From our first packing plant in Springfield, Mass., built in 1641, the industry has grown by leaps and bounds. From the 1,500 processing plants, where 150,000 are employed, 23 million pounds of meat is inspected daily.

We the livestock industry are proud that we could meet the emergencies of war. The smoke had hardly settled over Pearl Harbor when the Army Quartermaster Department placed an order for 1 million pounds of boneless meat, boxed for overseas shipment. Within 72 hours after this order had been received, 35 carloads were loaded and rolling toward the Pacific embarkation port. We are grateful to the packing industry for this fine record.

During the World War II, 131 billion pounds of meat were consumed by our Armed Forces, by our civilian population, and by the peoples of the United Nations.

Why do I mention the origin, the history, and the growth of this meat industry? Because it has been the most sustaining food in our diet since the beginning of time.

What happened when we doubled the meat in the diet of our Armed Forces, over that being consumed in civilian life? It gave us the strongest, most healthy, and courageous army any nation has ever known. Not until meat was removed from these diets in the prison camps of our enemies did these men crack under brainwashing. Meat is a brain food. It is vital to the health of our bodies and minds.

If we are to safely handle the new energies that are now at our command they can only be handled safely by clear, well-trained minds, supported by a strong, physical body. Tests conducted by the National Livestock and Meat Board offer further proof of the importance of a higher meat diet.

Research on carcass values, feed conversion, and selective breeding come slow and are expensive when dealing with livestock. The relationship of agricultural colleges and livestock men are good. Our extension livestock specialists and the various department heads of our agricultural colleges move about their respective States calling their livestock men by their first names. They pass verbal information as well as in bulletin form to these men. These men repeatedly tell us that their funds for research in these fields are inadequate. We are only seeking funds to increase this research which will produce a quality product to better feed our people and compete on the world market. For this research we are glad to take from our receipts of sales a sufficient amount to conduct this research and promotion of our own products.

As to the handing of these funds, we stand on the record of our forefathers and the leaders of this generation. Of the many breed and farm organizations, large and small, never has the integrity of these organizations been questioned. Never have they been pulled before a committee of State or national level nor have they ever been asked to appear in court and asked about their funds.

Farmers in handling a trust, have a junior at his side in business, as well as in the field. Growing good honest citizens of strong bodies and clean minds is our first objective. We want to continue to support our families by marketing our grain through livestock. We are willing to pay for it from the sales of same. Mr. POAGE. As Mr. Fulk calls your name, may I suggest that you rise, instead of waiting until he has called your name?

Mr. FULK. I think that is a point well taken.

Wallace Ware, farmer, Lanark, Ill., Illinois Livestock Feeders Association. He had to go home.

He supports the stand of the Corn Belt Feeders Association. Stanley Hurst, hog farmer, Manilla, Ind., executive committee, Indiana Swine Breeders and Commercial Hog Producers.

He will have a statement to file.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF STANLEY HURST, MANILLA, IND.

The passage of the bills to permit deductions for cattle, sheep, and swine to further research and promotion of each segment of livestock in proportion of revenue collected would certainly help these segments of agriculture.

Promotion of the swine industry of Indiana (and all States) should be done first by research to obtain a higher quality product and a much more efficient production of such. Much more effort is needed to improve the quality and effi

ciency of pork production than a pork sales promotion through advertising. The swine industry certainly needs to improve its quality before trying to advertise an inferior product. A higher quality product would do much toward selling itself.

Quality needs to be stressed to producers through publicity on meat-type hogs, carcass demonstrations and selling hogs on a quality basis.

Swine testing stations, on-the-farm testing and marketing at proper weights would speed up quality progress which in reality means an increased educational program for producers.

Disease research and control would increase efficiency for local producers and would also help open trade doors to foreign countries. No reduction of funds would or should be taken from the National Livestock and Meat Board. This organization has done an outstanding job with the red meats, and an increase of funds of said organization should reap greater rewards for beef, sheep, and swine.

Indiana could reap great benefits from a swine testing station, meats laboratory and disease research from funds collected from its own resources.

The passage of these bills merely gives the right to our own organization to sponsor and finance itself in promotion and research which is certainly needed in establishing a stronger and more efficient industry.

The "red meats" industry is only asking that restrictions be removed from it so that they may promote themselves the same way dairy, poultry, and other commodity groups have been so successful doing.

Mr. FULK. Bernard Collins, hog farmer, Clarion, Iowa, vice president of the Iowa Swine Producers Association, chairman of the Iowa Swine Testing Association, and director of the Wright County Iowa Swine Producers Association.

He will have statements to file.

(The statements and additional data are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BERNARD COLLINS, CLARION, IOWA

I am Bernard Collins of Clarion, Iowa; a farmer and a swine producer. I also serve as chairman of the board of directors of the Iowa Swine Testing Station, located near Ames.

We in the swine-producing industry, are proud of the product we are capable of producing. A cut of pork from a good, meaty type hog will compete evenly with any kind of meat on the marketing counters; however we realize that much of our finished product, pork, lacks quality and uniformity. It has often been accused, and justly so, of being too fat.

Statistics, such as the figures showing the increase in per capita consumption of meats in the United States over the last 15 years, show that pork consumption has increased only 7 percent, where competing meats have increased in per capita consumption by as much as 88 percent.

The living standards and eating habits of the American public have changed during the past 15 to 25 years. Where open cars and antiquated heating facilities required fats and fatty foods for body heat and energy, modern living condi. tions make this unnecessary today.

To meet this change in consumer eating habits, we in the production end of the industry have to change the type of hog we are producing.

This involves either a change in rations or a change by selection of breeding stock for the characteristics which we desire and need in our finished productpork.

As the majority of the hogs are raised in the midwestern corn-producing area, where we need a market for corn, then the logical solution is to change the type of hog produced by selection of breeding stock that will produce a meaty carcass on a corn and protein ration.

The swine industry is fortunate in that heritability for fatness is 0.52, whereas growth rate and feed efficiency have a heritability of 0.24 and 0.26 respectively. In other words, we can correct for fatness twice as fast as the nearest other desirable trait by selection of breeding stock.

There are many of the right kind of hogs in our existing breeds. The problem was to test and find these strains so they could be used as seed stock for quality

improvement program. It was with this premise in mind that the Iowa swine testing station was developed.

As there was no money available for building a testing station, packers, stockyards, and other interested parties were solicited, and $30,600 was raised for purchase of 3 acres of land near Ames, and construction of 102 confinement pens and other physical facilities for the testing of purebred and hybrid herds.

The breeder submits 6 pigs, 4 boars and 2 barrows from 1 sire and 3 dams, to the station at from 30 to 50 pounds of weight. These pigs are split into 2 pens of 2 boars and 1 barrow each. They are put on test at 60 pounds of weight. They are self-fed a fattening ration to encourage the fatness tendency to express itself. The feed is weighed to learn their feed efficiency. At 200 pounds of weight, the pigs are taken off test. The days on test gives the growth rate factor. The amount of feed eaten gives the feed efficiency factor. The barrows are slaughtered for carcass data, such as length of carcass and percentage of lean cuts.

The boars are probed alive for backfat thickness, which is a true indicator of carcass fatness. This is done by making a small incision in the skin in three designated places along the back. Then with a thin rule which, when pushed in the skin incision, will penetrate fat but not muscle, a measurement average of the amount of fatback the hog carries, can be obtained.

The boars which fail to meet standards on growth rate, feed efficiency, and fatness are castrated. Those above standard are sold at public auction.

We have just finished our first year of testing, and have tested 612 head in the two sessions, 408 of these being boars.

At the 4 public auction sales of these tested boars, 223 head have sold at an average price of $168. There has been an estimated 6,000 people in attendance at these 4 sales. This large attendance is an indication of the tremendous interest of swine producers, not only of Iowa, but of surrounding States in quality improvement programs. Boars were purchased by buyers from Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, and one boar was bought for a farm in Hawaii.

This Iowa swine-testing station is run by a board of seven directors, appointed by the Iowa Swine Producers' Association, with the technical assistance of Dr. Durham and Dr. Hazel of Iowa State College. The research material obtained is used by the college in their teaching and extension programs.

It is a nonprofit organization with the breeders participating paying testing and sale costs. The success or failure of the station must be measured by the interest of the swine producers in entering hogs for testing and by the interest in purchasing the tested boars.

The testing station, after only 1 year of operation, is the best known, most talked about, innovation in swine production history in Iowa.

It points the way toward the production of a quality pork product. The commercial producer is outbidding the purebred producer in many cases for the tested stock. The purebred producer realizes this and is eager to participate.

To meet the growing demand for testing facilities, the board of directors changed the regulations for the coming season, limiting each breeder to 1 pen of 3 boars and 1 barrow. This enables us to test 102 herds in the State. On the closing entry day, the board of directors had 200 entries for the 102 pens available. Entries were drawn out of a hat, so we had many disappointed breeders. We need more facilities to meet the demand.

We in the swine industry need this checkoff on livestock to enable us to build more testing stations. We need this quality improvement program to help us maintain our place on the American menu.

It has been estimated by Dr. Durham, of Iowa State College, that 2 cents per hog marketed would build enough testing stations to test most of the boars used in the United States.

This is a quality-improvement program that cannot be run by colleges, as there is financial gain or loss for the breeders participating. It has to be built and run by the swine producers themselves. This checkoff is an equitable way of financing swine producers' own program. Livestock men aren't asking for Government handouts. They are asking for a chance to help themselves. An amendment to a discriminating law which puts them at a disadvantage in a very competitive field-food production.

