y4 ,

. en

Se 5141 SEED SCREENINGS

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

LIVESTOCK AND FEED GRAINS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

11.011SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5546

MAY 10, 1962

Serial GG

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

84671 WASHINGTON : 1962

t Iv

/4.

JUL 2 19o2

\' 4'41Thel,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HAROLD D. COOLEY, North Carolina, Chairman

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Vice Chairman

GEORGE GRANT, Alabama

E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas

JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina

THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi

WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia

PAUL C. JONES, Missouri

HARLAN HAGEN, California

LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin

ROSS BASS, Tennessee

W. PAT JENNINGS, Virginia

D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida

MERWIN COAD, Iowa

J. FLOYD BREEDING, Kansas

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky

HAROLD B. McSWEEN, Louisiana

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

RALPH R. HARDING, Idaho

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas

CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa

PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania

PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma

CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, Maine

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California

ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota

DON L. SHORT, North Dakota

CATHERINE MAY, Washington

DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio

RALPH HARVEY, Indiana

PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas

RALPH F. BEERMANN, Nebraska

BEN REIFEL, South Dakota

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER

A. FERNOS-ISERN, Puerto Rico

MTS. CHRISTINE S. GALLAGHER, Clerk

HYDE H. MURRAY, Assistant Clerk

JOHN J. HEIMBURGER, Counsel

FRANCIS M. LEMAY, Staff Consultant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FEED GRAINS

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman

PAUL C. JONES, Missouri

W. PAT JENNINGS, Virginia

D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida

MER WIN COAD, Iowa

J. FLOYD BREEDING, Kansas

GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas

Ii

ALBERT H. QU1E, Minnesota

DON L. SHORT, North Dakota

CATHERINE MAY, Washington

DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio

RALPH HARVEY, Indiana
CONTENTS

Page

H.R. 5546, a bill to amend the Federal Seed Act as amended, with respect

to screening of seed 1

House Report 1632, Importation of Seed Screenings 1

Statement of:

Davidson, Walter A., Director, Grain Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 9

Dyess, James B., executive vice president, National Association of

Wheat Growers 20

Heckendorn, William, executive secretary, American Seed Trade

Association 13

Hendrickson, Roy F., executive secretary, National Federation of

Grain Cooperatives 4

Martin, 

Jay, president, La Crosse Milling Co 29

Tossett, Otis, State Wheat Commission, Lansford, N. Dak 14

Wilkens, George, executive vice president, Minneapolis Grain Exchange 22

UI

SEED SCREENINGS

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AND FEED GRAINS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 1310,

New House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman of the

subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage (presiding), Jones of Missouri,

Johnson of Wisconsin, Jennings, Breeding, Purcell, McIntire, Quie,

Short, Mrs. May, and Harvey.

Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; Hyde H. Murray,

assistant clerk; John J. Heimburger, counsel; and Francis LeMay,

consultant.

Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are met this morning to consider the question of the importation

of seed screenings, which is covered by H.R. 5546.

(H.R. 5546 and reports follow:)

[H.R. 5546, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend the Federal Seed Act, as amended, with respect to screening of seed

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That section 101(a) (22) of the Federal Seed Act,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 1561(a) (22)), is hereby amended by deleting the word "live."

SEC. 2. Section 301(a) (2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1581(a) (2)) is hereby amended

by deleting the following: "(except that this shall not apply to screenings of

wheat, oats, rye, barley, buckwheat, field corn, sorghum, broomcorn, flax, millet,

proso, soybeans, cowpeas, field peas, or field beans, which are not imported for

seeding purposes and are declared for cleaning, processing, or manufacturing purposes, and not for seeding purposes)".

SEC. 3. Section 306(a) (2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1586(a) (2)) is hereby amended

to read as follows:

"(2) any screenings imported contrary to this Act;".

[H. Rept. 1632, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

IMPORTATION OF SEED SCREENINGS

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5546) to

amend the Federal Seed Act, as amended, with respect to screenings of seed,

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and

recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal Seed Act so as to prohibit the

importation of the screenings of any types of seeds. The act now prohibits the

importation of screenings of all agricultural and vegetable seeds except those

noted in section 2 of this bill. The bill would remove the exemption and prohibit

the importation of seed screenings of any type.

1
2 SEED SCREENINGS

NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

One of the major objectives of the Federal Seed Act is to prevent the dissemination of weed seeds from State to State in the United States and the entry into this

country of weed seeds from other countries. In spite of the strict measures taken

under the act and under even more restrictive laws of most States to prevent the

dissemination of weed seeds, tests conducted by the Department of Agriculture on

seed screenings which have come into the United States under the existing exemptions in the law (primarily from Canada) have found that many lots of such

screenings contain up to 35 percent or more of weed seeds, many of which are

considered to be extremely harmful to the agriculture of the United States.

Screenings is the residue which is left when seeds are cleaned or processed and, by

definition, contains less than 25 percent agricultural or vegetable seed.

A substantial part of the screenings imported into the country apparently

finds its way into feeds of various kinds, although many States also have laws

restricting the quantity of weed seeds which may be present in feeds. Some of

the seeds remain live after being consumed by the animal and in this way the

weeds may readily become disseminated through feed.

COST

The Department of Agriculture estimates that enactment of this legislation

would result in additional administrative costs of approximately $40,000 per year.

DEPARTMENTAL POSITIONS

Following is a letter from the Department of Agriculture recommending that

the bill be enacted. Also set out is a letter from the Department of State opposing

the bill on the ground that it would interfere with Canadian exports.

Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of April 5, 1961, for a

report on H.R. 5546, a bill to amend the Federal Seed Act, as amended, with

respect to screenings of seed.

This Department recommends that the bill be passed.

The bill provides that 15 kinds of screenings now permitted entry into the

United States under the Federal Seed Act would be prohibited entry after passage

of the bill. The bill also would amend the definition of the term "screenings"

by deleting the word "live" so that in determining whether a shipment is screenings, it would not be necessary to make a germination test to determine the

percentage of live seed. "Screenings" would be offal from cleaning or processing

of seed, consisting of less than 25 percent agricultural or vegetable seeds.

The Federal Seed Act provides for rigid controls with respect to the importation

of agricultural and vegetable seeds containing certain harmful noxious-weed

seeds and prohibits the importation of seeds containing in excess of 2 percent of

any weed seeds. The State seed laws contain even more restrictive controls with

respect to dissemination of weed seeds in seed. The State restrictions are recognized in the enforcement of the interstate provisions of the Federal Seed Act.

The feed laws in some States have restrictions on the number of viable noxiousweed seeds which may occur in feeds offered for sale or transported within the

States. Despite all of the controls being exercised with respect to the dissemination of weed seeds in seed in the United States, the Federal Seed Act now permits the importation of screenings of seed containing weed seeds, without any

limitation on the weed seed content.

The importation of screenings may be the source of many infestations of

noxious-weed seeds in the United States, either because of dissemination of the

weed seeds in the transportation of the screenings or through the use of such weed

seed infested screenings in various kinds of feeds. Limited inspections of samples

taken from such importations indicate that many lots of such screenings contain

up to 25 percent or more of weed seeds, many of which are considered to be

extremely harmful to agriculture in the United States.

A study of the extent of such importations indicates that between 1950 and

1960 there were imported about 235 million pounds to 652 million pounds of

grain screenings annually. The declared value of these screenings was about

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., October 11, 1961.
SEED SCREENINGS 3

$2 million to $6% million annually. In addition, the importation of flaxseed

screenings between 1954 and 1960 was 35 million to 92 million pounds annually

with a declared value ranging from about $450,000 to $1,600,000.

Screenings are imported largely from Canada under Tariff Paragraph No. 731

(19 U.S.C. 1001, par. 731) dutiable at 2% percent ad valorem under the trade

agreements program of the United States. This duty is bound to Canada under

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. However, it is believed that the

overriding consideration here is the protection of U.S. agriculture from harmful

•weed seeds.

It is estimated that enactment of this proposed legislation would result in a

need for additional funds in the amount of $40,000.

There is attached a copy of a letter, dated July 6, 1961, from the Department

of State to the Bureau of the Budget setting out that Department's recommendations concerning this bill.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation

of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES MURPHY, Acting Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, July 6, 1961.

Hon. DAVID E. BELL,

Director, Bureau of the Budget.

DEAR MR. BELL: The Bureau of the Budget in a legislative referral memorandum dated June 9, requested our views on a report prepared by the Department

of Agriculture which recommended the enactment of S. 1314, a bill to amend

the Federal Seed Act, as amended, with respect to screenings of seed.

The effect of this bill would be to prohibit imports of screenings of wheat, oats,

rye, barley, buckwheat, field corn, sorghum, broomcorn, flax, millet, proso, soybeans, cowpeas, field peas, or field beans, which are not imported for seeding

purposes and are declared for cleaning, processing, or manufacturing purposes.

It is our understanding that both domestic and imported screenings are used

as chicken feed and that any weed seeds contained in them ordinarily remain

alive after being eaten by chickens. It appears that a prohibition of imports

would result in an increased use of domestic screenings, which also contain weed

seeds. The proposed amendment thus would have no significant effect in preventing the spread of weeds in the United States.

The proposed prohibition, however, would substantially reduce our trade with

Canada. The value in 1960 of our imports from Canada of the products in question was over $2,600,000. American agriculture has a vital stake in the maintenance of good trade relations with Canada which should not be jeopardized unnecessarily. Canada is one of our best foreign markets for agricultural exports.

In 1959-60 our agricultural exports to Canada were valued at $410 million and

exceeded our imports of Canadian agricultural products by more than $225 million.

Moreover, enactment of S. 1314 would be in contravention of an international

commitment made in the GATT which reduced the duty to 2% percent ad valorem.

It is also recalled that the expansion of international trade increases the economic

strength of the United States and its allies and that it is contrary to our policy

to impose import restrictions unless it has been clearly established that it is

necessary to do so to prevent injury to a domestic industry.

For the foregoing reasons, the Department of State disagrees with the Department of Agriculture's report and is opposed to the enactment of the proposed

legislation.

Sincerely yours,

BROOKS HAYS, Assistant Secretary.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill are shown as follows (existing

law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed

in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman) :

FEDERAL SEED ACT
4 SEED SCREENINGS

SEC. 101. (a) When used in this Act—* * *

(22) The term "screenings" shall include chaff, sterile forets, immature seed,

weed seed, inert matter, and any other materials removed in any way from any

seeds in any kind of cleaning or processing and which contain less than 25 per

centum of [live] agricultural or vegetable seeds.

