GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 777 



would take out of our economic life factors we like. We want to 

 preserve our system and our independence. 



Even if the basic philosophy of the program was not repugnant to 

 us, which it certainly is, we could not accept a plan that is as indefinite 

 and uncertain as is the Secretary's plan with reference to beef cattle. 



III. NO NECESSITY FOR THE PLAN 



In the Secretary's supplemental statement given to this committee 

 on April 25, 1949, the following statement is made: 



I don't suppose anyone on the committee expects us to be in a program of sup- 

 porting the price of beef cattle or lambs in the near future, but, if and when we 

 are, the operation would be analogous to the hog example I have just given. * * * 



We are sure that no one expects the Government to support beef 

 cattle prices at any time soon. We are equally sure that no one in the 

 business of producing beef cattle wants any such thing now or ever. 



We ha^'e always been able to supply the demand for beef in this 

 country without governmental price supports. We cau still do so, 

 and unless the Government intrudes too much into oin* business we 

 will do so. 



It may be interesting to point out some facts to the committee that 

 are not generally knowai. We cattle producers of the United States 

 are now producing, and for many years have produced, one-third of 

 all of the beef produced in the world. The whole world annually 

 produces about 65,900,000,000 pounds of meat. Of this total pro- 

 duction from 37}^ to 39K billion pounds is beef and veal. The annual 

 beef and veal production of the United States is 12,000,000,000 pounds, 

 or approximately one-third of world's total. And the remarkable 

 thing is that we Americans eat all of our own production together with 

 a small amount imported from Canada. 



The American people are real beef eaters. Fortunately, the Ameri- 

 can ranchmen are real beef producers. And these ranchmen have 

 been able to supply the demand for beef for many years without the 

 necessity of governmental subsidies. They do not now want this 

 hand-out. They do not need it to make them produce. And they 

 do not want to be forced to accept a subsidy instead of a fair market 

 price. 



The statement has been made that it is desirable to increase the 

 beef-cattle population of this country. With time, which such a 

 movement requires because of the laws of nature, this can and wall 

 be done. The sometimes ridiculed law of supply and demand will 

 accomplish the desired result. There is already a trend in the industry 

 to increase this beef-cattle population. The record shows that 

 approximately 200,000 more 1- and 2-year-old heifers Avere kept on 

 the range this year than last year. This means an increased breeding 

 herd with resultant increased cattle population. The trend is not 

 panicky. There is no big plunge. It is a gradual, healthy movement. 

 It wall continue to the saturation point. And we do have a saturation 

 point. Range land will support only so many cattle, and w^hen that 

 number is reached no more can be successfully grazed. Fortiniately 

 that point of saturation is well above the possible demand or require- 

 ment of this country. We now have about 7S}^ million head of cattle 

 in this country. About 42,000,000 of these are beef cattle. 

 During the war w^e had 85,000,000 head of cattle, with half of 



