GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 771 



number basis. To arbitrarily reduce production on range operations 

 where there is no alternative crop that can be produced, would simply 

 lessen the gross income of all people affected. 



The cattle industry is one in which long-time planning as to opera- 

 tions is essential. Plans cannot be suddenly changed if we are to 

 Tiav^ efficient production. It takes 2 to 3 years from the breeding of 

 a cow to the selling of a young beef animal. 



We think there are other reasons, general in character, which should 

 impose caution on the Congress in dealing with this program. "\Miile 

 no estimate has, as yet, been made of the total cost of the program 

 proposed, it seems inevitable that it would add tremendously to the 

 already heavy tax burden. We believe that instead of adding to the 

 tax burden under the conditions that exist today, steps should be taken 

 to reduce it. 



Dining the past year we have had a sharp increase in the importation 

 of livestock and meat. The total imports of beef cattle and calves, 

 dressed beef and veal from Canada between August 16, 1948, the day 

 Canada's export ban was lifted, and December 31, 1948, all converted 

 to a live-animal basis, were approximately 445,000 head. The im- 

 ports of canned beef, largely from South America, for the calendar 

 year 1948, were 129,200,000 pounds, the ec^uivalent of approximately 

 650,000 live cattle. Instead of moving in the dnection of production 

 controls as this program does, it would seem more equitable to give 

 the American producer a larger share of the American market and 

 avoid any possibility of making production controls necessary. 



Further, under the Agricultural Research Marketing program, 

 adopted a couple of years ago, we have only scratched the sm'face in 

 an endeavor to find new uses for our products or to develop new crops 

 and products which would find a demand in this great country of ours 

 and help replace crops which now are in surplus production. 



Finally, may I suggest that this program is of such tremendous im- 

 portance to the entire agricultural industry of this country that it 

 should receive the most careful scrutiny and be thoroughly explored 

 in every detail before any attempt is made to write it into law. 



Air. Pace. Judge Smith, let me sunnnarize yom' statement briefly, 

 if I might. 



You propose no support program of any character for livestock; is 

 that correct? 



Mr. Smith. That is correct. I am speaking for cattle. 



Mr. Pace. The members of your association are opposed to any 

 program for livestock? 



Mr. Smith. I am speaking for the cattleman, of course. 



Mr. Pace. Yes. 



Mr. Smith. That is true. 



Mr. Pace. You are opposed to the production-pajmient plan pro- 

 posed by the Secretary? 



Mr. Smith. That is right. 



Mr. Pace. You are opposed to the 1,800-unit limitation on supports 

 as proposed by the Secretary? 



Mr. Smith. We are. 



Mr. Pace. You are opposed to the present liberal imports of beef 

 and beef products into this country? 



Mr. Smith. We are. 