*

SEC. 301. (a) The importation into the United States is prohibited of—

(1) any seed containing 10 per centum or more of any agricultural or

vegetable seeds if any such seed is adulterated or unfit for seeding purposes,

or is required to be stained and is not so stained, under the terms of this title,

or the labeling of which is false or misleading in any respect;

(2) screenings of any seeds subject to title III of this Act [(except that

this shall not apply to screenings of wheat, oats, rye, barley, buckwheat,

field corn, sorghum, broomcorn, flax millet, proso, soybeans, cowpeas,

field peas, or field beans, which are not imported for seeding purposes and

are declaring for cleaning, processing, or manufacturing purposes, and not

for seeding purposes) ];

SEC. 306. It shall be unlawful for any person—

(a) To sell or offer for sale—

(1) any seed for seeding purposes if imported under this title for

other than seeding purposes;

[(2) any screenings of any seeds for seeding purposes if imported

under this title for other than seeding purposes

(2) any .screenings imported contrary to this Act;

Mr. POAGE. We will first hear from Mr. Hendrickson, of the

National Federation of Grain Cooperatives. After that we will

proceed with the Department witnesses.

STATEMENT OF ROY F. HENDRICKSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GRAIN COOPERATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. HEliTDRICKSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

I am Roy-Hendrickson, executive secretary of the National Federation

of Grain Cooperatives, Washington, D.C. I appreciate very much

the opportunity to be heard immediately and I will be extremely brief.

Our Federation supports the bill which was, as I understand,

unanimously supported by the full committee, and which was on the

consent calendar as of last Monday, but then was passed over.

The problem of the importation of screenings with respect to the

infestation of weed seeds in this country is very well understood and

will be developed here, I am sure, by Mr. Davidson of the Department

of Agriculture, who has a long record as administrator of the Federal

Seed Act and great familiarity with it.

I have been interested, personally, in this matter for some years.

And before the Weed Society of America, at its meeting at Denver on

February 24, 1960, I presented a paper that went into considerable

detail with respect to the meaning of this, and in order to save the

time of the committee I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if this

address at this time could be placed into the record.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, it will be placed in the record.

(The statement follows:)
SEED SCREENINGS 5

THE MENACE OF WEED SEED IMPORTS

(Remarks before the Weed Society of America, at Denver, Colo., February 24,

1960, by Roy F. Hendrickson, executive secretary, National Federation of

Grain Cooperatives, Washington, D.C.)

Farmers spend an immense amount of time and money to combat weeds.

Detailed specific cost estimates are not available. In the U.S. Yearbook of

Agriculture for 1948, cost for Iowa alone was estimated at $50 million. Estimates

of costs running nationally into the billions of dollars each year have been made

recently.

Many species are classed as noxious. L. W. Kephart some years ago said:

"With the possible exception of the Canadian thistle, quackgrass is the most

notorious of all weeds and probably causes a greater monetary loss than any other

single species of plant." Many other weeds are candidates for the role of top

villain.

Taking into account the time and cost weeds require their serious effect on

crop yields and quality, and their all-round nuisance defects for farmers, it is

remarkable how tolerant we are as a nation of their introduction from beyond

our borders.

It is truly fantastic to see the ease with which they can be distributed to infest

our farms and ranches. This apathy is not justified.

There is need for more uniformity in laws, regulations, and enforcement zeal at

both State and Federal levels. Especially is there needed major change in the

provisions of the Federal Seed Act of 1939 to cut down or eliminate entirely the

flow of noxious weed seeds from other lands to reduce the great economic waste

these weed seed imports represent.

The fight on weeds native to the United States is hard and costly enough without

attracting these noxious invaders from beyond our borders.

The worst loophole at the present time is represented by imports of grain and

flaxseed screenings. These contain vast quantities of noxious weed seeds, and

are often rich in two of the worst—Canadian thistle and quackgrass.

Tests on imported screenings by inspectors at ports of entry show that weed

seed content ranges from about 8 percent to 60 percent.

Over the years the average is 35 percent weed seed content. Most of this is

viable seed. The average screenings imported include 4 or more—often 8 to 20—

varieties of weed seed.

These find their way to farms and feedlots of many States, spreading the noxious

effects over fields and pastures.

This is entirely unnecessary and can be stopped by changes in laws and regulations if farmers, their organizations, State and Federal officials with responsibilities

in this area, will mobilize their knowledge and force for one swift assault on the

problem.

Currently there is no economic need for the import of these screenings. There

seldom, if ever, has been. Indeed, their importation at any time represents

exactly the reverse of satisfying an economic need. We have an abundant supply

of cereal, feed grains, and oilseeds for milling, livestock feedings, and crushing

for oil. No economic need for the screenings is evident. There are good and

substantial reasons for counting these imports as uneconomic and undesirable.

The prices of feed grains and oilseeds are under steady, relentless pressure

domestically and in world markets. The farmer is caught in the price-cost

squeeze, and obviously he can use help to reduce his cost of production which

includes a substantial annual outlay for combatting weeds.

The provisions of the Federal Seed Act, enacted in 1939, prohibit the importation of seed containing noxious weed seeds in excess of specified rates of occurrence.

Specifically, section 301 of the Federal Seed Act prohibits the importation into

the United States of "screenings of any seed subject to title III of this act"—

but then note this exception wider than a barn door—"(except that this shall not

apply to screenings of wheat, oats, rye, barley, buckwheat, field corn, sorghum,

broomcorn, flax millet, proso, soybeans, cowpeas field peas, or field beans, which

are not imported for seeding purposes and are declared for cleaning, processing,

or manufacturing purposes, and not for seeding purposes) ; * *

Thus, the exceptions are more substantial than the prohibitions. Indeed, so

far as weeds are concerned, the law is a welcome mat. It should be revised,

brought up to date.

84671-62-----2
6 SEED SCREENINGS

Screenings are defined under the act to include "chaff, sterile florets, immature

seed, weed seed, inert matter, and any other materials removed in any way from

any seeds in any kind of cleaning or processing and which contain less than 25

percent of live agricultural or vegetable seed."

It is evident that this is not a prohibition on weed seed imports but only a

provision intended to minimize the use of screenings as an adulterant in seed.

Only to that small extent was it addressed to weed seed. Of course, weed seed

can be spread fast and over vast areas in feeds in which screenings are used.

Usually screenings are used as a small percentage ingredient in feeds, and thus

the imported weed seeds influence a vast tonnage distributed to farms and feedlots.

All of the major types of screenings are exempt. The biggest of all in the case

of Canada are wheat screenings, and this type well pinpoints the problem.

That great, fertile area, the prairie Provinces of Canada, produces large annual

crops of wheat, barley, oats, rye, and flaxseed. Most is destined for export in

competition with our grains and oilseeds.

In its energetic effort to expand markets for its wheat, Canada has adopted

tighter policies to overcome one of its serious harvesttime quality problems, the

presence in the grain of substantial weed seed and other dockage and foreign

material.

At local and terminal elevators a standardized program of cleaning is carried

on under Government leadership in the reception and settlement for wheat with

farmers on a quantity and quality basis. This results in the creation of a vast

volume of screenings, as Canada now offers in world markets regularly wheat with

maximums as low as one-half of 1 percent of dockage and foreign material combined. Such wheat, requiring low cleanout by mills abroad, finds strong market

demand.

These screenings, in abundant supply in Canada, are usually available at prices

representing little more than actual grain or oilseed content (under 25 percent

to qualify as screenings) plus loading and freight cost at such large grain terminal

centers as Vancouver, B.C., and Fort William-Port Arthur. The tariff on imports

into the United States is low and on an ad valorem basis. Sometimes the screenings seem attractive because they narrowly clear the 25 percent maximum of

live agriculture seed which keeps them barely within the screenings category.

Thus their true grain content, often of high quality, sometimes induces a premium

payment, in competition with U.S. feed grains in surplus supply seeking domestic

outlets.

Unde these conditions it would seem logical to see bills pending in the U.S.

Congress to set up reasonable protection against the flood of weed seed crossing

our borders.

But instead, the only bill pending in House and Senate is one pending to

broaden the list of commodities whose screenings are exempted. S. 214, introduced (by request) by Senator Magnuson of Washington State, would insert

after the word "buckwheat" the words "rapeseed, mustard seed."

If passed, which is not likely, you would witness an added flow of screenings

consisting of up to 24 to 244 percent rapeseed and mustard seed, with an average

of 35 percent weed seed, and the rest inert matter. This would compete with our

protein feeds as an ingredient, and these are in abundant supply. But this competition is not our concern here—rather it is the menace represented by the import

and distribution of this vast volume of weed seed.

The Department of Agriculture has reported unfavorably on S. 214. I understand that of 35 States replying to a USDA questionnaire sent out in September

1959, 24 reported they favored Federal legislation restricting importation of

screenings. I am surprised that the number was not higher. Who can justify

this gaping loophole?

It is not only a problem in States along the border. I have seen the weed

screenings from Canada frequently, in fact routinely, in dairy feeds sold within

10 miles of the Nation's Capital.

What is the magnitude of the importation of screenings? In the last decade,

in terms of tonnage, grain screenings except flaxseed range from 150,000 to nearly

300,000 tons a year. But the significant point is that on the average 35 percent

of this is weed seed. That means from 50,000 to more than 100,000 tons of weed

seed a year.

In value stated for purposes of determining duty, the group ranges from $2.5

million to $6 million.

In addition, flaxseed screenings alone, all from Canada, have ranged since 1954

from about 30 million pounds to 92 million pounds, with a value of about one-half

million to well over a million dollars a year. They are filthy with weed seed content, many noxious under definitions used in most States.
SEED SCREENINGS 7

Canada is the chief source, but shipments of Mexican, Brazilian, and Argentine

origin are also shown. Last year Cuba was also a source.

In terms of volume, here is a picture of receipts in carload lots at one port of

entry—Duluth—alone:

Cars

January—March 1958 59

April—June 1958 50

July—September 1958 64

October—December 1958 89

January—March 1959 164

April—June 1959 96

July—September 1959 63

Briefly let us look at the content of typical shipments, as shown in the reports

of inspectors.

