done. The two bills are S. 3588 and S. 3983. Both of these bills provide for compulsory poultry inspection. We are in favor of S. 3588 but oppose S. 3983.

The Wisconsin turkey farmers are in favor of S. 3588 because of the following reasons.

1. S. 3588 is a constructive bill in every way. It is designed to aid the producer in more effective marketing of this $4 billion annual poultry crop, and at the same time, give every assurance to the consuming public that only poultry products which have been inspected for wholesomeness can be marketed in interstate commerce.

2. The Secretary of Agriculture is given full authority to administer the inspection program by bill S. 3588 and therefore the program can be continued under the same Department that has had 28 years of valuable experience of doing such an excellent job of administering the voluntary program. It would be highly impractical not to make use of the well-trained personnel that are very familiar with all of the problems of the poultry industry, or the present well qualified veterinarians active in poultry inspection work. This program should be financed from appropriated funds.

3. S. 3588 gives the Secretary of Agriculture authority to conduct an effective inspection program, using his own judgment regarding ante mortem bird-by-bird inspection only when necessary. Any benefits derived from ante mortem inspection would be very doubtful indeed, and the costs would be greatly increased by mandatory bird-bybird ante mortem inspection. Surely, the Secretary of Agriculture, realizing the problems associated with any type of inspection program, would be most able to provide for specific needs of each class of poultry or animal inspection. Our poultry processing industry is making improvements every day and new inspection techniques must be applied as they are developed to meet this growing change.

4. S. 3588 provides for cooperation between Federal and State Governments in inspection programs.

5. S. 3588 would prevent an overlapping of functions between the inspection at the processing level and the Food and Drug Administration, whose jurisdiction begins after the processing has been completed.

6. S. 3588 also provides ample time to inaugurate a program of compulsory inspection which we all know is very necessary.

We are opposed to the provisions of S. 3983 for the following rea

sons:

1. S. 3983 is unrealistic because it provides for all poultry processing to come under compulsory inspection by January 1, 1957. This early date disregards the necessity of training more personnel and allowing reasonable time for processors to qualify; in fact, it appears to be indicative of the other objectives of this bill to create chaos and destruction to our poultry industry.

2. S. 3983 would remove poultry inspection from the Division of the Department of Agriculture where it has been very adequately administered for over a quarter of a century, and place it in the hands of a new agency that would have to be created for this purpose. Why disregard 28 years of experience of able administration of a poultry inspection program? This would be absolutely contrary to sound and efficient administration. The development of a new department to handle such a vast inspection program would create many problems

indeed, and cause many serious and far-reaching and costly adjustments in our whole poultry industry.

It is difficult to understand why our great poultry industry has as many enemies as it has. The proponents of bill S. 3983 have and are conducting a well organized smear campaign against our industry. They would like to have everyone believe that no poultry, at present, is wholesome.

The only logical conclusion of such unwarranted and destructive action is that the proponents of bill S. 3983 hope to accomplish still greater and far-reaching destruction than they have thus far. John A. Baker, of the National Farmers Union, said in his statement before you on June 18, 1956, that, "Farmers love the land on which they live." It is inconceivable how Mr. Baker can make such a statement and, in the next breath, use all of the degrading phrases possible against our industry. Surely Mr. Baker knows bill S. 3983 is designed to put more poultry farmers off the land.

The Wisconsin Turkey Growers sincerely urge you to give favorable consideration to S. 3588.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation again, to you and your committee, for the opportunity to present this statement.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Mr. Troy G. Sloan.

STATEMENT OF TROY G. SLOAN, JACKSON, MISS., REPRESENTING THE PELAHATCHIE POULTRY CO., PELAHATCHIE, MISS., THE GADDIS PACKING CO., FOREST, MISS., AND B. C. ROGERS & SON, MORTON, MISS.

Mr. SLOAN. I would like to summarize this paragraph of my statement, on page 2, by saying we all recognize the value of a program which supervises intrastate as well as interstate commerce.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you. The statement will be printed in its entirety.

(The statement of Troy G. Sloan is as follows:)

My name is Troy G. Sloan, a certified public accountant of the firm Sloan, Gipson & Blackwell. The majority of our practice is with the poultry industry in the central Mississippi area. I am appearing before you today as a representative of three processors whose normal weekly production amounts to more than 500,000 head of broilers. From the standpoint of the farmer, this represents the net result of the 9 to 10 week growing period earnings for more than 60 farmers. Of the two bills the committee has before it, we prefer S. 3588 over S. 3983. This preference is based upon the the following:

(1) It would be more desirable to keep the inspection program in the Department of Agriculture because of the experience it has already accumulated, as well as being better qualified to handle the inspection of an agricultural product.

(2) The proposed effective date of July 1, 1958 is much more acceptable because it would allow more time for the inspection agency to adequately train the necessary personnel, as well as provide the processor with more time to make necessary modifications in order to qualify.

