ment their sincerity in attempting to build a sound sheep economy and live as little as possible under a Government price-support umbrella.

To somewhat illustrate my point, figures were available to us from four of our member associations in Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota, and Utah to show the average size of the clip, the average size of the incentive payment and the average size of the grower contribution to the promotion program.

We do not want to create the impression that this is necessarily the average of the industry as a whole in each State. This merely represents the averages on the wool which has been marketed cooperatively in that State through our member organizations, except in the case of Minnesota where the averages are for the State as a whole.

In Utah 962 growers marketing through the association, marketed an average of 3,481 pounds of wool, meaning roughly the average size flock was 350 head. The average payment to these growers was $598. These figures are for the 1956 marketing year. This meant the average payment to the promotion fund was $34.81.

In Virginia 5,431 growers marketing through our association had an average clip weight of 179 pounds. The average incentive payment per grower was $36. The average payment to the promotion fund was $1.79.

In Ohio, 8,842 growers marketing through our member association had an average clip weight of 338 pounds. The average incentive payment received by the growers was $65. The average grower contribution to the promotion fund was $3.38.

In Minnesota slightly more than 19,000 producers had an average clip weight of 300 pounds with an average incentive payment of $63. The average payment to the promotion fund was approximately $3.

We do have superior products in the field of fiber and in the field of food in our modern advertising economy. We do appreciate the opportunity Congress has given us to tell the story of our production to the American public and we hope that the Congress will again realize that we will never be in a position to crowd other products off the market. Our situation is that we produce so little a portion of the country's needs we must promote our products to stay in business.

We have slept comfortably with the idea that a large proportion of our wool was imported and, therefore, we did not need to create a market. The packers and retailers of meat figured the quantity or supply was so small that it was not necessary to push lamb. Through the facilities provided in section 708, the growers have formed the American Sheep Producers Council. Through this organization we have a real job to be done. We can and will do it with the permission of Congress to continue this act.

In your consideration of the need for extending the provisions of the National Wool Act, I hope you will take into consideration the fact that small farm flocks of sheep do play a very definite role in balancing farm operations.

This is an important farm commodity on many family commercial-type farms. Since the operation of the Wool Act has started it is playing a greater role on smaller farms.

This committee and Congress has been interested in a rural development program so we asked the Department of Agriculture to provide us with an example of how sheep are being used for this purpose. They sent us this brief case history: "LAMB AND SHEEP PROJECT IN LEWIS COUNTY, W. VA., AREA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (THIS ALSO INCLUDES GILMER, UPSHUR, AND BRAXTON COUNTIES) "One of the first projects in rural development in this area was expanded sheep raising on small, hilly farms. During the first year of the program 10 farmers bought 140 western ewes as a demonstration. They paid $17 apiece for the ewes, and then sold $21 worth of lambs and wool. This project was rapidly expanded and about 50 farmers have now purchased a total of 1,170 ewes. Many of these farmers had never raised sheep before."

On these very small farms where they raise milk cows, it ties the operator to the farm on a basis where he must attend to his milking, lessening his opportunity to get outside employment. If he were to raise sheep on his available feed, he has much more freedom to seek a job for additional income.

We believe that most of the increased production which will be brought about by the National Wool Act will come in family-sized farms rather than in the range areas where other limiting factors might prevail. And, incidentally, if this Congress sees fit to continue the incentive program for wool production up to the goal set in the present act at 300 million pounds, it will require approximately a one-third increase.

Even though we recognize it will be a slow process in this livestock industry to increase one-third in our production it will, in our opinion, have another beneficial benefit. This increased production will automatically reduce the production of surplus commodities. Acreage will be used for sheep production if the economy is stabilized under the act and if it is not so stabilized that acreage will be used to produce surplus commodities.

We join with the National Wool Growers in expressing the sincere hope that this committee will consider the necessity for making available sufficient funds, in case of need, to make the act fully operative as an incentive program. Plus that it will prevent the creation of uncertainty in the industry whenever calculations indicate there even might be insufficient funds to carry out any given year's program during some portion of the life of the act.

To a small farmer who must invest in sheep the expiration date of the act itself is an important factor. Maybe he could see his way clear to make such an investment during the first year of a 4 year act, but that would hardly be true in the fourth year if Congress has not set the policy for the future. We have found that a factor this year under the present act with its 4-year limit. On behalf of the small farmers we would like to ask you to consider whether or not this could be changed so that there could be confidence in the intent of Congress to stabilize the economy of the sheep industry.