Here is a car received at Duluth last October 20. It contained 33.658 percent

of weed seed. There were 900 or more Canadian thistle seeds to the pound;

3,600 or more mustard seeds to the pound; 24,750 Frenchweed to the pound; and

some 200 or more sowthistle to the pound.

Quackgrass seed is typically found in large numbers, a study of many samples

shows.

The vast quantities of weed seed thus introduced is the important point. Few

nations share our tolerant laWs in this respect.

The impact of these imports in terms of harm tends to be great and usually is

concentrated in areas of distribution dictated by transportation costs and available

modes of transportation, including rail, trucks (within the U.S.), and lake vessels.

It is true that some States have stringent paper requirements with respect to

grinding or heating the weed seeds, intended to render them nonviable. Such

measures are seldom wholly satisfactory.

These rules vary, and a helpful movement toward greater uniformity is underway. Of course, such paper regulations are not self-enforcing. Faith to that

effect would be misplaced. Often State enforcement personnel is limited. The

primary need is to concentrate on halting the unneeded and undesirable imports

rather than on expensive policing followup often required here.

It seems to me that, in view of the potential damage to the fields and pastures

of the U.S. farmer, this whole area of weed seed distribution requires some further

research, but actually more the application of what is known but not well understood. There is a need for education and the building of interest and understanding which will lead to prompt and effective action.

The first need is to attack effectively these wholly unneeded, unworthy, and

unwelcome imports.

Certainly a vigorous self-defense effort in this respect could not be interpreted

as an unfriendly act by any exporting nation—chiefly Canada in this case. No

country, least of all Canada, would take pride in serving as the source of noxious

weed invaders.

Canada does not permit truck shipments of such weedy screenings, to protect

her farmers and roadsides. She treats her own weed seeds like smallpox, would

hardly expect more neighborly treatment elsewhere. For example, in 1950, the

Canadian feed law prohibited the sale of screenings in Canada containing over 1

percent of certain named ground seeds considered injurious to the health of

animals. They included seeds in the mustard family. The Canadian law also

limited the number of viable noxious weed seeds to 15 per ounce. Thus, the

Canadian standard was and is higher than our standard.

How can we do less for Canada re its screenings than it does for its own farmers?

This society has an opportunity and a responsibility, in my opinion.

To you who are technically trained and competent, and capable of full awareness of the danger and damage of weed seed importation and migration, we must

look for leadership.

I am sure that utilizing the information already at hand, and alerting all who

have a genuine basis of interest in this serious matter, including Members of

Congress, would soon achieve results.

I know that farmers who have formed and control grain cooperatives will

actively support a program to meet this problem, not only those marketing grain

but those manufacturing and supplying feed to their farmer-members.

Personally, I served as a member of the original USDA 'committee which

developed the Seed Act of 1939. I am now aware of many of its deficiencies,

especially its grave defect on imports of weed seeds in screenings. I will volunteer

to be of any possible assistance if you will assume leadership to obtain needed

action in behalf of producers.
SEED SCREENINGS

-Mr. HENDRICKSON. Thank you very much. Beyond that, there is

tone point I have heard; that is, that there are some objections to this

legislation, and it is largely centered on this, that there are a few

instances, apparently, oilseeds are imported as a part of screenings

where, perhaps, there is no real objection because they are cooked in.

the process of processing which has the result of destroying any viability of the seed. I think it would be desirable to give consideration,

•perhaps, to adding a proviso here where importers will testify to the

effect that the oilseeds will be subjected to heat treatment in excess

of the boiling point. I am not expert enough to know how long a

time it would take to do that, but I am told that this process does

involve boiling of these seeds and all viability is destroyed and that

that would be acceptable as an addition to the proposed bill. That is

all I have to suggest.

We favor the bill. We feel that it is necessary, and that these

screenings are in very abundant supply and are very inexpensive, and

that many of these worst seeds, noxious seeds that develop and infest

fields in this country do have their origin in connection with the import

of screenings.

Mr. POAGE. Do I understand you to say that these screenings contain weed seeds?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. There are two categories. Most of these

screenings are screenings that result from the cleaning of grain, especially wheat, and they represent a danger because they are not cooked

in any form. They are used in manufacturing seed. And I have

heard expert testimony to the effect that when the hammer mills are

sharp and just freshly in shape that the viability of the seed is really

destroyed, but after the hammer mill has run even for 15 or 20 minutes, the edges are gone, and a great many of these seeds will persist,

so far as viability is concerned.

However, a smaller category is represented by the importation of

both flax seed and rape seed in connection with the screenings from

these, and the use of these in this country, to the extent that they are

manufactured for the extraction of oil; at least, there the viability of

the seed is destroyed, because they are subjected to relatively high

temperatures. How important that is, I do not know.

Mr. POAGE. Is the viability of all of them destroyed?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. By the high temperatures?

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Yes, I have heard testimony to the effect that

if we reach the boiling point for, say, a number of minutes, that practically no seed will survive that. When it comes to passing through

the animals, however, the viability seems to persist, in the case of all

animals except sheep.

Mr. POAGE. Have you any suggestion that we should require the

heat treatment of these seeds?

Mr. HENDRICKSON. No. All I am suggesting is the possibility of

an amendment which would provide that where there is a certification

by the importer it would be to the effect that the oilseed screenings

would be subjected to heat treatment, which the experts agree would

destroy the viability. And I think, because of the objection that has

been raised with respect to interference with international trade that,

perhaps, that kind of an adjustment could be made in the legislation

and still fairly and adequately protect the farmers against infestation

of weed seeds.
SEED SCREENINGS 0

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

(No response.)

Mr. POAGE. If not, we are very much obliged to you.

Mr. HENDRICKSON. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. We will now hear from Mr. Davidson of the Department.

STATEMENT OF WALTER A. DAVIDSON, DIRECTOR, GRAIN DIVISION, ACCOMPANIED BY NATHAN KOENIG, SPECIAL ASSISTANT

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND DR. M. G. WEISS, ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR, CROPS RESEARCH DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I

am Walter A. Davidson, Director of the Grain Division, AMS of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Our primary interest in the passage of H.R. 5546 is the effect it

would have on the introduction and dissemination of weed seeds.

The Federal Seed Act, the administration of which is lodged with the

Grain Division, AMS, enforces restrictions against the dissemination

of weed seeds in interstate commerce in accordance with the laws of

the States into which seed is shipped and also restricts the amount of

weed seeds in seed imported for sowing purposes.

Through the years, we have been aware of concern on the part of

State officials about the rather widespread dissemination of weed

seeds in screenings when, at the same time, strenuous efforts were

being made to prevent such dissemination in seed for sowing purposes.

Particular objection has been raised with respect to the importation

of screenings. The present wording of the Federal Seed Act makes a

substantial contribution in its prohibition against the importation of

screenings of many kinds of seeds. Exemptions were made, however,

for 15 kinds of screenings presumably on the assumption that these

screenings have feed value.

Fairly extensive sampling of imported screenings show that the

weed seed content ranges as high as 60 percent with the average about

35 percent. Much of this consists of noxious weed seeds which is

specifically legislated against under the State seed laws and the

Federal Seed Act.

In a survey conducted with the States in 1959, 24 out of 35 States

replying to a questionnaire indicated a desire for Federal legislation

restricting the importation of screenings. The question to which the

States replied was worded as follows:

In your opinion, would Federal legislation prohibiting or restricting the importation into the United States of screenings containing excessive amount of

weed seeds be helpful in your efforts to control the dissemination of weed seeds

in feed in your State?

One experienced State feed and seed control official has stated that

in his opinion the "greatest carrier of viable weed seeds has probably

been the low-grade dairy feeds that often carry screenings as an

ingredient."

The replies from the questionnaire indicated that at least 25 States

have some measure of control over the weed seed content of feed
10 SEED SCREENINGS

offered for sale. Fourteen indicated they had outright prohibitions

against the presence of weed seed or a requirement that the weed seed

be devitalized.

Research has shown that weed seeds are not always rendered nonviable even if the screenings are ground and subsequently ingested by

animals. All screenings are not necessarily ground for feeding purposes. Dissemination of weeds results.

The vast bulk of imported screenings come from Canada; however,

there are some importations from other countries. Importations of

grain screenings have averaged approximately 200,000 tons annually,

and flax screenings have averaged approximately 30,000 tons annually.

These were valued at approximately $434 million. During 1960 and

1961 the volume was reduced to about 100,000 tons of grain screenings

and 22,000 tons of flax screenings valued at $1,350,000.

While we recognize that enactment of the proposed amendment

would impair a concession given under the trade agreements program

of the United States, we feel the proposed amendment is proper and

comes under section 20 of the general exceptions of the General

Agreements on Tariffs and Trade which provides, in part—

* * * nothing in this agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or

enforcement by any contracting parties of measures: * * * (b) necessary to

protect human, animal, or plant life or health; * * *.

Abundant data exist which demonstrate the detrimental effect of

weeds on the life of economic plants.

As a matter of fact, farmers et ch year are spending millions of

dollars to combat the harmful effect of weeds.

If you pleaSe'; Mr. Chairman, Dr. Martin Weiss is here with me,

from the Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Weiss is Associate

Director of the Corps Research Division, which Division made some

studies with respect to weed control, and if you agree I would like to

ask Dr. Weiss to make a statement in this regard.

Mr. POAGE. We will be glad to hear from you, Dr. Weiss.

Dr. WEISS. I am Martin G. Weiss, Associate Director of the Crops

Research Division of the Agriculture Research Service.

Since the development of the first major selective herbicide, 2-4—D,

during World War II, there have been many attempts by the research

departments of industry, State and Federal agencies to develop

additional selective herbicides. There have been varying degrees of

success.

In general, if the weed involved is closely related botanically to a

crop in which it is found it is very difficult to find a selective herbicide.

In wild oats, for example, which is a bad weed, as you know, in small

grains, sugarbeets, and dry peas of the Northwest, it has been much

easier to develop a selective herbicide to control it in sugarbeets

than, for instance, in small grains.

In the development of selective herbicides, however, some breakthroughs have occurred which have resulted in excellent success. In

many areas these new herbicides have permitted growers to pretty

well clean up some of these troublesome weeds. Any reinfestation

from any source, of course, makes it a continuing problem.