(3) The inspection procedures as provided for in S. 3588 were designed more specifically for poultry, instead of relying too heavily on the adoption of a slightly modified inspection program which was set up years ago for the inspection of red-meat animals.

(4) Inspection should be under the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture so that he may apply new inspection techniques as they are developed. The fact that poultry is in direct competition with red meat, as well as total differences

between the two all the way from production to consumption, are reasons enough to keep the inspection program for poultry separate and distinct in all respects from the red-meat inspection program.

(5) The cost of this program should be from appropriated funds.

These 3 plants are located from 25 to 50 miles from Jackson, Miss., and there are 2 other plants of comparable size and capacity in this territory-all striving to process a wholesome product, yet the sales of any 1 of these 5 plants in the city of Jackson is negligible because of a few small processors operating only in intrastate commerce who can consistently sell their product for less because they have not adopted any quality standards and little, if any, sanitation methods being employed. This example also holds true in other urban areas close to these plants which they would like to sell. Therefore, for the protection of the consumer, as well as the creation of better competitive conditions for the processor, you can easily see an advantage of a compulsory inspection program which could establish jurisdiction over intrastate as well as interstate

commerce.

With poultry constituting approximately 11 percent of the total agricultural income, or about $4 billion annually to the third most important producer of farm income, and in conjunction with an estimated annual payroll of $250 million paid by the processors as well as the purchase of other millions of dollars worth of supplies, all of which serve as stimulants to the farm economy as well as the national economy, you are confronted with the serious dangers that an unworkable program would immediately cause.

Therefore, in summary, let us respectfully state that if a compulsory inspection program is necessary, we prefer S. 3588 over S. 3983.

In conclusion, may we express our appreciation to the committee for this opportunity to present our views.

Senator WILLIAMS. Representatives of several organizations have asked that their statements be filed in the record. They will be inserted at this point.

(The statements are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY TED KISSELL, PRESIDENT, KISSELL BROS., INC.,

COLUMBUS GROVE, OHIO

I am Ted Kissell, president of Kissell Bros., Inc., Columbus Grove, Ohio. We are poultry processors.

Our poultry processing plant was started by our grandfather in 1873. We are the third generation operating this plant and in the same location.

We are considered one of the smaller independent processors with a volume of around 3 million pounds yearly of fowl, cocks, and turkeys. We do not dress fryers.

We have USDA plant No. 1018, approved for sanitation, with only seven such approved plants in Ohio.

We are in favor of S. 3588 and mandatory post mortem inspection, provided the inspection service is paid for by the Federal Government, and the direction and supervision placed under the Department of Agriculture, who already have an experienced department to administer the regulations.

Approximately 80 percent of poultry processed in Ohio is consumed in Ohio, and it is essential the consumer have protection for this poultry as well as that traveling interstate.

Unless this mandatory inspection is paid for by the Federal Government inequalities would exist.

The effective date of this S. 3588 should be set far enough in the future to allow the Department of Agriculture adequate time to train inspectors, and this service all placed under the combined Federal-State program in each State, which is necessary to a well administered program with assurance that the consumer will receive only wholesome poultry.

STATEMENT FIELD BY L. H. CHESSHER, L. H. CHESSHER & Co., NIXON, TEX.

My name is L. H. Chessher. I am engaged in the production of hatching eggs the operation of a broiler chick hatchery, a broiler feed business, the production of broilers and fryers by broiler-producing farmers, and a processing business at Nixon, Tex.

I favor S. 3588 and sincerely hope this committee will see fit to report favorably on this bill. I believe the poultry industry has grown and developed to the extent that it is ready and has need for mandatory inspection. A sound program which would be provided under S. 3588, should have the effect of developing more consumer confidence in our products by assuring the consumer of a good and wholesome product. An unsound measure could be a trade barrier and badly disrupt the normal flow of commerce in our industry.

I believe the United States Department of Agriculture has a better understanding of our industry and of the problems peculiar to our industry than any other agency, and is, therefore, best suited to write and develop regulations and administer a mandatory inspection program that will be workable within our industry which will not unduly disrupt business and at the same time accomplish the desired results of giving adequate consumer protection. I understand S. 3588 places this responsibility on the United States Department of Agriculture. Your favorable consideration of S. 3588, I believe, will be well advised.

STATEMENT FILED BY OTTO WRIGHT, PRESIDENT, DAVIS CLEAVER PRODUCE Co., QUINCY, ILL.

