Page images
PDF
EPUB

USE OF NEW MONEY Dr. BERTRAND. We have a detailed description of our proposals for using this new money. We will be gladMr. WHITTEN. I am pointing to the old problems.

Dr. BERTRAND. We are using most of the money on the old problems. Even this new $13 million we were speaking of a while ago, the portion that goes to agricultural research will be directed toward restoring our research we have long since neglected on the industrial uses of some of our agricultural products.

Mr. WHITTEN. With all the chemicals in New England and all the soil that runs down the streams, and the cities all caved in, industrial use will not help them much.

Dr. BERTRAND. I was not finished with my list.

For integrated reproductive management—that is, livestock management-germplasm collection and storage management, and -Mr. WHITTEN. What about brucellosis?

Dr. BERTRAND [continuing]. And water use conservation. Those are the things we are going to put the new money on.

Mr. WHITTEN. Provided the Congress agrees with you. [Laughter.]

REAGAN AMENDMENTS

Mr. WHITTEN. According to the material the Committee has received so far with respect to the Reagan amendments to the budget, Agricultural Research will receive an increase of $5,479,000 over the Carter budget. This increase is composed of basically four items: $1,779,000 for agricultural processing efficiency research, an increase of $1,500,000 for animal production efficiency research, an increase of $1,200,000 for additional germplasm collection activities, and an increase of $1,000,000 for research on improved water use efficiency for agricultural crops. We've also been advised that there will be some reductions offsetting this relating to the impact of the hiring freeze, travel reductions, equipment reductions, and the freeze on consultants. Are there any other changes to the budget that was first submitted by President Carter in the area of Agricultural Research?

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the items you have mentioned, the present Administration's budget reflects a transfer of $279,000 from EPA to SEA-AR for biological evaluation of pesticides and development of standardized methods of evaluating pesticides.

PROCESSING EFFICIENCY RESEARCH Mr. WHITTEN. For the agricultural processing efficiency research, what is the amount available for fiscal year 1981, how much of an increase was provided in the Carter budget, and why do you feel the additional $1,779,000 over the Carter budget is required?

Dr. BERTRAND. The fiscal year 1981 base is $6,993,000 and the Carter budget proposed a decrease of $1,779,000. The Administration has reviewed the program under way at Peoria and Wyndmoor and has determined that the research on developing petroleum alternatives from renewable resources and in particular, plant materials, and the research to develop alternative energy conserving methods for the conversion of animal fats to chemical raw materials shoud be continued. This action is in line with this Administration's intent to strengthen agricultural research in high priority areas.

RESEARCH ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION Mr. WHITTEN. With respect to animal reproduction efficiency research, how much is available for fiscal year 1981, what type of an increase was provided in the Carter budget, and why do you feel the additional $1,500,000 is required in this case?

Dr. BERTRAND. The amount available in fiscal year 1981 for research on animal reproduction is $6,381,000. The Carter budget did not propose a specific increase for animal reproduction; however, because of this Administration's emphasis on agricultural research and with the increasing public concern for production of high quality foods of animal origin at a reasonable price this program was reexamined. The increase represents an integrated approach to improve reproductive efficiency, including disease, pathology, physiology, and management.

Mr. WHITTEN. According to the Notes on page 160, you state that the basic program includes $1 million of basic animal production research. How does this relate to the increase of $1.5 million proposed in the amended budget?

Dr. BERTRAND. The increase in the basic research program includes $1 million for basic animal production research with the specific objective of developing new technology on nutrition, genetics, product quality, and disease control and prevention that has considerable potential to increase animal production efficiency in 510 years. The increase of $1.5 million proposed in the amended budget represents an integrated approach to improve the efficiency of reproduction on the farm utilizing existing technology in disease control and prevention, pathology, physiology, and management.

Mr. WHITTEN. How much of this effort is devoted toward research in the area of multiple births?

Dr. BERTRAND. About $500,000 of the $1.5 million proposed in the amended budget will be used to conduct research in the area of multiple births, primarily in beef cattle, but also in sheep.

th: Howram incling to reme

GERMPLASM RESEARCH

Mr. WHITTEN. With respect to the germplasm collection activities, how much was available for fiscal year 1981, how much was requested in the Carter budget, and why are the additional funds required over and above the Carter budget?

Dr. BERTRAND. Agricultural Research has $10,309,000 available for germplasm research activities. The Carter budget requested an increase of $600,000 for germplasm collection activities in fiscal year 1982. The present Administration considers it important to assure that a maximal range of germplasm and seed stocks of all types are collected, classified, preserved and made readily available to plant breeders and other scientists.

Mr. WHITTEN. You are requesting an increase of $600,000 for research on germplasm; in connection with this work, you make the statement "extinction of species is currently on a scale without precedence." Would you please expand on this statement, give us some statistics and a few examples to back up this statement.

Dr. BERTRAND. The Global 2000 Report to the President, Volume one, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980, page 37, states “An estimate prepared for the Global 2000 Study suggests that between half a million and 2 million species-15 to 20 percent of all species on earth-could be extinguished by 2000, mainly because of loss of of wild habitat but also because of pollution. Extinction of species on this scale is without precedent in human history.” The Report goes on to say on page 38, "some of the most important genetic losses will involve the extinction not of species but of subspecies and varieties of cereal grains." And, continuing, “Wild and local domestic strains are needed for breeding resistance to pests and pathogens into the high-yield varieties now widely used. These varietal stocks are rapidly diminishing as marginal wild lands are brought into cultivation. Local domesticated varieties, often uniquely suited to local conditions are also being lost as higheryield varieties displace them. And the increasing practice of monoculture of a few strains—which makes crops more vulnerable to disease epidemics or plagues of pests—is occurring at the same time that the genetic resources to resist such disasters are being lost.”

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the International Biological Program of the International Council of Scientific Unions, based on information provided by experts in many countries, published in February 1973 a report entitled, “Survey of Crop Genetic Resources in Their Centers of Diversity,” edited by Sir Otto H. Frankel. This survey provides preliminary information on the degree and rate of genetic erosion of principal crops in their main centers of diversity. Included are the cereal crops: wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats, rye, millets, and sorghum; grain legumes: peas, beans, chickpeas, lentils, etc.; root crops: potatoes, yams; and temperate and tropical fruits.

Since this report was published, further field studies coupled with assessments of germplasm collections, or genetic resources, being maintained in gene banks have confirmed and extended these patterns of serious genetic erosion to other crops in other regions. We must rescue these irreplaceable resources before they are lost forever and we must improve our capability in preserving and using them after they have been collected.

Some examples are:

Wheat in Turkey. Durum wheat, common wheat, and einkorn wheat are all rated high urgency for collection because of the continuing disappearance of genetic diversity caused by replacement of primitive varieties with improved varieties of Turkish and foreign origin or the drastic decrease in acreage planted to a given variety such as einkorn.

Yams in West Africa. Varieties which have been cultivated in West Africa for extremely long periods, several thousand years at least, are being displaced by such introduced crops as cassava, rice, and corn, as well as by improved cultivars of yams.

Lentils, beans, and chickpeas in Turkey. Foreign commercial varieties are threatening the wealth of genetic diversity in indig

enous varieties and land races. Collection of this native diversity is urgently needed.

Wild relatives of potatoes, tomatoes, and peppers in Latin America. In remote regions of a number of countries, such as Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, and Chile, there exist wild species related to these three crops that can provide a wealth of useful genetic resources for improving the cultivated forms. As agricultural patterns change and expand, the habitats of these species will rapidly disappear. They must be collected as soon as possible.

Other examples could be provided from the fruit and vegetable crops, the oilseeds, beverage crops, expecially coffee and cacao, and medicinal and industrial crops. The need to rescue germplasm is great and urgent.

GERMPLASM LOCATIONS

Mr. WHITTEN. Please provide for the record an updated listing of the location and type of each germplasm collection maintained by USDA. Would you also provide the budget for each of these locations for fiscal years 1980, 1981, and 1982? [The information follows:]

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »