Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUGARBEET AND DRY BEAN RESEARCH

Mr. TRAXLER. Could you once again provide me with an update on the sugarbeet and dry bean research work that has been underway at Michigan State University? I know the industry is extremely appreciative of your support and they find this research to be essential with the type of severe moisture problems we have had in parts of Michigan in the past year.

Dr. KINNEY. SEA-AR has three full-time scientists located at Michigan State University working on sugarbeet projects. The objectives of this research are to develop new and improved breeding lines; develop and improve disease resistance screening techniques; develop cultural, biological, and chemical methods of pest control for sugarbeets; and develop tissue culture techniques to regenerate plants from individual cells. This tissue culture research has application to sugarbeet genetics, variety improvement, and preservation of germplasm.

Our research program on dry beans involves two scientists and the research is fully cooperative with the Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station.

Primary emphasis is on disease control and breeding varieties for resistance to the major diseases that reduce production in Michigan and the North Central region. There are additional research thrusts on identifying the biological and physical determinants that limit food quality components and utilization of dry edible beans and breeding for improved nutritional and culinary quality. The research conducted at Michigan is an important and integral part of the total national program on bean production.

Soil compaction is detrimental to the production of dry beans in Michigan. At the request of the Congress, SEA-AR is initiating a cooperative research project with Michigan State University to identify the causative factors and to develop technology to overcome the problems of soil crusting as they affect dry bean production. We are in the final stages of negotiating a cooperative agreement with the Agronomy Department at Michigan State University. This will be a 3-year agreement involving the soils staff from the Agronomy Department of Michigan State University and SEA-AR scientists at Morris, Minnesota. Research work under this cooperative agreement should start this spring.

Mr. TRAXLER. Could you also give me a 3-year projection on these projects at Michigan State?

Dr. KINNEY. At the present time, we have no plans to substantially change our sugarbeet or dry bean research programs at East Lansing, Michigan. We plan to work cooperatively with Michigan State University to resolve or reduce industry problems relating to the two important crops and no major changes are projected during the next 3 years.

Mr. TRAXLER. We discussed briefly last year some varietal work that was being done on dry beans. Can you tell me if the new varieties you discussed last year have been released and if so what kind of grower acceptance has there been of the new variety? Dr. KINNEY. Five new dry bean varieties have been approved for joint introduction by SEA-AR and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. These new improved red kidney varieties are now in the process of seed multiplication. It is expected that it will

take 2 or 3 years to build up enough seed to meet grower demand. Grower interest and acceptance of these new varieties has been very good.

Mr. TRAXLER. Last year you indicated that you were renegotiating the sugarbeet germplasm research agreement that you had with Michigan State. You also said that the project would be reevaluated at the end of fiscal year 1981, with its cost of only $25,000 per year, not allowing for inflation in future years. Can you now tell me where your agreement with Michigan State stands, what you have learned as a result of the germplasm research project, what your efforts will be for fiscal 1982 and beyond, and whether or not this budget contains sufficient funds to continue the work that you believe needs to be done on this project?

Dr. KINNEY. Earlier, SEA-AR negotiated a $25,000 cooperative agreement with Michigan State University for research relating to developing tissue culture techniques that could be used in the sugarbeet breeding program. This cooperative research will continue in fiscal year 1982. The thrust of this basic research is to identify tissue culture media which can be used to selectively screen sugarbeet cells for specific disease organisms. Screening for cercosporin, a toxin produced by the Cercospora leaf spot fungus, is of particular interest. Another objective is to define the various tissue culture media that would allow the progressive transfer of sugarbeet cell cultures from a cell culture to a mature plant. While these major objectives have not yet been fully realized, considerable progress has been made. Michigan State University has also received a 3-year competitive grant for $70,000 for research on fungal toxins which will allow for an expansion of this research on sugarbeets.

Mr. TRAXLER. Are there any differences in the funding levels for any of these projects as a result of changes made by President Reagan in the original Carter budget?

Dr. KINNEY. With the exception of increases for pay costs, there are no changes in the fiscal year 1982 budget for the sugarbeet or dry bean research programs at East Lansing, Michigan.

