STATEMENT OF JOHN A. WINFIELD, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RALEIGH, N. C.

I am John A. Winfield, farmer, and director of the division of markets, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. I am representing the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. We work very closely with the poultry industry in inspection, grading, and other service programs relating to the movement of poultry from the farm or producting centers through processing facilities and on to consumers. Most of this work is done in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture under cooperative agreements.

The poultry industry in North Carolina is of great importance to the economy of our State-poultry production fits well on small farms-we are a State of small farms. We were the country's fourth largest producer of broilers in 1956, with just over 94 million head; we also produced just over 1 million turkeys.

We have 146 poultry processing plants, plus 3 under construction that will be in operation before the end of 1957. Many of these plants are small; however, 24 of the plants have sufficient facilities to process more than 50 thousand birds weekly.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture represents and works with all segments of the poultry industry through its division of markets and its veterinary division. We also work closely with Food and Drug Administration through the chemistry division of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, headed by the State chemist.

The North Carolina Department of Agriculture supports S. 313 and S. 645. We are opposed to S. 1128.

We believe the Secretary of Agriculture should have the responsibility for administering the poultry inspection program. We would recommend to the Secretary that responsibility for administering the program be placed under the Agricultural Marketing Service, because we think this will be more practical and less expensive to the taxpayers of the Nation. We make this statement because the Agricultural Marketing Service has had a long record of experience in conducting poultry inspection and grading programs, and because we believe the agency will cooperate more fully because of this experience with industry groups, research extension, and other governmental agencies at local levels, that represent producers, consumers, and all segments interested in the poultry industry. We think this necessary for greater benefits to the general economy of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Bagwell.

STATEMENTS OF LELAND BAGWELL, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, CANTON, GA.; AND HARRY C. CARBAUGH, PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE EGG CO., CHATTANOOGA, TENN., ALSO REPRESENTING THE SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION

Mr. BAGWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Harry Carbaugh if he will join with me?

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please step forward, Mr. Carbaugh? Mr. BAGWELL. I am Leland Bagwell, and I am from Canton, Ga., and I am appearing here today as the president of the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association which represents broiler, turkey, and egg producers, hatcherymen, feed manufacturers and feed dealers, and poultry processors, in a 10-State area in the Southeast.

I will not take the committee's time by reading this testimony. However, there are a few things in here that I would like to point

out.

The CHAIRMAN. Your entire statement will be placed in the record at this point. So you just highlight it.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF LELAND BAGWELL, SOUTHEASTERN POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, RICHMOND, Va.

My name is Leland Bagwell. I am from Canton, Ga., and am appearing here today as president of the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association, representing broiler, turkey, and egg producers, hatcherymen, feed manufacturers and dealers, and poultry processors in a 10-State area, including Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Five of the 10 leading broiler-producing States in the Nation are located in this area, as well as the third-ranking State in turkey production-the State of Virginia. Last year some 563 million broilers were grown on farms in the Southeast, representing 47 percent-approximately one-half-of the total production in the 22 major broiler-producing States which the United States Department of Agriculture reports was about 1,193 million birds.

The Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association from the time of its organization in 1947 has actively promoted the adoption of farm and processing plant management practices which would place in the consumer's hands a product of highest quality and wholesomeness. Poultry processors in the South and elsewhere have spent millions of dollars modernizing their plants and installing stainless-steel equipment to make them as sanitary as the homemaker's kitchen. The phenomenal growth of the broiler industry and the rapid rise in the per capita consumption of broiler chickens-from 4.88 pounds in 1945 to 16 pounds in 1956-is certainly a good indication that the industry as a whole has done an excellent job on its own initiative without a mandatory poultry-inspection program.

I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that the broiler industry has done a better job than any other agricultural group in providing the consuming public with a nourishing, delicious meat product at budget prices. No other farm group has been so quick to adapt the findings of research in breeding, feeding, disease control, and management to improve their production efficiency and the quality of their product. To illustrate my point, in 1938 it took an average of 4.2 pounds of feed to produce a pound of broiler meat and it took approximately 12 weeks to produce a 3-pound broiler. Today it is not uncommon for large flocks of broilers to be grown out to 3-pound weights in 8 weeks on 2.5 pounds of feed per pound of broiler. Furthermore the finished birds are far superior to those produced in 1938 in body conformation, fat distribution, and tenderness. The consumer has reaped the benefit in a superior product at a saving in price. This has been accomplished during a period of rising costs of production items and without Government price supports even though the major cost item in broiler production—feed grains—is supported by the Government. While we in the Southeast are in favor of a poultry inspection program which will give adequate assurance to the consumer that the poultry and poultry products she buys are entirely wholesome, we are anxious that the legislation enacted permit the institution of a practical inspection service that will not put a yoke around the neck of an industry which is doing such a marvelous job under a free-enterprise system. We are equally concerned that the mandatory inspection program not unduly penalize the homemaker in increased prices. This will result from increased processing costs which could be astronomical if the legislation enacted so restricts the Department of Agriculture that it could not adopt more efficient inspection practices which experience and research may warrant from time to time.

We believe it should be clearly understood by the members of this committee that no national emergency exists in this matter as was implied by certain groups in their testimony given before the Senate and House committees last year. It is freely admitted that sanitation practices in some plants have been far from satisfactory and we as an association some 2 years ago urged adoption of the United States Public Health Service model sanitation code to correct this condition. However, as was pointed out at the hearings last year, there have been no reports of any appreciable number of illnesses from eating poultry products and those reported were apparently due to mishandling of the product in the processing plant or after leaving the plant. The tremendous increase in consumer acceptance of poultry and poultry products in recent years, I believe, substantiates these statements.

For these and other reasons we will cite, we of the Southeastern Association, urge upon this committee the most serious consideration of inspection legislation that will permit some latitude in the mechanics of the inspection service, placing the responsibility for specific procedures to be followed in the hands

of the Secretary of Agriculture. No one as yet has any real conception of what may be involved in ante mortem inspection, whether it is necessary, what may be accomplished by it, the amount of such inspection that will be necessary, where and how such inspection can best be done, nor what bearing such inspection, if it is found to be desirable, will have on the procedures now in effect for post mortem examinations under United States Department of Agriculture's voluntary inspection program.

If more efficient procedures can be found to make an adequate inspection than are presently visualized, we believe you will agree that the Secretary should be allowed to use his discretion in adopting such practices which could result in tremendous savings to the taxpayers and American consumers.

We believe also that it is of the utmost importance that the effective date of legislation enacted take into account the fact that irreparable damage could be done to a great industry and to the American public unless a reasonable time is allowed for both the Department of Agriculture and the industry to prepare for the service. Rules and regulations must be drawn up, hundreds of inspectors must be trained, and many processors must obtain official approval of their plants before service can be provided on a nationwide scale.

To allow some plants to receive the service immediately upon enactment of a bill while denying it to others either because the Department was unable to supply the inspectors or because the plant had not been able to meet all the requirements of the service, however trivial, not only would constitute a gross injustice but could create a chaotic condition in many large production areas which might find it impossible to move their products to market. And may we remind the Senators that broilers are a perishable item, over 90 percent of which are ice-packed and must be moved to consumer channels immediately. May we also point out that they cannot be held on the farm without great loss to the producer.

While none of the proposed bills mandatorily requires a plant to come under the law before July 1, 1958, two of them, as presently written, do permit plants able to obtain the service to do so upon enactment of the legislation. Should a bill be passed containing this provision in its present form, it is expected that as soon as the bill is enacted, many of the large food distributors and major consuming areas will immediately demand a United States Department of Agriculture inspected product, thereby effectively closing the door to a sizable volume of perfectly good poultry moving through plants unable, for a period of time, to obtain United States Department of Agriculture inspection. Visualize, if you will, the hardship that will be imposed on farmers supplying broilers to plants faced with such a dilemma.

When the gravity of the cost-price squeeze that the broiler and turkey industries have been experiencing in the past 12 months is fully appreciated, I am sure you will agree that if this whole matter of inspection is not handled in a judicious manner it could spell disaster for thousands of farm people who have no other means of livelihood. This is particularly true in the southeastern area of the country which produces almost 50 percent of the Nation's total supply of broilers, the type of poultry which will be most affected by the legislation being considered. The impact would again be felt by the consumers of poultry in higher prices at the market place.

Getting down to the specific bills here being considered, we of the Southeastern Poultry & Egg Association most urgently request your favorable consideration of mandatory poultry inspection legislation incorporating the basic principles of S. 313 (identical to the bill reported out by your committee last year) with those in S. 645 which, in our considered opinion, will best serve the interests of the consumers as well as the producers of poultry and poultry products. We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to present our views on this matter.

Mr. BAGWELL. I will highlight just a few points.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed.

Mr. BAGWELL. Southeastern has a group that has been working on this inspection program for a number of years, through our grading and inspection committee, and we have reached the points covered in this testimony practically unanimously through our membership.

There are 1 or 2 points that have not been mentioned in regard to the bills up for consideration.

We believe that it is of the utmost importance that the effective date of the legislation enacted take into account the fact that great damage could be done to an industry and to the public unless we have a reasonable time. The time element as set forth in two of the bills up for consideration we feel would work an imposition on many of our plants in the Southeast. We feel that we should have a reasonable time.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you call a reasonable time? Can you give a specified date?

Mr. BAGWELL. Yes, I will. Two of the bills, I believe, become effective upon enactment of the bill. We would like it set up so that no plant can come under this before January 1, 1958, and then it becomes mandatory July 1, 1958.

And now, if Mr. Carbaugh would like to continue on, or if he has any points, I would like for him to bring them out.

Mr. CARBAUGH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that we favor the manner and type of inspection being left entirely to the Secretary of Agriculture.

And I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the present Secretary, or any Secretary who might succeed him, with a poultry bill to enforce, will do whatever is necessary to protect the public health. I think that we should have that much faith.

But there are many things about poultry inspection about which some discretion probably should be used. And there are many changes taking place in the industry, and we must not overlook the fact that we are not writing a bill just for this year or next year-the meat inspection law is over 50 years old-we are writing something here for a long time, and when you spell something out, it is definite in a bill, and it is very difficult to get it changed, but if you leave the details to be spelled out in the regulations, then changes can be made to make the law to meet changing conditions.

We feel, therefore, since there are various schools of thought on the type of inspection, that this entire matter should be left to the Secretary, and we have faith that whatever the protection of the public needs, that is what we will get, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? If not, we thank you gentlemen very much.

(Statements of witnesses accompanying Mr. Bagwell are as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY WILLIAM D. BOLTON, GEORGIA POULTRY FEDERATION,

COMMERCE, GA.

My name is William D. Bolton. I am from Commerce, Ga., and I am appearing as a director of the Georgia Poultry Federation, an organization consisting of over 1,000 members and associate members of Georgia's vast poultry industry. Georgia has, for the past 4 years, been the leading broiler producing State in the Nation. During 1955 we produced 177,642,000 broilers valued at $125,284,000. In 1956 we produced 222 million broilers at a value of $130 million. Our production in the broiler field is well over twice that of the second-largest producing State..

Since its organization in 1951, the Georgia Poultry Federation has been actively interested in helping Georgia farmers to produce top quality broilers. For this purpose, we have worked with many of the Nation's best authorities to obtain the best possible strains of chicks and to develop the most efficient management practices in the field.

In order to market this large production of chicken meat, our processors have continued to modernize their plants so as to give the consuming public the finest

chicken that can be bought. The fact that our production of marketed broilers has grown from 67,982,000 broilers in 1950 to over 222 million broilers in 1956 is evidence that the American homemaker has approved of our methods.

We of Georgia are vitally interested in an inspection program that will increase the confidence of the buying public in our poultry. We feel, in view of modern trends, that such a program is necessary to the continued success of our industry which is so vital to the agricultural income of our State. However, we feel that the program enacted must be one that will safeguard the consuming public without raising the costs of poultry to the consumer out of reason with the value of the inspection.

Our industry is a service industry. Our present and our future depend upon faithful and healthful service to the consuming public of the Nation. We urgently request the favorable consideration of this committee of the inspection program as outlined in bill S. 645 incorporating the principles of S. 313 with only such changes as we believe are essential to the development of a practical inspection service.

It is our considered opinion that the enactment of such a program for poultry inspection will best serve both the farmer and the consuming public.

STATEMENT FILED BY PAUL G. THOMAS, SOUTH CAROLINA TURKEY FEDERATION, SUMTER, S. C., ALSO REPRESENTING THE SUMTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

I am Paul Thomas, a turkey grower and processor from South Carolina, a State which is producing annually about 1,300,000 turkeys. I am officially representing the South Carolina Turkey Federation and the Sumter Chamber of Commerce.

I have been personally connected with several phases of turkey production ever since I can remember, and I feel that I know some of the industry's good points as well as its problems. I am presently growing about 100,000 turkeys a year and processing about 140,000, which I market in a frozen oven-ready state primarily on the east coast from Miami to Boston. I also have about 14,000 breeder hens producing hatching eggs for my own hatchery which hatches 350,000 baby turkeys annually.

Frankly, I think the industry has done a marvelous job of supplying the American housewife with a wholesome, nutritious product at reasonable prices. This product is now recognized as the highest protein meat with a very low fat content, and is in demand for use in hospitals, and for dieting purposes, in addition to being an everyday diet throughout the year in reach of practically every housewife's pocketbook.

We in South Carolina have long been concerned with giving the consumer the best product possible, as that is the only way we can successfully and satisfactorily compete for a share of the food dollar.

I might point out here that South Carolina and the Southeast area was the first to convert altogether to a fully dressed oven-ready turkey. We felt long ago that the New York dressing of poultry was not in the best interest of all concerned.

In making this change-over from the old New York dressed bird, we assumed our added responsibility to the housewife, and I feel that we have done a good job of processing under sanitary conditions even though we have not been under a Federal inspection program. However, since there seems to be good reasons for setting up a Federal inspection service to give complete assurance to the public that all poultry products are wholesome, we welcome a sound, reasonable, and adequate inspection service. We are vitally concerned that the legislation enacted on this subject take into consideration the importance of this industry to the Nation's food supply and that a practical and adequate bill be passed. Even under the most reasonable legislation, many of the processing plants in our area now affording good markets to the producers will be forced out of business because they are not able to afford the high cost of buildings and equipment which will be required to meet the United States Department of Agriculture specifications. We think it is desirable and in the public interest that as many of these small businesses be preserved as possible.

In this connection we feel that the enactment of S. 1128 would definitely do us considerable harm and that the consumer in turn would be the loser. We have also a very vital interest in the effective date of whatever bill is passed, and probably more than do the chicken producers and processors. Let