Agricultural College, Professor French had told us of the great work done by Bates and Bakewell, Dr. Booth and Cruikshank in Shorthorns, by Dr. Johnson with his Herefords, and by Phillip Dauncey with his Jerseys. These men had all made marvelous progress in improving their own herds, and the entire breeds of cattle by in-breeding. In reply to my questions Professor French had stated that no modern breeder had been able to obtain the knowledge of cattle those old-timers had held, that no college professor or any scientist could discover what it was. This problem none of them could answer had stuck with me for many years.

Dilworth bred two heifers, one brought a heifer calf, the other a bull, I bought them both-there I became a Jersey breeder. Shortly some one began testing daughters of Pilot and they soon proved that he was the greatest son of Eminent, and the greatest grandson of Golden Fern's Lad.

When my bull could show a nice string of yearlings and baby calves Dilworth came to my place to see them, after making careful comparisons between calves and their dams he said: "Your bull, Rioter, has proven himself a better bull than his sire." When a cow with some white on her was bred to Pilot the calf showed only about half as much white markings as the dam, but with Rioter the white marks disappeared entirely.

Pilot's daughters, Pilot's Rockland Beauty made 1,069 pounds of butter and a medal of merit in 1 year; two gold medals with 903 and 945 pounds, as well as 1 record of 600 pounds. Eminent's Foxy Belle made 960 pounds and a gold medal; Pilot's Model, 823 pounds and a gold medal at 2 years old; Eminent's Nelly Sultan, 878 pounds and another gold medal, while 11 records averaged 871 pounds.

Of course, it was Pilot's Rockland Beauty that led the list, she was the heifer I had selected to be bred back to her sire, and she brought the bull, I named him Rioter after a very ancient ancestor. With those three high-priced bulls as foundation stock, for a son of Eminent to surpass them all and then Pilot's son, in my hands, to surpass his own sire made me proud of my stock.

When Rioter's calves showed they were uniformly better than their dams I was sure of my ground, I bred them back to their own sire and when these calves proved better than their dams again, and five young bulls tested in my own herd proved they were better than their sire. My position as the breeder of the very best Jersey cattle in America could not be denied.

Pilot's Rockland Beauty not only made four great records but she maintained an average of 6 percent butterfat in her milk for the entire 4 years. It is no cause for wonder that her son gave me a herd of cows that maintained an average of 6 percent fat for 16 years. Daughters of Rioter, with Beauty for a granddam, and old Pilot for a grandsire-inheritance.

I adjusted the cream screw in my separator to give me a rich cream, if my report from the creamery showed less than 30 percent or 32 percent butterfat I took the separator apart and cleaned the screw. I got that high test year after year, and we churned our own butter sometimes sending a pound of butter to a chemist, either at Spokane or at Salem, to be tested, analyzed-my reports always showed 85 or 85.1 or 85.2 percent butterfat in our butter.

Two weeks ago I made the statement that chemist, scientist, doctor, or nutrition expert could not find an ounce of butterfat in a hundred tons of oleomargarine. Now I find I am in error. I have to withdraw that statement, it is incorrect. On November 5, 1943, I took a clipping from an ad in the Evening Star, which clipping I have pasted to the bottom of page 2 of this treatise, and which reads as follows: "Oleo Margarine-the only oleomargarine that contains 5percent cream."

So oleomargarine is being made with cream, and we may suppose this cream contains 20-percent butterfat; my cream used to test 30 to 32 percent, and there's a legal requirement that cream must test 15 percent, so giving them all the best of it we take 20 percent and 5 percent cream, that is 5 pounds of cream in 100 pounds of oleomargarine means exactly 1-percent butterfat in their oleo as against that 85 percent I used to churn into butter. One pound of butterfat in 100 pounds of this oleo!

Look at the effort I put forth, the hard work I did to be able to produce a food product that would test 85-percent butterft, when ordinary No. 1 creamery butter carries 80-percent fat, and this oleomargarine tests 1 percent! Remember that I led all America. Now comes these oleomargarine people with a product that tests 1 percent, and which they claim is similar to mine, and they allege that the great progress made in the last few years in our knowledge of nutrition renders it unnecessary for their product to be longer discriminated against! One percent is as good as 80 or 85 percent.

Let us reduce this to dollars and cents. This fine, special brand of oleomargarine, which is the only oleomargarine that contains 5-percent cream, is sold for 25 cents per pound. Ordinary creamery butter carries 80-percent butterfat; is actually forth as food exactly 80 times as much or just $20 per pound! That is exactly what this poor working man is paying when he buys this very special brand of oleomargarine, $20 per pound for butter! I defy all the scientists God ever permitted to live to name any other substance in oleomargarine that can be classed as food!

We are told that oleomargarine has been fortified with vitamins, minerals, and so forth, so that it is a real substitute for butter. I will get to this question shortly, but first let me deny that there are, or every were, any vitamins in butterfat! Butterfat, is itself, one of the basic elements; it is not any combination of queer chemicals. It is an essential element of food, the only element that can promote growth, repair broken or torn tissues, induce development either mental or physical. We are told that vitamins are not stored up in the body. Butterfat is stored up in the body, and if it were not, no seriously ill person could ever recover, no dangerously injured person could ever recover; no mother could ever recover after childbirth; no child could ever withstand the shock of separation from his mother's lifestream. It is butterfat stored up in the body, around the ribs, across the back, and across the shoulders that becomes a reservoir of strength, power, energy, and nourishment to protect the individual and to build new tissues, to mend the injuries, and makes it possible for the patient to survive any ordeal that prevents taking new nourishment for a few hours.

Were it not for butterfat stored over the back and around all the organs in the body, no man could live 24 hours without food.

Vitamins were first discovered only a few years ago by a great scientist. They were discovered in a quart of milk; he analyzed the milk, found so much fat, so much protein, so much ash, and so much water, and so forth; the weight of all the ingredients added totaled the original weight of the quart, so he dumped them all back into the bottle, but whoa, it was not milk; it had been, but not now, so he declared there was something in the milk he could not isolate, he could not define it or weigh it, so he could name it. He called it vitamins, something vital to life. Something essential.

Now, let these great scientists listen to me closely. I am going to give them some real knowledge. This will be right new. I will disclose a very great secret, just discovered, a discovery as new as the present moon.

When butterfat is isolated by itself, it quickly congeals, coagulates. It ceases to be one of the finest of foods, and becomes, in a flash, thoroughly indigestible. When that milk was dumped back into the famous bottle the butterfat just refused to emulsify, it refused to return to milk, and once removed it cannot be put back. There was nothing lost out of that bottle, there was not, and never was, any such thing as a vitamin in milk.

That great and famous professor not only did not discover anything but he did not even discover that there was nothing there to be discovered. Nothing that could have escaped; remember, my knowledge of breeding made it possible for me to produce an article of food that was 85 percent butterfat as against your profound knowledge of chicanery that makes it possible for you to produce an article that you claim is similar, that contains 1 percent butterfat, and you have to obtain that 1 percent from a dairy cow.

Which one of us knows what he is talking about?

Now, in fortifying oleomargarine they use "vitamins"-something that does not exist. What is the source of these commercial vitamins? Some one has said cottonseed oil, another suggests coconut oil, or soybean oil, now its linseed oil, like we used to oil the floors with-digestible, well possibly? It may be cod-liver oil, or whale-oil soap, and I don't care if they use dog-liver oil, only I want them to brand it and sell it for what it really is. No bolony oil.

Years ago I was one of the contributors for the white rat tests. We used, I remember, about 3,000 rats, each cage held two stalls and we put a rat in each stall, always using two rats from the same litter; they were fed alike except that one rat was given butter on his bread, the other oleomargarine. When one rat died, as they always did, we killed the other, he was no further use to us. The one rat fed butter was always sleek and fat, the other always scrawny, starved, and actually died.

We paid dairymen to travel over the country, to the fairs, stock shows, and wherever a crowd of people could be gathered to exhibit those rats until the one died. It was really cruelty to dumb animals, but it was no worse than the men who fed their children on oleomargarine. Actually 1 percent food and 99 percent trash, waste, fertilizer.

Today, we have college professors who were trained by college professors that were trained by college professors, and those were trained by college professors until that line has been so badly extenuated-if

I have their word for it-that there is no trace of any actual, practical knowledge left in any line of thought. One of them says that his professor said that some other professor said, and so forth, until no one can tell white from black.

We are cursed with nutrition specialists, food experts, and dietitians, and so forth, that cannot feed a pig. Ask any of them or all of them, Can you take a pig and make him grow out to 225 pounds when 5 months old? Can you feed a steer and make him gain 100 pounds in 90 days? Those are the practical questions I have had to find answers to to get my money back from the butcher; that's where I learned my lessons in nutrition, the university of hard knocks, where they play for keeps, and I graduated at the head of my class with butter testing 85 percent fat, 85 pounds of food, the most highly concentrated, lifesustaining, growth-promoting food in 100 pounds of digestible solvent not equaled by anything yet discovered by man. You ask me to sell this in competition with a dog-liver-oil compound that could not sustain life in a healthy, normal, young rat.

Now, Congress is asked to take all the taxes off of oleomargarine. You can't call it the greatest or most diabolical swindle ever offered the human race, because, since lend-lease operations have come into being, all superlatives in misrepresentation, fraud, and chicanery have been outmoded.

I have not the faintest dream as to the tonnage of this queer combination of oils and axle grease that have been sold to the American people as food, but I have heard that drug stores, hardware stores, Montgomery Ward & Co., Sears, Roebuck & Co. have sold over $100,000,000 worth of vitamin pills last year. Maybe they did, but they were not worth $100,000,000 nor anything near it, not even a thin dime for the whole train load. That is a fair example of the fraud imposed upon the American people by these traffickers in oleomargarine.

If butter is worth $1 per pound, then this 1-percent oleomargarine is worth exactly $0.0117-one cent, one mill, and seven-tenths. When it is sold for $0.25, a tax of 90 cents per pound would seem to be justified.

Oleomargarine at any price is the most expensive luxury enjoyed by mankind, for when a person puts oleomargarine on his bread he has to eat another slice of bread or a chunk of meat, or, more expensive, to take the place of the food he has fooled himself out of. Ôleo is not a food, it does not contain any substantial portion of any substance that can sustain life.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. JOHN PHILLIPS OF CALIFORNIA

TELEGRAM FROM JOHN E. PICKETT ON OLEO TAX REFERENDUM, AND LETTER FROM SAM H. GREENE, SECRETARY-MANAGER CALIFORNIA DAIRY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO H. R. 2400

JOHN PHILLIPS,

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., November 1, 1943.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: It is estimated that quarter million dollars was spent by opponents in 1936 to win bitter referendum on State law imposing 10 cents per pound tax on oleo. If foreign fats were contained, no tax if home fats used. Farmers spent only $25,000. Oleo propagandists represented this as punitive tax and as tax on

poor man's spread. Oleo was helped by referendum on punitive tax on chain stores of $500 per store and by vast sums spent by chain interests. Fulmer bill not considered as tax issue by farmers, but as effort to destroy half century protection and permit oleo to imitate butter in color. If farmers lose this national fight up-surgent State-rights spirit will produce pandemonium of State restrictive legislation.

JOHN E. PICKETT.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., November 3, 1943.

Re H. R. 2400, Fulmer oleomargarine bill.

Hon. JOHN PHILLIPS,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: I believe you know that in my 25 years' service as executive secretary of California Dairy Council I periodically visit all sections of the State and am fully informed on the thinking and attitude of the 30,000 farmers who specialize in dairying.

They are unanimous in their opposition to H. R. 2400. Their viewpoint is that the bill is a destructive piece of legislation. They cannot see anything helpful or constructive in it. It appears to be a barefaced plan of the oleomargarine interests to relieve themselves of all the taxes, fees, and other restrictions now imposed upon them by Federal law.

Let us see what these taxes and fees amount to. In the case of uncolored oleomargarine the manufacturer is required to pay a license fee of $600 per annum. This fee bears no relation to the quantity of the product manufactured. The fee is $600 for 10,000 pounds a year and the same for 10,000,000. The tax on uncolored oleomargarine is one-fourth of 1 cent per pound. The Federal wholesale license fee is $450 per year and, as in the case of the manufacturer, volume of product handled is not considered. The Federal retail license tax is $6 per year. That is 50 cents per month, and again the tax is not related to the amount handled If all of these taxes were eliminated they could not conceivably result in a lowering of the price to the ultimate consumer If the oleomargarine manufacturer desires to color his product in imitation of butter the tax is 10 cents per pound. This tax is plainly in the law for the protection of the consuming public. There can be no other purpose for using a color identical with that of butter except to make it look like butter and thereby open the door to widespread fraud and deceit. Color adds nothing whatever to the nutritive value of the product. It is nothing more than an appeal to the eye. Oleomargarine colored by the manufacturer is no better or no worse than the uncolored product. Further, the present law permits the distribution of capsules of coloring matter with the sale of uncolored oleomargarine. We believe this is a subterfuge and should not be allowed, but the practice is lawful as things stand now.

As evidence of the fairmindedness of dairy people everywhere throughout the country, I call your attention to peanut butter. Here is a product which carries the basic word of the dairy industry, but has there ever been a bill proposed to regulate the peanut-butter industry? In my 45 years in the dairy industry I have never head of one. The reason is plain. The peanut people have never patterned their product, package, labeling, publicity, or advertising in such a way as to lay them open to the charge of attempt to imitate. The same is true of apple butter, peach butter, and so on. They are all substitutes for butter, but only oleomargarine attempts imitation.

There are no taxes, license fees, or other similar restrictions placed upon the manufacture, handling, and sales promotion of any of these products. There would be no necessity for the application of any of them to the oleomargarine business if its policy and practices were as free from criticism as that of these other industries.

The claim of the oleo interests that the taxes and fees upon their business tend to depress farm income of cotton growers and certain other groups of farmers is fallacious because if their claims be true and the income of these farmers were to improve as a result of repeal, that means this comparatively small group of farmers would profit at the expense of 5,000,000 other farmers who depend upon the dairy cow for their income. Besides, dairymen's purchases of byproducts of cotton are many times greater than those which the oleo people make or ever can make. We protest against this obvious effort to pit one group of American farmers against another.