huge surpluses of farm commodities, lowering farm prices to depression levels and raising the price of food to the consumer. The price of food went up a few points last week to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect, I do not think Mr. Benson is responsible for that.

Mr. KUPCHUNOS. It is his program.

I am in favor of the farmer receiving 100 percent of parity for his commodities at the market which, to my way of thinking is the same comparison as minimum wage is to labor.

1. I want to go on record in favor of continuing the 90 percent of parity and rigid control on all types of cigar binder tobacco.

2. I also want to go on record as being in favor of a potato program of acreage allotments tied to bushel quotas with national and local marketing agreements, with section 32 funds to be used for diversion based on parity in years of surplus.

3. I also want to go on record that the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Economics crop-reporting system be taken out of the horseand-buggy days and streamlined to fit the present needs of agriculture for I feel that some of our dilemma is due to the present system as it exists.

4. I want to go on record in favor of a soil-conservation or soilfertility bank (whichever would be the proper name for it) where all surplus acres be taken out of production and placed in this bank for the future generation of this country; that soil-conservation practices be established on these surplus acres to build and to rest this land for future use; and that the Federal Government pay the farmer a reasonable annual rental determined by the local value of the land and furnish him with seed and lime as required; and that the farmer be restricted so that he could not use this land for any commercial value whatsoever, not even for his personal use or that of his animals. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. Did I understand when you were speaking of the Irish-potato situation that you favor acreage allotments and bushelage?

Mr. KUPCHUNOS. Bushel-quota potatoes.

Senator HOLLAND. Quotas with removal of surpluses by the use of section 32 funds, but without a definite price support?

Mr. KUPCHUNOS. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. But you do not favor price supports for potatoes? Mr. KUPCHUNOS. I at present do not.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Is Mrs. Raymond S. Wyman present? Will you step forward and give us your full name, please?

STATEMENT MRS. RAYMOND S. WYMAN SECRETARY-TREASURER, VERMONT TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NORTH HARTLAND, VT.

Mrs. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Mrs. Raymond S. Wyman, of North Hartland, Vt. I am secretary-treasurer of the Vermont Turkey Growers Association. Our proposals are similar to the chicken growers.

Vermont turkey growers believe that 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 field of both production and marketing, better disease control and improved market reports. In our opinion, this can best be done by the Federal Government working through the State experiment stations and departments. We believe efforts by the Federal Government to increase the income of turkey 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 turkey products would be adversely affected by the housewives' reaction against price increase 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.

We want to emphasize that while poultrymen have so far solved their own price and market problems, so have the turkey raisers, and wish to continue to do so, we believe price support and production restrictions on the food grains we must buy place an unfair burden on the turkey industry. They put us in a difficult competitive position with other high-protein foods like beef, pork, 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 lie in this direction and we urgently recommend the 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 present high-support programs will also be disastrous. An immediate orderly reduction is indicated.

And Mr. Mills from Massachusetts, representing the Massachusetts Turkey Growers Association could not be here, and I will read his statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you put it in the record as though it had been read and it will be incorporated in full?

Mrs. WYMAN. It is similar. I will do that.

(The prepared statement of Jesse E. Mills, president, Massachusetts Turkey Growers Association, Paxton, Mass., is as follows:)

In reply to a request to submit a statement for the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Forestry, I hereby respectfully offer the following statement as representing the wishes of the turkey growers in Massachusetts.

We feel that the function of the Government is to furnish services to the various agricultural segments of our industry which these commodity groups cannot supply for themselves.

We feel that the best help is self-help and that the freedom of solving our own problems should be left to the individual or to some organized groups representing the individual.

The Government's function, therefore, is to help solve problems through correction of such problems, rather than by means of price supports, production controls, subsidy payments, etc.

We wish to record ourselves, therefore, as being opposed to such superficial remedies as production controls, price supports and subsidy payments.

A farm program that provides fundamental information such as facts gained through research on production, marketing, improvements in quality of products, preservation of farm products, merchandising, and any other facts which the

grower cannot gain for himself as an individual should be considered. Statistical information, economic facts, current market price data and movements of commodities are also important and should be included.

