EXHIBIT C Production Requirements and Estimated Returns From Selected Crop and Livestock Enterprises. Mimeograph report AE 202, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson, October 1960 (S-42). Can Your Cotton Make You More Profit? A mimeograph sheet by D. L. Branyon and S. J. Brannen, respectively, Extension Agronomist and Extension Economist, released by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Georgia, Athens, 1960. Cotton Production at the Southeast Georgia Branch Experiment Station. Circular N.S. 22, Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Athens, March 1961. Costs and Returns From Crop Production in the Limestone Valley Areas of Alabama. Unnumbered mimeograph, Agricultural Experiment Station publication of Auburn University, Auburn, February 1960 (S-42). Budgets for Major Farm Enterprises in the Mississippi River Delta. Mimeograph report No. AEc. M.R. 30, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, State College, June 1961. (A cooperative publication with the Agricultural Experiment Stations of Arkansas and Louisiana.) (S-42.) Cotton Production Costs and Returns. Bulletin No. 758, University of Missouri Agriculutral Experiment Station, Columbia, November 1960. Cotton Production on the Blackland Prairies of Texas. B 984, Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1962. Resource Requirements, Costs, and Expected Returns: Alternative Crop and Livestock Enterprises; Rolling Plains of southwestern Oklahoma. (Three publications: P-357, P-368, P-369) published by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater, September 1960 and February 1961. (S-42.) Arizona Agriculture, 1961. Bulletin No. A-10 published by the University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, Tucson. Costs to Produce Cotton in Kern County. A mimeograph guide to production costs prepared by George V. Ferry, Kern County Farm Adviser, University of California Agricultural Extension Service, 1960. EXHIBIT D Summary of reduction in yield caused by the major cotton diseases in the United States from 1957 to 1961 Source: Complied by the Cotton Disease Council, Committee on Disease Losses: Harlan E. Smith, chairman; A. L. Smith, W. E. Cooper. EXHIBIT E Estimated losses, caused by weeds in agronomic crops-Averages, 1951 through 1960 1 Estimates of losses of total U.S. production, weighted for production by geographic Includes extra land preparation, water, and fertilizer due to weeds. Includes production by continental States and Hawaii and offshore territorial production by Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. 5 Includes principally seed cleaning losses (8.5 percent) and mortality losses from para- 6 Red clover, Alsike clover, sweetclover, white clover, Ladino clover, Lespediza, timo- 8 Weighted averages based on crop acreages. Estimates for grain sorghum, soybeans, 100-pound bags. Mr. Buck. However, I should like to make two observations about these cost reduction estimates. First, about half of the potential cost reduction of 11 cents can be made simply by reducing production inputs. In other words, straight savings in the machinery, materials, and labor needed to produce and process a pound of cotton. The other half, of course, would come about by reducing some of the production losses which farmers now experience. Second, the potential saving we have estimated in each of the areas is conservative. The program is eminently feasible. We are highly gratified that this conclusion is shared and is supported by the leading agricultural and cotton research authorities in the Department of Agriculture, in the State experiment stations, and, of course, in the industry itself. We have letters from a number of these men, copies of which we are attaching to our testimony, confirming our opinion. These include Dr. Byron T. Shaw, ARS Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Dr. William L. Giles, vice president for agriculture and forestry, Mississippi State University; Dr. Louis Hawkins, director, Oklahoma State Experiment Station; Dr. Roy Lovvorn, director of research, School of Agriculture, North Carolina State College; and Dr. R. E. Patterson, dean of agriculture of Texas A. & M. College. I have marked these exhibits F, G, H, J, and K. (The exhibits are as follows:) EXHIBIT F U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Mr. GEORGE BUCK, National Cotton Council of America, DEAR MR. BUCK: We have reviewed with considerable interest the National Cotton Council's proposal to expand research on cotton as outlined in the brochure "A Research Program To Reduce the Costs of Producing and Processing Cotton." In this review we have limited ourselves to the research aspects of the program without reference to budgetary considerations, cotton supplies, or cotton prices. There is general agreement among our cotton specialists that if the proposed program is implemented the cost reduction objectives can be attained. In fact, it is entirely possible that control of insects, diseases, and weeds would effect even somewhat greater savings in production costs than is indicated. There are a few suggestions we would like to submit for your consideration. In part II-The Program Summary, pages 4, 5, and 6 refer to centralized facilities for six laboratories, one of which would have three branches. No facilities are indicated for basic genetics, breeding methodology, and quality evaluations for the breeders. Fruiting/Nutrition Laboratory is indicated to receive only half the amount indicated for the Disease or the Insect Laboratory and but one-third the amount for the Weed Laboratory. The relative importance of the proposed Laboratories seems questionable to us. We are inclined to the view that the proposed construction funds would be used more effectively where good cooperative research is located in at least three regionalized laboratories, utilizing a multidisciplinary or team approach, rather than one centralized location for each research discipline. With reference to the cotton phytotron, there is considerable question as to the desirability of developing this facility. Costs of construction, operation, and maintenance are very high and it is entirely possible that growth rooms with the environmental controls that are now available might serve the purpose. In Part III-Program Specifics, the typical research studies which are listed EXHIBIT E Estimated losses, caused by weeds in agronomic crops--Averages, 1951 through 1960 1 Estimates of losses of total U.S. production, weighted for production by geographic Includes extra land preparation, water, and fertilizer due to weeds. * Includes production by continental States and Hawaii and offshore territorial production by Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. 5 Includes principally seed cleaning losses (8.5 percent) and mortality losses from para- 6 Red clover, Alsike clover, sweetclover, white clover, Ladino clover, Lespediza, timo- 8 Weighted averages based on crop acreages. Estimates for grain sorghum, soybeans, 100-pound bags. |