program required. We firmly believe that control measures for protecting the rice industry from destruction by this disease can be accomplished. In summary, hoja blanca first discovered in Cuba in 1955 is a very destructive disease. This disease has already destroyed much of the rice crop in Cuba and Venezuela, and has recently been discovered in several other Central and South America countries. It has entered Florida and could rapidly spread to all of the southern rice area. We are now contributing a large portion ($50,000 budgeted this year) to the Rice-Pasture Experiment Station at Beaumont, Tex., and will continue our effort. However, the emergency created by this disease which crosses State and national boundaries justifies Federal support of at least $100,000. Our proposal calls for expanded research, aimed at removing this threat at a minimum expenditure. To wait until our crops are destroyed would be much more costly, not only to rice producers but also to all of those dependent on rice production. As farmers we are only one part of the total agriculture of this country. On the average, for each one laboring on the farm, three are dependent on our productive capacity, either by supplying our needs or in processing and distributing the products we produce. THE NEED FOR SUSTAINED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TO MEET NATIONAL NEEDS, ESPECIALLY RESEARCH ON FORAGE STUDIES, BY HOWARD D. SPRAGUE The United States has achieved the position of the strongest nation in the world. This position is based on a productive agriculture capable of fully meeting the needs of our people, in foods and the raw materials for our industries. Our agriculture has made rapid progress during the last 30 years, by virtue of research conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture and by the agricultural experiment stations of the 48 States. We cannot afford to slacken the pace of research; it should keep pace with that of the other sectors of national life, in order that we may continue to have adequate food in the abundance desired and of the quality required to meet our American standards. There must be an increasing efficiency in the use of our agricultural resources, if our agriculture is to remain economically sound. In 1920 the United States had a population of 106 million people. Today the population is in excess of 170 million, and it continues to increase at the rate of 21⁄2 million yearly. The productivity of farms and ranches must increase at a rate to keep pace with two factors the increase in total population, and the steadily rising standard of living. This productivity must be based on fewer acres of land, since we are forced to retire much land yearly to forests or wasteland because of continued depletion by erosion and decline in fertility, and because millions of acres are taken yearly for roads and highways, for industrial sites, and for suburban developments. Agricultural land is now producing about 35 percent above the level of 1920. Our current apparent surpluses in certain crops could supply no more than 3 or 4 percent more people than we now have. To keep up with increasing population trends, there is need to step up annually our total agricultural production by 11⁄2 to 2 percent per year. There must be an aggressive and sustained research program to meet this need. The United States enjoys a tremendous and precious advantage over Russia. China, and other Communist countries. This communistic ideology is based on the exploitation of agriculture and peasants to develop and support industry. Our American way has been to strengthen agriculture, so that this abundance will make possible a growing industry, and the development of sciences and technology, which in turn strengthens the whole economy as well as serving the needs of all people. We have proceeded on the principle that agriculture is a basic resource, to be carefully managed so that it may continue to be a bulwark of the Nation. The Communists continue to exploit the agricultural peoples and and to divert the resources of agriculture to serve the communistic gods of industry and military might. The consequences of communistic policy has been a weak agriculture, probably the weakest factor in the entire Communist structure. Russia has failed to perceive the lesson learned in Northwestern Europe and transported to North America with colonists from those countries, that there is greater total production in the long run, from a combination of livestock and crops, than from crops alone. The United States has tremendous resources and income in its livestock, and our people insist on even more meat, milk, and eggs. The livestock enterprises are vital in maintaining soil fertility, and they also are the only means we have of converting the grasses on pastures and ranges, and of transforming hay silage and fodder on great acreages of tilled land, into products that man needs and uses. Communistic agriculture is exceedingly weak and vunerable in its failure to understand and use livestock. This is no time to become complacent about our agriculture. Unless the efficiency of agriculture increases at a rate at least equal to the increase in population, we will suffer. We are in the position of needing to run ever faster, just to stay where we are. Research, particularly basic research, will permit us to meet our needs, if we maintain a substantial and sustained program. This is particularly true of all research relating to crops used directly by man and of research on pastures, hay, range, and other forage which supply feed for livestock. Do we have enough research? The answer may be found in the consequences of the disasters and troubles which continually arise. For example, there is the spotted alfalfa aphid that suddenly, 2 years ago, appeared to threaten the alfalfa crop in a great portion of the country. Also, there are rusts, blights, nematods, and a myriad of other insect, disease and weed pests. We have survived each of these calamities by means of research as to causes and control measures, and application of the discovered facts to practical agriculture. We may call this protective research, and we should always have a backlog of knowledge created by a sustained research program, to counterattack each new problem that arises. For example, 20 years of alfalfa breeding in the Southwest provided a wide range of types and strains, so that when the spotted alfalfa aphid appeared it was possible to promptly identify certain strains resistant to the pest, that could be increased for farmer use. It was not necessary to start from scratch after the pest appeared, and devote 10 to 15 years to finding resistant lines. Research must develop better feeds and forage crops. It must develop better grasses and legumes for all areas; the Northeast, and Corn Belt, the South, the plains, the mountain and intermountain areas, and the Far West. It must learn how to establish and manage these improved strains, and how to harvest and store these for livestock feed. It should develop seed supplies for all to use. The importance of grasslands to the United States is very great. Our grazing lands alone (humid pastures and the great natural grasslands) provide at least half of the total feed nutrients required to support all livestock maintenance and production in this country. These grasslands need a sustained and balanced research program to explore and develop their