Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

be grown fence to fence without penalty, and finally ends up on the market a little cheaper than wheat. Therefore, it is fed up or used up in greater quantities. It is possible to buy Midwest corn shipped into this area cheaper than it is to buy home-grown wheat for feed.

To compare some of the expenses that are incurred by a farmer, I have checked back to 1944 on prices paid for taxes and large pieces of equipment, and these were my findings: We were producing wheat on all our land and receiving $1.31 per bushel, which enabled us to pay the following prices. In 1944, a section of our land in the Helix area was taxed $234.92, in 1955 the same land had a tax of $1,588.65, an increase of better than 61⁄2 times. A TD-14 tractor cost us $5,287 in 1944, today it costs us $11,378. A John Deere combine was $3,413 in 1944, and around $6,700 in 1952, when that model was discontinued. We purchased a pusher combine for $4,848 in 1949, and that particular piece of equipment is around $9,800 today. It appears that these particular items are working on a sliding scale too, but it only slides one way, and that is up. In other words, it now takes twice as many bushels of wheat to pay our expenses as it took in 1944.

It was only a few years ago that one could pick up any paper or farm magazine and read of the American farmer and the disastrous way he was handling his land. According to these articles, the topsoil was gone and in a few years the country would be reduced to famine. Overproduction has blanketed this talk and now all one can hear is that the same farmer is riding the gravy train and producing in order that the Government can build more storage space.

I hope, as many others do, that when I die, our ranch will be as good as it was the day I started to farm it. But, it is exceedingly hard to put all of the costly conservation practices into effect on a seriously declining income. So far there has been little or no mention of the fact that our Government spends millions of dollars in Government agencies that preach conservation, and other improvements that we farmers want to put into practice, but due to the price squeeze, we are unable to do so.

Well, I have talked for some time and I hope I have presented the problems of the farmer without giving the impression of a dog sitting down on his tail and howling for help. It does appear, however, that any program is not worth the paper it's written on if it does not accomplish the main purpose, which, in this case is reducing the surplus, either by getting rid of it or growing less. This can be done, no doubt, but at the same time the farmer is going to have to realize enough income to keep him in business until the supply has met demand again. Any farmer is well aware of the fact that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and if one starts cutting at both ends, production and price, he will reach the given point faster. Such is the case of the sliding scale of parity, and the point that will be reached in a very short time, unless something is done about it, is farm indebtedness and many cases of bankruptcy.

A program must keep up farm income, get rid of oversurplus, and allow us enough money to keep up our soil. I say stop the sliding scale, use wheat to make alcohol to use up the big pile, don't grow other grain on diverted acres, and get our wheat for export priced so it will help hungry people.

The CHAIRMAN. As I suggested this morning, as well as this afternoon, if there be any others who desire to file their statements simply step forward and give them to the clerk at the desk to my right. All right, Mr. Davidson.

STATEMENT OF BEN DAVIDSON, ADMINISTRATOR, OREGON POTATO COMMISSION, REDMOND, OREG.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am Ben Davidson. Our time is getting short. You have asked for proposals. We do not have anything too concrete. The Oregon Potato Commission is working with the National Potato Council at the moment to develop a plan to submit to Congress this coming session on a long-range potato program.

They have taken two items from the subject that I sent them some time ago, a printed form which I have here, an alternate of which will

be picked. It is being discussed at the moment. I will give you briefly, very briefly, those two proposals.

No. 1, a form of mandatory action that will, of necessity, have to be endorsed by the Congress of the United States and written into law on the basis of acreage allotments and marketing quotas.

This would be administered by the United States Department of Agriculture. It would be similar to our subsidies of the so-called basic commodities.

No. 2, a national marketing agreement for potatoes which would take care of the surplus in the form of sizes and grade regulations as we have now, known as a marketing agreement, working in various States and areas in the United States.

That is briefly the text. There are others to come up after me. You have some 50 or 60 more people that you want to interview.

And if there are no questions, I will turn this microphone back to you.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will be filed.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Ben Davidson is as follows:)

The agriculture situation in the United States today is largely one of surplus. In order to hold our own in the food and fiber field with these other agricultural commodities, the potato industry, is seeking to correct its own ills, so that the cost of production at least, will be met each marketing season. We, in the National Potato Council and other potato organizations and the Oregon Potato Commission are very desirous of accomplishing a long-range program. We well realize that in order to stabilize our economy we must organize. Business, labor, and industry are all organized today in the United States in their respective fields. Agriculture must also find some way in which to organize. We would like to recommend 1 of 2 ways in which through Government help and acting through the USDA and our National Potato Council-2 mediums of approach.

No. 1, a form of mandatory action that will of necessity have to be endorsed by the Congress of the United States and written into law on the basis of acreage allotments and marketing quotas; this would be administered by the USDA. It would be similar to our subsidies of the so-called basic commodities. This one, however, has not proved satisfactory.

No. 2, to my thinking a much preferred method would be to develop, if necessary, through congressional action a national marketing agreement which is mandatory-broken down and administered by areas or districts.

A. By such an agreement the potato growers of America could be organized. B. Included in this program would of necessity have to be marketing quotas, C. A standard of 90 to 110 percent of parity for the commodity must be guaranteed.

D. Shipping holidays would be legally set up and enforced where necessary. E. These above provisions will enable the farmer to maintain an economic parity status with labor, industry, and business, workers and organizations. Also, these provisions would maintain a bargaining power that is now enjoyed by other economic groups.

F. National compulsory inspection by the Federal-State shipping point service for all producing districts reaching down to the grower level.

G. A National Grade Labeling Act that would be compulsory, administered under the supervision of the USDA.

For instance, marketing order No. 92 encompasses the State of Washington and geographically is quite a satisfactory arrangement for that particular area. Marketing order No. 57 embraces Idaho and Malheur County in eastern Oregon which, because of social, economic, and political reasons is a natural for that particular area. The same applies to marketing order No. 59 which now includes all of the State of Oregon except Malheur County and Siskiyou and Modoc Counties in Klamath Basin in northern California.

I also believe that there should be a place in this mandatory national marketing agreement set up, if possible, whereby, some State marketing agreements would be accepted, such as, the ones now operating in California around the

bay area at Stockton and also, the nine southern counties of the State of California whose headquarters are in Bakersfield, Calif. This would include anyone who markets more than 1 ton of potatoes at 1 time or produces more than 1 acre of potatoes annually.

Apparently, the general agriculture situation is such that it would also behoove Congress to devise some means of retiring marginal lands from production and developing another method whereby acres that are diverted from one commodity cannot be planted to another commodity thus causing a more serious surplus condition.

For the whole agriculture picture there has been a transitional development in regard to basic principles of operation. Years ago many of our agriculture producers were not on a current cash basis, but on an annual, semiannual, or cash harvest basis. Nowadays the farmers are largely set up on a businessman operation, with current bills every 30 days. Therefore, included in any longrange program, ways and means of financing will of necessity have to be developed.

In the years past, before the days of the income tax, in good crop price years farmers have been able to accumulate decided financial reserves that could carry them over for a period of 2, 3, or 5 years. Those days are gone. The more that a farmer makes today of net revenue, the greater his income tax, to a point where he is often unable to lay away satisfactory reserves. It is the opinion of this writer that not only the potato industry but other agricultural industries must of necessity cooperate in some type of guided organizations.

In the potato picture we now have a voluntary organization on a national scale, called the National Potato Council which also of necessity has to be figured in on the operation of any long-range program and a ways and means developed to finance this organization so that they can better promote and activate the industry problems at the right time in the right place.

In addition to the National Potato Council I would like to recommend that an advisory board of 15 members picked from various parts of the national production areas be developed to work with the Secretary of Agriculture in any proposals that may be made, with satisfactory subsistence revenue developed for their time when they are on an official committee or commission activities.

These recommendations are not wishful thinking. They are of such nature that if Congress so sees fit they can develop from them a basic principle of operation for a long-range potato program and perhaps for some other agricultural commodities as well.

The CHAIRMAN. Next is Mr. McDougal.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GAY MCDOUGAL, OREGON-CALIFORNIA POTATO COMMITTEE, TULELAKE, CALIF.

Mr. MCDOUGAL. I am Richard Gay McDougal, a potato grower from Tulelake, Calif. I am also one-half of one of those couples that Senator Thye has referred to frequently today.

Tulelake is at the southern end of the Klamath Basin, a flat valley of 90,000 irrigable acres where Oregon and California meet high in the Cascade Range.

The Klamath Basin is famous on the west coast for superior quality table stock and seed potato production. Most of our food-stock production is of the Russet Burbank variety, with White Rose predominating the varieties grown from seed.

Being interested in local agricultural improvement, being a director of the National Potato Council, having served as vice chairman of the Oregon-California marketing order, and presently serving on the committee as the California handler-representative, I am well aware of the thinking of the vast majority of potato producers in my part of California and Oregon.

My views are those of the majority and have been accorded due deliberation and debate at numerous community meetings and less formally whenever and wherever farm friends meet.

It is said that "The way of the transgressor is hard." Yes; but we believe that the way of the potato grower is harder. Why do we seemingly drift from one crisis to another each more costly and injurious than the former? For what "economic transgression" are my potato-producing neighbors and I being repeatedly punished? These, we believe, are the answers:

First and foremost, we must recognize and abide by that law that will never be repealed, the natural law of supply and demand. It cannot long be thwarted, foiled, or violated. We need a national program for the systematic and equitable removal of potatoes in surplus years.

