Peanut INTA, Pergamino, Argentina-New World collection Chickpea ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria-global collection Broadbean CNR, Bari, Italy-global collection ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria-global collection Pea Nordic Genebank, Lund, Sweden-global collection Tomato Gatersleben, German Democratic Republic-backup global collection Potato CIP, Perua-global collection Key to Acronyms: CATIE Center for Research and Teaching in Tropical Agriculture, Costa Rica CIMMYT-International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico CIP-International Potato Center, Peru CNR-National Research Center, Bari, Italy ICARDA-International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Leba non ICRISAT-International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India PGRC-Plant Genetic Resources Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Ottawa, VIR-N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, USSR PEACH TREE SHORT LIFE Mr. WHITTEN. In fiscal year 1981, Congress provided $100,000 for research on peach tree short life. How will these funds be used? Dr. BERTRAND. A grant was awarded to the South Carolina State Agricultural Experiment Station. These funds will support research on various orchard cover crops that will not support increases in numbers of disease-causing nematodes, on determining the economically optimum orchard replacement time for the peach grower's management system, and to determine whether lack of water or water excess conditions the peach trees to the disease or affects number of parasitic nematodes in the orchard. Mr. WHITTEN. Since you are not proposing any additional funds for fiscal year 1982, do you anticipate that this $100,000 will solve the problems associated with peach tree short life? Dr. BERTRAND. No, it is not anticipated that this will solve all of the problems associated with peach tree short life. It is a start. FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY RESEARCH Mr. WHITTEN. For food quality and safety research you are requesting $400,000 to start a new program in fiscal year 1982. Since FDA, FSQS, and AR are all actively involved in this area, why do you feel that you need to get into it? Dr. BERTRAND. These funds are requested under the Special Research Grants program so that we can award grants to concentrate research on specific areas of food toxicology research and emerging problems in the area of food toxicology. Specific studies will be directed to determining the physical, chemical and microbiological properties of selected foods, including study of how potentially toxic compounds are formed in foods. Much of the information generated will be to answer the many requests for data received from the local industries, state regulatory agencies, FDA and FSQS. The state agricultural experiment station researchers have the ongoing program base, the expertise and facilities to contribute in a highly significant manner. Close coordination will be maintained with programs underway in FDA, FSQS, and SEA-AR. Mr. WHITTEN. According to the Notes, much of this work will be in the area of nitrites and nitrates. Why do you feel you should proceed with this work instead of waiting for the completion of the National Academy of Sciences study? Dr. BERTRAND. We need to know more about overall dietary relationships and to better understand the impact of dietary exposure to nitrites, including long-term effects. We believe that we should proceed with this work instead of waiting the outcome of the NAS study because we still need answers to many critical questions. Although the need to develop nitrite substitutes for the curing process may be lessened and some work redirected, reports exist implicating nitrite as a precursor of carcinogenic nitrosamines in some cured meat products, especially crisply fried bacon, and nitrosamines per se may still be a problem. Furthermore, nitrate occurs as a natural compound in leafy green vegetables and is reduced to nitrite by bacteria in the saliva and digestive tract. Scientists are currently working on the relationship between nitrite and botulism, a bacterial poisoning that can lead to paralysis and death. Most believe that gaining understanding has been and will be a long and complicated process that eventually can only be resolved on the basis of reliable data. Some of the basic data being generated may provide useful data for the NAS study. Potentially useful substitutes need to be available in case additional problems are uncovered in the use of nitrite in meat curing. Station scientists had carefully planned research ongoing when FDA-FSQS developed the NAS study contract. These carefully planned studies should be brought to a logical conclusion. Continuing food quality and safety research is essential if we are to protect the nation's food supply against fungal, microbial and toxic constituents. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION Mr. WHITTEN. For federal administration you are requesting $1,837,000, an increase of $139,000 over the amount available for fiscal year 1981. Would you please provide for the record an object class breakdown of your federal administration? Dr. BERTRAND. The revised proposal for fiscal year 1982 provides for a net increase of $37,000 over the fiscal year 1981 level for federal administration-direct appropriation-for a total of $1,549,000. In addition to the direct appropriation, under legislative provisions for each Cooperative Research program proposed to be funded in fiscal year 1982, 3 percent is retained for administration of the programs. For the total funds proposed for Cooperative Research in fiscal year 1982 of $234,188,000, the amount for federal administration is $7,984,279. The object classification for these administrative funds will be provided for the record. Mr. WHITTEN. When will the legislation be submitted in connection with the 1890 facilities construction program? Dr. BERTRAND. We hope to take action on authorizing legislation for a program of grants for research facilities at the 1890 Land Grant Institutions and Tuskegee Institute by mid-April. Mr. WHITTEN. How will you determine which facilities receive grants during the first year of funding under this program? Dr. BERTRAND. The research facilities needs were identified in a concerted study initiated by the 1890 Institutions and reviewed by the Department. We propose to set up a panel of experts consisting of university personnel and Department staff. After review of each institution's plan for facilities to be constructed in support of research programs, an evaluation will be made of the amount, the terms and conditions proposed. Based on urgency of research program needs, existing facilities available, stage of facility planning, etc., a determination will be made to fund specific facilities which will be most beneficial to these 1890 Institutions' research program with the first year of funding. COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS OFFICE Mr. WHITTEN. What is the total budget for the competitive research grants office and how many people are assigned to that office? Dr. BERTRAND. Currently there are 12 full-time permanent employees assigned to the Competitive Research Grants Office. In addition to the permanent federal employees, we utilize six state scientists under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act to serve as Chief of the Competitive Research Grants Office or as program managers. We estimate that in fiscal year 1981 the costs for the salaries of the permanent federal employees, the state scientists and the operational costs for this program will be approximately $544,000. Mr. WHITTEN. During fiscal year 1980, how many of the proposals were received from land grant universities and how many from other universities? Dr. BERTRAND. The Competitive Research Grants Office received 391 proposals from land grant universities and 207 from other universities and organizations. Mr. WHITTEN. During fiscal year 1980, how many proposals were awarded to land grant universities and how many proposals were awarded to other universities? Dr. BERTRAND. Of a total of 206 grants, 119 grants were awarded to land grant universities and 62 grants to other universities. Other organizations received 25 grants. RURAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH Mr. WHITTEN. During fiscal year 1981, the Congress merged the funds for rural development research in with the Hatch Act funds. Have you been advised by the states how much of the 1981 and 1982 Hatch Act funds will be devoted to rural development research? Dr. BERTRAND. The fiscal year 1981 Appropriation Act included $1.5 million under the Hatch Act for rural development research. In the fiscal year 1982 Executive Budget, these rural development funds are provided under the Hatch Act, which is consistent with the intent of Congress in appropriating funds for fiscal year 1981. Cooperative Research-SEA is monitoring these rural development research funds. The Experiment Station Directors were asked to provide information on fiscal year 1980 Hatch expenditures for rural development, as a base, and estimates for fiscal year 1981 Hatch expenditures as a means of establishing the research underway with the $1.5 million increase. This monitoring activity will continue for fiscal year 1982. While we have not completed our summary of the data, information collected so far from the states on their research plans for fiscal year 1981 indicates that at least $1.5 million more of Hatch funds will be spent for rural development research in 1981 compared with the base effort in 1980. Mr. WHITTEN. If available, please provide for the record a listing of the Hatch Act funds that will be devoted to rural development research during fiscal years 1981 and 1982. Dr. BERTRAND. The fiscal year 1980 base of rural development research is being developed. The expected fiscal year 1981 funds for rural development research for each state agricultural experiment station will be inserted for the record. Distribution of fiscal year 1982 funds are not yet available. [The information follows:] Distribution of Hatch $1.5 million earmarked for rural development research ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH (SECTION 1433) Mr. WHITTEN. During fiscal year 1980, 78 different schools received formula funds under the animal health and disease research program carried out under Section 1433. Twenty-five of these schools received grants of less than $50,000. In each of these cases, please provide for the record how these funds were used during fiscal year 1980. [The information follows:] School of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University Elucidation of the Physiopathological Mechanism of Resistance to Uterine Infections in the Mare. Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama Chronic Vaginal-Cervical Prolapse in Cows: A Study of Possible Sensory Etiology. Study of Patho-physiological Etiology in Diaphragmatic Herniation in the Bovine. Calcium Metabolism in Bovine Erythrocytes: A Study of Parturient Paresis. Studies on the Effects of Bacterial Endotoxins on Disseminated Intravenous Coagulation in Swine Fed Normal and Vitamine E Deficient Rations. Toxicity and Tissue Residues of Prostaglandins F-2A and E-1. Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station Control of Brucellosis in Alaska-Vaccine Testing (Serology). Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Enteric Diseases of Adult Cattle. Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station Virus Isolants as Etiological Agents in Broiler and Broiler Breeder Leg Weakness Problems. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida Epidemiology of Bovine Leukemia in Florida Cattle. Epizootiology of Bovine Viral Infections in Florida. Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Motility in Relation to Colic in Horses. Development of Diagnostic Criteria for Bovine Paratuberculosis. Pathogenesis of Bluetongue Virus (BTV) in Bulls. Recurrent Uveitis (Periodic Opthalmia) in Horses. |