Mr. TRAXLER. You and I have discussed the needs for research on these commodities many times in the past. As I visit farms, I am constantly impressed by the value of agricultural research and the return that we get from every dollar spent in agricultural research. Some of my dry bean farmers have been suffering terrible problems with rust in recent years. What projects do you have underway to deal with rust problems?

Dr. KINNEY. A cooperative breeding program has now been initiated with the SEA-AR bean breeding program at the Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Puerto Rico for the express purpose of developing bean varieties resistant to the rust disease. There also is cooperative research in Michigan on the use of cultural practices and methods of disease control as an additional approach to reducing losses from bean rust disease.

Mr. TRAXLER. Could you once again provide me with a description of those projects you have undertaken in dry bean and sugarbeet research throughout the country this past year and a listing of what projects you believe need to be done if you had sufficient

77-802 0-81-8

resources, describing the staff-year and cost requirements for each project?

Dr. KINNEY. While there have been essentially no new initiatives on sugarbeet research during this last year, ŠEA-AR has active research programs at East Lansing Michigan; Fargo, North Dakota; Ft. Collins, Colorado; Kimberly, Idaho; Logan, Utah; Sidney, Montana; and Salinas and Albany, California. The major thrust areas for these research programs are breeding for improved yield and disease resistance, cultural studies on ways to increase production efficiency, physiological and microbiological factors associated with sugarbeet losses during storage, studies on how to improve energy efficiency during processing, sugarbeet propagation and preservation of germplasm, and improved methods of insect and disease control. All of these areas are important and would be further emphasized if additional research funds were available. We would prefer to continue with these areas of research previously identified as having a high national priority rather than initiate new areas of research.

Similarly, there have been essentially no increases in dry bean research during this last year. We have active research programs at East Lansing, Michigan; Prosser, Washington; Kimberly, Idaho; Albany, California; and Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. The emphasis of these research programs is on breeding of improved varieties with emphasis on yield and disease resistance, cultural studies on ways to increase production efficiency, improved methods of insect and disease control, and basic research on digestibility of beans.

If additional funds were appropriated for dry bean research, we would first provide additional support to these existing projects. Our first priority for new research would be to expand the collection of tropical bean germplasm so that we could increase the export potential of dry beans.

Mr. TRAXLER. Do you find that as a result of efforts to reduce federal involvement in many areas that you might have to depend more on SEA-CR to get these projects done?

Dr. KINNEY. The Agricultural Research component of SEA will, as all agencies in this government, share in the President's Economic Recovery Program. However, the federal responsibility to meet critical issues facing this country's producers and consumers, as I outlined in my testimony, will not be compromised.

Secretary Block in his appearance before your Committee has reaffirmed the need for Agricultural Research to maintain the leadership role in addressing agricultural problems having broad regional, national and international implications and in responding to emergency situations.

Agricultural Research maintains the same core level of scientists and technicians as we have had in the last decade. The extramural program, involving both land grant and non-land grant institutions, has been used to supplement Agricultural Research's capabilities and will continue to be an integral part of the total operation.

REAGAN BUDGET

Mr. TRAXLER. Can you tell us if there were any projects that were funded in the Carter budget that have now lost their funding

in the revised budget, or if there are any projects in your budget as of today that were not included in the Carter budget?

Dr. KINNEY. This Administration's budget includes an increase of $5,479,000 over the Carter budget. The increase consists of $1,779,000 for agricultural processing efficiency research, an increase of $1,500,000 for animal reproduction research, an increase of $1,200,000 for additional germplasm research, and an increase of $1,000,000 for research on improved water use efficiency for agricultural crops. There is a general reduction of $6,070,000 in the present budget relating to the impact of the hiring freeze, travel reductions, equipment reductions, and the freeze on consultants which will offset these increases. Additionally, the present Administration's budget reflects a transfer of $279,000 from EPA for pesticides evaluation.

RESEARCH UTILIZATION

Mr. TRAXLER. You know that I am a firm believer in the fact that all sectors of agriculture will make use of the results of agricultural research. Producers, processors, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers through the use of Agriculture bulletins and other sources all use the results of your research. Can you describe the type of inquiries you received this year, indicating the usual source of those inquiries?

