ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. FLETCHER. From our point of view it is the results that count. The additional money requested is to shore up soft spots in much needed research.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, to close the record I want to thank Mr. Fletcher again for calling to the attention of this subcommittee these problems facing agriculture in this particular field.

Mr. VURSELL. I also would like to associate my remarks with those of Mr. Andersen of Minnesota and say that I have had an opportunity to read Mr. Fletcher's testimony and it points up some pretty sound and logical conclusions.

Mr. WHITTEN. I also wish to thank Mr. Fletcher for a fine presentation and would like to say that the points I have made have to do with the necessity for additional money and in no way takes issue with the need for work in these fields.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I realize that, Mr. Chairman. You have always been more than fair.

FORAGE RESEARCH

WITNESSES

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1958.

HOWARD B. SPRAGUE, AMERICAN GRASSLAND COUNCIL

J. W. STILES, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE FEDERATION

Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to have statements from Mr. Stiles and Mr. Sprague.

Mr. SPRAGUE. Mr. Chairman, this statement is in behalf of the American Grassland Council, formerly the Joint Committee on Grassland Farming.

We had the pleasure of appearing before you 2 years ago in behalf of forage research, and the statement that I have to present today is primarily on forage research.

Then I have a statement of Mr. Lloyd E. Arnold of the Forage Research Committee, which I would like to file. Mr. Arnold also appeared before you 2 years ago on behalf of the forage research program.

If it is your pleasure I will not discuss either of these statements. I would like to point out that part of our research which we need is necessary to maintain our position. In other words, as I have tried to point out here, we have to do a lot of this research in order to just stay where we are, but we cannot be satisfied with just staying where we are because agriculture, as you gentlemen well know, must take care of our increasing population of about 22 million or thereabouts per year, so that in the course of a few years we will be feeding 10 million more people than we were, and therefore we are finding it more and more necessary that we produce more effciently. This is particularly true because we have fewer acres of land because we are losing land constantly because of depletion, loss of soil fertility, 1 because land is needed for roads and highways and industriial burban development and so forth.

I want to say one other thing. I feel strongly about this personally. American strength has been always based on agriculture. Communist strength has been derived from exploiting agriculture. The Communists have taken away from agriculture and have taken the people away from agriculture in order to develop industrial strength and military strength, whereas our concept is totally different.

Mr. WHITTEN. I thought that was what our Secretary of Agriculture was advocating now, moving people off the farms to town. Maybe I misunderstood him.

Mr. SPRAGUE. I cannot speak for anybody but myself, Mr. Chairman, but there is no question about it, we have less people operating our land. But my point is we, as a Nation, are traditionally strong because we have recognized agriculture as our bulwark and we have used our strength from agriculture to develop these other things, whereas the Communist countries have gone in the other direction.

I recognize from this being my second appearance in 2 years that this committee is in a much better position to understand all of agriculture than perhaps any other group in the United States. I am very cognizant of that so I will not discuss my position any further. These two statements we will be glad to elaborate on if the committtee desires.

Mr. WHITTEN. We appreciate your statement.

Mr. SPRAGUE. We appreciate this opportunity to come before you and we know you are a very hard working group.

Mr. WHITTEN. We appreciate your statement and trust you understand our prbolem.

(The following statements were submitted by the witness:)

THE NEED FOR SUSTAINED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TO MEET NATIONAL NEEDS, ESPECIALLY RESEARCH ON FORAGE SPECIES

By Howard B. Sprague, American Grassland Council (formerly joint committee on grassland farming)

The United States has achieved the position of the strongest nation in the world. This position is based on a productive agriculture capable of fully meeting the needs of our people in foods and the raw materials for our industries. Our agriculture has made rapid progress during the last 30 years, by virtue of research conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture and by the agricultural experiment stations of the 48 States. We cannot afford to slacken the pace of research; it should keep pace with that of the other sectors of national life, in order that we may continue to have adequate food in the abundance desired and of the quality required to meet our American standards.

There must be an increasing efficiency in the use of our agricultural resources if our agriculture is to remain economically sound.

