STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. CORN, ROSWELL, N. MEX. Robert F. Corn was born in Roswell, New Mexico, February 13, 1931. He is of a pioneer family that came to that area in 1876 and which migrated from Kerrville, Texas to what is now known as Roswell, New Mexico and this family has been active, in agriculture, farming, and ranching for more than 100 years in the Roswell, New Mexico area. Mr. Corn's grandfather was the first to start "running" sheep in the year of 1905. Robert F. Corn attended high school in Roswell, New Mexico and attended New Mexico State University at Las Cruces, New Mexico. Mr. Corn has actually been involved in ranching since 1949 and is past-President of the New Mexico Wool Growers Association. He has been New Mexico's Director of American Sheep Producers Council for approximately 15 years and is presently a member of the Wool Committee of that group and has also worked actively with the National Wool Growers Association. In February 1978, he was selected to represent the Sheep Industry for American Agriculture. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I am pleased to meet with you and discuss the past and future of the sheep industry. Briefly stated, our objective is to expand the sheep industry to its fullest economic potential. HISTORY Historically, the sheep industry of the United States of America began in what is now known as the State of New Mexico. The first sheep were introduced by the Spanish Conquistadors when they first made exploration of the United States from Old Mexico more than 450 years ago. Approximately 5 years ago, the sheep industry was honored by the Post Office Department with a stamp commemorative of the 450th anniversary of the industry. PREDATORS Predators have been a long-standing problem for the sheep industry and is probably the No. 1 cause of the sheep population being depressed. The banned use of toxicants has continually made it more difficult and expensive also to control the coyote predator. Unless better control methods are available to the western states, the sheep industry will suffer greater losses and will become less efficient. RESEARCH (MARKETING, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, PREDATOR RESEARCH AND I feel that there is more need in the sheep industry for marketing research, product development, predator research, and biological research than there ever has been in the past because if we are going to interest young people in the sheep industry, we must be able to show them favorable markets. We must also show them sufficient product development and biological research to find more and better ways of animal breeding both in better conformation and fiber production. In addition to the above, there is a definite need for the continuity of funding for Federal-State projects. As an example, at some research stations, while plant facilities and acreage are available, the projects come to complete standstills for lack of continued funding. This aspect must be remedied by the Federal Government, in some way, to insure uninterrupted progress in the field of research. I feel, at this time, that consumer lamb prices can only be reduced by increasing efficiency of lamb production and processing and by reducing predator losses. It should be noted that high market prices in small volume multiplies economic losses to the producer. SUMMARY In conclusion, I would like to mention again that the sheep industry is facing a rapidly growing and constant threat. If the sheep growers were permitted to use toxicants against coyotes until such time as better methods can be developed, the decline in sheep population might be stabilized. This includes also the necessity for expansion of marketing, product development, predator research, biological research, and the continuity of funding for each. If the present situation continues, it portends a strong possibility of sheep becoming an endangered species. In responding to all elements of this threat, we, in the sheep industry, are most concerned with those actions necessary to maintain a clear understanding of the sheep growers problems and focus on the healthy growth of the sheep industry. To provide this requires continued emphasis on the improvement of existing regulations and the assured continuity of funding for all research. Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee. This completes my prepared remarks. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF MADLYN CAUHAPE, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO WOOL GROWERS, INC., ROSWELL, N. MEX. America needs the sheep industry. You have heard, perhaps many times, the problems of the sheep industry. They are still with us. Predators are the biggest problem of the western sheepmen. There is a shortage of funds to provide enough trappers to do a proper job. Aerial hunting is effective but expensive. Our best tool, M-44, has been banned and no substitute seems to be forth-coming. Sometimes we feel the Bureau of Land Management has a strangle hold on us and, by way of higher leases and stricter regulations, will choke us off the land. Very little research is being done. Much could be learned yet about the utility of new breeds and cross-breeds. Maybe we could