GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 799 



she would be compelled to pay for the thousands and thousands of 

 additional bui'eaucrats that it would take to make Mr. Brannan's 

 low-price program effective. 



The farmer, instead of getting all of the money that was left after the 

 housesvife had paid a price to consume all of the meat produced, less 

 the cost of marketing, processing, transporting, and retailing that 

 meat, woald get that price plus the dole but minus his share of the 

 cost of the huge number of bureaucrats who would tell him how much 

 he might produce, and at least 20 percent of the dole. 



The net spread between the price received by the farmer and that 

 paid by the consumer would widen out tremendously. This would 

 be a complete reversal of everything that has been striven for, every- 

 thing that has been taught our producers since the landing of the 

 Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. 



And when the supplies had been built up to levels where the differ- 

 ence between the market price and the guaranteed price was so large 

 that the consumer housewife did not have enough left to meet the 

 taxes because her husband was out of employment, the consumers 

 would demand an end to the dole to the farmer — and he would be 

 left holding the bag. 



WANT A COMMON SENSE PROGRAM FOR LIVESTOCK 



The Corn Belt livestock feeders call upon the Secretary of Agri- 

 culture to take the lead in a program of common sense to produce an 

 ample supply of meat at a price the housemfe can afford, and make a 

 prosperous agriculture. We suggest the following steps. 



1. Urge farmers to market their hogs at weights between 200 and 

 225 pounds. Point out to them that where between 1920 and 1939 

 lard sold at a price $2.80 above the price of hogs, on the average, lard 

 now is selling at a price level about $8 a' hundred below the price of 

 the hog from which it is rendered. Emphasize to farmers that packers, 

 to make up this loss of more than $10 a hundred on the lard, must 

 either charge the housewife more for the pork or pay the farmer 

 enough less for the pork portion of that hog to absorb that loss. 

 Point out to him that lard constitutes about 20 percent of the hog, 

 that the heavier the weight the more lard the hog produces, lard on 

 which the packer must take this loss. Emphasize to liim that the 

 most economical weight at which to market hogs has repeatedly been 

 proved to be around 225 pounds. Point out to him that if hogs are 

 marketed at this weight, instead of 260 pounds, that the reduction in 

 total weight slaughtered would counterbalance the increase in pro- 

 duction, and that a larger portion of the total production would be 

 meat that is desired and which can be sold at a profit. So the packer, 

 if hogs were marketed at that weight, could either reduce the price of 

 porlv meat to the housewife or increase the price paid to the farmer 

 because a large portion of the product on which the packers are 

 taking a loss would be eliminated. With the greatly reduced numbers 

 of sheep available, and the small numbers of beef cattle per capita 

 compared with bygone years, there is no need for pork to sink to 

 levels far below its normal relationship to other commodity prices, 

 if the Department of Agriculture will stop its price-depressing tactics. 



2. Use every legitimate means of expanding our foreign trade. 



3. Give to American farmers the same protection against foreign 

 goods that industry has through the tariffs and labor through the 



91215— 49— ser. u, pt 5 i 



