STATEMENT OF THEODORE E. SCHULDERBERG, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL POULTRY, BUTTER & EGG ASSOCIATION, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. SCHLUDERBERG. My name is Theodore E. Schluderberg. I am president of the National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association.

The National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association was founded 50 years ago, in 1906, and today has a membership of about 450 processors, shippers, receivers, distributors, cold-storage warehouses and associated lines-all the phases that play a part, from the production to the consumption, of the products of the trade.

The officers of the association include every segment of the industry and represent the large firms, as well as the small ones. It fosters the growth of dependable, mutual understanding throughout the industry to give the consumer a better product and the producer a better

market.

The board of directors of the National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association and a majority of its members favor the development and the adoption of sound, mandatory inspection for wholesomeness programs for all poultry and poultry products, provided that such programs are maintained from the Federal appropriations.

The National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association has always stood for the principle that the consumer has every right to expect her poultry to be wholesome and to be processed in a clean plant. Some of our members pride themselves on the cleanliness of their plants and have operated under Federal inspection on a voluntary basis. Since the housewife today is buying and accepting great services from industry it is necessary not only for poultry to be wholesome, but also for the housewife to be convinced of this fact and to have no reason to question the wholesomeness of the poultry she buys, regardless of its source. We believe in high quality and we want to see that the housewife has whatever assurance she needs to keep her consuming and enjoying poultry products at a maximum rate.

The Federal Meat Inspection Service this year is observing its 50th anniversary of assurance to the American people of the purity and wholesomeness of red-meat products that are produced under Federal inspection and we believe that consumers are entitled to the same assurance that poultry has been produced under similar sanitary conditions. We believe that the chicken farmer and the processors of poultry need the same protection that is afforded the producers of red-meat products so that consumers will accept the products of our industry with the same confidence that they accept Federal inspected meats.

Furthermore, we believe that Federal inspection of poultry and poultry products should be under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture who has successfully administered this inspection on a voluntary basis for the past 28 years.

Therefore, a resolution favoring the adoption of S. 3588 was approved by the officers and board of directors of the National Poultry, Butter & Egg Association and a majority of its members.

Thank you very much for this opportunity, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Schluderberg.

Mr. Sydney Yeuson, of the Food Fair, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.

Is Mr. Yeuson present?

(No response).

If not, Mr. Victor Pringle.

STATEMENT OF VICTOR PRINGLE, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ROCKINGHAM POULTRY MARKETING CO-OP, INC., BROADWAY,

VA.

Mr. PRINGLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Victor Pringle. I am assistant general manager of the Rockingham Poultry Marketing Co-op, Inc., of Broadway, Va. Our co-op operates 6 poultry processing plants, serving over 8,000 farmer members and marketing 65 to 70 million pounds a year for them.

We are and have been for the past 15 years processing poultry under the present inspection program administered by the Poultry Division of the Department of Agriculture.

Because of this we feel fully qualified to attest to the value of the inspection program of poultry as a guaranty of wholesomeness and protection for the consumer.

In S. 3588 there are the provisions necessary to make this program mandatory and workable in a reasonable time. It places inspection under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, to use the present Poultry Division, who has done a most worthwhile job for the past 27 years, or make changes as he feels necessary for the best administration of a mandatory inspection program.

Having firsthand knowledge and actual experience in working under the present voluntary inspection program for the past 16 years we are amazed and alarmed by the volume of questionable testimony that has attempted to destroy consumer acceptance of a fine food product. We know that our interest in protecting the consumer and delivering to her a wholesome food is greater than is the interest of many public employees and others not engaged directly in the processing business. We resent the inference against the industry made by these people. We do not feel that it is necessary to injure an industry by destroying the confidence of the consumer in the product in order to get a mandatory inspection bill.

I know that the other poultry processors in the State of Virginia feel the same way by the fact they have gone on record as being in full support of S. 3588. Their present and past record of usage of the present voluntary inspection program also shows their desire to protect the consumer and sell a wholesome product.

Without going into further detail as to why S. 3588 is the most practical bill to accomplish mandatory inspection we would like to point out our objections to S. 3983.