I. It is desirable to keep the inspection of poultry and poultry products under the Department of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture for 28 years has been administering a voluntary inspection program and during that time has acquired considerable valuable experience. No other governmental department has this experience. Since the Department of Agriculture has administered this program, it has established methods of procedure and assisting facilities that could best be utilized in putting an inspection program into effect. The Department of Agriculture has a number of trained poultry inspectors around which to build a satisfactory and complete compulsory program. The Davis Cleaver Produce Co. is presently operating under the voluntary inspection program of the Department of Agriculture and has been so operating for the past 14 years. This experience has been very satisfactory and in our opinion beneficial to our customers and to ourselves. The veterinarian inspectors furnished us by the Department of Agriculture have been specialized in poultry and proficient in their work.

II. The effective date of the proposed legislation should be sufficiently advanced to give the inspecting agency adequate time to train the necessary personnel. During the 14 years that the Davis Cleaver Produce Co. has been under the present voluntary inspection program all of the inspectors except one, and that was for a short period only, have been doctors of veterinary medicine. Should it prove impossible to furnish a doctor of veterinary medicine to all of the plants coming within the provisions of the proposed legislation, it would seem to us that it would take a minimum of 2 years to adequately train the necessary personnel.

III. The proposed program should be financed from appropriated funds. Since the purpose of this act is to protect the general public and since the legislation is in the public interest, the expenses of the program should be paid from public funds.

Since the program, as submitted in its present form, is compulsory on those members of the poultry industry coming within the provisions of the act, it would seem that legal questions might arise, if the funds necessary to meet the expenses of the program were to be derived in some manner other than appropriation.

IV. The inspection program should be designed specifically for poultry.

The poultry industry is a highly specialized industry. In our many years of experience we have found that the problems arising from the inspection of poultry and poultry products have been highly complex and essentially different from the problems found in other forms of livestock and livestock products.

Our inspectors have been specialists in their field, and it is felt that the need for specialization will become increasingly great in the future. A program designed specifically for poultry and poultry products will make for greater uniformity in inspection methods.

V. The proposed inspection and the methods should be within the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture.

During the past 10 years alone, there have been radical changes within the poultry industry in inspection techniques and production methods. The Secretary of Agriculture and those under him in his Department are the persons and

agencies most familiar with the advances that have been made. It is contemplated that further advances will be made in the future, and the Secretary of Agriculture should have sufficient latitude in determining the methods and techniques of inspection as they are developed and adapted to production methods.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It has been shown here that it is desirable to keep the inspection of poultry and poultry products under the Department of Agriculture. The effective date of the proposed legislation should be sufficiently advanced to give the inspecting agency adequate time to train the necessary personnel. The proposed program should be financed from appropriated funds. The inspection program should be designed specifically for poultry. The proposed inspection and the methods should be within the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. Therefore, we submit that if the basic premises as herein stated are put into effect and embodied in the proposed legislation, the consumer will benefit by a better and safer product and the poultry industry will be enabled to better serve the public.

STATEMENT FILED BY GRANT W. HESS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MICHIGAN POULTRY MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC., HEMLOCK, MICH.

For the record, I am Grant W. Hess, representing over 500 poultry producers of the Michigan Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc.

Our poultry-processing plant has been operating under the present voluntary inspection service since organization in October of 1954.

Following we have briefly outlined our preferences regarding S. 3588:

No. 1. We prefer to keep inspection in the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture so that new inspection techniques can be incorporated into the program easily.

No. 2. We believe the effective date should be advanced far enough ahead to facilitate training inspection personnel.

No. 3. This should be a definite poultry program and not an amendment to another type of inspection program for a type of livestock having problems of dissimilar nature.

No. 4. It is our belief that costs of the program should come from appropriated funds to bring it in line with the red-meat program. This is an important item, due to the decreased margins to producers and processors using the present voluntary plan that are trying to market the best and safest product possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to express this opinion of our 500 plus members.

STATEMENT FILED BY ANDREW G. LOHMAN, SECRETARY AND MANAGER, HAMILTON FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE, INC., HAMILTON, MICH.

Our organization consists of about 1,000 farmers who operate small farms and a majority of them receive the major part of their income from eggs and poultry production.

For the past 18 years our egg department has operated under the Grading and Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture in cooperation with our Michigan State Department of Agriculture. Under the protection of this program we have developed a pack of eggs which is recognized for its high quality throughout the United States. Last year we handled 450 carloads of eggs. Our present volume is 10 percent greater than last year. This program has greatly helped our producers and has given the consumers a better quality egg and more value for their money.

We also operate a very modern poultry dressing plant with a capacity of 1,000 birds per hour, which has cost us about $65,000. Our plant operates under the USDA program for plant sanitation. Recently we made application to operate under the USDA inspection for wholesomeness. We feel it will cost us another $10,000 for plant improvement before our plant will be accepted under the program.

We strongly recommend the passage of S. 3588, if the poultry industry of this Nation is to operate under a compulsory program of inspection, for the following reasons:

1. This bill has been studied and proposed by many of the best informed poultrymen of this Nation.