If these proposals are followed, we feel that the turkey industry will maintain a healthier condition and that the individual will be more readily satisfied with governmental activities.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you use corn and wheat in the feed?

Mrs. WYMAN. Yes, some of it.

The CHAIRMAN. How much feed is grown locally by you?

Mrs. WYMAN. Very little. Land is expensive. You cannot afford to grow it. Of course, freight rates are high from the grain-producing country, which is similarly the chicken man's proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator HOLLAND. How many turkey producers do you represent? Mrs. WYMAN. The association only has about 26 members, but we have a great many more than that in the State.

Senator HOLLAND. How many does the Massachusetts association represent?

Mrs. WYMAN. I could not tell you that.

Senator HOLLAND. Is it a larger association?

Mrs. WYMAN. A larger association. There are a great many small growers as well as in Connecticut.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again.

Our next witness is Commissioner Fitts, Department of Agriculture, New Hampshire.

Will you step forward, please, and give your full name for the record?

STATEMENT OF PERLEY I. FITTS, COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONCORD, N. H.

Mr. FITTS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Perley I. Pitts, commissioner of agriculture of New Hampshire. For a while it looked like I might be the only one over here from New Hampshire. So I prepared a statement which I will read to the committee now so that the other people from New Hampshire can get a chance at this microphone, sir. I am also leaving out statements.

The only part of my statement which I think should be commented on at this time is the one dealing with what has happened to the egg situation, sir. We have batted this matter of price supports and the Government in agriculture around quite a bit today. One point in particular that has been stressed as much as it should be is the fact that egg consumption has increased to a point now where the fact is that the Government is out of the picture. I want you to recognize that it is estimated that the egg consumption this year is probably going to 417, the highest consumption of eggs we have ever had on record. That is against a consumption of about 380 less than 10 years ago. I want that as a matter of record, sir. That is an agricultural product where the commodity people have asked you to keep out.

Another thing, the dairymen in my section are particularly disturbed about this matter of diverted acres and we hope that you and your committee and the Congress will see to it that there are enough restrictions made so that they do not slop over into the three commodity groups.

I am now talking about the poultry business.

It is very easy to get into the poultry business. If you have to cut down on acreage and get paid for taking some of your poorer acres out of production, it is the opinion of many of our people they will be in the hen business.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not have another possible problem that if you permitted the growing of feed and it becomes too cheap that you might have that more competition?

Mr. FITTS. That is right, sir. So I will leave that with you.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be incorporated in the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Perley I. Fitts is as follows:)

I am sure that I can report to you that the farmers of New Hampshire apprecíate the fact that your committee has allocated this valuable time to hearing their views and opinions along with others from New England. I want to thank you for them.

There have been several conferences of our various agricultural commodity groups since learning of this hearing and we have several representatives of these groups here to offer their opinions and I believe your clerk has the names of these people. I have seen some of the testimony that is being presented and probably there is very little that I can add to their material.

I would like to refer you to page 294 of the Agricultural Act entitled, "Hearings before Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry United States Senate 81st Congress" where I indicated that at no time should any farm plan be interpreted as a social-service enterprise by encouraging inefficient farmers to stay in business. Again at a hearing before the congressional committee heading at Amherst, Mass., August 4, 1953, I again expressed the same general opinion. In order for our efficient farmers here in the Northeast to stay in business and continue to have a freedom to exercise their rights to either make or lose money in their businesses they must be relatively free from controls which could entirely kill incentive of action. Our poultry farmers have had just enough Government in their business in the past to show them that it is impractical to operate under conditions of the nature imposed by such controls as are necessary in this kind of operation. You know what has happened during the last 2 years in the poultry business. It would now appear that without burdensome supplies hanging over the market, that the per capita consumption of eggs would reach a new high of 417 for 1955. This is a long way from the 380 average of 1947-49. We honestly think that other commodities in the field of agriculture would be better off today had the warnings of 1949 been heeded.

We may be incorrectly informed, but at this time when the subject of retiring acres from production is being discussed if the reports are true that the United State Government is bringing new areas into production through various projects, could it not be much wiser to hold these projects off until that time is reached when we are in more need for increased production.