In the areas where selective herbicides are used there is a tendency

for the resistant species to build up at the expense of those that are

destroyed. This is particularly true, for instance, in Canada, where

a very large portion of the small grain acreage is presently sprayed
SEED SCREENINGS 11

with selective herbicides. These resistant species have been building

up, and they comprise a larger portion of the prevalent weed seeds.

Not only is there a difference among species as to their susceptibility, but strains within species vary as well. In Montana, cooperative State and Federal experimental work indicates that there are

vast differences among strains of Canada thistle and wild oats as to

tolerance or susceptibility to the existing herbicides. They have made

collections from widely varied areas, in fact, some of the more resistant wild oats strains were collected in Canada. We are finding

that the resistant strains to selective herbicides are building up very

rapidly.

We feel that by providing a means of distributing these resistant

species and resistant strains we are accentuating our weed control

problem. I thank you.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I would like to call attention, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the report that the Department made on the bill which, I

think, is in your committee files, advocating the passage of this bill.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Are there any questions?

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Davidson, would the Department have any

study available in regard to the imports of screenings, as to the weed

content; that is, a sort of an average weed content of these screenings?

Did you say it was about 35 percent of those that are imported?

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is right. And the weed seed content we

found varies up to 60 percent. In some of these we found a percentage of inert matter, running up as high as 60 percent.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. What regulations have you in regard to

the transportation of screenings from one State into another State in

the United States?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Actually, the only thing that applies at the present

time is the provision of the Federal Seed Act which prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of screenings for seeding purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. For what?

Mr. DAVIDSON. For seeding purposes.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Then there is no regulation in the

United States that stops, for instance, someone in Minneapolis from

shipping screenings into Wisconsin?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No, no Federal law restricts that, that is right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. But this law would stop it from Canada,

but would not stop it being shipped from Minneapolis or North Dakota

or South Dakota?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I think that is correct. However, some States have

taken steps, as I indicated, to restrict the sale of screenings or feeds

containing weed seeds.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Do not some of the States make checks

on them to see that the weed screenings are killed?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I think that is true, that they do this. And they

prohibit in 14 States, at least, the sale of these screenings, unless the

weed seeds have been devitalized.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Thank you.

Mr. BREEDING. Are we permitted to ship screenings into Canada;

that is, the kind of screenings that come from Canada into the United

States?

Mr. DAVIDSON. No. The Canadian Seed Act prohibits the importation into Canada of weed seeds or material containing that.
12 SEED SCREENINGS

Mr. BREEDING. Why do we not have similar laws to prohibit them

coming into our country?

Mr. DAVIDSON. This amendment to the act, I think, would accomplish that substantially. Our seed laws, of course, prohibit the

importation of seed for sowing purposes containing weed seeds beyond

a certain limitation, but this does not, of course, cover the importation

of screenings, these 14 or 15 exempted kinds. It does prohibit the

importation of screenings of other kinds of seeds.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. If we are going to make this law to

really stop the importation of weed seeds; that is, to control it, we

should make it apply to the United States, too.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I think we would be sympathetic toward such

legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. All we are doing here is to stop 35

percent, is that correct and we are letting 65 percent go?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Except to the extent that the States by their own

legislation impose restrictions, I think that is true.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. That keeps out the Canadian, too, does

it not?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, it would.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I wonder if the gentleman might furnish us with

a list of the 14 States which have legislation. I believe that you

mentioned there were 25 States which regulate the number of weed

seeds or the amount of weed seeds which can be present in feed from

any source.

Mr. DAVIDSON. We would be happy to provide that.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. So that we may have the names of the States.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes.

(The information follows:)

A survey conducted in 1959 in which 35 States replied to a questionnaire regarding Federal screenings legislation indicated that the following States have

some legislation controlling the use of screenings in feed:

Alabama Iowa Oklahoma

Arizona Maine Pennsylvania

Arkansas Maryland Utah

California Massachusetts Vermont

Delaware Nebraska Virginia

Hawaii New Hampshire Washington

Idaho New Mexico West Virginia

Illinois New York Wisconsin

Indiana

This survey also indicated that the following 14 States had outright prohibitions

against the presence of weed seed or a requirement that the weed seed be devitalized:

Alabama Illinois Oklahoma

Arkansas Indiana Utah

California Nebraska Washington

Hawaii New Mexico West Virginia

Idaho New York

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. We will next hear from Mr. William Heckendorn, of

American Seed Trade Association.
SEED SCREENINGS 13

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HECKENDORN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN SEED TRADE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

Mr. HECKENDORN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is William Heckendorn and I am the executive secretary of

the American Seed Trade Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C.

We represent, probably, about 700 members located throughout

the United States who are engaged in the growing, harvesting, conditioning, and distribution of seed. We have to contend with the

Federal Seed Act, which is a regulatory law requiring us to label our

seed, not only os to its purity, but as to the noxious weed content and

inert matter as well.

Our interest in this particular legislation is more directly from the

fact that all of the seeds that we handle are produced on the farms of

the United States or of Canada or of some other country, and to begin

with, the weed seed with which we must deal in the distribution of

seed in the United States is in the seed at the time that it is produced.

So we are, naturally, interested in anything that is going to control

the increased production of weed seed, because it increases the problem of having to remove the weed seed before the seed can be shipped

freely in interstate commerce and intrastate commerce.

We are not the ones that really should be protesting the importation

of this particular type of commodity. Nevertheless, to the extent

that it does get into the commerce of the country and does increase

the weed problem in the country it increases our problem in having

to remove the weed seeds before we can properly label our seeds for

channels of commerce. For that reason we would feel that something

should be done to restrict the commerce in weed seeds wherever it can

be done. This would be one means of prohibiting or, at least, eliminating the spread of weed seeds from farm to farm. Wherever a

commodity is shipped in a concentrated form, such as the screenings

would be shipped in carload lots you would, naturally, have a greater

concentration of weed seeds in that particular lot than you would have

in a carload of wheat, for instance.

The contamination that could result from the leakage from cars,

from State to State, as it goes from one State into another State,

which, probably, would be far greater from that point of view than

would be the contamination arising from a carload of wheat shipped

from State to State.

It is peculiar that the American Seed Trade Association should be

opposed to the importation of weeds, but, on the other hand, we are

not opposed to the importation of seed; that is, that is clean. And

that does meet the conditions provided for in our Federal and State

seed laws.

It is the position of the American Seed Trade Association that the

seeds serve a greater economic use in our country than do the weed

seeds. It would be our thought, I believe, that if these screenings

were to be permitted to come into this country that they should be

rendered sterile in some form, so that they would not be viable and

would not germinate, and would not grow, should they find their

way into the soil of our farms.

84671-162 3
14 SEED SCREENINGS

Our weed problem is a big problem. We have to contend with it

in every lot of seed that we handle. It is practically impossible to

produce a lot of seeds that will be free of weeds. As an example, in

Michigan we have been carrying on experiments there for over 50

years on soil tests that were taken up some 50 years ago, and a part

of that soil is taken out each year and subjected to growing conditions,

whereby moisture and heat would be added to determine how long

weed seeds will germinate. Well, gentlemen, they are still germinating. So it is necessary for us wherever we can to try and eliminate

the spread of weed seeds in the United States.

We are not the ones, probably, that should be protesting this as

vigorously as some of the other folks, but, nevertheless, it is a problem

insofar as the seed industry is concerned and we support the legislation.

I thought the committee had done a very good job when I saw the

report that it had been reported out with the recommendation that it

be passed, but here I am again. So I hope that what I have said

will be useful to the committee.

Mr. POAGE. May I say to you, on behalf of the committee, that the

reason we are here today is that there was objection from those who

felt that they had been denied an opportunity to present their views

and we wanted to hear the views of everybody, whether they are for

or against this legislation. We had not been advised of opposition to

it. It turns out that there might be some opposition, and we want

to hear from them, so that there would not be any charge of being

partial. We want to hear from everybody and we will hear from them

now. If there are no questions, we are very much obliged to you.

Mr. HECKENDORN. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. We will now hear from Mr. Otis Tossett, who will be

introduced by Mr. Short.

Mr. SHORT. Mr. Chairman, I feel quite honored this morning in

having the opportunity to introduce to the committee one of the

outstanding citizens of our State of North Dakota and my good friend,

Mr. Otis Tossett from Lansford, N. Dak., who will give us his views

on this legislation that is before us.

Mr. POAGE. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Tossett.

STATEMENT OF OTIS TOSSETT, STATE WHEAT COMMISSION,

LANSFORD, N. DAK.

Mr. TossETT. Thank you, Mr. Short.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, as stated, my name

is Otis Tossett and I live at Lansford, N. Dak. I am a farmer. I

live happily between Minot and the Canadian border; in fact, my

grain elevator and farm business which I conduct as an independent

business is within 25 miles of the Canadian line.

I am a director of the North Dakota Wheat Commission and vice

chairman of the Great Plains Wheat, Inc., a marketing and promotional agency consisting of the States of North and South Dakota,

Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado.

I, too, am going to be very brief, sir, because I know of the busy

schedule you have. I would like to speak at length on such an important subject as this to the American farmer. However, I am

going to be very brief. And should I miss some opportunities here

where I am not completely clear, I hope that you will ask some

questions.
SEED SCREENINGS 15

I was quite interested in your remarks, sir, just a minute ago insofar

as the importations of American screenings to Canada were concerned.

Being quite interested in this problem, and being quite active in the

business, I have on a few occasions, during the past several years,

visited the border stations that lead into Canada from the United

States, mostly at Port Arthur, Sherwood, and North Gate in North

Dakota. They are the custom stations that lead into Canada.

Just this past summer, sir, I inquired into the feasibility of importing

some screenings from Canada into North Dakota. I proposed that I

was going to visit the station with a truck and get a load of screenings

and import them into North Dakota. I inquired into the regulations

that I would have to comply with.

You must remember now that the custom stations are not operated

by the Department of Agriculture. They are operated by the

Treasury Department. And the definitions that accrue in one category and another are not always completely reasonable, insofar as

agriculture is concerned. T asked the customs inspector if he would

permit me, after I imported the screenings, to drive within the borders

of the United States to, say, 100 feet or 200 feet or one-half mile, and

then turn around and attempt to bring these screenings back into

Canada. I asked him exactly what his position would be. And he

told me that they have very stringent laws in Canada that would

completely prohibit me from reentering into Canada with their own

screenings, should T ever attempt to bring them across into North

Dakota.

The same thin..

b

is true, I am sure, with the screenings that are

exported from Fort Williams, Port Arthur, by barge or otherwise or by

boxcar.

I explored this situation even further last winter when I had the

unique opportunity of attending as a delegate to the International

Wheat Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. I visited at length with

Mr. McNamara of the Canadian Wheat Board, and also with the

president of various grain pools in the Dominion of Canada. I explained this situation to these gentlemen, because, I, too, have a

friendly feeling toward our neighbors to the north. I explained the

laws they have. I wondered what their position would be should we

inaugurate and insist on the same protection to the American farmers

that the Canadian Government fosters for their own people in Canada.

And they told me that, apparently, I was apologizing for the laws we

have in the United States in that respect and they were quite proud of

theirs. And they, certainly, took the position that they in nowise

would object to a law that afforded to the agriculture of the United

States the same measure of protection that they afford to their own

farmers in Canada. I felt that that was quite an important point.

I can visualize, perhaps, that there will be some who will insist that

this is a measure, as to this importation of screenings from Canada,

that is a service to American agriculture and the seeders, especially.

I know that these screenings are purchased in Canada by the bargeload and in boxcars and handled as refuse. Their content of weeds

runs into the millions per pound, according to an analysis that has been

made, so that these figures should be official, since they have been

made by the grain trades in Minneapolis. I would not undertake to

make this count myself, but those are figures that have been released

that there are screenings that are being imported at the moment with
16 SEED SCREENINGS

a count as high as 2 million weeds per pound. And it is completely

impractical to destroy these by any means of grinding that is known in

the field at the present moment.

We have ample stocks of feed in the United States. In fact, in one

of the impressions I received more than any other at the Geneva

Wheat Conference was the fact of the ability of the American farmer

to produce food, which is the wonder and the envy of all of the civilized

nations of the world, sir.

The deception is carried even farther when it is stated that these

screenings, this refuse from Canada, is of real value and has a feeding

purpose in the mixtures that are distributed in the United States.

The feeding value of this refuse is not high. It is merely a filler, a

cheap filler a filler that is almost as cheap or, perhaps, cheaper to

acquire than the soil on the lake shores of Lake Superior, where it is

imported in great quantities. It is prohibited from going into the

channels of trade in Canada because of the high weed content and

the fact that it would be a false economy to permit this stuff to go

into the feeding channels. And yet it is imported into the United

States by bargeloads, boxcars and trucks.

There are stringent State laws to protect agriculture in the processes

of moving combines across State lines, for instance, in the harvesting

of the grains in the United States. They must be cleaned on port

of entry, and things of that kind, and properly so. State laws govern

those things. Yet I can take a truck of screenings from Canada and

drive all the way to the State of Texas with it and you can understand fully the impossibility of policing such a matter as that; it just

is not possible to police all of that, even though you have State laws

to govern the subject. State laws can govern and regulate, sir, in

many fashions the transportation of screenings from State to State.

However, State laws cannot affect and properly deal with international

trade actoss the boundary from Canada into the United States. We

must have national protection in that respect, in that field, and that

is why we are here appearing this morning to urge the passage of this

bill, because the only feasible way to stop this evil—and this is a very

expensive evil in the United States is to prohibit the screenings

entirely.

I have here a sheaf of telegrams which I am not going to read to

you, sir, but I am going to ask permission to have them inserted in

the record.

One in support of the bill is from the North Dakota Farm Bureau.

Another is from the North Dakota Crops Improvement Association,

sir, because they, too, can visualize and have had experience in the

field protecting the American farmer. Another telegram in support

of the bill is from Matt Dahl, commissioner of agriculture and labor

in the State of North Dakota, a man very conversant with the evils

that are inherent in this. Another is from the Durum Growers Association supporting the bill. I have quite a number of telegrams from

screening dealers in North Dakota, the very people you might think

would be in support of imported screenings from Canada, and they

call attention to the fact that the screenings market has been completely disrupted by the wholesale dumping of these screenings from

Canada on the U.S. market. They also call attention to the fact

that these screenings do not have nearly the feeding value as some

people would have you believe.
SEED SCREENINGS 17

Then we have here another sheaf of telegrams—and these telegrams

are all unsolicited, insofar as I am concerned—me had only 3 days'

notice in North Dakota as to the hearing or rehearing of this bill, so

that I was taken quite by surprise—and these are from Mr. Lloyd C.

Hanson, executive secretary of the Farmers Grain Dealers Association

of North Dakota, consisting of farmers and cooperative elevators as

well as independent elevators in the State of North Dakota, who wholeheartedly are supporting the passage of this bill. In addition to that,

we have a telegram here from the manager of the State mill elevator

in North Dakota whose business and interests are vitally affected

insofar as the dumping of these refuse screenings from Canada are

concerned, because they must find a market for their middlings and

brans and various byproducts.

Then we have another sheaf of telegrams from directors of the

Farmers Grain Dealer Association of North Dakota.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection the committee will make these a

part of the record.

(The telegrams follow:)

OTIS TOSSETT

1411 K St. NW., Washington, D.C.:

Definitely opposed to any further importation of Canadian screenings in any

form or manner. Have found Canadian Screenings to be generally high in ash

and fiber, factors quite undesirable for 'good U.S. feed products. Duty on

Canadian screenings into the United States is 2% percent. Supply of screenings

and milling products are ample in United States.

Let's not jeopardize our U.S. position with any further imports of screenings.

Let us rather put some of our idle acres back into production with feed grains and

help our already distressed farmers. Make it possible to keep some of them on

the farms instead of driving them off by continued reduction in acreage. These

grains raised from idle acres could be made available to feed manufacturers.

Let's use our own products and patronize our own transportation facilities first.

We have sufficient supplies in the United States but we don't use them.

KURDA MILLS, INC.,

EARL KURTZ, Manager.

DEVILS LAKE, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

Support your idea to stop screenings importation from Canada. Feel it will

help eliminate wheat seed problems. The continued use of Canadian screenings

has made some of our U.S. screenings valueless.

JAMESTOWN, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

Regards to screenings import from Canada, we dumped 420 tons of screenings

that had no value in Minneapolis market. We strongly suggest you stop all

importations of Canadian screenings. Our supply this country more than ample

for the demand.

KURDA MILLS, INC.,

Spiritwood, N. Dak.

OSCAR SATERN, Manager.

MAYVILLE, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

KURDA MILLS, INC.,

ERNEST AASEN, Manager.
18 SEED SCREENINGS

PLEASANT LAKE, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

Hauled 372 tons screenings to dump and gave away 100 tons in 1961 Minneapolis market, $6.50 to $7.50 per ton, then. Freight and commission to Minneapolis, $10.50. Would have to borrow money to ship these screenings. Do not

need to import Canadian screenings. Need market for our own products instead.

PLEASANT LAKE GRAIN CO.,

GENE ELLINGRUD, Manager.

DEVILS LAKE, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

Backing you 100 percent on stopping importation of Canadian screenings. It

has ruined the U.S. market on some screenings. Many country elevators are

forced to throw away screenings because the Minneapolis market won't support

the freight.

KURDA MILLS, INC.,

CLIFFORD ABRAHAMSON, Manager.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

We strongly support your position to stop importation of screenings from

Canada. This dumping depresses prices on our U.S. screenings at feed markets.

KURDA MILLS, INC.,

I. E. GRANDBOIS, Ylanager.

ABERDEEN, S. DAK., May 9, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

North Dakota Wheat Commission,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

Durum :Growers Association of the United States strongly urge support of

H.R. 5546 to amend Federal Seed Act as amended with respect to screenings of

seed. Canada currently has embargo on latest released and approved U.S.

durum varieties.

R. C. CROCKETT, President.

OTIS TOSSETT

1411 K Street 'NW., Washington, D.C.:

Please do all you can to insure the passage of H.R. 5546. I am in full support

of this amendment.

MATH DAHL,

Commissioner, Department of Agriculture and Labor.

LANGDON, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

BISMARCK, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

Member North Dakota Wheat Commission,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

The North Dakota Crop Improvement Association supports H.R. 5546 to

prevent the importation of any crop seed screenings from Canada on the basis

that we have surplus feed crops in the United States and that these screenings

are a means of spreading weed seeds on U.S. farms.

FARGO, N. DAK., May 7, 1962.

JACK WILKINSON,

President, North Dakota Crop Improvement Association.
SEED SCREENINGS 19

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K 8treet, NW, Washington, D.C.:

H.R. 5546, North Dakota Farm Bureau favors amendment to prevent importation of any weed seed.

NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU,

G. J. STAFNE, Administrative Assistant.

OTIS TOSSETT,

Washington, D.C.:

This association consisting of 250 local co-ops and independent elevators urges

you contact our Senators and Representatives pleading support and passage

H.R. 5546 to prohibit importing Canada screenings into United States. Strongly

support and urge program of expedience in upgrading quality of farm grain so

we may gain acceptance in world markets.

LLOYD C. HANSON,

Executive Secretary, Farmers Grain

Dealers Association of North Dakota.

FARGO, N. DAK., May 7, 1962.

FARGO, N. DAK., May 9, 1962.

GRAND FORKS, N. DAK., May 8, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.:

We are opposed to any importation of any weed seeds under the guise of Canadian refuse. We favor the support of Senate bill 1314, House bill 5546. We

favor any bill prohibiting importation of any farm product now in surplus.

NORTH DAKOTA MILL & ELEVATOR Co.,

N. LILLEGARD.

CLEVELAND, N. DAK., May 9, 1982.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K St. NW., Washington, D.C.:

Wish to urge passage of H.R. 5546. Please do all in your power.

ARCHIE ZIMMERMAN.

MINOT, N. DAK., MAY 9, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

Would like to have our Senators and Congressmen support bill H.R. 5546 which

we think is toward the right step of control.

MINOT FARMERS CO-OP GRAIN ASSOCIATION.

LAWRENCE WOLD, Manager.

JAMESTOWN, N. DAK., MAY 9, 1962.

OTIS TOSSETT,

1411 K Street NW., Washington, D.C.

H.R. 5546 is important to us. We are trying to upgrade North Dakota wheat.

We strongly urge the passage of this bill.

OTIS TOSSETT,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TOSSETT: We would like to urge and encourage you to speak to the

Honorable Congressmen Don Short and Hjalmar Nygaard and the Honorable

Senators Milton Young and Quentin Burdick and urge them to support H.R.

5546, relative to the imports of screenings and grain from Canada as we feel this

JAMESTOWN GRAIN CO.

WILLISTON, N. DAK., May, 9, 1962.
20 •SEED SCREENINGS

bill would have a very beneficial effect on North Dakota agriculture. Thank you

very much.

Sincerely,

OTIS TOSSETT,:

Washington, D.C.

Kindly urge our legislatures to support passage of H.R. 5546. Top quality

wheat at market is a must.

FARMERS ELEVATOR CO.,

ERWIN G. MILLER, Manager.

WASHBURN, N. DAIC., May 9, 1962.

MERLE A. LARSON, INC.

Mr. TOSSETT. You may remember that I have appeared in past

years before your committee at various times, so far as soil conservation districts and conservation of our soil and natural resources are

concerned. Even in that category I think that I could speak quite at

length and call attention to the enormous waste that is proposed and

fostered by the American farmers here in attempting to deal with the

weed problem in .the United States.

I thank you very much.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

If not, we are very much obliged to you.

Mr. TOSSETT. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Breeding, do you want to introduce the next

witness?

Mr. BREEDING. We have a guest here this morning who will

testify on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, and

since I am a wheatgrower I think that it is a great privilege to introduce to the committee Mr. Dyess, whom I think all of us know.

Mr. POAGE. We shall be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Dyess.

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. DYESS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS

Mr. DYESS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present a brief statement for the National

Association of Wheat Growers in support of H.R. 5546, to amend the

Federal Seed Act.

This bill would extend the prohibition on the importation of screenings to all agricultural and vegetable seeds which are not now included in the act.

Screenings can now be imported, containing an unlimited percentage

of live weed seeds. In the normal process of transporting, handling,

and feeding of these screenings, many live weed seeds are scattered

throughout the countryside. Our members are seriously concerned

about the danger of widespread infestation of noxious weeds, particularly Canada thistle, which is ever present under present laws.

The association, in its annual meeting at Boise, Idaho, last December, adopted the following resolution:

"We recommend that the National Association of Wheat Growers

support legislation to prevent the importation of live weed seeds

into the United States."

Opponents of this bill have belittled the dangers of weed infestation,

have pointed to the monetary value of these imported screenings,

amounting to about $2.6 million in 1960, and have asserted that
SEED SCREENINGS 21

enactment of this bill would substantially reduce our trade with

Canada.

On the basis of the figures supplied by the State Department, this

importation of screenings constitutes less than 1Y2 percent of the total

value of agricultural imports from Canada. This does not seem to be

a substantial reduction.

From the standpoint of pure economics, it seems unreasonable to

encourage the importation of several hundred thousand tons of feed

stuff each year when the Federal Government is spending millions of

dollars to reduce the quantity of feed produced in the United States.

Especially is this poor economics when these imports, by spreading

live weed seeds throughout the countryside, increase the cost of weed

control for individual farmers.

Mr. Chairman, it is our hope that this bill will be enacted. Thank

you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Mr. BREEDING. I want to ask a question. Probably the gentleman,

Mr. Tossetts, who spoke before you, might be better able to answer

this question. I think that he was from North Dakota. What percent of feed value do these screenings have in comparison with other

feeds?

Mr. DYESS. Mr. Breeding, I do not know the figures on the feeding

value of weed seeds or of the refuse from these screenings, but according to Mr. Tossett's testimony it is rather low—much lower than

regular feed grains.

Mr. BREEDING. Who else does this program benefit other than the

livestock feeders?

Mr. DYESS. I could not say who it benefits.

Mr. BREEDING. Will you answer that, Mr. Tossett?

Mr. TOSSETT. I think it benefits the dealers who process and

import the screenings. I can understand very well their interest in

supporting it. They have a legitimate business.

Mr. BREEDING. Do you think that this law will be a difficult law

to administer? Should there not be another law to protect them?

Mr. TOSSETT. Yes.

Mr. BREEDING. Shouldn't there be a law to protect us as to the

importations from Canada?

Mr. TOSSETT. I have some friends in Canada that agree with me.

I attempted quite briefly to call your attention to that. These screenings that are imported from Canada, consisting of their refuse, the

real feeding value has been removed, sir, in Canada. The wild oats

and buckwheat and the like have been removed and we have left the

refuse, which is nothing more than noxious weeds and soil and dust

and things of that kind.

Mr. BREEDING. They really have no feed value then?

Mr. TOSSETT. No high feed value, in my opinion. They are filthy.

Mr. BREEDING. Thank you, sir, that is all.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Dyess. Mr. Johnson has a constituent

here that he would like to introduce. We will ask our colleague

from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, to introduce the next witness.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have present today Mr. Jay W. Martin, president

of the LaCrosse Milling Co. at Cochrane, Wis. He is a feeder and

elevator man. He also operates in Minnesota, I believe.

There are four gentlemen present who will be at the witness table

together.
22 SEED SCREENINGS

Mr. QUIE. I will get my introduction in then. Mr. Wilkens, who,

is a good friend of mine, is with the Minneapolis Grain Exchange,

and he has with him Mr. Walsh of the Walsh Grain Co. of Minneapolis, and Mr. Fudali, of the Hiawatha Grain Co. of Minneapolis.

I have listened to Mr. Wilkens before and I was not convinced;

however, I would like to have them have the opportunity to express.

themselves.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Wilkens, we are delighted to have you here,

together with your associates. If you care to make a statement

for the group, you may do so, or call on them as you care to.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE WILKENS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER

S. (SHELLEY) WALSH, VICE PRESIDENT, WALSH GRAIN CO.,

MINNEAPOLIS, AND JOHN P. FUDALI, PARTNER, HIAWATHA

GRAIN CO., MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

Mr. WILKENS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am George Wilkens,

executive vice president of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange and I am

accompanied on this occasion by members of this association who have

a vital economic interest in this matter before your committee.

At the outset may I say that we are the group that is doubly thankful for this opportunity. It is always an opportunity to present your

side of the picture on any particular subject. We are the group,

however, who came late and we are doubly pleased to have you back

up a little bit to give us a chance to talk and we express our appreciation to you.

Mr. POAGE. We are glad to have you.

Mr. WILKENS. We thank you for this courtesy.

Perhaps I should make a brief statement to the effect that the

Minneapolis Grain Association is an association of 500 men. They

are engaged in all phases of grain marketing and processing.

The group that is here today consists of those who are primarily

concerned with the screenings.

There was some discussion before here about the nutritive value

of these ingredients. The human mind may have some prejudices

on particular kinds of feeds—you do not like this or you do not like

that, but just as soon as an ingredient gets into the digestive system

of an animal the psychology is gone, and from then on you are dealing

in chemistry. And the chemistry of nutrition absolutely shows that

these ingredients are useful feeds. They are digestible nutrients and

useful in the ration and do make constructive gains. There is no

mistake about that. The A. D. Wilholt Laboratories are established

authorities in this field and will give you proper references.

Here is a publication entitled `Feedstuffs" with an article by Dr..

W. M. Beeson, professor of animal science at Purdue University.

He addressed a cattle feeding convention at Bakersfield, Calif. He.

pointed out the importance of refuse. They speak of this as refuse.

This is roughage. There are several quotes in here that I should

like to give.

However, Dr. Beeson emphasized that roughage is still an important ingredient

in the ration of ruminants; and, even though roughage possesses a low energy

value, it has other nutritional properties which cannot be replaced with

concentrates.
SEED SCREENINGS 23

He went on to say that roughage is extremely important in the

ration and serves a purpose in the ration.

These gentlemen present with me are using these ingredients and

will give you specific instances of him it has served them.

Mr. JENNINGS. I would like to ask a question. Was he referring

to this as roughage?

Mr. WILKENS. He was referring to all roughages that are high in

cellulose. And these are these ingredients. I have a chemical analysis

of samples—a laboratory analysis.

Mr. JENNINGS. Then he was putting it in the class of clover and

oats and wheat straw and that type of roughage, is that correct?

Mr. WILKENS. All of these plants have the same ingredients. These

are the analyses that were made. They contain protein, fiber, carbohydrates. They are digestible nutrients. Some are digestible and

others are not. These are the actual chemical analyses and show the

digestibility.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that is what the committee wants.

Mr. WILKENS. Here is a sample of a carload of typical Canadian

screenings that you can find any day on the trading table at Minneapolis.

Incidentally, mention has been made about 65 percent weeds and

35 percent weeds. A typical screening sample does not have anything like that, but that is besides the point.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will you bring that up here?

Mr. WILKENS. The really high ones are those that Mr. Hendrickson

spoke of. These have 65 or 35 percent of weed seeds. These are the

ones that are heat treated, you see. They go through a hexane

chemical process and then are ground. This is the nature of the

ingredients that move into the livestock trades. There is no argument

on that. These are beat treated. So are ones that you have in the

wheat cakes. This is a typical sample of the ingredients which we will

pass around and contains protein 13.30 percent, fat 5.90 percent,

fiber 16.50 percent and so forth. This is a ground product that they

to the trade. This is what goes into the ration, not this [indicating].

Mr. JOHNSON. For the purpose of the record what is the analysis

on oats and corn do you have that?

Mr. WILKENS. I have it right here. In oats the protein is 12.50.

What is the protein on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. 13.30.

Mr. WILKENS. The fat in oats is 4 percent.

Mr. JOHNSON. This is 5.90.

Mr. WILKENS. The fiber in oats is 11 percent.

Mr. JOHNSON. This is 16.50 percent.

Mr. WILKENS. It is higher in fiber than in oats. The point is that

these ingredients, in the digestive system of the animal, that is, the

reaction and the response to produce animal tissue in beef, whatever

it is, is identical to what you would get out of corn and oats.

I was interested in the remark here about these screenings that

they could not go back to Canada; that they could not go in reverse.

That is strictly a matter of economics. Can they tell me who wants

to import screenings into Canada? Canada is on a net export basis.

They clean up the waterline on the Great Lakes. It is uneconomic

to move the screenings back into Canada where they might be used,
24 SEED SCREENINGS

but they can come at very low cost very efficiently into the United

States.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Tossett said that it was the law. It does not

make any difference whether it is economically justified or not. What

I want to know, is there a law in Canada on that?

Mr. WILKENS. I am sure that there is a law. I did not mean

that. There is no group on that side that economically wants to

move it back.

Mr. PO AGE. All right.

