an agricultural industry. It takes a lot of money to help other manufacturing industries of our country. And I think that money should not be the main concern at the moment in helping an industry which very basic to our economy.

is

I would like to say that as far as I see the Brannan plan it does not conflict with the man keeping as many birds as he needs. I, for instance, have about 4,000 birds. The Brannan plan, I think, would take care of most of those 4,000 birds. If, however, I wanted to keep 6,000 birds, the 4,000 birds could be supported under the Brannan plan and the other 2,000 birds the man has to take a chance. If the market looks good, he will take a chance with them. If it does not look good, he will operate with the 4,000 birds and be content to make a living. You know, I think anyone who came on the farm thinking that he was going to get rich I believe is well deluded now. Certainly he has no illusions about that now.

All we want to do is to be able to make a living and stay on the farm.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Zelnick.

Mr. ZELNICK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Stanley Piseck.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY A. PISECK, NEWPORT, N. Y.

Mr. PISECK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have part of my testimony typed and part is not. I will have that typed and send it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; you may have a seat and give your full name and occupation.

Mr. PISECK. My name is Stanley A. Piseck and I am a dairy farmer in New York.

Our economy is composed of three great segments: Agriculture, labor and industry.

I put agriculture first because it has contributed most to our wealth and growth by producing the food and fiber so necessary in our great Nation's growth and expansion. It becomes necessary that all these segments continue to be healthy and prosperous so that our Nation stays economically sound and socially secure.

In the past few years, we have witnessed the continued healthy growth of labor and industry while agriculture is stranded at the brink of bankruptcy. Today both labor and industry returns are the highest on record while agricultural income has slipped fully 25 percent. No economy can long withstand this disparity without encouraging total collapse of our great economic structure.

It becomes the duty of the political party in power to right this serious economic situation or expect to be superseded. The farmers of this great Nation of necessity must become an important part of this great change.

A few years ago under a previous administration both agriculture and labor have run to the highest peak ever on record. That the 90-percent price support program has materially aided in the creation of this great income cannot be denied, and any reasonable human will readily concede it. In our own great dairyland of the metropolitan

New York milk area the dairymen in 1948 received a blended return of $5.08 for 3.5 percent milk in the 200-210 mile zone. In the past few years while cost of production went up fully 15 percent the dairymen's return has slipped down to the $4 mark. The dairymen have lost from $1 to a $1.25 per hundredweight, the very money they need to buy the products of labor.

Our economy is running on the momentum of a previous administration and the ability of organized labor of not only holding the line but improving wages and working conditions-there is a serious threat of slackening, and perhaps a sudden stop, unless immediate steps are taken to bolster agricultural prices.

That there are definite reasons for this tremendous loss of return to our national agriculture is very apparent.

Today labor sets its own wages by its own labor leaders, and prospers. Likewise, industry sets its own prices for its products of manufacture.

Today agricultural prices are set by dreamy-eyed economists, secure by their own inflated salaries, and the tremendous loss suffered by our agricultural masses is no skin off their shins.

Our first step in the readjustment of our economy must of necessity be the return to farm leaders, the sacred light to run their own business, and negotiate the prices necessary to create purchasing power for agriculture so necessary in the purchase of the products of labor and industry. Economists must be used only in an advisory capacity and not in the driver's seat. No party, no economists inherited a sacred right to exploit the humble masses that comprise our great agricultural population.

I have added a few words, to give you added information.

For 25 years perhaps I have done more work among them than any individual in our area. I am going to give you the digest of my experience.

In the years 1933 to 1934 and 1935 I took active part in large area meetings throughout the State of New York. This gave me a fine opportunity to study not only the milk producers themselves, but the type of land they were farming, and the real possibility of milk production. I traveled the countryside from one producer meeting to another, urging milk producers to own their own local milk plants, with ample milk-surplus manufacturing facilities to take care of the surplus at the point of production.

In all of these travels I made it a point to write down my observations and reactions, so as to formulate my views and opinions in the importan discussion of milk marketing. I found that theer were many thousands of farmers suited only for fall and winter production, and this group should not be tampered with because they were doing a good job of producing milk, even though their cost of production was high, with little or no chance to lower it.

On the other hand, there was also a much larger group of dairy farming that enjoyed excellent lush pastures that supplied dairy herds with such an abundance of fine pasture grasses that the dairymen could cut down on the grain feeding and do so temporarily at least. Each of these groups are an important segment of our dairy industry. It is our duty to creathe a milk-price structure that will give the utmost in milk prices without disrupting their customary production pattern. And a sound milk-marketing plan will do the job.

It is a matter of record that I have been a consistent advocate of a uniform class 1 price the year round, with proper adjustment up or down as economic conditions warrant. I spearheaded a drive for better milk in 1947 and 1948. And that was based on uniform class 1 prices.

Class 1 price for milk creates a uniform price of production pattern and this pattern of production in turn determines the price paid to milk producers. This was demonstrated in the cycle of years of 1943 to 1948 when nearly uniform prices of class 1 milk prevailed and became the highest ever received by dairymen.

Consumption of milk also remained at the highest level ever recorded during the same period.

The weakness in our present milk formula is the utter disregard for the production patterns so necessary to channel milk into quality surplus products that will make well, store well, and bring the highest consumer prices.

The present milk formula takes money out of the flush months' receipts and adds it to the fall receipts. This inducement created a large unseasonable flow and winter surplus that about ruined the dairy industry. It encouraged too many milk producers with good pastures to turn to fall and winter production, thereby creating the tremendous oversupply at the wrong time of the year.

If a producer with good pasture can get as much for class 1 milk in June as he can in November, naturally he will produce the bulk of his milk on grass, but by this method the winter producer has a healthy market and receives a good price, as was demonstrated by the November 1948 blended return of $5.55 for 3.5 milk in the 200 to 210 mile zone.

The summer milk producer will also receive a good price at a lower cost of production. The cow freshening on grass is still a good producer in November and proves to be a real money maker.

In 1947 production was 104 percent over the November production in the metropolitan area.

In 1954 June production was only 58 percent of November 1954 production in the same area.

That proves that the formula has disrupted our orderly procedures as we had them previous to 1947 and 1948.

It did not take too much brain and ingenuity on the part of any dairy leader to know if we take money out and add it onto the other we will disrupt something. That is perhaps what they wanted to do, because we had something very orderly in 1947 and 1948.

On the other hand, 1948--just listen to this-when our costs of production were lower, the first 6 months the producers of blended returned $5.03 for 3.5 milk; in 1954 the first 6 months netted producers a blended return of $3.73 for 3.5 milk, or $1.30 less, even though our costs of production went up a lot.

The bulk of the surplus milk should be produced on grass. From this quality surplus products can be made that bring the highest return to the producer. At present too much of the cheese is made when cows are in the barn. This quality of cheese has a tendency to glut the market and reacts unfavorably on good grass cheese prices.

Farmer owned and operated milk cooperatives in the metropolitan area have the finest equipped cheese-manufacturing plants in the in

dustry, their product is the finest in America. There will never be enough good New York grass Cheddar cheese to supply the market. For many years the dairy leaders worked together diligently and brought the milk industry out of chaos to the peak of success in 1948 when the milk producers average $5.08 for 3.5 milk in the 200 to 210 mile zone. We inched along. We took what we got, prepared for something more, and by that inching along we have been able to build our own. It was secure. We can do the same thing again.

There was nothing so wrong with the Federal-State order that a hearing or two could not amend it to the satisfaction of all concerned. Then suddenly, under the clamor for something more permanent, the unworkable formula was thrust upon the unsuspecting milk producer. On February 1, gentlemen, I was there. That was in 1948. Secretary Brannan told a tremendous crowd at Syracuse that if the class 1 price formula would not work it would be taken out. It is a matter of record.

I went personally before the Secretary and begged and pleaded that it not be put in. I delayed it. I am sure, gentlemen, because the formula was not put in August 1950, but the pressure was so great upon the Secretary that he had to approve it. Now it is a dismal failure. Let us recongize it.

In August 1950, the formula began to operate. For over 5 years it dissipated the honest labor of men, women, and children on the farms of our great metropolitan areas. For over 5 years the bulk producer lost over 1 cent per pound of all of the milk he produced. This staggering loss amounts to millions and millions of dollars. It really dealt the agriculture a staggering blow.

Senators, why does this formula continue when it is already proven to be 5 years of failure? I will tell you why.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt?

Mr. PISECK. I am just abut finished.

The CHAIRMAN. There are nine more witnesses to be heard and we have only a very few minutes.

Mr. PISECK. I will do it within 1 minute.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Keep to your text.

Mr. PISECK. The metropolitan New York milk market needs no self-help plan, no basic surplus, no production-control schemes so flagrantly presented today, and which would not only penalize the producer and confuse the administration.

The five markets within easy reach of all producers can absorb every drop of milk produced in the metropolitan market.

What is needed most is a workable Federal-State milk order that will revamp our milk production to a pattern very similar to 1947 and 1948 at the earliest possible moment. Not a pound of butter or cheese made in this surplus metropolitan area needs be sold to the Federal Government. We have the markets. We have the population, enough to readily consume every pound of milk or milk products produced in the area. It is high time that we used our brains and ingenuity to bring this about.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. I want to ask one question. I want to see if I understand the situation. This is what you are saying, that when you and others appeared before Secretary Brannan that he took the advice

of the economists rather than that of the practical dairy leaders. Is that it?

Mr. PISECK. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. What you want now is

Mr. PISECK. We want that leadership back into the hands of the producers, so that we can go back where we were.

Senator HOLLAND. You want the leadership returned to you and other dairy leaders, and the economists put in the back room; is that it?

Mr. PISECK. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

Mr. PISECK. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Barton. Give us your name in full, please, for the record.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BARTON, FREEHOLD, N. J.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is William Barton, a potato grower.

The CHAIRMAN. We desire to hear all of the witnesses, may I state, but because of weather conditions our pilot has just sent word that unless we can leave from here around 3:30 we may not be able to land in Washington. Of course, I would like to stay in Utica, but I need back to Washington tonight, if possible. So please do not repeat. Just give us new matter.

to go

Mr. BARTON. First, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak before this committee.

I am a potato grower in Monmouth County, N. J.

Potato growers at the present time are not making a substantial living. We have not made ends meet in the past 3 years, 1955 being one of the worst seasons we have experienced.

We sold potatoes for $1 and less per hundred pounds graded and packed f. o. b. at the farm. Yet potatoes within 15 miles from my farm were costing the consumer 5 and 6 cents per pound. I would like to know why there is such a markup in price. Gentlemen, it does not sound reasonable, when the farmer himself is selling them at a loss. Why should we have to do so?

Therefore, in my opinion, I would like to ask the committee to set up a program whereby we as farmers will receive a reasonable price for our product.

I feel that the potato growers of not only New Jersey, but of all of the States, need some means of Government control, basing my statement on the fact that the Government reports from Washington tell us that there is an oversupply in the country. Therefore, I would like to state my own opinion that the Government should control the production, not by acreage but by bushels or hundredweight marketed. I feel this would eliminate the mistakes made in the previous program which was based on acreage allotments instead of bushels or hundredweight. This program should apply only to growers who have been producing potatoes for the last 3 years. I say this because I know that in the previous program people planted potatoes because there was a Government support.

I would like to add to that, gentlemen.