Dr. KINNEY. Within any year we respond at the Washington level alone to many thousands of written inquiries and numerous telephone inquiries relating to the areas of natural resources; crop production and protection; animal production and protection; alternative energy systems; food and fiber processing, handling and distribution; and food safety and nutrition. Many more written and telephone requests are also received and responded to at the regional and area locations within SEA-AR. The types of inquiries cover a vast range of issues that represent the concerns of the total agricultural sector. A cross-section of the topics addressed and the source of the inquiries will be submitted for the record. [The information follows:]

TOPICS OF INQUIRIES

Producers seeking technical information on:

Crop production/protection systems-general and specific.

Pesticide use and alternative strategies for effective pest management-biocontrol.

Animal production/protection system—including the consequences of feeding.
Aflatoxin contaminated feeds.

Status and coordination of disease control in animals.

Grain storage-general and specific recommendations on problems of insect infestation and aflatoxin contamination.

Production and value of new crops such as guayule and jojoba.

Organic farming concepts and alternatives.

Technologies for small farmers-animals/crops production and disease control in animals.

Technologies for alternative methods for energy production.

Processors, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers seeking information on:

Storage methodologies to prevent deterioration in quality and safety, e.g. aflatoxin.

Technologies for marketing fruits and vegetables.

Technologies for controlling post harvest insects and pests.

Methods and machinery to perform specialized functions in processing of fruits, vegetables, oilseeds, nuts, grains, forages and meats.

Technologies to preserve commodities-freezing, drying, irradiation.
Methods for detection of deleterious components.

Technologies to extend shelf-life.

Technologies to utilize byproducts.

Alternative sources of energy (solar) in post harvest systems.

Consumers and students seeking information on:

Safety of the use of chemicals in the production of crops and animals.

Identification of insect pests/diseases/weeds and methods for their control.

Home food preparation and preservation methods-home canning and dehydration.

Safety of post harvest treatments of commodities, e.g., wax coating of fruits and vegetables.

Hydroponics.

Nutrient content of foods.

"New" food ingredients and concepts-sourdough bread starter, rice bread for wheat allergies, bean chips, brown riceflour, and soybean tofu.

Sweeteners-natural and artificial.

History of agriculture-animal and crop production.

Foods of the future-"fabricated foods."

Increased use of "byproducts"-crop residues, whey distillers, dried grass.
Use and acceptance of soybeans and cottonseed as foods.

LOWER FOOD COSTS THROUGH RESEARCH

Mr. TRAXLER. Do you have any information which would indicate how much money consumers have saved on their food bills in each of the past five years as a result of your efforts in research? Dr. KINNEY. Though information on the consumer benefit from SEA-AR research is not available, an analysis of the total federal/ state agricultural research has shown that consumers do indeed benefit from agricultural food research through expanded quantity and lower prices, and by improved nutrition and safety of food products. Research that improves the safety and nutritional content of food benefits consumers through improved health. However, impacts of agricultural food research differ among consumers by income levels. Estimates of the benefits, discounted to present values, accruing to income levels in the U.S.A. as a result of agricultural food research ranged from $16.20 for the lowest income group, less than $5,000 annually, to $30.74 for the highest income category, greater than $20,000. Though the absolute level of consumer benefits for the highest income group was twice that for the lowest income group, the ratio of benefits to income was almost 4 times higher for the lowest income class than for the highest income class; thus benefits from agricultural food research have the greatest relative impact on low income households.

Research in the agricultural food sector leads to new products and technology which increase both agricultural productivity and national income. The contribution of agricultural productivity to national income in 1979 was estimated to be $177.2 billion, or 9.2 percent greater than it would have been without the increases in agricultural productivity, and can be largely attributed to agricultural food research. This information was developed by economists Fred White, B. R. Eddleman, and J. C. Purcell for the IR-6 Project for National Agricultural Research, Planning and Evaluation.

Professors White, J. Havilcek and D. Otto in a separate study have shown that for every dollar increase or decrease in expenditures for research and extension, an opposite response of $6.14 in 1977 dollars can be expected in the consumer's food bill which would be $4.59 in discounted dollars for the period of 1980-1990.

« PreviousContinue »