check the downward trend in bee population. In this paper, then, I shall attempt to determine whether the legislation has been administered to accomplish these objectives and will try to suggest a remedy. If the value of the honeybee in pollinating fruit and seed crops of the United States were given consideration, officials in the Department of Agriculture would have set the support price at 90 percent of parity. It has been estimated that more than 80 percent of the insect pollination is accomplished by honeybees, a service which is becoming more valuable each year as wild pollinator's are destroyed by the increasing use of insecticides. The reluctance of officials in the Department of Agriculture to administer price-support legislation so as to increase the price paid to the honey producer is shown by the following statistics: |