« ПретходнаНастави »
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 de. cline 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. ABERNETHY. Thank you very much.
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
WASHINGTON, D. C., February 28, 1958. Hon. Thomas G. ABERNETHY, 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.
We note the regular budget of the United States Department of Agriculture for animal disease and pest control programs provides for a substantial incrs i in 1959 for the brucellosis program in lieu of use of CCC funds for this repose. Our interest is in the carrying forward of this program and we recor. that funds be made available from one of these sources.
It will be appreciated if you will incorporate this letter in the hearing record on these measures. Very sincerely,
John C. Lynn, Legislative Director. (Whereupon at 11:15 a. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
H. R. 11043, H. R. 11058, H. R. 11059, H. R. 11060,
and H. R. 11065
MARCH 5, 1958
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
WASHINGTON : 1958
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HAROLD D. COOLEY, North Carolina, Chairman
WILLIAM S. HILL, Colorado, ex officio member of all subcommittees W. R. POAGE, Texas
CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa GEORGE M. GRANT, Alabama
SID SIMPSON, Illinois E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas
PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MCMILLAN, South Carolina
RALPH HARVEY, Indiana THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma
CLIFFORD G. MCINTIRE, Maine WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia
WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York JAMES G. POLK, Ohio
ROBERT D. HARRISON, Nebraska CLARK W. THOMPSON, Texas
HENRY ALDOUS DIXON, Utah PAUL C. JONES, Missouri
WINT SMITH, Kansas JOHN C. WATTS, Kentucky
OTTO KRUEGER, North Dakota HARLAN HAGEN, California
CHARLES M. TEAGUE, Californis LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota ROSS BASS, Tennessee
DELEGATES COYA KNUTSON, Minnesota
E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska W, PAT JENNINGS, Virginia
JOHN A. BURNS, Hawaii D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida
A. FERNÓS-ISERN, Puerto Rico
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TOBACCO
WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia, Chairman JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina
PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania JAMES G. POLK, Ohio
SID SIMPSON, Minois JOHN C. WATTS, Kentucky
CLIFFORD G. MCINTIRE, Maine ROSS BASS, Tennessee
DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin W. PAT JENNINGS, Virginia
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota D, R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida