Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Western light amber table honey has been chosen for price comparison, for the West is the area where exists the greatest number of producers who sell large supplies of honey on the wholesale market. Light amber honey was selected because it is the honey in greatest volume in the United States, since it is the characteristic honey of the South and of many areas in the West. Its price then is an important factor. In 1954 and 1955 the support price of light amber table honey was reduced by transferring it to the same price classification as nontable honey, an arbitrary and capricious act which officials have never been able to explain. Members of the committee who received the small cans of Imperial Valley light amber table honey will remember its excellent quality.

The effect on the market price of various methods of price support will be discovered by studying these statistics: In 1948 there was a buying program from packers, which affected the market price very little; in 1949 there was no government program of any kind; in 1950 and 1951 mandatory price support was implemented only by purchase programs from packers and the market price continued low; in 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955 a loan program was authorized, and the market rose above support level. Each year that price support has been in operation until 1955 an export subsidy has taken a large supply of honey from the domestic market early in the marketing year and transferred it to Europe. In 1955 the export subsidy has not been authorized, and low-priced American honey in Europe is no longer a factor in depressing the world market. The following statistics indicate what has been happening to bee population:

[blocks in formation]

1 Figures obtained by adding domestic production to imports and subtracting exports.

If one compares the amount of honey consumed in 1952 with the annual production, it is apparent that there is no surplus of honey in the United States. In 1952 there was a large crop and consumption increased because the honey was available for use. In 1953 consumption decreased because from a short crop 32 million pounds were exported under subsidy, and the United States market was left short of honey. Since there is apparently a world shortage of honey, this domestic shortage could not be relieved by imports, for only 9,785,000 pounds were imported. I do not have complete figures for 1954, but the story will be the same as that of 1953, for again there was a short crop and an export subsidy stimulating export early in the marketing year, so that honey was in shortage throughout the year. In 1955 there was no export subsidy, but the loan program was continued. At the present time only 211,510 pounds of honey are under loan in the United States. It is difficult to read a surplus of honey in these figures, but officials of the Department have managed to delude themselves by concentrating on the activity in shipping honey abroad under the export subsidy.

The most alarming figures are those which indicate a decrease of 678,000 colonies of bees since 1947. The number of colonies in the United States in 1947 was deemed inadequate for proper pollination of agriculture, and price support was supposed to increase bee population. That it has not checked a downward trend which began in 1948 can be explained by the low price ideas of officials administering the program for price support. In 1954 I requested that officials in the Department make a study of the cost of producing honey in various areas in the United States, but they replied that it would be impossible to correlate support prices with the beekeepers' cost of production. Of course, that is what a producer does whenever he pays his bills, and evidently the result is unfortunately reflected in a decreasing bee population. I regret, however, that officials in the Department were obdurate on this matter, for I desired definite figures for your consideration.

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 Department should be required to establish goals for bee population according to the pollination needs of agriculture, and if in the distant future bee population should be deemed excessive, limits can be set on increase of colonies by beekeepers. If production payments were made, it is unlikely that any money need be paid to beekeepers if such a program were accomplished by a proper administration of the loan program.

Mrs. McDONALD. At the suggestion of Mr. Dick, I have been asked to consolidate two other short statements to save your time. One is by Mr. Burr, about apples, and the other is by Mr. Williams, on raisins. They are very short.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mrs. McDONALD. We decided to save your time by consolidating the whole thing. [Reading:]

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE E. BURR, SEBASTOPOL, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee, heretofore, the price paid growers for their apples has been based upon speculation, not on supply and demand. Chain stores, national foods and commission men have arbitrarily set the price, both to the producer and consumer, hijacking both, coming and going.

We want a law to compel the United States Department of Agriculture to determine the actual potential demand for apples, based upon the ability of the public to buy, and the supply necessary to meet that demand, with a fair profit to producer, processor, commission man, and retailer.

If the supply threatens to exceed the demand, steps should be taken-purchase for the school-lunch program, for relief, a food-stamp plan, shipment abroad to remove potential surpluses from trade channels.

When apples bring only 5 cents a pound f. o. b. to the grower and then sell for 20 cents to 27 cents at the retail level, there is something wrong. That is what we found out on a recent trip through the South and Midwest.

We want the Federal Trade Commission to make a study of the price spread between what the grower gets and what the consumer pays for apples. If the FTC is unable or refuses to make such a study, it should be undertaken by a committee of Congress.

I believe such a study is in contemplation, but has so far not been authorized.

The next statement is submitted on behalf of Mr. E. B. Williams, Fresno, raisin grower, and member of our committee. [Reading:]

For several years raisins have been marketed under a Federal marketing agreement and order. The stated purpose of the program is to achieve a price approaching parity.

However, raisin growers have not been receiving the returns they should under its control.

In the last 8 crop seasons-not including the 1950-51 crop to which the order did not apply-4 of which have been under the agreement, growers received an average of $153 a ton.

In 4 seasons not under the agreement, the price averaged $209 a ton. During this period, the parity price of raisins exceeded $210 a ton.

Mr. Williams wishes to reserve the right to file with the Senate Agriculture Committee a separate statement proposing revisions of the Marketing Act of 1937 (as amended) to make it more workable in protecting the interests of growers.

Mrs. SHEPHARD. These are the three statements, Senator Ellender. I would like to also call your attention to the fact that we have representatives from poultry cooperatives in Sonoma and San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley who have come all this distance, and their

views are not the views expressed by the poultry representatives, with the exception of some expressed by the Grange.

I certainly hope that you will find time to hear them. They are short statements; we consider them extremely important.

I thank you again.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you write their names on a separate piece of paper and give that to me, or send them to the clerk?

Mrs. McDONALD. Yes; I will.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Mather.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN F. MATHER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. MATHER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Allen F. Mather, executive secretary of the Agricultural Council of California. The Agricultural Council of California represents more than 70,000 farmers of the State, and is organized on a commodity organization basis. For example, the Cattlemen's Association, lima beans, et cetera. Nowhere in the United States is the diversity of agriculture more apparent than here in California.

I think you have seen that today.
The CHAIRMAN. I surely have.

Mr. MATHER. The problems of agriculture are as diverse as its products and techniques. They have no simple or broadly inclusive solution. There is frequently sharp disagreement among agricultural groups with respect to approach, means, and even goals, in solving agricultural problems; but I speak for more than 70,000 farm producers in the State of California who share the conviction of more than half the farmers in the United States that farmers' cooperatives have successfully solved many of their problems of marketing and have facilitated their purchasing of production supplies.

California agriculture is dominated by specialized farming enterprises. Many California-grown commodities are produced in such quantities that they must seek, find, and maintain market outlets throughout this country and the world. More than half a century ago, California producers perceived the need for united effort in the achievement of their marketing objectives. Men of determination translated this vision into a reality-the strongly integrated marketing cooperatives that have effectively served through years of fluctuating economic conditions, shifting population trends, wide variation in competitive supply situations, and vast technological changes.

In a day when direct assistance from the Federal Government was unknown, producers in this State evolved this solution to their most urgent problem-an adequate and assured market for their products, many of them perishable, many of them then dietary innovations. They found the way to self-help through group effort aided by such approving legislation as the Capper-Volstead Act. And because of their flexibility, their recognition of the need to continue as pacesetters, the farmers' marketing cooperatives of this State have adjusted to evolutionary changes in marketing patterns and are today, as they have been for several decades, preeminent in the marketing of California farm commodities.

For example, California produces about 80 percent of the walnuts commercially grown in the United States and 75 percent of these are

cooperatively marketed. Virtually all of the almonds commercially produced in this country are grown in California, and 65 percent of our crop is cooperatively marketed.

California is the only State commercially producing dried fruits, and approximately 40 percent of this production is cooperatively marketed. Seventy percent of the rice, a crop which has risen to great prominence in our production scene since World War II, is marketed through cooperatives.

Close to 90 percent of the citrus fruits grown in California are cooperatively marketed. In the past two decades, cotton has risen from comparative obscurity to become our No. 1 crop in value of product, and about 20 percent of our State's production is cooperatively ginned and marketed.

We have emphasized the importance of cooperative marketing among our specialized crops, but we have found these methods equally well adapted to such commodities as eggs, dairy products, and alfalfa hay. And most of the cooperative marketing associations in California are engaged in processing and packing, as well as distribution and selling.

Nor are their benefits confined to those producers who are their members. Their impact upon products and markets-in quality standards, orderly distribution, and judicious pricing policies-strengthens the position and increases returns to producers without as well as within their ranks.

The astute advertising and merchandising of Calavo Growers of California has introduced millions of consumers throughout the United States to their delicately flavored fruit. The benefits of this program have been felt by all growers of avocades-as well as by satisfied consumers throughout America.

For many years the name of Sunkist has been virtually synonymous with oranges-and billions of Florida oranges, as well as those California-grown and Sunkist-labeled, have been consumed because Sunkist Growers made consumers conscious of vitamin C.

Not all California prunes and raisins are Sunsweet or Sun-Maid, but nearly all consumers of these nutritious foods have learned about their mineral values from the advertising copy of these two famed cooperatives.

Thousands of egg producers in California have been persuaded to produce more clean eggs through better ranch management practices because several California egg marketing associations have publicized the dangers of quality deterioration as a result of egg washing. Again, the benefits have accrued to producers and consumers alike.

And, at long last, cotton production and marketing is throwing off the shackles of obsolescence and inefficiency, because 3,000 growers in California have initiated concerted action to improve and protect cotton quality. Result? Cooperation all the way-among growers and gins and marketing association, to achieve a uniform and qualityprotected fiber that commands a market premium.

We do not suggest that farmers' cooperatives offer or provide a comprehensive solution to the problems of agriculture or even of the farmers who patronize them. We do submit that these constitute a powerful factor, in California and throughout the United States, in stabilizing market supplies and prices; in continued elevation of quality standards; in educating producers to aim for and achieve a higher

quality of product; in informing producers of changing market demands, recognizing that satisfied consumers hold the key to successful marketing.

Farmer cooperatives are not unmindful of the valuable contribution of a friendly Federal Government to their success. Their encouragement has fortunately not been a political issue; it has been a platform of American agriculture. Early in the presidential campaign of 1952, both major political parties went on record in support of farmer cooperatives. In evidence, Senator Estes Kefauver stated:

Marketing and purchasing cooperatives are an important and vital part of our agricultural economy and should be encouraged.

At about the same time, the late Senator Robert A. Taft made this statement:

I believe very strongly in the cooperative principle. Cooperatives are important to the American farmer because in the end they enable him to work out his own problems with less reliance on the Government.

The member-patrons of farmer cooperatives in California and throughout the Nation are hopeful-and confident-that Federal policymakers, including you as members of this most important congressional committee, will continue to acknowledge the influence of cooperatives as farmer-owned, farmer-controlled organizations with clearly defined objectives and practical, progressive, effective means of accomplishing them.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Mr. Sehlmeyer has filed a statement for the record.

Next is Mr. George Wilson.

Will you step forward, Mr. Wilson? I notice that you have a statement. Could you highlight that statement for us? We are trying to get as many as we can. If it is inconvenient for you to do that, I will listen to the whole statement.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. WILSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, BERKELEY, CALIF.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is George H. Wilson, president, California Farm Bureau Federation, farming in California since 1906.

My principal crops include sugar beets, tomatoes, seed crops, beans, hay, grain, and cattle.

The California Farm Bureau Federation consists of over 60,000 farm families, in all of the agricultural counties of California.

In addition to our general activities, we have commodity services, including 10 commodity departments, well represented throughout

the State.

It is difficult to make an accurate statement as to the position of California farmers in November 1955.

Certainly, net farm income has dropped materially in recent years; in fact, in every year since 1947 excepting only 1951. While this is due in part to a fall in farm prices, it is as much influenced by the increase in farm costs of products. Farmers are definitely being pinched, although for the first 6 months reports show a 2-percent increase in farm income for California for 1955, as compared to the 4-percent national decrease.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »