Senator HAYDEN (presiding). Thank you for a very fine state

ment.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman?

Senator HAYDEN. Senator Young.

RATIO OF FEDERAL TO STATE AID

Senator YOUNG. I think your statement on page 8 is a good one. I will read part of it.

Many of the practical operating problems of farmers are of a local nature. It is through research at the State level that the student, the graduate, and the young scientist are first introduced to the problems and techniques of research. State research can and should also perform much of the basic research, that type of research which has no fixed destination, which provides the information, the tools, necessary to finding the answer to the day-to-day operating problems which are arising with increasing frequency.

RESOUTION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS DIRECTORS

I do not think, however, that statement is in accord with what is actually taking place on research. Let me read part of a resolution adopted by the North Central Experiment Station Directors, adopted last year.

The North Central Directors are greatly disturbed by the trend away from a previous understanding that Federal appropriations for the support of agricultural research would be provided in a ratio of not greater than 1 to 1 between the USDA agencies and the State agricultural experiment stations. In the light of this prior understanding, and of the recommendations of the study committee of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as set forth in its report on Federal Aid to Agriculture, it is moved that the North Central Directors strongly urge members of the ESCOP, Assistant Secretary Peterson, and other appropriate individuals and groups that total Federal appropriations in behalf of agricultural research be further increased with a substantially higher proportion of such increases being directed toward grants-in-aid to State experiment stations.

I would like to have those recommendations placed in the record. Senator HAYDEN. Without objection, that may be done. (The information referred to follows:)

The North Central Directors are greatly disturbed by the trend away from a previous understanding that Federal appropriations for the support of agricultural research would be provided in a ratio not greater than 1 to 1 between USDA agencies and State agricultural experiment stations. In the light of this prior understanding, and of the recommendations of the study committee of the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as set forth in its report on Federal Aid to Agriculture, it is moved that the North Central Directors strongly urge members of ESCOP, Assistant Secretary Peterson, and other appropriate individuals and groups that total Federal appropriations in behalf of agricultural research be further increased with a substantially higher proportion of such increases being directed toward grants-in-aid to State experiment stations.

EXPERIMENT STATIONS RESEARCH

Senator YOUNG. This is exactly what I have been fighting for for several years. I have tried very hard to get additional research funds in the hands of our North Dakota experiment stations and other experiment stations throughout the Midwest and Pacific Northwest. The only way we have ever been successful is by adding additional funds and earmarking them for that purpose. It should not be nec

essary to go to all of that extra work and effort each year to get research funds allotted on the State level where many of us believe the money is put to much better use.

WHEAT RESEARCH IN CANADA

Your statement bears out what I have contended all along. Let me give you an example. Canada does a great deal more by way of research in this field than we do in the United States. At the present time they have developed a Selkirk wheat, which is highly resistant to rust. This year we are importing between 2 and 22 million bushels of Canadian Selkirk wheat into North Dakota and surrounding area. That is simply because we have not had sufficient funds to do the necessary research work to develop rust-resistant strains in our own State and in other States.

Is the trend going to continue this way, or can we expect more emphasis on the State level?

Mr. PETERSON. I think you can expect more emphasis on the State research, gentlemen. We have reviewed the field of agricultural research over a period of time with the farm organizations and commodity groups. We have had a number of meetings with the State experiment station people of the land-grant colleges and universities and with their committee on organization and policy. The general consensus was that the relationship of future increases between Federal grant and appropriations for direct research by the Department fundwise should run about 1 to 2. The figures on distribution of federally appropriated funds to the Department of Agriculture for research purposes for the fiscal year 1955 disclose that 27.1 percent of those funds were distributed to the States. For 1956 the estimated figure is 29.7 percent.

For 1957, the estimated figure is 28.7 percent.

Our thinking is that the States are, as I tried to outline in my statement, at the point of beginning in research. Our general objective is to move toward strengthening State research. At the same time, there are problems in agriculture which are of immediate concern. In accord with the thinking that was expressed in the President's message on agriculture, it was determined that for this year we should emphasize Federal research activities to attack those problems so far as research may attack them, with the result that the percentage of federally appropriated funds for agricultural research is as contained in the budget that is before you.

The statements that are contained in my prepared statement just presented to you point out our general policy and objective. The States hold to the view that over an extended period of time, we need to build up both Federal and State research. That has been the reason why we have had extended meetings, and are having further meetings with the State people, looking toward how we can best use the funds made available by the Congress each year to carry on a total research program which is in the best interest of agriculture and of the Nation.

Senator YOUNG. These State experiment stations have done a marvelous job with the amount of research funds they have been receiving. It would seem to me that we ought to increase the emphasis on experiment-station work and give them more money with which to operate.

Mr. PETERSON. We think that is wise procedure, Senator Young. Moneywise, for example, in 1955, the payments to States out of the research funds appropriated by the Congress were $19,408,000. In the proposed budget before you, those funds are $29,504,000.

BARLEY AND FLAX RESEARCH

appear

Senator YOUNG. The barley people and the flax people will here requesting additional research funds. Will you be in a position to support their request? There may be other groups appearing, too. Mr. PETERSON. Let me answer that in this fashion, Senator Young: There are many places, researchwise, where it would be possible to use increased funds, as there are in almost all activities of Government, both Federal and State. With the information before us when we put this budget together, we thought we made the distribution on the basis of the highest existing priority at the time. Certainly there are very many problems that need attack. One of the problems in allocating funds is to determine what facilities, both by way of personnel and physical facilities, are available now, both Federal and State, and how they may be most effectively used.

There is a continuing problem of providing and maintaining the physical facilities required in the performance of research as fast as personnel might be provided to use those facilities in order that the best results from the funds that are expended for this purpose may be obtained.

BUDGET BUREAU AND DEPARTMENT ALLOWANCES

Senator YOUNG. Do you have the figures on the amount of research funds the Department of Agriculture asked of the Bureau of the Budget and what the Bureau actually granted?

Mr. PETERSON. The Bureau of the Budget, as I recall, and I am quoting from memory, did not cut our request for research funds. I will ask Mr. Wheeler to check that.

Mr. WHEELER. That is correct. For the appropriation "Research, Agricultural Research Services," the amount carried in the budget, except for a $2,000 rounding amount, is the same as the Department submitted to the Budget Bureau.

RECOMMENDED RESEARCH FUNDS

Senator YOUNG. Did the Department of Agriculture cut the request for research funds made by the State experiment stations?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes. The request from the Association of LandGrant Colleges was for an increase of $6 million. The amount carried in the budget is an increase of $4,750,000.

Mr. PETERSON. I think that should be qualified in this fashion, Senator Young: The land-grant college people, the farm organizations, and commodity groups, have had either 3 or 4 meetings with department representatives. A program was worked up to extend over a period of years which provides annual increments for research purposes. The level of increase for payments to States proposed by that group was at the rate of $6 million a year, I believe, for a 5-year period.

There was at least tacit agreement at the two meetings of that group which I attended that this would be an acceptable level for annual increment but the level should not necessarily be constant as for any one year.

Looking at the peculiar needs that we have with respect to attacking the problems associated with surplus, the need for new crops, the need for new markets, for wider utilization, for more complete marketing information, we thought that for this year, distribution of funds as the budget before you provides would result in the greatest contribution to agriculture from research.

IMPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

Senator YOUNG. You have a sizable problem on your hands, particularly if we continue imports of agricultural commodities. I understand that the importation rate is decreasing slightly. Mr. PETERSON. What was that, sir?

Senator YOUNG. The rate of import of competitive agricultural commodities, is decreasing slightly. But last year we imported about a billion and a half dollars worth of these commodities. There were a lot of hams imported from Poland. In fact, the amount of imports of pork products this year will amount to about a million and a half hogs, as I recall.

Mr. PETERSON. I am not personally familiar with the detail of those figures. Marketing is in another branch of the Department. I have some general knowledge of it.

Senator YOUNG. With our increasing population I foresee the time in the not too distant future when we will probably consume all we produce. At that time we could probably get along without a pricesupport program, if we at least curtailed some imports.

Mr. PETERSON. There are some indications that we are continuing toward balance. However, there is imbalance within agriculture. While our overall output may be relatively close to what we can sell both domestically and foreign, there are some crops and some commodities that will need adjustment within that figure. That is one of the things which we think research needs to give its attention to, how we may use our land more effectively and with better returns to the landowner and operators, the farmers and farm people.

FOOD CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Dr. Shaw one question?

Senator HAYDEN. Certainly.

Senator DIRKSEN. Some years ago, Dr. Shaw, the Department got out a very substantial publication with reference to the food habits of people and the quantities of food per capita they would consume year after year. As I recall, that study went back for a period of 50 years. If memory serves me correctly, I thought the most significant thing in it was that over that period of time, measured in terms of pounds of gross food consumed, actually it did not change much over a 50-year period, but that the changes come with respect to different commodities and different food items.

I wonder if you could bring that table up to date and insert it in the hearing. I do not know that you have to have too much detail. To me it would be extremely interesting to show over a period of time what the per capita consumption of food is, and where the emphasis lies today as distinguished from 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

It seems to me that out of that there must necessarily come this kind of conclusion: If in terms of pounds the average individual does not eat any more today than he did 50 years ago, then there is going to be a continuing shift as between carbohydrates and proteins in the American diet. But in terms of volume, our hope must be in the export market, finally, if we continue to hike up productivity in all lines of agriculture.

Dr. SHAW. I think your general conclusions are about the same as mine would be, with this exception, that as we do make these shifts toward protein, we are using more land resources per person than we used before when we were using more of the carbohydrates. In other words, it takes more acres to produce proteins than it does to produce grain. So, as we have been moving and continue to move to more livestock products, it will mean more land resources per individual than we have used in the past.

Senator DIRKSEN. Would it be much of a task to bring that table up to date?

Dr. SHAW. I think we could bring it up to date by major food groups.

(The information referred to follows:)

The following table is taken from Agricultural Handbook No. 62, Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-52, Supplement for 1954 (October 1955):