Mr. WILKENS. That is the point I was trying to make.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Is this analysis you have given us typical?

Is there any uniformity in these screenings? Do they not vary from

area to area? Is there not a great variance?

Mr. WILKENS. That is right. I asked of the gentlemen who are

in the business, "Will you give me a couple of samples that are typical

of the products you bring from Canada?" Mr. Walsh, maybe you

can answer the question. What percentage would you say of the

screenings that come through the Minneapolis market are represented

by thbse samples?

Mr. WALSH. I feel that they represent approximately 80 percent of

the samples we receive.

At Mr. Wilkens' request for a couple of samples to run an analysis

on—he was in our sample room—I went to the stack and grabbed a

few right off the stack. These are the samples that we had analyzed

and are before you.

Mr. JON ES of Missouri. Is it standard procedure to get an analysis

of each batch that comes in? Each carload or each bargeload?

Mr. WALSH. Most of them.

Mr. JON ES of Missouri. Is there any price differential?

Mr. WAISH. There is a price differential. There is a standard price

for Canadian wheat screenings or Canadian refuse screenings, but the

analysis might vary, not materially, but it will vary.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. Is it not a fact, though, that you are just

buying this material as a filler and that you are not interested in what

the analysis is, particularly?

Mr. WALSH. We know what the analysis is. That is the reason we

are buying it.

Mr. JONES of Missouri. You do not require certain standards?

Mr. WALSH. No, but from past experience of sales—we have been

in business 15 years, sir—we know approximately what they are going

to rim, so we know what we are buying and are willing to pay the

price because of our past experience with it.

Mr. HARVEY. What is the average price for this screening material

per ton?

Mr. FUDALI. My name is John F. Fudali, and I am with the Hiawatha Grain Co. I have been in this business for 36 years. Any

average price would be rather difficult to arrive at. At the present

time it is about $21 Duluth.

Mr. HARVEY. That is $21 per ton?

Mr. FUDALI. It has ranged as high as $55 and $56 per ton. That was

right after—in the post war years when we were badly in need of all

types of feed ingredients and were glad to get all of the Canadian

screenings we could possibly get. The price depends on the need

and its usage. It is primarily on the need for it on this side of the

border.
SEED SCREENINGS 25

We have seen times, too, when the price has been relatively low

because of the fact that we have not had anywhere near the use for it.

Economics changes the price.

Mr. HARVEY. You are primarily a dealer?

Mr. FUDALI. I am a processor, primarily.

Mr. HARVEY. YOu are what?

Mr. FUDALI. A processor.

Mr. HARVEY. You are a processor?

Mr. FUDALI. We grind and make the base for feed. We sell that

to the feed manufacturers, primarily the small ones who use this as

an ingredient in primarily cattle feed.

Mr. HARVEY. You buy the screenings and put them into a ground

form?

Mr. FUDALI. A ground form.

Mr. HARVEY. Whereby the small mixer or producer can use them

as part of his final product?

Mr. FUDALI. That is correct.

Mr. WILKENS. He sells the product that is in that cellophane bag.

Mr. FUDALI. The small feed manufacturer then adds the other

ingredients, possibly molasses, linseed meal and so on and makes the

finished feed.

Mr. JENNINGS. What would be a substitute?

Mr. FUDALI. I do not think that there really is much of a substitute.

It would be difficult to say what they could get. Off hand, I do not

know of any substitute that they could find to fill the need.

Mr. JENNINGS. They must be using something.

Mr. FUDALI. Not with those ingredients—not with that exact feed

value—not with the feed value that this has.

Mr. HARVEY. The thing that rather disturbs me is the fact that

with all of the great productivity we have in this country, including

protein production, we feel obligated to import trash of this kind from

Canada in order to prepare a viable animal ration. It does not make

sense to me.

Mr. WILKENS. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that this is from

Canada, from a department release which just came to my desk a

couple of days ago. The value, for example, of barley is $15,600,000,

the value of oats is $700,000, and the value of wheat imported is $5

million and the value of feeds and powder that includes these Canadian

screenings was $5,500,000. So there are other ingredients that are

imported from Canada for feeding purposes besides these screenings.

So do not just single this one out if you are concerned about protecting the farmer from the imports of these products, because there are

many products that come in along with these which are used by the

livestock feeders in the United States.

Mr. HARVEY. I am not complaining about an exchange of good

products with our good neighbor, Canada, to the north at all. I am

simply saying that it does not make sense to me to import trash in

order to make a viable livestock ration for the feeders in the United

States.

Mr. WILKENS. It is not trash we say. Would you like to hear from

Mr. Martin? He buys these ingredients. He feeds cattle. He puts

them in his ration. Maybe you would like to hear what he thinks of

whether these are trash.
26 SEED. SCREENINGS

Mr. POAGE. I wonder if you would explain to us these exhibits and

let us understand them. Some of it looks to me like wild mustard

seed. I do not know what some of the others are.

Mr. WILKENS. The little black seeds are mustard, and the round

ones and the little triangular ones are common buckwheat—wild

buckwheat, more than likely. There are two foxtails, yellow foxtail

and white foxtail—I have forgotten the names of the two. Those

make up the bulk of these weed seeds.

Mr. POAGE. You do understand that a large part are weed seeds?

Mr. WILKENS. No question about it. The point that we make is

that these products which are handled through the market that we

are talking about here are then ground or heat treated as these samples

before you show. It is our contention that this does not contribute

to the weed seed problem in North Dakota or in South Dakota.

Mr. POAGE. I understand you to say then that these seeds will not

germinate?

Mr. WILKENS. That is right. I am, certainly, not here to say that

absolutely every seed has been killed in that product. I would not

want to say that. Maybe research will prove that. Maybe Mr.

Davidson has made some tests on these products. I do not know.

But you can see for yourself the fineness of the grind and the likelihood

of germination of those seeds.

Mr. POAGE. It seems to me that you must give some consideration

to the relative danger in this. For example, we can buy cattle cheaper

in the Argentine than you can in the State of Iowa or the State of

Texas, but we are afraid they would have hoof and mouth disease.

They do have hoof and mouth disease in the Argentine and we have

for a long time kept their cattle out. Yet we know the chances of

getting hoof and mouth disease is rather remote.

I do not see any difference from the standpoint of agriculture as to

seeds. It depreciates the value of our products. It increases the

cost of our production. Should we lower our restrictions on animal

feeds and raise our restrictions on the animals themselves? It seems

to me that if we are going to be consistent we have to do one or the

other. I do not see how we can justify certain things we have

otherwise.

Mr. WILKENS. We are not contributing any danger. Mr. Fudali

says that he would like to make a comment on that.

Mr. FUDALI. I would like to answer that question. Back in 1951

we did quite a lot of research with the American feed control officials

in trying to determine what would be the type of grind which would

be satisfactory under which these ground products could be shipped

into the States. We have arrived at a standard which we have been

following. We are just as diligent about weed control in this country

as anyone else. We know there is a weed problem. So we do not

feel that we contribute to it. As a matter of fact, we feel we are

actually practicing weed control by killing a lot of these weeds.

You may remember that a lot of these screenings that we grind are

not entirely Canadian screenings. We grind just as many domestic

screenings as we do Canadian screenings. And these screenings that

we grind originate in the Dakotas, primarily; also, in Minnesota. We

help to kill those weeds just as well by grinding them to a point

where the viability of the weed is so slight as to be inconsequential.

All of the States into which we ship the ground product, which
SEED SCREENINGS 27

consists of the nearby States—I would say seven or eight States

besides Minnesota—not into North Dakota or South Dakota, mind

you, where the biggest complaint on weeds is—we do not ship screenings there. Why? Because they have their own weed seed. As a

matter of fact, the germination of weeds there is primarily by truck.

I think the people who are complaining about weed seed dissemination, primarily, in the Dakotas, can definitely point their finger at

who is doing it. It is primarily the itinerant trucks who are driving

on the rural roads and dropping it and having it blow off; that is,

these weed seeds all over the countryside.

Mr. POAGE. DO you not bring them in by truck?

Mr. FUDALI. Not a pound.

Mr. POAGE. Is there not a law against it?

Mr. FUDALI. Not that I know of. We handle it in carlots.

Mr. POAGE. Why do you not bring them in trucks?

Mr. FUDALI. As I said, we are very diligent as to weed control.

We want to handle them the way that they can best suit disposing of

weeds. That is why we grind them. In the 36 years we have shipped

these screenings to the States, I know not of one instance where we

have had a complaint made by a feed manufacturer.

Mr. POAGE. The grinding does not kill the weed seed. Heat treatment might, but grinding surely does not kill all the weed seed.

Mr. FUDALI. There is less than 1 percent of viable weed seeds in

that grind. That is being constantly checked and tested.

Mr. POAGE. They are not killed by grinding, the Department says.

Mr. FUDALI. Yes—the viability is killed by grinding. The

American feed control officials say so.

Mr. POAGE. A great many of these seeds before us are intact.

Mr. WILKENS. The bag is the ground material.

Mr. FUDALI. That other is not the ground material.

Mr. JENNINGS. Could not these screenings be shipped in the complete whole wheat that is coming in from Canada? Is it necessary that

wheat or other grain be screened before it can be brought into the

United States?

Mr. FUDALI. From Canada?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.

Mr. FUDALI. On wheat?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes. If we buy the wheat and bring it into the

United States, could we not do the screening in the United States,

or do we?

Mr. FUDALI. Could we?

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.

Mr. FUDALI. I do not know much about the importing of wheat,

sir. We do not import any wheat.

Mr. JENNINGS. Who could answer that question, someone from the

Department?

Mr. DAVIDSON. There would be no restriction on the importation

of wheat under those circumstances except as provided for within the

quota. 

Mr. JENNINGS. If it is quota wheat we can bring the wheat in with

all of this screening and so forth and then take it out.

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is possible.

Mr. JENNINGS. There is nothing in the bill before us that would

prevent that—just merely the screenings.
28 SEED SCREENINGS

Mr. DAVIDSON. That is correct. I think there is one more thing

that may be added here. I was doing a little tabulating, and I find

that the price per ton on screenings that have come in during the 2

years is $6. These gentlemen are talking about something at a higher

price. I think they recognize that price depends on what it consists

of. This bill has a definition of screenings which is confined to those

materials which contain not more than 25 percent of agricultural or

vegetable feed. So if we have something offered for importation

which may have been removed from grain, and, therefore, may fit

into the broad general definition of the word "screenings" it would still

not be screenings under this statute and would not be restricted by

this statute.