As your committee is aware we have Maine and New Hampshire relatively cleaned up of Brucellosis (Bang's disease) however, we are extremely anxious that our other neighboring States accelerate their clean-up programs and strongly urge continued Federal appropriations to this program.

We also believe strongly in self-help programs of selling and efficiency improvement which should be helped by continued research.

Mr. FITTS. Then I have a statement by Oliver J. Hubbard, representing the New Hampshire Poultry Growers' Association committee on national farm legislation, Walpole, N. H. There is no controversy

there.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he on the list?

Mr. FITTS. Yes, that is right. He is on the list.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be made a part of the record.
(The prepared statement of Oliver J. Hubbard is as follows:)

The poultrymen of New Hampshire are in agreement with the statement of Mr. Dunham relative to a farm program that gives some consideration to the Northeast poultry producer.

Over 50 percent of the Agricultural income of New Hampshire is derived from poultry farming. 65 percent of the cost of producing poultry, eggs and meat is for poultry feed. This feed is largely corn.

High support prices for grains increase our costs. In fact, the poultry growers are being penalized twice by such supports. They are taxed to provide funds for the Government purchase program and in addition have to pay the higher costs that support prices bring about.

All support laws help some types of agriculture at the expense of others. A price-support program that helps the midwest grain grower hurts the eastern poultry and dairy farmer. Poultry farmers feel that flexible supports are a step forward and decrease the penalty we have to pay for artificial grain prices.

The poultrymen of New Hampshire have never asked for price supports on their products and have often gone on record in opposition to such a plan. We realize that mandatory support programs stimulate supplies beyond consumption, keep the lazy and inefficient producer in business and destroy our initiative. We want to operate our own industry independent of Government subsidies and controls. Only under such a plan can we continue to improve our efficiency and increase our markets.

Where Government can and should help is with additional funds for research in nutrition, disease, and breeding. The poultry industry has grown so rapidly that lack of funds have kept scientific research lagging far behind our needs.

The problems of agriculture are serious and we believe they have been largely brought on by continuing wartime incentive payments for crops for which there was no market. The Government now holds $10 billion worth of products that no one wants. Agriculture in the end will be more profitable if it operates without controls and without high incentive supports. Agriculture is not a political problem but an economic one. Our poultrymen want an economic nonpartisan farm bill. One that considers the future welfare of the entire agricultural population and one that will eventually take Government controls and price supports out of agriculture.

Mr. Frrrs. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I have copies of the statement to be made by Mr. Edward C. Masten, general manager of the Manchester Dairy System, Inc., of Manchester, N. H. You can cross his name off, too. I am trying to simplify this. We find nothing in there that would be new to your committee after the other discussions.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. It will be made a part of the record. (The prepared statement of Edward C. Masten is as follows:)

The dairy farmers of New Hampshire appreciate the opportunity, along with their fellow dairymen of New England, to express their views and opinions on current agricultural problems.

Dairying is the second largest of agricultural enterprises in New Hampshire. Production of milk in New Hampshire is primarily for fluid consumption. Total production on an annual basis exceeds local demand throughout New Hampshire, with the result that approximately one-half of the total production is exported in fluid form to supply the Boston metropolitan market, and secondary markets such as Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, in Massachusetts.

The majority of New Hampshire dairymen believe that the basic solution to the problems of their dairy industry lies, principally, in their own hands as individuals, and through their cooperative associations-marketing, purchasing, and service-working closely with and for them.

They believe that the Federal Government should lend a helping hand to dairymen in working out these solutions, but that it should not be a force which directs or controls the freedom of the individual, or the industry, to the extent that they should become dependent.

Our dairy industry makes use of Federal Marketing Orders Nos. 4 and 34 in pricing milk sold outside the State, and State control for pricing milk sold within the State. There has existed a very close relationship between State and Federal orders fixing basic milk prices. Both orders make consistent use of economic factors, supply and demand factors, and seasonal pricing factors to determine the level of class I prices.

These orders have been effective in bringing stability to markets served by New Hampshire dairymen.