Page images
PDF
EPUB

CONTINGENCY RESEARCH FUND

Mr. WHITTEN. For the record, please provide each project and each activity to which resources were diverted from the Contingency Research Fund during the calendar year 1980.

[The information follows:]

Projects funded from contingency research fund, calendar year 1980-project and

Animal production efficiency research:

activity

Purchase of small animal cages to meet Federal requirements.
Initiate tick research in Puerto Rico

Steamlines/Fargo, N. Dak

Emergency feed purchase as a result of severe range drought in eastern Montana

[blocks in formation]

Importation of sheep from Canada to the United States under a memorandum of understanding between Canada and the USDA relative to evaluation of breeds of livestock both exotic and domestic.

50,000

Energy saving perchloric acid fume hood..

Crop production efficiency research:

Replacement of equipment and erection of temporary greenhouses destroyed by fire at Stillwater, Okla...

Inhibition of chitin synthesis in insects.

Emergency identification of exotic mite pests on honey bees.....
Repair hail-damaged roof at the Crops Laboratory in Fort Collins,
Colo.....

Replacement of bee research equipment and supplies lost in flood-
ing at Baton Rouge, La.

Reactivate fermentation recovery phase of research program by replacement of explosion-prone centrifuge..

24,000

36,000

80,000

19,000

1,000

10,000

8,000

Partial cost of peptic synthesizer for preparing analogs of insects brain hormones..

15,000

Genetic analysis of heliothis mitochondrial, DNA... Processing, storage, distribution efficiency research:

48,500

Emergency repairs to the refrigerated storage facility at WRRC,
Albany, Calif.

53,000

Research on trypsin inhibitors on soybean and other vegetable products.

116,000

Research to improve human health and safety:

Treating food waste by fermentation process to destroy harmful organisms.......

65,000

Origin of Clostridium botulinum spores in honey.
Specialty chemicals for fire ant control

20,000

45,000

Research on conservation and watershed:

Laboratory and headhouse/greenhouse equipment at Watkinsville,
Ga.......

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

Mr. WHITTEN. Would you please bring the Committee up to date on what is being done in the area of guayule research and what your plans are for fiscal year 1982?

Dr. BERTRAND. We are determining soil water regimes and irrigation practices needed to establish stands and maximize rubber and/ or resin production per unit of water consumed. We are quantitatively determining the water consumed in establishing seedlings, developing stands and producing high yields of rubber under different climatic regions. These data are very important to potential growers as water costs will be a major component of production

costs and these data are needed to assist in predicting yield levels for siting processing plants. We will be obtaining quantitative data on salt tolerance and interactive effects of salt stress on rubber production since water quality will be a major factor that must be considered. We are continuing our studies on use of bioregulators to stimulate yield and quality of rubber and the effects of bioregulators on disease resistance and plant tolerance to cold and salinity. Our laboratory at Peoria, Illinois, is developing a standard analytical technique for measuring quantity and quality of rubber in plants and will be exploring new processing techniques. We will be developing guayule cropping system technology since farmers do not have experience growing guayule as they have with most other crops. Most of the guayule rubber produced in the past has been from native stands. SEA has initiated a seed increase program to develop foundation seed for increase by seed growers at the appropriate timing for planting large-scale commercial acreages. The Department of Energy provided $350,000 of pass-through funds in fiscal 1981 for the seed increase program. The research of SEA-AR and SEA-CR is fully coordinated with projects conducted by the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation grants, and with Mexico's scientists. Since our programs are just getting underway, they will not change significantly in fiscal year 1982. Mr. WHITTEN. Would you please discuss the current situation with respect to jojoba research and what your plans are for fiscal year 1982?

Dr. BERTRAND. We terminated our research on jojoba in 1979. A variety of commercialization activities have progressed to the point where no further utilization research is necessary in our laboratories. We still respond to inquiries and are still assisting in technology transfer under our new crops program. We have no plans for jojoba research in fiscal 1982.

NATICK LAB

Mr. WHITTEN. Last year you were negotiating with the Department of the Army for research on irradiated foods at the Natick Laboratory. What was the outcome of these negotiations? What are the plans for work at the Natick Laboratory during fiscal year 1982 and what will be the role of AR?

Dr. BERTRAND. The responsibility for all future radiation research on foods has been transferred to the Department of Agriculture. Research to meet Defense Department needs will be carried out by USDA under reimbursable agreements. The transfer is in its final stages.

We have no plans for work on irradiated foods at Natick in fiscal year 1982. We expect work on low dose, low nitrite bacon to be completed in fiscal year 1982 in SEA-AR laboratories. We expect the research to establish whether radiation treatment can be used to eliminate nitrite from bacon.

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. WHITTEN. For fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982, provide for the record a table which shows line-type people versus administrative or supervisory people.

