GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 829 



Over a period of years, this council by vote of officially designated 

 directors and delegates has been consistent in its stand regarding Gov- 

 ernment-support prices and production control, and that stand is 

 expressed in the following resume of a resolution passed at a recent 

 meeting of the board of directors. 



1. It is not economically sound for the Government to attempt to 

 control price or production within this industry. 



2. Since it is certain that some form of price support and production 

 controls will be applied to those products which make up the basic 

 materials of egg and poultry production, therefore the poultry indus- 

 try should be protected with a minimum or floor price for its products 

 to prevent disaster. 



3. Such a floor price should by no means reflect any profit in 

 production. 



4. It is recommended that a so-called flexible price support policy 

 be applied to the poultry industry and that it be based upon the 

 parity formula as revised in the Marketing Act of 1948. 



5. It is recommended that discretionary powers rest with the 

 Secretary of Agriculture to determine the level at which eggs and 

 poultry be supported — this to be in relation to economic factors within 

 the industry, but in no case should the support level be higher than 

 90 percent or lower than 60 percent of the revised parity for poultry 

 products. 



6. It is recommended that an industry advisory committee to the 

 Secretary of Agriculture be appointed. Such committee to be con- 

 sulted before any major change in policy or level of support shall be 

 promulgated. 



We believe it would be impossible to properly limit the size of the 

 individual poultry flocks without employing great numbers of people. 

 The cost of administering such a program would be tremendous. In 

 1948 there were produced in this Nation 3,936,750,000 dozen of eggs. 

 If a direct subsidy of 3 cents a dozen would have been paid to farmers 

 in 1948, the total paid out would have been $118,102,500. If the 

 producers received a 5-cent per dozen subsidy it would have meant 

 a lay-out of $196,837,500. These figures do not include the cost of 

 administration. We believe that this amount is many times what is 

 appropriated for research and extension work for the poultry industry 

 throughout the country. 



We believe that the poultry industry has the leadership and facilities 

 to improve both efficiency and quality of production. We believe 

 further that consumers will be benefited in a more substantial manner 

 if efficiencies and improvement in quality of our products are a part 

 of the natural progress of an industry — and they won't be paying 

 taxes for the accomplishment — they will pay less for better quality 

 food. 



After analyzing the several proposals for supporting agiicultural 

 prices, we are convinced our industry will make the most progress, 

 produce better products more cheaply and avoid the costly processes 

 of attempts to control production if the principles of flexible support 

 prices are put into effect. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you, Mr. Todd, you have certainly given us an 

 excellent statement. 



Who is your next witness; Mr. Hubbard? 



