In the dairy industry through our programs with the American Dairy Association, the National Dairy Council, we are doing lots of work and spending significant sums of money endeavoring to broaden our market. We think the special milk school program, a long time increase in their demand for dairy and milk products during their lifetime, such is very helpful. And I think you can find rather marked verification, strong verification of that statement in a marketing research report just recently published by the Agricultural Marketing Service, No. 209, in which they analyze the special school milk program and its consumption in St. Louis and Los Angeles. We all know that in the dairy field we have lost a great deal of our market for butter. It started during the war, primarily as the result of wartime diversion programs, and some, I would say, ill-advised rationing procedures. And we have lost some since because our major competitor has been given a great deal of encouragement through certain acts of Congress that have been passed which places it in a better competitive position than it was heretofore. We have been fighting to regain these markets, but it is slow going. However, we expect to keep that up. As to the fluid milk end of the matter, that offers us a wonderful potential to expand our total consumption of all milk and dairy products. I might say that while fluid milk consumption has been rather well maintained the last several years, we have had times in our recent history when we consumed much more fluid milk per capita. In 1949 we consumed 399 pounds. In 1956 we consumed, I believe it was, 355 pounds, and we were down 11 percent. Anything we can do to inculcate in our younger generation a knowledge and desire to use more milk in fluid form the better off we all are. For example, if we just raise our per capita consumption up to the 1945 level we would not have any surplus. So we urge the continuation of this program. And we think it is a fine thing and should be continued by all means at as high a level as can be reasonably handled. I thank you gentlemen. That is all I have to say in connection with these two programs. Mr. ABERNETHY. We appreciate your statement, Mr. Reed. (The prepared paper is as follows:) STATEMENT OF OTIE M. REED, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL CREAMERIES ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I will not take much of your time this morning. The special school milk program and the brucellosis control program are, I suppose, two programs on which the entire dairy industry can agree. As to continuation of brucellosis eradication there should be no question. Final elimination of this disease will mark the achievement of another milestone in cooperative efforts of Government and dairy farmers to produce quality product, protect the public health, and provide for more efficient production. The special school milk program undoubtedly is doing a great deal to (1) increase consumption of milk in fluid form, and (2) inculcate habits of consumption in our children that should last for years and be of lasting benefit to them and to the economic welfare of the dairy farmer. If members of the subcommittee wish to look into the potentialities of this program more than is possible during these hearings, may I suggest you read Marketing Research Report No. 209, published by the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. This report is entitled "The Special Milk Program-Its Effect On Consumption in St. Louis and Los Angeles Schools." One of the most important problems confronting the dairy farmer today is expansion of markets right here in the United States. I am sure you all know that our sad plight in the manufactured dairy products field has been caused very largely by loss of a large share of our market during the war, and our postwar loss of market due to the very great encouragement given butter substitutes by acts of the Congress. We have been fighting to regain some portion of our lost market for years, but it is very slow. We need also to expand the per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream. While per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream has been maintained fairly well at levels ranging from 347 pounds to 355 pounds per capita since 1948, there is a vast potential here which needs very aggressive exploitation. In 1945, our people consumed 399 pounds of milk per capita in the form of fluid milk and cream. In 1956, we consumed 355 pounds per capita-up 8 pounds from the postwar low of 347 pounds per capita in 1953. Thus, the percentage decline from 1945, our best year, to 1956, was 11 percent. If, in 1956, our per capita consumption of fluid milk and cream had been the same as in 1945, our civilian population would have consumed 7.4 billion pounds more milk. This would more than have offset the surplus purchases of CCC for the marketing year ending March 31, 1958. We in the dairy industry are striving, through our voluntary merchandising and advertising program, to increase consumption of our products. It is our hope that in time we can overcome the production-consumption imbalance with this program. Certainly, the potential is there. The school milk program fits in very neatly with our own program for expanding consumption. We urge it be continued. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask you what do you think, Mr. Reed, was the reason for that high consumption in the year 1945 in fluid milk? Mr. REED. Congressman Johnson, I don't know whether you can prove any opinion in the matter, but I was at that time Deputy Director of Supply in the War Food Administration, and had some experience with the various and sundry problems of food at that time. I would say that a part of the high level of fluid milk consumption at that time was that there was relatively less, fewer commodities of all kinds competing for each share of the consumer's dollar. Some commodities, as you know, were in short supply, and were heavily rationed during the war, and I think that had its influence in increasing fluid milk consumption. Mr. ABERNETHY. Are there further questions? Mr. HEIMBURGER. I just notice you do not mention the armed services milk program in here at all. Mr. REED. I think that should be included. Mr. HEIMBURGER. You are not opposed to that? Mr. REED. I intend to lump in all of it-yes, I think that very definitely should be included. Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you very much. If that is all the committee will stand adjourned. (The following letter was submitted to the subcommittee:) Hon. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Dairy Products, House Committee on Agriculture, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ABERNETHY: The American Farm Bureau Federation favors the continuation of the school milk program and the brucellosis control program, and the enactment of legislation to extend the authorizations for these programs. |