(5) Our population is increasing at about 2 percent per year and there is evidence that the rate of increase is accelerating. Our present agricultural production is about 3 to 4 percent in excess of actual needs. Should we have no increase in per-acre production for 2 years with the present population increase continued, our needs would have caught up with production. (6) If our population continues to increase at the present rate, we must be able to increase production per acre at the rate of about 2 percent per year. Otherwise, we must reduce our per capita consumption. Yet only for the years of World War II and a short time before and after, have we increased production per acre at such a rate. And this increase was possible because farmers had available technology and materials developed but largely unused in the previous half century of agricultural research. We do not have available today a backlog of information and materials for the field crops that will enable us to sustain an increase of 2 percent per acre per year. The key is more research. (7) Despite the fact that we have only a comfortable margin of production over consumption, troublesome surpluses have developed in certain commodities. I believe we must all agree, however, that solution to this immediate problem cannot come from lowered efficiency of production of these crops or from curtailment of the continuing research on control of hazards to their production. Our farmers cannot afford to have less efficiency of production or to produce less per acre. Our Nation cannot risk the hazard of a major catastrophe to our important farm crops, since crops are the foundation of all agriculture. Surpluses in some commodities have resulted from maladjustment in agricultural production rather than from large excesses in total production. (8) Since maladjustment is the primary difficulty, shifts in crop acreages provides the best solution from the production standpoint to our present problem. Great interest is being shown in the finding and development of new crops having industrial usage. This is as it should be. However, authorities who have studied this problem point out that crops for industrial usage cannot be expected to occupy more than a fraction of the acres that should be removed from feed grain and food production. We believe that the forage crops, for use as pasture. hay, silage, range and soil improvement, provide the best potential for economic and profitable use of the diverted acres. We shall not take your time for a detailed development of the reasons for this. We shall only call to your attention the following: (a) If all present surpluses of feed and food grains were converted today to red meat we would produce only 10 pounds more meat per capita, (b) nutrition authorities estimate that consumption of meat per capita will increase by more than 10 pounds by 1970, (c) the 3 to 4 percent excess of production over consumption would result, if converted to red meat, in substanitally less than 10 pounds of meat per capita, (d) forages must be converted to meat by beef cattle or sheep; feed grains can be fed to beef and sheep or to swine and poultry, and (e) the rate of conversion of feed to meat is substantially lower for beef cattle than for swine or poultry. (9) Shifting of substantial acres from the intertilled and annual crops to forage crops would be a most effective tool in soil conservation. We are still losing almost half a million acres of land per year from crop production because of wind and water erosion. We are losing fertility and productivity on many millions of additional acres. We must stop these losses if we are to preserve our vital soil resources for the years ahead. With reliable and productive forage crops we can do it. (10) Increased forage and range research, making these crops more reliable, productive, and economical to produce, will enable the farmer to grow larger acreages of these crops without sacrificing his income. Thus we can move to a better balanced, more permanent, and more prosperous agriculture. It is because of the facts outlined above that we of the Forage Research Committee support requests for increased research appropriations for the Cereal Crops and Oil Crops Branch and request increased research appropriations for Forage and Range Branch, ARS. We are recommending to you that the total appropriations for the Forage and Range Branch be increased by $600,000 to be distributed among sections approximately as follows: (a) alfalfa, $100,000, (b) clovers, $100,000, (c) other legumes, $100,000, (d) grasses, $150,000, (e) pasture range revegetation and management, $100,000, and (ƒ) seed production research, $50,000. In arriving at these suggested increases, the Forage Research Committee gave consideration to the following facts: (1) Hay, pasture, and range occupies almost a billion acres of land and provide more than 60 percent of all of the feed for our livestock. (2) The farm value of production from meadows, pastures, and range exceeds the farm value of all feed grains. (3) There are a large number of grasses and legumes that are important throughout the United States or of major importance in some region. This would include more than 10 major legumes, more than 15 major grasses for the humid part of the country, more than 20 major grasses for the subhumid and semiarid regions, and