on the front page, purporting to be from the Department of Agriculture, telling the housewife, the country, the wholesaler and the trade as a whole that apples would be at rock bottom prices. There you are. Day before yesterday I received a report from the Boston Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service as to the very crop of apples.

Your Government Marketing Bureau gets most of its data from the grower. We fill out questionnaires. We have done so for 15 odd years. Those questionnaires are not so worded, they are not specific enough, so that the individual grower may take in his own area-he may take in the Champlain Valley and may try to get in Vermont as a whole. Consequently, the picture reflected in there, in their figures, is not correct.

The figures given day before yesterday were approximately 1,250,000 bushels for the State of Vermont. We all know that we had 1,500,000 bushels.

Senator AIKEN. That is a lot.

Mr. GRIFFIN. A lot of them. There is a 15 to 20 percent error. That has happened over and over again.

The trade has an International Apple Growers Association in Canada. It is a very healthy organization, right up on its toes. They have field representatives. We report to them. Not only the growers, but one of the important segments is the trade, the brokers, the middlemen, the pushcart men. They are all part of the picture.

The International Apple Growers Association contacts them all. They have fieldmen, as I say. And when they put out their figures, everybody waits for them.

We feel that the Department of Agriculture is trying to duplicate that at a cost. We all wait. Trade waits for the international reports. That is all. Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. I understand that you not only wanted to drop the estimates, but wanted price predictions?

Mr. GRIFFIN. We do not want them.

Senator HOLLAND. You do not want the price prediction and do not want the crop estimates?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Let me answer it this way, Senator. We had a very large McIntosh crop forecast in New England. Everybody knew it. Larger than we had in years. We will say that the forecast is such that quite often the price picture creeps into the forecast.

These hurricanes came along.`They had an excessive drop, for one reason or other hundreds of thousands of them went on the ground. Who is competent to pick the price of a very pressurable product? Senator HOLLAND. You do not want the Government crop estimates for apples, to get the record clear?

Mr. GRIFFITH. That is what we ask.

Senator HOLLAND. You do not want the price estimates?

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. That is what I understood.

Mr. GRIFFIN. We do not think they have the available figures to estimate the price. We do not think so.

Senator AIKEN. The apple bill that was vetoed applied only to price estimates. It did not apply to crop estimates.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

64440-56-pt. 7—6

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. George Angevine. Give us your name in full, please, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ANGEVINE, CONNECTICUT POULTRY ASSOCIATION, WARREN, CONN.

Mr. ANGEVINE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is George Angevine from Warren, Conn. I have been in the poultry business for the past 27 years.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that you represent Mr. O. C. Chadwick. And who else? You may proceed, sir.

Mr. ANGEVINE. I am a past president of the Connecticut Poultry Association and house chairman of the agricultural committee in Connecticut during the past year.

I have been asked to present the following statement prepared by the associations representing the New England poultry industry. From my contact with the industry I feel that this statement well represents the large majority of the poultrymen in New England.

New England poultry growers believe their best interests lie in the direction of efficient production of quality products and aggressive, effective sales promotion by the industry.

We badly need more research in the fields of both production and marketing, better disease control and improved markets reports. In our opinion, this can best be done by the Federal Government working through the State experiment stations and departments. We believe that efforts by the Federal Government to increase the income of poultry raisers through price supports, subsidies, production controls and similar programs are well intended, but can only lead to chaos through overproduction or decreased efficiency and poor business management through production controls.

We believe the present rapid increase in the consumption of poultry products would be adversely affected by the housewives' reaction against price increases involving tax funds. These opinions are based on our observations of the effect of various Government programs over the years on potato growers, grain and cotton producers and to a lesser extent dairymen. Almost without exception, during the time these programs have been in effect the per capita consumption has decreased, price depressing surpluses have accumulated, law enforcement has been very difficult and the opportunity for efficient farmers has been restricted.

We want to emphasize that while poultrymen have so far solved their own price and market problem and wish to continue to do so, we believe price supports and production restrictions on feed grains we must buy, place an unfair burden on the poultry industry. They put us in a difficult competitive position with other high protein foods like meat and dairy products which use large amounts of home-grown roughage. We do not believe the long range solution of any agricultural problem or the best interests of farmers lay in this direction and we urgently recommend that price supports and production controls on feed grains be substantially reduced or eliminated. We recognize sudden drastic action might lead to chaos, but we believe continuation of high support programs will also be disastrous. An immediate orderly reduction is indicated.

This is signed by six different States: Clifton Chadwick, president, Vermont Poultry Association; Carroll Dunham, president, Connecticut Poultry Growers; Donald Fisher, secretary, Poultry Producers of Rhode Island; Oliver Hubbard, chairman of committee, New Hampshire Growers; Ralph Hunt, president, Maine Poultry Association; and Robert Wade, president, Massachusetts Federation of Poultry Associates.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you saying that you are opposed to any kind of price protection for the grain growers, such as oats and barley?

Mr. ANGEVINE. Let me put it this way: We feel that an orderly reduction is in order. What happens to the poultry industry if high supports are maintained it means that the poultry men have to pay higher prices for their feed. So in order to continue they have to get higher prices for their eggs.

In the reverse of that, if we buy cheap feed, naturally, to begin with. it may encourage some overproduction of poultry products. The CHAIRMAN. That was what I was coming to.

Mr. ANGEVINE. But poultry products are very competitive. The industry has been able to clear its own house in a very short time. My point is this, that with high prices for feed and higher prices for eggs, because of that we reduce the overall consumption of poultry products.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, I have heard a different story from what you are giving in other parts of the country, that the poultry business is not too good. Where is your market here? Is it within the New England States?

Mr. ANGEVINE. My market is in Connecticut.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a big population there who are steadily -employed, I presume, in factories?

Mr. ANGEVINE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a good market?

Mr. ANGEVINE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think a price support would help-do you use much barley in your feed?

Mr. ANGEVINE. Very little.

The CHAIRMAN. Oats?

Mr. ANGEVINE. Mostly corn, wheat, and there is oats. It is mainly corn and wheat which are the two largest ingredients. There is some barley and oats that are used.

The CHAIRMAN. To what extent do the New England States produce poultry feed?

Mr. ANGEVINE. Very little.

The CHAIRMAN. So you are dependent on other areas for that?
Mr. ANGEVINE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. For your supply?

Mr. ANGEVINE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You would want gradually to remove all price protections, price supports?

Mr. ANGEVINE. I think we have had a good program through the flexible program with the aim of reducing supports as far as it is possible to reduce them. The thing that most of us feel is that any support program of that type should be used as a type of disaster insurance; in other words, from the war years, coming down to a peace

time basis, certain supports are needed to maintain an orderly reduction. In other words, so that it comes down gradually. We think this gradual reduction should continue.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Is there any difference of opinion as expressed by the witness from those whom he represents? Come forward and give us your name.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WADE, MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. WADE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the thing that I would like to add is not related to poultry as to what was said this morning. You made reference to the school-lunch program. That includes the charitable organizations and the underprivileged camps in the consumption of surplus foods?

The CHAIRMAN. The school program is a separate program altogether. This other is brought in incidentally.

Mr. STANTON. That is right. The School Lunch Act is a separate

act.

Senator HOLLAND. There is a permanent law now on the other. Senator AIKEN. Under section 416 the contributions may be made to charitable organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. That is only for specific amounts, and it may expire.

Senator AIKEN. That would be surplus.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it affects surplus only.

Mr. WADE. That is what I was thinking. In terms of using some of our surplus, instead of selling it abroad, we would use it here in this country to build a better America.

Senator AIKEN. That applies to commodities owned only by Commodity Credit Corporation.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not like the school-lunch program, which is a separate law altogether. Mr. Stanton, you are our lawyer here. Will you tell us what it is-what is the law?

Mr. STANTON. Section 32 funds can be used for charitable institutions. And section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 provides for distribution to charitable institutions. Also, I believe section 407 provides for such distribution in appropriate cases.

Senator HOLLAND. In each case it is surplus commodities. Use of those that are found to be surplus is the objective.

Mr. STANTON. That is right.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Randall of the Department is here. I would like to ask him. There have been some increases, have there not, in contributions to the people on relief and to charitable institutions? That has been gradually increasing?

Mr. RANDALL. That is correct.

Mr. WADE. I did not hear it mentioned here this morning. I thought it a very important thing, so I thought I would mention it. Senator AIKEN. It is. It is a big market there.

The CHAIRMAN. We are expanding quite a bit in that direction, I can tell you.

Mr. WADE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Dudley here yet?

Please come forward and give your full name for the record.

Are you speaking for yourself alone, or have you people in the audience whose names might be on this list?

Mr. DUDLEY. There is no one else connected with my testimony. The CHAIRMAN. You stand alone?

Mr. DUDLEY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. DUDLEY, CONNECTICUT MILK
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, LITCHFIELD, CONN.

Mr. DUDLEY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George C. Dudley of Litchfield, Conn., and I am a diary farmer.

I am speaking for myself and also the 1,800 members of the Connecticut Milk Producers Association, of which I am a director. We are in agreement in general with the various statements made by representatives of organized milk producers in upper New England. However, while about 9 percent of our milk comes from unregulated country plants in New York and Vermont and another 15 percent comes from producers' farms outside the State, we have been able to maintain a stable market with State milk control orders. We do appreciate the Federal order program and realize that their existence around us helps us to keep operating as we are. We believe they should be continued much as they are now operated.

We have a well-financed local unit of the National Dairy Council known as the Connecticut Dairy & Food Council that has been in operation for 35 years. For the past 3 years our association has been spending 3 cents a hundred on all milk for local direct consumer advertising on TV, radio, and newspapers. This program along with the council work has resulted in an increase in sales every month over the corresponding month of the year before ranging from 2 to 10 percent.

A Bangs disease control law was passed by the last session of the legislature which requires all farms to be signed up in the program by April 1, 1956, and no milk can be sold from infected cows after April 1, 1957. No Federal indemnity payments are to be paid for reactors found.

I mention that to show that we are doing this much to take care of ourselves, without calling on Federal help.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to give us the problem or the solution? Mr. DUDLEY. I am going into a flexible support-price program. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. DUDLEY. Now I would like to touch on the national agricultural situation. I believe the whole trouble facing agriculture is overproduction caused by unwise pricing policies. We have built large supplies of surplus commodities under the high rigid price-support system. High price supports have made it profitable for people to raise these commodities and sell them to the Government. stocks in storage have depressed prices in spite of high price supports. There is plenty of evidence to show that this program hasn't worked and cannot be made to work if continued.

These

In any other business when there is an oversupply, prices are reduced and the surplus is moved into market. How then can anyone honestly say that this system will not work in agricultural products?