In 1920, the United States had a population of 106 million people. Today, the population is in excess of 170 million, and it continues to increase at the rate of 21⁄2 million yearly. The productivity of farms and ranches must increase at a rate to keep pace with two factors: the increase in total population and the steadily rising standard of living. This productivity must be based on fewer acres of land, since we are forced to retire much land yearly to forests or wasteland because of continued depletion by erosion and decline in fertility, and because millions of acres are taken yearly for roads and highways, for industrial sites, and for suburban developments.

Agricultural land is now producing about 35 percent above the level of 1920. Our current apparent surpluses in certain crops could supply no more than 3 or 4 percent more people than we now have. To keep up with increasing population trends, there is need to step up annually our total agricultural production by 12 to 2 percent per year. There must be an aggressive and sustained research program to meet this need.

The United States enjoys a tremendous and precious advantages over Russia. China, and other Communist countries. This cominunistic ideology is based on teh exploitation of agriculture and peasants to develop and support industry. Our American way has been to strengthen agriculture, so that this abundance will make possible a growing industry, and the development of sciences and technology, which in turn strengthens the whole economy as well as serving the needs of all people. We have proceeded on the principle that agriculture is a basic resource, to be carefully managed so that it may continue to be a bulwark of the Nation. The Communists continue to exploit the agricultural peoples and to divert the resources of agriculture to serve the communistic gods of industry and military might. The consequence of communistic policy has been a weak agriculture, probably the weakest factor in the entire Communist structure.

Russia has failed to perceive the lesson learned in northwestern Europe, and transported to North America with colonists from those countries, that there is greater total production in the long run from a combination of livestock and crops than from crops alone. The United States has tremendous resources and income in its livestock, and our people insist on even more meat, milk, and eggs. The livestock enterprises are vital in maintaining soil fertility, and they also are the only means we have of converting the grasses on pastures and ranges, and of transforming hay silage and fodder on great acreages of tilled land, into products that man needs and uses. Communistic agriculture is exceedingly weak and vulnerable in its failure to understand and use livestock.

This is no time to become complacent about our agriculture. Unless the efficiency of agriculture increases at a rate at least equal to the increase in population, we will suffer. We are in the position of needing to run ever faster just to stay where we are. Research, particularly basic research, will permit us to meet our needs, if we maintain a substantial and sustained program. This is particularly true of all research relating to crops used directly by man, and of research on pastures, hay, range, and other forage which supply feed for livestock.

Do we have enough research? The answer may be found in the consequences of the disasters and troubles which continually arise. For example, there is the spotted alfalfa aphid that suddenly, 2 years ago, appeared to threaten the alfalfa crop in a great portion of the country. Also, there are rusts, blights, nematodes, and a myriad of other insect, disease, and weed rests. We have survived each of these calamities by means of research as to causes and control measures, and application of the discovered facts to practical agriculture. We may call this protective research, and we should always have a backlog of knowledge created by a sustained research program, to counterattack each new problem that arises. For example, 20 years of alfalfa breeding in the Southwest provided a wide range of types and strains, so that when the spotted alfalfa aphid appeared it was possible to promptly identify certain strains resistant to the pest that could be increased for farmer use. It was not necessary to start from scratch after the pest appeared, and devote 10 or 15 years to finding resistant lines.

Research must develop better feeds and forage crops. It must develop better grasses and legumes for all areas; the Northeast and Corn Belt, the South, the Plains, the mountain and intermountain areas, and the Far West. It must learn how to establish and manage these improved strains, and how to harvest and store these for livestock feed. It should develop seed supplies for all to use. The importance of grasslands to the United States is very great. Our grazing lands alone (humid pastures and the great natural grasslands) provide at least half of the total feed nutrients required to support all livestock maintenance and production in this country. These grasslands need a sustained and balanced research program to explore and develop their true potential as sources of livestock support, not just protective research to guard against new enemies.

Some 3 years ago, the joint committee on grassland farming (now renamed the American Grassland Council) appeared before your committee and recommended a long-range research program, with an initial increase in funds for research in the amount of $600,000. We proposed that further increments of $600,000 be made in successive years until a total increase of $3 million had been achieved. The Congress did appropriate the initial increment of $600,000 for forage crop and range research. Although some of this dollar increase has been nullified by increased costs of operation, the research program was strengthened.

We now propose, for consideration of the present Congress, that a further rement of $600,000 be provided for forage crops and range research, to

deepen and broaden the program. To illustrate the application of this increment, it is suggested that such funds would be very effectively employed as follows:

[blocks in formation]

We fully appreciate the value of balanced research programs, and recognize the importance of research to meet specific needs of wheat, corn, oats, rice, barley, flax, sorghums, safflower, and buckwheat. The merits of research on such crops is being presented by other representatives. The most important principles are that research must be sustained to be of greatest value, and that it should be well balanced to cover all significant phases of our crops and grassland problems. Research has paid us well, and we expect that funds for research will continue to be a most profitable and enduring investment.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

STATEMENT OF LLOYD E. ARNOLD, FORAGE RESEARCH COMMITTEE

The forage research committee, which I represent, wishes to record its strong support of the proposed increases in research appropriations for the Forage and Range Branch, Cereal Crops Branch, and Oil Crops Branch of the Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

The abundancy and efficiency of our agriculture provide one of the major advantages we have over the countries behind the Iron Curtain. In World War II, food literally won the war. Food will always be a major weapon, either in a cold or hot war. Russian officials have recently claimed that they will surpass our agricultural production capacity within a few years. We did not believe they could compete effectively with us in the physical sciences and engineering. Yet the sputniks proved otherwise. We must not, with complacency, assume that they cannot make similar advances in agricultural sciences. A sputnik in agriculture would be far more devastating to morale in the United States and among our allies than were spuitniks I and II in the satellite program. Agricultural research programs, such as those conducted by the Forage and Range, Cereal Crops, and Oil Crops Branches of ARS, are necessarily of a longtime and continuing nature, frequently requiring 10, 15, or more years before the results are having an important impact on the Nation's agriculture. Thus. in the phases of research which are being initiated now, we are building for 1965, 1970, or beyond. This is particularly significant when crops research today is viewed against the backdrop of a rapidly expanding population.

Our agricultural efficiency can be attributed in very large part to the results of research in our Federal and State agricultural experiment stations, research made possible by the wisdom of the Congress of the United States and of the legislatures of the 48 States. We are certain that people throughout the country are strongly in favor of continuation and expansion of such research.

The farm problem looms large in the public mind today. A major aspect of the farm problem is surpluses in certain commodities. The solution to the problem must come from several sources, some of a short-term and others of a longterm nature. One of the proposed solutions has been reduction of production research efforts since it is assumed that the surpluses result from large excesses in production capacity and that production research is geared primarily to the objective of increasing total production. In this connection, however, we believe that the following facts must not be overlooked:

(1) One of the farmer's most troublesome problems today is declining income. The farmer cannot afford to farm less efficiently. He cannot afford practices that result in less than optimum production per acre. Neither can he afford to have his crops subjected to unnecessary hazards of diseases, insects, and the weather.

(2) So-called production research on the forage, cereal, and oil seed crops is more concerned with efficiency, reliability, and stability of production than it is with total production. Great emphasis is placed on control of hazards of production such as resistance to stem and leaf rust of the cereal grains, to bacterial wilt, spotted alfalfa aphid and leaf diseases of alfalfa, to the European corn borer and stalk rots in corn, to the cyst nematode in soybeans, to northern and southern anthracnose and root rots in red clover, and to a host of other disease and insect pests that constantly threaten. Production research is also concerned with winter hardiness in the winter annuals such as red clover, sweetclover, winter wheat, winter oats, and winter barley, and in the perennials such as alfalfa, serecia lespedeza, ladino whiteclover, orchard grass, and the many other grasses and legumes for pastures, rangelands, and meadows. Attention is also given to drouth resistance, heat tolerance, and other factors of the weather. Finally much production research is forcused on improvements in quality-feeding value of grasses and legumes, bread and macaroni quality in wheat, malting quality in barley, oil quality in flax, soybeans, castorbeans, and other oil seed crops, and forage seed quality.

(3) Because of its nature, crops research has, in general, only a very small immediate effect on agricultural production. Any curtailment in crops research today will have its maximum effect on curtailing production 5, 10, 15, or more years from now.

(4) Viewing agricultural production for the long range, we must recognize that we live in a world rapidly growing too small to feed all of the people. We have not increased, significantly, our agricultural land in the United States since 1920. We can feed and clothe 60 percent more people today than in 1920 on approximately the same number of acres largely because we are producing substantially more per acre.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »