Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Tabular outline of marketing orders, marketing programs, and marketing agreements, November 1955

Commodity

Regulations or activities authorized

A. Marketing orders and agreements under au

thority of the California Marketing Act of

1937 (as amended):
1. Early apples...

2. Asparagus, fresh.

3. Asparagus, processing-
4. Bush berries

5. Cantaloupes
6. Dried figs and dried-fig products-

7. Grapefruit (grade and size).
8. Honey, extracted.

9. Lemon products.

distribution research; acreage and marketing surveys; advertising and sales promotion; mandatory inspection and certification. Quantity regulations, production, processing, and distribution research; sur

promotion and market development; production, processing, and distribu

promotion; research and survey studies in production, packing, or marketing
of peaches.
Minimum grade and size regulations; mandatory inspection...

10. Dry-pack lettuce

11. Standard lima beans

12. Cling peaches (canning and freezing).

13. Fresh peaches.

14. Fresh Bartlett pears.

15. Bartlett pears, promotion. 16. Canning fall and winter pears.

[graphic]

17. Fresh fall and winter pears

Advertising and sales promotion; grade and size limitations, volume rogula- | Effective Aug. 26, 1941; indefinite term.

tion and container requirements. 18. Hardy pears, promotion.

Sales promotion, market development and advertising; research and survey Effective July 11, 1955; indefinite term.

studies in production, processing, and distribution 19. Plums (fresh).

Grade, size, maturity, and pack regulations; inspection; advertising and sales | Effective Apr. 25, 1950; indefnite term.

promotion; research and survey studies in the production, packing, or

marketing of fresh plums.
20. Potatoes, Delta white.

Grade, size, and maturity regulations; quantity regulations; mandatory Effective Aug. 12, 1953; minor amendment
inspection; advertising and sales promotion; distribution research,

Aug. 10, 1955; indefinite term. 21. Potatoes, long white.

Grade, size, and maturity regulations; inspection and certification may be Effective Nov. 16, 1953; indefinite term.

recommended by the advisory board; advertising and sales promotion;

production, processing, and distribution research and survey studies.
22. Poultry and turkey improvement (mar-Control or eradication of pullorum disease and fowl typhoid in chicken and First effective June 5, 1945, for poultry, Sept.
keting agreement).

turkey flocks; inspection and examination for certification with respect to 30, 1947 for turkeys; latest amended agree.
degree of absence or presence of disease.

ment effective Oct. 1, 1955; indefinite term. 23. Dried prunes.

Advertising and sales promotion; marketing, proudction, and processing First effective Aug. 25, 1947; amended, effective research.

Jan. 1, 1952; minor amendment Mar. 16, 1954;

indefinite term. 24. Raisins

Advertising and sales promotion; production, processing, and marketing First effective June 28, 1949; amended, effective
research.

Oct. 17, 1951; indefinite term.
25. Strawberries.

Advertising and trade promotion; research and survey studies in production, Effective July 7, 1955; indefinite term.

processing, and marketing.
26. Turkey promotion.

Sales promotion, market development, and advertising plans for turkeys for Effective July 9. 1952; indefinite term.

meat purposes.
27. Wine.

Advertising and sales promotion; production, processing and distribution First effective Oct. 24, 1938; latest amended
research.

order effective July 9, 1954; minor amend.
ment Aug. 15, 1955; termination date June

30, 1957.
B. Marketing program under authority of the

Agricultural Producers Marketing Act (as
amended):
1. Bartlett pears (canning) (producer pro- Minimum number of grades and minimum quality standard for grades and ist effective May 25, 1938; latest amended
gram).

other grade regulations; uniform inspection, grading, and certification; edu- program effective July 1, 1952; indefinite cation and trade-stimulation plans; production, processing, and marketing term. research; production or acreage surveys.

[graphic]

STATEMENT FILED BY GORDON LYONS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, CALIFORNIA BEET

GROWERS ASSOCIATION, LTD., STOCKTON, CALIF. On behalf of our association and its membership, which includes more than 98 percent of the sugar-beet farmers in California, our Nation's leading sugarproducing State, we desire to join with our friends and fellow farmers in extending a warm welcome to the distinguished chairman and other members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

W are submitting this written statement today in the interest of saving the time of the committee and in affording more opportunity to our fellow farmers to present problems to the committee in which it has a direct interest.

As we are sure you gentlemen of the committee are aware, the sugar industry of this Nation is now and has, for more than 20 years, been regulated by Federal legislation, the present-day prototype of which is known as the Sugar Act of 1948.

Due to the peculiar problems of sugar, it was found essential in the middle thirties to give special treatment and attention to this commodity produced in equal quality from sugar beets and sugarcane by devising and enacting special legislation, the fundamental principles of which have stood the acid test of time. It is true that we have not always been happy with the manner in which this law has been administered, because there have been times when returns from sugar crops have been, in our opinion, distinctly lower than circumstances warranted. However, we do not wish to imply that these conditions arose through fault of the legislation itself. On the contrary, we pay tribute to it by joining wholeheartedly in the often and widely expressed opinion by Members of Congress that in many ways the Sugar Act is the best agricultural legislation ever to be enacted by the Congress.

Through the years it has been necessary from time to time for the Congress to review and amend this legislation in order to adapt it to changing conditions. The wisdom of providing such malleability in the original law and in the several extensions thereof has been proven time and time again. Indeed, such a condition faces the sugar industry today, and there is presently before the United States Congress a bill to provide amendments to the law and an extension of it until December 31, 1962.

This bill was passed by the House late in the day on July 30, 1955, but was not considered by the Senate during the remaining 2 days of the 1st session of the 84th Congress. It now rests on the table, to be the first order of business to be taken up by the Senate Finance Committee when the second session of this Congress convenes next January. With 2 or 3 relatively minor changes which have already been brought to the attention of members of the Senate Finance Committee, this bill would be completely acceptable to us.

This legislation is more than self-supporting. Actually, it provides an annual net revenue to the United States Treasury. This is accomplished by the collection of a tax of 50 cents per 100 pounds on all sugar manufactured in the United States, which is more than sufficient to meet the expenses of administering the program and the payments to domestic sugar producers which are conditioned upon their compliance with the restrictive provisions of the law.

The law divides the United States market among domestic and certain foreign producers of sugar by the allocation of quotas to the various producing areas. Since the Western Hemisphere produces more sugar available to the United States market than it can absorb, these quotas are naturally restrictive. For example, the quota for the domestic sugar-beet area has, for the past several years, been fixed at 1,800,000 tons of sugar annually.

New production methods, better fertilizers, and great improvement in other cultural practices, new reclamation projects, and the restriction on production of other crops have brought about such an increased demand for sugarbeet acreage among western farmers that the continuation of the 1,800,000 ton production ceiling on this industry would be extremely punitive. Amendments now before the Congress provide for modest relief from this condition through the sharing by domestic areas in future increases in consumption of sugar in this country.

Support prices and parity levels provided for the so-called basic crops and others are features which have never been included in the sugar legislation. This law provides that its administrator the Secretary of Agriculture, shall administer it so as to provide a quantity of sugar sufficient to meet the requirements of consumers which will be consumed at prices which will not be excessive to consumers, and which will fairly and equitably maintain and protect the welfare of the domestic sugar industry.

These and other provisions of the law which give the Secretary wide discretionary powers, together with certain other variables, have resulted in fluctuating prices which have not, at all times, been compatible with the economics of the industry. Even so, we firmly believe that, on balance, it is a good law and that its future operation as it is proposed to be amended will serve the overall interests of our Nation very well indeed.

In the considerations of your committee, we presume that you are primarily concerned with the basic crops and others which have no special programs.. Accordingly, you would have no direct interest in sugar. However, we know that some of you, particularly your distinguished chairman, have an extremely active interest in sugar. We are confident, therefore, that you and your colleagues in the Senate will not overlook the sugar growers in your consideration of the needs of our agricultural enterprises.

We are seeking only to be treated equitably and fairly. Our proposals with respect to amendments to the Sugar Act will, we believe, clearly substantiate this statement.

STATEMENT FILED BY J. J. MILLER, MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS LABOR

COMMITTEE, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. The Agricultural Producers Labor Committee is a nonprofit agricultural cooperative, organized under the laws of California for the purpose of representing citrus growers and cooperative nonprofit citrus packing associations. throughout California and Arizona.

We sincerely appreciate the committee's coming to California to learn and discuss the various agricultural problems in this State. It is our understanding that no provisions are contemplated in the agenda to consider problems relating to agricultural labor. We would, however, appreciate the acceptance of this statement from the citrus industry, expressing our gratitude for your cooperative support to the passage of the bill extending the Mexican national importation law.

The current harvest season has brought clearly into focus the absolute need for the supplemental labor program. With industrial employment at its highest level in the history of California, creating a shortage of qualified farmworkers, many millions of dollars would have been lost were it not for the availability of Mexican workers, made possible through Public Law 78.

We are well aware of the vast amount of testimony received by this committee and the herculean job that was undertaken by both the House and Senate committees to investigate thoroughly the necessity for such a program.

We are particularly grateful for the speed and efficiency with which this legislation was handled this yaer and also for your acceptance of the House version allowing for the 342-year extension-also, may be compliment your committee on the stanch stand you maintained in continuing the unilateral amendment of 1954.

Your committee has, in our opinion, operated on a nonpartisan basis in the best interests of agriculture consistent with honest administration.

We would be remiss if we failed to recognize the selection of your excellent staff-for their cordial reception and the interest displayed in our problems and the expeditious manner in which they handled them was a great source of satisfaction to us.

In closing, may we emphasize our sincere appreciation to this committee for their interest in the problems of California agriculture and for your visit to our State.

STATEMENT FILED BY RUDOLPH MILLER, SECRETARY, IMPERIAL COUNTY GROWERS

ASSOCIATION, EL CENTRO, CALIF. The farmers of the Imperial County in California are of the opinion that the cotton-allotment procedures as contained in the Agricultural Act are devised to give each State and county a fair and equitable share of the allotment and furthermore, establish for farmers within a county, allotments which are fair and reasonable in relation to the factors set forth, also make adjustments to correct inequities and prevents hardships.

We find, however, in the administrative directives and regulations issued to State and county committees instructions which are creating undue hardships and tend to interrupt long-established crop-rotation practices, divide the allotment into small uneconomic units, and distributes allotments onto farms where they cannot be used. Not only is the cotton acreage curtailed by allotments by the prorate of the history to more and more parcels, forces the cotton farmer into smaller uneconomic units.

A 6- to 8-year crop rotation is a long-established and accepted practice in our county-the reason being that more than a dozen different crops are grown in commercial acreages, to name the major ones: Alfalfa, flax, cotton, sugar beets, lettuce, other vegetables, barley, milo, and many other crops in more limited acreages.

A general crop rotation consists of 3 years of alfalfa followed by 2 years of vegetables or sugar beets then cotton or flax or small grains and back into alfalfa.

In this all-irrigated area with a 12 months' growing season, farmers are diversified and always have chosen the land to fit into their rotation program.

This is in contrast to other farming areas, where farmers stay more closely with a farm stead. As a result one-fifth to one-quarter of the farmland changes tenants each year.

Each time owners or tenants change leases, the cotton allotment is prorated on a percentage basis in accordance with the administrative regulations. This division is bringing the cotton industry rapidly to a point where operation becomes uneconomical, creates hardships, and puts an extremely heavy workload on the county ASC office.

Total cropland in Imperial County, Calif., 475,000 acres; total ACP farm in county, 4.800 farms; 33.8 percent of all ACP farms have between 1 and 100 acres in cropland ; 40.2 percent of all ACP farms have between 101 and 500 acres of cropland; and 26.0 percent of all ACP farms have 500 or more acres cropland.

Percentage of cotton farms regardless of size of farm with less than 50 acres cotton planted or allotment. Percent

Percent 1951. 32 | 1954

46 1952 24 | 1955.

65 1953. 26 | 1956 expected.

80 Prorating of cotton history presents this picture:

1951 : 31,000 acres of cotton on 277 farms
1952: 90,700 acres of cotton on 494 farms
1953: 116,400 acres of cotton on 566 farms
1954: 65,000 acres of cotton on 555 farms

1955: 47,000 acres of cotton on 750 farms For the second half of 1955 the county ASC office has to date 816 applications for reconstitution and corrections, on file. To correct the situation, we recommend that the State and county committees be given two alternatives.

1. Use present instructions. 2. To issue cotton allotments, by grower's request, and distribute unrequested allotments by a percentage formula.

Also that the provision of a field rented tract can be applied to ACP farms as well as to worksheet farms.

Furthermore, that in writing administrative regulations, more attention be given to all irrigated areas where as a rule crop rotation and diversification differ from rain-belt conditions.

We respectfully call your attention to these problems.

STATEMENT FILED BY ROBERT NULL, MASTER, ESCALON GRANGE, AND CHAIRMAN,

DAIRY COMMITTEE, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY POMONA GRANGE, ESCALON, CALIF.

The condition of the dairymen in California is bringing on an economical condition that is effecting not only the dairymen, but also business in general, especially small-business men in rural areas.

In 1954 the cash receipts from marketing of milk and cream declined about $25 million. When you take away 41 percent of this amount, which was the actual drop in the San Joaquin Valley, a lot of people in rural areas are going to feel the effects. If you look at it from the standpoint of the United States you had a drop of about $241 million. Practically all these dollars are purchasing dollars. Dollars that would be spent for improvements, farm machinery, and so forth.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »