« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
is. The same is true in large measure in every fertile agricultural valley in the United States.
You take the Connecticut Valley, for instance, township summaries localize and give you your definite local information. I am told that the experts in the Department of Agriculture have gone into this quite thoroughly, have discussed it with the Census Bureau, and that there will be an expense of not over $150,000 additional required to get township summaries supplementing county summaries. I would like to have you consider that very seriously.
The CHAIRMAN. You would continue county summaries and add to it townships?
Mr. Loomis. Yes; township summaries.
Mr. JOHNSON. Just let me ask you one question on that. Take some of the Western States, they have very large counties.
Mr. LOOMIS. I think there might be some question as to whether it was needed there.
Mr. JOHNSON. The county I live in, I think is about 70 miles long and 50 miles wide.
Mr. Loomis. I don't even know how it is divided up into townships, so it may be it would not work there at all.
Rather than take the time of the committee with the rest of the matter I have here, I wanted to submit a form of question-I assume this is not a matter of very much interest to the committee, but I wanted to submit a form of questions which we think will cover the contro versy about how to get at livestock figures and a set of questions which covers what we think is the best way to get at livestock products on farms, and if the committee would like me to I will read them here.
The CHAIRMAN. You might read them. Mr. Loomis. Then 'in a preliminary way I would say that in the last census, the last two I believe, they tried to separate beef cattle and dairy cattle. They have a separate schedule for beef cattle and a separate schedule for dairy cattle. Now, that involves the determination by the farmer of whom the question is asked as to whether this animal is a beef or dairy animal, and opinions will differ—at least they did differ so much that the dairy figures in the 1925—the dairy-cattle figures in the 1925 census and the dairy-cattle figures of the 1920 census—we are having all kinds of trouble trying to correlate them, to get any sense out of them, and consequently after long study, this form of questions has been made up and suggested, coming originally from the bureau of crop estimates, worked over by the bureau of dairy industry, the other experts in the bureau of agricultural economics, and finally submitted to the dairy federation and worked over by our committee.
1. Cows and heifers, 2 years old and over. Kept for milk. I don't see how there can be any question about that wording "kept for milk.” Last year maybe this cow was a beef cow, but this year she is kept for milk, and they will enumerate her this year as “kept for milk.”
2. Heifers, 1 year old and under 2, being kept for milk cows. 3. Heifer calves, under 1 year old, being kept for milk cows. 4. Cows, 2 years old and over, not kept for milk.
Mr. MOORMAN. Your trouble comes from the dual purpose cattle like shorthorns and Durhams.
Mr. Loomis. Or cattle in an area in which beef prices are good one year and not good the next year.
5. Heifers, 1 year old and under 2 years, not kept for milk.
Questions 4 and 5, you see, cover foundation requirements for the beef industry.
6. Total number of calves under 1 year of age. Having the calves kept for milk cows in another question, then the difference between the two gives the calves which are kept for beef or for purposes other than milk.
7. All steers, 1 year old and under 2, on the assumption that all steers go into beef.
8. All steers 2 years old and over. 9. All bulls 1 year old and over.
10. We consider 10 the most important question on the schedule. Number of cows milked on this farm during all or any part of the year 1929. And explanatory in connection with that question; “Include both dairy cows and beef cows which were milked.”
If we can get that question answered it will give us for the first time the total number of cows milked in the United States.
11. Number of heifers kept for milk, freshening for the first time during 1929.
The purpose of that is to give the accretions to the dairy herds of the country from heifers. In another place in the census, which we are not taking up here at all, there is a record of sales and purchases, which is the other item to make up the total of accretions to dairy herds.
12. Number of calves born during the year from cows kept for milk.
I don't know whether to go into an explanation of that question or not. Question No. 10 asks for all the cows kept for milk; question No. 12 asks for the number of calves born from cows kept for milk, and it involves this whole question of total number of calves, the ravages of some diseases, contagious abortion and other things. In other words, it is an item of information which we are very desirous of getting.
No. 12 completes the enumeration of livestock and makes a considerably shorter enumeration than is covered in the previous census schedules.
Mr. Moorman. Did you ever discuss those suggested questions with any breeders of the standard breeds of beef cattle?
Mr. LOOMIS. Five of the member organizations of the American Dairy Federation are the five purebred cattle organizations, and their representatives were present while we discussed these questions. But we have not discussed them with the beef breeders.
Mr. MOORMAN. That is my question; have you discussed it with any leading beef breeders? Mr. Loomis. No; only with the dairy breeders.
The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you want that inserted in the bill?
Mr. Loomis. No.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood. Mr. RANKIN. Let me ask you a question. Does your proposed schedule, the schedule that is used by the Census Bureau, contain an item of registration showing the number of registered cows?
Mr. LOOMIS. Yes, we have assumed that there was no controversy over that at all and that that would be as in the previous census.
The CHAIRMAN. Aren't those registered figures in the possession of the various cattle associations? Mr. Loomis. Only the registered ones.
The CHAIRMAN. I say the registered ones. Those could be procured from the grade cattle associations.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand they can be, but if you go to secure them from these associations you have to take it up with all of them.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, there is only one place of registry. That is in the association,
Mr. RANKIN. The thing I wanted to know was whether or not that information was in the possession of the Census Bureau.
The CHAIRMAN. A man might say he had a registered cow to the enumerator. He might say “My herd is all registered,” and it might not be so, or it might be, but his association, to which those cattle belonged and to which he belonged, would have the figures registered there, the same as the American Kennel Club has all the registered dogs in the country.