91840-57-3

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF BERNARD COLLINS, VICE PRESIDENT,

IOWA SWINE PRODUCERS, CLARION, IOWA

I am Bernard Collins, of Clarion, Wright County, Iowa, where I am a farmer and swine producer. I am a member of the Wright County Swine Producers, serving as a director on their board; vice president of the Iowa Swine Producers; chairman of the Iowa Swine Testing Station; and a member of the Iowa Livestock Council.

The statement has often been made that farmers are not interestd in contributing to a fund for promotion of their product.

The Livestock Council of Wright County did not believe this to be true, so when the members of the committee heard that the Iowa Livestock Association wanted a survey of this type run, we volunteered our services.

Although we, in Wright County, like to think it is the best county in the State, statistics do not bear this out. Wright County ranks 39th of 99 counties in swine sold and 54th in cattle sold, according to the 1954 Iowa Census of Agriculture. In reality, then, we are just slightly above average for the State in livestock production.

At a meeting of the directors of the county beef, swine, sheep, and dairy associations, the checkoff proposal was explained and the directors unanimously passed a resolution favoring a checkoff on red meats and voted to carry out the survey to get the opinion of all farmers in the county.

A farmer canvasser from each school district or 4-square-mile area was contacted and asked to cooperate in making the survey. This made a total of about 120 farmers who were interested enough to spend their time in canvassing their neighborhoods.

Another meeting was held to inform those workers as to the purpose of the survey. The four county newspapers cooperated by explaining the proposal and purpose of the survey.

The canvass was started on a Thrusday following the newspaper circulation and completed in 5 days.

The survey proposal gave the farmer an opportunity to vote on one of three amounts for a basis of checkoff and an opportunity to vote no. The three vote proposals were (1) 5 cents per hundredweight on all livestock, (2) 25 cents per head on hogs, and 5 cents per head on sheep or (3) 10 cents per head on cattle, 5 cents per head on hogs, and 21⁄2 cents per head on sheep.

A total of 1,551 farmers were contacted. The latest figure I could find on producers of livestock in Wright County was the 1954 census figure of 1,703. Allowing for the current decline in farm operators, I believe that when the survey was run in 1956, we contacted 95 percent of the farmers in the county. Of the 1,551 farmers contacted, 2 percent were undecided or abstained from voting. 20 percent voted "No", and 78 percent voted in favor of the check-off proposal. Of the 78 percent voting affirmatively, 17 percent voted on the 5 cents per hundredweight checkoff; 20 percent voted for the 25 cents per head on cattle, 10 cents per head on hogs, and 5 cents per sheep proposal, and 41 percent voted for the proposed amount of 10 cents per head on cattle, 5 cents per head on hogs, and 2 cents per head of sheep.

Also on the questionnaire was a place for the farmer to list the number of each kind of livestock sold the previous year and the size of the farm operated. The questionnaire was also summarized according to the farm size and to the size of the livestock operation. I have enclosed this summary with my written testimony and it is available for your inspection; however, the size of livestock operation or size of farm unit did not vary the opinion appreciably from the county total.

In our Wright County survey, which we will have to admit is very much an average county and an average cross section of Iowa, we found that the farmer himself, when given an opportunity to express his opinion is very much in favor of an opportunity to finance his own self-help program.

The dairy producers of our county, who have had their own checkoff program for several years, and know the benefits derived from such programs were among the best helpers in conducting the survey and the strongest advocates of self-help programs.

An identical survey was run in Cass County in southern Iowa. Cass County is another average Iowa county, though stronger in cattle production and weaker in swine production than Wright County. Cass County interviewed 1,069 farmers on this proposal, with the result that 79 percent of those interviewed, favored the checkoff proposal.

The only help these livestock producers want from the Government, is legislation to enable them to collect funds to promote their own product in this highly competitive field of meats production.

Livestock checkoff survey, Wright County, Iowa, January 1956

Survey conducted through the cooperation of Wright County Cattle Producers' Association, Wright County Swine Producers' Association, Wright County Sheep Producers' Association, Wright County Dairy Interests' Association, Wright County Farm Bureau Livestock Committee, Wright County Agricultural Extension Service.

Mr. FULK. Mr. W. P. Tyrell, cattlefeeder and farmer, Belmond, Iowa; president, Wright County Cattlefeeders Association; and director, Iowa Beef Producers Association, and Fred F. Schmidt, cattle feeder and farmer, Delmar, Iowa; director of the Iowa Beef Producers Association.

He has a statement that he will file.

STATEMENT OF FRED F. SCHMIDT, CATTLE FEEDER AND FARMER, DELMAR, IOWA, DIRECTOR, IOWA BEEF PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am from Clinton County, Iowa. I don't know whether you are familiar with it. We probably contributed more to the National Livestock and Meat Board than any county in any State in the Union. We wanted to have this checkoff.

Mr. FULK. Keith E. Myers, Grundy Center, Iowa.

Mr. MYERS. I will file a statement for Ralph H. Cole, of Nebraska. (The statement by Mr. Cole is as follows:)