[The information follows:]

[blocks in formation]

1/ Includes research scientists, support scientists, research technicians and other lab support.

2/ Includes professional and support positions in extension, cooperative research and technical information systems.

3/ As of January 9, 1981.

As of January 26, 1981.

Source: Prepared by the Organization and Management Development Staff, SEA, March 13, 1981.

Mr. WHITTEN. How many of your permanent employees are located in Washington, D.C., how many are in the metropolitan area, and how does this compare with a year ago and two years ago? How many part-time employees and temporary employees are located here in Washington, D.C.?

Dr. BERTRAND. Presently we have 459 permanent employees located in Washington, D.C., and 1,903 in the metropolitan area. This compares with 436 permanent employees in Washington, D.C. in 1980, and 445 in 1979, as well as 1,868 in the metropolitan area in 1980, and 2,045 in 1979. We have 78 part-time and temporary employees located in Washington, D.C.

Mr. WHITTEN. How many permanent employees do you have located outside the metropolitan area?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have 5,944 permanent employees on board outside the metropolitan area.

Mr. WHITTEN. How many part-time and temporary employees are located outside the metropolitan area?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have 863 part-time and temporary employees located outside the metropolitan area.

HUMAN NUTRITION

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Hegsted, who is the head of our Human Nutrition program, is here. His budget is part of the agricultural research budget.

He is prepared to make a statement if you wish.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would certainly like to hear it, but I thought I would open it up for questions while I could be here.

Mr. McHugh?

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps I would like Dr. Hegsted to comment on this.

One of the areas where some cuts are proposed is human nutrition research. Please indicate where the cuts on human nutrition research are being made. What is the justification for this? Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. McHugh, the cuts in the proposed budget are for the competitive grants program. A $3 million item of the $3.3 million increase for the competitive grants program has been deleted from the earlier version of the budget.

Mr. MCHUGH. Why is this being decreased relative to other areas which are being increased?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have other items of higher priority in the general science and education area that those monies will be directed toward, principally aimed at agricultural productivity— germplasm, water-those items I enumerated a few minutes ago. Mr. MCHUGH. Would you submit for the record greater detail on these relative priorities? I certainly am not opposed to your emphasis on productivity. That is very important.

However, at the same time, we have seen how human nutrition research has been very helpful. Obviously it is important to health, and to the extent that nutrition research contributes to better health and thereby reduces health care costs it is also important in helping us deal with inflation.

I realize that is a generalization. Nevertheless I am interested, without being critical, in more detail as to why you are decreasing human nutrition research relative to the others areas.

Dr. BERTRAND. We will be glad to do that, sir.
Mr. WHITTEN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

RESEARCH PRIORITIES-COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS

The January budget request proposed a $3,000,000 program increase above fiscal year 1981 for human nutrition research under the Competitive Research Grants program and an additional amount for increased operating costs. The present proposal would continue the program at the level appropriated in fiscal year 1981 plus increased operating costs. The current budget revisions are aimed principally at agricultural productivity and provide for research in the area of integrated reproduction management, germplasm collections, water use conservation, processing efficiency and animal health, and for increased operating costs.

BANKHEAD-JONES GRANTS

Mr. MCHUGH. I also notice that you have proposed eliminating the Bankhead-Jones money. Again, without intending to imply criticism, I would like your justification for that particular proposal.

Dr. BERTRAND. Dr. Carter, who heads our Higher Education program, is here. May I turn to him?

Mr. MCHUGH. Certainly.

Dr. CARTER. The Department feels that the Bankhead-Jones funds made available to the land grant universities are relatively small compared to the funds that are used by the colleges of agriculture and, therefore, we felt that in weighing this against other funding priorities, we would put it into a lower priority. The Department was also concerned that not all of it was being used by the universities for higher education exclusively for agriculture.

Mr. MCHUGH. In other words, some universities use this money for general education purposes as opposed to specifically allocating it for agricultural research or activities?

Dr. ČARTER. The Bankhead-Jones Act allows for use of these funds for programs other than agriculture.

However, Congress has indicated their desire that as much as possible it be used for agriculture. We have informed the universities of this desire.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TRAXLER [acting chairman]. Mrs. Smith?

IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are pleased to have you gentlemen here today. I want to say I am gratified with your testimony. Agricultural research has been and is a top priority of mine. In my district we have the Meat Animal Research Center and Clay Center, and one of the finest land grant colleges, and several fine experiment stations.

I feel that in recent years agricultural research has not been funded adequately. Spending has not been keeping up with the pace of inflation. Of course, inflation has forced equipment and facility costs up drastically.

I am concerned that the general public and many Members of the Congress do not appreciate the critical importance of research.

« PreviousContinue »