Mr. JENNINGS. Then using Mr. Poage's vernacular we can bring

hoof-and-mouth disease in as long as we bring it in on the horn, but

if we bring it in on the foot we cannot do it. You can bring this

same material in under this law, if we pass it, exactly this material,

providing you bring it in under some other category other than

screenings. You can bring it in in the full grain, so long as that grain

is within the quota. But if they take it out up in Canada they cannot

bring it in. If they leave it in the wheat, they can ship it, is that not

correct?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I would have to say that is not correct, because

as screenings you have there a concentration of the offal removal from

the grain.

Mr. JENNINGS. Yes.

Mr. DAVIDSON. If it is left in the grain, of course, these percentages

of weed seed and chaff, and so forth, are very small by comparison.

Mr. JENNINGS. So it could be brought in, because it is small in

comparison?

Mr. DAVIDSON. As a part of the grain, that is quite right,sir.

Mr. SHORT. Could I ask one more question to clarify this a little

bit further? Is it not the practice—I think that we all know it is not

the common practice in this country—in Canada to very meticulously

clean all of the grain that is exported? Is that not the reason they

have these surplus screenings in Canada?

Mr. BREEDING. If this is true, then this product is considered by

Canada as what Mr. Harvey said, "junk and no good."

Mr. WALSH. That would be considered dockage—they would have

to make a percentage allowance off the price to compensate.

Mr. BREEDING. Why do they not permit its return into Canada?'

One witness testified that you cannot return it to Canada.

Mr. WALSH. When they are allowing dockage they are giving it

away. When they take it out they can get something for it. You

see, if--

Mr. BREEDING. They do not really give it away—it becomes a part

of their product, isn't this true?

Mr. WALSH. It is extracted, that is, subtracted from the total

invoice. Excuse the interruption, but it is subtracted from the total

weight of the cargo or the carload, whatever it might be, before the

bushel computation is made.

Mr. HARVEY. You say the same screenings are worth $21 a ton.

What price would they bring up in Canada?

Mr. WALSH. About $13 a ton, sir. And you have to pay the freight

and duty.
SEED SCREENINGS 29

Mr. HARVEY. How much does it cost to process these screenings

per ton?

Mr. FUDALI. $5Y2 to $6 per ton.

Mr. HARVEY. What do you get for them?

Mr. FUDALI. $5% to $6 over our cost price.

Mr. HARVEY. You have a profit, I assume.

Mr. FUDALI. You are asking about the actual cost. What we add

onto it, I would say that, depending on the plant processing it—in our

particular case I would say that it costs us, roughly, $4 to $43t to

process them, and we get $5Y2 to $6, depending upon the demand.

Mr. HARVEY. You get $5% to $6 as a profit?

Mr. FUDALI. Over the cost price, of the raw toviimot material.

Mr. HARVEY. And you are making?

Mr. FUDALI. A dollar.

Mr. HARVEY. Per ton?

Mr. FUDALI. That is correct.

Mr. HARVEY. That is your margin for processing?

Mr. FUDALI. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. HARVEY. These screenings?

Mr. FUDALI. That is right.

Mr. HARVEY. In other words, if they are worth $13 a ton in Canada

and you pay $21 for them, who gets that spread?

Mr. FUDALI. It consists of express, duty, clearance and exchange

and so on.

Mr. HARVEY. HOW much is the duty?

Mr. FUDALI. I believe it is 2Y2 percent ad valorem.

Mr. WILKENS. Two and one-half percent.

Mr. HARVEY. Ad valorem?

Mr. FUDALI. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any other questions?

Mr. WILKENS. The time is getting short, I know, but Mr. Martin

who is the man who buys substantial quantities of these products and

processes them—he creates them—is here, and I would like to have

you hear what he has to say, because there were several questions in

that area.

Mr. POAGE. Very well, we will be glad to hear you.

2 JUL 2 1q62

STATEMENT OF JAY MARTIN, PRESIDENT, LaCROSSE

MILLING CO.

Mr. MARTIN. My name is Jay Martin, president of the LaCrosse

Milling Co., Cochrane, Wis. I also operate six farms.

This bill affects me very seriously; in fact, if this bill is passed I am

out of business.

My sole business is processing screenings of all types for other small

millers who manufacture feeds.

I have an investment of $400,000 to $500,000 in my business. I buy

screenings and material out of Minneapolis. And probably 20 percent

of what I use comes from Canada. I process these materials and sell

them to other small dealers who do not have the facilities to process

them and to blend them and to make them fit their own needs.

Mr. JOHNSON. It requires a special type of feed mill. And the

average feed dealer does not have a mill that will grind it fine enough?
30 SEED SCREENINGS

Mr. MARTIN. No, he does not have the equipment to grind it. He

does not have the equipment to blend. We buy all different kinds of

screenings.

You asked a little while ago how we knew if one car was as good asthe other. We do not. One car might be better than the other.

I have a laboratory in my plant. We test every car that comes in.

We put them in separate bins. We blend it out with other material

that we buy out of the Minneapolis market—screenings from Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota or wherever they might come

from.

You may say, "Why do you not buy all domestic screenings?"

And when we get to screenings there is a lot more domestic screenings and more domestic weed feeds than there are imported from

Canada. I, as a small dealer, am not able to get hold of these screenings that are taken out of the grain in the United States. The minute

they get a little bit shorter, why, the major grain companies immediately put this stuff right onto the table. They use it in their own

manufacturing. They use it in their own feeds. And we sit out there

and we do not get any.

Our protection is the screenings that we can get from Canada. In

fact, that very thing is so serious now that I am spending about

$150,000 putting up storage to try to store this material in the summer so that I will have it for my customers when it gets short in the

winter. And I cannot get it.

Talking about the feeding value of screenings--and we have heard

that depreciated quite a lot I happen to have six farms. I feed

quite a few beef cattle. I have fed cattle on Canadian screenings

with 5 percent molasses and some vitamin A added. These screenings were ground and pelleted. These cattle were fed no hay, no

silage, no corn, nothing but these pellets made of Canadian screenings. I was able to take 400-pound calves of choice grade and feed

them out to weights of 1,100 to 1,200 pounds. And to- ship them to

South St. Paul and have them grade "choice" and some "prime" on.

the market. And the only feed that they received were these Canadian refuse screenings. I did that on a cost—well, I cannot say as

to the cost, because I would rather put it in pounds, because the cost

varies—I could do that on 9.2 pounds of feed per pound of gain which

is getting pretty close to what you can do with corn and concentrates

for which you will pay $80 or $90 a ton or even $100 a ton.

Also, I have taken the offal from this cattle lot, and because of

distances involved I have spread all of the offal on maybe 40 acres

of land. Twenty acres of that is corn land that I plow every year

and the other 20 acres consists of an alfalfa field. We just put the

offal on there. And, frankly, I have not noticed any weeds growing

in that, that we would not normally have there.

I think we overemphasize these weed feeds, because we have huge

volumes of this same product in the United States, but this does

give us small people a chance to have a source of supply where we

can stay in business. We are not dependent on getting it from some

company that the minute it begins to get in short supply we just do

not get any more. They just trade it back and forth, I mean, when

a large grain company that is also in the feed business, goes to a large

malter, they sell him 50 carloads of barley, and from that 50 carloads

there will be five carloads of screenings coming back—they make a
SEED SCREENINGS 31

deal right there—they get the five carloads of screenings back. I

cannot buy a pound of it.

I think this bill would affect the dairy farmer a lot in our community.

The dairy farmer needs help right now. Milk support has been

lowered. I think it is a great help to him to be able to buy a feed

that may be $10 or $15 a ton cheaper.

Mr. WILKENS. We thank you for the opportunity to present your

point of view. Unless there are further questions we have nothing

more to add.

Mr. TOSSETT. I thought you touched very lightly on a subject

that had not been discussed up to this moment, when you talked

about livestock.

There has been research carried on as to certain diseases. There

are any number of viable black rust spores and other diseases that

ftre cleaned out of grain that could very easily come over in these

imported screenings.

Mr. JENNINGS. That would come in, with full wheat and not only

in the screenings. If we imported wheat with the screenings before

it has been cleaned, you would bring the same thing in as you would

bring in if you just brought in the screenings, separately.

Mr. TOSSETT. To the extent that 800,000 bushels of wheat per year

comes in which is the quota from Canada, which is considerably

different than that many tons of this that are being brought in here.

Mr. JENNINGS. Let me ask this question, Is there any different type

of wheat that is coming in from Canada with foreign material that we

do not have just across the border in North Dakota?

Mr. TOSSETT. I do not suppose there is, except that you have

volume there.

I would like to point this out and then I will finish. This is from

a release of an expert where it states that 2,260,000 pig weed seeds

per pound are contained therein, and there can be 6,496,000 weed

seeds.

Mr. JENNINGS. IS that good feed?

Mr. TOSSETT. That is what we are talking about here.

Mr. JENNINGS. Is it good feed?

Mr. TOSSETT. Not in my opinion. It is really expensive feed, that

is pretty expensive feed.

Mr. POAGE. The committee will consider this. Thank you very

much, gentlemen. Without objection, there will be included in the

record at this•point a telegram submitted by Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, and a telegram submitted by Mr. Short of North Dakota.

(The telegrams follow:)

NEW RICHMOND, WIS., May 9, 1962.

Congressman LESTER JOHNSON,:

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

We use thousands of tons of Canadian refuse screenings each year for the

production of inexpensive dairy and cattle feed rations. These screenings are

ground so fine there is little danger of live seeds and are not a weed-spreading

hazard. We hope you will vote against H.R. 5546 designed to cut off Canadian

importations of this material.

EDWIN J. CASHMAN,

Doughboy Industries, Inc.
32 SEED SCREENINGS

WEST FARGO, N. DAK., May 9, 1962.

Congressman DON SHORT,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Strongly protest passage of House bill H.R. 5546 preventing importing of

Canadian screenings. Bill would not accomplish what sponsors intend. It

would adversely affect our Canadian trade relations.

HOWARD EMERSON,

Goldena Mills, Inc., West Fargo, N. Dak.

Mr. POAGE. We will ask our visitors to retire. The committee will

go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee proceeded into executive

session.)

tINipth

JUL 2 19 62

.0.