ous costs of distribution that enters into the tremendous spread that exists between live lamb and retail lamb prices at this time.

I would like to make one further remark. The best proof that we have that the foreign wool is in great competition with our domestic market is the fact that the Commodity Credit Corporation has taken over 97 million pounds of 1951 and 1952 wool clip.

Approximately another 20 million pounds of the 1953 clip is headed into the CCC stockpile unless market conditions change before the loans.

This is what can happen to the agricultural commodities of which we have no surplus.

I want to thank you, Mr. Lovre.

Mr. LOVRE. Thank you very kindly, Fred. (The document referred to is as follows:)

Import duties and sec. 23 funds from wool

NOTE. This chart shows wool weights based on weight at the time of shearing. This is called grease basis because it still contains grease, dirt, etc. When cleaned, weights shrink 50 percent and more. Some charts included in this statement use grease basis and some use clean basis as terminology changes at cleaning stage of preparation.

Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

Mr. LOVRE. We now have the Western South Dakota Sheep Growers Association, represented by Warren Johnson, of Spearfish. Mr. Johnson apparently is not here.

We will next hear from the South Dakota Swine Improvement Association, Mr. Arley Hill, of Brookings.

Mr. Hill does not seem to be here.

We will next hear the East River Electric Cooperative. Mr. Harry Anderson. Mr. Anderson does not seem to be here.

Next, the Land Utilization Grazing Associations, Mr. Fauske. I understand he filed his brief.

Next, is the South Dakota Statewide Board, Mr. Wilhelm Nelson, of Roberts County. He is not here now, either.

Next, the South Dakota State College, Allen Sperry. Mr. Sperry.

STATEMENT OF ALLEN SPERRY, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE COLLEGE

Mr. SPERRY. My name is Allen Sperry. I am a dairy farmer living near Aberdeen, S. Dak.

I wish to testify in behalf of an enlarged program of research and education for agriculture.

I feel qualified to testify because of the help I have received through the Extension Service in building my own farming program. As a boy, I grew up in town with a few summer vacations spent on farms, my only farming experience.

In 1927 my father bought the farm where I live today. A year later my father died. I needed help to learn how to farm. I began attending meetings and gathering bulletins from the Extension Service. I read farm magazines with articles about research all over the United States.

Gradually a plan developed until today I have a successful dairy farm where hogs and sheep are also raised.

I have read Secretary Benson's plan to expand research and education through the USDA land grant college system with a great deal of interest. I thoroughly agree with him that

basic research is the key to future progress in agriculture. This is the source of new principles for the further improvement of our soils, plants, and livestock.

First, in regard to soils-I think soil conservation is one of the great problems of the Nation, not just of agriculture. Nations in history have risen and fallen according to the fertility of their land.

I am very proud of this pin which I wear in my lapel, presented to me by the Greater South Dakota Association for the work I have done on my farm in soil conservation.

I am also proud of the fact that I have served as community committeeman and later as county committeeman in the AAA and later the PMA program, and that I have done my bit to sell soil conservation while there.

At the present time I am chairman of the Brown County Extension Board.

I have had some part in each of the three organizations in my county which are working on soil conservations. In my estimation all three have accomplished a great deal, but when I saw a chart a short time ago showing that the overall fertility of land in the Great Plains area was still on the downgrade, that all our soil-conservation work had only slowed up the loss of fertility, I decided, with the author, that more research is needed.

For instance, the loss of nitrogen in the soils in my area is the most pronounced loss of fertility. The livestock man's most practical approach to the problem is probably in the pasturing of legumes.

However, many farmers hesitate to pasture legumes because it occasionally causes loss of animals by bloat. If research can solve

the bloat problem a big step will have been taken to encourage soil conservation.

Second, in regard to plants-to improve our plants through research, I am reminded of several needs, 15 B strain of rust cost South Dakota an estimated $39 million in 1953. Our only hoperesearch.

USDA research workers in grains have been cut one-third because of increased costs-appropriations have not increased.

After years of slowly declining yields in corn, researchers came through with hybrid corn causing yields to shoot upward. Now yields are again leveling off. Have we reached the limit? Only research can find the answer.

In my opinion the United States Department of Agriculture has one-third less research workers in grain now than they had a few years back because of increased costs while appropriations have not increased.

Third, in regard to livestock. I think of work done with hybrid hogs, proven sires, animal health, and feeding all kinds of livestock. Surely only the surface has been touched in animal research. Secretary Benson suggests that a research and education program for agriculture should seek to improve marketing of agriculture products. The methods mentioned are increased marketing efficiency, better products, less waste, and new markets.

Farmers in my area are sold on the need for support prices in a farm program. Improved marketing with new uses for agricultural products could strengthen the support program by helping to control surpluses.

Research is of vital importance to every branch of agriculture, whether it be soils, plants, livestock, or the marketing of farm products. It has already done much-there is much left to be done.

One never knows in research what is just around the corner and how important it may be. It is difficult to estimate an amount of money beyond which it is no longer a good investment to invest in research, but I am sure that we are a long ways from that figure. I thank you.

Mr. LOVRE. Thank you, Mr. Allen.

I understand that the South Dakota State Weed Board is represented by Mr. Nelson and Mr. Armstrong. Are either of those gentlemen present?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES GILBERT, STATE WEED SUPERVISOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, REPRESENTING MR. ARMSTRONG, OF MOODY COUNTY

Mr. GILBERT. My name is Charles Gilbert. I am the State weed supervisor from the State of South Dakota.

Mr. Armstrong, from Moody County, intended to come until the last moment this morning. Certain circumstances prevented his coming so I shall present the information that he was to bring.

To give you an idea of the problem that we are going to present, that is, the matter of noxious weeds growing on federally owned and controlled lands, which are not taken care of and which spread to

other agricultural lands, the Board of County Commissioners of Moody County passed the following resolution:

Be it resolved, That the county weed supervisor, county agent, and Representative Roy Armstrong, and a member of the weed board be instructed to attend the hearing of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives at Watertown, S. Dak., on October 13, 1953, for the purpose of supplying the necessary information regarding noxious weeds on Federal lands.

Vote: Yes, 3; no, 0.

Signed: Alfred Ingermann, chairman of the board.

Attest: William N. Keehn, deputy county auditor.

Statement of noxious weed conditions on Indian land in Moody County: Here in Moody County, we have approximately 1,850 acres of Federal land. This includes the Indian school land consisting of 641

acres.

We feel that the management of the Indian school has been doing a good job in controlling their noxious weeds on the school land.

In regard to the land that is operated by Indians, we have not had much cooperation. We have tried to work with them in this program of weed control, and in some cases have found these farmers interested but in most cases they either have not the equipment, the money, or the desire to care for these weeds as they should.

This land is all situated in Flandreau township-township 107, north, range 48 west.

I have also for your record the map of the township and the map of Moody County.