it be practicable in the smaller restaurants to put an imprint on the pat of whatever it may be?

Mrs. BARKER. You mean right on the little pat of butter that they are having?

The CHAARMAN. An imprint.

Mrs. BARKER. I do not believe it would be practical.

The CHAIRMAN. For example, there are several hotels in town that put the initial of the hotel on the butter. Would it be possible to do something of that kind?

Mrs. BARKER. I think it would be an impractical thing to do simply because where our smaller operators are buying their products, it may not be possible for them to buy it in that form.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean could they themselves put it on?

Mrs. BARKER. I think it would be very difficult for them to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. BARKER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Joseph Fichter, master of the Ohio State Grange.

Will you please identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. FICHTER, MASTER OF THE OHIO STATE GRANGE, OXFORD, OHIO, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GRANGE

Mr. FICHTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Joseph W. Fichter and I live at Oxford, Ohio. I am master of the Ohio State Grange and chaplain of the National Grange. I appear before you today as a representative both for the Ohio State Grange and the National Grange. The Ohio State Grange has a membership of more than 116,000, and the National Grange has a membership of over 800,000.

Unfortunately, the consideration of H. R. 2245, which proposes to repeal the Federal tax on oleo, has been marked by sharp differences of opinion between farmers and city residents and between the dairy areas and the nondairy areas of the country. Also, the bill has been incorrectly characterized as being primarily a struggle between the oleo manufacturers and the butter manufacturers. Furthermore, the attitude of levity noticeable in the remarks of many who have commented on the bill has tended to detract from the importance of the issues involved.

Inherent in this bill are some issues that are fundamental in connection with our future policy regarding agriculture.

Members of the Congress should not be placed in a situation in which it is necessary for them to choose between the wishes of farmers and city people. I am confident that when city residents become fully informed about the issues involved in this legislation they will be as much opposed to it as the farmers are. This is not a choice between city and farm.

The decision that Members of Congress face is one of choosing between a time tested conservation practice as an incentive to a permanent supply of food for the future, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a policy which has the misleading appearance of cutting the consumer's food bill temporarily but which our children will later

have to pay the price for in taxes needed to restore depleted soil fertility. It is a choice between conservation and short-sighted waste.

There are three valid and important reasons why the Senate should not make the mistake the House has made in removing taxes from oleomargarine.

First, to introduce a serious threat of impoverishment to the dairy industry, which is the chief fertility building enterprise on our farms and in contrast to encourage the expansion of oil crops which are the greatest erosion and fertility robbing enterprises, will do incalculable damage to our future national welfare. No one can possibly count the great future benefit on the one hand that we shall be robbed of if this damage is done to the dairy industry; or, the great future cost and improverishment on the other hand that may be brought about by an overexpansion of soil depleting oil crops.

In the second place, we believe that the Senate, like the Grange, wishes to prevent all possible deception to our citizens. We believe that to remove all taxes on oleomargarine will make any control impossible and thus will throw the gates wide open for deception.

Third, that although ostensibly the taxes on oleomargarine are being removed to benefit consumers and oil crop farmers, we believe that neither the oil crop farmers nor the consumers of oleo will receive any benefit from the removal of the tax. We believe that all tax removal benefits will be completely absorbed by the international fats and oils cartel interests-by the manufacturer.

Most people profess a belief in the importance of conservation in these days. We recognize that failure to conserve the soil has brought economic collapse to many nations, and we are beginning to realize that we should do something about conservation in our own country. Already we are faced with the necessity of paying for the wasteful practices followed in the past. We see the necessity of appropriating large sums of money to restore soil fertility. People in the cities as well as those in the country support such a program. However, it is inconsistent to tax ourselves to restore soil fertility if at the same time we adopt a policy which depletes the soil and which is contrary to a good conservation policy.

The dairy enterprise is vital to our Nation since it is not only the major food enterprise but also is the main soil-fertility-building enterprise. The Ohio situation is illustrative of the country as a whole. There are in Ohio approximately 220,000 farms. On more than 170,000 of these farms, farmers rely on the returns from the sale of their milk and cream for needs ranging from daily cash income with which to purchase other foods and to obtain money to carry on diversified and specialized farming operations. Of the 170,000 dairy farmers in Ohio, approximately 39,000 sell cream directly to plants manufacturing butter. In more than 90 percent of the 88 counties of Ohio, dairying ranks first or second among the 17 major farm enterprises in the State. Dairying is the source of about one-fourth of the gross income received by Ohio farmers. Dairying is a big operation in Ohio and in nearly all of the States in the Nation. I mention this because we in agriculture are intensely interested in the efficient production of all food products, and we believe that soil conservation is an important factor in such efficient production.

Our farmers know that to carry on a successful crop rotation and to prevent the erosion of the valuable topsoil more and more

legumes as alfalfa, clover, and pasture mixtures must be planted. The dairy cow is by far the most efficient converter of these legumes and pasture feeds to highly nutritious human foods. The dairy cow is also a most efficient converter of grain crops.

The Federal Government and State governments may spend millions on soil conservation and flood control, but only balanced farming will help rebuild and maintain the precious topsoil. And I want to again emphasize that this can be done most efficiently by the dairy cow converting the legumes and pasture and grains into human food. Some say that as long as there is a demand for milk and ice cream and other dairy products it is not necessary to worry about the butter market. Those who advance such argument fail to recognize that there is not a constant and steady supply of milk produced on the farm throughout the year. They overlook the fact that during the spring and early summer months the normal market is not able to consume all the milk sold as whole milk, and that therefore the surplus must be separated into cream and made into butter. In this way butter helps to stabilize the whole dairy industry and the consumer is benefited because the needs for fluid milk can be met the year round. The conversion of milk during periods of high production can be most efficiently utilized by converting the fat into milk.

Milk has come to be an essential part of the diet of children and adults for a large number of our families. It is generally recognized that an ample supply of milk is basic to good health. In this Nation we have set a high record in providing a generous supply of milk, but there is still a great need to be met if all families are to have an adequate milk supply. May I repeat that in order to provide this adequate supply of milk we need the butter market as a stabilizer for the dairy industry.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the number of milk cows on farms in March of this year was the lowest since 1939, and milk production during March was 5 percent under the production for the same month last year. Farmers need the encouragement to increase milk production rather than the discouragement included in the legislation which would remove the tax from oleomargarine.

If I may have the permission, I would like to introduce into the record a statement from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture; first from the March 1948 issue entitled "The Dairy Situation," we read as follows:

The number of milk cows has declined at varying rates in every year since 1944. The reduction since 1944 amounts to 10 percent for the Nation as a whole. It has been made in response to smaller feed supplies in most years, lower milk-feed and butterfat-feed price ratios, and to increasing competition from other farm products. The greatest decline for any region, 19 percent, occurred in the West North Central States. Numbers at the beginning of 1948 were smaller than 1944 in all areas except in the North Atlantic States. Since 1870 the number of people in the United States has increased more rapidly than the number of milk cows. In the last 3 or 4 years the drop in cow numbers and a further gain in population increased the average number of people per cow.

Reading from the publication, the Dairy Situation, for April and May 1948, by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, we have this further statement:

The number of milk cows on farms in March was the lowest since 1939. Milk production during March was 5 percent under the record for that month reached in 1947.

Vegetable oils may be used as a source of a substitute for butter, but they cannot take the place of milk, and in order to have enough milk the butter market must be maintained to produce that balance so necessary in milk production. Furthermore, the reliance upon vegetable oils will in the long run deplete our soil so as to endanger it as a source of a food supply in general.

Ohio is an important soybean-producing State, ranking in the upper five States in total acreage planted to soybeans. However, soybean growers are beginning to realize that the income received from the sale of soybean oil for oleo manufacture is small compared to the income received from the sale of soybean-oil meal to dairy farmers. Late figures show that soybean growers in Ohio receive about 21⁄2 times as much from the sole of soybean-oil meal to dairy farmers as they do from the sale of soybean oil used in oleo manufacture.

Studies made at the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, indicate that soybean farming breaks down the topsoil and encourages erosion. Farmers are beginning to be concerned with this erosion problem and with the difficulty of working soybeans into a suitable rotation on Ohio farms. This is indicated by the fact that soybean acreage is decreasing in Ohio. Estimates by State agricultural officials indicate that Ohio will have at least 8 percent decrease in soybean acreage in 1948 compared to last year.

Prof. Earl Jones, agronomist and soil specialist, Ohio State University, makes the following statement:

The growing of soybeans is not recommended on sloping land because of erosion hazards. On more level land soybeans may be grown satisfactorily if they are in a good rotation containing the necessary proportion of sod crops. However, it is difficult to fit soybeans into Ohio rotations and at the present time many farmers are growing soybeans in a rotation which does not maintain the productivity of the land. During the past season a considerable proportion of soybean acreage was harvested too late for seeding the fall wheat. A serious soil-tilth problem is developing in northwestern Ohio (flat land) because of too many corn, grain, and soybean crops and not enough sod crops. And with the present demand for soybeans, grains, etc., this problem has not been corrected. Those soil problems are one of the major contributing factors for the estimated 8-percent decrease in soybean acreage in Ohio for 1948 compared with last year.

As I have stated, in over 90 percent of the 88 counties in Ohio, dairying ranks first or second among the 17 major farm enterprises in the State. Surely nothing should be done to upset this balance because it will mean a further depletion of the fertility of the soil, making it more expensive to produce other farm products and thereby adding to the cost of living for all of our people. We do not intend to pit one type of farming operation in our State against another type of farming operation. Our aim is to maintain and further increase the value and productivity of Ohio farms. We know that this can be done best with a prosperous dairy enterprise widespread on Ohio farms.

Farmers do not want to stifle any food product that is safe and nutritious. They do not want to deprive American people of the privilege of buying all of these foods. They are most interested in trying to keep a white color on oleo or else it should be taxed for purposes of control and prevention of deception.

Dairy farmers do not feel that a product such as oleo should be allowed to be colored to make it look as though it were butter. With packaging, synthetic flavors, synthetic vitamins, with the use of milk

products in the manufacture of oleo to give it as near as possible the flavor of butter, and with preservatives used to make oleo appear to the consumer as butter, dairy farmers rightly contend that the one distinct identification of a white color should remain.

Dairy farmers see further the danger of substitution of oils and fats not found in natural milk, to be used in other dairy products if this piece of legislation remaining is taken off. Surely both the producer and consumer should be protected from a great temptation of fraud and misrepresentation when attempts are made to sell a substitute synthetic food product in the guise of a natural superior prodFor indeed if butter were not generally recognized as a superior product no deception would be undertaken.

We are opposed to the repeal of the Federal tax on oleo because we recognize the repeal of the tax as the first step in efforts to remove measures which now tend to prevent oleo from being sold as an imitation of butter.

If this bill is passed, oleo consumers in Ohio and in 19 other States will save only one-fourth cent per pound, assuming that the reduction caused by the tax repeal is reflected in the reduction in the price of oleo. There is no guaranty, however, that this reduction will be passed on to the consumers. I do not believe that city consumers are too much concerned about such a small possible reduction in the cost of oleo when the repeal of the tax can be very harmful to agriculture and to our whole national economy.

Senator HAWKES. May I interrupt?

Mr. FICHTER. Surely.

Senator HAWKES. Why do you say that the consumer will only be saved a quarter of a cent a pound?

Mr. FICHTER. In our State.

Senator HAWKES. Can you prove that?

Mr. FICHTER. Yes, because in Ohio, the law prohibits the manufacture and sale of colored oleo.

Senator HAWKES. It is absolutely prohibited.

Mr. FICHTER. That is right.

Senator HAWKES. Of course, that same reasoning does not apply over the country in general, and that is what we have to think about.

Mr. FICHTER. That is true. But as I understand it, that applies in 20 of the States, and I might say this, that it has been pointed out in Ohio that the passage of this bill will put the oleo manufacturers in Ohio at a great disadvantage with the oleo manufacturers in other States in which they can manufacture oleo, that our oleo manufacturers cannot make it, and they cannot export it, and they will be at a 10-cent disadvantage. They have recently discovered that.

Senator BARKLEY. Your local law applies to the consumption of oleomargarine within the State; it does not prevent manufacturers-Mr. FICHTER. Yes, it does.

Senator BARKLEY. From shipping it out of the State?

Mr. FICHTER. It prevents the manufacture of it.

Senator BARKLEY. You cannot even make it out there?

Mr. FICHTER. That is right.

Senator BARKLEY. You have not any oleo manufacturers who would be affected by this.

Mr. FICHTER. They would be affected in this way. The consumer in Ohio, the only saving that would come if there would be a saving