There are several impracticable features to S. 3983 which show that it was designed by people not familiar with the problem.

1. The effective date of January 1, 1957, is wholly impossible to meet. Anyone stating that date certainly has no conception of the magnitude of the poultry industry and the job ahead.

2. It would place poultry inspection in an agency that for 50 years has been dealing only with inspection of red meats and has had no experience with the poultry business.

3. It would create a dual responsibility between two agencies that would only cause confusion and accomplish nothing.

4. By specifying a definite agency for administration as contained in S. 3983, it would deny the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to organize the Department to the best interests of the consumer and the poultry industry.

In line with these facts, we strongly support S. 3588.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Pringle.

We will next hear from Mr. Christgau, representing the Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc.

STATEMENT OF T. H. CHRISTGAU, MANAGER, POULTRY AND TURKEY PROCESSING OPERATIONS, LAND O’LAKES CREAMERIES, INC., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

Mr. CHRISTGAU. My name is T. H. Christgau. I represent the Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minn. We are a cooperative marketing organization of dairy and poultry farmers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota. We have about 100,000 patrons, which we represent. Since the hour is getting late, I have filed a statement with the committee. I would like to summarize this, my testimony at this hearing, by saying that we are strongly in favor of the adoption of Senate bill 3588 and are strongly opposed to the adoption of S. 3983. We don't believe, in the small plants that we operate and the other plants in our area that operate that same way, that we could get by under S. 3983, and we do believe, under S. 3588, that the industry will be able to operate and that the consumer will be getting a wholesome product.

Your

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Christgau. statement will be printed in its entirety at this point in the record. (The statement of T. H. Christgau is as follows:)

My name is T. H. Christgau. I work for Land O'Lakes Creameries, Inc., as manager of poultry and turkey processing operations. My home is in Minneapolis, Minn.

Land O'Lakes purchases chickens and turkeys from farmers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas, processes this poultry in these processing plants, and sells the chickens and turkeys, distributing any earnings to the farmers in the form of patronage dividends.

Land O'Lakes has been in the poultry-processing business for about 30 years. During most of that time, the chickens and turkeys have been officially graded by the United States Department of Agriculture. In recent years, we have been eviscerating all poultry, and our processing plants have been operated under the supervision of the Poultry Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Land O'Lakes appears today as a proponent of S. 3588. We agree with the purposes of this act, to the extent that a Poultry Inspection Service of the kind which has been previously operated is essential. We believe it is to the advantage of the industry and the poultry producers that the administration of the Inspection Service should remain under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture and under the immediate control of the personnel who have developed this constructive and practical work over the past 25 to 30 years.

My experience is in the supervision of plants in which both the grading service and the inspection service of the United States Department of Agriculture have long been used. The inspectors and graders are paid by the United States Department of Agriculture, which, in turn, is reimbursed for the service by Land O'Lakes. I do not claim competence with reference to poultry-processing plants operated in some other manner.

We believe that the grading and inspection service should be maintained under the same supervision. This is true because poultry may be both graded and inspected. It is more practical to have both functions performed by the same personnel with a common overhead cost than to have them administered by separate organizations. We believe that the inspection service will be best managed by the same personnel who manage the grading service. They know, for instance, that immediate freezing at very low temperatures is essential and the product should not be thawed out and refrozen. These are just two of the peculiarities which need attention in the management of any grading or inspection service.

We

Since our plants are already under the service, we have no knowledge of the problems which will be encountered in extending this service to others. assume, however, that the Congress will give the Secretary and the industry time to train the necessary employees and make the conversion. We believe the Secretary should also be granted adequate authority to handle unforeseen cases by granting relief from hardship which may be occasioned by administration of the act.

In the past, we have supported the inspection service by fees paid to cover the salaries and expenses of inspectors and graders plus additional money for centralized supervision. It has always seemed to us unfair and inequitable that certain parts of the industry should have to undertake the direct expense of inspection to protect consumers from unethical practices. We still believe that this is true. Since the act properly has as its objective the protection of consumers, we recommend that the Congress, insofar as practical, provide for the financing of this service through direct appropriation. We do not believe that the poultry farmers or the poultry processors should contribute more than their proportionate amount as consumers.

The committee knows of the great growth of the poultry industry under the direction of the inspection and grading service. The integrity of the product has been enhanced and the large-scale operations, both in production and in processing, have reduced costs so that dressed, inspected, and graded poultry now competes favorably. We commend the Congress and the Department of Agriculture and the poultry grading and inspecting services in the Department for the tremendous progress which has been possible.

We recommend examination of the record to determine the contributions which can be made by further extending the inspection and grading services and the good work of the past. We recommend to the Congress that, as soon as practicably possible, there shall be legislation providing appropriation and authority for extension of these services.

We will next hear from Mr. Don Koppenhofer.

STATEMENT OF DON KOPPENHOFER, SECRETARY, KOPPENHOFER BROS. CO., DESHLER, OHIO

Mr. KOPPENHOFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will identify myself as Don Koppenhofer, of Deshler, Ohio. I am one of the principal shareholders of the Koppenhofer Bros. Co. and am serving as secretary of that corporation at this time.

Our principal business is buying poultry, eggs, and cream from producers and after processing, the products are sold in the various markets. We also are in the growing business in a small way.

Turkeys are our main item in the poultry processing field, but we also dress many broilers and fowl. Our annual output of all poultry would amount to approximately 5 million pounds. We use the USDA voluntary inspection program at a cost of approximately $9,000 per year, to assure wholesome products to the consumer.

I am expressing my opinion that our corporation would much prefer the adoption of S. 3588. A change to another inspection group could become very costly to the producer as well as the poultry consumer. The passing of S. 3588 could speed up the mandatory inspection program.

I would much prefer a bill that would segregate the poultry and red meat inspection. It would seem unnecessary to me to have both ante mortem and post mortem inspection. If ante mortem is found necessary it should be at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. The poultry producer is constantly confronted with new diseases in his flocks but the many research centers such as our universities that help to diagnose and combat diseases, as well as the many feed companies who have research institutions for this purpose, convince me that the disease problem is well under hand and that the post-mortem inspection would be ample.

It is my opinion that since the poultry products provide such a large volume of food products it becomes necessary to have mandatory inspection. This necessitates that funds be appropriated so that every plant can have this service.

In closing I would like to say that I am proud to be a part of the poultry industry. It is an industry that believes in fighting its own battles. Rarely has it asked the United States Government for help. Passage of S. 3588 would give the consumer an added assurance of the wholesomeness of the poultry she buys. As a grower of poultry as well as a processor, I think I can understand the problems of the industry. The passage of S. 3588 would serve best all segments of the population, consumer and producer alike.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
We will next hear from William T. Wallace.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. WALLACE, DIRECTOR, PLANT OPERATIONS, PRIEBE & SONS, INC., DIXON, ILL.

Mr. WALLACE. My name is William T. Wallace. I am director of Priebe & Sons, Inc., and a resident of Dixon, Ill.

For the purpose of the record, I do not represent any association although my company, Priebe & Sons, Inc., holds a membership in many of the associations that are represented.

Priebe & Sons has been in the poultry and egg processing and distributing business for over 50 years. At present, we operate a total of 10 processing plants, located in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, Arkansas, and North Carolina. We also have seven chick hatcheries, all in towns where we have processing plants.

My capacity with Priebe & Sons is that of director, in charge of plant operations. One of my basic responsibilities is that of supervising and preparation of the final product.

Today in 5 plants, we will process on a ready-to-cook basis— approximately 70,000 frying chickens, stewing fowl, and turkeys. This means a total of tonnage of roughly, 200,000 pounds, or 1 million pounds per week.

A

Our products, in their final form, end up in chainstores, hotels, restaurants, Army kitchens in the United States and overseas. large proportion of our products is sold either under our own brand label or under a number of large chainstore labels.

With the exception of one plant, every plant we operate packs poultry under continuous USDA Veterinarian Inspection and Grading Service. And we have had this Service at these plants for several years. At each plant the USDA veterinarian has full control over the product and the employees engaged in its preparation.