A new 4-H instructional TV series on "Energy Conservation" has recently been completed by Nebraska Extension staff and will be made available for use in other states.

4-H ROLE IN URBAN GARDENING

Mr. WHITTEN. What role does the 4-H program play in urban gardening?

Dr. BERTRAND. An estimated 65,000 youth are currently participating in 4-H gardening programs in the 16 cities utilizing earmarked urban gardening funds. An additional 84,000 youths are participating in gardening programs in other urban areas of over 50,000 population. Backyards, community garden plots, school grounds, cooperative gardens, church lots, and portable equipment-window boxes-provide places for these urban gardening efforts. Volunteers, including senior citizens, play a vital role.

Several cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Memphis have expanded their earmarked-funded 4-H urban gardening programs with youth through the specially-funded SEA-Extension urban gardening program. In a Growing Roots Program in Detroit, for example, young people alone made up almost one-third of the 3,162 people enrolled. Each garden yielded $75 to $100 worth of produce. Volunteer leaders were trained by the 4-H Growing Roots staff and helped expand the program into many areas of the city. Program participants were predominantly Black.

In Missouri, a renewed interest in gardening and economic pressures has helped the 4-H urban gardening program increase in size and intensity. The Kansas City metropolitan area alone has nearly 3,500 more gardening members than in 1970. Monthly gardening letters including tips on gardening, weed and insect control and how to prepare vegetables have been popular with youth and adults. What began as a youth program has become a family project.

Benefits to youth in urban gardening programs include an opportunity to learn more about plant life, develop an awareness and appreciation for growing their own produce, supplement the family food supply, realize the economic value of home-grown vegetables, develop a sense of pride, make worthwhile use of leisure time, and cooperate with others.

SMITH-LEVER PAYMENTS

Mr. WHITTEN. The amended budget provides for an increase of almost $20 million for Sections 3b and c payments. Will this amount provide for a real growth in the program or is this strictly to keep up with inflation?

Dr. BERTRAND. The funds requested amount to an increase of 9.7 percent on the federal portion and are designed to keep pace with the projected rate of inflation for fiscal year 1982. The only new program start is the proposed nonpoint pollution program for $1.4 million.

Mr. WHITTEN. For the portion of the increase that will account for real growth in the program, would you please describe exactly how the additional funds will be utilized by the states? Give us some examples, please.

77-802 0-81--22

Dr. BERTRAND. We have included funds for expanded efforts in the area of nonpoint pollution control. The states will be in a position to extend to farmers and others information about the control of pollution resulting from generalized or nonpoint sources.

BANKHEAD-JONES

Mr. WHITTEN. You are proposing to delete the Bankhead-Jones program. What comments have you received from the states with regard to this proposal?

Dr. BERTRAND. The Resident Instruction Section of NASULGC has expressed opposition and great concern about deletion of the Bankhead-Jones program. They feel that the annual appropriation of Bankhead-Jones Act funds has demonstrated on the part of the Federal Government a continuing recognition of the importance of the education and training of expertise in food and agriculture professions to supply the needed agricultural industry in the United States. The American Association of University Agricultural Administrators has gone on record as supporting continued appropriation of Bankhead-Jones funds for the land-grant universities.

The states have also expressed their feeling that the BankheadJones program demonstrates a continuance of the federal-state partnership in the areas of agricultural teaching, research and extension. It is their feeling that the teaching component of this partnership, which is supported by the Bankhead-Jones program, is basic to the success of the other two components of this partnership and that support should be continued.

Mr. WHITTEN. Have you discussed with the states any alternatives to the Bankhead-Jones program?

Dr. BERTRAND. Alternatives to the Bankhead-Jones program have been considered by representatives of higher education at both the state and federal levels. They feel that no other alternative provides universities the flexibility of responding to the unique educational needs of agriculture and related areas of study at the local or state levels.

NASULGC suggested another way that Congress could support the teaching component of the federal-state partnership would be by appropriating funds authorized in Section 1417 of the Food and Agriculture Act. This section authorizes grants to strengthen training and research programs in the food and agricultural sciences and competitive fellowships in the food and agricultural sciences. Another alternative would be to amend the Bankhead-Jones legislation for the purpose of directing all grants to food and agricultural education.

Mr. WHITTEN. What use, if any, did the Cooperative Extension Service and the Science and Education Administration make of the study of the Bankhead-Jones program? Did this study play any role in the decision to terminate the program?

Dr. BERTRAND. The study of the Bankhead-Jones program completed in 1980 provides us with a valuable historical perspective which focuses attention on the early recognition by Congress that a strong and viable agriculture is vital to the national security and well being of the people of this nation. The report further emphasizes the importance of undergirding the development of this na

tion's agricultural resources by establishing and supporting colleges of agriculture in the states and territories.

This study has been useful in establishing a base of information in the Department of Agriculture on how the Bankhead-Jones funds were being used by the eligible universities starting in 1979. This is especially appropriate in light of the congressional directive stating that "to the maximum extent possible these grants be used only in support of agricultural education." It will be possible to show if universities are being responsive to this directive.

The study did show that in 1979, 37 percent of the BankheadJones grant was directed to agriculture and allied fields and that these funds were a relatively small portion less than one-half of one percent of the universities institutional expenditures at the land-grant institutions. These factors were considered by the Department in budget deliberations.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

Mr. WHITTEN. Last year the Congress merged the rural development extension funds with the Smith-Lever funds. What information do you have as to the amount of rural development funds the states will expend during fiscal year 1981?

Dr. BERTRAND. According to the fiscal year 1981 Plans of Work received from each state, the state cooperative extension services plan to expend 1,490 staff years toward community and rural development programs in fiscal year 1981. In total, approximately $50 million of federal, state, and local funds are expended for rural development education programs. Approximately $20 million of this comes from federal appropriations.

GREEN THUMB

Mr. WHITTEN. Would you please give the Committee a complete, and full update of the current status of the Green Thumb project? Dr. BERTRAND. The test of the Green Thumb concept began operation in two Kentucky counties, Todd and Shelby, on March 3, 1980, and was scheduled to be concluded on March 31, 1981. However, the project has since been extended through May 31, 1981, to coincide with the project evaluation that will be conducted by an outside consultant.

Communication between the users' Green Thumb Boxes and the county processors has been excellent. However, there have been several system outages because of malfunctions of the state computer, which was on site before this project began. These problems were anticipated but accepted as a tradeoff to reduce costs of the test.

During a 68-day period between September and November of 1980, Shelby County farmers placed 1,878 calls to the system. In the same period, users in Todd County made 2,559 calls. About one out of every three of the Shelby County participants did not use the system during this period while in Todd County the figure was one in five. Possible reasons for this lack of use include subjects losing interest in using the system and/or usage diminished because of the season of the year. About 90 percent of the attempted calls to the system were completed.

In Shelby County, 74 percent of the requests were equally split between weather and marketing information. In Todd County, marketing information was requested 66 percent of the time and weather information 23 percent. Overall, the most requested subjects were marketing, weather, agricultural economics, county information, and home economics.

Use of the system was very low between 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. Peak periods of use were from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., and for Todd County, 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Update of the Chicago futures market would seem an important reason for the peak periods. Information from USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service commanded more than 5 percent of all calls during the period, a relatively high percentage because some of the frames were not available during all the period.

The evaluation of this pilot test must be completed before an authoritative picture of user satisfactions and dissatisfactions can be developed. However, a great majority of feedback from users has been very positive. Dissatisfaction among users can be largely attributed to the problems of keeping weather and market information continuously updated because of overload problems within the time-share state computer. It is expected that full-time communications-type state computer would solve this problem.

Mr. WHITTEN. Are there any plans under consideration for expanding this project during fiscal year 1982?

Dr. BERTRAND. Our fiscal year 1982 budget request does not include funding for expansion of the Green Thumb program or for providing the necessary weather inputs to such systems. At the time the budget was developed, it was decided by this Department to wait until the Kentucky project was completed and evaluated before further funding was requested.

However, since that time, the private sector has indicated strong interest in sponsoring the system for Extension at the state and county levels. Under this arrangement, the private sector would fund the state and county computers and turn them over to Extension for operation. In return, the sponsor would be credited on the title page that would be viewed by every user of the system. Similar credit is provided for sponsors of public television.

ANIMAL DRUGS

Mr. WHITTEN. What programs does the Cooperative Extension Service operate to work with farmers to teach them the proper use of animal drugs, since many residues could evidently be avoided simply by proper usage?

Dr. BERTRAND. Proper use of chemicals, including drugs, is an integral part of all Extension veterinarians, animal scientists, and poultry specialists educational programs. These programs include workshops, publications, newsletters, radio, TV, newspaper articles, etc. Farmers are basically interested only in the chemicals they use in their production system. These chemicals vary from specie to specie and the type of production within specie; i.e., feedlot versus cow-calf. Thus, Extension educational programs that address the production of a particular specie and/or type of production activity cover the proper usage and withdrawal schedules for any recom

mended chemicals for controlling disease and parasites or for improving growth and feed efficiency.

Chemicals, including drugs, are an integral part of basically all animal and poultry production systems. Thus, Extension educational programs cover chemicals, including drugs, within this context. We couldn't be responsive to the needs of our clientele covering this information in any other way. Extension doesn't have animal educational programs specifically designed to teach farmers proper use of drugs independent of their production systems.

It should be noted that the state feed control boards uniformly adhere to FDA regulations concerning feeding levels and withdrawal times. Thus, Extension spends considerable educational effort teaching producers to follow label requirements. This same approach is utilized in pesticide labeling.

When any particular chemical becomes a residue problem whether from direct usage or from accidental contamination, Extension is basically the first point of contact for resolving the problem. The most recent examples of this are the sulfa residue problem in swine and turkeys and antibiotic residues in cull dairy cows which we helped resolve. However, we also provide major assistance in resolving residue problems resulting from industrial chemicals such as PCB's and PBB's and naturally occurring chemicals such as mycotoxins.

Extension educational materials for proper use of chemicals, including drugs for animals are voluminous, and our specialists are well informed on the use of these chemicals, especially in their specific areas of expertise.

This question on animal drugs implies that residue problems primarily result from improper usage by producers. However, it has been our experience that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, most producers make major efforts to avoid residues because of the economic disasters they can cause for their operations.

Once again, using the sulfa residue problem as an example, FSQS and FDA insisted it was a producer withdrawal problem. It wasn't until Extension became involved in gathering field data that it was proven that more than 50 percent of the sulfa residues resulted from feeds delivered to producers by feed manufacturers. Once this was proven, these companies responded to the concern and the problem was soon under control.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

TIS ENERGY AND AQUACULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr. WHITTEN. In your statement you say that "major programs are being initiated in 1981 in response to current public concerns." What demonstration of public concern led you to focus on alternate energy sources and aquaculture? Please describe the decision process for choosing to address these two subjects first.

Dr. BERTRAND. TIS responds to current public concern as reflected in the statutes passed by Congress.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, Subtitle H, Solar Energy Research and Development, authorized the Secretary to direct, conduct and stimulate research and development relating to the uses of solar energy. It further directed the Secretary in Section 1450 to