in the near future, possibly in a more direct fashion than in this hearing.

Mr. FORISTEL. The Capehart Committee is holding hearings on this very question. They are starting them, I understand, very soon, and the hearings will run on about three or four months. It is suggested that some representative from this area appear before the Capehart Committee and state his views and the views of those in this section. I think it can be boiled down to the fact in 1941 you had a distribution formula which should be corrected.

Mr. AMMON. That is right, and I think everyone realizes that future wars will be conducted in such a way that we must have a greater amount of industry that can step into it quickly. They may destroy the steel mills. We may have to very hurriedly do something in this section of the country, regardless of the cost of making steel. I do not know how than can be done quicker than the over-all thing can be done. So any handicap that is put on the heavy goods industry from St. Louis diagonally northwest and southeast, and any other goods will help us, by keeping away from possible sources of damage by air.

Mr. BALLINGER. No further questions.

Mr. BUFFETT. We thank you.

(Witness excused.)

TESTIMONY OF W. E. DENNY

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. BALLINGER. State your name.

Mr. DENNY. W. E. Denny.

Mr. BALLINGER. What is your business?

Mr. DENNY. The W. E. Denny Co., livestock commissioners.

Mr. BALLINGER. Where is your business located?

Mr. DENNY. Stockyards, South Omaha.

Mr. BALLINGER. Do you have a statement you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. DENNY. Yes; in connection with the cooperatives. We have in the stockyards the farmers' union and the producers.

Mr. FORISTEL. Before you go on, is your problem on unfair trade practices or monopolistic practices?

Mr. DENNY. In one connection. In the case of the producers commission company, it is the understanding of many of us, although we do not know definitely, the farm bureau as a whole in each State seems to back the producers company. In that way it is kind of an unfair trade practice.

Mr. FORISTEL. An unfair practice?
Mr. DENNY. An unfair practice.
Mr. FORISTEL. By the Government?
Mr. DENNY. By the Government.

Mr. FORISTEL. Go ahead.

Mr. DENNY. In that same connection, a few years ago I was at a farm bureau meeting where our exchanges contributed to the purchase of a projection machine for the community over around in the Missouri Valley. We were introduced by the president of the farm bureau over there. I was introduced as coming from the exchange and

what we had done. When it got to the manager of the commission company, he said, "Now, I want to introduce the manager of our own commission company."

I do not know why they should be their own commission company. I do not know how they are set up, but they seem to have a lot of power in Washington, apparently.

I have a few notes here. One is the use of cheap money. I do not know whether they get it from the Federal land bank or some agency of the Government. I think they get a very low rate of interest and perhaps anybody can get that if they can qualify.

Mr. FORISTEL. I want to say that our committee has gone into this problem of cooperatives thoroughly last year, we have completed our study and a report has been given to the Ways and Means Committee. If your testimony is chiefly on the advantages that you are saying the cooperatives might have, that is one thing, but I want to say we have covered that study and I wish you would not take up the time of the committee at this time on that.

Mr. DENNY. That is all right.

Mr. FORISTEL. We have gone into it thoroughly.
Mr. DENNY. I thank you.

(Witness excused.)

TESTIMONY OF NEWTON R. BRYSON

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. BALLINGER. State your name.

Mr. BRYSON. Newton R. Bryson, Livestock Exchange Building, Omaha, Nebr.

Mr. BALLINGER. What is your business?

Mr. BRYSON. Livestock marketing agency.

Mr. BALLINGER. Do you have a statement you wish to make to the committee?

Mr. BRYSON. You have heard so much about groceries and steel, maybe a little livestock might relieve the situation for all of us.

Mr. BALLINGER. Proceed.

Mr. BRYSON. I do not have much of a statement to make. Quite a bit of what I have to say has been reduced to writing. I do not know just how familiar with livestock marketing you gentlemen are or with its history. It might be enlightening if I briefly would give you a little history of livestock marketing.

Mr. FORISTEL. Try to make it in 15 minutes. We want to finish up by 5 o'clock.

Mr. BRYSON. I have been asked to be here at 2:30.

Mr. BALLINGER. Are you complaining about any monopolistic practice?

Mr. BRYSON. We are.

Mr. BALLINGER. Make it as brief as you can. You You may extend your remarks if you want to. If there is anything further you wish to say, you may extend them.

Mr. BRYSON. I asked for an hour's time. I do not believe I can give you very much information that I want you to have in 15 minutes and do justice to myself or to you.

Mr. BUFFETT. You have it all written out?

Mr. BRYSON. I have a great deal of it written out.

Mr. BUFFETT. In the interest of getting the job done, perhaps we can put that entire statement in the record and the committee then will have a chance to study it.

Mr. BRYSON. I will give you this. I also have in my hand a copy of some correspondence I have had with Congressman Flanagan, chairman of the Agricultural Committee prior to 1946. I will also give you that correspondence.

I have a lot to say and I have not said it.

Mr. BUFFETT. It will get more careful study in the record than your hurried discussion of it now.

Mr. BRYSON. To those we serve and others who may be interested. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

A LOOK AT THE PAST

Several years ago some changes, or correctives, surrounding the marketing of slaughter livestock were suggested.

It was, at that time, pointed out that unless the growers and feeders of livestock, and others who are interested and familiar with the needs, would make these corrections, someone less familiar and less sympathetic with the growers' and feeders' needs would make them.

The suggested changes were then and still are believed to be sound in practice, sound economically, fair to all and unfair to none, and it is believed they will bring about a marketing condition which will function perfectly during normal, subnormal, or abnormal times, and as well during either peace- or war-times. These suggestions met the approval of many people and were advanced to a point where legislation, embodying their features, was introduced in the Congress of the United States, but there it slept without awakening and remained in committee hands without a hearing at the close of the Seventy-seventh Congress. It slept, however, not because of lack of merit, but because its opponents were well entrenched, powerful, and apparently afraid the changes would do just what was claimed for them, which is just what some, who are not growers and feeders, seem not to want.

War came on and someone did make changes, but not corrective changes, and it is very evident those who made them were less familiar and less sympathetic, because the present marketing set-up seems to protect practically everyone except the growers and feeders of slaughter livestock, all of which makes

THE PRESENT

An opportune time to say "I told you so"-but let's not say that. Failing to find any producer who is in sympathy with the present conditions, particularly as they apply to the marketing of hogs, let us, at this time, suggest taking a look at

THE FUTURE

War, without a doubt, will be over within the next year, and wartime regulations will be-we hope-indefinitely suspended.

A new Congress will be elected this coming November. Therefore, now is the time to do the spadework needed in preparing the ground, into which may be planted, legislative seed which will grow, if properly cultivated, into a livestock-marketing plan that will protect the interest of the growers and feeders of slaughter livestock, as well as all others.

With concentration of effort, all this and more can be done.
Respectfully submitted.

Now go back and read that third paragraph again.

N. R. BRYSON.

AUGUST 11, 1944.

TO THOSE WE SERVE AND OTHERS WHO MAY BE INTERESTED Annual average price of slaughter livestock on foot at Chicago [H indicates hogs higher than cattle; L indicates hogs lower than cattle]

You will note at left that from 1900 to 1922 hogs averaged 67 cents higher, and from 1923 to 1942 averaged $1.51 lower, than cattle, or a loss in price of $2.18 per hundredweight. Eight hundred and seventy-nine million hogs were slaughtered during the last period; and $2.18 on a 238-pound hog amounts to $5.18 per head, or the staggering loss of $4,553,220,000.

The table at lower right shows direct marketing of hogs increased from 24 percent in 1923 to 54.20 percent by the end of 1942.

It is believed direct marketing caused hog prices to change from higher to lower than cattle, and proves needs as suggested in ours of August 11.

Keep this letter. Our next one on this subject will undertake answering the question "Which should sell higher-cattle or hogs?"

Yours respectfully.

AUGUST 25, 1944.

N. R. BRYSON.

[H indicates hogs higher than cattle; L indicates hogs lower than cattle]

Source of information: Pp. 49-55-60-64, Department of Agriculture Yearbook. Issued in June 1943, the latest issue.

To Those We Serve and Others Who May Be Interested:

You will, upon inquiry, no doubt find, as others have, that there are very few people who have undertaken to find an answer to the very interesting question

WHICH SHOULD SELL HIGHER CATTLE OR HOGS?

A mathematical attempt at that objective may be helpful, prove enlightening, or be, the answer. In either event

HERE IT IS

One thousand pounds of hogs will yield approximately 760 pounds of meat. One thousand pounds of cattle will yield approximately 560 pounds of meat, or a yield of approximately 200 pounds more meat from 1,000 pounds of hogs than from 1,000 pounds of cattle.

There is more pork than beef consumed per capita in the United States.
There are more calories in a pound of pork than in a pound of beef.

All of which is rather convincing evidence that the animal which yields the most, the meat from which is used the most and is of greatest food value, should be of the greatest value.

FURTHER EVIDENCE

The 43-year-average price of beef steers on the Chicago market for the period ending January 1, 1943, is approximately $8.90-so, for easy figuring and using $8 as a basis for cattle price, when beef cattle sell at $8, hogs could sell at $10.85, and meat from both the hogs and cattle would go on the butcher's block at approximately the same price.

Using such figures as a guide, in place of hogs selling on the Chicago market during the past 43 years at an average of $8.55, their average should have been nearer to $11.75.

When fat cattle sell at $16, which is a current Government-fixed base price at Chicago, hogs could sell at $21.70-not $14.75 or less-and meat from both go to the butcher's block at approximately the same price.

There are many who believe that the price of hogs is controlled by or through the direct marketing system, and its practice brought about the change in hog prices from higher to lower than cattle, and cause of the staggering loss of $4,553,220,000 mentioned in our previous letters.

You will recall that, in ours of August 25, it is shown that since the early twenties, hogs sold lower in price than cattle. Prior to which time, they sold higher than cattle, which will bring to your attention the fact that the direct marketing of slaughter livestock, hogs in particular, began to materially increase during the early twenties.

Let's make our great open competitive markets for slaughter livestock what they should be then they will safety, faithfully, and efficiently answer the essential purpose for which they are intended.

The next and concluding letter of this series will follow.
Respectfully submitted.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1944.

N. R. BRYSON.

To Those We Serve and Others Who May Be Interested: This letter is the last of a series of four which deals with direct marketing of slaughter livestock.

Space will not permit lengthy review of the first three letters, but none of the statements made or figures quoted in either of them have been or is it believed they will be successfully challenged. Their dates are August 11th, August 25th, and September 8th. I is hoped you have kept yours and will read them again. Then, after reading this one, I feel sure that your conclusion and mine will be similar.