true potential as sources of livestock support, not just protective research to guard against new enemies. Some 3 years ago, the Joint Committee on Grassland Farming (now renamed the American Grassland Council) appeared before your committee and recommended a long range research program, with an initial increase in funds for research in the amount of $600,000. We proposed that further increments of $600,000 be made in successive years until a total increase of $3 million had been achieved. The Congress did appropriate the initial increment of $600,000 for forage crop and range research. Although some of this dollar increase has been nullified by increased costs of operation, the research program was strengthened. We now propose for consideration of the present Congress, that a further increment of $600,000 be provided for forage crops and range research, to deepen and broaden the program. To illustrate the application of this increment, it is suggested that such funds would be very effectively employed as follows: We fully appreciate the value of balanced research programs, and recognize the importance of research to meet specific needs of wheat, corn, oats, rice, barley, flax, sorghums, safflower, and buckwheat. The merits of research on such crops is being presented by other representatives. The most important principles are that research must be sustained to be of greatest value, and that it should be well balanced to cover all significant phases of our crops and grassland problems. Research has paid us well and we expect that funds for research will continue to be a most profitable and enduring investment. Senator RUSSELL. At this point in the record, I will place communications received by Senator Johnson of Texas bearing upon the subjects under discussion. (The communications referred to follow:) Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: BEAUMONT RICE MILLS, Beaumont, Tex., March 26, 1958. On March 27 Mr. J. C. Dishman, president of Texas Rice Improvement Association is scheduled to appear before Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations in support of additional apppropriations for rice research programs to combat the plant disease called white leaf or hoja blanca. We are in agreement with Mr. Dishman on this problem which is of such critical importance to the rice producing areas in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and California. We ask that the committee give serious consideration to this emergency facing our rice industry. JOE BROUSSARD II. Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, BAY CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Request that you give all possible support to the rice-pasture research program which we understand is now before the House committee hearing for agricultural research of the United States Department of Agriculture. The value of rice and pasture research is invaluable to this area. Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, D. F. WIGINTON, President, EL CAMPO, TEX., March 26, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Our farmers would like you to contact members of the appropriations committee urging that $100,000 additional money be made available for rice research. RICE FARMERS CO-OP, T. F. OBIER, Manager. Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, EL CAMPO, TEX., March 26, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Vital rice pasture research work in Texas requires increased appropriation for continued expansion and completion of present important projects. Please contact Senate committee reference this matter. J. BRUCE HANCOCK. EL CAMPO, TEX., March 26, 1958. Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Please urge Senate Appropriations Committee not reduce rice research appropriation. R. E. MEEK. EL CAMPO, TEX., March 26, 1958. Senator LYNDON B. JOHNSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Urge that Federal funds for rice pasture experiment station not be decreased but increased. This is vital program to all rice farmers in Texas. FRANK RAMSEY. Senator RUSSELL. I am afraid, gentlemen, we won't be able to conclude this hearing before lunch. I have sent out notices that the committee would reconvene at 2 o'clock. We will now recess until 2 o'clock, and we will hear Mr. Child after lunch, and also conclude with Mr. Sprague. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:15 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 2 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION, 2 P. M. Senator RUSSELL. We have not concluded the Rust Prevention Association's testimony. You may proceed, Mr. Child. RUST PREVENTION ASSOCIATION STATEMENT OF R. B. CHILD, MEMBER NEED FOR HIGHER QUALITY FORAGE CROPS Mr. CHILD. Chairman Russell, and members of the committee, I am with the research department of the Cooperative G. L. F., the cooperative which handles farm supplies and does some marketing for farmers in New York, New Jersey and northern Pennsylvania. Our interest in increased forage research is primarily to help the northeast farmer increase his income, by a more efficient production of higher quality forage crops. As a matter of fact about two-thirds of the farm income in the Northeast is from that blade of grass we hear so much about. I believe you have been given, most of you, copies of my statement which is summarized on the first page here in six points. With one exception, these results of research shown here are not reporting results of forage research but are reporting results of economic studies which bring out the need for more forage research. For example, this first one you see 622 New York State dairy-improvement farms on which were 60 percent of the nutrient from forage was fed, the farmer came out in the whole minus $150 per cow over the feed costs, whereas if he was able to supply just 15 percent more of his nutrients from forage, 75 percent, his book showed to be black, plus $150 per cow income over feed costs. MEMBERSHIP Now, our own membership, 117,000 farmers, make an investment, and have for several years in forage research, and we spell it out on page 2 but on this summary page we see that our members invest more than a dollar per person, $145,000 per year in college for agriculture research. That is at Cornell, Pennsylvania State, and Rutgers and in a forageimprovement program which includes soil testing for which we pay, the farmer takes the samples, and this year, tests of the nutrient content of the hay they harvest. As I understand it, this $145,000 compares fairly favorably with the Federal funds now allotted to forage research if you break it down proportionately, of the $1.8 million spent for forage and range research, our 213 States would have coming their way about $86,000 of in other words, from Federal research funds less than our members dig out of their own pockets. This look at what is ahead in forage research is sort of like tracking a bear. You go into the woods with another fellow and you find the bear tracks, and I say "Now we ought to look both ways here, I will follow the tracks and see where he has come from and you go and see where he is going." Well, our GLF members are not quite that way. If we have a forage reserve bear by the tail here we are going to go along and do our part in helping hold that bear's tail. That is we are continuing to have in our budget $145,000 per year in the direction of improved forage programs. |