Mr. RANKIN. This don't say “registered"; this says "purebred."
Mr. LOOMIS. A good many purebred animals in the United States are not registered.
Mr. RANKIN. And a great many that are alleged to be purebred are never registered and never will be.
The CHAIRMAN. You will have to get those figures as near as practical.
Mr. LOOMIS. Now as to the products of the farm, and then I am through. After a lot of discussion we have decided to request the Census Bureau to leave in the question “total amount of milk produced," although asking a farmer one day in the year, and that way along at the end of the year, how much milk he has produced for the whole 12 months is likely to get more guess than fact. However, it is the best there is, and it is a question which has been asked in previous censuses, and we would like to have the figures with the same explanation that appears in the 1924 census.
The next question is as to disposition of milk. As to that, we like the form back in the schedule for the 1920 census and have decided to recommend it complete, with the exception of question No. 6. There is not enough cheese made on the farms of the United States to warrant taking that space on the schedule, in our judgment. The questions are:
1. Milk sold in 1929.
The CHAIRMAN. That is most readily understood, is it not, by the general public?
Mr. Loomis. We had a good deal of discussion over that question without coming to a conclusion.
Mr. RANKIN. All milk is now marketed by the pound and tested by the pound.
Mr. LOOMIS. Well, conversion is very easy.
Mr. RANKIN. Whenever you get into the real dairy development in the country you never hear any more about milk by the gallon. That is my experience. They talk about pounds.
Mr. MOORMAN. But the number of people interested in that particular phase of it are few, compared to the people at large that milk cows by the gallon.
Mr. RANKIN. But there is this difference, though: You will find that where they give it to you by the pound they give it to you accurately.
Mr. MOORMAN. Yes, they do.
Mr. RANKIN. Because, as a rule, they sell by the pound and the record is kept by the pound, but it is a very uncertain guess as to how many gallons a man's cow gives when he is either trying to sell it or the other fellow is trying to buy it.
Mr. LOOMIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be a matter of good judgment if I ask permission to delete from the record the statement which I made relative to the possible small errors in the last agricultural census, when I look over my transcript.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you may do that.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Loomis. We have been glad to hear you.
Are there any other gentlemen here now who wish to be heard on the bill?
Mr. AUSTIN. I would like to say, about the inquiries that Mr. Loomis asked for, the number of cows milked, scheduled for the 1925 census, he made his examination of the 1920 schedule, but they never appeared in that schedule, but practically all of them were carried in the 1924 schedule.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask Mr. Loomis a question.
Mr. Loomis. I know what Mr. Austin says is correct. I think I must have inadvertently said something there that was not in my mind at all, because that was in the 1924 schedule and it was in the 1925 schedule.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to ask one question. I am sorry I was not able to be present when the question of distribution was before the committee, but could I infer from the statements made by you that the organization represented by you would be opposed to any detail in regard to a distribution census?
Mr. LOOMIS. No, Mr. Johnson, we did not have it up before us at all. We don't know what it is. We don't understand it, and when the gentleman here said that there would be a provision for a census of distribution under consideration later on, I just wanted to
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). We had the representative of the Department of Commerce here and he spoke on that.
Mr. JOHNSON. I wanted to be here and hear that, but I was sick in bed on that day.
Mr. Loomis. All I want to say is that we want to study that. We want to look at the record to see what there is to it. I think that the several organizations making up the American Dairy Federation would be very much in favor of a census of distribution but will want to look it over and see how far it goes and how extensive it is going to be and how it would affect the taxpayer's rights.
Mr. Johnson. I have not heard the witnesses at all, but I gather that the general opinion is that statistics with regard to distribution are the statistics that are really lacking in a balanced bird's eye view of the situation in the country.
The CHAIRMAN. The primary idea, as I understood it from the gentlemen of the Department of Commerce, in regard to the census of distribution was, in brief, to take a census of sales, practically, to the ultimate consumer-I will give you one of those books, Mr. Johnson. They did take a census of distribution in Baltimore--in seven cities, I think—and the idea is to get the figures of distribution to the ultimate consumer. Mr. Johnson. I understand that phase of it-17 cities, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. If you will preserve that book, Mr. Johnson, I think you will find a lot of information in it, and I do not know what city you have there but they are all similar in character.
Doctor Hill. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in order that there may not be any misapprehension in the minds of the committee, that the census distribution perhaps would be more accurately described as a census of wholesale and retail trade. We do not undertake to trace the movement of goods through the various channels through which they reach the ultimate consumer, but it covers trade, it covers wholesale and retail trade in its present scope.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I ask you, this Doctor Hill: A department store, for instance, and perhaps the chain drug stores or the chain stores, they generally include groceries and goods such as a department store has, and such as the chain drug stores have how could you differentiate in those, or would you attempt to, and just take up general sales, say drug sales of that drug store?
Doctor HILL. I think Mr. Gosnell had better make a statement on that.
The CHAIRMAN. I hope the committee will get this clear in their minds just what this distribution means. The question has been raised very appropriately by Mr. Johnson, and I think all of us would like to hear something on it.
STATEMENT OF FRED A. GOSNELL BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. GOSNELL. Mr. Chairman, in making an enumeration of distribution we provide on our schedule form for approximately 75 different commodities. When the department store or chain store is asked to fill out the schedule they are asked to state the amount of each commodity listed on the schedule they have sold during the year.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean the amount in bulk or in dollars?