FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Thirty-one States have marketing service programs on fruits and vegetables. Of this number 24 are engaged in activities to improve quality, 19 to expand outlets, 11 to improve facilities and increase efficiency, and 19 to provide new basic data and marketing information.

Work to improve or maintain quality included demonstrations and firsthand assistance to growers and marketing agencies in the adoption of proper methods of harvesting, grading, sizing, packing, handling, and transporting fruits and vegetables. The importance of harvesting these commodities at the proper stage of maturity so as to reach the consumer in acceptable condition was stressed. Several States continued work to develop more exact and reliable methods of measuring maturity and other quality factors as an integral phase of their programs to improve quality. Growers and shippers were kept advised of methods, developed through research, of preventing and reducing spoilage, and were assisted in adopting these methods.

The "buyer informational bulletin" was the device used by several States to facilitate wider distribution and improve demand for fruits and vegetables. These bulletins provided special information to brokers, truckers, and other potential buyers on the locations, anticipated supplies, varieties, and harvest periods of products expected to be in surplus. Several States participated in the development and operation of special promotion programs for particular commodities. The scope of activities in this regard ranged all the way from preparing scripts for radio and television programs to assisting retailers in preparing displays and making effective use of point-of-sale material supplied by industry. Special surveys were conducted by several States to determine trade opinion with respect to improvements in grading, packaging, and merchandising needed to secure greater trade and consumer acceptance of various products.

Several State departments of agriculture assisted in the planning of new and improved facilities for handling fruits and vegetables at the assembly and terminal market levels. In such States as Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia help was given operators of fruit and vegetable packinghouses with problems of selecting proper equipment, planning floor layouts, and adopting the most efficient work methods. Work continued in a number of States on the problem of bringing about greater standardization in the sizes and types of containers.

Programs of the States to improve marketing information included the issuance of more timely and detailed acreage and production reports, the making of tree censuses, the development of objective methods of estimating production, and the establishment of a more complete and up-to-date system of market news reporting.

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Work concerned with dairy products in one or more of the broad marketing service fields was carried out by 20 States and Territories. Ten of these were engaged in quality improvement, 11 in expanding outlets, 19 in improving efficiency, and 8 in collecting and disseminating new basic data and better marketing information.

With respect to milk, the quality improvement programs conducted emphasized the avoidance of contamination and control of bacteria through stricter observance of good sanitation procedures and temperature control. One State-Vermont-concentrated on the elimination of off-flavors and off-odors. Several States assisted manufacturers of dairy products in producing better quality butter and cheese by helping to identify the sources and correct the causes of contamination interfering with the development of desirable structure and flavor. This phase of work also included assistance in improving processing methods which not only improved quality but frequently increased efficiency and lowered costs. The programs of the States to expand outlets for dairy products were for the most part coordinated with such American Dairy Association promotions as June Dairy Month and in cooperation with State ADA groups. The State departments of agriculture, through their intimate contacts with distributors, retailers, restaurants, and news mediums, were able to add much to the effectiveness of these national dairy promotion campaigns at the local level.

Basic data on a State or county basis concerning the production and marketing of dairy products were collected and disseminated by several States, and marketing information releases containing statistics on dairy products were issued periodically.

POULTRY AND EGGS

A total of 24 States have programs on poultry and eggs-20 in the quality improvement field, 12 in expanding outlets, 7 in improving efficiency, and 10 in providing marketing information.

Under the quality improvement programs, marketing specialists demonstrated to producers and marketing agencies the quality factors in eggs, the quality specifications of official grades, the importance of holding eggs at proper temperature and humidity conditions, and conducted training schools to assist producers, egg assemblers, and their employees in becoming proficient in proper grading and handling procedures. In most of these States specialists also assisted retailers in selecting display equipment designed to maintain egg quality and informed consumers through various mediums how to recognize the quality factors in eggs.

Of the 12 States conducting programs to expand outlets for poultry and eggs, 5 were employing or preparing to employ State labels of quality as a means of identifying the product being promoted. Practically all States with programs of this type participated in industry sponsored promotions such as January Egg Month.

The work to improve marketing efficiency involved assistance to concerns engaged in egg packing and poultry dressing operations, in designing new or redesigning old facilities, planning equipment layouts and floor space allocations, selecting equipment best suited to the operations, and training workers in the most efficient work methods. One of the important objectives of this type of work with poultry dressing plants was to prepare them for operations under the National Poultry Inspection Act.

