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.

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. We 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 pro

gram.

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 basisapproximately 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.

When there are complaints, if any, I get them first, right from the sales department, and while we occasionally get a complaint, I have had only one in the past 2 years that involved illness. That complaint came from a carton of shell eggs. We have never, in my experience, received a complaint directly on poultry that represented illness of a consumer.

Quite conceivably, a lot of our product loses our identity by the time it reaches the housewife. But our own branded product does not. When Mrs. Consumer opens her package, she knows who processed it, and she has never, and I repeat, "never," told me that made her

ill.

For that reason, I personally deeply resent, and my company also resents, the allegations that the large group of processors are marketing an inferior product, one that cannot be purchased with complete confidence. We feel this attack to be completely unfair.

There has been testimony of this fact-we must note that this industry is presently marketing approximately 20 to 25 percent more commercially produced poultry so far this year than in 1955, and the consumer is buying this product.

We favor mandatory Federal inspection, but we feel that it should be nationwide, including every processor, no matter whether he buys or sells. For that reason, we lend our support 100 percent to S. 3588.

We feel that the Poultry Branch of the USDA is fully capable of carrying on a mandatory inspection program, using as a nucleus, their present organization. We believe that to place this responsibility in other branches or agencies would create confusion, inefficiency, and losses to the producer, processors and distributors, involving many thousands of dollars.

Lastly, it is our recommendation that sufficient time be provided for the present agency to hire and properly train the needed additional personnel and that until that time, the present voluntary program be continued without change in form. Improperly trained personnel and a loosely managed program can wreck a business of this type in just a very few weeks. May I thank you gentlemen for this opportunty to register our thoughts with you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
We will next hear from Mr. Ted Ramsay.

STATEMENT OF TED RAMSAY, POULTRY DIVISION MANAGER,
BIRDS EYE DIVISION OF GENERAL FOODS CORP., WHITE PLAINS,
N. Y.

Mr. RAMSAY. I am Ted Ramsay, poultry division manager of the Birds Eye division of General Foods Corp., White Plains, N. Y. I have been associated with the poultry industry for 30 years.

Every pound of Birds Eye poultry or poultry products for more than 25 years has been packed under the supervision of the present voluntary inspection program. We believe that it has been ably administered and that great progress has been made over the years as a result of their work.

We favor mandatory inspection because we believe that it will result in a more uniform product and will be in the best interests of the consumer and the producer. It would result in standard identifi

cation of product at the consumer level and more importantly in uniform interpretation of rules and regulations in each city and State.

We believe that the present corps of well qualified veterinarians with 28 years of experience to guide them are the logical ones to carry on the enlarged program that would result with mandatory inspection. Because the number of animal units, the processing plants, and the product are so different from those in the red meat industry, it would seem logical that each should be served by separate departments designed to meet the specific needs of each. However, the Secretary of Agriculture has been designated in S. 3588 as the one to administer and regulate the Poultry Products Inspection Act. His equal concern for the interests of both the consumer and the producer make him best qualified to determine the best program for administrating the act.

We favor the enactment of S. 3588, and we appreciate the appearance here today.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

We will next hear from Mr. Joe Hatfield of the Georgia Broilers, Inc., Gainesville, Ga.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared brief. I would like to relinquish my time.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

Is Mr. Charles J. Thurmond here?

Mr. Charles J. Thurmond, Jesse Jewell, Inc., Gainesville, Ga.? (No response.)

Ìs Mr. Al Stevens, Fort Halifax Packing Co., Waterville, Maine, here?

(No response.)

Our next witness will be Kenneth C. Furnish, Sr.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. FURNISH, SR., MANAGER, CORDOVA POULTRY PLANT, SCHLUDERBERG-KURDLE, CO., CORDOVA, MD.

Mr. FURNISH. My name is Kenneth C. Furnish, Sr. I represent the Cordova Poultry Plant, at Cordova, Md.

The Federal meat inspection service this year is observing its 50th anniversary of service to the people of American by its assurance of the purity and wholesomeness of meat products that are produced under Federal inspection.

We believe that consumers are entitled to the same assurance that poultry has been processed under sanitary conditions, and that the chicken farmer and the processors of poultry also need the protection so that consumers will accept the product of our industry with the same confidence that they accept federally inspected meat products. We believe that S. 3588 is far the better of the two bills that have been proposed to provide for a system of compulsory inspection, and that it is more desirable from the standpoint both of the consuming public and of the producers of poultry.

This bill gives full assurance to the consuming public that only poultry food products which have been inspected for wholesomeness can be marketed in interstate commerce, and it recognizes that it will not be feasible to embark on a program of compulsory inspection without providing reasonable time to organize and train the enlarged

staff which will be required, promulgate the necessary regulations and afford plants the opportunity to qualify.

Under S. 3588 the Secretary of Agriculture would have certain jurisdiction relating to inspection at the processing level and the Food and Drug Administration would have jurisdiction and responsibility for the product after processing operations have been completed, thus preventing overlapping and dual functions between the two agencies, in the same manner in which it is prevented by the Federal Food and Drug Acts and the Meat Inspection Acts.

We feel that poultry industry is an important part of the economy of our country, that mandatory Federal inspection of poultry is justified and necessary for the protection of both the producer and the consumer, and that the funds for this service should be provided by Federal appropriation.

Therefore, your favorable consideration of S. 3588 is earnestly solicited.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Furnish.

Our next witness will be Mr. Wallace Jerome.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE H. JEROME, WISCONSIN TURKEY FEDERATION, AND WISCONSIN TURKEY MARKETING COOPERATIVE, BARRON, WIS.

Mr. JEROME. Senator Williams, I am Wallace Jerome of Barron, Wis.; director of the Wisconsin Turkey Federation and director of the Wisconsin Turkey Marketing Cooperative.

This statement, regarding the very important bills relating to compulsory poultry inspection, comprises the thinking and recommendations of the Wisconsin Turkey Federation, a turkey growers' organization, and the Wisconsin Turkey Marketing Cooperative, a cooperative marketing organization. It also includes my thinking as a turkey grower and processor.

We appreciate very much the opportunity of presenting the turkey producer's views on the bills now pending.

Wisconsin is a great dairy State, as all of you know. However, it is fast becoming a great poultry State also. We in the turkey business naturally are very much concerned about its future. Any action to aid in the production and marketing of turkeys in a more acceptable manner to the consumer is welcome indeed. All turkey growers are anxious to expand consumption and we realize one of the best ways to do it is to give the consumer a fine, wholesome, and delicious turkey that has been prepared in a very sanitary plant. The consumer of poultry products are entitled to the assurance that the poultry they buy is not only healthy and nutritious, but that it has been prepared in a sanitary way.

We, as farmer producers, including the above-mentioned segments of industry, are all in favor of compulsory Federal inspection of poultry, believing that it will be very beneficial to producers and consumers alike.

However, of the two bills the committee has before it, one of them, or the proponents of it, apparently are seeking to do untold harm to our poultry industry. In fact, a great deal of harm has already been