ePub 版

ment in this field, without recognition of the position of the market businesses, and (2) there are concerted activities at the present time which would appear to have the support and backing of the Department, embodied in the provisions of House bill 7527, recently introduced by Congressman Hull from Missouri, that would greatly expand, extend, and amend the Packers and Stockyards Acts.

Senator HOLLAND. Is it your understanding that this added $200,000 would not be needed unless that act that you have mentioned should be passed?

Mr. SANDERS. Not only that, we feel that if that is the state of facts today, these things ought to be resolved before additional appropriations are granted.

Senator HOLLAND. There is no connection, then, between this act that you mention and the proposed increase of the budget for administration?

Mr. SANDERS. No, sir.

And, thirdly, as the chairman is aware, the National Commission on Food Marketing is now engaged in extensive hearings pertaining to the food industry and one of the important assignments of its responsibilities from Congress is a study and a report back to Congress on the regulatory activities of Government pertaining to the food industry and particularly livestock and meat.

We feel that these two, three examples, to be correct, should be resolved by the Congress prior to any increase in current appropriations.

Thank you very much, sir.
Senator HOLLAND. Thank you,



I have a request from the Federal Statistics Users' Conference to file a statement in the record. I ask that the letter which I received from Mr. Roye L. Lowry, executive secretary of this organization and the statement which they have submitted, be placed in the record at this time. (The letter and the statement follow :)


Washington, D.C., April 26, 1965. Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture and Related Agencies, Senate Committee

on Appropriations, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: I am transmitting for the record a statement by the Federal Statistics Users' Conference, relating to the programs of the Statistical Reporting Service and the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture, whose budget requests for fiscal year 1966 your subcommittee is now considering.

We wish to congratulate the subcommittee and Congress for its foresight, leadership, and determination in carrying through to completion the long-range program to improve crop and livestock estimates.

We urge you now to examine carefully whether statistical information relating to farm income and expenses now available is adequate for the policy decisions Congress is being called upon to make. Discussions about agricultural policy alternatives are becoming increasingly heated. Would not more adequate information help to dissipate some of this heat and provide more light on the critical issues involved? Sincerely yours,

RoYE L. Lowry, Executive Secretary.

STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE RECORDS The Federal Statistics Users' Conference wishes to express its appreciation for the leadership which this committee has provided in bringing about long-needed improvements in the crop and livestock estimates compiled by the Statistical Reporting Service. The final step in making this program operational throughout all the continental United States will be taken in fiscal year 1966.

We think it is particularly worthy to note that this last part of the long-range improvement program is being accomplished without any additional funds. In recent years, both the Statistical Reporting Service and the Economic Research Service have shown great initiative in reexamining existing programs, and in eliminating or reducing programs of lower priority in order to meet important new needs. Both agencies should be complimented for their efforts in this direction, for the willingness to review existing activities in the light of priority needs for resources is something which is not often seen.

Now that the long-range program for the improvement of crop and livestock estimates is being carried through to completion, we would like to encourage this committee to turn its attention to the improvement of statistics relating to farm income. We like you to ask yourselves whether existing information on farm income is satisfactory to you for the purpose of appraising issues of public policy with which you must deal.

“Income per farm” has long been a basic concept used in considering questions of policy related to farm income. Its shortcomings have been known for years. In an effort to “throw light on the changing size and income structure in agriculture," the Department recently published a number of tables showing distributions of the number of farms and realized gross and net income of farm operators from farming based on size class of the value of sales (November 1964 Farm Income Situation.)

This new presentation is an important improvement over previous practice, but even these figures fail to show that over 200,000 of the 806,000 farm operator families whose farms grossed more than $10,000 in 1959 had under $3,000 per year cash income in that year. And it is difficult to assess the significance of a reported figure for off-farm income per farm operator family for these farms when perhaps 25 percent of these families did not report any off-farm income.

Discussions about farm income, farm policy, rural poverty, and the like are bound to become more intense. They will generate a great deal of heat in any event. Pershaps this is a good time to make a serious effort to see if the data can supply more light as well.

Any such review of farm income information should consider all the elements of income received by farmers, it should consider production expenses, and it should clearly separate the cash and noncash components of farm income and expenses.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Senator HOLLAND. The American Seed Trade Association has asked to be heard. I understand that Mr. William Heckendorn, executive vice president, and some of his associates are here in regard to research appropriations in this field.

Mr. Heckendorn?
Mr. HECKENDORN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HOLLAND. You may proceed, sir.

Mr. HECKENDORN. We have a statement that we want to file for the record. I will comment briefly on one statement, and more in detail on the additional statement.

Senator HOLLAND. Are there two statements you wish to present?

Mr. HECKENDORN. You already have one, and here is the other that I want to file.

Senator HOLLAND. Without objection, both statements will be placed in the record, and you may proceed to comment on them.

(The prepared statements referred to follow:)

STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT HECKENDORN My name is William Heckendorn, executive vice president of the American Seed Trade Association. I am speaking for our hybrid corn basic research study committee. Representatives of this committee have presented testimony in previous years on various phases of basic research relating to corn. Congress has given favorable consideration to our requests, for which we are very grateful. All five positions requested in quantitative genetics, carbohydrate, and oil synthesis, and biochemical genetics are now in operation. We are advised that North Carolina State University, Iowa State University, Purdue University, and the University of Missouri are cooperating with the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last year we presented testimony to the Senate on a virus disease then known as "corn stunt." Funds were provided by Congress for the establishment of facilities in the South where work on this disease is progressing at the present time.

In September 1964, the Wall Street Journal carried the following front page article.



Whenever a new discovery in agriculture rates front page coverage in the Wall Street Journal, there is just cause for alarm.

The facts are that “corn stunt" is not a new discovery for scientists have known of its existence since the early 1940's. Our concern over the situation is due to discovery that not only do we have "corn stunt” in the Southern States, but we also have a similar disease in the Corn Belt classified as “maize dwarf mosaic.' The outstanding difference between "corn stunt” and “maize dwarf mosaic" is the manner in which the virus is spread.

When first discovered in the Corn Belt, the disease was believed to be "corn stunt.” More thorough investigations reveal that "corn stunt” is spread by leafhoppers, whereas the disease in the Corn Belt States is transmitted by aphids and sap transfer. The effects of both diseases are very similar in the stunting and dwarfing effect on the plant and reduction in yield.



The disease has now been identified in all the Corn Belt States from Ohio west to Nebraska as “maize dwarf mosaic,” and in several Southern States as “corn stunt." Reports have been received that some fields in Louisiana and Mississippi have been plowed down because of the seriousness of “corn stunt.” During 1964 reports were made by Illinois that over 2,000 acres had become infected, causing crop losses ranging from 5 to 70 percent. In Ohio, officials estimate that corn producers lost over $5,850,000 in 1964 due to the disease.


Studies are now being carried on to discover what can be accomplished through breeding and selection. Some lines do indicate a degree of tolerance in the studies that have been made, but how they will react under constant exposure is still to be determined. Last year scientists from 32 States met at Wooster, Ohio, to pool their knowledge and discuss possible control measures. All were agreed that a concentrated effort should be started without delay.

This new disease can be as devastating as the disease that nearly wiped out the sugarcane industry in the Southern States from 1914 to 1926. Agricultural yearbooks report that the sugarcane producing States in the South lost over $100 million and bankers refused to finance operations because of the poor credit risk.

A small investment in research now can save this major feed grain industry, whereas delay may seriously weaken our whole agricultural economy.

APPROPRIATION REQUESTED The appearance of these virus diseases is the most serious threat to the production of corn with which scientists have had to cope in the entire history of corn in the United States. We now have "corn stunt” and “maize dwarf mosaic'' so far, and mutations of the virus could occur for many years. Both personnel and facilities will be required to discover how to cope with the disease in the various areas of corn production areas of the United States.

We already know that the spread of corn stunt and maize dwarf mosaic are different. A concentrated approach must be initiated in the Corn Belt of the Northern States for maize dwarf mosaic similar to the program already underway in the South. Such a program will involve both facilities and personnel. We urge that the Agricultural Research Service be authorized to proceed immediately to organize the necessary research program. It is our belief that minimum personnel to initiate the studies would be: 1 entomologist, 1 pathologist, and 1 geneticist and plant breeder.

Each of these positions would involve an annual appropriation of $40,000 each or $120,000 total. Facilities necessary would require a head house, greenhouse, laboratory, and possibly a screenhouse. A cost of approximately $175,000 would be involved, which would be nonreoccurring: The total request we are making is for $295,000 for the first year and $120,000 for each succeeding year as necessary,

Because of the field surveys that must be made the time of the personnel required would be occupied in this phase of the work while the facilities were being constructed.

This disease may be an immigrant from some other country. We do know that other countries have virus diseases that are at the present time undiscovered in the United States.

Some thought is being given at the present time of establishing an offshore laboratory to study diseases before they become established in this country. The feasibility of such a facility seems both logical and practicable and would provide knowledge on ways and means of handling future diseases that might endanger our Nation's agriculture.

We urgently request that favorable consideration be given to our plea for an appropriation of $295,000 for work on maize dwarf mosaic through the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

STATEMENT OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY JOHN I. SUTHERLAND My name is John I. Sutherland. I am the executive secretary of the American Seed Trade Association, a national organization with membership throughout the United States. The direct membership of the association is approximately 675 companies and the indirect membership represented by the State and regional associations is approximately 4,000 companies. I am appearing here today in behalf of the association's conservation committee to testify on the agricultural budget pertaining to the agricultural conservation program (ACP).

Since 1957, the ACP has been supported by Congress with an annual appropriation of $250 million. The seed industry has felt that this program is one of the Federal Government's most effective contributions to the preservation of our basic national soil and water resources. Your committee is to be congratulated for the support it has given to conservation.

The job, however, has just begun. The continuation of good sound conservation practices today is needed to preserve our resources for not only the farmer, but for the urban and city dwellers of tomorrow. Conservation practices of the ACP are steps toward accomplishing this goal. An increase, not a decrease, in money and effort is needed to preserve the land. What are some of the factors that create this need.

Erosion.-Erosion destroys the land, reduces productivity, and increases siltation and pollution of our streams, lakes, ponds, and water supplies.

Water.-Water management for human and industrial uses. This could be a scarce commodity if planning for the future is not further considered

Realizing the increasing demand for water over the next 10 to 15 years, the association feels every effort should be made to meet this demand. The ACP is one of the projects making a major contribution toward these

goals. Many requests for conservation practices are received by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have a direct relationship upon water quality and erosion. A tabulation, by State (see attached charts) illustrate requests for crop-sharing assistance in 1963 were received in the amount of $343,643,316. A tabulation, by State, showing the 1963 State allocations is also attached. Funds were available in the amount of $207,880,000 to fulfill these requests. Taking into consideration the administrative costs of $30 million, an overall program of $375 million would


more nearly meet the demand in 1963. Preliminary figures for 1964 support the trend.

In addition to the above-mentioned conservation needs, commodity programs retiring land from row-crop production to conserving uses are now in effect and are being considered for extension. This diverted land must be maintained free of rodents, insects, weeds, and erosion, which places an increased demand upon supporting programs such as ACP.

It is our view that funds appropriated in the past are inadequate to meet the growing demands upon a shrinking farm population. Never before in the history of the United States has so many people residing in urban communities depended so much upon so few farms for their food supplies.

It is our view from observations made covering the agricultural lands of the United States served by the seed industry, that the appropriation for agricultural conservation practices should be increased in the current budget under consideration. Farmers in general are matching funds provided by the Government to a greater degree than in former years.

While our Nation's soils are managed by the people who live on the lands, these basic resources belong to the Nation and all the people. In the United States we are fortunate that there has been an abundant food supply to feed all our people. The fact that we have an abundant supply today is due to an intelligent use and preservation of land and water resources. It is our view that an appropriation of $375 million annually is needed. This is an investment being made by all people in assuring the continuation of practices on our land that will perpetuate our food supplies for future generations as well as for themselves. We earnestly urge this committee to give favorable consideration to our request that instead of reducing the amount of funds allocated for agricultural conservation practices by $100 million that they be increased to $375 million.

I would like to express my appreciation to you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for the opportunity of appearing before you today. Requests filed for cost shares1963 agricultural conservation program

(Attachment 1)

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

$679, 734

859, 831 1,063, 538 3, 271, 030 9, 448, 800 11, 237, 524 8, 489, 094

7,878, 812 10, 809, 569 3, 569, 435 6, 109, 509 1, 256, 297

146, 405 5, 940, 322 4,954, 193 10, 560, 679 29, 664, 586 2, 843, 162 2, 123, 253 8, 169, 257

15, 000 4, 382, 179 2,832, 654 7, 239, 773


4,286 1, 404, 219

2,792, 326 343, 643, 316

46–950—65—pt. 2-3

« 上一頁繼續 »