I should like to conclude with this statement. I do not believe I have ever seen such unanimous support for any program or law adopted by Congress as there is among sheepgrowers for this act. This has been true in every meeting I have attended and in all parts of the United States. It is true in the range areas and it is true in the areas where the smallest of farm flock production predominates. We sincerely urge your approval of S. 2861 and your cooperation in obtaining early enactment to provide us with a continuing stability in our economy.

Thank you.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Are there any questions that the committee would like to ask?

Mr. Dixon. I would like to say that the emphasis upon the assistance to the small farmer is very helpful. I compliment you on the emphasis you have given to that.

Mr. HILL. I think you probably have this statement before you, which I have before me. In the middle of the statement, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, from 1954, there were 2,000 more farms in those areas that reported sheep herds, small herds in 4 years, that is from 1950 to 1954?

Mr. LEMMON. There is an increase in the farm population; we can see it. While I live in the West, our interests are very widely scattered over the United States, and I can see a very definite trend to increase production in those States.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lemmon.

Mr. LEMMON. Thank you.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Our next witness comes from the State of Colorado. I will ask Congressman Hill to introduce him.

Mr. HILL. I will make it short, because our time is running out. I would like to state that the next gentleman is from Denver, Colo. That is not really a true statement. He is from the western part. He is a sheep farmer, Mr. Norman Winder, but no sheep farmer ever called him "G. Norman." They always say "Norman.

How are you this morning? I am glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF G. NORMAN WINDER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHEEP PRODUCERS COUNCIL

Mr. WINDER. At the request of Congressman Hill I am here as president of the American Sheep Producers Council to give to the committee a report as to the activities and functions of the American Sheep Producers Council.

I have a considerable report here, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask that the complete report be written into the record, but I would like to have the privilege of pointing out and emphasizing a few points in that statement.

Mr. MATTHEWS. We will be delighted to do that, sir. And without objection your complete statement will be inserted in the record.

Mr. WINDER. Yes, sir, thank you. Before I get into the statement I would like to say this, that the American Sheep Producers Council is a completely controlled and financed sheep growers' organization. It has one purpose and one purpose only. That is, to promote and advertise the products of the sheep.

You will note that there is a booklet accompanying this statement entitled "The Self-Help Program of the American Sheep Producers Council-the Key to Success.'

This booklet is a detailed report to Congress, the Department of Agriculture and to the sheep growers of the activities and financial condition of the American Sheep Producers Council. A copy of this booklet has been mailed to every Congressman.

As you probably know the American Sheep Producers Council was formed in accordance with the provisions of section 708 of the Wool Act of 1954, and in my written testimony there is quoted a part of section 708, that portion providing for the formation of such an organization.

In this era of intensive advertising and promotion, it becomes increasingly necessary that agriculture merchandise its products through the modern business methods. In this day of heavy competition among all facets and business and industry the businesssmen of agriculture cannot any longer rely on the consumers basic need for food and clothing. He must, on the other hand, promote his products and make the consumer aware of the superiority of his products.

I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that for years and years we have attempted to work out strictly voluntary methods of collecting funds for advertising. I myself have been interested in it since 1936 and have made all kinds of efforts to collect funds and none of them have been successful. And so we are very happy that the Wool Act of 1954 provided the means for the sheep industry to set up a self-help program.

I will try to make this as short as possible.

On March 17, 1955, an agreement was entered into between the Secretary of Agriculture and the American Sheep Producers Council in accordance with section 708. And then in the report we present a complete copy of the agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the American Sheep Producers Council.

This agreement was the subject of a national referendum conducted among sheep growers during the summer of 1955 by the United States Department of Agriculture.

The referendum was completed with the results showing that 71.3 percent of producers and owners of 72 percent of the sheep represented by those voting in the referendum favored the establishment of the American Sheep Producers Council. This referendum provided the Secretary of Agriculture with positive proof that the majority of sheep producers favored such a promotion and advertising program. The American Sheep Producers Council was formally activated on September 12, 1955, in accordance with the agreement executed on March 17, 1955.

At the present time, representation is determined on the basis of 1 delegate from a State or area sheep council for every $25,000 or major fraction thereof, paid into the promotion and advertising fund. One director is allowed for every $1,000 or major part thereof paid into the fund. And I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that the board of directors are the governing body in the American Sheep Producers Council. Every delegate and every director must be a sheep producer in his own right.

Because the sheep is a dual-product animal, the board of directors were faced with two distinct products to promote with entirely different problems. With respect to wool, there were already several established agencies working in the field of wool promotion and advertising, so in order to make a well coordinated program and to avoid duplication, we decided to work in conjunction with these agencies and to thus supplement the work that they were doing. In addition, joint advertising was worked out with several individual woolen mills. When it came to lamb we found an entirely different situation. There were no existing agencies set up to advertise and promote lamb except the National Livestock & Meat Board and they are concerned with all types of meat and could devote only that portion of their time and effort to lamb that lamb represents in the overall meat picture.

Further, the policy of the National Livestock & Meat Board prevents them from using any paid advertising.

I am quite familiar with the activities of the National Livestock & Meat Board, having served for 13 years on the board and was privileged to serve 3 years as chairman.

The sheep producers support the National Livestock & Meat Board today as they always have in the past.

Let me say here that all of our programs have been well coordinated with the meat board and their staff and facilities have been made available wherever and whenever they could be of assistance to us.

After careful investigation and study, we found three basic problems confronting us. One was the extremely distorted pattern of distribution and consumption of lamb. It was found that 70 percent of the lamb was consumed in 8 States that comprise only 30 percent of the population. These States were New York, the New England States, and California, which with the exception of California, are the areas where lamb is not raised in abundance.

Another problem was the amazing lack of knowledge of lamb on the part of consumers and meat retailers. Another was the unfounded prejudices regarding lamb in the minds of many people.

After careful consideration it was decided that in order to overcome these problems we would conduct an educational type advertising *promotion campaign in a selected group of metropolitan areas.

The statement gives the complete outline of the way that the advertising and promotion is carried on.

All segments of the livestock and meat industry have testified to the outstanding success of the lamb promotion program to date, and we print below a few samples which strongly indicate the success of this program. Those letters are from meatpackers, meat retailers, and other people interested in other segments of the industry.

I will not bore you with the reading of those testimonial letters contained in the paper.

Lamb prices show greater stability. One of the most serious problems confronting sheep producers in the past has been the severe price breaks encountered during the market year. Promotion and advertising has helped to stabilize lamb prices and level out, to a great extent, the ups and downs that often prove so drastic to sheep growers. By intensifying its advertising and promotion effort during periods of peak supply, the American Sheep Producers Council has tended to eliminate drastic price breaks for the producer.

The task originally assigned to the American Sheep Producers Council presented numerous problems, many of which already have been overcome. Only time and the continued diligent attention to the task at hand will solve the sheep industry's problems. The American Sheep Producers Council believes that it is on the right path toward helping to establish a strong and self-reliant sheep industry in the United States.

It is understood that when the Wool Act is renewed, another referendum will be conducted to determine if growers favor the continuation of advertising and promotion program and desire to expend their own funds for creating a demand for their products.

Only by building a sound demand for its products can the sheep industry carry out the intent of the Wool Act as set forth by Congress. On the bottom of page 23 is the budget for the fiscal year July 1, 1957, through June 30, 1958, showing the major items included in the budget and the percentage each category is of the total.

You will note that the wool promotion and lamb promotion funds allocated represent a trifle over 91 percent of the total budget. And if you take into consideration the other education and information part of the budget, those 3 items represent practically 95 percent of the entire budget.

On page 24 is a statement of assets and liabilities and the fund balance.

On page 25 is a complete report of the receipts and disbursements from the beginning on September 12, 1955, through December 31, 1957, and I want to draw your attention to the percentages in that particular statement with respect to the money actually going into the advertising and promotion activities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, as president of the American Sheep Producers Council, I am quite proud of the small amount of our total expenditures that has gone into administrative and other items in our budget, in our expenditures. I will be most happy, Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions, to try to answer them.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I want to thank you for giving us this very informative and clear report. I want to assure you that I, and I know other members of this committee, will want to refer to this information from time to time because I think it will be helpful as we consider other self-promotion plans for other areas in the general livestock grouping. I appreciate the information that you have given us tremendously, and I want to thank you for it.

(The complete paper referred to is as follows:)