Recurring to cost studies, it is important that any differences as to allocation of general farm overhead should be considered with view to possible differences in living costs in the two countries, if any. For example, we who do not produce food are faced with the fact that a fairly large income may leave a very small surplus over living expenses, while the cash receipts on the farm are largely in addition to the living costs of the family.

A farm includes residence of the family, the equivalent of at least $600 per year in any city. It produces a large part of the food and frequently all of the fuel required, so that a family of five will probably have received from the farm $2,000 in values outside of the consideration of cash received or disbursed. Therefore, in the allocation of overhead costs of the farm consideration should be given to the ratio of dairy receipts on a farm to the total income, including an adequate allowance for the rent and home-con-sumed products.

The cost study should include cost of transportation to the final market in cases of foreign and domestic supplies.

I am afraid I can give no assistance at this time as to proper weighting of costs. I will endeavor to give the matter further consideration.

The dairy industry made very rapid strides during the war and there was a tremendous export business. The loss of the foreign market naturally, for a considerable period, affected the dairy industry as a whole. Reference to comparison of shipments of imports and exports of dairy products from 1912 to 1920 picture the situation very clearly.

One factor of great importance in this matter is the right of the consumer to a supply of cream from reasonably nearby sources and subject to the taking in of a sufficient amount of cream from nearby territory over the line to supplement the demand in summer and keep the price from going too high. In the long run, this benefits the producer because substitutes will, in the end, drive out a large part of the New England cream production, unless it can have the amount necessary to supplement that production.

Senator RANSDELL. Do you agree with the idea expressed so often that that increased use of ice cream is due to the Volstead Act?

Mr. PARKER. Well, I think it has a good deal to do with it. I will tell you why. The bar is abolished. I have noticed this. People like to go into a place and be sociable and sit down and drink something or eat something, and they go into ice cream places. And perhaps the boy at home has a little more money to spend in that particular place, or the girl, or he or she eats an ice-cream cone. But, be that as it may, there has been a tremendous

ncrease.

Senator RANSDELL. That also applies to candies and sweets generally, does it not?

Mr. PARKER. Yes; and of course there is some milk and cream used for those.

Senator RANSDELL. Yes.

Mr. PARKER. And quite a considerable amount.

I have a sheet which was made in 1921, but I would like to submit for this reason: It has been suggested that the reasons for some decline, apparently, in the dairy industry in a year or two were owing to general conditions of competition in Canada. This table shows our export and import trade in butter for 11 years up to 1920, and it shows a balance of trade in the 11 years, and beginning with 1910, there was a substantial trade balance in our favor in every year, excepting 1914, and during which time we exported 112,621,731 pounds of cream, in the years in which the balance was in our favor; and in the one year in which it was against us, there was a balance of 4,094,793 pounds. The net in favor of the United States in pounds was 108,526,938, and the value in our

favor on the balance of trade was $41,568,088; and for every pound of butter that we imported we exported one of a higher value on the average.

Of course during the war we were having a big demand for milk, and we were having a tremendous balance on dairy products generally running from 6 to 15 times as much on exports as we had on imports, including condensed milk which went for war purposes. This resulted in having a considerable export surplus, and immediately following the war we were faced with what to do with that surplus. We were in the same position as we were with our grain situation; we were all dressed up and nowhere to go; and tariffs could not help us when we had an export surplus, particularly.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Mr. PARKER. Now I have also a little table showing the fact that New England has a very small surplus over the amount required for table consumption in milk. This is from figures taken from the New England Milk Producers' Association official organ of 1922, The New England Dairy.

The milk produced was 4,470,680. We required of that for milk 3,700,453. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont had an excess. Massachusetts took up practically all of the excess of the farms for its shortage. Rhode Island and Connecticut also took up some of the shortage. It left a net balance over the amount required for milk of 770,127 quarts per day, which would hardly take care of the Boston demand for cream, to say nothing about butter produced up in New England. That naturally had to go for butter, because they are smally dairies, and it could not come in in the form of cream. I submit that.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

99586-26-15

Mr. PARKER. Just one word more, and it is an important word, and important to those interested in the dairy industry, regardless of health. I want to refer to this monthly summary of exports. The CHAIRMAN. What year is that?

Mr. PARKER. December, 1925. That is the time we make up the annual report.

Our dairy products in total of all kinds exported were of a value of $22,837,093.

The CHAIRMAN. For what time?

Mr. PARKER. That is 12 months ending in December. The exports were $22,837,093.

The CHAIRMAN. What were the imports?

Mr. PARKER. The imports were $30,107,492.

Now, if we examine where this goes-and I have only just two or three figures on this-we find that we exported of condensed, evaporated, powdered, and fresh and sterilized milk, in 1925, 29,835,980 pounds, of a value of $6,224,572, to the United Kingdom. To the British East Indies we exported 1,664,522 pounds, of a value of $172,436. British South Africa, 1,379,194 pounds, of a value of $155,764.

I have not the figures for 1925, for some reason, on butter, but in 1924 we exported in butter to the United Kingdom, 2,354,289 pounds, of a value of $860,033.

An examination of this sheet shows that of meat and various things produced on the farm we were shipping heavily to Great Britain and the various component parts of the Kingdom. It shows that of eggs we shipped to Canada, in 1925, 2,617,929 dozens, of a value of $945,054.

Now, I want to ask whether it is not worth while for the farmers of the country to stop and think whether we can consistently, by direction or indirection, endeavor to exclude foreign products of the same general class while seeking other markets. Of course, no country can say anything if a tariff is established. They can establish counter tariffs, etc. But if this were done for the purpose of shifting trade from Canada to some particular portion of the country, is it not quite possible that legislation might result which would injure the farmer?

Senator RANSDELL. Would there be any objection to the passage of this bill if we were to apply it to interstate commerce in our own Nation, here?

Mr. PARKER. I think there would be no objection, although you would have to make a large appropriation.

Senator RANSDELL. Of course, but it would be wise, in the main, would it not? Would it not promote the health?

Mr. PARKER. That is a question which I can not answer categorically. It might, as far as milk is concerned, but I honestly believe, as I expressed to the chairman earlier in the hearing to-daySenator RANSDELL. I am sorry I was not here.

Mr. PARKER (continuing). The opinion that if milk or cream either one is pasteurized, if the bacterial content is counted before it is pasteurized and then pasteurized right at the same spot, that amply provides for health, without the tremendous burden which the chairman referred to the other day in the hearing, that these health laws were incurring. In other words, that the test of the milk or cream is its test at the market. The difficulty with the count after it is pasteurized is that you may have it pasteurized and may have dead bugs in there instead of live ones.

Senator RANSDELL. It is so easy to have these regulations carried out in great cities like you refer to, such as Boston, but there are many small towns anywhere from 2,500 to 50,000 or 60,000.

Mr. PARKER. That is true.

Senator RANSDELL. And in the aggregate they run up to a pretty large population, and you can not have these rules carried out like you do in the large cities.

The CHAIRMAN. And all those people ought to be protected.

Senator RANSDELL. They ought to be protected, it seems to me. Mr. PARKER. The only difficulty in that, it seems to me, is that because of the present tendency toward economy in the National Government probably you can not get such a bill as that through. Senator RANSDELL. We economize on everything except the public health.

Mr. PARKER. I agree with you, we economize on everything. Senator RANSDELL. We talk about it, but we are stingy when it comes to the public health, absolutely stingy, in my judgment.

Mr. PARKER. I believe in liberal appropriations for constructive purposes. I think that is where the big saving comes.

May I just say that if there is something of which I would submit a copy, the same as Congressman Taber suggested, that may protect us in the event of the passage of this act until proper inspection could be made, that would help very materially on the passage of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker, let me suggest to you, like I did to Congressman Taber, that you write a letter suggesting amendments from your standpoint, directed to me, and when the committee takes it up in executive session, I will lay all those things before it. Mr. PARKER. I shall thank you to.

I wish to thank you for the courtesy extended in the hearings. I have felt somewhat handicapped because I did not have advance knowledge, and it is my fault that I did not, but I started in with a very poor opportunity to make preparation, consequently I asked your indulgence more than I ordinarily would.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess that is the end of the hearings, and the committee will adjourn.