find a lamb with bigger chops, which everyone hopes for, and even finer wool. When it comes to marketing, prices are still controlled by the packers. We sell on the buyer's market. Another side of the coin is that numerous packing plants are becoming outdated or enclosed by urban sprawl and being forced to close. Urban pressure bears on the rancher regardless of how far he lives from town. As the population increases, there is a greater demand for recreation space whether it be used for hunting, fishing, hiking or just looking. Labor remains a problem always. There is a constant shortage of help who is willing to work and who knows how. So many of our young people are lured away to the bright lights of town and the prospect of higher pay. With only a 2% annual return on his investment, you know a person must love ranching and find it a good way of life. It is my firm belief that America needs the sheep industry, and it can become again a thriving, healthy segment of American life. The sheep has much to offer mankind. She ranks at the top of the list of animals in ability to convert feed to food plus fiber. Some people have had a bad experience in the past with lamb or mutton and now insist they don't like it. I believe anyone with an open mind can find lamb cooked by one of its many methods acceptable. Lamb is a high quality protein and is easily digested even by delicate systems. Wool is an outstanding example of nature's fine fibers. It can be fashioned into a warm, high-fashion garment with a resilience that permits the wrinkles_to fall out once the garment is unpacked and hung up. Wool is comfortable. Its structure lets it "breathe" permitting enough passage of air so we are not too hot, yet holds enough body heat to keep us warm. Wool can absorb 30 percent of its own weight of water without feeling wet and losing heat. Wool absorbs dye like no other fiber, it's durable, it "felts" naturally, it is flame-resistant and does not give off harmful gases should it burn. It is now even washable. All this being true, this still doesn't tell the whole story of why America needs the sheep industry. It is my understanding that 54 percent of the land of this country cannot, because of soil, climate or various other reasons, produce human food other than by way of grazing animals. Rangeland is a naturally self-renewing resource. Crops in the field must be worked with expensive equipment using fuel 50% of which may have to be imported. Commercial fertilizers put on the fields are a user of increasingly scarce, non-renewable resources. Rangeland experiments have shown that proper management of domestic livestock actually have improved the range. It is estimated that world population will double by the year 2010. The United States will be expected to help feed the people of the world. Our renewable resources for food and fiber should be protected and preserved for this purpose. The sheep is our best helper ! STATEMENT OF MICKEY DOT HAMMONDS, FLOYDADA, TEX. I am a farmer from the Panhandle of Texas. I raise cattle, wheat, cotton, corn, milo, and vegetables on 2120 acres which is a combination of irrigated and dry land. It is my privilege to represent my community of Floydada concerning the problems in the cattle and farming industry of our area. My cattle operation has continually declined since 1972 when I had approximately 450 head. Today I have less than 150 head because of adverse prices and economic conditions. I have accumulated a loss of $50,000 on cattle alone. This does not include interest, living expense, or feed-only price value of cattle.1 Our problem lies in the world supply of beef. The United States imports 15 lbs. of beef for every 1 lb. it exports. The United States imports 10 head of live cattle for every one it exports. Five million head of live cattle are imported annually, and as a direct result 50 million acres of grassland have been put into crop land. If the United States raised all of the beef we need, 100 million acres of cropland could be converted to raise cattle which is the 20 percent set-aside proposed by Secretary of Agriculture Bergland." Imported beef is shipped to the United States, not under USDA standards, but the American cattlemen are under strict rules of our USDA. One of my neighbors has visited an Australian meat packing plant, and cattle were being slaughtered for export shipment with fever, broken legs, and cancer eye. Those same cattle being killed in the United States would be condemned. American trade relationship with Australia is very good. Australia imports $5 billion of airplanes and electronic equipment from the United States while we import $3 billion of beef from Australia we don't need. Big business has sacrificed our farm profits for their profits. The reason we cannot make a profit in farming and ranching is because the cost of production has risen drastically in comparison to the prices received for our products. In my community, fuel cost has risen an average of 263 percent since 1971.5 Another problem is over production at the request of the former administration. For example, the price freeze on cattle and the wheat and soybean embargos have disrupted the free market system. I feel the American farmer and rancher cannot compete with world food producers at the inflated land and production costs. The balance of trade in Agriculture products is on the plus side, but the American farmer and rancher, the most efficient worldwide, is penalized by the present Administration with their tradeoff policy which favors inefficient big business. The loop holes for large landholders that own ranches in foreign countries are that the cattle from these foreign ranches do not count against the voluntary import quota laws. These figures never show up on paper as imported cattle. The small rancher-farmer combination, such as I, cannot operate under the present import laws and 1977 farm bill because prices received are below the cost of production." To save this type of agricultural operation, we must have a “fair shake” in our foreign trade relations to protect the family farm. To stay in business, we must have stable prices over an extended period of time, not "boom or bust" from year to year. EXPLANATION OF FOOTNOTE 1 Records from my 2,120 acres irrigated farm in Floyd County, Texas, and 3,500 acre farm in Minnesota for 1972. Since 1972, I have liquidated 80 acres in Floyd County, Texas, and more than 2,900 acres of land in Minnesota in order to stay in farming and ranching on my family farm in Texas. 1 Internal Revenue Records for Mickey D. Hammonds. 1972-77. 2 These facts were taken from concerned cattlemen of the Dakota task force and verified by USDA in February 1977. 3 L. B. Campbell of Matador, Tex., from a trip to Australia. Documentary pictures taken at a Darwin. Australia, packing plant. Abner E. Deatherage. International Marketing, Foreign Agriculture Service, USDA, February 1977. 5 Adrian Helms, Floydada, Tex., from his records including his Internal Revenue records, 1971-77. Adrian Helms. Floydada, Tex., projected costs for corn, milo, wheat, and cotton. Charles Christian, Floydada. Tex.. Internal Revenue records for cattle. 1977. Vernie Moore, Floydada, Tex., Internal Revenue records for cattle and personal records, 1977. EXPLANATION OF FOOTNOTE 3 In the summer of 1969 we (my wife and I) spent a few days in Darwin, Australia. While there we visited the Abatoir (packing plant). We have some pictures of the animals being slaughtered and saw the general conditions of the plant. We were informed that there were only two abatoirs operating in the northern territory at the time and both plants were owned and operated by the same company and slaughtered the same type of animals under the same sanitary conditions and exported 100% of their kill primarily to the U.S.A. and Japan and shipped in a better quality meat from Queensland for their own consumption. It was unbelievable to me that our health standards here in the U.S.A. forced the closing of small local plants all over the country that were slaughtering good and choice animals under conditions good enough for any one, then allow imported inferior meat of very low standard from foreign countries to be consumed by our general public. In my opinion the health standards in the Darwin plant would not have met the health standards for our plants producing dog and cat food in this country. To give you a general idea what these cattle went through before slaughter, the crews (musterers) usually left the country on a Sunday with jeeps and trucks similar to our dead wagon trucks only with cattle racks. They went to the Katherine area 200 to 250 miles south of Darwin. They parked the trucks in a centralized area took the jeeps tied a long rail across the front put about 4 aborigines (natives) in the back and drove until they saw a six year old Bullock, (the government required capturing the six year old bullock only) as these cattle ran wild and were free for the taking (but only in this specified age bracket). The musters in the jeep ran the animal until they could knock it down with the rail enough times for the aborigines to jump out on it and tie the animal down. Then drive until another was found which might be up to 50 miles for the next animal. This went on for two days usually to get a load of cattle (Monday and Tuesday) on Wednesday they took the truck and made the rounds of the tied down cattle loading them in the truck with a winch. Then Wednesday night to Thursday morning made the 200 to 250 mile trip back to Darwin for the Thursday and Friday kill. No visible feed and very little water as the Musters were paid on live weight by the company. Needless to say the company made every attempt to slaughter every animal that was unloaded some being crippled and showing fever and with some being unable to walk up the gang plank for the slaughter. This is all standard procedure as I visited with two different people that owned Mustering equipment and crews and had been in the business for as many as two years. Hence it is my sincere belief if foreign countries had to meet the same sanitary and grade specifications as in the U.S.A. their meats would be at a much higher price and would not be so attractive to U.S. purchasers and consumers, also we should require a strict labeling as imported, the country which produced it and a specified grade. I have been in the cattle business about forty years and feel that I am fairly knowledgeable on cattle, grades and conditions. |