Experimental market news programs were initiated in two States-Michigan and Missouri-and continued in one-New York-to provide producers and marketing agencies with supply and price conditions at the local market level. Several States conducted surveys of poultry flocks on an area basis to determine the current status of the industry and to appraise the adequacy of the present marketing structure.

LIVESTOCK

There were during the year 25 States or Territories which conducted marketing service programs relating to livestock.

Activities to encourage livestock conservation represented an important phase of livestock quality improvement in several of the 11 States which conducted quality improvement programs. Demonstrations and exhibits concerning methods and equipment for preventing death losses and losses from bruising and crippling during the marketing of livestock were utilized in this work. Most of these States and others also carried on programs to encourage the use of grades in the buying and selling of livestock as an incentive to quality improvement.

Several techniques for expanding outlets were used by the 13 States doing work in this field. Several continued to use special sales as the principal medium through which to broaden outlets. Two States-Kansas and Missouri-prepared and disseminated livestock brochures to promote the marketing of highquality breeding stock. Promotion campaigns, in cooperation with industry and trade groups, to encourage greater meat consumption were participated in by several State departments of agriculture.

Five States provided assistance to promote greater efficiency in the marketing of livestock and meat. Operators of livestock auctions and processing plants were helped with problems of remodeling facilities, selecting equipment, and improving work methods. More efficient plans were devised for assembling wool sold through wool pools.

GRAIN

Programs to improve grain marketing were carried on in 21 States. The grain marketing programs of six of these States included activities to acquaint farmers and dealers with the requirements of official grain grades and to encourage the buying and selling of grain on a graded basis. Assistance to cornmeal mills in acquiring supplies of clean corn, preventing insect and foreign material contamination of corn and corn products during storage and milling, and otherwise improving the quality of the finished products featured the grain programs in two States.

22911-58-pt. 5-13

North Dakota was the only State which conducted a comprehensive program of preventing insect and rodent contamination in all grains. Both North Carolina and Virginia helped producers and elevator operators in overcoming problems of excessive moisture through assistance in making moisture determinations and in installing proper grain drying equipment.

In 8 States programs were carried out to increase the efficiency af grain handling and other phases of grain marketing. Several States were instrumental in averting serious storage problems through advance planning of storage needs and the development of a clearing house system to move grain from area of deficit to areas of surplus storage capacity.

Providing basic data on acreage, production, varieties and quality and special information on the movement, supplies and prices of grain was an important activity in 16 of the 21 States having grain marketing service programs. Ohio is the most recent State to initiate an experimental market news program for grain covering transactions at county points.

COTTON

Marketing service programs designed to improve ginning and other cotton marketing operations were continued in Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. In the latter two States, specialists collected cotton samples weekly from representative gins; conducted tests of fiber length, strengh, fineness, uniformity, and maturity; and released the results every two weeks to cotton mills and merchants. This service helped buyers in locating cotton of the desired physical properties and improved the overall demand for cotton produced in the two States. North Carolina specialists also worked with a number of cotton mills to assist them in inproving the blends of raw cotton used in the spinning process. Through these contacts with mills, specialists were able to advise ginners of mill requirements with respect to machining, cleaning, and conditioning of cotton.

TOBACCO

North Carolina and West Virginia continued programs providing assistance to tobacco farmers through actual demonstrations of proper methods of sorting and otherwise preparing tobacco for market and of displaying the product on the sales floor. During the past season, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture provided growers and marketing agencies with daily price information and quarterly reports on volume of sales covering the two types of tobacco produced in the State. North Carolina again issued the North Carolina Tobacco Report, which provided growers and marketing agencies with tobacco marketing information.

OTHER COMMODITIES

State departments of agriculture also provided marketing services to assist producers and marketing agencies in improving the marketing of several other commodities such as seed, honey, maple syrup, dry beans, and forest products.

This brief résumé of the kinds of work being done in the States shows how we are working with farmers and marketing agencies in the solution of many marketing problems. Much of this work is being planned and conducted jointly by the experiment stations, the Extension Service, and the State Departments of Agriculture. Together they outline the program to be undertaken. Then the experiment station conducts the needed research; the Extension Service carries on the educational activities; and the State department of agriculture through its marketing bureau works directly with the people and firms engaged in marketing to show them the action needed, and to collect and disseminate the basic marketing data. Since the State departments of agriculture have long rendered the grading and inspection services, provided market news service, and cooperated with the United States Department of Agriculture in the crop reporting field, their background, experience, and contacts with marketing agencies place them in a good position for rendering all necessary kinds of marketing services. Mr. ALLEN. There will be a great deal of testimony offered but I would like to highlight Minnesota's testimony by stating that we were one of the 43 States that was disappointed when we reached the point of offering our state appropriations for matching with the Federal funds to carry out these cooperative enterprises of the State and

Federal Governments in the field of agriculture and agricultural marketing services.

Minnesota moved slowly into this cooperative field and began with the dairy industry with crop and livestock reporting and the fruit and vegetable serves to our people and these programs worked out very satisfactorily and we attempted to expand these to other commodities and other fields of marketing.

When the State was in a position to expand our work, we found that the appropriation given by the Congress of the United States was not sufficient to go around. So we are stymied. The State stands in a position to expand these marketing activities, and the United States Department of Agriculture is not in a position to match our funds and that is why we are here today, gentlemen, to appeal to this committee for an expansion of some $446,000 over and above the appropriations made by the last two sessions of the Congress. I think it remained the same figure for the last two sessions.

I believe that is all the time I should take at this moment-I am afraid I have gone beyond my 5 minutes, Mr. Ballentine-unless there are any questions.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Just one question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

How much did we in Minnesota appropriate for matching funds for this particular work, Mr. Allen?

Mr. ALLEN. Well, the State of Minnesota-I had those figures a moment ago.

I will see if I can find them again.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I am speaking of the appropriations by our own State.

Mr. ALLEN. Minnesota is providing in some round numbers, $60,000. We have some dedicated funds in the poultry industry and some other fields that we could appropriate additionally.

Mr. ANDERSEN. That is the point I wanted brought out. We are speaking of Minnesota putting up about $60,000 for this work.

Mr. ALLEN. That is right. And the Federal Government for next year is providing in round numbers $41,000.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The figures before us show only $45,000 for this

year.

You say the allotments will be around $40,000?

Mr. ALLEN. That is on the basis of funds held over and unused from previous years plus the amount that you stated.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The point is that the State of Minnesota is providing $3 for each $2 that the Federal Government is able to put up on the basis of the appropriation made by the Congress? Mr. ALLEN. I would say approximately that.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Thank you.

Mr. BALLENTINE. Thank you, Mr. Allen.

STATEMENT OF STILLMAN J. STANARD

We will call on Mr. Stillman J. Stanard, director of agriculture of Illinois, for his statement.

Mr. VURSELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the fine compliments of the members of this committee in favor of Mr. Natcher and the others, and I would like to say that Mr. Stanard is a

product of southern Illinois. I come from that part of the State, and he has served the people so well in agriculture that he is now, I think, in his 20th year as a director of agriculture in the great corn and wheat growing and hay growing and livestock State of Illinois. We are very proud of Mr. Stanard.

That is the reason that I am happy to say something in favor of the man that has rendered a great service to agriculture in my State, Mr. Stanard.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Vursell.

May I say, Mr. Stanard, Mr. Vursell has a record in Congress as being about as conservative as us southerners, except in agriculture. He has been a very good member of this committee, recognizing the problem and has always gone along with us.

Mr. STANARD. I appreciate the remarks of the Congressman very much. I hold him in very high regard.

It has been ably pointed out by the commissioners that have responsibility to you that it is our desire that this committee join us in supporting an increase for matched fund cooperative marketing in various States. The amount stipulated appears to be what is needed in order to carry on this work next year.

In our State and in our north central region of the United States, this work is confined to fruit, vegetables, poultry, eggs, and dairy products mainly. Each of these various products has been inaugurated and made possible because some Federal means have been available. Most of these projects are pilot projects and never would have been attempted otherwise. But since some Federal means is available, they have been attempted and have been very successful.

I only want to use a couple of examples to show what this means

to us.

We believe that marketing and market expansion should start at home as being a most sound program or agricultural marketing of products from the farm.

For instance, the peachgrowers of our State and several other States have engaged in putting on the market a peach which was not ripe. This is due to the fact that they are very much worried for fear that storms may destroy their crop, a shortage of labor at the time of harvest will make it impossible for them to pick those peaches and get them on the market, so they start too soon with the result that when that peach gets on the market and the housewife buys it, it never ripens. It is never fit for consumption.

Now we have a pilot project which is going on in our State and some of the other States as well to show those farmers the degree of ripeness that a peach must reach so that it can continue to ripen and be a delicious peach when it reaches the market. That project is going forward with a considerable degree of success and would have been impossible had it not been for this matched-funding program.

Recently a matched-fund project was started in our State which I want to call your attention to because it is rather startling, I believe. It is relative to the food consumed by schoolchildren from the fourth to the ninth grades.

It has disclosed some startling facts. The survey was made with matched funds of four schools representing a cross section and a city which is financially above the average in Springfield.