GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 1217 



your bringing us a plan that is a sincere effort to meet the actual 

 existmg conditions 



Mr. Jones. Thank you. 



Mr. PoAGE. But I want to ask you, if I understand your proposal, 

 would you include mohair simply as a grade in the price of wool? 



Mr. Jones. I think it should be. I agree with you in the statement 

 you made the other day that, after all, just because they eat a little 

 different type of brush is no reason why it should not be included as 

 a part of the support program for wool. Heretofore, in the case of 

 mohair, from 1938 to 1939, they gave it the same treatment. They 

 have a basis on which they can easily work and calculate the support 

 level for mohair. 



Mr. PoAGE. As a matter of fact, there is more difference between 

 certain classes of wool than there is between some classes of wool and 

 mohair? 



Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Hill. I would like to ask the gentleman would he object to 

 putting in the Angora goat clip of wool and choice wools? 



Mr. Granger. Surely, if they get anj^ protection under it, but it 

 would have to be a couple of dollars per pound. 



Mr. Hill. That is up to you Democrats; I belong to the minority. 

 It is not up to the Republicans. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. 



(A supplemental statement by Mr. Jones, letters from the Boston 

 Wool Trade Association and National Wool Trade Association, and 

 a statement by Mr. C. J. Fawcett, general manager, National Wool 

 Marketing Corp., Boston, Mass., follow:) 



Prod tJCTioN Payments — Percentage Determination Versus "Straight Across 



THE Board" Payments 



(Supplemental statement of J. M. Jones, National Wool Growers testimonj-) 



Points to consider: 



1. In considering wool production it is the number of pounds of clean wool 

 produced per head of sheep that really counts because the ewe is the production 

 unit. 



2. Wool is generally bought and sold as it comes from the sheep's back (in the 

 grease as we call it) ; but every buyer when he buys the wool in this form auto- 

 matically calculates in his mind how much clean wool is in that fleece and then 

 bases his price per pound on his determination of the clean content. 



3. The example illustrates that that is exactly what has been done in this 

 theoretical case — the price per poiuid varies in inverse proportion to the number 

 of pounds per fleece. The price received for the wool per head, however, is 

 exactly the same ($4.20). 



4. By utilizing the percentage method in calculating the production payment 

 this true value relation is maintained and total amount received by each producer 

 per head of sheep, assuming the like grade and qualitv for each, is exactly the 

 same ($4.62). 



5. Considering the ''straight-across-the-board" payment producer A with a 

 light shrinking fleece and with the same amount of clean wool receives only half 

 as much payment as producer C with a heavier grease weight but the same clean 

 wool content (producer A, 30 cents; producer C, 60 cents). 



6. The cost to the Government is exactly the same by either method ($1.26). 

 The incentive to the producer to improve his production and marketing is readily 

 seen from the example given. 



7. Some might say that the difference of 12 cents producer A would receive 

 imder the percentage calculation as compared to the other method is inconsequen- 

 tial (42 cents versus 30 cents) but the United States Tariff Commission in esti- 

 mating the profit and loss on domestically produced wool shows that in their 

 study the producer lost 6 cents per head on wool in 1948. The point is that 