numerous other grasses and legumes that have potential uses not yet exploited. Each of these grass and legume species has numerous disease and insect pests that cause extensive losses in stand persistency, yield and quality of forage. For example, in alfalfa the farmer must contend with and the scientist must breed varieties resistant to bacterial wilt, common leaf spot, Stempkyllum leaf spot, Cercospora leaf spot, Staganospora leaf spot, black stem that is caused by at least 5 different fungi, root rot and crown rot caused by several different fungi, alfalfa dwarf, stem nematode, spotted alfalfa aphid, pea aphid, spittle bugs, potato leaf hopper, and others not yet identified. A similar list could be provided for each of the other grasses and legumes that have been studied sufficiently. With several important species. however, including red clover, our research has not even progressed far enough to identify all of the causes of trouble. (4) Research support for the forage and range crops has lagged far behind that for other crops of comparable value. It seems to us clearly a case of too little research on forage crops rather than too much on the other crops. (5) Because of increased costs of operation, including increases in salaries that have been necessary to retain the better scientists, the amounts requested will be needed largely to maintain the level of research intended by the Congress when the last increase was made in the forage and range appropriations. Without the increases proposed for this next year, there will necessarily be a reduction in the amount of research that can be done. We do not believe our farmers or the Nation can afford any reduction in research effort on these crops. Instead we need more research. (6) Of the requested increases that are not needed for maintaining status quo, most are needed to provide for a more efficient research program by making available, to our scientists, more hands to do the routine tasks that are a necessary part of crop research programs. We have not made sufficiently efficient use of our scientific personnel. As scientists become increasingly scarce, we must make better and better use of each one. We appreciate the consideration you have given us in the past and your courteous attention to our statement. We request your careful consideration of the increases requested. STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. STILES Mr. STILES. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will only take a mo ment. In addition to being director of research of the Cooperative Grange League Federation, I am also a commercial farmer and I have considerable personal interest in this entire subject that is being discussed. I have three sons in the business, which probably adds to my personal interest. In connection with the request for more money for research which I am supporting, I could not help but note that in the area our organization serves our members are proportionately spending twice the money in a research program in cooperation with three land-grant colleges that the USDA spends in the same area. Mr. WHITTEN. How does the State debt compare with the Federal debt? Mr. STILES. We are doing better all the time in relationship. We are looking at it, frankly, from the standpoint of our farmers and what can we do to improve their net position. We think forage in the Northeast is the best opportunity to improve their position and the tement I have passed out supports that with the work in research of the various institutions. I would simply call your attention to the chart on page 2. That is the work at Cornell. They have found that if a dairy farmer has only 60 percent of his feed from forage and purchases 40 percent, he lacks $150 per cow of having sufficient income to pay the feed costs and other expenses; whereas if he has 75 percent of his feed from forage and purchases 25 percent, he has $150 per cow over the cost of feed and other expenses. Mr. ANDERSEN. All anybody interested in this would have to do would be to go 90 miles west of Washington and see some of the development in forage crops. It is really remarkable. I believe, as you say, we could do more for northeastern agriculture by being a little liberal in forage research and pasturage than possibly in any other field. Mr. STILES. That is our conclusion. Mr. WHITTEN. The Secretary takes the view that the trouble is overproduction and we ought to slow down on production. I do not agree with that. Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, just because of that viewpoint on the part of the Secretary we cannot bankrupt the farmers of America. We have to continue to produce so that farmers can make a living. Mr. WHITTEN. I said I did not agree with it. Mr. ANDERSEN. I know. You have always been in opposition to some of the theories of the Secretary. Mr. STILES. We appreciate your consideration of this and in our area we do think this is an important area and an opportunity to do real good. Mr. WHITTEN. We appreciate your statement. We recognize the need in this field and will do the best we can. Mr. STILES. Thank you. (The following statement was submitted by the witness:) OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED FORAGE RESEARCH I am J. W. Stiles, director of research of the Cooperative Grange League Federation, Exchange, Ithaca, N. Y. I am also a commercial farmer with three sons in the farm business with me. The GLF was organized nearly 40 years ago by farmers to make available supplies (feed, seed, and fertilizer) proven by research to be the best buys for their individual farms. There was a real need for higher quality supplies made available to farmers sooner than the established dealers were providing. GLF still has the same basic purpose in serving its 115,000 member-owners. Our interest in requesting additional research for forage is basically to help GLF members increase their income through an improved forage program. An example of how forage increases the income of our dairy farmers is taken from the records of 622 New York farms keeping dairy herd improvement records. When 60 percent of the nutrients came from roughage, each farmer lacked nearly $150 per cow of having sufficient income to pay the feed costs. When 75 percent of the nutrients came from roughage, the farmer had nearly $150 per cow over the feed costs. The following chart supports these facts. TABLE I.—Relation of income over feed, feed cost, and percent of nutrients from roughage for 622 Holstein dairies which were fed 3,000 pounds grain per com per year; production per cow per dairy ranges from 8,230 to 14,200 A 6% increase in Nutrients from Roughages resulted in $267 increased income over the cost of feed. GLF supports forage-crop research at Cornell University, Pennsylvania State University, and Rutgers University to the extent of $45,000 annually in grants. Our members strongly endorse this expenditure. In addition GLF members have invested approximately $100,000 annually for the past 2 years in a complete soiltesting program in cooperation with the 3 land-grant colleges. This coming year GLF has a forage-improvement program which will call for an expenditure of approximately $100,000. These points are made to support our request for additional Federal funds in forage research. Our members have proven their willingness to expend substantial sums of their own money to support forage-research programs in our public institutions. This not only leads to improving their income but will benefit all agriculture. An example of the research findings of one of the projects GLF is supporting at Cornell is forage early cut versus cut on average date by farmers in New York State. Table II: Grass silage and barn-dried hay were made on June 11 and 12, 1956, and field-cured hay on July 9, 1956, for the 1956-57 winter barn-feeding period. Eighteen milking cows at the peak of lactation were used, 6 cows on each roughage as the sole source of roughage for a 20-week feeding period. One-half the cows on each roughage received grain at the rate of 1 pound to 4 pounds of milk and the remaining one-half at the rate of 1:8. Preliminary results are given in the following table: Average daily milk production Early silage, June 11. Early barn-dried hay, June 12. Kind of roughage Late field-cured hay, July 9 (average date New York farmers cut hay). 11 cow of the 6 in this group nearly stopped milking from mastitis. You will note that feeding grain at twice the rate with late-cut hay did not produce as much milk per cow as the low-grain feeding with early cut hay. This research project plus others are the basis for the following: TABLE III.-Milk production from forage when fed to 1,300-pound dairy cow Maintenance 10-pound T. D. N. per day, 1-pound 3.5 percent F. C. M. requires 0.3 pound T. D. N.J The detailed study of costs of digestible nutrients per 100 pounds was made by Cornell in 1955. This study disclosed that pasture cost per 100 pounds of T. D. N. was $1.42; hày, $2.20; grass silage, $1.79; corn silage, $2.83; ear corn, $3.17; oats, $5.74 and purchased feed concentrates, $5.21. One other interesting study made by Cornell of nearly 600 dairy farms in northern New York showed the following relationship of tons of harvested hay equivalent to labor income. TABLE IV Tons hay equivalent harvested Labor | Tons hay equivalent harvested Labor per cow: per cow-Continued 5.0_ 4.9 4.8. 4.6_ income income $478 418 -155 This is dramatic evidence of the need for more forage per cow which can be brought about through improved research and more effective teaching. Some of the major opportunities for research appear to be in plant breeding, particularly hybridization of the various forage species, the methods of establishing stands, the harvesting, preservation, and utilization of forage crops. It is my considered opinion that forage research offers the best opportunity in the Northeast to improve the economic position of dairy farmers while at the same time lowering the cost of producing animal products including milk and beef. The most economical production of milk occurs when the dairyman feeds at least 75 percent of the cow's requirements in the form of forage. In conclusion, I hope it has been established that forage is the foundation on which a sound dairy farming operation should be built in the Northeast. Forage crops offer the best soil conservation for future increased use of the Jand to support an ever-expanding population. Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing in support of additional forage research and will be glad to try to answer any questions you may have on the material presented, including the research GLF supports in land-grant colleges. |