Acreage, the wise thinker will perceive, is not the only factor in production as agriculture, unlike industry, must cope with the great unknown, the weather. The acreage to be planted must be sufficient to provide adequate supplies though weather is somewhat unfavorable, therefore production above our 350 million bushel ideal is a constant probability. It is good to have plenty instead of famine, and that 350 million bushel goal does represent a very evasive target. Statistics give us undeniable proof that each 1-percent increase over 350 million bushels brings with it a 3- or 4-percent decline in price. This indicates that our present 387 million bushel 1955 crop can be expected to bring its producers less than 60 percent as much income as a 350 million bushel crop, and with considerably greater expense to produce.

We must, therefore, continue to urge growers to comply with USDA acreage guides, and recognize that to heedlessly violate this law of supply and demand with regard to the potato, it being not under any form of support, highly perishable, and widely produced, is to invite certain and diverse economic disaster.

Once we observe that an overproduction exists, we must resort to use of the only tool we presently have for such a job-our marketing agreements. Every potato-producing area must have this control, and all such area wide marketing agreements would operate under the direction and coordination of a National Marketing Agreement Control Board.

There is no other answer. Is it not better that all of us market the best 75 percent of our crops and do it profitably than half of us market all our potatoes at a profit, the other half market none or only a portion, and this at a loss?

In recent years of surplus potato production, the lower quality potatoes have been effectively diverted to starch, dehydration, or livestock feed, through maturity, size, and grade regulations adopted by Federal or State marketing agreement orders. The consumer has thus been able to buy a better potato, and the farmer has been saved from selling that good quality at a loss.

Some degree of price stability has been attained, and a superior quality has been assured. We have, in short, done well as far as we have gone, but there still exists today many major potato-producing areas without marketing orders or other regulatory machinery with which to effectively control the flow of excess potatoes in surplus years, much to the detriment of neighboring States and competing areas who have been attempting to correct this situation.

A fair degree of accuracy must also be reached in determining what the total supply is, that proper reduction measures might be

computed by the National Control Board. Nor can we ever expect unanimous approval from all areas. Tax laws are still undergoing change; neither may we ever see perfection, though it is our task now to strive in that direction.

In my part of northern California and southern Oregon we believe that all potatoes grown for human consumption, whether as a fresh or processed vegetable, should be inspected by a competent and qualified vegetable specialist working under the license and direction of a Federal or State department of agriculture.

Today over 60 percent of the tonnage of foodstuffs purchased for our Armed Services annually are health-protecting, energy-providing potatoes. Who would deny that the potato is the one most important single food on the American dinner table? We believe that so vital an item to our national diet and well-being should be given more than casual attention as to its quality and condition, whether bound for interstate or intrastate movement.

Certain unimaginative States allow what we call a field run grade of potatoes to be sold to the housewife. "Field run" means virtually all the potatoes that were harvested, without regard for insect, rodent, or mechanical damage, virus or bacterial breakdown and decay, roughness or lack of conformity to type for that particular variety.

This laxity quite obviously is a hazard to health and an obstacle to the potato industry's struggle for satisfied customers, repeat business, and the continued assurance of the potato as the No. 1 food in these well-fed United States.

What else do my friends and I, potato growers endeavoring to end this senseless and most painful "boom and bust" pattern now so characteristic of potatoes, think is essential to an early solution.

We know, without doubt, that we need some form of Federal food legislation-call it a national branding and labeling law if you wish, providing a stiff penalty for an unethical middleman, whether wholesaler, retailer, or specialist of any nature, to willfully represent any potato as to its true grade, origin, quality, or variety, however packaged or displayed. Farsighted progressive potato-producing States are spending great sums of money in improving quality and in extensive advertising. They need the protection that only such law, properly enforced, can give them. The housewife deserves to know what she is buying.

We also believe that the maximum assessable fine for violation of marketing agreement regulations is now no deterrent to those without scruples, and should, therefore, be raised from the present $50 per count, not to exceed $500 per count, to read $100 per count, not to exceed $1,000.

My neighbors and I lend all available suport to what we consider the only national voice we potato growers have, the National Potato Council and respectfully request that its officer and board be the confidant when technical advice is needed-also, that its officers continue to be accorded your and the Department's fullest cooperation at those times when crisis seem to be forming.

The council has already proceded to lead this most cumbersome and diverse giant of all food industries toward the solid and realistic solution of its own war-begotten, support-nourished, politically aggravated bundle of unique-chronic yet acute-problems, all in con

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »